***************************************************************** 01/20/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.18 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Tennessee Valley Authority to Weigh Controversial Plan for Triti 2 UK: Nuclear agency fined £4,000 3 US: NRC doesn't want to post federal guards 4 Greenpeace Questions Cost Calculations for Proposed Finnish Nuclear 5 Finland Bucks the Trend on Nuclear Power 6 ANALYSIS: Russia growing more guarded about environmental policy 7 US: Arthur Andersen has contracts with the NRC 8 UK: Nuclear agency fined £4,000 9 Armenian paper says nuclear plant closure would threaten 10 US: Tennessee Valley Authority to Weigh Controversial Plan for Triti 11 PI: Business# Conversion of Bataan nuke plant studied 12 NKorea: Agency rules out inspection of nuclear facilities 13 Greenpeace Questions Cost Calculations for Proposed Finnish Nuclear 14 Austrian Rightist and Czech Premier Spar Over Nuclear Plant 15 Russian ambassador visits Ukrainian reactor, pledges funds 16 Finnish government votes in favour of new nuclear reactor 17 Two Finnish towns fighting to become home to new nuclear reactor NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: Committee recommends Unit 1 restart: Labor leaders say Browns 19 MKs to probe nuclear reactor report 20 US: Officials answer questions about Crystal River nuclear plant 21 Ukrainian reactor goes back to work after closure for repairs NUCLEAR SAFETY 22 URANIUM APPAUVRI: LA GUERRE INVISIBLE 23 US: Pill maker critical of NRC’s stand 24 The cancer time bomb facing Scots born during Cold War NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 25 US: NRC Says Full Release of N-Waste Storage Environmental Study Is 26 US: Yucca Mountain plan unfair, but doomsday rhetoric not productive 27 US: New song from radio team parodies Yucca Mountain Project 28 US: That was then, this is now: Yucca hypocrite Sununu forgets himse 29 US: Spencer Abraham Says Yucca decision has not irreparably harmed 30 US: Yucca: Report critical of groundwater monitoring plan 31 US: Robert Dove to provide advice on nuclear issues 32 US: Mike O'Callaghan: Politics, economics and death -- Yucca Mountai 33 US: Letter: Republicans started Yucca process rolling 34 US: Columnist Jon Ralston: Daunting tasks for Guinn, Reid 35 US: Benjamin Grove: Sununu once fought against dump in New Hampshire 36 US: Analysis: Partisan politics could hurt efforts to halt Yucca 37 US: CA: Under-review waste pit toured 38 US: Yucca: Nuclear Booby Prize 39 US: Judge requires company to guarantee security of radioactive wast 40 US: Contaminated plume larger than believed 41 Running again, Whitfield to check on cleanup delay 42 UK: Ships got lost while dumping nuclear waste 43 US: Study critical of DOE monitoring of radioactive water 44 Sellafield to test nuclear land storage 45 US: Welcome to the Danger State 46 Uranium Plant Spill Raises Alarm in Australia 47 US: Plutonium decisions near, lawmaker says 48 US: Group demands radiation records 49 US: Waste site officials considering fuel rod search 50 US: Yellowcake carted through city streets 51 Politics | UK's plutonium 'kept in a shed' 52 Ships got lost while dumping nuclear waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS 53 Arms Control, Nuclear Force Cuts, U.S.-Russian Relations, Bush, Puti 54 Afganistan: Canisters not empty, Pentagon says; tests underway 55 US: Nuclear Weapons and The Illusion of Missile Defense 56 Iraqi defector insists new weapons program underway: report 57 Indian Navy's club missiles being N-tipped 58 Interview transcripts: Does Saddam have nukes? US DEPT. OF ENERGY 59 PULTONIUM FOUND ON LAND 60 Monitoring of Radioactivity in Nevada Groundwater Flawed 61 Politicians optimistic about Hanford cleanup budget 62 Port of Benton to support initiative to save FFTF 63 Feds point to DOE woes OTHER NUCLEAR 64 China claims breakthrough in nuclear fusion ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Tennessee Valley Authority to Weigh Controversial Plan for Tritium Production Dave Flessner , Chattanooga Times/Free Press Knight Ridder Tribune Business News (KRTBN) ( January 18, 2002 ) Jan. 18--The Tennessee Valley Authority will consider a plan next week to pay its nuclear fuel supply contractor another $3.25 million to prepare the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant to produce a key material for America's nuclear arsenal. But critics of the proposal said Thursday the contract is a waste of money because the bomb material -- a radioactive isotope known as tritium -- is no longer needed any time soon. "For TVA and the Department of Energy to continue to go forward at this point and spend millions of dollars on this plan is a waste of taxpayers dollars and is simply matter of bureaucratic momentum," said Steve Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an environmental group opposed to tritium production. "With the arms control agreements reached between the United States and Russia and the commitments made for further reductions by President Bush, we won't need any more tritium for at least a couple of decades." But the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for building nuclear bombs for the military, insists that it still needs to have TVA ready to make tritium. DOE contracted with TVA two years ago to produce tritium at either the Watts Bar or Sequoyah nuclear plants. "There is no change in our plans," said Lisa Cutler, a spokeswoman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. "We still have a need for tritium and wee are continuing to work with TVA to meet that need." Tritium increases the explosive power of nuclear bombs, but it decays over time. DOE is paying TVA to ready its nuclear plants to produce bomb-grade tritium. But the plan must still be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TVA expects to pay Framatom, its nuclear fuel supplier, and Westinghouse, the design firm for the nuclear plants, $14 million to gain NRC approval for tritium production, TVA spokesman Gil Francis said. To see more of the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesfreepress.com ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear agency fined £4,000 The Times SATURDAY JANUARY 19 2002 BY A CORRESPONDENT THE United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was fined £4,000 yesterday after an incident at one of its sites that led to two members of the Army’s explosive ordnance division receiving the George Medal. AEA Technology plc was fined the same amount in the joint prosecution, and the organisations were ordered to pay costs of £57,000 each. The prosecution, brought by the Health and Safety Executive, followed an investigation by its nuclear installations inspectorate into the incident in September 1999 at Harwell International Business Centre, part of the UKAEA site at Didcot, Oxfordshire. Oxford Crown Court was told that a standby state of emergency was initiated after a pilot procedure to produce silver from a chemical solution was found to have been left for 17 days, compared with the recommended 77 hours, and led to fears of an explosion. Members of the explosive ordnance division were called in and an exclusion zone was set up. Two members of the “bomb squad” were subsequently awarded the George Medal for their outstanding bravery in nullifying the threat of an explosion. UKAEA and AEA Technology admitted failing to make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. In mitigation the court was told that scientists and experts investigating the incident could not agree on the risk of explosion after the incident. Pleas of not guilty to failing to ensure the safety of employees and non-employees were accepted by the court. Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd. T ***************************************************************** 3 NRC doesn't want to post federal guards Friday, January 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES: Beefing up plant security dismissed By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday dismissed the idea of posting federal guards at nuclear power plants, a key element in legislation being pushed by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. NRC chief Richard Meserve said private security agents now guarding power plants are experienced, well-trained and well-paid. "We don't see that as a problem," Meserve said. "The private guards in place are not rent-a-cops, they're not the kind of forces we are familiar with that existed in the past at airports. These are people who take their jobs very seriously." Additionally, Meserve said the NRC would find itself with conflicts of interest if it were to manage government security at the same plants it is required to regulate for health and safety. About 5,000 guards are employed by utilities to provide security at 103 plants in 31 states. "The NRC very strenuously opposes this legislation," Meserve said following a speech he delivered at the National Press Club. Meserve had outlined his opposition to Reid in a Nov. 28 letter to the senator, who chairs the Senate's nuclear regulation subcommittee. Reid and four other lawmakers introduced the bill on Nov. 29. It directs the NRC to tighten protections at nuclear power generators, spent fuel pools and onsite nuclear waste containers. Besides federalizing nuclear plant security, the bill also requires the NRC to revise its "design basis threat," the terrorist scenario that utilities are required to protect against. Meserve said Thursday the agency already is working on that matter along with other security improvements. Reid on Thursday declined to comment on Meserve's remarks. Spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said he still plans to pursue his bill through hearings this spring. Others sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., James Jeffords, I-Vt., and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. The lawmakers said they believed security needs to be strengthened at nuclear plants, which were identified as possible terrorist targets in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Reid had asked the NRC to supply him information about security guards at nuclear plants, but the agency replied it could not provide demographic data because it does not require licensees to submit that information, Hafen said. Meserve said in his speech there has been "no credible terrorist threat" against a nuclear plant since Sept. 11, and "physical protection at nuclear power plants is very strong." However, the plants remain at high alert. Meserve said he favors legislation that would authorize existing guards at nuclear plants to use deadly force to repel attackers. Guards presently are armed but some states restrict what guns they can carry and how they can be used. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 4 Greenpeace Questions Cost Calculations for Proposed Finnish Nuclear Power Plant M2 Communications ( January 18, 2002 ) The cost calculations submitted by Teollisuuden Voima, a Finnish power company, to the Finnish authorities with its application to build a fifth nuclear power plant are not in agreement with international calculations, according to the environmental organisation Greenpeace. The criticism from Greenpeace has been supported by a British energy policy researcher, who has given a lecture at the Helsinki University, according to Finnish media reports. Greenpeace has also criticised the calculations for the cost of the end storage of the radioactive waste and has predicted that there will be problems with the deposition of the waste, the lifetime of the power plant and the risks associated with a nuclear power plant. Separately, people who are against nuclear power recently demonstrated in eight Finnish cities against an extension of the nuclear power usage in Finland. In Helsinki, people lit 2,000 red lights in the shape of the symbol for radioactivity. (C)1998-2002 M2 Communications Ltd ***************************************************************** 5 Finland Bucks the Trend on Nuclear Power Environment News Service: HELSINKI, Finland, January 17, 2002 (ENS) - The Finnish cabinet breathed new life into Europe's nuclear industry today, voting 10 to six in favor of constructing a fifth nuclear power plant. A parliamentary vote, due this spring, is needed to ratify the decision. Strong opposition is anticipated, including from elements of the government's five party coalition, which includes the Green Party. [plant] The Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant is on Olkiluoto Island in Eurajoki, a municipality on the west coast of Finland where a long term nuclear waste disposal facility may be located. (Photos courtesy TVO [http://www.tvo.fi/eng/index2.html] ) The government's decision marks a dramatic departure from the current trend in Europe. No new nuclear capacity has come into operation for decades, and national governments, including Belgium, Sweden and Germany, have active plans to phase out all existing reactors. Environmentalists are keeping up the pressure, painting nuclear power generation as an outdated and unsustainable industry. According to the Finnish government, however, more nuclear power is the most cost effective option "for central government finances and the national economy." Finnish energy firm Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) would build the nuclear plant if it is approved. The government says it will also help to stabilize electricity prices against a picture of rising demand and limited scope for boosting hydropower, and will enable Finland to replace current coal fired power stations and so reduce carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Finland is having trouble in meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It must not permit greenhouse gas emissions to rise above 1990 levels, but they have soared by 29.6 percent since 1990, one of the largest increases in the world. [Monkare] Finnish Industry Minister Sinikka Mönkäre (Photo courtesy Office of the Minister) Following today's decision, Finnish Industry Minister Sinikka Mönkäre stressed that the government was not interested solely in nuclear power. Great efforts were being made to support growth in renewable energy and to promote energy conservation, Mönkäre told journalists. Europe's nuclear industry association Foratom welcomed the announcement. The decision "will hopefully serve as a reminder to EU policy makers that a fully diversified energy mix is really the only way forward," said its secretary general. "That means using all our available options, without making any exclusions for purely political reasons." But the international environmental group Greenpeace slammed the decision, reiterating a threat to hit with protests the project's industrial backers, which include forest product company UPM-Kymmene, and paper and packaging manufacturer Stora Enso. "Products of the Finnish telecommunications and paper industries are darkened by the nuclear shadow, said Greenpeace spokesman Tobias Muenchmeyer. "It is our duty to make people in Germany and other EU countries aware of this fact." The Finnish cabinet also agreed "in principle" on the method of storing spent nuclear fuel from the new plant. Parliamentary ratification is needed for this decision, too. Finland's first permanent storage facility, to be located on the country's west coast, is due to begin operating in about 2020. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2001. ***************************************************************** 6 ANALYSIS: Russia growing more guarded about environmental policy The Nando Times: Updated: January 18, 2002 11:10 p.m. E Agence France-Presse MOSCOW (January 18, 2002 10:15 p.m. EST) - The case of Russian journalist Grigory Pasko, who was jailed last month on espionage charges after telling Japanese media about illegal dumping of Russian nuclear waste, has highlighted the risks run by ecologists here. Those who attack the Russian army, which ecologists claim is one of the country's biggest polluters, could easily find themselves in prison, just like dissidents during the Soviet era. Pasko, a 40-year-old former reporter for the newspaper of the Pacific Fleet was sentenced to four years in prison for "high treason" after he told Japanese journalists about illegal dumping of nuclear waste by the Russian navy into the Sea of Japan. He is not alone. Russian navy Capt. Alexandre Nikitine was charged with spying in 1996 for handing over information to a Norwegian environmental organization. Nikitine was able to clear his name, but only after spending ten months in prison. As defense employees, both men were extremely well informed about Russian military activity. "The ecology movement is different from other NGOs (non-governmental organizations), like the women's movement or the movement for peace, because these were both formed by the state during the Soviet era. The ecologist movement comes from society," explained Lev Fiodorov, co-president of the Socialist and Ecologist Union. Russian deputy Sergei Mitrokhin, a member of the liberal opposition party Iabloko, said the state is not ready for ecologists. "The state is used to people defending human rights, which has gone on for 30 years. However, it is not ready to answer questions posed by ecologists. "The Pasko affair shows that any information that ecologists wish to make public could be used as an excuse for legal proceedings against them," the deputy added. "Ecologists have become the dissidents of our time." The liberal deputy stressed that a conflict of interests exists between government ministers and society. "There is a conflict of interest between ministers, particularly the defense and atomic energy ministers, who want to keep their activities secret, and society, which wants to know what has happened," Mitrokhin said. According to the deputy, more and more sections of both ministries' budgets are being classified as secret. Since 1992, Russia has consistently tried to limit access to information, claims Ivan Blokov, a Greenpeace leader in Russia. "In 1993, the environment minister was charged with managing natural resources, but then the brief was passed to another ministry. In 1996, it was changed to a simple state committee, and then this committee was dissolved in 2000," the Greenpeace activist said. Blokov claims that the state ecology committee was disbanded because it clashed with an oil extraction scheme over the risks to fishermen and gray whales in the same area as the oil rig. Ecologists claim corruption prevents a proper defense of the environment. Despite strong public opinion against the move, the Russian government last year agreed to take in nuclear waste from abroad for $20 billion. Copyright © 2002 Nando Media ***************************************************************** 7 Arthur Andersen has contracts with the NRC Arthur Andersen has millions of dollars in contracts with federal government - 01/19/02 [Search detnews.com] Saturday, January 19, 2002 Copyright 2002 The Detroit News. Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 08/09/2001). Arthur Andersen has millions of dollars in contracts with federal government By Dennis Conrad / Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Arthur Andersen, until this week the accounting firm for Enron Corp., has received tens of millions of dollars from contracts with the federal government. With clients ranging from the Justice Department and the FBI to the Pentagon, Andersen's federal contracts totaled $37.8 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2001, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. Those figures are the most recent available.    Andersen fell in the middle among the Big 5 accounting firms with contracts with federal agencies: KPMG had $165 million; PricewaterhouseCoopers, $129 million; Ernst &Young, $6 million; and Deloitte &Touche, $357,000. The General Services Administration, which oversees many of the contracts for the rest of the government, reported $34.4 million in contracts with Andersen last year. Agencies place hundreds of orders for Andersen work, covering such needs as financial asset services and business improvement services, GSA spokeswoman Viki Reath said. She would not elaborate. "We have no reports indicating Arthur Andersen has failed to meet performance requirements," she said. With so many federal agencies -- and no central reporting point for all their contracts -- it is uncertain how many have contracts with Chicago-based Andersen. "We don't comment on client matters," company spokesman Patrick Dorton said. Among agencies confirming at least some current contracts are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with two for management consulting services totaling $372,000, and the Justice Department, which contracted for a $790,000 management study of the FBI, and is now investigating Enron over the company's sudden financial collapse. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced last July that Andersen would recommend changes to improve the FBI following a series of embarrassing incidents including the mishandling of Oklahoma City bombing documents. Andersen's work was to include examining how the FBI reacts to crises. Andersen, which has had a reputation as one of the nation's premier accounting firms, is now trying to defend work it performed under its former partnership with Enron, which last month filed for bankruptcy. Enron fired the firm on Thursday. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Andersen's role in handling Enron's complex accounting, including moves that kept about $500 million in debt off the energy company's books and allowed Enron executives to profit from the arrangements. Congressional hearings are planned on Andersen's admitted destruction of many Enron documents. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the ranking minority member on the House Financial Services general oversight subcommittee, said Andersen should be allowed to continue working for the government but with as much scrutiny as possible until questions are resolved about Enron. "Andersen needs to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Enron situation was indeed an isolated incident, involving a small cadre of their employees and is not in anyway reflective of companywide standards or practices," Gutierrez, D-Ill., said Friday. But Don Goldberg, a former Democratic staffer for the House government operations committee who helped oversee reviews of federal agencies, said he saw no reason to be skeptical of the job Andersen has done for the government. "I don't think there's anything inherent about the Enron situation that says, ãHey, I don't think we should use these guys,"' he said. In the Enron case, he noted Andersen was doing the company's audits at the same time it had millions of dollars in consulting work with Enron. That's not the case with the government. Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said Andersen already has submitted its FBI review and that is being incorporated as part of a larger report to be released by the department. "I haven't heard of any question of the overall integrity of the (Andersen) report," he said. On the Net:    Andersen: [http://www.andersen.com]    General Services Administration: [http://www.gsa.gov/] ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear agency fined £4,000 The Times SATURDAY JANUARY 19 2002 BY A CORRESPONDENT THE United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was fined £4,000 yesterday after an incident at one of its sites that led to two members of the Army’s explosive ordnance division receiving the George Medal. AEA Technology plc was fined the same amount in the joint prosecution, and the organisations were ordered to pay costs of £57,000 each. The prosecution, brought by the Health and Safety Executive, followed an investigation by its nuclear installations inspectorate into the incident in September 1999 at Harwell International Business Centre, part of the UKAEA site at Didcot, Oxfordshire. Oxford Crown Court was told that a standby state of emergency was initiated after a pilot procedure to produce silver from a chemical solution was found to have been left for 17 days, compared with the recommended 77 hours, and led to fears of an explosion. Members of the explosive ordnance division were called in and an exclusion zone was set up. Two members of the “bomb squad” were subsequently awarded the George Medal for their outstanding bravery in nullifying the threat of an explosion. UKAEA and AEA Technology admitted failing to make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. In mitigation the court was told that scientists and experts investigating the incident could not agree on the risk of explosion after the incident. Pleas of not guilty to failing to ensure the safety of employees and non-employees were accepted by the court. Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 9 Armenian paper says nuclear plant closure would threaten national security BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 19, 2002 Text of Aleksander Agamalyan report by Armenian newspaper Aravot on 19 January entitled "The price of membership in the European Union" Let us try to analyse the problem not so much from the economic or technical point of view, but from the point of view of international relations and national security. By the way, This is quite difficult, as the adoption of a concept of Armenia's foreign policy and national security is always delayed. The latest news on this problem is hopeless. It is clear that the OSCE experts will "help" in the final shaping of the abovementioned concepts. This should be unacceptable and humiliating for any state. When the authority is unable to form the priorities and interests of its own country, logically it should not apply for outside assistance, but should resign. But such things happen in "normal" countries. Certainly, membership in the European Union is an important goal, and no demands should be rejected immediately - we should negotiate, delay. At the same time, we must understand that the closure of the Nuclear Power Plant [NPP] is damaging for our economy and an extreme threat to our national security. A diversity of electric power sources and alternative ones are one of the known principles for energy security. Let us imagine a situation when during winter months (when hydro power stations do not naturally function), relations with our neighbours are aggravated, they impose a blockade, gas pipelines are blown up, and only a nuclear power plant is left as a reliable source of electric power (of course, if it is operational). Otherwise, emigration will increase and etc. Nuclear power plants are also a military defence factor - no neighbouring country would try to bomb the territory of a small country, which has a more or less powerful nuclear power plant. Experts of the European Union are aware that the Armenian NPP is no more dangerous than those in Europe. In that case, why do they resolutely demand its closure? The real reasons are geopolitical. If along with the NPP Armenia is deprived of its energy independence, it will become more vulnerable and more easily governable (like Georgia, for example). Let us also not forget that the development of big industry is not at all on the list of the World Bank programme. The Russia-Armenia-Iran political pivot became more prominent after Robert Kocharyan's visits to Moscow and Tehran, which of course may not be pleasant to the West. From this point of view, the Armenian NPP is a serious factor, particularly for the restoration and development of the military and industrial complex. Bearing all this and the bitter experience of an energy crisis in mind, shall we again agree to close down the NPP? Source: Aravot, Yerevan, in Armenian 19 Jan 02 p6 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 10 Tennessee Valley Authority to Weigh Controversial Plan for Tritium Production Dave Flessner , Chattanooga Times/Free Press Knight Ridder Tribune Business News (KRTBN) ( January 18, 2002 ) Jan. 18--The Tennessee Valley Authority will consider a plan next week to pay its nuclear fuel supply contractor another $3.25 million to prepare the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant to produce a key material for America's nuclear arsenal. But critics of the proposal said Thursday the contract is a waste of money because the bomb material -- a radioactive isotope known as tritium -- is no longer needed any time soon. "For TVA and the Department of Energy to continue to go forward at this point and spend millions of dollars on this plan is a waste of taxpayers dollars and is simply matter of bureaucratic momentum," said Steve Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an environmental group opposed to tritium production. "With the arms control agreements reached between the United States and Russia and the commitments made for further reductions by President Bush, we won't need any more tritium for at least a couple of decades." But the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for building nuclear bombs for the military, insists that it still needs to have TVA ready to make tritium. DOE contracted with TVA two years ago to produce tritium at either the Watts Bar or Sequoyah nuclear plants. "There is no change in our plans," said Lisa Cutler, a spokeswoman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. "We still have a need for tritium and wee are continuing to work with TVA to meet that need." Tritium increases the explosive power of nuclear bombs, but it decays over time. DOE is paying TVA to ready its nuclear plants to produce bomb-grade tritium. But the plan must still be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TVA expects to pay Framatom, its nuclear fuel supplier, and Westinghouse, the design firm for the nuclear plants, $14 million to gain NRC approval for tritium production, TVA spokesman Gil Francis said. ----- To see more of the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesfreepress.com (c) 2002, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. ***************************************************************** 11 Business# Conversion of Bataan nuke plant studied Philippine Daily Inquirer; Jan 19, 2002 BY RONNEL W. DOMINGO THE GOVERNMENT is in talks with foreign firms on a possible feasibility study on converting the mothballed Bataan nuclear power plant. Philippine National Oil Co. president Thelmo Cunanan said in an interview yesterday that the government planned to do a study on whether the $2.1-billion facility could be "repowered." "It's a pity because we are servicing P3 billion a year for it and it's not even producing a single megawatt of power," Cunanan said. He said they have had initial discussions with firms which have shown interest, but that there was nothing final yet. "If new technologies are available to make feasible (the conversion of the plant), then I think that should be an option (to be pursued)," the PNOC chief said. According to the energy department, the government is also looking for alternative uses of the nuclear facility for the emerging local natural gas industry. Energy Secretary Vicente Perez Jr. had said that he was encouraging any private firm which may have interest in converting the 620-megawatt nuclear facility into one that uses gas turbines. Perez said there were previous offers from at least two foreign firms for the conversion project. He said the energy department would welcome initiatives from the firms should they decide to revive their offers. "The (Bataan nuclear complex) is also a possible location for a liquefied natural gas terminal," Perez noted. The secretary said he would look at every possibility just to have some use for the Bataan plant. "It's such a waste if it would stay mothballed," he added. The Bataan plant was never commissioned due to the controversy that enveloped the deal-$80 million in alleged kickbacks that US-based contractor Westinghouse paid to then President Marcos and his cronies, and the overpriced cost of its lone reactor. Because of this, the $2.1-billion loan obtained to build the BNPP was touted not only as the single biggest foreign debt incurred during the Marcos administration but also the biggest loan anomaly. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 12 NKorea: Agency rules out inspection of nuclear facilities BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 19, 2002 Text of report in English by North Korean news agency KCNA Pyongyang, 19 January: Recently some media, predicting the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]-US relations this year, conveyed what they called views of US experts on the Korean Peninsula that the inspection of the nuclear facilities of the DPRK should be made from the middle of the year according to the plan to push forward the building of the light-water reactors. This is an unreasonable assertion that reflects the viewpoints of impure elements keen to distort the basic spirit of the DPRK-US agreed framework and the principles that should be maintained in putting it into practice and shift the responsibility for the delayed construction of LWRs [light-water reactors] on to the DPRK. The basic spirit of the framework is that the US is obliged to provide the DPRK with the light-water reactors in return for the DPRK's freezing of nuclear facilities and the two sides agreed to abide by the principle of simultaneous honest implementation of their obligations. In the wake of the publication of the framework the DPRK has fully implemented its obligation, suffering a huge loss caused by the freeze of the independent nuclear power industry. The US side, however, pursuing its hostile policy towards the DPRK, has implemented none of its obligations properly laid down in the framework. The insincere attitude and stand of the US side has seriously delayed the construction of the LWRs which it had promised to provide to the DPRK by the year 2003. It is told that the project is likely to be completed by the year 2008. Under the situation the US side is to blame for all the problems related to the implementation of the agreed framework. It is quite natural that the US side should make compensation for the loss of electricity caused by the delayed construction of the LWRs. It is quite unfair to try to unilaterally force the inspection of the nuclear facilities upon the DPRK, a victim, ignoring all the facts and truth. This is, in the final analysis, a criminal attempt to put political pressure upon the DPRK. The fate of the agreed framework entirely depends upon the attitude of the US side. The US side should drop its hostile policy towards the DPRK and adopt a substantial measure to make an immediate compensation for the loss of electricity to the DPRK before anything else. Source: KCNA news agency, Pyongyang, in English 0934 gmt 19 Jan 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 13 Greenpeace Questions Cost Calculations for Proposed Finnish Nuclear Power Plant M2 Communications ( January 18, 2002 ) The cost calculations submitted by Teollisuuden Voima, a Finnish power company, to the Finnish authorities with its application to build a fifth nuclear power plant are not in agreement with international calculations, according to the environmental organisation Greenpeace. The criticism from Greenpeace has been supported by a British energy policy researcher, who has given a lecture at the Helsinki University, according to Finnish media reports. Greenpeace has also criticised the calculations for the cost of the end storage of the radioactive waste and has predicted that there will be problems with the deposition of the waste, the lifetime of the power plant and the risks associated with a nuclear power plant. Separately, people who are against nuclear power recently demonstrated in eight Finnish cities against an extension of the nuclear power usage in Finland. In Helsinki, people lit 2,000 red lights in the shape of the symbol for radioactivity. (C)1998-2002 M2 Communications Ltd ***************************************************************** 14 Austrian Rightist and Czech Premier Spar Over Nuclear Plant January 19, 2002 By PETER S. GREEN PRAGUE, Jan. 18 — Prime Minister Milos Zeman of the Czech Republic and Austria's foremost rightist politician, Jörg Haider, have been slinging epithets across the border over a new Czech nuclear power plant and Austrian attempts to shut it down. Czechs and Austrians have been at odds for years over the plant, at Temelin, 35 miles from the Austrian border. Designed by Soviet engineers and later fitted with security and control systems by Westinghouse, Temelin has become a lightning rod for long-simmering political disputes. Previous differences over the plant have been settled quietly, but this time, the dispute could bring down Austria's fractious coalition. The latest round of troubles began this month when Mr. Haider opened a petition drive for a referendum on Temelin, calling for the Austrians to block the Czechs' planned entry into the European Union unless the plant was closed. The Czechs have spent $3 billion to $4 billion on the plant, and say it meets all the relevant safety standards. The Austrians point to a continuing series of mechanical problems and a recent leak of a small amount of radioactive material. In a radio interview on Monday, Mr. Zeman said, "The earlier the Austrians get rid of Mr. Haider and his post-fascist party, the better." On Wednesday, he called Mr. Haider "an Austrian political Chernobyl." Mr. Haider retorted that Mr. Zeman "is a Communist who has tried his hand at democracy by changing his clothes." Mr. Zeman, a Social Democrat, was a member of the Communist Party. Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel and his Austrian People's Party, which sits in an uneasy coalition with Mr. Haider's party, have so far only urged restraint on both sides. Not that either man is listening. Mr. Zeman slipped out of town on Thursday to lead a trade delegation to Yugoslavia, and Mr. Haider pressed his attack. At a news conference today, he called Mr. Zeman arrogant and said he was only helping the antinuclear petition drive. A recent poll in the Austrian weekly News showed 59 percent of Austrians opposed nuclear power, and news reports this week indicated that as many as a million of Austria's eight million people may sign Mr. Haider's petition, which may be bad news for Mr. Schüssel. Mr. Haider clearly sees the petition as a way for him to ride back to national prominence. "It is difficult to see how the chancellor wants to govern against the clear will of the Austrian people," Mr. Haider said today. The antinuclear tune resonates with Austrians, who identify their country with its pristine Alpine peaks and verdant valleys. Austria's only nuclear power plant, at Zwentendorf, 18 miles west of Vienna, was mothballed in 1978 before it opened, after a slim majority voted in a referendum to ban nuclear power. But the dispute also reflects the sustained unease that the Austrians feel toward the Czechs, who were their subjects for 300 years in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. "The Haiderites of course hate the Slavs, hate the Czechs, hate the European Union," said Barbara Coudenhove-Kalergi, a Czech-born columnist for the Austrian daily Der Standard, "and Haider personally sees an issue in using the general distrust of nuclear energy to gain votes and gain popularity for his party." It seems to have worked. Since he first began discussing Temelin, Mr. Haider's party has risen as high as 23 percent in some polls, up from a low of 16 percent last summer. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 15 Russian ambassador visits Ukrainian reactor, pledges funds BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 20, 2002 [Presenter Yevhen Salnykov] After six years of talk and pledges by Western creditors to help Ukraine finish the construction of two power generating sets [to compensate for the closure of Chernobyl], the No 4 set at the Rivne nuclear power plant and the No 2 set at the Khmelnytskyy plant, a real opportunity to complete the reactors has at last turned up. The Ukrainian and Russian presidents agreed on loans for the nuclear plants during their December meeting in Kharkiv. Specifically, Russia promised to disburse no less than 100m dollars for the No 4 reactor at the Rivne plant. Prior to finalizing the terms of the loan, the Russian ambassador to Ukraine and special trade and economic representative, Viktor Chernomyrdin, visited the Rivne nuclear power plant. [Passage omitted: background] [Viktor Chernomyrdin, in Russian] Based on preliminary accords, we have included in this year's budget the funds envisaged under our agreement for the completion of the Rivne nuclear power plant. The commitment undertaken by Russia is up to 170, from 150 to 160 [million dollars] - well, as much as needed, let us say. The credit is mainly in supplies. It is money, equipment in full, raw materials in full and other supplies. [Passage omitted: experts say the Rivne plant could be completed in 2003 and turned into an independent business entity] [Correspondent] Speaking about the tradition of Ukraine's previous creditors to demand a raise in electricity tariffs, the Russians hold their own philosophical view. [Viktor Chernomyrdin, in Russian] The sooner we build it, the sooner this facility goes on line, the sooner the tariffs will be reduced. We should be speaking about a reduction. [1010-1320 Video shows Chernomyrdin inspecting facilities at the Rivne nuclear power plant] Source: Ukrainian Television First Programme, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1900 gmt 19 Jan 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All ***************************************************************** 16 Finnish government votes in favour of new nuclear reactor Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) HELSINKI, Jan 17 (AFP) - The Finnish government voted on Thursday in favour of a controversial industry proposal to build a fifth nuclear reactor in Finland despite opposition from several members of the left-right coalition, including the Green Party. The proposal now goes to parliament, which is expected to vote on it within a few months. "The government decided, with 10 voting in favor and six against, to go forward with the proposal," Trade and Industry Ministry spokeswoman Jenni Hakala told AFP. Green Party chief and Health and Social Services Minister Osmo Soininvaara said: "We are absolutely not happy about it, but we are not surprised. But the actual fight will happen in the parliament, and this was only the beginning of the battle. "The proposal comes to the parliament in February, but it will take several months before it decides upon it. The actual voting will happen in May or June." The Finnish decision comes as a number of European countries, notably Sweden and Germany, are preparing to phase out their nuclear power. The Finnish proposal was originally put forward in the mid-1980s but was shelved after Russia's 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Finnish experts have in recent years warned of an impending power shortage, as a result of the country's rapid development in the past decade, if no new power plants are built. In a relatively flat country where the primary natural resource is vast forestland, a recent opinion poll found that 57 percent of Finns were in favour of a new nuclear power plant if it would help cut carbon dioxide emissions. "The decision was expected," said Harri Lamma, head of Greenpeace's Finnish anti-nuclear campaign. "But it is a dangerous proposal, and it puts nuclear power in the front again, and gives a really backward picture of the energy policy in Finland." Greenpeace has called into question the economic viability of build a new nuclear reactor, instead stressing alternative energy sources such as wind power as well as more efficient use of current electricity production. "Wood and wind, energy saving -- we have a lot of possibilities, one cannot say that we are without resources, and we now have access to Russian gas too," Lammi said. The Greens agree, saying it would be much better to build thermal power plants burning natural gas. "To my mind, we don't need it. It would be better to use natural gas ... we also have a lot of bio energy, and in effect by burning wood, we get more energy than when using nuclear power," Soininvaara said. A recent poll among parliamentarians showed a slight majority in favour of building the reactor, but a large part of them remain undecided. Currently, 28 percent of the country's power supply comes from nuclear facilities. With a fifth reactor, this figure would rise to 35 percent, Hakala said. ***************************************************************** 17 Two Finnish towns fighting to become home to new nuclear reactor Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) HELSINKI, Jan 18 (AFP) - While most communities around the world would do their utmost to avoid having a nuclear reactor placed in their backyard, two Finnish towns said Friday they would campaign fiercely to become home to the country's fifth reactor, if it is built. Finland, which is relatively flat and largely devoid of natural resources apart from vast forestland, already has two nuclear power plants with two reactors each, built in the 1970s in the towns of Eurajoki and Loviisa. The two towns are now battling to become home to the new reactor, after the Finnish government bucked the trend in western Europe on Thursday and voted in favour of building a new power plant. "The way we see it, the two reactors we already have have given a lot of wealth to the community, the plant is a big employer and provides jobs in the building and service industry as well," said Hanna Tuominen of the Eurajoki township. Finland has been suffering from high unemployment for more than a decade -- the jobless rate is currently almost 10 percent -- and for the two towns the new reactor means sorely needed tax revenues and jobs. Eurajoki, on Finland's west coast some 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest of Helsinki, has a population of 6,000, many of whom are farmers. After a similar fight last year, Eurajoki became home to Europe's first permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. "There was a lot of fighting to get that too, but to be fair, there were of course some people who were against it," Tuominen, in charge of economic development at the township, told AFP. The other town, Loviisa, is located 80 kilometers (50 miles) east of Helsinki. It has a population of 7,500 and a jobless rate of 13 percent, and is determined to win the fight. "Most members of the town council are in favour of locating the new nuclear reactor here," Ulf Baggstroem, in charge of economic matters at Loviisa township, told AFP. "Loviisa is suffering from high unemployment and for us it will mean jobs and tax revenues," he said. "The nuclear power plant is already the second biggest employer here with 450 employees, after the town itself," he said. The government's proposal must be adopted by the Finnish parliament, which is expected to hold a vote later this year. ***************************************************************** 18 Committee recommends Unit 1 restart: Labor leaders say Browns Ferry reactor could be boost for area January 19, 2002 By Dennis Sherer Staff Writer January 18, 2002 Email this story. DECATUR - Members of a TVA committee studying the environmental impact of restarting a reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant have found no reason to nix the project. The committee is expected to recommend later this year to Tennessee Valley Authority directors to extend the life of the idle Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry. People who gathered Thursday night at Calhoun Community voiced overwhelming support for restarting the unit, which would add 20 years of life to the plant. "Restarting Unit 1 will provide a lot of good jobs for craftspeople during the construction phase and in the operation and maintenance. It would be a big boost for the Shoals," said Gene Tackett, president of the Shoals Area Central Labor Council. "We have the highest unemployment rate in the state and could use the jobs. The country could use the additional power. It would be just a win-win for everybody." More than 2,500 temporary jobs for skilled craftspeople could be created during the restart, officials said. The construction phase would last about five years. Tackett was among a crowd of 35 who attended the meeting, which was part of TVA's process for developing an environmental impact statement for Browns Ferry. TVA will need the impact statement if it asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the operating license for the Browns Ferry reactors for 20 years. A committee that prepared the report found the plan is not expected to have any significant environmental impacts, said Ashok Bhatnagar, who is TVA's site vice president at Browns Ferry. Committee members have determined seeking a license renewal for all three units and placing Unit 1 back in operation is the best of the three options being considered, he said. The other options are allowing the licenses to expire or extending the licenses but continuing to operate only Units 2 and 3. The operating license for Unit 2 is scheduled to expire in 2014, with the Unit 3 license ending in 2016. The license for Unit 1 expires in 2013. The unit was shut down in 1985 because of safety concerns. The original operating licenses for all three units are for 40 years. As part of the licensing process, TVA will have to prove it will be able to safely operate the Browns Ferry reactor during the extended license period. It must also prove it has evaluated all potential environmental impacts during that period. The committee's recommendation for TVA board members to seek the license extension and restart the idle reactor would be made after the final version of the environmental impact statement is completed in March, said Browns Ferry spokesman Craig Beasley. The committee's recommendation will be only one of many things the board will consider before deciding the fate of Unit 1, Beasley said. The board will also consider the cost of the restart, which is estimated at about $1.4 billion, and the expected demand for power. Support was strong Thursday for the restart, but some environmental organizations have expressed opposition in the past. Stephen Smith, executive director of the Knoxville, Tenn.-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, has said TVA could save its ratepayers money by promoting conservation of electricity rather than restarting the reactor. If enough residents conserved power, the reactor would not be needed. Smith did not attend Thursday's meeting. He has previously expressed concern about the plan to operate the reactors beyond their original life expectancy. Beasley said TVA is only one of many utilities seeking to extend the operating license for their nuclear plants. TVA officials said engineers and scientists have learned that nuclear plants can be operated safely much longer than originally expected. U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, both R-Ala., and U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., have urged TVA to restart the reactor. No time frame has been set for the TVA board to make a decision on Unit 1. Copyright © 2002 TimesDaily | Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 19 MKs to probe nuclear reactor report The Jerusalem Post Newspaper : Online News From Israel - Latest News Article MK Nehama Ronen (Center) intends to initiate the establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry as a result of the weekend Channel 2 report on safety lapses at the Dimona nuclear reactor. Ronen is to seek approval from the House Committee tomorrow to bring the proposal for approval this week. "The only way to uncover the truth is by establishing a committee that won't be dependent on military officials and the Prime Minister's Office," Ronen said, adding, "The time has come for the country to stop acting irresponsibly in the name of security." MK Ran Cohen (Meretz) also said he would put the matter on the agenda of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Nina Gilbert [http://www.israelphones.com/] ://info.jpost.com/C001/Services/Copyright/] - All rights reserved, ***************************************************************** 20 Officials answer questions about Crystal River nuclear plant ChronicleOnline.com 01/19/02 Terry Witt When officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are asked about it, they generally talk around the edges of the subject, if at all. Rumor has it that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, someone was caught in another state carrying schematic plans for the Crystal River nuclear power plant. The standard answer from NRC and Florida Power officials is that there has been no credible threat against any nuclear power plant in the United States since Sept. 11. OK, but what about the incident? Or was there an incident? On Thursday night, the question was posed to NRC Commissioner Nils Diaz following a question-and-answer session on nuclear safety at Crystal River City Hall. “There was somebody in a truck going to California,” Diaz responded to a reporter’s question after the meeting. “It was nothing specific.” Diaz said the NRC may decide to take action against this individual and for that reason he could not discuss details. Did the incident concern the Crystal River nuclear power plant? “No. I won’t say if it was Crystal River,” Diaz said. “There was nothing, I would say, was specific.” When state Rep. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, asked the same question during the meeting, Diaz responded with the standard answer. He added, “All of this is totally without what we would worry about,” he said. Asked why the NRC is reluctant to release that type of information, spokesman Roger Hannah on Friday said there “are certain areas of information we can’t talk about legally.” Hannah said information about safeguards is off limits to the press and public. Information about safeguards might include any potential threat to a nuclear power plant or information about security measures being used to protect a plant. “If there are rumors of a threat, they may or may not be something I can talk about,” he said. Diaz also confirmed that the NRC ran a mock terrorist drill at the Crystal River plant a couple years ago in which the plant’s defenses were tested. He said the Crystal River plant, and every nuclear power plant in the state, scored well on the terrorist drills. “There were no signs, from a safety standpoint, that required changes,” Diaz said. Florida Power has refused to discuss the mock exercise or confirm that it occurred. Diaz and Hannah said they could not discuss specifics other than to say that Crystal River plant officials were made aware that someone would try to penetrate security and reach sensitive areas of the plant. On the question of whether the Crystal River plant could be penetrated by an airplane suicide attack similar to those on Sept. 11, Diaz said the federal government is studying the vulnerabilities of all nuclear power plants and ways to mitigate them. “They have good geometry,” he said. “They’re very hard to hit.” Diaz was asked: Could the Crystal River plant be penetrated by the crash of a commercial airliner? “I would not even guess,” he said. “It would probably take a major incident to even crack the containment. I’m not saying it cannot be. What I am sure of is we can minimize it, and if things happen too quickly, we can evacuate and shelter people.” Diaz added that the NRC is in the process of “going to the next level” of security, just like every other government agency in the country in the post-Sept. 11 era. “We are going up soon,” he said. [http://www.mywebpal.com] . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Ukrainian reactor goes back to work after closure for repairs BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 20, 2002 Text of report by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Energodar, 20 January: The first power unit of the Zaporozhskaya nuclear power station, which stopped work on Saturday [19 January] on the order of the operational services for tests of the safety control systems, has been reconnected to the grid. The engineering services were able to keep within an extremely tight schedule owing to the fact that the reactor was not shut down in order to reduce the length of the stoppage. The information centre of the Zaporozhskaya nuclear power station reported that the power unit was already operating at its full working capacity by 0800 Moscow time [0500 gmt]. The total capacity of all the station's five operational power units was 5m kW at the time. The radiation situation, both at the station as well as the area immediately adjacent to its production site, is consistent with natural background radiation at the power station's location. According to the information centre of the Ukrainian State Nuclear Control Committee, 11 out of 13 power units are in operation at Ukraine's four nuclear power stations. Planned repairs are being carried out at the fourth power unit of the Rovenskaya nuclear power station. In addition, the second power unit at the Rovenskaya power station has been operating at 50 per cent of its capacity since last Friday [18 January], as specialists had to switch off one of two turbines to remove malfunctions in the piping. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian 0855 gmt 20 Jan 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 22 URANIUM APPAUVRI: LA GUERRE INVISIBLE Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:40:27 -0800 (PST) Leuren Moret will be introducing the opening night film and doing a book signing at the ARAB FILM FESTIVAL, February 8-10. The film, INVISIBLE WAR - DEPLETED URANIUM AND THE POLITICS OF RADIATION is by Martin Meissonnier (France 2000). She wrote the Forword to a new book on depleted uranium - DISCOUNTED CASUALTIES: THE HUMAN COST OF DEPLETED URANIUM by Japanese journalist Akira Tashiro (June 2001). Her recent article "Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad" Nov. 7, 2001, in the San Francisco Bay View paper, has been nominated for a PROJECT CENSORED AWARD. FEBRUARY 8, 2002 7:00 PM BERKELEY AT THE FINE ARTS CINEMA 2451 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley (510) 848-1143 INVISIBLE WAR: Depleted Uranium and the Politics of Radiation Martin Meissonnier France/2000/Video/64 min Uranium appauvri : la guerre invisible De Martin Messonier, Frédéric Loore et Roger Trilling Robert Laffont , janvier 2001 The US Army's use of depleted uranium weapons destroyed enemy tanks and armor in Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo, while minimizing casualties among US troops. But is it true? Documentary filmmaker Martin Meissonnier set out to find the truth about this new and mysterious weapon in a groundbreaking inquiry that took him from France to Germany, the United States, Dubai, Iraq and Kosovo. Why? Because with a radioactive half-life of four and a half billion years, the stakes involved in the proliferation of this new weapon are enormous-for the public, and for the earth itself. Movie Description: http://www.syndrome-des-balkans.com/bibliographie.shtml The Schedule: http://www.aff.org/2002/february/schedule.html The Film: http://www.aff.org/2002/february/films/invisible.html The Book: http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html The Article: NOMINATED FOR PROJECT CENSORED AWARD: http://www.sfbayview.com/frontpp.htm#a2 SAN FRANCISCO BAY VIEW November 7, 2001 Depleted uranium: devastation at home and abroad by Leuren Moret “The little fox is still. The dogs of war have made their kill.” These are the words of famous Black poet and writer Langston Hughes, commenting on war. He couldn’t have said it better. Few communities have felt the impact of war more than Hunters Point. The impact of war is not felt just overseas, in a distant country. It is right here in our own backyards: death and illness from radiation exposure, chemical exposure, and the economic devastation that ensues when the military moves on and leaves the mess behind. The bombing of Afghanistan by U.S. government forces has direct ties to Hunters Point. It was at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard that a radioactive material called depleted uranium (DU), currently being used in the bombing of Afghanistan, was first tested by the Navy. The United States now has hundreds of thousands of tons of depleted uranium piled in heaps outdoors at DOE facilities. It is 99.5 percent of what is left when the most fissionable isotope (one of three) is extracted from naturally occurring uranium. The extracted uranium is used in nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors. The 99.5 percent that is discarded cannot be put back into the mines it came out of because, after crushing and processing, the volume is greater than before it was removed from the mines. “Depleted uranium” does not mean it is not radioactive - it is very radioactive and very dangerous to all living things. The Department of Defense got the bright idea of using depleted uranium in weapons because: it is very dense, which gives it greater penetrating power to destroy tanks, etc.; it is “pyrophoric,” which means that upon impact, it explodes into fire and smoke, creating submicroscopic radioactive particles which travel great distances and can remain suspended until it is “rained out” of the atmosphere; it is cheap, and passes the responsibility for disposal from DOE on to civilians (that means us) and the environment. Since depleted uranium is so radioactive, it will continue acting internally on living things long after the battlefield has been cleared - with delayed effects, which impact soldiers and civilians for the rest of their lives. The half life of uranium is 4.5 billion years - in ten half-lives radioactivity becomes an insignificant amount. In 45 billion years it will no longer be a danger. In other words, it’s “fun” for the DOD, it’s “cheap” for the arms manufacturers (who reap good profits by making it), and “good riddance” says DOE (with 480,000 tons on hand). The Navy first tested depleted uranium munitions in 1977 at Hunters Point. From the USS Bigelow, the Phalanx Weapons System fired 3,000 rounds of depleted uranium penetrators per minute. The tests exceeded expectations and production started in 1978 to fill orders for 23 U.S. Navy and 14 foreign military systems. The Army A-10 Thunderbolt II, nicknamed “the Warthog,” fired most of the depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War, between 300 to 800 tons. The Abrams Tank, the Marines M-60, the U.S. F-16 and U.S. Apache helicopters have been fitted to fire DU munitions. Many cruise missiles contain DU balance weights. The use of DU is not being covered up, but the health hazards have been. Gulf War Syndrome not only killed, maimed, and made soldiers sick, they brought it home. In a study of 251 Gulf War veterans’ families in Mississippi, 67 percent of their children were born without eyes, ears or a brain, had fused fingers, blood infections, respiratory problems or thyroid and other organ malformations. The U.S. has manufactured and tested depleted uranium in 39 states. The cleanup bill — just for the depleted uranium — at the Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana would be $7.8 billion. The DU has not been cleaned up, but DOD has closed the area. Communities living near these test ranges will continue to be exposed and suffer health problems. For 40 years, the Sierra Army Depot in Northern California has burned millions of tons of old munitions — including 20 times more DU than was used in the entire Gulf War. The radioactive smoke and ash, full of heavy metals, phosgene gas and dioxins, contaminated local communities as well as that of many Native Americans living downwind — especially the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation. The health problems in those communities have been horrendous. The Sierra Army depot burned old munitions in open pits — and was the single largest contributor to air pollution in California — 17-23 percent. Norman Harry, former Pyramid Lake Tribal Chairman, and Nevada Senator Harry Reid, worked with others to shut it down. A month ago, Lassen County refused to renew the burn permit for the Sierra Army Depot — finally. The United States has used DU weaponry in the Gulf War, Kosovo, Serbia, Vieques Island, and Torishima Island near Okinawa, Japan; and sold DU to at least 23 countries at great profits. As mentioned earlier, DU is part of the arsenal the U.S. and British military forces are using against Afghanistan. The depleted uranium that has contaminated the Gulf States since the Gulf War can be detected on gamma meters in Greece and Bulgaria on windy days. It’s the weapon that “keeps giving”... and keeps killing. DU is also used as ballast in commercial and military planes. On Sept. 11, a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon. Dr. Janette Sherman, research associate with the Radiation and Public Health Project, had spoken a few days earlier at a Sept. 6 press conference in Hunters Point. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Sherman notified the Nuclear Information and Resource Service that she detected elevated levels of radiation in her home, located seven miles from the Pentagon. Dr. Sherman still had a gamma meter she had borrowed for her visit to Hunter’s Point. The EPA, the FBI, and other federal agencies, including HMRU (Hazardous Materials Response Units), USAR teams, the local fire department and the Virginia HAZMAT were notified, and an investigation began at the Pentagon. A pile of rubble from the crash was found to be radioactive, but EPA official Bill Bellinger of the agency’s Region III Environmental Radiation Monitoring Office was unconcerned when contacted by Diane D’Arrigo from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Bellinger indicated that it was probably depleted uranium and mentioned that americium 241could also be scattered around the crash site. He was convinced that depleted uranium is not radiologically toxic, but commented that it is more of a hazard when aerosolized. Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby did breathe the smoke and ash from the fire. The agencies that are supposed to be protecting us are not. There was no follow-up investigation. And what about the World Trade Center in New York? Radiation issues almost never get coverage from mainstream media. It is a taboo subject, a silent killer, as Hunter’s Point residents know too well. The true patriots in this country are two women: Barbara Lee for saying “no” to needless further devastation of an already war-torn country, and Dona Spring, who brought the issue to the table in the Berkeley City Council. Berkeley is the only city in the United States to pass a resolution calling for an end to the bombing of Afghanistan. Whether or not we agree with the military action in Afghanistan, our soldiers have fought for hundreds of years to give us the right to say yes … or no. War is how our “leaders” bleed us, too. It is economically, radiologically and chemically devastating at home as well as abroad. Leuren Moret, an environmental geologist and independent scientist, is president of Scientists for Indigenous People. Moret wrote the foreword to Akira Tashiro’s new book, “Discounted Casualties, The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium.” Tashiro, a Japanese journalist from Hiroshima, includes in this work over 40 interviews and color photos depicting the devastation caused by uranium in the U.S., the United Kingdom, the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, and Japan. The interviews can be read in English online, or you can request to receive copies via email by visiting www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html. Leuren Moret can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. Useful links: For an article about how DU is currently being used to bomb Afghanistan, visit www.zolatimes.com/V5.44/afghan_uranium.html. For information about the testing of DU in Hunters Point Shipyard via the USS Bigelow and the Phalanx Weapons System, visit www.spar.navy.mil/ships/ddg995/wep-phal.html. To read an article about the use of DU as ballast in commercial as well as military planes, www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dhap997.html. The Radiation and Public Health Project website is located at www.radiation.org. Visit the Nuclear Information and Resource Service at www.nirs.org. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ***************************************************************** 23 Pill maker critical of NRC’s stand 01/19/02 Terry Witt The president of a company that manufactures radiation-blocking pills was critical this week of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reluctance to promote potassium iodide as a protection against thyroid cancer. Alan Morris of Anbex Inc., which manufactures a potassium iodide supplement called Iosat, attended a meeting on nuclear power safety at Crystal River City Hall on Thursday in which he blasted the NRC for its attitude. “The NRC has long been against potassium iodide. They’re afraid it would erode the public’s confidence in nuclear power,” Norris said in an interview after the meeting. “They know potassium iodide blocks thyroid cancer.” NRC Commissioner Nils Diaz, guest speaker at the forum, acknowledged during the forum that the agency had been reluctant in the past to talk about potassium iodide, but he said the attitude is changing. The Florida Department of Health is in the process of evaluating the NRC’s recent offer to provide the state with enough potassium iodide pills to supply every resident living within 10 miles of nuclear power plants two doses. The state’s current policy is to keep in stock enough pills to treat nuclear power plant workers and people who can’t be moved in an emergency evacuation. Citrus County Emergency Management Director Jim Soukup, interviewed after the meeting, said the decision about whether to distribute the pills to residents living near the Crystal River nuclear power plant is not the sheriff’s office’s call. “The state has to accept the pills from the NRC,” he said. “There are pros and cons.” Among the unanswered questions are whether the pills should be pre-distributed to residents or given to them when they evacuate, said Bill Passetti, who heads the state’s bureau of radiation. Passetti, who spoke to the Chronicle on Friday, said another concern is that the pills may give people a sense of false security that they are protected from all types of radiation. “They are effective in blocking the effects of one isotope — radioactive iodine,” Passetti said. “There would be more than one isotope that released from a nuclear power plant.” Passetti said the pills are one more tool that can be used in preparing for the possibility of a radiation release from a nuclear power plant. Morris said the idea that people might not evacuate because they are taking potassium iodide pills has no basis in fact. “There’s not a shred of evidence that people would behave that way. What they’ll do is take the pill and get the heck out of there,” he said. Morris, citing the effectiveness of potassium iodide, quoted from a 2-year-old draft report from the NRC in which radioactive iodine was cited as the principal cause of thyroid cancers in areas thought to have been contaminated by the nuclear power plant explosion at Chernobyl, Russia. He said potassium iodide is effective in blocking the effects of radioactive iodine. ©2001 MyWebPal.com ***************************************************************** 24 The cancer time bomb facing Scots born during Cold War NEWS.scotsman.com - Sun 20 Jan 2002 CAMILLO FRACASSINI HEALTH CORRESPONDENT HUNDREDS of thousands of Scots born in the mid-Sixties face a higher risk of developing cancer after being exposed to record levels of nuclear fallout from Cold War atomic tests. Findings from a covert research project, obtained by Scotland on Sunday, reveal that contamination by the radioactive isotope Strontium 90 from nuclear tests peaked in babies born in 1964. The alarming findings have raised fears that the 104,355 people born in Scotland that year may face a higher risk of developing cancers of the blood, bone marrow or muscle. But the hundreds of thousands of Scots born during the 1950s and 1960s will also have been exposed to higher than usual levels of radioactive contamination and are at risk of developing fatal diseases as a result. Exposure to Strontium 90, which is released in nuclear explosions and stored in the bones in the same way as calcium, can increase the risk of developing leukaemia and sarcoma. Researchers at Yorkhill children’s hospital in Glasgow tested 2,111 thigh bones from dead babies and children between 1959 and 1970 as part of an international project to discover the threat posed to humans by the testing of nuclear weapons. Most of the children came from the west of Scotland, while a small number came from Perthshire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Orkney. Scientists found the average concentration of Strontium 90 in children’s bones had reached a level nearly four times the maximum dose many experts consider acceptable for adults. Some babies and children had Strontium 90 levels far higher than the average and all the bones tested had ‘hot spots’ of contamination which posed an even greater risk, researchers said. Babies and toddlers up to the age of two were at greatest risk from the radioactive fallout from tests of ‘dirty’ hydrogen bombs during the 1950s and 1960s, the study found. The peak year was found to be 1964, when many children were found to have up to six times the maximum recommended levels of Strontium 90 in their bones. Children were chosen for the research because their bones grow faster than adults, taking in more of the radioactive element. Glasgow became the main centre for research in the UK because of its high rainfall level, bringing the fallout in the atmosphere to ground level faster. The findings of the 11-year study, organised by the Medical Research Council and UK Atomic Energy Authority, caused such alarm that they were used to push the case for the introduction of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty - banning the testing of nuclear devices in the atmosphere. Dr Chris Busby, an independent expert on radiation risk, said: "Exposure of this kind will have already had a consequence in terms of cancer levels and genetic damage to the people involved, and it will still be doing damage. "People exposed in the 1960s will be coming up to 40 now so they will not be getting their full whack of cancers until they begin to hit 50 or 60. "There is no safe level of Strontium 90 and while government agencies may try to compare it to natural background levels, it is like the difference between eating a hot coal and warming yourself in front of a fire. "People exposed in the 1960s should be worried but the sad thing is that it is too late to do anything about it." A transcript of evidence given to a government expert group currently investigating the ethics of the research, reveals the full extent of the contamination problem in Scotland. Former pathologist Professor Gavin Arneil, who was involved in the study at Yorkhill, said: "All cow’s milk, and every tin of national dried milk contained Strontium 90. Every mother’s breast milk included Strontium 90. "All vegetation and all animals were known to be contaminated." He added: "Our aim was to measure the likely increase in Strontium 90 levels as hydrogen bombs continued to explode and levels approached concentrations at which real concern would be felt. "This level was reached at the peak in 1964 by the 0-6 month age group." Doctors had drawn up a plan to limit children’s exposure to Strontium 90. However, because of the secrecy of the research, it was never publicised. Professor David Hole, of the west of Scotland cancer surveillance unit, has carried out research tracking 600,000 children born between 1959 and 1970 in the west of Scotland up to the age of 20. Holes said: "The 1964 group had Strontium 90 levels up to six times the background dose. "We didn’t see any major increase in the high risk 1963 to 1966 group up to the age of 20 but you might expect to see these sorts of cancers until people are in their 50s or 60s. The high risk group are only in their 30s now." Sue Roff, an expert on the fallout from nuclear weapons tests, based at Dundee University’s centre for medical education, said the significance of the evidence from the 1960s should not be underestimated. "This evidence caused so much concern that it stopped atmospheric nuclear weapons testing," she said. cfracassini@scotlandonsunday.com ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 25 NRC Says Full Release of N-Waste Storage Environmental Study Is OK The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, January 19, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday it had decided it did not need to withhold parts of its environmental study of the proposed nuclear waste storage facility on the Goshute Indian Reservation for security reasons. The commission had taken out parts of the study when it was released two weeks ago on the Internet, saying the information might be of use to terrorists. "But after further review and consideration, the agency decided that the complete document could be released without meaningful risk," the commission said in a news release. A printed copy of the document arrived in newsrooms this week. The study did not find any serious environmental impediments to the proposal by the nuclear energy industry to use an area of the Goshute's Skull Valley reservation as a storage area for spent nuclear fuel until a permanent dump can be constructed elsewhere. The commission posted a censored version of its environmental study on its Web site Jan. 2. But spokeswoman Sue Gagner said the commission released the full report after deciding the information was available to anyone who wanted it through other means, The Associated Press reported. Gov. Mike Leavitt is leading an effort to block the waste from Utah. Larry Jensen, an assistant attorney general, said Tuesday the state will cite the danger of earthquake hazards in Skull Valley during two weeks of public hearings set for April before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board. Private Fuel Storage, led by Minnesota's Excel Energy, and the Goshute tribe have sued to overturn Utah's retaliatory laws. One law bans nuclear waste storage outright and another demands a $150 billion bond should federal authorities override the state's will. The suit is scheduled for a federal court hearing April 11. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 26 Yucca Mountain plan unfair, but doomsday rhetoric not productive Sunday, January 20, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal CHICKEN LITTLES? Fighting nuclear waste SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL At the moment Spencer Abraham declared Yucca Mountain a suitable site to house America's high-level nuclear waste, I happened to be sitting on a Chamber of Commerce panel on leadership. One of my colleagues on the panel blurted forth a line of thinking that I have heard before on the fringe of the Yucca debate. I am afraid I will hear it again. It goes like this: "We must do everything in our power to stop Yucca Mountain because if any of the waste -- any of it! -- makes it to Nevada, Las Vegas is doomed. It will poison our drinking water and it will kill our children." This kind of hyperbolic rhetoric hurts our community more than it helps. Look, no one save a few engineers who enjoy the process of digging really big tunnels likes the concept of Yucca Mountain. It's a power play cooked up between the nuclear industry, other states and the federal government to dump on us the enormous problem of nuclear waste -- a problem rightfully theirs, not ours. Why pick Nevada? Because we're a large state with a small population and, frankly, they knew they could force it down our collective throats. To put it another way (as former Sen. Richard Bryan used to like to say), we got screwed. Over these past many years, the federal government has been scientifically "testing" the feasibility of Yucca Mountain while at the same time building the actual repository at Yucca Mountain. That alone speaks volumes on the unfairness of Yucca Mountain. In the fight against Yucca Mountain, our leaders are righteous to attack the political unfairness of locating the dump in Nevada, a non-nuclear state. There is also a case to make against the dump on the grounds that transporting the waste is dangerous. Consider for example the most logical route: Shipments from throughout the country, going through 40-some states and then funneling down to U.S. Highway 95, where big-rig trucks will cross the popular visitor attraction of Hoover Dam -- which by the way spans the drinking water source for most residents in Arizona, Las Vegas and Southern California. Then the trucks proceed along a highway that goes right through downtown Las Vegas, within a 9-iron distance from the newspaper at which I write this essay and, finally, pass within a few miles of some 12 public schools. Now, it's probably safe to say that some local politicians wouldn't mind a few pellets of nuclear waste spilling into the parking lot of the state's largest newspaper. However, I feel reasonably comfortable in telling you that very few Nevadans, if any, like the idea of nuclear waste whizzing within eyesight of their school children. Getting the junk here is going to be a bloody nightmare against which we should fight tooth and nail. But let's face it: With a lot of money, more engineering and a little more political screwing, the nuclear power industry can make that happen too. So, in the year 2025, the first shipment arrives. Will Las Vegas then cease to exist as a community? Will groundwater instantly begin to glow? Are we really all going to die at the hands of Yucca Mountain? Well, to be intellectually honest, no. The junk will be placed in sealed containers inside the Yucca tunnel. The tunnel will remain open, with the canisters retrievable for at least another 100 years. That puts us somewhere on the other side of the year 2125. Well, actually, that puts our great-great grandchildren at 2125. What then to do with this containerized waste, assuming it ever gets to Yucca Mountain? Close the tunnel up and bury it? Place it in new containers for another 100 years? Reprocess it? It will no doubt be a big question for our progeny. Now, I want to be very plain about this: Yucca Mountain is a raw deal for Nevadans. I don't like it and I don't want it. That said, it is dangerous for community and political leaders to suggest that if we lose the battle in 2002, we're all going to die. It's not accurate, helpful, or instructive. To overplay our hand in such a way is to not only come across as Chicken Little goofballs, it also hurts the short- and long-term growth of Las Vegas. If we don't stop Yucca Mountain today, we will win it tomorrow. If we don't win it in this generation, we will win it in the next. The positions we take and the rhetoric we employ as a community in opposition to the dump are important. We cannot afford to be swept up into an argument which produces the conclusion that we are headed for inevitable holocaust. That kind of brinksmanship is a bad tack for Nevada to take. Think about it. If, say, a Las Vegas homebuilder were to articulate and advocate the "we're-all-gonna-die" rhetoric, how can that homebuilder morally build and sell another home? If that were the position of the Nevada Development Authority or the Chamber of Commerce, how could they in good conscience court new businesses to relocate to the valley? What we can say is that Yucca Mountain is profoundly unfair. We can also say that the transportation of the waste is risky to many communities across the nation. And we can say that the whole idea of storing nuclear waste underground for tens of thousands of years is a crapshoot cloaked in scientific quackery. But, whatever we do, let's not say we're a community doomed. Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Review-Journal. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 27 New song from radio team parodies Yucca Mountain Project [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, January 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: Norm! The KOMP rock-jocks whose "Osama bin Laden Bomb Song" became an Internet phenomenon are mixing it up again. This time they're lighting up Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham for supporting the Yucca Mountain Project. Their song "Yucca Mountain," a parody done in reggae style, aired this week and "we hope it turns into a big roadblock," said "Sweet" Al Miller, a member of the morning team for KOMP-radio, FM 92.3. "We had to do our bit," said Miller, who also collaborated on the bin Laden song with colleagues Craig Williams, Andy Kaye and producer Douglas Marsh. The CD includes sound bites from Mayor Oscar Goodman, an outspoken critic of the plan to allow storage of the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The song includes the lyrics: "No thank you, Mr. Abraham, Nevada's not your trash can. "Cuz we'll have six-armed blackjack dealers, showgirls with three breasts, Siamese twin Elvis impersonators with glowing heads. "And you'll say `Sorry Nevada, about your tourist destination.' "The aliens will leave Area 51 cuz we bent over for the nation. "Senators Reid and Ensign say it won't come here without a fight. "Governor Guinn's not having it, what gives them the right?" Goodman gets mentioned here for going to bat for the cause, with a reference to brass anatomy. The Web site: funnysongs4U.com. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-18-Fri-2002/news/17882472.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-18-Fri-2002/news/17882472.html] ***************************************************************** 28 That was then, this is now: Yucca hypocrite Sununu forgets himself Friday, January 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: John L. Smith If Nevadans didn't have Yucca Mountain lobbyist John Sununu to kick around these days, we'd have to invent him. Sununu's recent remarks -- that if Nevadans weren't willing to accept the nuclear waste dump in the name of homeland security, then perhaps Americans should vacation elsewhere -- made him the object of the state's scorn on the controversial Yucca project. Fact is, Sununu maxed out on the hypocrisy meter with his homeland security gaffe. Back in 1986, shortly before Yucca was named the only site to be studied as a possible dump, Sununu -- then governor of New Hampshire -- criticized the Department of Energy's plan to bury high-level nuclear waste in his state. In a petition, the state asserted its fear: "An immediate negative impact on the state and its citizens has resulted from the tentative selection of a New Hampshire site." Among the biggest concerns: falling real estate values and depleted "economic prosperity," according to the Boston Globe. Back then, Sununu claimed the DOE was being unreasonable and argued that New Hampshire -- despite its vast, stable granite deposits and its use of nuclear power -- was an inappropriate dump site. HELLO, HARRY?: As a member of the House, Harry Reid served alongside then-Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York, a fellow Democrat. Now, as Nevada's senior senator, Reid is the point man for this state's underdog fight against the Yucca Mountain repository. Ferraro, however, is now a lobbyist for the project. "I can talk to her, but I'll bet she doesn't call me," Reid said. Have an item for the Bard of the Boulevard? E-mail comments and contributions to Smith@lvrj.com or call him at 383-0295. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 29 Spencer Abraham Says Yucca decision has not irreparably harmed relations with Nevada "Yucca Man" Pat Blankenship leans over his "radioactive waste" container, filled with dry ice and water, during a Nevada Democratic Party protest at the main entrance of the Tournament Hills subdivision. The group was protesting House Majority Leader Dick Armey's position as a supporter of nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. Armey was at a fund-raiser inside the gated community to benefit the Republican Party of Nevada. Photo by Amy Beth Bennett. Friday, January 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Energy secretary says he will continue to work with Nevada's elected officials By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Thursday sought to dispel any notion President Bush may have already decided to approve a nuclear waste repository in Nevada, saying Gov. Kenny Guinn asked for the call he received from White House political director Karl Rove about Yucca Mountain. Rove called Guinn on the morning of Jan. 10, shortly before Abraham notified the governor of his decision to recommend Yucca Mountain as the site of a nuclear waste repository. Some opponents of the Yucca Mountain Project have cited Rove's phone call as evidence the White House already has decided to approve Abraham's recommendation. Abraham is required to submit his recommendation to Bush after a 30-day waiting period. When asked about Rove's call, Abraham said, "The governor and I spoke. We had a meeting. One of the things he was interested in was talking to the White House, and I passed that along." Abraham met with Guinn on Jan. 7, shortly before the secretary toured Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Guinn could not be reached Thursday for comment. Guinn spokesman Greg Bortolin said he did not know if the governor asked for Rove's call. Rove did not tell the governor what Abraham's decision would be, Bortolin said. "It was just a courtesy heads up call," Bortolin said. Abraham answered questions about Yucca Mountain for the first time on Thursday following his Jan. 10 announcement. His remarks came during an impromptu news conference following an appearance at an event in the Teamsters building where he promoted the Bush administration's energy policy. Abraham said he does not think his Yucca Mountain recommendation has irreparably harmed his relationship with Nevada officials, most of whom have blasted his decision. "(The Energy Department is) one of the largest landlords in the state, and we have a lot of ongoing activities there," Abraham said. For example, Abraham said he is working with Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on possible expansion of counterterrorism training programs at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Ensign said he remains upset with Abraham's decision on Yucca Mountain, but will continue to work with the secretary because he must. "He is the secretary of Energy and the Energy Department has a large presence in our state," Ensign said. Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said Abraham's comments about continuing a working relationship are encouraging. Meanwhile, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Thursday called for Abraham to recuse himself from the Yucca Mountain Project because he accepted campaign contributions from the nuclear power industry when he served in the U.S. Senate. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said Abraham does not intend to recuse himself from the Yucca Mountain Project. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 30 Yucca: Report critical of groundwater monitoring plan As Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., listens at right, Citizen Alert Executive Director Kaitlin Backlund discusses a report Friday that criticizes the Department of Energy's strategy for monitoring groundwater at the Nevada Test Site. Photo by Clint Karlsen. Saturday, January 19, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Environmental group says public won't get adequate warning of pollution from test site By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Federal government plans for tracking contamination from hundreds of nuclear bomb blasts at the Nevada Test Site won't adequately warn the public of risks to the region's groundwater, a statewide environmental group stated Friday in a new study. The report, conducted by two University of Nevada, Las Vegas scientists for Citizen Alert, was embraced by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. She said it will give state officials more ammunition in their fight against the Department of Energy's plan to construct a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. "This will certainly be a part of the overall strategy," Berkley said at a news conference outside her Las Vegas office, where Citizen Alert officials released portions of the 90-page report. "It doesn't take a brain surgeon ... to realize that these two potential groundwater contamination (areas) are eventually going to collide." Yucca Mountain is a ridge of volcanic rock on the southwest edge of the test site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. On Jan. 10, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced his intention to recommend the site be developed into a repository. The mountain eventually would entomb some 77,000 tons of the nation's most lethal nuclear waste, mostly spent fuel from commercial power reactors. Berkley wrote Abraham in November, pointing out the potentially dangerous situation that would exist if nuclear waste was put in the path of uncontained, radiation-contaminated groundwater that scientists believe is moving through a 300-square-mile swath of the test site. She said the combined effects from waste at Yucca Mountain and the test site's existing contamination have the potential for violating federal radiation safety standards set for Yucca Mountain, in addition to making the test site a candidate for Superfund cleanup funding. Berkley said Friday she is asking "our beloved secretary of energy" to have federal scientists determine how the test site's contamination will affect groundwater at Yucca Mountain. She also wants more monitoring wells installed near Pahute Mesa to serve as an early warning system, as the new Citizen Alert report suggests. Such a move should help characterize at least one contamination plume to find out how big it is, how fast it is moving and what radioactive materials are in it, said physicist Dennis Weber, who co-authored the report with his UNLV colleague Earle Dixon. "Without that information, we don't know how to put up an early warning system," Weber said. Carl Gertz, director of test site environmental management for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a branch of the Energy Department, said his staff is concerned about contamination from nuclear tests, but they have no plans to characterize a plume as the report suggests. Other testing is planned where the plumes intersect, he said. He noted that if state environmental officials suggest characterizing a contamination plume "we would be open to it. We haven't excluded the possibility. It just isn't in our current plans today," Gertz said. He said federal scientists have installed 31 monitoring wells less than a half-mile from ground zero of some of the tests. "That has provided us lots of data. We believe it's important to understand the entire contributions of all the (nuclear test) shots and their cumulative effect on groundwater," he said. The report by Weber and Dixon, however, states the strategy Gertz's staff is following wouldn't produce a warning soon enough. And the goal to protect the public from contaminated groundwater with a carefully placed network of monitoring wells can't be accomplished without distinguishing at least one contamination plume. "We see the goal of providing an early warning to the public as a possibly urgent matter," states the report, which indicates the existing system has only a 28 percent chance of detecting contamination "at some time by any of the wells." "These wells were designed to obtain hydrological data, not to serve as an efficient early warning system," Weber and Dixon wrote. "Since contaminants already have been migrating for over 40 years, it does not make sense to wait until 2030 to finish installing an early warning system, as the DOE plans," they wrote. By characterizing a plume in the Pahute Mesa area, a subsequent system of a few early warning wells could be installed at strategic locations much sooner and at a fraction of the cost the Energy Department already has spent, the new report states. "After DOE has consumed over $200 million, we still don't have the basic information necessary to establish whether a plume will reach Oasis Valley in 12 or 500 years. Both predictions have been made in the past," the report said. "At about $2 million each, the cost of the wells to characterize one plume may be $24 million. To us, that is cheap for the information that would be gained when compared with the $200 million." The report's findings align with a key recent recommendation from a peer review of the federal scientists' work. Last week, that panel suggested Energy Department scientists determine where plumes of radioactive groundwater merge at the test site. The contamination stems from nuclear weapons tests conducted between 1957 and 1992. In all, there were 908 detonations at 878 different depths and locations in what Energy Department officials have identified as 828 below-ground nuclear tests. Scientists expect that tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, could be the first of long list of radionuclides to reach public drinking water supplies beyond the test site, although no radioactive remnants of the tests have been detected off site. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 31 Robert Dove to provide advice on nuclear issues On a billboard posted above Las Vegas Boulevard South and U.S. Highway 95, someone expresses an opinion about recent comments attributed to Yucca Mountain lobbyist John Sununu. Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor, said Americans should consider boycotting Las Vegas if Nevada doesn't accept the dump. The sponsor of the billboard was unknown. Photo by Saturday, January 19, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Ex-parliamentarian hired By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The state of Nevada has hired a former U.S. Senate parliamentarian to help stop legislation that would send nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Robert Dove, 63, is being paid $3,000 a month. He was hired Dec. 10. Dove is working with Joe Egan, founder of Egan &Associates, a McLean, Va.-based law firm that signed a $2.5 million contract with Nevada in September to provide advice on nuclear power issues. "He was recommended by the (Nevada congressional) delegation, and I wanted to have somebody available who really understood the detailed minutiae of Senate rules," Egan said. Bob Loux, head of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, said it was Sen. John Ensign's idea to hire Dove. Ensign, R-Nev., declined to be interviewed. "This isn't a strategy we're willing to talk about," he said through spokeswoman Sari Mann. "We just want to make sure that we have the strongest and best prepared team." Guinn spokesman Greg Bortolin said Dove was not hired to lobby but "was hired because of his expertise on congressional procedure." Dove, who lives in Virginia, was a 35-year Senate veteran who served as parliamentarian when Republicans controlled the chamber from 1981 through 1986 and from 1995 until May 2001. The parliamentarian is a key Senate official who advises members on rules and procedures. Dove was fired by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., in May after angering Republicans with a ruling on President Bush's budget. Dove ruled the Senate would need 60 votes to pass the president's budget because it included a special emergency fund. Dove's hiring by Nevada was first reported Thursday in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. The newspaper reported some GOP Senate aides were suggesting Dove took the Nevada job because he is seeking revenge against Lott and other GOP senators. "That's absurd," Dove said Friday. "First of all, the people who hired me are Senator (John) Ensign and Governor (Kenny) Guinn (both R-Nev.). A parliamentarian is not a partisan official. Senator Lott had a perfect right to put in a new parliamentarian if he wished." Calls to Lott's office were not returned. The Senate and House are expected to vote this year on a veto promised by Guinn against the Yucca Mountain Project. The veto would be issued if President Bush approves a recommendation by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It remains to be seen how Dove will work with Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., who also is considered a master of parliamentary rules in the Senate. "He would not be working on the Senate floor," Reid said Friday. "He would be advising the governor and Bob Loux and other people back in the state about what's going on." Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said Dove may not be of much help to Nevada in the upcoming debate on nuclear waste. "The only thing I can say is that the structure of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not allow for much debate once there has been a determination on a site (for a nuclear waste repository)," Singer said. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 32 Mike O'Callaghan: Politics, economics and death -- Yucca Mountain legacy Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 Mike O'Callaghan is executive editor of the Sun and publisher of the Henderson Home News, where this column first appeared. There is no link between promoting the dumping of deadly industrial nuke waste on Nevada and patriotism. The wealthy energy corporations that have used nuclear power to gain additional wealth were licensed by a government that had little foresight. The energy corporations presented no plans for handling the waste and neither did our government. Now both the government and the corporations have determined that, despite all of the related problems, Yucca Mountain is the place. So who are the people supporting this dumping on Nevada? Generally speaking, they are people who have made a living from some part of the nuclear business, plan to make money from it or are presently making big bucks from it. A large majority of Nevadans who love living in this area and are raising families don't want any part of having the waste, and all of its obvious problems, on their highways or deposited in a place that science hasn't been able to support. A close look at the statements of many nuke waste dump supporters will find some economic relationship, past, present or hopes in the future. This isn't true of all supporters, however; very notable are those who will be disappointed when there aren't big economic benefits. There is a possibility that just the opposite may haunt them and their neighbors, if the Yucca Mountain project becomes a reality. Writers who relate the project to politics are on target. It has become a political sham of the highest degree. Those who support the project oftentimes belittle the efforts of Nevada politicians who oppose it. Yet it is a political animal we are facing. Nevada office holders are reflecting the views and concerns of more than 70 percent of their constituents. In addition, most of them are also making every effort to protect us from this threatened tragedy becoming a reality. Supporters who see a good job, a pot of gold or lower taxes at the end of dump approval are dreaming. Ask the people of New Mexico about all of their profits from the government's waste isolation project in their state. What Yucca Mountain can do is provide not a dream but a possible economic and health nightmare. Oh, don't worry about the transportation of waste, the casks containing it are rocket and fire proof and are almost indestructible, we are told by the waste dumping promoters. Great, if that's the truth, then they will also be safe in the vicinity of the moneymaking power plants. Just put it safely in the casks and keep it in that area until a future use for the contents is determined. Don't try to sell Nevadans down the road with lies and false promises. Some of us have already experienced the lies of the DOE and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. Lie to us once, shame on you. If we allow you to get away with a second lie, shame on us. The sad part of this whole story is that both the energy producers and DOE know they are lying to us. When they get caught in a lie or can't meet their original promises to make it a safe project, they very conveniently change the rules and specifications and believe we are ignorant enough not to see through the charade. Now that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a man Michigan voters dumped from the U.S. Senate less than two years ago, will recommend Yucca Mountain to President Bush, it will be interesting to see what action the president will take. Even more important, we must ask, will he take action prior to the election of 2002 or will he repeat the stalling tactics used successfully in 2000 to have Nevadans give him a vital four electoral votes? With Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert praising the dumping on Nevada, it will be important who represents the state in the Congress next year. Yes, the whole Yucca Mountain project has been, and still is, a game of deceitful politics. It is politics of the worst kind, where big government and big business collaborate in a scheme to profit at the expense of a state with few electoral votes. Shame, shame on those who are willing to sacrifice both science and decency to gain even more money and political power. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Letter: Republicans started Yucca process rolling Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 In his Jan. 13 Sun column about the latest act in the Nevada nuclear ballet, Jon Ralston stated, "let's not forget our history -- Nevada never would have been singled out if it weren't for Democrats in 1987, including then-Senate Energy Chairman J. Bennett Johnston, the first to choose politics over science when he magically erased two other sites from consideration and focused all the attention for the ensuing decade and a half on Nevada." Mr. Ralston needs to dig deeper to find the actual root. The 1982 elections of U.S. Sen. Jacob "Chic" Hecht, R-Nev., and Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, R-Nev., provided the dump's critical mass, with Sen. Paul Laxalt, R-Nev., presiding as high priest. In 1983 Laxalt ordered Hecht and Vucanovich to adopt a "wait and see" attitude on the dumpsite. Washington, D.C., interpreted this to mean that Nevada public opinion was divided. The radioactive freight train started rolling west. Speaking to a Las Vegas service club in 1997, the man Hecht defeated, four-term Sen. Howard Cannon, D-Nev., expressed little hope for Nevada avoiding the dumpsite designation. Had he been re-elected, Cannon said, he could have stopped the nuke express in its tracks. ANDREW BARBANO Reno All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Columnist Jon Ralston: Daunting tasks for Guinn, Reid Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 Columnist Jon Ralston: Daunting tasks for Guinn, Reid Jon Ralston hosts the public affairs program "Face to Face" on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the Ralston Report. His column for the Sun appears on Sundays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@ vegas.com --- BEYOND ALL THE RHETORIC, the bluster, the tiresome John Sununu vilification, the unending search for the new Yucca Mountain angle by posturing pols, Nevada's hopes in the next chapter of its 20-year fight against nuclear waste depend on two men and only those two men. Yes, they are Nevada's most powerful politicians. But Gov. Kenny Guinn and Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid are about to be caught between the pincers of raised expectations and inexorable realities. Guinn put his credibility on the line -- along with other state Republicans -- when he praised George W. Bush during Campaign '00 for declaring he would decide the suitability of Yucca Mountain based on that pleasant-sounding but hollow determinant known as "sound science." Reid similarly invested his credibility last June when he induced Majority Leader Tom Daschle to announce authoritatively, "As long as we're in the majority, it's dead." So if Bush and Daschle mean what they said, the dump fight already is over and there's nothing to worry about. Bush knows that the General Accounting Report indicates that hundreds of scientific questions remain unresolved and, last time I looked, the Democrats controlled the Senate. But since politicians say what they really mean about as often as you can actually drive the speed limit on U.S. 95 during rush hour, perhaps no one should declare victory just yet. And that means first Guinn and then Reid have dicey tasks ahead. The timeline is simple: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will present his formal recommendation to Bush next month. There is no deadline for Bush to act, but most observers believe he will quickly rubber-stamp his Cabinet member's decision to try to dispose of the issue. Guinn has 60 days to veto Bush's recommendation and then Congress has 90 days to override or sustain the governor's action. So it's quite simple: Either Guinn persuades Bush to undo Abraham's recommendation or Reid has to stop the vote in the Senate. The House is run by nuclear dump supporters, so Rep. Jim Gibbons and Shelley Berkley have almost no chance to cobble together a majority to vote with Nevada. Guinn has said he plans to meet with Bush to try to persuade the president of the error of Abraham's ways. But consider what happens after such a sit-down. Yes, if Bush decides not to recommend Yucca Mountain, Guinn could become more popular than, say, Mayor Oscar Goodman. But if, as everyone expects, Bush rejects the governor's pleas, Guinn will be accused of being ineffectual. The best Guinn could hope for, it would seem, is for Bush to wait a little while (unlike Abraham), as if he were considering Guinn's arguments, before he acts to designate Yucca Mountain. This looks like a potential political disaster for Guinn -- although it is difficult for disasters to befall someone who has no opponent. But he has only himself to blame for burnishing Bush's dump credentials in 2000, just so the then-presidential candidate could be assured of Nevada's four electoral votes (he needed them, too, as it turned out). It's not that the governor isn't doing all he can under the circumstances. But these are circumstances he -- and his advisers who claim to be close to the Bush folks -- helped create. As for Reid, his problem may be worse. If Daschle can keep the matter from coming to the floor within 90 days -- he controls the Senate agenda -- he surely would do that, wouldn't he? Maybe. But what if the Senate parliamentarian rules that it's a resolution that must be voted on and can bypass the majority leader? Then, Daschle's hands would be tied. (This, and other parliamentary acts of legerdemain, are being vetted by both Reid's staff and consultants hired by Guinn.) If it comes to the floor, can Reid hold all of the Democrats who serve under him as majority whip? Doubtful. And then, and only then, The Third Man comes into play, the second half of Harry Ensign. Could Reid get enough Democrats and Ensign enough Republicans to get a majority to sustain Guinn's veto? Still unlikely. This has the same disastrous potential for Reid -- Senate powerhouse rolled by leader or Senate powerhouse can't stop the bill most inimical to his home state are not storylines he wants to read. And if that's how this plays out, what do the Nevada politicians do then? They will tout the state's legal options and the difficult Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process as the best hopes in the next chapter of the fight. But they will have a difficult time persuading the public that the end of this very repetitive and very depressing story is not nigh. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 Benjamin Grove: Sununu once fought against dump in New Hampshire Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 Benjamin Grove covers Washington, D.C. for the Sun. He can be reached at 202-628-3100, Ext. 269, or by email at grove@lasvegassun.com [grove@lasvegassun.com] . --- WASHINGTON -- HE WAS a governor battling a federal proposal to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste in his state. The voters who elected him opposed the idea, too. No one wanted radioactive spent fuel rods that had been spit out of nuclear plant reactors dumped in their back yard, left to decay over thousands of years. The state is a "clearly inappropriate" place to dump the deadly stuff, the governor said in a United Press International wire story. He pledged to "prepare the strongest possible case to make sure (the state) is not selected." By May 1986 the feds had backed off. And the governor, John Sununu of New Hampshire -- who is now a paid lobbyist pushing for a nuclear waste dump in Nevada -- was glad. In the mid-1980s Sununu's battle was actually with the Department of Energy over a second national nuclear waste dump site. Back then the Department of Energy was already mulling three sites for the nation's first dump: Yucca Mountain, Nev.; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Hanford, Wash. (In 1987 Congress deemed Yucca Mountain the most suitable site for further study.) Logically assuming that the first repository would fill up someday, the Department of Energy was also eyeing sites in 17 states, including New Hampshire, for a second dump. Nobody talks much about the need for a second repository anymore. Just getting the first repository constructed in Nevada has become a political, regulatory, legal and scientific nightmare for everyone involved. But before the DOE mostly abandoned the second-dump scenario in 1986, Sununu had launched a vigorous campaign to disqualify a granite site in southwestern New Hampshire. The radioactive waste would be stored too close to five state parks, five wildlife areas, seven state forests, one geologically significant site, not to mention the Franklin Pierce Mansion, Sununu said. "I believe I can make the strongest, most well-articulated, most credible case of any governor in the country," Sununu told the Associated Press in 1986. Sununu's crusade was the type of anti-dump campaign that people in Nevada know well. Nevada politicians have waged a similar battle for 20 years. So you might think Sununu would be sympathetic to Nevada, and his fellow Republican, Gov. Kenny Guinn. Instead, 16 years later, Sununu has become a hired gun for the nuclear industry. Last week Sununu became the man Nevadans most love to hate when he suggested that tourists nationwide might cancel trips to Nevada if the state didn't do its patriotic duty to bury the country's waste. Nevada officials roared. What about New Hampshire's patriotic duty? they asked. They faulted Sununu's logic. Why would visitors stop coming to Las Vegas if waste is not buried 90 miles northwest of the city? Nuclear waste dumps can't be good for tourism. And Sununu knows that. Sununu had said New Hampshire would make a bad dumpsite for lots of reasons. Among them: skiers, swimmers and foliage fanatics. Sununu said the DOE failed "to account for the seasonal rise in population in (New Hampshire) due to tourism," according to a 1986 wire story by States News Service in Washington. I wonder: When tourists realized that New Hampshire wouldn't be doing its "patriotic duty," did they stop traveling to the Granite State? All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 Analysis: Partisan politics could hurt efforts to halt Yucca Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 By Jeff German LAS VEGAS SUN Democratic and Republican elected leaders may stand united on the surface in their opposition to Yucca Mountain, but a growing partisan undercurrent in the fight threatens to disrupt that harmony and cause embarrassment to some of those leading the charge. At the moment, top Republicans -- Gov. Kenny Guinn, Sen. John Ensign and Rep. Jim Gibbons -- appear to have the most at stake politically as the Bush administration considers naming Yucca Mountain as the nation's high-level nuclear waste dump. "When it comes to stopping the Yucca Mountain project, the ball is decidedly in the Republicans' court," said Richard Urey, chief of staff for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Anybody who's waiting for a decision is looking into the eyes of the Republicans, not the Democrats, because you've got a Republican president who has to make the decision." Guinn, Ensign and Gibbons have been assigned the daunting task of persuading President Bush to reject the pro-Yucca Mountain recommendation of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a former Republican senator aligned with the energy industry. They're hoping to schedule a meeting with the president soon. Mike Dayton, Gibbons' chief of staff, acknowledges that Republicans are under the gun as Abraham sends his recommendation to Bush in the coming days. "A lot of the responsibility with the president rests on the shoulders of the Republicans," Dayton said "He promised us in a letter that sound science would be the factor that decides where nuclear waste is stored. We're all hopeful that the president will stick to his promise and side with science." Bush made the "sound science" pledge during his 2000 campaign. It earned him Nevada's four electoral votes, the margin that put him over the top in his narrow victory over former Vice President Al Gore. Most Democratic leaders expect Bush, who like Abraham has ties to the energy industry, will go along with the recommendation to store the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But they're trying not to paint the president into a corner. "It looks to me like the die has been cast in terms of the president's decision," said former Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., a strong Yucca Mountain opponent. "But hope springs eternal." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., though he's as realistic as anyone, has gone as far as publicly suggesting that Bush might overrule Abraham. That would certainly make Reid's job in the Senate easier. As the Senate's assistant majority leader, he has said he'll have an uphill battle stalling Yucca Mountain in Congress if the president backs the proposal. Privately, Reid's aides and others within the Democratic Party already are setting the stage for additional partisan drum-beating after Bush likely sides with Abraham. They're putting out the forceful spin that Bush will be breaking his promise to Nevadans if he listens to the energy secretary. And that, they say, will lead to dire political consequences for Nevada Republicans. Much of their argument revolves around a recent General Accounting Office report that urged the Energy Department to put off declaring Yucca Mountain suitable to store the deadly waste because the department is years away from having enough scientific data to come to that conclusion. Some Republicans are acknowledging that the Bush administration's handling of Yucca Mountain may hurt the chances of their congressional candidates this year. And Democrats are predicting the fallout could spread to Guinn, a popular governor seeking his second term in office. Some wishful thinkers within the Democratic Party are suggesting that Guinn, having already been embarrassed by the Bush administration, should bolt from the Republicans and become an independent to hammer home his loyalty to Nevadans. But no one really believes that will happen, and Guinn scoffs at the suggestion, saying he has no intention of leaving the GOP. Then there's talk among Democrats that a Bush recommendation in favor of Yucca Mountain could help the party find that formidable candidate they've been searching for to run against Guinn this year. No one, however, has surfaced so far. Bryan, meanwhile, said there's little question in his mind that the White House handled the Yucca Mountain issue in a very "clumsy" manner. Guinn first got the news that Abraham was going to make the recommendation from Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser. "That strikes me as incredibly inept," Bryan said. "That married Bush to the Abraham decision before it even reached his desk." At the same time, he said, Abraham was crass in making the recommendation just two days after visiting Yucca Mountain for the first time. "It was so transparent," Bryan said. "Frankly, they've treated our governor shabbily." But Guinn has done a great job in leading the opposition and isn't likely to lose any ground in his re-election bid, Bryan said. "In my view the governor has been out front on this issue," Bryan said. "He's been terrific in terms of raising money in the state's effort to fight the program." Guinn persuaded the Nevada Legislature to set aside $4 million in the fight, and he has gotten another $1.2 million from local governmental entities. He's also gearing up to mount a fund-raising drive in the private sector. One well-known gaming company, Station Casinos Inc., already has committed to donating money to the cause, and others are expected to follow, Guinn said. As Guinn and the Republicans prepare to take their case to Bush, Democratic officeholders are working other fronts. Reid is pumping up the national media, trying to take advantage of the stepped-up interest in Yucca Mountain because of Abraham's recommendation. And Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman is reaching out to the mayors of other cities along the waste shipment routes to Yucca Mountain. The goal is to win over as many allies as possible in other states. Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, the state's Yucca Mountain watchdog, is looking for help from both parties. "It seems to me we're in a position now that we really all have to work together," he said. "Clearly there's a role for the Republicans, not only with the White House but with people on Capitol Hill. And certainly there's a role for the Democrats with the majority leader of the Senate in concert with Harry Reid." That may be true. But the reality of politics could very well complicate that strategy. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 37 CA: Under-review waste pit toured bakersfield.com - Local News By KERRY CAVANAUGH, Californian staff writer e-mail: kcavanaugh@bakersfield.com Friday January 18, 2002, 11:07:24 PM From the window of a school bus, a panel of elected leaders and environmental regulators got a glimpse of the hazardous waste landfill they're reviewing in a rare environmental hearing. The tour of the Safety-Kleen Buttonwillow facility was the culmination of round two in a hearing on the air and water quality issues surrounding the hazardous waste disposal site. A handful of Buttonwillow residents have charged Safety-Kleen's land-use permit doesn't adequately protect people working or living near the site. During the Friday site tour, Safety-Kleen General Manager Marianna Buoni described to the hearing board members the facility's safety procedures, from landfill construction to testing incoming waste. Materials are tested before they're sent to the site, when they arrive and before they're dumped in the landfill, according to Safety-Kleen. The landfill is built with two separate layers of 3-foot-thick clay liners, two layers of synthetic liners and two layers of liquid collection systems. Monitors keep tabs on the aquifers and air quality on site. Along with the hearing board and attorneys, three Kern County residents joined the tour. Safety-Kleen became a household name in 1999 when community groups, legislators and the state scrutinized a shipment of radioactive materials from a New York plant that manufactured uranium during World War II. The state later said there was no known health or safety risk to nearby communities, and legislative inquiries fizzled. Two residents on the tour Friday were most concerned about the New York materials and other shipments of "man-made radioactive waste". Linda MacKay said she was curious to see what the landfill looked like. While the tour answered some of her questions regarding monitoring the site, she still has overriding concerns about the safety of dumping radioactive materials. "I have a strong interest in protecting the health and well-being of residents of the valley," MacKay said. Safety-Kleen spokesman John Kyte said the levels of radioactivity in the New York materials are no different from the levels in the oil-field sludges dumped there. Friday's site visit was requested by the hearing board reviewing Safety-Kleen's land-use permit. It was a chance to see firsthand the facility described in thousands of legal documents. The hearing began in November after a legal battle in which a judge ordered the hearing board convened. Buttonwillow residents had tapped into a rarely used 1986 law that allows residents to challenge land use decisions on hazardous-waste facilities. The hearing board returned to Bakersfield this week, but meeting times are limited because the board is made of up four elected officials from around the state and three top staffers from environmental agencies. The hearing's third round will take place in March. Copyright © 2002, The Bakersfield Californian ***************************************************************** 38 Yucca: Nuclear Booby Prize (washingtonpost.com) By Mary McGrory Sunday, January 20, 2002; Page B07 It's early, yes, but it may already be time to award the Leaden-Footed Lobbyist award for the year. Who can expect to outdo John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire, who has been retained by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to coax the state of Nevada to accept other states' nuclear garbage, and who has issued a wraparound insult-injury to the state guaranteed to infuriate just about everybody? Sununu told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that if Nevada didn't do its patriotic duty, the country should vacation elsewhere. "He's probably helped us," chuckled the leader of the opposition, Nevada's senior senator and the Senate's Democratic whip, Harry Reid. "The big klutz." Lecturing another state on its patriotic duty is hazardous, particularly if it's Nevada, with its painful history of nuclear tests and its record number of military bases. But assuming that Nevada doesn't know anything is even worse. Nevada, after all, has been resisting the repository for decades and is quite familiar with the fact that Sununu, as governor of New Hampshire and a nuclear power fan, fought like a tiger to keep the toxic waste out of the White Mountains. Then, the argument made was political. If the federal repository came to the Granite State, it would bring endless contention about nuclear power with it. New Hampshire's Seabrook nuclear plant was a subject of bitter argument among environmentalists and academics from the moment it went on line. Sununu and his confederates argued that it would swamp all other issues in the state's presidential primary, which is always the nation's first, something that would not be good for nuclear power or the state. Nevadans have no such political tool handy. Two million people and four electoral votes gets no respect. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's announcement that Nevada had won the booby prize was expected. Even the lead lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Las Vegas, former governor Bob List, says he wishes the radioactivity would go elsewhere. He concentrates on what he calls "Plan B": acceptance of what can't be avoided and lining up job opportunities from the project. George Bush can accept or reject Abraham's recommendation. He is expected to be for it. He and Vice President Dick Cheney are gung-ho for nuclear power, which has been in eclipse since well-publicized incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Cheney declines to share with the public the deliberations that led to the energy policy that passed the House. Reid, a former gambling commissioner in Nevada, reckons his chances of stopping the government from stuffing Yucca Mountain with nuclear waste that remains toxic for 10,000 years at no better than 40 percent. A natty, indefatigable expediter of Senate business, he is wired with his colleagues, but the legislation was written with a pen dipped in inevitability. Yucca Mountain is the only possible site. Filibuster is out, fast track is in, which means no amendments. In the House, chances of defeating Yucca are dim. A recent pro-nuclear vote on the Price-Anderson Act showed which way the wind was blowing. Almost casually, the House voted to extend a giant break for nuclear energy. "In the case of a major nuclear accident," says Anna Aurilio of U.S. Public Interest Research Group, "the nuclear industry gets a federal guarantee of limited liability." Sept. 11 is cited by both sides in the Yucca Mountain showdown. Abraham said the calamity highlighted the urgent need to concentrate nuclear waste in one facility. But Reid emphasizes the perils of transporting 77,000 tons of waste currently stored at the nation's nuclear plants. It would provide target practice for terrorists, he says. One hundred thousand trucks would be required, and 20,000 trains. Reid was encouraged recently by visits to Denver and St. Louis. Both passed local ordinances against nuclear-bearing trains or trucks using their rails or streets. The fight over the mountain promises to make the issue of drilling in Alaska seem a Sunday school picnic. John Sununu's presence alone would ensure it. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 39 Judge requires company to guarantee security of radioactive waste By Associated Press, 1/18/2002 19:11 BOSTON (AP) A judge on Friday ordered a company that is storing at least 3,800 barrels of radioactive waste to maintain security at the site. Attorney General Thomas Reilly sought the temporary restraining order against Starmet Corp. in Suffolk Superior Court. Starmet, formerly known as Nuclear Metals Inc., made depleted uranium armor-piercing bullets for the U.S. Army at the site until 1999. The state is also seeking an injunction requiring Starmet to place $750,000 in a fund for cleanup of the site. Both sides will return to court Jan. 25, when Reilly's office will seek a preliminary injunction. According to the state's complaint, Starmet said it would continue to operate the facility until June 30, after which the state and local government would be responsible for the facility. The state said it was concerned that Starmet would shut down the facility if its proposal was not accepted. Reilly said the company was using this position as a ''bargaining chip'' to avoid complying with the state's requests that it transfer the money into the cleanup fund. A message left with a Starmet official late Friday was not immediately returned. Last week the state sought an injunction ordering Starmet to remove the 3,800 drums of waste, and prohibiting any future storage of radioactive waste at the facility. The company has been involved in an ongoing fight over the cost of cleaning the Concord site, charging that the Army should be responsible for the cleanup. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also responsible for assuring the cleanup of areas of the facility. The site has been added to the agency's Superfund list, which guarantees federal funds for the cleanup. ***************************************************************** 40 Contaminated plume larger than believed The Hawk Eye Newspaper January 18, 2002 By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye • Tests show a point south of Skunk River contains toxic chemical. A plume of explosives-contaminated water south of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant apparently extends slightly further south than thought, the plant's citizen advisory panel was told Thursday. Kevin Howe, IAAP project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said a sampling of groundwater, taken a few hundred feet south of the Skunk River about half a mile west of 390th Street, was found to be contaminated with RDX at levels considered unsafe for drinking over a long period of time. Howe said it was "a small surprise" to find the contamination south of the river, but it is "very isolated, very small." "We had hoped that we wouldn't find anything over there, but we did," said Rodger Allison, IAAP environmental projects director. The water sample, taken north of the levee, 300 to 400 feet from the banks of the river, was from 50 to 60 feet beneath the surface. Samples taken west, south and east of that site were clean, Howe said. IAAP cleanup crews are attempting to map the plume of water that was contaminated by explosives that have leached off the plant grounds over the decades. Howe previously told the Restoration Advisory Board that the scope of the plume had been narrowed to an area that extends 5 to 6 miles from the extreme northeast corner of the plant, across U.S. 61 to Skunk River. Much of the middle of that corridor likely is not contaminated, although the southern portion, at 20 to 60 feet below the surface, contains RDX contamination at levels 10 to 20 times what is considered safe to drink over a long period of time. The northernmost portion of the approximately mile-wide corridor has not been tested, but is believed to be generally free of contamination. Residents in the area have been connected to the Rathbun water system. More test wells will be drilled south of the river, Howe said. He said Brush Creek is thought to be the conduit for much of the contamination that leached off the plant and settled 20 to 60 feet below the surface. In another matter, Howe said a radiological screening of soil samples being tested for chemical contamination on Line 1, where nuclear weapons were once assembled and their components test-fired, found no levels of radiation above naturally occurring background levels. However, Howe said the screening was not an intensive hunt for radioactive materials; it was only to assure that the chemical testers and lab personnel were not being exposed to radioactive materials. Shards and large chunks of depleted uranium have been discovered at a firing site on Line 1. Those areas of the plant used by the Atomic Energy Commission are to be examined for radioactive waste under a separate Corps of Engineers program in the coming months. Howe also said thousands of cubic yards of soil contaminated by barium and other heavy metals have been treated successfully at a cost much less than expected. Howe said about 6,000 cubic yards of soil were treated to lower the barium contamination to safe levels. He said cost of the treatment had been estimated at $100 a cubic yard, but ended up costing about $20 a cubic yard, or $120,000. RAB members also discussed hiring a uninvolved third party to help them understand the technology involved in a possible flyover or other "scoping" of the IAAP grounds for radioactive contamination. State officials, including Gov. Tom Vilsack and the state's two U.S. senators, Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley, have called for a low-level flyover of the plant to hunt for possible radioactive contamination left from AEC operations. The Army and the Environmental Protection Agency have resisted, insisting such a flyover is not needed and would not accomplish what its proponents say it would. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 41 Running again, Whitfield to check on cleanup delay The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Saturday, January 19, 2002 By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 BARKLEY THIELEMAN/The Sun Announcement in Paducah: U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield talks with Carlisle County farmer Wayne Wilson at Whitfield’s re-election announcement in Paducah. After stumping the 1st District to announce his bid for a fifth term, U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield plans to return to the nation's capital Monday to find out more about why a long-sought, job-creating project to clean up Paducah uranium enrichment plant waste is delayed once again. Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, said he has not been in Washington, D.C., since the anticipated announcement of a waste-conversion contractor was abruptly canceled Tuesday. The Department of Energy has been mum on the delay, reportedly because the Office of Management and Budget, the financial arm of Congress, has reservations about the cost and scope of the project. "What I suspect is that the OMB is dragging its feet on the cost of it," Whitfield said in a brief interview. "We have some connections, and we hope to get this thing going again." DOE had planned to announce the winning bidder to build plants in Paducah and Piketon, Ohio, to convert uranium hexafluoride waste into safer material. Each community would gain about 150 jobs lasting roughly 25 years, plus potential economic growth if the material could be used commercially. Gaining legislation for the conversion plants is one of the trump cards of Whitfield's re-election campaign, announced Friday in stops in Paducah, Murray and other western Kentucky cities. His gathering at the Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center had about 50 supporters, including four who spoke. David Fuller, former president of the Paducah plant's energy workers union, praised Whitfield for his efforts to get the conversion project, keep the plant open, compensate sick nuclear workers and more than double annual plant cleanup money to about $110 million. In making his announcement, Whitfield said he was not surprised at the conversion project delay, one of many during the past three years, because "there have been people in the Department of Energy that have been opposing this all along." Other speakers were Paducah businessman Billy Harper on Whitfield's work for small businesses and economic development; Carlisle County farmer Wayne Wilson on the congressman's backing of agriculture; and Kay Travis of the Paducah Community College Foundation Board on his getting $1.4 million for the Challenger Center. Whitfield noted his accomplishments on issues such as health care, education, agriculture, energy and small-business development. He pledged work to strengthen the military, make health care more affordable, establish a prescription drug benefit for seniors and continue work "to restore financial discipline to the federal government." ***************************************************************** 42 UK: Ships got lost while dumping nuclear waste The Times FRIDAY JANUARY 18 2002 BY MELISSA KITE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT MERCHANT ships sent to dump plutonium off the Cornish coast got lost and were unsure of their location when they released their radioactive cargo, newly released government documents show. Archives kept secret for 30 years also disclose that during one dump in 1969 a glass container containing nuclear waste cracked and the crew of a ship were exposed to potentially lethal radiation. The incidents are contained in Atomic Board archives released by the Public Record Office, under the terms of the Official Secrets Act. The papers show a large-scale dumping of civilian and military nuclear waste 250 miles west of Land’s End between 1965 and the early 1980s. The dumping was sub-contracted to mariners with little experience in handling potentially lethal waste. Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, who discovered the documents, urged ministers to disclose whether the containers were being monitored and whether their location was known. The merchant vessel involved in the 1969 incident was named as the MV Topaz. A full flask of nuclear waste cracked and contaminated the deck of the ship. The flasks had been made of glass, despite the fact that plastic was shown to be a safer method of storage. The decision to use glass was taken because of concerns that the flasks should not float to the surface of the sea and cause public alarm. Evidence recorded by Greenpeace last year in the Hurd Deep, off the French coast, showed how quickly such barrels could disintegrate. The records show that there was more than one accident on the Topaz. During one incident barrels fell over the side and had to be “pierced” so that they would sink. An investigation by a C.M. Nichols into causes of the contamination incident on the Topaz in 1969 reads: “The disposal operations began early in the afternoon of 23rd July 1969 and were impeded by poor weather conditions. “The dumping operation was completed, however, in the afternoon of 28th July 1969 after significant contamination was found.” Mr George said: “It appears that the agencies involved at the time were more concerned about public relations than they were about safety.” The papers show that several vessels became lost because of navigation problems during the dumping missions and that some may have been unsure about their location at the point of off-loading the waste. While making clear that there was no suggestion of any present threat to marine or human life, Mr George said it was vital for the Government to give detailed assurances about the current state of the waste and to make sure that it was all accounted for. In a series of parliamentary questions, Mr George urged Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to make clear how long the isotopes would remain radioactive and what efforts had made to monitor the condition and safety of the waste. Last night Defra said it had no plans to undertake any monitoring. A spokesman said: “The Government funds extensive environmental monitoring of the waters around the UK, and this has not detected any adverse effects which could be attributed to radioactivity from the Atlantic disposal sites.” Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 43 Study critical of DOE monitoring of radioactive water Las Vegas SUN January 18, 2002 LAS VEGAS (AP) - A new study accuses the Department of Energy of failing to monitor groundwater contaminated with radiation from underground nuclear experiments. "The DOE has spent over $200 million of taxpayer money and still does not have the basic information necessary to establish whether contaminated groundwater is migrating outside the boundaries of the Nevada Test Site," said Kaitlin Backlund, executive director of Citizens Alert, which sponsored the study. The environmental group strongly opposes locating a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in the Test Site. Members of group and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., held a news conference Friday to publicize results of the study, released a day earlier. The study focuses on Pahute Mesa in the northwest corner of the Test Site. The mesa was the site of 82 underground nuclear blasts from 1957 through 1992, some of them equal to 1 million tons of TNT. "We do not claim to have produced 'the truth' with respect to the early-warning network scenario, but we claim to have sufficient evidence to support the argument that DOE has never tried to characterize, and therefore, to understand, the contamination from about 82 underground detonations beneath Pahute Mesa," the report said. The test site's boundary is 17 miles northeast of Oasis Valley. In 1993 a DOE report said water contaminated with radiation could reach the valley in 30 years. Berkley, who has called for a cleanup of contaminated groundwater at the site, said the DOE has not considered the combined radiation produced from the weapons tests and waste buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. "This underlines in a dramatic way the dangers of storing high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain," Berkley spokesman Michael O'Donovan told the Las Vegas Sun on Thursday. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has recommended to President Bush that 77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste from around the country be stored at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Hydrologist and report author Dennis Weber of the Harry Reid Environmental Research Center says the DOE has failed to sample 268 underground bomb cavities to determine how far and how fast radiation is moving in the groundwater. "Information from a single plume could tell the DOE whether the contamination is wide, narrow or scattered," he said. Since the DOE would know the date of the experiment, it could track how fast the radiation is moving, he said. It was the second report in two weeks that has been critical of DOE efforts to dig a series of wells that would warn people in nearby rural communities when contaminated water leaves the Test Site. On Jan. 9, scientists for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the Institute for Regulatory Science said the DOE hasn't collected enough information to sufficiently track groundwater contamination. The DOE had no comment on the latest study, spokesman Kevin Rohrer said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 44 Sellafield to test nuclear land storage The Norway Post - Doorway to Norway 18. Januar 2002 The company which operates the British nuclear reposession plant at Sellafield will test the possibility of storing the radioactive material Technetium-99 on land. Today the radioactive pollutant is released diretly into the sea. Spokesman for the company, Jamie Reed, says to the newspaper Sunnmoersposten that one reason for looking into the possibility of land storage is political pressure from Norway. Norway has officially protested to the British authorities over the radioactive emissions from the Sellafield plant, traces of which have been found along the Norwegian coast. The Norwegian Parliament's standing committee for energy and the environment is leaving for Britain on Sunday. The delegation will both visit the Sellafield plant and have discussions with the British authorities concerned with the environment. -This is the first positive signal we have had in a long time, in our work to stop these emissions, Norwegian Minister for the Environment, Boerge Brende says. (Aftenposten) Rolleiv Solholm ***************************************************************** 45 Welcome to the Danger State Pahrump Valley Times Content Sunday 20 January, 2002 By: HENRY BREAN, Managing EditorJanuary 18, 2002 "With the proper spin, the Silver State could turn a potential black eye into a real draw." I was on vacation in Tucson, Ariz., last week when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced his intention to recommend the construction of a radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. After years of covering the story from just down the street, it was odd to see it come to a head from 450 miles away. I was anchored in rump-numbing, afternoon rush-hour traffic - Tucson city planners are actually part of a fringe religious sect that does not believe in freeways - when I heard the news on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." And as a proud survivor of dozens of Yucca Mountain meetings, I immediately noted several large mistakes in the NPR story. For example, Yucca Mountain is not, as the report stated, "eight miles north of Las Vegas." (That would be something, wouldn't it? Just imagine how much louder the protests would be if the Department of Energy planned to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in, say, Summerlin. The entire Bush Cabinet would be run down by an army of angry retirees in golf carts.) My first thought upon hearing the news was this: Did the story break early enough on Thursday to make Friday morning's PVT? Sad but true. I'm a newspaper reporter, and that's how newspaper reporters think. My second thought: Here we go. From now, this fight will be waged in the open. After two decades and roughly $7 billion, federal officials can no longer claim to be "merely studying the idea" of a Yucca Mountain repository. They mean to build this thing, and now they have to fill us in on such minor details as what, how and for how much. Only the timing of Abraham's announcement caught me off guard. I just didn't expect it to come when it did, so soon after DOE's recent series of public hearings in Nevada and the secretary's first-ever visit to the site. But I wasn't surprised by what Abraham had to say. No one was. In truth, Abraham's decision to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President was perhaps the least surprising political revelation since Sen. Strom Thurmond finally announced his retirement at the age of 138. Here's what happens next: After the required 30-day waiting period, Abraham will forward his recommendation to the President, who will recommend Yucca Mountain to Congress. Exactly one second later, Gov. Guinn, the Nevada Legislature or both will file an official notice of disapproval (and possibly arrange in secret to have Abraham wake up with the head of a wild burro in his bed). Finally, after no more than 90 days, Congress will negate the notice of disapproval with a joint resolution passed over the vociferous protests of the Nevada delegation, thus cementing the image of the nation's nuclear garbage being forcibly crammed into Nevada's trash hole. Thanks for coming. Be sure to tip your waitress. It will be followed by lawsuits and protests and other attempts to block the project, but trust me, the minute the ink dries on that joint resolution, the fight is over. Opponents of Yucca Mountain might just as well sue the sun for setting. Roughly one decade later, the repository will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and open for business. Rather than prolong the inevitable, I think Nevada residents would be better off trying to capitalize on the state's newfound status as the nation's dumping ground. After all, with the proper spin, the Silver State could turn a potential black eye into a real draw. The first move is for Nevada to junk that old motto and reinvent itself as the Danger State. If you think about it, we're already most of the way there now, thanks to a half-century of nuclear testing, easy access to some of the least healthy lifestyle choices available, and a reputation as the place where sin is in and anything goes. You got something nasty you don't want in your backyard anymore? Dump it here. You want to smoke whatever, whenever and wherever you want? We've got a light. You like to rub your body with a stick of butter and lay out in the blazing sun for six hours a day? You won't believe our weather. Got a craving for a greasy, 6,000-calorie breakfast at 3 a.m.? That'll be 99 cents. You feel like pouring mixed drinks directly onto your liver until it's hard enough to drive nails? All it takes is a roll of quarters and a seat at the bar. It's all about niche marketing. For example, extreme sports are popular these days. What better place than Nevada for all your sky-surfing, rock-climbing and dirt-bike-jumping needs? For good measure, our Legislature promises to repeal or reject any law concerning helmets, seatbelts, or a maximum speed limit. We'd prefer you didn't drink and drive, but we're not going to get all preachy about it. And if your dream is to ride your motorcycle naked down the wrong side of the road at 100 mph and shoot bottle rockets at desert tortoises, who are we to stand in your way? All it will take is some creative thinking and the right advertising campaign. I can almost see the billboards now. They will picture a naked, deeply tanned model smoking a cigarette and sipping a cocktail. The model will be riding a bucking desert bighorn sheep down the middle of Las Vegas Boulevard. The caption will read: "Everyone dies eventually. Why not do it in Nevada?" ©Pahrump Valley Times 2002 ***************************************************************** 46 Uranium Plant Spill Raises Alarm in Australia January 20, 2002 By BECKY GAYLORD SYDNEY, Australia, Jan. 19 — A uranium processing plant in southwestern Australia that is owned by an American company has had a series of accidents involving radioactive material, the South Australia state government said this week. The plant, run by Heathgate Resources, a unit of the American company General Atomics, is at the Beverley uranium mine, about 340 miles north of Adelaide. It has been in operation for less than two years. A government briefing memo marked "urgent" described the most recent accident. As the plant was being shut down for maintenance on the night of Jan. 11, intake pumps continued to operate. Pressure built up, which ruptured a pipe and splashed 16,000 gallons of radioactive fluid around the plant. A small amount of the liquid flowed under a fence and onto a road that ringed the plant. There were no injuries, both the company and the state government said. State officials, who said they were reviewing their reporting policies, said there had been 24 previous spills at the site. Three were larger than 500 gallons, but the state's minerals and energy minister had not been told of any of the accidents previously because they were classified as minor by inspectors. The most recent spill drew attention to the fact that there is no mandatory public notification of radioactive liquid spills, said the state treasurer, Rob Lucas, standing in for the minerals and energy minister, Wayne Matthew, who was on vacation when the spill occurred. The plant remains shut down. With a state election just a few weeks away, the accident has focused attention on this mineral-rich nation's struggle to strike a balance between encouraging lucrative uranium production and protecting the environment. Australia is the second-largest producer of uranium, after Canada, and exports more than 20 percent of all uranium mined, according to government data. That proportion could grow because the country has almost one-third of world reserves of uranium, which is used to produce nuclear energy. Several of the mines, however, are near ecologically sensitive areas. The deposits at Beverley, which are extracted by pumping a sulphuric acid solution into the ground and leaching out the uranium, sit near a huge underwater lake called the Great Artesian Basin. Monitoring these mines has been left to the states so far, but some Labor Party members contend that the national government should have a role. The Ranger uranium mine, owned by Energy Resources Australia, the third-largest uranium producer in the world, is surrounded by the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, a designated World Heritage area. That plant also uses acid leaching. Yet the state's environmental protection agency does not have formal monitoring procedures for uranium production, nor does any department of the federal government. Rather, the job largely rests with the state's chief mining inspector, who is informed of spills and judges whether to pass the information on to the radiation protection branch in the state health department or to the energy minister. Heathgate Resources contends that it is held to strict reporting procedures, and that it abides by them. "This is the most regulated industry in the country," said Stephen Middleton, a vice president. He insisted that the company reported all spills. "We're talking about low levels of radioactive solutions," he said. "The people who understand the process are making the decision that this is of no consequence; no need to wake the minister up and tell him." Only the largest and most recent of the spills contained dissolved uranium, Mr. Matthew said on Wednesday, and that was why it was the only one referred to him. Still, a General Atomics executive, James J. Graham, who is also president of Heathgate Resources, traveled to the Beverley mine from the company's Denver office after the accident was disclosed. Heathgate has promised to remove the contaminated soil from areas inside and outside the plant, the government briefing memo said, and dispose of it in approved contaminated waste areas. The company would also build an earthen dike around the plant to stop any liquid from escaping the site in the future, it said. David Blight, executive director of the state's minerals and energy resources office, said his inspectors had looked at the site since the spill. "Our view here is that there's been no damage to the environment," he said in an interview. Mr. Blight's office, however, is the lead agency trying to bring about mineral and petroleum exploration and development in the state. Its operations include actively seeking investors for these industries and luring companies that would provide income to the state. Those goals, critics charge, clash with a monitoring role. John Hill, the state environment spokesman for the opposition Labor Party, said mining had always been a sacred cow in Australia. Planning laws that would apply to any other development did not apply to mining, he said. "The minister has huge executive powers," he said. "It's just a bit too cozy at the moment." Conservation groups concur. "Any industrial operation is going to have leaks and spills," said David Sweeney, of the Australian Conservation Foundation. "The problem with this is that the product is radioactive." With the election coming up on Feb. 9, the Labor Party, which is perceived as being stronger on environmental issues than the Liberal Party, the governing party at the national and state levels, is seizing the opportunity to criticize accountability and openness across the board on energy projects. The most recent accident, Mr. Hill said, raises the question of what has been going on at other sites. After the review, he said, "we may well find that it's par for the course — it might be industry standard." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 47 Plutonium decisions near, lawmaker says [charlotte.com] Published Friday, January 18, 2002 NUCLEAR WASTE DEBATE Hodges still skepticalWashington will fundprocessing plant fully Associated Press COLUMBIA -- South Carolina's struggle to keep plutonium shipments from entering the state soon could be resolved, according to U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham. Key issues involving federal money for a processing facility at the Savannah River Site and a commitment by federal officials not to permanently store plutonium there may be addressed in the next two weeks, said Graham, R-S.C., of Seneca.. But Gov. Jim Hodges remains skeptical. He said he wants to be sure money is available, that a clear strategy to remove the plutonium is in place and that the government agrees to take over the material if the program fails. "While some progress has been made, I still have not seen a plan that meets those needs and until we see one, there's no resolution," Hodges said. Plutonium processing in South Carolina means SRS, south of Aiken, would stay open longer and add to environmental concerns. It also has impact elsewhere. Workers in Colorado are trying to meet a 2006 deadline to clean and shut down the federal government's Rocky Flats facility by packaging tons of plutonium for shipment to SRS. The processing of radioactive material also is tied to a disarmament agreement between the United States and Russia. Both nations have agreed to build facilities to turn nuclear weapons pits into fuel. Hodges is concerned the plutonium shipped to SRS will simply be stored there. He has threatened to lie down in front of trucks carrying plutonium if they don't commit to permanent storage elsewhere. Graham said decisions will be made soon. President Bush's budget proposal is to be released Feb. 4, and a U.S. Department of Energy report on government plans to dispose of plutonium at Savannah River is due to Congress Feb. 1. Graham said he expects Bush's budget to include at least $300million toward building three facilities at Savannah River to reprocess plutonium. The facilities are expected to cost at least $2billion. The state does not need a formal promise in writing because new money in Bush's budget will show the government plans to commit to the program, Graham said. But Hodges said he's not willing to trust the federal government just because it provides funding this year. "We have had promises broken before," Hodges said. "I didn't fall off the cabbage truck." Environmentalists are concerned with safe storage at the site. Don Moniak of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League said the Savannah River Site has almost a ton of plutonium left from its production days and does not have safe storage facilities for the amount that will be coming. ***************************************************************** 48 Group demands radiation records January 19, 2002, in the Akron Beacon Journal. Akron activists want agencies to come clean over toxic waste dump BY [bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com] Beacon Journal staff writer An Akron-based organization has accused three federal agencies of withholding public information concerning radiation at a now-closed toxic waste dump in Uniontown. The Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee filed a lawsuit late Thursday in U.S. District Court in Akron against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Army and the Department of Energy. The Friends Service , a Quaker social action organization, wants additional information from the agencies on radiation at the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill off Cleveland Avenue Northwest in Stark County. The suit charges that the agencies have illegally withheld requested documents, failed to conduct adequate searches for records or failed to respond to the Friends Service Committee's Freedom of Information Act requests filed in 2000 and 2001. All the requested documents concern radiation that may have been disposed of in the Uniontown dump, a federal Superfund site. The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Dowd. The federal agencies have not seen the suit and are unable to comment on it, said EPA spokesman William Omohundro in Chicago. Greg Coleridge, a spokesman for the Friends Service Committee, said the public has a right to all government documents on radiation at the dump. ``These agencies need to come clean on everything they have on radiation at IEL, no matter how incriminating that information might be to any person, public agency or private corporation,'' Coleridge said. ``Lives are at stake. The long-term well-being of a community and the environment are at stake.'' Added attorney Warner Mendenhall, who filed the suit: ``We need to get to the bottom of what's in the dump. Uniontown residents have a right to know. We all have a right to know what's poisoning our environment.'' Mendenhall said a report from the landfill's former owner-operator claiming that egg-shaped containers with radioactive materials were dumped in Uniontown is reason for the federal government to release all its evidence of radiation at the site. The owner-operator, Charles Kittinger, last year told federal officials that the U.S. Army, during the late 1960s or early 1970s, buried egg-shaped containers holding radioactive plutonium-238. The federal government spent eight months last year investigating Kittinger's story. In November, the EPA and the U.S. Justice Department announced that they were unable to prove the story. U.S. District Judge John Manos in Cleveland concurred with the finding. Plutonium-238 is used in space to generate heat. Other forms of plutonium are used in nuclear weapons. The EPA repeatedly has said that radiation is not a problem at the Uniontown dump. But officials of Concerned Citizens of Lake Township, a grass-roots group involved in the dump, remain skeptical. Bob Downing can be reached at 330-996-3745 or [bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com] ***************************************************************** 49 Waste site officials considering fuel rod search By Associated Press, 1/18/2002 01:28 WATERFORD, Conn. (AP) Officials in South Carolina and Washington state are considering digging up casks of radioactive waste as part of the search for two missing fuel rods from a Connecticut nuclear plant. Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said this week they believe the rods from the Millstone One plant were sent by mistake to low-level waste sites either in Barnwell, S.C., or Washington, or both. Highly radioactive spent fuel is not supposed to be buried at those low-level sites. Fuel rods have never before been lost in the history of the commercial nuclear industry in the United States, according to the NRC. It is up to the states involved to decide whether to dig up casks, John Hickman, NRC licensing project manager for Millstone 1, said Wednesday. ''We're still studying the report and just studying what our next steps will be,'' Thom Berry, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control said Thursday. Contractors in South Carolina and Washington are using computer models of their sites to determine whether the pencil-thin fuel rods pose a significant hazard. ''We are following the state's lead on this. If they want to look for the fuel rods, that's their decision and we will assist them in that,'' said Chad Hyslop, a spokesman for US Ecology, which operates a commercial low-level waste disposal site at Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state. John Erickson, the director of the Washington state Department of Health's division of radiation protection, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. How the rods could have gotten into the Barnwell site has perplexed state officials there who closely monitor the deposits. Shipments come in drum-like canisters, Thom Berry, state Department of Health and Environmental Control spokesman said Wednesday. ''If indeed those rods had been sent to South Carolina, they would have had to been cut or bent to fit in those shipments,'' Berry said. The NRC said it assumes that is what happened. The casks containing the fuel rods would have been buried unopened. In 2000, both rods contained a total of 40 grams of plutonium and 7,732 grams of uranium, Jackson of the NRC said. Barnwell officials have refused to accept Millstone's low-level radioactive waste because of the missing fuel rods, though they have indicated that they would review the situation once the NRC makes complete findings, Millstone spokesman Pete Hyde said. Northeast Utilities first reported the pins missing to federal regulators on Dec. 15, 2000, as it prepared to sell the plant to Dominion Resources. The pins were last verified to be in the reactor's spent fuel pool in 1980, according to NU's records. William R. Matthews, vice president and senior nuclear executive at Millstone, said the risks associated with digging up contaminated waste far outweigh the benefits, even though the step appears to be the only way to locate the rods. The amount of radiation the rods contain, while harmful, is inconsequential once it's buried, he said. ***************************************************************** 50 Yellowcake carted through city streets news.com.au - 19 January 2002 By Environment Reporter CATHERINE HOCKLEY THROUGH suburban Adelaide streets, semi-trailers yesterday carted radioactive yellowcake produced at Beverley uranium mine – where production has been suspended. The trucks, carrying shipping containers emblazoned with radiation warnings, were destined for Outer Harbour's container terminal. The yellowcake is bound for the US to be converted and enriched, to fuel power stations. Located in the state's far north-east, Beverley is currently closed for commercial production following a spill of 62,000 litres of radioactive liquid last week – the mine's 24th spill in two years. But mine operator Heathgate Resources vice president Stephen Middleton confirmed a shipment of stockpiled yellowcake was due in Adelaide yesterday. He denied allegations by federal Opposition environment spokesman Kelvin Thomson that the mine was still producing yellowcake despite the State Government's order to remain closed after the spill. "Heathgate Resources rejects out of hand the suggestion that it has resumed producing yellowcake at the Beverley uranium mine and is now secretly shipping it out of the country," Mr Middleton said. "No yellowcake will be produced until Heathgate Resources brings the mine back to commercial operation and that will not happen until the company and the relevant government agencies are satisfied that all necessary repairs to the plant have been completed and fully tested." After a visit to the mine on Thursday, Mr Thomson claimed he had been told by Heathgate Resources the mine had shut down for 24 hours after the leak occurred but was then brought back to half capacity. Mr Thomson yesterday stood by his claims. "They (Heathgate Resources) say that they are still putting the liquid solution through the pipes, but are they also extracting uranium?" Heathgate Resources has to satisfy seven new safety measures imposed on the mine by the Government before it can begin commercial operations again. [http://www.news.com.au/common/privacy/0,4841,,00.html] Australian IT [http://australianit.com.au] . ***************************************************************** 51 Politics | UK's plutonium 'kept in a shed' Guardian Unlimited Observer | [UP] Nick Paton Walsh Sunday January 20, 2002 The Observer [http://www.observer.co.uk] Tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium are stored in insecure buildings that are 'not much more than a shed' at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, warn the Government's own security experts. The two stores holding the 71 tonnes of highly toxic material on the site in Cumbria are unable to resist attack or 'even a fire', they say. Government advisers recommend that a new, secure store be built quickly. A fire or explosion at the plant could send lethal plutonium clouds across most of Britain, Ireland and the Continent. After the 11 September terror attacks, a security review board met at Sellafield to review the plant's vulnerability. It was attended by officers from MI5, officials from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and from the Atomic Energy Authority. The board's highly confidential report, sent to Downing Street, recommends that two 'inadequate' buildings - B302 and B302.1 - be rebuilt. The finding is particularly serious as security reports indicate that the plant is vulnerable to attack from a hijacked aircraft. One independent evaluation of commercial flightpaths showed that air traffic control would be unable to see a plane deviate from its planned route in the area until it was four minutes away from Sellafield - too late to launch RAF jets. The Government will now face questions as to why the risk was not addressed for so long. MPs said the revelation was evidence of 'Government complacency'. Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: 'It appears constant Government assurances about the safety of Sellafield do not tell the full picture. It is vital that the Home Secretary acts swiftly to convince the public that proper security measures are in place.' British Nuclear Fuels, which owns the site, confirmed last week that its security was under review, but declined to give details. John Large, an independent nuclear engineer, said: 'I have seen plans of this structure and it is not designed to withstand a major impact. Its walls are very thin. 'More worryingly, its filter and fire-fighting systems are on its outer edges, and would be knocked out by an attack. It is not the kind of place you would want to keep Britain's entire stock of plutonium.' nick.walsh@observer.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 52 Ships got lost while dumping nuclear waste The Times FRIDAY JANUARY 18 2002 BY MELISSA KITE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT MERCHANT ships sent to dump plutonium off the Cornish coast got lost and were unsure of their location when they released their radioactive cargo, newly released government documents show. Archives kept secret for 30 years also disclose that during one dump in 1969 a glass container containing nuclear waste cracked and the crew of a ship were exposed to potentially lethal radiation. The incidents are contained in Atomic Board archives released by the Public Record Office, under the terms of the Official Secrets Act. The papers show a large-scale dumping of civilian and military nuclear waste 250 miles west of Land’s End between 1965 and the early 1980s. The dumping was sub-contracted to mariners with little experience in handling potentially lethal waste. Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, who discovered the documents, urged ministers to disclose whether the containers were being monitored and whether their location was known. The merchant vessel involved in the 1969 incident was named as the MV Topaz. A full flask of nuclear waste cracked and contaminated the deck of the ship. The flasks had been made of glass, despite the fact that plastic was shown to be a safer method of storage. The decision to use glass was taken because of concerns that the flasks should not float to the surface of the sea and cause public alarm. Evidence recorded by Greenpeace last year in the Hurd Deep, off the French coast, showed how quickly such barrels could disintegrate. The records show that there was more than one accident on the Topaz. During one incident barrels fell over the side and had to be “pierced” so that they would sink. An investigation by a C.M. Nichols into causes of the contamination incident on the Topaz in 1969 reads: “The disposal operations began early in the afternoon of 23rd July 1969 and were impeded by poor weather conditions. “The dumping operation was completed, however, in the afternoon of 28th July 1969 after significant contamination was found.” Mr George said: “It appears that the agencies involved at the time were more concerned about public relations than they were about safety.” The papers show that several vessels became lost because of navigation problems during the dumping missions and that some may have been unsure about their location at the point of off-loading the waste. While making clear that there was no suggestion of any present threat to marine or human life, Mr George said it was vital for the Government to give detailed assurances about the current state of the waste and to make sure that it was all accounted for. In a series of parliamentary questions, Mr George urged Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to make clear how long the isotopes would remain radioactive and what efforts had made to monitor the condition and safety of the waste. Last night Defra said it had no plans to undertake any monitoring. A spokesman said: “The Government funds extensive environmental monitoring of the waters around the UK, and this has not detected any adverse effects which could be attributed to radioactivity from the Atlantic disposal sites.” Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 53 Arms Control, Nuclear Force Cuts, U.S.-Russian Relations, Bush, Putin CDI Russia Weekly #189 Contents Printer-Friendly Web Version #9 Baltimore Sun January 17, 2002 Playing numbers game with nuclear force cuts By Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay are senior fellows in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. WASHINGTON -- President Bush announced a widely praised decision in November to unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal. His proposal, which would cut the number of U.S. warheads from 7,000 weapons today to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads a decade from now, was intended to fulfill his campaign promise to "leave the Cold War behind." Two months later, the bloom is coming off the Bush plan. Just last week, the Pentagon made public the main conclusions of the yearlong classified review it undertook to fill in the details of Mr. Bush's vision. According to this Nuclear Posture Review, the administration wants to save rather than scrap many, if not most, of the 5,000 weapons scheduled for retirement. Even when Mr. Bush first announced his plan, there were signs that the 1,700 - 2,200 figures were misleading. To generate these numbers, Mr. Bush abandoned the longstanding rules used to count warheads. Weapons on systems being inspected or refurbished -- and thus not capable of actually being delivered -- no longer show up in the overall tally. Because at any given moment roughly 400 warheads are on systems that are off-line, Mr. Bush's target is actually slightly higher than the 2,000-2,500 level that President Bill Clinton proposed going to five years ago. The Nuclear Posture Review also makes clear that the administration is slowing down previous plans to retire weapons. The 1993 START II agreement, which the elder George Bush negotiated but which never went into effect, called for the United States and Russia to cut their arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 weapons apiece by 2007. The Pentagon now expects to have 3,800 operational weapons -- or about 4,200 weapons, using traditional counting rules -- in 2007. So five years from now, the younger Mr. Bush plans to have the United States deploy between 700 and 1,200 more warheads than his father did. Most important, the Nuclear Posture Review confirms that most -- the exact number is still undecided -- of the retired warheads will not be destroyed. Rather, many will be placed in a "responsive force" that will enable the United States to return them to operation in weeks or months, if needed. Others will be placed in the inactive stockpile. So cutting weapons doesn't mean eliminating them. Administration officials defend the decision to save warheads rather than scrap them on the grounds that no arms control treaty actually required the United States to destroy individual warheads. This is an odd defense given the administration's disdain for arms control and its belief that the U.S.-Russian relationship has changed fundamentally. More broadly, the administration justifies the responsive force on the grounds that the world is a dangerous and dynamic place and new threats could arise at any moment. The only sensible way to respond to such danger and uncertainty is to maximize America's flexibility. The problem with this flexibility is that it can help create the very circumstances it is designed to protect against. If Washington reserves the right to rearm, so will Russia. Perhaps the administration is right that our new friendship with Moscow is permanent -- though it is unclear how we can be certain of this if the world is in fact unpredictable. But are we really safer with thousands of Russian warheads sitting in storage facilities vulnerable to theft? Further complicating matters is the administration's commitment to defending America against missile attack. Combining missile defenses with a large, active and responsive nuclear force could be provocative. Russia, and even more so, China, might conclude that Washington is seeking a first-strike capability that it can use to coerce them. This might prompt Moscow to keep more of its own weapons deployed. Beijing is likely to respond by expanding its own missile forces. It is not too late for Mr. Bush to fashion a nuclear weapons policy that truly leaves the Cold War behind. As he has said repeatedly, Washington and Moscow are friends, not enemies. No one worries about the British and French strategic arsenals, and China possesses only two dozen long-range missiles. So Mr. Bush should think in bolder terms. He should work with Moscow to reduce each side's offensive forces to 1,000 weapons or less -- and scrap the rest. The prospect of tens, let alone hundreds, of weapons exploding on one's territory is sufficient to deter anyone. And he should accept Russia's offer to conclude a legally binding treaty to make these truly radical cuts irreversible. The Cold War ended more than a decade ago. The time has come for making sure our nuclear force posture reflects that reality. CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109 Ph: (202) 332-0600 · Fax: (202) 462-4559 [info@cdi.org] ***************************************************************** 54 Afganistan: Canisters not empty, Pentagon says; tests underway By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri USA TODAY Two ominous canisters found in Afghanistan recently were not empty, as some U.S. officials had reported. They are being tested to see whether they might contain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or ingredients for them, Pentagon officials said Thursday. The canisters have skull-and-crossbones markings and Russian writing warning that they contain nuclear material. They have raised concerns that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network or the Taliban that previously ruled Afghanistan might have made or bought such weapons. Wednesday, after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reported the canisters' discovery, officials at U.S. Central Command said they were empty. But Thursday, Pentagon officials said that information was wrong. They said the thermos-sized canisters, found near Kabul, are now in the USA. Also Thursday: * Three Marines were injured in an unexplained explosion at a pit where they were burning trash at their base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, officials at U.S. Central Command said. The injuries were ''non-life-threatening.'' * The United Nations said two trucks carrying 20 tons each of wheat for Afghans in need were hijacked in northern Afghanistan this week. The hijackings Tuesday underscore how lawless it is in much of Afghanistan. Jordan Dey, spokesman for the U.N. World Food Program, told reporters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, that gunmen dressed in military uniforms commandeered the trucks near Mazar-e-Sharif. © Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 55 Nuclear Weapons and The Illusion of Missile Defense Armed and Dangerous (washingtonpost.com) Reviewed by Vernon Loeb Sunday, January 20, 2002; Page BW05 FATAL CHOICE By Richard Butler Westview. 178 pp. $22 What with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and war in Afghanistan, President Bush's decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty late last year passed as a virtual nonevent -- this in spite of all the dire predictions that withdrawal would seriously damage relations between Washington and Moscow. Indeed, even as Bush was announcing his move, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that both nations reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to between 1,500 and 2,200 warheads, a range that overlapped with one that Bush himself had earlier put forth. Thus, instead of the controversy that might have been expected to result from the administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and pursue its ambitious plan for testing and possibly deploying a national missile defense system (prohibited by the treaty), Washington and Moscow had reached agreement on this critical aspect of arms control. The two nations, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said, had moved from "mutual assured destruction" to "mutual assured cooperation." But before anyone concludes from all this that the nuclear road ahead will be smooth and the dangers reduced, Fatal Choice, a new book by Australian diplomat and arms control advocate Richard Butler, serves as a sobering reality check. Far more than an attack on the Bush administration's missile defense plans, Butler's book is an all-out assault on a nuclear status quo. The five acknowledged nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, China, France and England -- have all agreed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to work toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, but, he asserts, they really have no intention of doing so. More than any other force, this fact, in Butler's view, has undercut the NPT and led to the "unraveling" of the nonproliferation regime, with three nonmembers, Israel, India and Pakistan, all now in possession of nuclear weapons and three member states, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, all in the process of covertly developing nuclear armaments. He calls it the "axiom of proliferation": "As long as any state possesses nuclear weapons, others will seek to acquire them, and as the number of states possessing nuclear weapons increases so does the likelihood of their use." Butler, who headed the United Nations Special Commission on Iraqi weapons programs in the late 1990s, sees Bush's missile defense plan as an understandable -- but terribly misguided -- response to the difficulties inherent in enforcing the NPT's prohibitions on nuclear proliferation. Missile defense, he argues, will only further weaken the NPT and lead China and Russia -- and undoubtedly others -- to develop new types of nuclear weapons designed to penetrate America's defenses, if indeed the latter could ever be made to work. His assessment is likely to have zero effect on the Bush administration's most ardent missile defense advocates, Rumsfeld chief among them. But Butler's urgent plea for the United States to take the lead in strengthening the NPT and other nonproliferation treaties is not incompatible with missile defense. Those who disagree with Butler on missile defense need not reject his worthy proposal for creation of a Council on Weapons of Mass Destruction, composed of the five acknowledged nuclear nations. Butler envisions the body as a UN Security Council without veto power, in which all of its members would pledge to take all reported violations of the NPT seriously -- and would jointly enforce sanctions. Unfortunately, Butler finished writing his new book before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Those events are bound to have a profound effect on the way the United States and the rest of the world view the possibility of terrorist attacks involving nuclear weapons and the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology and fissile materials. Rumsfeld and other senior officials in the Bush administration view the terrorist attacks as all the more reason to think the unimaginable and pursue robust missile defenses. Even without the benefit of post-Sept. 11 hindsight, Butler argues that rogue states and terrorists are far more likely to use a truck or a suitcase than a missile to attack the United States with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In any event, they argue, the best way to stop them would be to strengthen the NPT and other nonproliferation regimes. "This is the choice that must be made," he writes, " -- between walking the hard yards of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, and eventually eliminating them, or giving up on those goals and hunkering down. It is the fatal choice." • Vernon Loeb covers the Pentagon for The Washington Post. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 56 Iraqi defector insists new weapons program underway: report Zawya.com WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (AFP) - An Iraqi construction engineer who recently fled Baghdad claims Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has begun a new crash program to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, CBS News reported Friday. "Heavy work is beginning," Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri told the network in an exclusive interview. "They are working day and night." Al-Haideri said the government had him build high-tech, leak-proof research and storage facilities in places where they would be hard to find and difficult to destroy, for instance, in hospitals, under Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces and deep in wells on farms outside Baghdad, according to the report. These wells, according to Haideri, were designed to avoid detection, if Saddam ever allows UN inspectors back into the country. There have been no UN arms inspections in Iraq since 1998 when Saddam Hussein asked the inspectors to leave the country. According to Al-Haideri, the new weapons program is highly-mobile, and weapons materials, which he admits he never actually saw, can be moved frequently from place to place, frustrating those looking for them, CBS New reported. The Iraqi defector is now being questioned by US intelligence officials, according to the report. Former senior UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said al-Haideri's claims seem credible. "What he has described makes sense," Duelfer told CBS News. "All of the locations make sense. They are all places where we know missile and chemical and biological activities were taking place in the past." mk/sg Copyright © 2002 Zawya.com Ltd. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 57 Indian Navy's club missiles being N-tipped PakCyber.Com NEW DELHI, Jan 19 (PNS): The task of nuclear weaponisation of the Indian Navy at short notice can be accomplished by Club Missiles which are nuclear-capable and have already been inducted into the Navy, the Deccan Herald reported quoting well placed sources. Though it is not known whether the Indian Navy has already been armed with nuclear weapons,this smallest of the three services can be equipped with nukes at a short notice. The 300-km range missiles were purchased from Russia last year and have provision for carrying nuclear warheads. Besides, the Navy can also pin hopes on Brahmos missiles project on which it is working in collaboration with Russia. The high-versatility missile is going to have a range of 280 km. While the army and the air force are having nuclear weapons, it has been the navy which has been clamouring for the nukes. Though the Indian Nuclear Doctrine talks of building up a triad of nuclear weapons - that is acquiring the capability of launching nuclear weapons from land, air and sea - the triad-capability is yet to be achieved. According to sources, it would still take some time for the government to take care of the third leg of the triad - the Navy - as far as arming the force with nuclear weapons is concerned. Admiral Madhvendra Singh, who recently took over as the new Chief of Naval Staff, had at a Press conference declined to confirm or deny whether the Navy had nuclear weapons. The Naval chief had said: "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on warships. Any country that espouses the doctrine of no-first-use of nuclear weapons must have a second strike capability. And one of the triad is at sea... the most powerful leg of the triad is in the Navy and is hidden under water and moving." Ends Pakistan News Service ***************************************************************** 58 Interview transcripts: Does Saddam have nukes? WorldNetDaily: JANUARY 20 2002 Iraq's former nuclear program director tells Metcalf 'yes' Editor's Note: In addition to being an MIT-educated nuclear physicist, Dr. Khidhir Hamza was the director of the Iraqi Nuclear Program until 1994, when he defected from Iraq to the United States. Now the president of the Council on Middle Eastern Affairs in New York City, Hamza sat down with WND's talk-radio host Geoff Metcalf to discuss his first-hand knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Having been in personal contact with Saddam Hussein during his time in Iraq, Hamza also makes disturbing projections about Hussein's future and propensity to use weapons of mass destruction. Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. By Geoff Metcalf © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com Q: I recently saw a story about Iraq deploying those "super-cannons" we didn't think they had. U.S. troop buildups are mounting in apparent anticipation of some kind of new U.S. offensive against Saddam Hussein. How much time do we have before we are compelled to do something to get rid of Hussein? A: Actually, until he gets his bomb. And that is projected by German intelligence to be by 2005. That gives us a window of about three years. Q: I remember back in '91 during the Gulf War. I had been told by some people that we blew up some key nuclear facility of your old boss, and allegedly it happened by accident. A: I don't believe it was by accident. What happened was, if you mean the nuclear weapons site, the bunker for explosives was sighted by a U.S. pilot who suspected that it looked like the bunkers used in the U.S. for testing bombs – explosives, regular explosives. So he dropped some load. He had some extra bombs, and he dropped them on the site. And that was the only part that was really accidental. Many of the sites were not known to the U.S. Those that were known were bombed thoroughly. Q: I've been saying this for years, and I want to ask you since you were there and you worked for this madman. If or when Hussein has the capacity to deploy any weapon of mass destruction, how long will it take him before he pulls the trigger? A: It depends. First, what weapons systems he has complement each other. Chemical, you can use them in the field battles. Biological, he can use in terrorist acts, using them against his enemies, like he did with the Kurds. He experimented on them with biological weapons. The anthrax scare in the U.S. – he's possibly the source of it. The nuclear [capability] he will use to keep his regime in power if you attack him and there is imminent danger of his removal from power. That is his death, for him and his family. Then he would probably use the nuclear. Also, he would use it to entrench himself and threaten his neighbors and have a safe base of operation for terrorism for threatening the region, for imposing his will on his neighbors. So there is a whole range of options in front of Saddam, since he is going for all these weapons. Q: The Pentagon actually played a computerized war game before the last invasion 10 years ago. One of the questions fed to the computer was: "What would we do if Saddam possessed a nuclear weapon?" And the computer, after chewing on it for a while, came back and responded, "Nothing." A: What can you do with a man with nuclear weapons? The only thing you can do is threaten him with removal or devastation, an attack, a counterattack. A very realistic threat of a counterattack would probably stop him from using it. But, if he used it, the damage is done. The only option that would remain is vengeance. But the damage would have been done. That's what he asked us to do at the time: Make him one nuclear weapon. We dragged our feet, and we didn't do it. And now he admits to that program, called "The Crash Program." Q: There were two guys, and you may have worked with them – Jaffar Dhia Jaffar and Hussein Sharhistani. A: Yes. Q: Jaffar is still there in Iraq, isn't he? A: Yes. Q: Is he heading up the nuclear weapons program now? A: No, he is not. He has been more or less sidelined since the Gulf War. Actually, what happened was the U.S. inspectors showed that he was running more or less a bogus operation. He was promising Saddam enriched bomb-grade uranium for 10 years, and he didn't deliver a single gram of that. When the inspectors looked at his operation, they found it not to be up to standard, and there are several missing links that he did not even develop. So Saddam got angry and put him aside. Q: It is amazing he is still alive ... A: Yes. Q: … because he was in trouble before, and Saddam threw him in the slammer, right? A: Yes. Actually, we believe he did this deliberately. He was in 20 months, tortured for a couple of months, then "rehabilitated" in the other 18 months and then released. When he came out, we believe, he developed a plan to make it look as if he was doing enrichment of uranium. He was assigned the job of enriching uranium. I was assigned the job of making the bomb. He never delivered. We think he played a very sly game with Saddam, and Saddam can do nothing about it because a lot of Saddam's money was transferred through Jaffar's program to foreign accounts. And Jaffar probably knows about it. Q: What happened to the other guy, Hussein Sharhistani? Because he dug in his heels and sat in jail. A: He sat in jail and refused to come out. So he suffered 11 years of jail, and the Gulf War saved him. Q: How? A: It provided the cover for him to escape prison. He managed to escape in 1991, and he is now in England. Q: I know you don't accept everything in the Daniel McGrory book, "Brighter than the Baghdad Sun" (read previous Q&A with Daniel McGrory), but what about the claim that Iraq had duplicated the Oak Ridge project? A: That is true. Jaffar actually improved on the Oak Ridge magnet through CENR, the Center for European Nuclear Research in Geneva. Jaffar was working in CENR four years before he returned to Iraq in 1974, so there were some developments in magnet technology that allow enrichment of uranium on a larger scale. Jaffar wasn't going back to older technologies; he has a better mind than that. He thought that the thing advanced enough to put it back in action, and he tried to develop a program – an upgraded Oak Ridge facility in Iraq. Of course, he couldn't. It is too complex for Iraqi science or technology. Q: We know that Saddam is working on developing bad stuff (nuclear, biological and chemical) and that if or when he gets it, he will probably use it. Where is the stuff he has buried? Is it deep underground? A: Actually, Iraq doesn't bury a lot. It buries some, which was later found out by inspectors, but mostly it leaves things in houses, hospitals; there are some depots used. But Saddam found out after the war, and actually from some information he had before the war, that digging usually alerts satellites and airplane surveillance. So, usually, Saddam avoided digging. For example, the missiles – very few of them were found during the search of the U.S. Air Force – were hidden among trees and in schools. So you have a system where, actually, it is not buried but is among us; it is everywhere. They say one of his mistresses died from radiation sickness because he hid some radioactive material in her house. Q: The search for enriched uranium, I recall that – and believe me, I am not a scientist; I don't know jack about this technical stuff – there were or are apparently two methods of trying to come up with enriched uranium. Jaffar was supposed to be working on something not typical. What are they doing now, because that is the one thing Iraq is still missing, right? A: Oh, yes. Iraq has the whole missile design done. It is complete. Low-powered weapons of probably two to four or five kilotons, but there is a workable weapon design in Iraq right now. So what Iraq needs is the nuclear fuel inside, the nuclear core. That has to be enriched uranium to weapons grade, which is 90 percent, and Iraq does not have the technology so far. It has the elements of the technology but has to put it together – build the installations and start the production. Germans estimate that by last December, Iraq had 25 percent of the program together for enrichment. It will have it fully operational this year, and probably productive in the next, and should have enough for three bombs in 2005. Q: Iraq has more oil than good sense, so why in the world don't they just buy the enriched uranium from anywhere else? A: Oh, we tried! Don't you think we didn't. Actually, we used to get offers. I was an adviser to atomic energy from 1985-1987, and I would sit down in my room next to the chairman, and we would get this mail continuously of offers to sell uranium and plutonium. You don't know what is bogus and what is not. In many cases, we would get black marketers to come to Baghdad, and they'd have some sample in their bags, and they'd say, "This is enriched uranium. I can get you as much as you want. Give me some deposits so I can go ahead and make a deal and bring you some more." So we'd take it and analyze it, and it turned out to be low enriched uranium. In one of the cases, depleted uranium, and there was no fuel in it at all. Q: A big concern was and has been that in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, with the Russian Mafia running things, that some bad guys might be selling stuff to Iraq. A: Yes, there are something like 180 cases documented of smuggled material or attempted smuggled nuclear material. Iraq has actually played a part in this. They have formed hundreds and hundreds of front corporations set up inside the ex-Soviet Union – that is Russia now – that do import/export stuff like that which are run by Iraqi Intelligence. They have this contact and they have the old weapon technocrats who are still there and still powerful inside Russia. So they have the contacts, they have the organization. The only problem is they cannot get it in large enough quantity. And once the Russians find out, Iraq loses a very powerful ally in Russia, who is trying to get Iraq off the hook in regard to sanctions. So Iraq is playing it very low now. But once sanctions are lifted, then Iraq is no longer afraid. I think it will go much more aggressively after that. Right now, I don't believe Iraq is in the Russian market for uranium or plutonium. Q: Iraq came close on their own under the guise of a nuclear power plant they finessed out of the French. It was in the '80s. In fact, you were still there working for Saddam. A: Yes. Q: You got close, but before you could fire up the plant, the Israelis had other thoughts – fortunate, preemptive thoughts. A: Yes. Actually, I was the one who went to France and signed for that reactor in 1974. We started the negotiations in 1974. In 1975, we clinched the deal for that reactor. So it was a personal blow when the Israelis hit it. But this is not hitting the head of the snake; this is hitting at the periphery of the program. The reactor is removed. But Iraq trained, because of that reactor, some 400 technologists. By removing the reactor, you are releasing 400 technologists into Saddam's hands to divert them into another program, which is secret and underground. So the 400, Saddam managed to turn in six years to 7,000. Q: 7,000! A: By 1987 we had 7,000, instead of the 400 nuclear technologists, working in this huge program – the U.S. found out later how big it is – to make enriched uranium and to make nuclear weapons on a much larger scale now. Q: Didn't you have two huge buildings at opposite ends of the country that were mirror images of each other? A: Oh yes. According to another recent defector, in recent years Iraq is increasing this duplicate program. Every building has a backup to it. The backup becomes operational as soon as the first building is compromised. So Iraq has a backup for everything right now. Even if inspectors go back in and find one or two buildings, others become operational immediately. Q: If or when someone is successful in killing that demonic, demented s.o.b. – and he is dead, taking the long dirt nap – then what? What fills the vacuum of Saddam Hussein? A: It depends how you take him out. If you take him out in an assassination or an air strike, one of his family will take over. Q: Hey, his son Uday is even crazier than Saddam is. A: True, but it is now Kursay, the younger one. Uday is crazy, so he is put aside, and Kursay is now prime to be the successor to the throne. But Kursay is just as bad as his father, if that is possible. Q: What percentage of Saddam's efforts is directed to the nuclear program? I got the impression it is the nexus of his weapons-of-mass-destruction effort. A: It is the largest program. I'll give you some sizes. For example, at the onset of the Gulf War, we had about 7,000 workers in the nuclear, 400 in the biological and another 400-500 in the chemical. That should tell you where the emphasis is. The difference is that the nuclear program is a complete pyramid. You can design and build there. The biological is more or less a contracting entity. If they need a building, they bring in a contractor. If they want equipment, they'll buy it or contract to atomic energy or someone to make it for them. Atomic energy is a complete entity. You can start from thinking of what you want to do – to having an establishment that produces what you want it to do. It is the only one of its kind in the Middle East outside of Israel. Q: Have they abandoned the red herring of nuclear power plants? A: They never went into it seriously. It was a cover, like I said. Q: Thinly veiled. A: Yes. I mean, we talked to international atomic energy about getting us reactors to build power plants. But they don't make sense. Iraq is awash in oil and gas, and why would it need to generate electricity by burning uranium instead of oil? It doesn't make sense. It is the same senseless claim made by the Iranians now. They want to convince the U.S. that their negotiations with the Russians to buy power plants is OK, because it is the fuel of the future. It doesn't make sense. Iran has enough oil for the next century or two. Why should they start right now to use nuclear fuel? Q: What was the reaction, because you were there when the Israelis turned your would-be nuclear power plant into a smoking hole in the desert. A: We were sickened, because we knew what comes next. We were sickened, because actually, the reactor was under international control. We had inspectors every six months coming in to see how we were using it. We had a fixed camera at the core of the reactor. Anything that went in or went out was actually photographed. And we had the French sitting there all the time around the reactor for at least the first two years for maintenance and getting things going. So with the reactor gone, we had to go and build our own, without international supervision. So Saddam would be breathing down our necks, which he did, with, "Where is it now? There is nothing to hinder you now, nothing to hold you back now." There were no longer inspectors and all that. Q: On the other side of the coin, you did score a coup when you were putting in that French nuclear power plant. At least you had access to all those nuclear technicians. A: Oh, yes. Initially, it was needed. Initially, it produced for us the cadre we needed to go to the next stage. The French and Italians also trained for us people in the complete nuclear fuel cycle – from making fuel, processing it into nuclear material, to extracting uranium and all kinds of processes that you need in nuclear technology. We had acquired knowledge of the full fuel cycle because of the reactor, and that is what we got out of it, really – not the building. Q: What if the Germans are wrong and we don't really have three years? What if that one to two kiloton puppy you say he "might" have now is bigger, and there are more of them? What if Saddam Hussein becomes a for-real imminent threat? Then what? A: The Germans also say that is a possibility. The Germans say without outside assistance, without getting uranium from the Russians or anywhere else, with only solely Iraqi capability, local indigenous program, Iraq could make it in three years. But, if it gets assistance – say a Russian scientist comes in and helps us build the plans better and faster or get some fuel from the Russians, nuclear fuel – then yes, he could have had it by now. It's been three years without an inspection! Q: If you were talking to Condoleezza Rice or George Bush right now, what are you going to tell them? A: Take him out now. There's no other solution, no fix for this problem. Take Saddam out now, and replace him with a democratic regime, a pro-U.S. regime. Q: How big a mistake was it to let him hang around this long? At the time, after the Gulf War, the rationale was, "Well, the evil we have and know is better than the evil we don't know. We would create a vacuum with the removal of Saddam, and we don't know what would fill that vacuum." Those arguments – I thought they were hollow at the time – but those same arguments are the ones that exist today. A: Yes, but by not taking him out, you allowed Saddam to remain in power, so he remained a threat to his neighbor. That incited Iran to go after nuclear weapons also, and biological weapons. So it created, by leaving him there, an arms race. And it created a more dangerous situation in the region and less prospect for peace, also, in the region. So leaving him there is really leaving a headache, a problem. Look how much money you spend on airplanes and air strikes and surveillance for 10 years – 11 years by now. Q: If Hussein has the capability to deploy – and everyone is concerned he might hit Israel – but what if he went after Iran? I mean, this guy perceives of himself as some kind of 21st Century Nebuchadnezzar anyway. I mean, you guys fought an eight-year war with Iran. A: That is why Iran is hopeful right now in terms of allowing the U.S. back. The Iraqi opposition – an American plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam – is in place. Iranians are agreeing right now. Q: Hey, that was the talk last week. More recently, their former President Rafsanjani is saying Iran ought to nuke Israel. A: Well, that is just talk. But Iran is actually – because I know the head of the Iraqi opposition was there a couple of times – the present government is allowing the U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition to operate from inside Iran, and if a strike happens to enter Iraq through the Iranian border. That is because they are wary of what happens next with Saddam. Q: Saddam is between the rock and the hard place. Iran doesn't like him, obviously we want him sucking dirt soon, so is it better from a strategic position for him to go after Iran rather than posture. I mean, if he hits Israel, he has to know what is going to happen. A: That's what he keeps telling the U.S. – that "I am your only hope at blocking Iranian expansion and creating an Islamic state that would take over the gulf." And the expansion of the Islamic state – Iraq is the only shield against it. That's why he keeps the Iranian opposition inside Iraq operating from inside Iraq doing hits inside Iran. He wants to create the aura of being the protector of the region against Iranian encroachment. You have this game he is playing – he's trying to convince the U.S., and that's probably what has kept him in power so far. The U.S. has not gone seriously after him in the last 10 or 11 years. Q: You have had personal contact with Saddam, which is why I have to ask you this: I am under the impression – and I feel this is a huge mistake our state departments have made for decades – that we are trying to view an adversary, in this case Hussein, like he is some competitive CEO in a board meeting, and we can sit down and either negotiate or appease him. In my estimation Saddam Hussein is evil incarnate. We cannot negotiate, appease or mitigate with evil like this. You've got to kill it. A: Yes. You're finding that out the hard way. Everything they agreed with him on – including Kofi Annan, who said, "I can do business with Saddam. Saddam is a man I can do business with." Remember that? Q: Kofi Annan is worse than an empty suit. A: I'm including a figure like Kofi Annan finding the hard way that Saddam doesn't keep his word. He is tricky, he's treacherous and he is very dangerous. Q: But isn't there a huge cultural disconnect? I mean, he really hasn't been out of Iran all that much throughout his life. A: No, he has not. He spent a couple of years during Nasser's era out of Iraq and stayed in Egypt. That's about the only trip outside of Iraq he took. Q: What would be the impact on the geopolitical balance in the region if Saddam were no more? One of the concerns in attempting to keep together that fragile coalition in '91 was "balance." Apparently, we're not even going to try to do that again. How destabilizing would it be to Iran, Jordan, Syria, all those countries in and around the neighborhood, if Hussein goes away? A: If Hussein goes away, it depends how he goes away. If he is replaced by a democratic system, like you are trying to do now in Afghanistan, and nurtured that system to take hold – and not just be a weak government that could be toppled easily by a military coup – if you have a real democratic system there, then you have a transformation in the region that has to happen. It will influence Iran and what's going on inside Iran to get out from the really oppressive religious clergy government. Q: Yes, but Dr. Hamza, in Afghanistan, for good or ill, there was an opposition force in place. Saddam has killed most of his opposition, hasn't he? A: Oh, no. You still have the Kurdish region, which is one-fourth of Iraq, the Kurdish opposition in the north. And you still have a large expatriate group living outside Iraq, which is ready to go back and work its way into power. Q: So what happens next? Recently, we have seen stories about the U.S. moving all kinds of troops into the region all around Iraq. And what about these "super cannons"? I remember seeing a movie about that Canadian guy Bull who supposedly got whacked by the Mossad for playing with Saddam. A: Yes, Gerald Bull. Actually, what happened was small and large cannons he developed. The small one was already deployed and tested. Q: How big are these "small" cannons? A: One is about 150 feet long and something like 3.5 feet wide. It is supposed to take a missile, or the warhead of a missile, and with some kind of controlled system to maneuver it, and with the large one, send it to Israel, or to Tehran for example. It is meant to replace the arduous process of making missiles, or the engines of missiles with their fuel and all that. But it is a fixed target. Q: It can't be easy to hide one of these beasts, let alone try to move one. A: Exactly. But one of the reasons Gerald Bull was brought in to make this was how little money he asked. Q: How much is "how little money"? A: The whole thing was less than $20 million. The technology he provided Iraq on guided artillery shells – how to guide them and make them more precise to hit a target – was that he modified Iraqi artillery in such a way to make it much more effective. Q: These are not laser-designated type munitions, are they? A: No, they are not. He just improved the trajectory and aerodynamics of the munitions. Q: It always fascinated me about artillery. I was an Army officer for a long time, and we'd call in 105 mm howitzers, and we had to adjust fire to a target. Eight-inch guns from the Navy were much bigger but were a lot more accurate. A: Exactly, and Bull was an aerodynamic engineer, so he was talking about shaping things, putting fins on them, putting small jets on the side to control the direction, stuff like that. Q: According to a recent report I read, when the attack comes – the inevitable attack on Iraq – one of the first things targeted will be these new super cannons, so they're not going to last real long. He only has three or four of them. A: Yes. Iraq kept some units and probably put them back together. Also, they could manufacture some, a little bit, but they wouldn't be as good as the imported units from England and Germany. Q: I have been both annoyed and frustrated in reading stories about where we are moving troops, when we expect to strike and so forth. I hope this is at least partly misinformation and deception, because it is galling to think Saddam is getting good intel from CNN again. A: It would be impossible not to tell him, because with the troop deployment, with the gathering of the winds of war, it is impossible for him not to know. This is not a small-scale operation. Q: Given the fact that we're moving, we're getting ready – and we will come knocking on his door pretty soon and real loud – is it even physically possible for him to accelerate his nuclear program? I know you and Jaffar were getting heat from him before, "Hurry up, hurry up, hurry up." A: Yes. Q: So he has someone else to whip now, but I'm sure he's bugging these guys. A: That's what worries me: the possibility that the Russians might look the other way when Saddam tries to purchase nuclear material from there, and they can claim he smuggled it or bought it in the black market and they don't know. They might give him underhanded help in developing his nuclear weapon. Q: But what is the strategic advantage to Russia to do that? I can't see any. A: He is their ally. If Saddam is in power in spite of U.S.-backed opposition … Q: They want and need oil. He has oil. A: Yes, but then the resources of Iraq will be at Russia's disposal instead of the U.S. If the U.S. succeeds in removing Saddam, then the U.S.-backed opposition will replace him, and it will be at the disposal of the U.S. instead of the Russians. That's the difference for the Russians. Q: Then Russia could get in bed with the Iranians. A: Oh, yes. They are a little bit with the Iranians. Don't forget they are building their nuclear reactor. They are giving them enrichment technology despite the U.S. objection. They are sending their scientists to work there. So the Russians are hand-in-glove with the Iranians now to a degree. Q: You indicated there is opposition: the Kurds in the north, the expatriates in Europe or wherever. Are these guys coordinated? If or when the vacuum is created and Saddam is taking the big dirt nap, is there any mechanism whereby something can replace him even as a transitional entity? A: Yes, I think the same thing that you did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It was also factioned and squabbling groups with no hope of putting them together, if you remember the talk before the war. Now somehow they managed to get together. The U.S. is the glue here. The U.S. can put the alliance together and make it hold with U.S. pressure and U.S. presence. It has proven to work in Afghanistan; it should work in Iraq also. © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 59 PULTONIUM FOUND ON LAND Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:58:56 -0800 ----------------------------------------------------- PLUTONIUM FOUND ON LAND By VAN ROSE NW Staff The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has detected traces of a wide variety of contaminants on 340 acres of land adjacent to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The land is in the process of being transferred to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI). A second phase of environmental testing was ordered and is still ongoing, according to the energy department. Officials are waiting for the results in order to determine the effect it will have on a SODI endeavor to set up industrial operations on the property. "We're conducting environmental sampling to determine if radiological contaminants exist on the property," said DOE Spokesperson Walter Perry. "Testing is being conducted in accordance with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). We're working to finalize the transfer of the 340 acres to SODI this spring. With that, we are well under our way." OEPA has been involved with DOE environmental issues under an administrative consent order since 1989. According to the agency, the following materials have been detected in low levels from soil samples at the 340-acre site: . Xylene, a chemical used as a cleaning agent and paint thinner, also found in small amounts in airplane fuel and gasoline. . DDT-derived pesticides. . Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), presumably coming from road construction. . Heavy metals, like mercury. . Transuranics - specifically plutonium and neptunium. The fact that amounts of the radioactive materials plutonium and neptunium were detected immediately raises questions as to the value and applicability of the land. "We are very surprised that they found anything because the area is not used for operations," said SODI Program Coordinator Jennifer Chandler. "We understand the levels are very low. We're waiting for the final results to come back before we draw any conclusions. We want to make sure we have all the facts." OEPA Site Coordinator Maria Galanti believes, from studying initial test results, that the material detected is most likely present on the property but exists in such low levels that the land could still be used for industrial applications. The government-owned property acted as a safety buffer between the perimeter of the Portsmouth plant and the surrounding area. The presence of radioactive materials on the land would be due to air deposition from being downwind of the process of the plant, told Brian Blair, an environmental supervisor with the OEPA's Southeast District. If contaminants were to cause a serious threat to future development, they would be difficult to remove from the upper six-inch layer of soil where they were detected, he added. "If levels there pose a concern, they would be widespread," said Blair. "It would be more likely to manage the use of the land. You can't remove all the soil on 340 acres of property. That's just not practical." Results of the second phase of testing are expected on January 25. A joint meeting of DOE, SODI and the OEPA has been scheduled for February 12 to discuss the findings and how they might affect the overall project. ***************************************************************** 60 Monitoring of Radioactivity in Nevada Groundwater Flawed Environment News Service: LAS VEGAS, Nevada, January 18, 2002 (ENS) - The Department of Energy (DOE) is not doing enough to detect radioactivity in groundwater near the Nevada Test Site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, an environmental group charged today. The seven on-site monitoring network wells in place in Pahute Mesa have a low probability of detecting contamination since they are not located in the most likely pathways of the contaminant plumes says a technical report commissioned by Citizen Alert. The Nevada Test Site was the location of 100 atmospheric nuclear tests, and 828 underground nuclear tests between 1951 and 1992 that have contaminated Nevada with radioactivity. Citizen Alert has been concerned for years about the possibility of groundwater contamination as a result of underground nuclear testing, says nuclear issues coordinator for the grassroots group, Kalynda Tilges. [craters] Underground nuclear tests leave subsidence craters like these at the Nevada Test Site. 828 underground nuclear tests, including 24 with the UK, were conducted at the site between 1951 and 1992. (Photo courtesy The Brookings Institution) Citizen Alert says the DOE has spent over $200 million of taxpayer money and still does not have the basic information necessary to establish whether radioactive contamination will reach Oasis Valley in 12 or 500 years, both predictions that have been made in the past. "Because technology does not exist in the year 2002 to clean up contaminated groundwater, protection means timely detection of contamination that could produce risk to off-site citizens, and subsequently, supplying an alternate source of water for them," Tilges said. "Our goal was to evaluate the DOE's claim that it is protecting the public from groundwater contamination caused by underground nuclear testing on the Nevada Test Site." With financial help from a grant from the Citizen's Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund, Citizen Alert hired technical experts to perform an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the Department of Energy's (DOE) groundwater monitoring program of the northwestern section of the Nevada Test Site. The study looked at the government's ability to provide early detection and warning of radioactivity in water in time to prevent harm to people and the environment. In a press conference with Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, Citizen Alert executive director Kaitlin Backlund said, "The DOE has spent over $200 million of taxpayer money and still does not have the basic information necessary to establish whether contaminated groundwater is migrating outside the boundaries of the Nevada Test Site." Berkley said, "This new report will bolster my efforts to clean up the test site and implement an effective early warning system for radioactive contamination. It is critically important to fine tune our environmental cleanup methods, and invest in an adequate monitoring system before there's a crisis - not after!" Native Shoshone representative Ian Zabarte explained why the area known as the Nevada Test Site is still part of Newe Segobia, traditional Shoshone land according to the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863 and how this project affects Native Americans in the area. "The Western Shoshone have supported Citizen Alert's work for over 20 years all the way back to the MX missile proposal," he said. "We continue to support Citizen Alert on this issue which we feel is of vital concern to the Shoshone people and the citizens of Nevada." This report addresses the specific question of whether citizens living near the periphery of the Nevada Test Site are being protected from radioactive groundwater contamination that may be migrating towards them from the underground tests. Citizen Alert's main concern is that the present strategy being executed by the Underground Testing Area program "presently is not plausible or even useful and is dangerous in that it is delaying the creation of a long term groundwater early warning monitoring network." "Since contaminants have been migrating for over 40 years, it does not make sense to place an early warning monitoring system in the year 2030 as the DOE now plans," Tilges said. The report focuses on the Pahute Mesa area because it was the host to 82 underground nuclear detonations which produced a total yield of about 20 megatons - over 1,000 times more yield than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima - and which left 74 million curies of radiation in the ground below the water table, said Citizen Alert. Some of the Pahute Mesa detonations were among the most powerful tested at the Nevada Test Site and all were detonated closer to off-site communities than from any other tests on the site. For example, the distance between one large shot and Oasis Valley is less than 17 miles. The analysis found that none of the possible 260 plumes migrating in the groundwater from the nuclear tests has ever been found and studied. No one knows the plumes' constituents, nor the whereabouts of the over 130 million curies of radiation released into the environment, said Citizen Alert. Some of the plumes may have merged and created even larger and more complex plumes, the study suggests. "If we had better knowledge of the plumes and local groundwater flow directions, the design of a system to find such huge targets, where the exact locations of the detonations are well known, should not be difficult, even using a small fraction of the millions of dollars spent by DOE so far," said Tilges. Citizen Alert is asking that the Department of Energy recognize that its present Underground Testing Area strategy has not produced adequate information, and renegotiate with Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for a new strategy. That new strategy would begin with the selection of one large detonation cavity on Pahute Mesa in an area having the highest density of local hydrological data. The DOE would study all aspects of the one plume; migration speeds and directions, their physical make-up, concentration, dimensions and transport mechanisms. After a satisfactory early warning monitoring system for the Pahute Mesa contamination is in place, Citizen Alert suggests, the DOE could decide which is the next most threatened area and turn its resources to that area. DOE officials were not immediately available for comment. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2001. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Politicians optimistic about Hanford cleanup budget This story was published Fri, Jan 18, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Doc Hastings voiced cautious optimism Thursday that President Bush's upcoming fiscal 2003 federal budget proposal will adequately fund Hanford's cleanup. Hastings was a bit more optimistic. Murray was a smidgen more cautious. Both said the Bush administration's latest hints leaned toward proposing to give Hanford enough money in 2003 to meet its legal cleanup obligations. "I'm confident when the president submits his budget, it will be there," Hastings, R-Wash., told the Herald's editorial board. Murray, D-Wash, said she thought a few weeks ago that the administration might propose drastically underfunding Hanford's cleanup, but she said the latest hints indicate the administration might support fully funding the site's cleanup. "But that came with the caveat that (cleanup funding) could be 'creative.' ... That 'creative' makes me very nervous," Murray said after meeting with Hanford leaders Thursday. Bush's overall federal budget request for 2003, including proposed allocations to the Department of Energy and Hanford, is expected to be unveiled in early February. DOE has not unveiled what it believes would have to be appropriated to Hanford to fully meet all legal cleanup obligations in fiscal 2003. The budget calculations are now within the federal Office of Management and Budget, which is close-mouthed until the president sends his budget request to Congress. Last year's Washington, D.C., budget battle has made Hanford observers wary. Last year, the administration, including Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, wanted Congress to cut the federal agency's nationwide cleanup budget in 2002 to $5.913 billion. That translated to $1.4 billion for Hanford when $1.832 billion was needed. Congress overruled the administration and raised 2002's nationwide cleanup budget to $6.716 billion, with DOE eventually allocating $1.776 billion to Hanford. Although no figures have been released so far, DOE's current master approach to Hanford indicates that about $1.8 billion likely would be needed for 2003. However, Hanford's 2003 budget situation features some new unknowns, including: -- A "top-to-bottom" review of all of DOE's cleanup programs is expected to release a draft report this month. The review's purpose is to slash $100 billion and 30 years from DOE's current estimates that its nuclear cleanup programs will cost $300 billion over 70 years. DOE is already floating the idea of not converting much of Hanford's tank wastes into glass. DOE's cleanup money request already will be in Congress before the review's recommendations show up in a final report. That raises questions whether money can be allocated in 2003 to implement those recommendations. -- DOE is planning to award a long-range Columbia River shore cleanup contract this summer. The initial estimated cost is $150 million to $210 million a year, starting in 2003. The bottom line is that a cost figure won't be nailed down until DOE's cleanup budget request already has spent a few months being chewed over in Congress. -- The question of: Will enough money be requested to shut down the Fast Flux Test Facility on schedule, and where will that money come from? Last month, Abraham ordered the dormant FFTF to be shut down. Although no legal timetables have been locked in, that project is expected to take five years and eight months to accomplish. That translates to a closure budget of about $44 million a year. Right now, FFTF's 2002 standby budget of $36.5 million comes from DOE's nuclear energy funds, not from cleanup money. It is unknown whether DOE's cleanup or nuclear energy funds will pay for the shutdown. If DOE uses cleanup money to close FFTF, the question is whether the agency will add the $44 million to the estimated $1.8 billion that could go to Hanford, or if Hanford will have to trim $44 million from existing programs to fit FFTF under the $1.8 billion cap. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 62 Port of Benton to support initiative to save FFTF This story was published Fri, Jan 18, 2002 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Local government has succeeded before in finding a use for Hanford surplus when the Department of Energy failed, and it can again with the Fast Flux Test Facility, said Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver. On Thursday, Oliver announced the Port of Benton agreed to help with an initiative to allow Richland-area governments to find a use for the Hanford reactor rather than having DOE permanently shut it down. "We're in the same position as the entire community -- we don't want to see it shut down," said Port Commissioner Hal Lindberg. "We want to support the cause as much as possible." However, the port is in the same position as other local governments -- with no extra money to contribute now to the project, Lindberg said. Next week, supporters of finding a local use for the reactor will approach the Richland City Council, Oliver said, and then return to the full Benton County Commission with the plan. If the three governments sign on, they would then appeal to DOE to let them work to market the reactor, much as the city of Richland marketed a $15 million surplus extrusion press from Hanford in the early 1990s. But this time, local government would be trying to market federal facilities worth about $2 billion. "In this sort of contract, we could salvage these resources and not have them go to the wrecking ground," Oliver said. In December, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced the reactor would be permanently shut down. DOE found that a proposed plan to commercialize the reactor to make isotopes for medicine and other uses carried too much financial risk. Officials worried that legal wrangling or other problems might delay a restart, leaving DOE paying about $40 million a year to keep the reactor in standby for more than three years. They also were concerned that if Advanced Nuclear and Medical Systems could not make a success of the business, DOE would be left with unwanted fuel and costs of decommissioning the reactor. ANMS was the only company to offer to take over the reactor. "Who wants to do business with DOE?" Oliver asked. "You're going to get chewed alive." He's already received one call from a foreign government interested in using the reactor if DOE strings are removed, Oliver said, although he declined to name the country. Money is being spent elsewhere to develop facilities that can do the work of FFTF, he pointed out. Nordian spent $160 million on a facility to produce medical isotopes in Canada and to replace a federal reactor built in the 1950s, he said. However, that project has run into delays. Richland-area local governments could quickly find out if there are companies qualified to use FFTF, Oliver said, just as Richland did with the extrusion press. In 1991, DOE tried to find a taker for the surplus press, but no companies were interested. Business leaders said then that the government placed too many restrictions on the press. That included DOE's right to reclaim the metalworking facility on short notice, which made finding financing for private use of the press all but impossible. However, a few years later DOE agreed to transfer the press to the city of Richland and allow it to market the equipment. Kaiser Aluminum soon bought the press and started Richland Specialty Extrusion. "Before you scrap a $2 billion taxpayer facility, shouldn't you take another look?" Oliver said. His proposal would call for local governments to market the $1 billion reactor and the related $1 billion Fuels and Materials Examination Facility. Under the proposal, DOE would continue to be responsible for decommissioning the reactor unless a company was successful in a medical isotope business. DOE would likely retain ownership. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, who was visiting the Tri-Cities on Thursday, said Oliver's proposal is "a huge uphill battle." Both she and Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., pointed out both Democratic and Republican energy secretaries have ordered its shutdown. Hastings said, "I don't want to discourage" local governments from trying to resurrect the reactor, but he added such an effort would be difficult. He will ask DOE to release the documents used to support its FFTF shutdown decision so Tri-Citians can study the federal agency's reasoning. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 63 Feds point to DOE woes published 1/19/2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The Department of Energy's managerial shortcomings have translated into numerous cost overruns and delays, two recent federal reports concluded. The December reports said DOE has trouble handling its several unrelated complicated missions at once. The General Accounting Office told the U.S. House Appropriations Committee's water and energy subcommittee that DOE resists fixing its fundamental management problems. "Historically, DOE has made piecemeal changes in response to problems or criticisms without assessing the root causes of its management weaknesses," said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress. Meanwhile, a DOE inspector general's report agrees DOE's unwieldy bureaucracy stalls projects and increases costs. The inspector general's report has a slightly more optimistic tone -- hoping a soon-to-be-concluded review of DOE nuclear cleanup programs will provide potential solutions. DOE agrees with some of the GAO and inspector general conclusions. But it believes some problems are not as bad as portrayed, the reports said. Almost every DOE site, including Hanford, has suffered major project delays and cost increases. At Hanford, the Plutonium Finishing Plant and the K Basins had to deal with major delays in the late 1990s. Today, Hanford's tank waste glassification project has fallen behind its legal timetable. Meanwhile DOE has loudly publicized its plan to complete nuclear cleanup at Rocky Flats, Colo., and its other small sites by 2006, a deadline the inspector general believes DOE will likely miss. The GAO report said DOE suffers from a mishmash of unrelated missions, a confusing organizational structure and weak accountability. Its missions include cleaning up environmental messes at Cold War nuclear weapons production sites such as Hanford, stewardship of the nation's nuclear bomb stockpiles, dealing with numerous energy issues and coordinating scientific research. These missions create conflicting departments and cultures, the GAO said. For example, research emphasizes the open exchange of ideas, while nuclear security emphasizes a close-mouthed atmosphere. Also, DOE's Washington, D.C., headquarters tightly manages some field programs but lets field offices make major decisions in others. Coordination between programs is lousy, the GAO said. "DOE's organizational structure, which has blurred lines of authority, has made it difficult to hold staff and contractors accountable for poor performance," the GAO wrote. The GAO also said, "Over the last decade or so, DOE has undertaken major departmental shake-ups every two or three years. None have stemmed recurring fundamental problems, and all have been thwarted by institutional intransigence." The GAO recommends DOE look at restructuring itself, shifting some missions to other agencies or farming out more responsibilities to private companies. Already private corporations handle the bulk of DOE's work. Last spring, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham ordered a "top-to-bottom review" of all cleanup programs to determine how to make them more efficient. DOE told the inspector general's office and the GAO that this review should help fix the managerial problems. A draft report was due by Dec. 31, but DOE headquarters still is working on it, and it's now expected by Jan. 31. So far no findings have been made public. Meanwhile, DOE's cleanup budget request for fiscal 2003 is expected to go to Congress in early February. That makes it unlikely that significant managerial changes will be reflected in the initial request. The two reports' other findings include: - DOE employees are shrinking in number, growing older and often lack necessary technical knowledge. "DOE has not been able to develop a technically competent work force to oversee its contractors," GAO said. Since 1995, DOE's nationwide staff has shrunk from 13,640 to 10,333, including 500 at Hanford. During that time, the average age of a DOE employee rose from 44 to 48. Only 9 percent of its total employees and 6 percent of its technical employees are younger than 35, the inspector general's report said. Right now, 13 percent are eligible to retire. DOE believes one-third of them will retire by 2007. - DOE rarely fires contractors for poor work. - DOE does a poor job of coordinating its national labs, which include Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland. Tri-City Herald Online ***************************************************************** 64 China claims breakthrough in nuclear fusion BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 19, 2002 Text of report by official Chinese news agency Xinhua (New China News Agency) Hefei, 16 January: It was learned from the Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) that a new round of experiments on the HT-7 superconductive Tokamak magnetically confined nuclear fusion made by the CAS Institute of Plasma Physics has achieved world-renowned research successes recently, making the HT-7 superconductive Tokamak equipment of the CAS Institute one of the two major installations in the world which are able to conduct a high-parameter experiment of plasma physics under a steady condition. Experts held this as a great breakthrough for China's major science and engineering research. The research on the HT-7 superconductive Tokamak magnetically confined nuclear fusion is one of China's 10 major scientific research projects at the beginning of the new century. The CAS Institute of Plasma Physics in Hefei has been conducting research in this field for a long time. In the mid-1990s the institute set up the HT-7 facilities, making China the fourth country in the world with this large type of equipment for experiment. This equipment has also marked several records for China's scientific research and experiment facilities construction in terms of the superconductor's scale, super-low temperature and intensive magnetic field, and achieved a series of high-level research accomplishments involving many fields. According to the responsible person from the institute, this round of experiments started in October 2001 after some major improvements on the HT-7 superconductive Tokamak experiment system. With the common efforts of more than 150 Chinese scientists and 18 foreign experts from the United States and Japan etc., the goal of creating a repeated 20-second high-temperature electrical discharge of plasma under the drive of low clutter, with an electronic temperature over 5m degree marks, and a high-parameter electrical discharge of plasma, which is longer than 10 seconds with an electronic temperature over 10m degree marks, was achieved. This is the second-highest parameter quasi-steady-state plasma operation in the world, with the energy constrain time reaching 1,000 folds. Under the coordinated act of ion wave and low clutter, an electronic discharge pulse length is 100-fold larger than the energy constrain time, with a high constrain and steady operation while the electronic temperature maintains at 20m degree marks. The highest electronic temperature can exceed 30m degree marks. Along with the experiments, scientists have also carried out an overall and deep research on the most challengeable frontier subjects in the field of magnetically confined nuclear fusion. This world-renowned research success was achieved in medium-sized Tokamak equipment with a medium intensity of magnetic field. Professor Huo Yuping, an academician of the CAS, held this achievement has great significance in the improvement of the design of cylindrical fusion reactors for commercial purposes. Source: Xinhua news agency domestic service, Beijing, in Chinese 0813 gmt 16 Jan 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************