***************************************************************** 11/02/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.283 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Massive nuclear bomb factory planned, send comments 2 [southnews] Ex-UN inspector fears US will provoke Iraq War 3 Canada clash over £650m nuclear loan 4 South Korea urges North to scrap nuclear programme 5 US: Reining in Bush's cowboy policy before it gets to town 6 Koreas to build joint industrial complex - 7 The Dangers - (of war) 8 North Korea Says Nuclear Program Can Be Negotiated 9 U.S. Rules Out Talks With N. Korea 10 N. Korea Official Defends Nukes 11 New Sites May Be Inspected in Iraq 12 Oil Sent to N. Korea Despite Nukes 13 Powell Presses France for Iraq Deal 14 New US Text on Iraq Expected in Week 15 DISARMING IRAQ: HOW WEAPONS INSPECTIONS CAN WORK 16 The war debate / Destabilize the middle east 17 Hydro shocker: What went wrong 18 EU says UK nuclear firm rescue illegal-paper 19 US: Rezoning Vote For Uranium Plant Passed 20 US: Pataki campaign will keep nuke money NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 US: Reactors to mock crisis gain mostly high marks 22 US: FPL closes deal for Seabrook nuclear plant 23 US: New zoning to allow uranium plants debated * 24 US: NRC inspects Point Beach 25 US: Nuclear panel starts special inspection of Point Beach 26 US: Tritium Production Licenses Granted to Civilian Power Plants NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 US: Normal Cancer Rate Found Near Three Mile Island Plant NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 28 US: Hot Waste, Cold Cash: Nuclear Industry Campaign Contributions to 29 Report: Grand jury to investigate uranium plant allegations 30 Whistleblowers seek end to government delay 31 US: Utah: N-Waste Initiative Critics Deny Bias 32 US: Utah Leavitt: No Hot Waste 33 US: Initiative would affect only low-level waste - 34 US: Radioactive soil found outside Millstone - 35 US: NAVAJO GROUPS QUESTION WHY IUC NOT INCLUDED IN INITIATIVE 1 36 Decision sought in lawsuit against uranium plant 37 US: DEP clears Apollo sewer project of radioactive contamination 38 US: Soil-testing timeline still uncertain NUCLEAR WEAPONS 39 US: Credible Or Incredible US DEPT. OF ENERGY 40 Nuclear labs to continue giving workers polygraphs 41 DOE reverses course on ORO site manager OTHER NUCLEAR 42 America doesn’t want democracy 43 Scientists Say a Quest for Clean Energy Must Begin Now 44 'Clean' fuels not ready for widespread use: scientists ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Massive nuclear bomb factory planned, send comments Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 19:18:47 -0600 (CST) The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has quietly begun the process towards building a massive new nuclear bomb factory at one of five DOE sites. The "Modern Pit Facility" (MPF) would make the plutonium "pits," or spherical cores, of nuclear weapons, and, according to the scant information available from DOE, the facility would cost between $2-4 billion to construct and would cost $200-300 million per year to operate. The US has not produced pits since the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado closed in 1989 after a wave of scandals. DOE says that the MPF design "will ensure a capacity of no less than 125 pits per year, with the ability to expand production to meet national security needs." The facility would have the "agility" to switch from production of one type pit to another, and be able to produce multiple pit designs at the same time, including pits for new weapon designs, including the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator." So, plans for this facility underscore that the US Government intends to maintain a nuclear war-fighting capability well into the 21st century and has no intention of abiding by disarmament requirements (Article VI) of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). DOE began the process to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the pit facility on October 8. Meetings to determine the "scope" of the EIS have been held near four of the five DOE sites being considered for the facility, as well as Washington, DC. Meetings have taken place near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico, Pantex in Texas, and the Nevada Test Site. The last meeting will take place near the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina on Tuesday, October 29. DOE admitted at the Washington meeting on October 15 that the weapons plutonium disposition program, the proliferation-prone program to make MOX fuel, has aspects in common with the pit mission if SRS, a leading candidate, were to be chosen for the MPF. DOE plans to issue a draft EIS in May 2003, a final EIS in March 2004, and a "Record of Decision" in April 2004, with the goal of getting this facility on line by 2018. DOE is currently building a smaller pit production facility at Los Alamos, with a capacity now of 20 pits/year. That facility, planned to be completed in 2007, was designed to produce 50-80 pits per year and DOE will reexamine expanding the production capacity. DOE already has stored at Pantex well over 10,000 pits and has that many more in weapons so why in the world do the need more?! DOE admits in the "Notice of Intent" to prepare the EIS (URL below) that aging problems with these pits have not been identified and presents no evidence to support the speculation that such problems could develop. Please send in a comment stating that you support the "No Action Alternative" against the construction of such a facility, based on both environmental and policy considerations. Ask to be added to the contact list about DOE plans for the facility. It is the height of hypocrisy that while the US is screaming about the nuclear programs of other countries it is quietly pushing forward with its own dangerous and provocative nuclear war-fighting first-strike plans. Send comments by November 25 to: Mr. James Rose, Supplement to the Programmatic EIS on SSM for a Modern Pit Facility Document Manager NA-53, Forrestal Building US Department of Energy/NNSA 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 fax 1-202-586-5324 More details are found in DOE's "Notice of Intent" to prepare an EIS, in the Federal Register on September 23: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid =02-24076-filed DOE "screening analysis" on the five DOE sites chosen to be reviewed for the bomb plant mission on the Albuquerque (New Mexico) Journal web site: http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/pdf/plutopit10-18-2002.pdf Thanks for taking a few minutes to send your message of opposition to this nuclear bomb factory and for alerting any media contacts not blinded by US nuclear propaganda. On your request, I can fax the 15 pages of handouts which DOE is providing at the EIS meetings, though they contain little substantive information. Tom Clements Nuclear Campaign Greenpeace International tel. 1-301-270-0192 ***************************************************************** 2 [southnews] Ex-UN inspector fears US will provoke Iraq War Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 21:39:11 -0600 (CST) Ex-U.N. Inspector Fears U.S. Will Provoke Iraq War Fri Nov 1, 1:21 PM ET By Emma Thomasson BERLIN (Reuters) - A former U.N. weapons inspector and Gulf War veteran said Friday the United States would try to trigger a war with Iraq by interfering in new arms inspections in what he said would be proof of American "imperial" ambitions. "The U.S. will be doing whatever it can to provoke a confrontation," Scott Ritter told journalists at the start of a two-day peace conference in Berlin. "There is a big group of people in the United States that want war." An American who was a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years until he quit in 1998, Ritter said he did not believe Iraq posed a sufficient threat to justify going to war and said Washington's real motive was to demonstrate its global predominance. "Iraq is merely the case study for implementation of what they call in the United States unilateralism, but I think what they call in the rest of the world imperialism," he said. Since his resignation, Ritter has consistently been a fierce critic of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Washington is trying to get the U.N. Security Council to agree a resolution giving inspectors license to search anywhere for Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and threatens "serious consequences" if Baghdad blocks them. Ritter said he believed Washington was already trying to manipulate Hans Blix, the head of the inspections team waiting for the new resolution so it can resume its work in Iraq. "Unless we get inspectors back in, we're going to start an air campaign in the second half of December and then troops will be on the ground 30 to 40 days later," said Ritter, a former Marine who fought in the 1991 war against Iraq. "We need inspectors to get in there and disarm. But we have to make sure that those who implement the provisions calling for the disarmament of Iraq do not deviate off task," he said. BLIX BEING MANIPULATED Ritter said he was worried that Blix had done Washington's bidding in agreeing not to return to Iraq without a tougher Security Council resolution, and expressed concern he had met President Bush (news - web sites) to discuss inspections. "There is great concern, at least in my heart, that Hans Blix may not be up to the task of standing up to the United States," he said. "I am afraid Hans Blix is like his predecessor Richard Butler in becoming a tool of American foreign policy." Former UNSCOM chief Butler has rejected Ritter's views: "It's nonsense and I'm truly sad that a basically good man has left the rails," he said two years ago. Ritter has accused Washington of using Butler's inspections teams for espionage before they pulled out in 1998 and said on Friday he was worried the same could happen again, giving Baghdad a pretext to eject the inspectors, sparking war. "What reason do we have to believe that if inspectors go back to Iraq the United States won't once again manipulate the inspections to achieve a military result?" Ritter proposed third party monitors to oversee the new inspection regime "to make sure there is no falsification of reporting so the Iraqis can't say there are spies on the team." He admitted he was concerned about weapons the previous inspection regime had not accounted for in Iraq but reiterated his oft-stated view that Iraq no longer had a significant ability to produce prohibited weapons. ---------- Pentagon Seeks Iraqi 'Bay of Pigs' Most likely, the Pentagon didnt read the CIA report Pravda.RU 2002.11.01/16:09 While the USA is very active with its preparation for a war against Iraq, it still hopes to receive some assistance in Iraq itself. The White House already several times openly and insinuatingly said that a coup or an attempt at Saddam Husseins life would considerably improve the situation and partially settle the problem. However, recently, the CIA issued a report saying that there are few hopes for a blow delivered from inside the country. CIA analysts reached the conclusion that Saddam is strongly holding onto power and the Iraqi security services and army are on alert to smash any domestic opposition. In April 2002, the CIA issued answers to questions put forth by a Senate special committee. Two weeks ago, more details of the report were published. American journalist Bill Gertz thinks that the report turned out to be very annoying for the White House. The CIA thinks that there is hardly a man in Iraq who can organize a coup or assassinate the Iraqi leader. The US Intelligence report says that Iraqi officials and military men pin their hopes of the future on Saddam Hussein only. This result has been achieved through official propaganda mostly, which successfully convinced Iraqi people that Saddam Hussein is the main condition for the survival of Iraq and for preservation of its territorial integrity. Bill Gertz from the Washington Times wrote that Saddam Hussein managed to create a strong system for protection against domestic enemies, a system based upon his special personal protection. Saddam doesnt even rely upon the Republican Guard or the largest military units. The CIA report stresses that the future of the Iraqi government mostly depends upon the when Saddam quits the political scene. However, analysts are sure that it will be extremely problematic for any new government to establish stability in the country. They say that a new centrist government that might take over after todays regime will have to establish a less centralized rule than under Saddam. Despite the CIA report, the US administration announced that it would welcome any method of removing Saddam from the political scene. White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called upon the Iraqi people to settle the problem; he added that "a bullet is cheaper than a war. Bill Gertz said that the Bush administration is already taking secret efforts to mobilize opposition groups inside Iraq. US Intelligence officers are working in the northern parts of the country. On October 14, President George W. Bush declared once again that he doesnt really want a war against Iraq, and he stressed that it would be more preferable to organize a coup in the country and overthrow Saddam. Although preparation for a war campaign is underway, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers said on October 22 that the Pentagon plans to train and equip the Iraqi opposition. Most likely, the Pentagon didnt read the CIA report. Sergey Borisov PRAVDA.Ru Translated by Maria Gousseva Read the original in Russian: http://world.pravda.ru/world/2002/5/16/43/2323_Iraq.html ---------- Terrorist attacks to be instigated by US http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/11/01/120.html Friday, Nov. 1, 2002. Page XXIV Global Eye -- Into the Dark By Chris Floyd This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large? Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary. This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story, which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There -- in an article by military analyst William Arkin detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon -- came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception." According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization -- the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" -- will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces. In other words -- and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan -- the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people -- your family, your friends, your lovers, you -- in order to further their geopolitical ambitions. For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice -- a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action -- by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves? -- they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk." The Pee-Twos will thus come in handy whenever the Regime hankers to add a little oil-laden real estate or a new military base to the Empire's burgeoning portfolio. Just find a nest of violent malcontents, stir 'em with a stick, and presto: instant "justification" for whatever level of intervention/conquest/rapine you might desire. And what if the territory you fancy doesn't actually harbor any convenient marauders to use for fun and profit? Well, surely a God-like "super-Intelligence Support Activity" is capable of creation nihilo, yes? The Rumsfeld-Bush plan to employ murder and terrorism for political, financial and ideological gain does have historical roots (besides al-Qaida, the Stern Gang, the SA, the SS, the KGB, the IRA, the UDF, Eta, Hamas, Shining Path and countless other upholders of Bushian morality, decency and freedom). We refer of course to Operations Northwoods, oft mentioned in these pages: the plan that America's top military brass presented to President John Kennedy in 1963, calling for a phony terrorist campaign -- complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans -- to provide "justification" for an invasion of Cuba, the mafia/corporate fiefdom that had recently been lost to Castro. Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but on a far grander scale, with resources at his disposal undreamed of by those brass of yore, with no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him -- and with an ignorant, corrupt president who has shown himself all too eager to embrace any means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his own narrow, undemocratic, elitist clique. There is prestuplyeniye here, transgression, a stepping-over -- deliberately, with open eyes, with forethought, planning, and conscious will -- of lines that should never be crossed. Acting in deadly symbiosis with rage-maddened killers, God-crazed ranters and those supreme "sub-state actors," the mafias, Bush and his cohorts are plunging the world into an abyss, an endless night of black ops, retribution, blowback, deceit, of murder and terror -- wholesale, retail, state-sponsored, privatized; of fear and degradation, servility, chaos, and the perversion of all that's best in us, of all that we've won from the bestiality of our primal nature, all that we've raised above the mindless ravening urges and impulses still boiling in the mud of our monkey brains. It's not a fight for freedom; it's a retreat into darkness. And the day will be a long time coming. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 3 Canada clash over £650m nuclear loan Independent.co.uk By Jason Nissé The Government's £650m bail-out of British Energy is being challenged by the nuclear energy group's partner in its valuable Canadian business. Cameco, the uranium producer which owns 15 per cent of British Energy's subsidiary Bruce Power, has lodged a legal objection to the validity of the Government's emergency loan to British Energy. It is aiming to use British Energy's troubles to force it to sell all or a large part of its 82 per cent stake in Bruce Power at a knock-down price. Analysts have said Bruce Power could be worth as much as £500m, but British Energy may have to sell it for substantially less. As security for the £650m emergency loan, granted in September and repayable on 29 November, the Treasury demanded cross guarantees from British Energy's operating businesses. Cameco claims that British Energy did not give the board of Bruce enough time or information to decide whether giving these guarantees was in the business's interest. "British Energy's financial difficulties created uncertainty around Bruce Power's operating licence," Cameco said in a statement. "This uncertainty, coupled with Bruce Power guaranteeing British Energy's repayment of the British government loan, has increased the risk associated with Cameco's investment." British Energy has admitted it is in talks with Cameco about a range of options for securing the future of Bruce. Most pressing is a meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on 12 November when Bruce will have to come up with financial guarantees of C$222m (£92.5m) to renew its licence to operate. British Energy is in no position to provide those guarantees and will need Cameco to step into the breach. Cameco confirmed that it wanted to increase its investment in Bruce and possibly wrest control of the business from British Energy. The East Kilbride-based nuclear giant will face a barrage of criticism from shareholders at a hastily convened extraordinary general meeting in Edinburgh tomorrow. The meeting, called at just 19 days' notice, is to pass a resolution allowing British Energy to raise its borrowing limits to £1.6bn. Without this, the group has warned that it may have to "cease trading". Currently it has debts of £1.1bn ? twice its shareholders' funds ? but this does not include about £100m it owes BNFL for a reprocessing contract and more than £100m it owes eight local councils for its business rates. British Energy has written to the councils asking whether it can defer payments on the rates until at least February. Robin Jeffrey, British Energy's chairman, is expected to depart once the group sorts out its financial problems. ***************************************************************** 5 Reining in Bush's cowboy policy before it gets to town Rocky Mountain News: Opinion November 2, 2002 The current debate over Iraq is a foreign policy Rubik's cube. But unlike the Hungarian puzzle that made a generation of intelligentsia fumble like fools, this war game is no matter for amusement. Spinning through the options at hand, Americans are finding it devilishly hard to keep the issues straight. What begins as a simple notion turns out to be much trickier than one might suppose. Multiple options within multiple dimensions create a befuddling complexity. The decision cube has three dimensions. Time is one. The question of whether to attack Iraq has past, present, and future elements. Washington policymakers are haunted by Sept. 11, and a fear of yesteryear is now engraved in our national psyche. Twist: Our present rush to arms is a race against the clock, with intelligence officials thinking that within months Saddam might have a nuclear weapon. Twist: Other policy experts look to the future, asking us to imagine an Arab world free of Saddam, but further alienated from the West by arrogant unilateralism, with the proliferation of al-Qaida-type organizations mocking our most ardent attempts at homeland security. We turn the cube to another face - the spatial dimension. Saddam is holding together a country divided into three diverse regions that might well split in a chaotic civil war if he loses control. Twist: Regionally, Saddam's posturing as the Middle East bully makes Saudis, Iranians and Egyptians nervous; his sights still are fixed on his neighbors' oil fields, which he needs in order to solve his domestic economic crisis. If he prevails, our oil-based economy could be held hostage. Twist: Farther out, Saddam's anti-Israel bellicosity results in an alliance with the Palestinians and, by extension, the Jordanians and others alienated from Israel. If Israel is drawn into battle, where do we draw the line? The permutations of time and space are complex beyond what we had imagined. But there is a third dimension to the cube. The president wants to finish his father's business and so motivates the nation by pointing to an unsubstantiated al-Qaida/Saddam link, even though Osama bin Laden likely has the same antipathy toward the non-orthodox Saddam as he does for the U.S. Twist: The U.S.-dominated military-industrial complex needs to sell its wares. Twist: U.N. head Kofi Annan denounces U.S. unilateralism as a dangerous precedent, and the administration vacillates between going it alone and Colin Powell's insistence on an approach among allies. Twist: A pivotal U.S. election looms, and President Bush needs a distraction from a disastrous domestic economy. Twist. Twist. Twist. Twisted thinking won't get us where we need to be. Members of Congress have complained that the Bush administration withheld information about the North Korean nuclear arms agreement abrogation until the debate on Iraq was completed and the war resolution signed. That duplicity made it possible for Iraq hawks to brush aside critics who asked, "Why Iraq instead of other rogue states?" Government officials insist that we are justified in attacking Iraq out of "self-defense." In fact, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to attack the U.S. He's a terrible person, a ruthless dictator, but also a power-hungry regional bully highly invested in staying alive. In short, he's a megalomaniac, not an ideologue. Let's assume Saddam does develop more terrible weapons than he already has. Why on earth would he want to give away that power to terrorists who could turn around and use those weapons against him? And why would he risk the wrath of the U.S., which would lead to his certain destruction? An invasion of Iraq presents an enormous risk to the U.S. It undoubtedly would be framed as an imperialistic anti-Islamic act. The unintended consequence would be the uniting of Muslim states in an anti-American coalition and the energizing of religious fanatics. I can accept with regret the necessity of sometimes using military action to stop aggression. But a national tragedy like Sept. 11 does not justify cowboy foreign policy. When the dots don't connect - when the squares don't line up - all the bluster in the world won't make them. Former Colorado resident Swanee Hunt, who served as U.S. ambassador to Austria, is now director of the Women and the Public Policy program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 2002 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 6 Koreas to build joint industrial complex - NOV 3, 2002 [http://ads.asia1.com.sg SEOUL - North and South Korea yesterday signed an accord on building a joint industrial complex, bringing forward their reconciliation process despite tension over the North's suspected nuclear programme. North Korea agreed to let South Korean investors participate in an ambitious project to turn 66 million sq m of land into a sprawling industrial complex in Kaesong City near the inter-Korean border next month. In the move to reform its centrally-controlled economy, Pyongyang has promised to designate the border town as a special economic zone where foreign businesses can operate freely without any restrictions. The industrial park will be connected to the South by a railway that is to be finished by the end of this year. South Korea will provide electricity, water and communications for the park, said a joint statement. The first stage of construction will be completed by the end of next year, and the park will be expanded gradually, depending on future demand. Drawn by skilled but cheap North Korean labour, hundreds of labour-intensive South Korean plants making garments, shoes and furniture have expressed interest in the park. --AFP, AP The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 7 The Dangers - (of war) NOV 3, 2002 http://ads.asia1.com.sg By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM NEW YORK - Let us not be fooled: The upcoming war against Iraq has nothing to do with the war against terror. Iraqis training to defend their president may not like him, but some analysts say they won't be welcoming the Americans either, and will inflict severe damage on the invaders. -- AFP US President George W. Bush's war is fuelled by two things: bolstering his popularity as he attempts to ride on the natural wave of patriotism unleashed by the attacks of Sept 11; and a misguided temptation to get more oil out of the Middle East by turning a 'friendly' Iraq into a private US pumping station. Both will backfire and may indeed cost Mr Bush and his warmongering Cabinet a second term. To begin with, the emperor is naked because the real war on terror is far from finished. If anything, it is falling apart. In Afghanistan, things are so bad that the puppet president the US installed, Mr Hamid Karzai, is now guarded by US special forces because he cannot trust his life to his own people. The Al-Qaeda, according to the CIA and the Pentagon, is reconstituting itself. In fact, every Middle East and Muslim affairs expert is saying that Al-Qaeda's ranks are being fattened by new recruits. In other words, a new Al-Qaeda, far more dangerous than the existing one, is in the making. Witness the attack on the tourist resort of Bali, on US Marines in Kuwait and on a French oil tanker off Yemen. Case against war + The war on terror is far from finished and more will join the Al-Qaeda if the US attacks Iraq. + Any US hopes of creating a totally pro-American Middle East won't work because it is impossible to impose democracy by installing an occupying power in a region that has no tradition for it. + Years of US-inspired economic sanctions have caused much suffering for the Iraqis. The embittered people of Iraq certainly won't welcome the Americans. + A US attack will trigger a wider regional war that will drag in Israel, Lebanon and Syria. In Afghanistan, the United States' main enemy, Osama bin Laden's cadre of leadership, has disappeared, while his shock troops, the Taleban, are there in their homes and villages sitting on their weapons, patiently waiting for the right moment to return to action when America is busy attacking Iraq. Thus far, all the arguments presented for sending American boys and girls into one of the world's most dangerous neighbourhoods are half-truths, spurious assumptions and utter nonsense. Washington simply cannot prove that Iraq is tied to the Al-Qaeda. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has neither nuclear weapons nor the means to deliver them on missiles or in suitcases to America. His immediate neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, feel he is better contained than aroused. So why is America afraid of Mr Saddam? For my money, North Korea is a far clearer and more present danger. It has just announced it does have missiles and nukes and that it will expand its arsenal further. So why isn't the United States going to war against North Korea? The fact that Mr Saddam tortures, jails and oppresses his people, which Mr Bush repeatedly emphasises, has been going on for 30 years without disturbing Americans. When Mr Saddam took on Iran in 1980, the US joined in the attack on the Iranian navy and destroyed Iranian off-shore oil platforms, crippling Iran's economy and making sure he survived the war he started. In 1991, the first president Bush saved Mr Saddam again when an uprising against him turned into a civil war. So all the talk about spreading democracy and changing the whole Middle East, starting with Iraq, does not hold water. The US, obsessed with oil and something called 'regime change', wants to create a totally pro-American Middle East. The problem is that it will not work. You do not impose democracy by installing an occupying power in a region that has no tradition for it. The suits in the Pentagon are ignoring a significant number of senior military commanders who have warned Mr Bush that US forces are marching into a deadly trap with no exit strategy. Most commanders of the Gulf War and many inside the army now are saying that Washington is about to place American men and women in one of the world's most anti-American regions. Why? Things are very different from 1990, when the US had a vast Arab and international coalition with it and much of the Arab and Muslim world looked to it with love and admiration. Iraq's 22 million people would welcome the death of Mr Saddam, his family and his Ba'ath Party troops, but it does not follow that they would welcome Americans. Eleven years of American-inspired economic sanctions have embittered Iraqis. Their standard of living has collapsed, while Mr Saddam and his clique of 100,000 have lived well indeed. Yet America hangs on to those sanctions. When Iraqis finish settling their very bloody internal account with Mr Saddam's folks, they will turn against America's troops and against one another. Next door, for 11 years, Iran has been training 40,000 Shiite Iraqi fighters for this moment, when US troops look set to become sitting ducks. Remember Hizbollah and Beirut? The US lost 240 Marines there. Now, Mr Bush declared Iran part of the 'axis of evil'. The Iranians are waiting to settle some scores on their own ground. Finally, it is almost a certainty that a US attack will trigger a regional war that will drag in Israel, Lebanon and Syria. It is a disgrace that Congress has failed in its duty to debate fully the Tonkin-like resolution given to Mr Bush. Americans' elected representatives will have to explain themselves when the body bags begin to come back. US forces, caught in a bloody Iraqi civil war, will become the target of attacks by Iranian and Iraqi guerillas. For any president, 60-per-cent popularity ratings are not worth paying such a price: Mr Bush is wrapping himself in the flag for the wrong reason. I hope wisdom prevails before the US jumps into the Iraqi inferno. --IHT The writer, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, covered the Middle East for 30 years for The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 8 North Korea Says Nuclear Program Can Be Negotiated The New York Times November 3, 2002* *By PHILIP SHENON* WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 ? North Korea says it wants to negotiate with the United States over the North's newly disclosed nuclear weapons program, and is open to meeting the Bush administration's demand that it shut down its previously secret uranium-enrichment facilities. In a series of statements issued over the last week by its mission to the United Nations, North Korea said "everything will be negotiable," including the dismantling of the enrichment program. Last month, North Korea acknowledged that the uranium facilities were part of a secret program to build nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States. The 1994 accord provided for energy aid and other assistance to North Korea. In the statements released through its United Nations mission in New York, North Korea also said it was open to discussion of international inspections of the uranium facilities. The State Department said it had no official response to the North Korea statements, which were made in an interview with a senior North Korean diplomat and subsequent written statements to The New York Times, contacts that the North Korean Mission at the United Nations initiated. But administration officials said they doubted that the United States would waver in its refusal to resume negotiations with North Korea until it first dismantled the enrichment laboratories. The United States is pressing its allies to isolate North Korea, using the North's desperate economic needs to force it to comply with the American demands. On Friday, Under Secretary of State John R. Bolton ruled out talks with North Korea until it "completely and verifiably" ended the nuclear weapons program. He said it was "hard to see how we can have conversations with a government that has blatantly violated its agreements." In their statements over the last week, the North Koreans said they were equally firm that they would not consider dismantling the uranium facilities until after the United States had reopened talks. If the United States refused to negotiate, they said, they would welcome the intervention of an intermediary, like former President Jimmy Carter or other prominent American political figures. "Everything will be negotiable," the North Korean government said in one of the statements issued through Ambassador Han Song Ryol of the mission at the United Nations, the country's sole diplomatic post in the United States. "Our government will resolve all U.S. security concerns through the talks, if your government has a will to end its hostile policy." In the interview in the mission ? a small, nondescript suite of offices decorated with images of the nation's absolute leader, Kim Jong Il, and his late father, Kim Il Sung ? Mr. Han said his government had been "stunned" by the refusal of the United States to continue talks on the nuclear issue. In North Korea, "the interpretation is that the U.S. is preparing for a war," he said. adding: "There must be a continuing dialogue. If both sides sit together, the matter can be resolved peacefully and quickly." Asked in a later e-mail exchange if North Korea was willing to consider shutting down the uranium-enrichment program, he replied, "Yes, I believe our government will resolve all U.S. security concerns." Asked if the North Korean government would consider allowing international inspections of the uranium facilities, he replied simply, "Yes." He said it was the United States that first violated the 1994 nuclear agreement, the so-called Agreed Framework, because of Washington's failure to move toward normal ties, and because of long delays in the completion of two civilian nuclear power plants that were promised under the pact. North Korea was startled, he said, by the Bush administration's hostility toward it from the start, when the administration shut down wide-ranging bilateral talks begun during the Clinton administration. Mr. Han said his government had been particularly alarmed by President Bush's description of North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran, and by Mr. Bush's repeated statements beginning last summer that the United States would pre-emptively attack nations that threatened it with weapons of mass destruction. *Continued* 1 | 2 Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 9 U.S. Rules Out Talks With N. Korea Las Vegas SUN November 01, 2002 By BARRY SCHWEID ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- The Bush administration Friday ruled out any talks with North Korea until it dismantles a program that a senior U.S. official says is capable of producing one or two nuclear weapons. Declaring North Korea's announcement last month that it was embarked on enriching uranium "a cause of grave concern," Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said North Korea had produced enough plutonium for one and possibly two nuclear weapons. Bolton said North Korea led the world in export of missile technology and has active chemical and biological weapons programs. Ruling out any talks with North Korea until it "completely and verifiably" dismantles its nuclear weapons program, Bolton said "it's pretty hard to see how we can have conversations with a government that has blatantly violated its agreements." The Bush administration seeks a peaceful solution and is trying to apply diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang, he said at a conference on terrorism sponsored by the Hudson Institute. Deputy Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith will consult in Japan and South Korea next week. Administration officials said Feith's week-long trip will be focused on coordination with the two closest U.S. allies in the region. Some U.S. experts regard North Korea's acknowledgment of a nuclear program as a strategy to gain new economic and other concessions for the impoverished nation. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 N. Korea Official Defends Nukes Las Vegas SUN November 01, 2002 By AUDRA ANG ASSOCIATED PRESS BEIJING- North Korea's ambassador to China on Friday defended his country's right to develop nuclear weapons, calling the United States a bully that used "gangster-like" tactics. North Korea shocked the world with its admission last month that it has an active program to develop nuclear arms. The disclosure came in talks with Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. But Ambassador Choe Jin Su said the U.S. envoy "asserted with no evidence" that North Korea was engaged in an enriched uranium program to make nuclear weapons. He complained that Kelly said unless the program is halted, there would be no talks between North Korea and the United States, and North Korea's links with South Korea and Japan would be harmed. "The U.S. unilateralism and high-handedness took the DPRK (North Korea) rather by surprise," the ambassador said at a lengthy news conference at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing. "The U.S. is sadly mistaken if it thinks such gangster-like logic would work with the DPRK." The ambassador sidestepped questions about whether Pyongyang was actually developing nuclear weapons. "The DPRK has neither need nor duty to explain something to the U.S.," Choe said. The Bush administration considers the North Korean program a violation of its international non-nuclear commitments. Choe said the North is no longer bound by them since President Bush included it as part of the "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq. "Obviously, this was a declaration of war against the DPRK," Choe said. He said North Korean officials told Kelly "that the DPRK was entitled to possess not only nuclear weapons but any type of weapon more powerful than that." However, Choe said North Korea is prepared to talk about a nonaggression pact with the United States. Pyongyang has said that might clear the way for North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program, but administration officials have not indicated interest in such a treaty. Meanwhile, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea said Friday he would visit Pyongyang soon. Donald Gregg, ambassador in Seoul in 1989-93, would not say whether he will discuss the nuclear weapons issue. "I am going as an unofficial person," Gregg said. "They invited me to come and we will talk freely." He had hoped to arrive in North Korea on Saturday but said he needed more time to arrange travel documents. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 New Sites May Be Inspected in Iraq Las Vegas SUN November 01, 2002 By MATT KELLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- U.S. and U.N. officials preparing for tough new weapons inspections in Iraq are comparing notes on sites inspectors will want to check for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. At the top of the list are known "dual use" sites that could provide a legitimate civilian cover story for illicit weapons work. Those facilities include laboratories that Iraq says make vaccines but inspectors suspect make biological weapons, and chemical factories Iraq says are legitimate but intelligence agencies say could make chemical weapons. Former U.N. weapons inspector Jonathan Tucker said inspecting those facilities would make it impossible for Iraq to use them to make weapons. "That would force Iraq, if it intends to violate U.N. resolutions, to do so in clandestine facilities which are inherently more difficult to use and riskier," Tucker said. The United States is working at the U.N. Security Council to develop a resolution outlining conditions for new weapons inspections in Iraq and threatening consequences if Iraq does not comply. Russia, China and France - which each has veto power - have opposed resolutions the United States has presented thus far that authorize the use of military force against Iraq if inspections are thwarted. U.N. inspectors first entered Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War to enforce Security Council resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein give up all of his weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. The inspectors left in 1998 in a dispute over Iraq's refusal to let them inspect presidential sites and because they knew U.S and British airstrikes on Iraq were about to begin. Four days of those airstrikes followed, and the inspectors have yet to return. If inspectors return, part of their mission will be to inspect known weapons sites to see what has changed since 1998. A more important and sensitive part of the mission will be to inspect other sites where banned weapons or the equipment to make them could be hidden. Intelligence from the United States and other countries will help that search. For example, U.S. intelligence has a few hundred suspected underground weapons sites in Iraq it wants information on, said a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Any sites weapons inspectors look at also would be possible targets of a U.S.-led military campaign. Officials from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, have said they will not share their findings with U.S. intelligence agencies until they report to the United Nations. But former inspectors say information sharing has to go both ways to be effective. "My experience is you have to discuss the information given to you," said former weapons inspector Terrence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "You can't just have someone give you a note with information, say, 'Thank you very much,' and walk away." A push to investigate sites where weapons are hidden - or the grounds of Saddam's palaces - could provoke a confrontation with Iraq. Hans Blix, the head of UNMOVIC, is not seeking a deliberate provocation, said Ronald Cleminson, a Canadian UNMOVIC commissioner. "I don't think he's looking at his actions as pushing a confrontation," said Cleminson, who also was a member of the previous U.N. inspection commission. "If he found he didn't have the cooperation from Iraq that he feels is essential, I think he would reflect and go back to the Security Council." Many of the sites are clustered in and around Baghdad, Iraq's capital and largest city. That's where UNMOVIC's Iraq headquarters and 80 inspectors will be. Most of the other sites are in the central belt of Iraq not covered by northern and southern no-fly zones patrolled by U.S. and British warplanes. Some sites likely to be targeted include: -Possible biological weapons facilities at Daura and Amiriyah, both near Baghdad. Both have civilian cover as vaccine facilities, but Iraq admitted to U.N. inspectors that both had been used in its biological weapons programs. Iraq announced last year it was renovating the Daura vaccine plant, damaged by U.S. and British airstrikes in 1991 and 1998. -Chemical plants at al-Sharqat, Fallujah, al-Qa'qa and Tarmiyah. Chlorine and phosgene plants at Fallujah and al-Qa'qa have been rebuilt since allied airstrikes destroyed them; those two chemicals are precursors to the kinds of nerve agents Iraq has used in the past. Iraq has built a new chemical plant at al-Sharqat, a former uranium processing site, that U.S. and British intelligence agencies suspect could be part of a chemical, nuclear or missile program. The Ibn Sinah Company at Tarmiyah employs the scientist whom Saddam ordered to keep his chemical weapons experts together after the Gulf War, according to a British dossier on Iraq. -Nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha. Iraq has done extensive rebuilding at this large complex, which was the heart of its nuclear weapons program, since 1998. -Missile testing sites at al-Rafah and al-Mamoun. Iraq has built a test area at this site that's larger than the test areas used for its now-banned Scud missiles. -Presidential palaces in Mosul and Radwaniyah. U.S. and British officials have released satellite photos of the sprawling Radwaniyah complex near Baghdad superimposed with outlines of the much smaller grounds of the White House and Buckingham Palace, suggesting the site is too large to be simply a retreat for Saddam. U.S. officials also have released satellite images of the Mosul site, identifying possible hardened bunkers and warehouses. "These facilities suggest that presidential sites perform functions other than supporting the lifestyles of the rich and famous in Iraq," John Yurechko of the Defense Intelligence Agency told reporters. On the Net: UNMOVIC: [http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/] CIA document on Iraq: [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq-wmd/Iraq-Oct-2002.htm] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 Oil Sent to N. Korea Despite Nukes Las Vegas SUN November 01, 2002 By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- Despite tough rhetoric, the Bush administration has yet to suspend free shipments of oil to North Korea that were provided for under a 1994 agreement. Officials are concerned that an abrupt cancellation could prompt Pyongyang to renege on other aspects of the agreement, possibly triggering a full blown crisis on the Korean Peninsula. A month ago, North Korean officials acknowledged to visiting U.S. diplomats that it had a uranium enrichment program to develop nuclear weapons, a violation of the 1994 U.S.-North Korean agreement. The Bush administration has been demanding "immediate and visible" dismantling of the program. It also has been consulting with China, Japan, South Korea and other key countries on how to pressure North Korea. But the administration has made no move to suspend the 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil the United States has been sending to North Korea annually as part of the 1994 agreement. While not ruling out a suspension at some point, the administration is looking for ways to salvage provisions of the agreement that it considers important for national security. The administration is eager for the International Atomic Energy Agency to continue its supervision of most of Pyongyang's plutonium resources, consistent with the 1994 agreement. The CIA believes that North Korea has used plutonium not under IAEA control to develop at least one nuclear weapon. Pyongyang presumably could develop more if it expelled the IAEA monitors. Some officials worry that North Korea would view a U.S. suspension of oil shipments as a provocation, and would respond by seizing control of the plutonium from the IAEA. But others say they doubt the North Koreans would take such action out of fear of an aggressive U.S. response. "They may be right, they may be wrong," says Robert Einhorn, a former State Department Korea hand and weapons expert. He said the administration faces a difficult choice as it contemplates whether to proceed with next month's scheduled oil shipment. Another concern is the impact of the issue on South Korea's presidential elections, also set for next month. President Kim Dae-jung, who is stepping down, wants to preserve as much of his policy of accommodation with the North as possible and does not want a pre-election confrontation with Pyongyang. Deputy Defense Secretary Douglas Feith will travel to South Korea for consultations next week. Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit there the following week. The oil deliveries were part of a broader package of energy assistance approved in 1994. The most important component was construction of two light water reactors to replace the plutonium-producing reactors the North had been using. Construction of these reactors started in August and is continuing. The agreement was part of an effort to ensure North Korea would not have nuclear weapons, a goal set back with the North's acknowledgment it had violated the 1994 pact. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 Powell Presses France for Iraq Deal Las Vegas SUN November 01, 2002 By BARRY SCHWEID ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- Secretary of State Colin Powell pressed France on Friday to support a revised United Nations resolution on Iraq as Russia expressed a willingness to compromise. Powell's telephone call to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was part of a push for consensus on a text that retains the tough U.S.-British approach to Iraq's obligation to disarm. The Bush administration's willingness to make marginal revisions stems in part from a suggestion by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. According to U.S. officials, he advised easing a 30-day deadline for Iraq to list all chemical programs that might have a connection to developing weapons. The dickering could improve prospects for U.N. Security Council approval of a resolution, but not until after next Tuesday's congressional elections. State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker said Friday that "we are reviewing the comments" of members of the Security Council "but our bottom line remains the same." These include declaring Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous U.N. resolutions that ordered Baghdad to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and warning President Saddam Hussein that if he fails to get rid of such weapons, Iraq would suffer "serious consequences." Powell, again pursuing telephone diplomacy, also spoke Friday with Foreign Ministers Jorge Castaneda of Mexico and Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia. And he talked to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, his closest ally in trying to bring pressure on Iraq to disarm. President Bush again threatened to use force with or without U.N. authority as he campaigned Friday for Republican candidates in Harrisburg, Pa. Slightly varying a familiar theme, Bush called Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a threat to America and said the United Nations risked becoming nothing more than a "debating society" if it failed to get tough with Iraq. At a political rally in Portsmouth, N.H., Bush said: "We know he's got ties with al-Qaida. A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network and they could attack America and they'd leave no fingerprints behind." At a terrorism conference in Washington, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said Iraq had procurement agents searching abroad for technology to advance its nuclear weapons program. Iraq would be able to develop a nuclear weapon within a year if it gets the right technology, Bolton said. He also said Iraq had permitted al-Qaida terrorists to operate within its territory. Russia and France object to threatening Iraq and want to defer U.N. action until international inspectors return to Iraq. Blix briefed the 10 elected members of the Security Council on his plans for renewing inspections after a four-year interruption. He also met with Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri at the ambassador's request. In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters Russia "firmly opposes any formulation that would allow anyone unilaterally to automatically proceed to use force." However, Ivanov also said, "In the last few days we have succeeded in bringing the approaching of the five permanent members (the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia) ... closer." "We have converged on a whole series of positions," he said, providing no details. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 New US Text on Iraq Expected in Week Las Vegas SUN November 02, 2002 By EDITH M. LEDERER ASSOCIATED PRESS UNITED NATIONS- Security Council members expect the United States to circulate a revised resolution on Iraq early next week after Russia indicated the positions of the five veto-wielding members were getting closer. But Moscow made clear that "considerable differences" remain on key issues and continued to oppose language that would allow the United States to attack Iraq on its own. While diplomatic contacts continued Friday between key capitals, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix briefed the 10 elected Security Council members on his plans for inspections and talks he had with President Bush about the U.S. proposal. Later, Blix met Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri. The Iraqi envoy said he requested the meeting to hear firsthand about Blix's talks with Bush and other senior U.S. officials. "He told me the most important thing is the United States chose the path of the United Nations to resolve the problem," Al-Douri said. But he expressed skepticism about Bush's real motive because the president is committed to ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "I still think the United Nations will be used as a tool for America to implement their political program against my country," he told The Associated Press. "I hope that what they said is the truth, that the United Nations is the best way ... (but) we cannot trust them." After seven weeks of negotiations, and almost daily demands from Bush for the United Nations to act against Iraq or face becoming irrelevant, Washington now is slowing down its timetable. U.S. officials say a vote is unlikely until late next week because of the need to revise the resolution and have the council discuss the updated draft - which will delay U.N. action until after Tuesday's U.S. midterm elections. Still, Bush kept the pressure up Friday, saying the United Nations risked becoming nothing more than a "debating society" if it failed to get tough with Iraq. "We know he's got ties with al-Qaida," Bush said of Saddam at a political rally in Portsmouth, N.H. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network and they could attack America and they'd leave no fingerprints behind." The United States is increasingly optimistic about support for a tough resolution in the 15-member council and has claimed it has nine "yes" votes, the minimum needed for adoption. One council diplomat dismissed the U.S. vote count as "wishful thinking." Iraq's Al-Douri expressed hope the U.S. resolution would fail, either by a lack of "yes" votes or a veto by Russia, France or China - who, along with the United States and Britain, make up the five permanent council members with veto power. But there was no indication yet that any of the three countries would use their veto. The revised U.S.-British draft is expected to make minor changes to plans for new inspections. But it's unclear whether it will meet Russian, French and Chinese concerns about language which could authorize a U.S. attack. U.S. officials said the new text would extend a deadline for Iraq to declare chemical programs unrelated to weapons from 30 days to 50 days. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, "In the last few days we have succeeded in bringing the approaches of the five permanent members ... closer. We have converged on a whole series of positions." But his deputy, Yuri Fedotov, told the ITAR-Tass news agency "there are still considerable differences in a number of key issues." The search for an Iraq resolution began Sept. 12 when President Bush challenged world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly to deal with Iraq's failure over the last 11 years to comply with resolutions or stand aside as the United States acted. Four days later, Iraq invited U.N. weapons inspectors to return after nearly four years. The proposed U.S. resolution would strengthen inspections, declare Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and threaten "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate with inspectors. Russia, France and China contend the United States could use the resolution to launch an attack on Iraq without getting council authorization. They want the possibility of force to be considered in a second resolution only if Iraq fails to comply with U.N. inspectors. Blix said earlier Friday that the Bush administration wants "to help us be a strong inspection regime." During Blix's meeting with the elected council members, many expressed concern about an automatic trigger to use force. Colombia's U.N. Ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso said council members were waiting for the revised American draft before staking out new positions. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 DISARMING IRAQ: HOW WEAPONS INSPECTIONS CAN WORK Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today An ACA Press Conference On October 7, the Arms Control Association held a press conference to discuss the capability of United Nations inspections to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Panelists spoke on the successes and difficulties of previous inspections, which ended in 1998, and offered suggestions for strengthening future inspections. The briefing came amid debate in the UN Security Council and the United States regarding potential U.S.-led military action against Iraq. The panelists were Robert Gallucci, dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and former deputy executive chairman of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM); Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which recently produced a report on “coercive inspections” called “Iraq: A New Approach”; and Jonathan B. Tucker, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace and a former UNSCOM inspector in Iraq. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, moderated the briefing. The following is an edited version of the panelists’ remarks and the question-and-answer session that followed. Daryl G. Kimball Despite the overall success of the nonproliferation regime, a small number of states threaten to undermine the norm against the development, possession, and use of weapons of mass destruction. Among them is Iraq, which has violated nonproliferation treaties and resisted UN Security Council mandates for the disarmament of its proscribed weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Even without full Iraqi cooperation and Security Council support over the last decade, the UN Special Commission on Iraq [UNSCOM] and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] succeeded in ridding Iraq of most of its prohibited weapons capabilities. But with the absence of inspectors since 1998, the United Nations, the Bush administration, and the Congress are once again debating the nature of the threat posed by Iraq, its unfulfilled disarmament obligations, and what actions are most appropriate and effective to deal with that threat. Central to that debate is whether and how weapons inspections can be effective in disarming Iraq. This is the main subject of this morning’s press briefing. Just a few weeks ago, it was not clear whether President Bush would pursue renewed UN weapons inspections in Iraq at all or whether he would attempt a pre-emptive, unilateral military strike against Iraq. But for now the president appears to have made the common sense choice to work through the Security Council to reach agreement on a strengthened inspections regime. Also significant is the fact that Iraq, under pressure from the international community, has expressed its willingness to allow unfettered access to its facilities, including the presidential sites, which had been off limits in 1998. Over the course of the next few days and weeks, the sincerity of President Bush’s appeal to the UN, the will of the Security Council’s support to uphold nonproliferation norms, and Iraq’s willingness to cooperate with the United Nations will all be tested. Top-level Bush administration officials continue to assert that strengthened inspections are bound to fail and that pre-emptive military invasion is necessary. In fact, the stated goal of the administration is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Such talk suggests to many that the administration supports the new and extremely tough new resolution at the United Nations only to provide a convenient trigger and justification for all-out military action against Baghdad. This should not be the purpose of renewed and strengthened UN inspections. Instead, the Arms Control Association and the expert panelists we have here today all agree that for now the most prudent and feasible means to deny Saddam Hussein access to weapons of mass destruction is a strategy of multilateral prevention through effective UN weapons inspections. To explain, we have three panelists with substantial experience on Iraq and weapons inspections. First, we’re going to hear from Bob Gallucci, who’s currently dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He’s a former assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, and in 1991 he was appointed deputy executive chairman of UNSCOM. Then we’ll hear from Jonathan Tucker, currently a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, who served as an UNSCOM biological weapons inspector in Iraq in 1995. Finally, we’ll hear from Jessica Mathews, who is president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who is responsible for the Carnegie Endowment’s recent report, “Iraq: A New Approach.” Robert Gallucci It seems to me that U.S. policy has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. We have come from a situation in which regime change was essential to a situation in which regime change in Iraq is still desirable but not necessarily essential in order—to use the administration’s phrase—to separate Saddam Hussein from his weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Secretary [of State Colin] Powell seems to be saying that, if Iraq accepts the intrusive inspections that are described in the American draft UN resolution, it will have effectively changed the regime. I like that. The United States is now pressing for a new inspection regime that, among other things, would eliminate any sanctuaries, would do away with any requirement for advance notice of inspections, would be guided by intelligence, would be permissive of interviews with Iraqi experts, would be accompanied by an armed military unit of some kind, would follow Iraq’s full and complete declarations, and would require Iraqi cooperation in the logistics of an inspection. This type of inspections regime, it seems to me, can indeed work if Iraq understands two things: one, that rejecting the regime will mean that it will have to suffer an invasion and two, that acceptance of the regime will mean that it does not have to suffer an invasion. Both of those must be true. The question then becomes whether an inspection regime will ensure our security in the face of the threat from Iraq. A few observations about the inspections. First, the threat derives from Iraqi capabilities in weapons of mass destruction. There are some uncertainties, but we have high confidence that Iraq has a chemical weapons capability in mustard and nerve agents, and a biological weapons capability in toxins and bacteriological weapons. There are uncertainties beyond that, and there are questions with respect to when Iraq might have a nuclear weapons capability. Second, the threat is urgent in Iraq to the extent that the transfer of this capability to a terrorist group like al Qaeda is perceived to be imminent. Al Qaeda or another terrorist group, one could well argue, is open to neither defense nor deterrence by the United States and therefore cannot be tolerated with that capability. There is at the same time, to the best of my knowledge, no good evidence that Iraq would transfer such a capability to such a group. Third, Iraq itself, even with weapons of mass destruction, could be open to deterrence and therefore be a manageable threat. But over time, it seems to me, it’s an unacceptable threat. Over time, Iraq will improve its capabilities and add a nuclear weapons capability. Given its past violation of UN Security Council resolutions, its invasion of Kuwait, and other indications that it is a rogue-like regime, deterrence and containment are too passive a response to the Iraqi threat over time. By saying that, however, I don’t mean to endorse the strategy of preventive war described in the new National Security Strategy. The fourth point I’d like to make is that we should have confidence in the effectiveness of an inspection regime in a reasonable way, which is to say that we ought to compare an inspection regime to realistic alternatives—an invasion, for example. If the United States does eventually resort to military force, hopefully in coalition with its allies, an Iraqi threat could arise again a year after that or five years after that because we could not be absolutely sure that the regime that we initially installed would remain and because the capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction could always be rebuilt. The technology is not reversible. We must, I think, look at Iraq the way we look at other states with emerging weapons capabilities and ask how we deal with them. We have concerns about Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and other countries, but it is not a good idea to plan on invading all of them. Finally, then, we are at a moment when we have an opportunity to use diplomacy to broaden the consensus on the nature of the threat and the need to respond with UN Security Council allies and those in the region. We are also at a point where we have an opportunity to let arms control work—and by arms control, I mean an intrusive set of inspections that will give us high confidence that we can separate Saddam from his weapons. This is not the instinct of this administration—at least it has not been up until now. So, the Iraqi case could well be the administration’s first test-case in its new strategy of pre-emptive war, or it could be a counterpoint to that strategy in which diplomacy and arms control prove to be effective. I hope it is the latter. Jonathan B. Tucker In assessing the successes and shortcomings of the UNSCOM inspection regime, it’s important to recall its main objectives. There were three phases of the inspection process. First was the discovery phase, in which the inspectors tried to obtain a full accounting of Iraq’s past programs and supplier networks and to compile a comprehensive inventory of its dual-use facilities—that is, factories that were ostensibly engaged in legitimate commercial production but could be easily diverted to weapons production. Second was the destruction phase, in which the UN agencies, both UNSCOM and the IAEA, sought to eliminate Iraq’s stockpile of prohibited weapons, to the extent they could be found, as well as facilities that were specifically involved in weapons of mass destruction programs. And finally, there was the ongoing monitoring and verification phase, during which the inspectors kept a close watch on Iraq’s dual-capable facilities and tracked its imports and exports of sensitive technologies, with the aim of preventing Baghdad from reconstituting its weapons programs in the future. In practice, the three phases of the UNSCOM operation overlapped extensively. What can one say about the accomplishments of the inspection regime and how well it worked? Well, first, it was clear from the outset that Iraq was not going to cooperate fully with UNSCOM. Iraq’s declarations of its weapons and facilities were incomplete and contained numerous false statements and distortions. When confronted with contradictory evidence, Iraqi authorities typically responded with partial admissions, indicating at each stage they were making a full disclosure, but each “full, final, and complete” declaration was far from full, final, or complete. The Iraqi authorities tried to lead the inspectors away from sensitive sites, and they developed elaborate and sometimes preposterous cover stories to protect their clandestine programs. They also conducted counterintelligence operations, infiltrated the inspection system, destroyed evidence, used various means to impede and delay inspections, confronted and intimidated inspectors, and employed what are called “deception and denial” techniques. Deception involves the use of active or passive measures to convey a false or inaccurate picture of a clandestine activity, such as disguising a biological weapons facility as a vaccine plant, whereas denial involves the use of active measures to conceal the very existence of a clandestine activity. Iraq became quite skilled at these techniques, which included camouflage, control of electronic emissions and chemical pollution from weapons plants, and various forms of personnel and communications security. Nevertheless, the Iraqi declarations were useful as a point of departure and provided a basis for planning and carrying out the initial inspections. Discrepancies between the declarations and other evidence often gave the inspectors valuable leads. Despite pervasive Iraqi noncooperation, UNSCOM’s detective work and dogged persistence produced a broad overview, if not every last detail, of Iraq’s prohibited weapons programs. UNSCOM inspectors, who had initially told the Iraqis what they knew, soon learned to make it harder for Baghdad to tailor its declarations by withholding some of their information. They placed greater emphasis on technical means of verification, including the use of a U-2 aircraft provided by the United States and other forms of aerial surveillance, and they conducted no-notice inspections of undeclared sites. So in response to Iraq’s noncooperation, the inspectors became more aggressive and used more intrusive techniques. UNSCOM analysts also learned how to piece together bits of information from a wide range of sources, including aerial and satellite imagery, confidential trade data from Western companies that had supplied dual-use materials and equipment to Iraq before the Gulf War, ongoing monitoring of Iraq’s imports of sensitive technologies, and reports by Iraqi defectors. In particular, UNSCOM inspectors made excellent use of what are called “mass-balance” calculations. They determined the amounts of raw materials Iraq had imported, compared this information with the quantities of biowarfare agents Iraq had admitted to having produced, and then calculated the differences to obtain estimates of undeclared production. For example, UNSCOM learned from Western suppliers that during 1988 alone, Iraq had imported nearly 39 tons of complex growth media suitable for cultivating large quantities of bacteria such as anthrax, as well as for culturing patient specimens for hospital use. So, this was a dual-use material. UNSCOM could only account for 22 tons of the media imported by Iraq, leaving 17 tons unexplained. That’s a huge quantity of material. When confronted with this evidence, the Iraqi authorities stated that the missing media had been imported for medical diagnostics and had been destroyed in riots affecting health clinics in the aftermath of the Gulf War. There were three problems with this explanation. First, Iraq’s total hospital consumption of diagnostic media from 1987 to 1994 had been less than 200 kilograms per year, yet 17 tons of media were unaccounted for. Second, the imported media did not include the types most often used for hospital diagnosis, but they were suitable for culturing agents such as anthrax. Third, since culture media spoils rapidly once a package has been opened, hospitals typically use small packages of a tenth of a kilogram to a kilogram, yet Iraq had imported the media in large drums of 25-100 kilograms. These discrepancies made it clear that the official Iraqi cover story was false and provided strong circumstantial evidence for large-scale production of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and other biological agents. When the Iraqi authorities were confronted with this information, they ultimately admitted to large-scale production. So, that’s an example of how UNSCOM’s use of analysis forced the Iraqis to acknowledge prohibited activities. At the end of the day, was the glass half full or half empty? Different analysts have come to different conclusions about the effectiveness of the inspection regime. I would argue that the glass was at least half full. UNSCOM’s successful detective work, as in the case of the culture media story I just told you, persuaded the Security Council to maintain economic sanctions on Iraq despite political pressures from France and Russia to lift them. The new revelations also put senior Iraqi officials in the increasingly untenable position of getting caught telling outright lies, creating serious tensions within the Iraqi regime. Arguably, those tensions contributed to the defection to Jordan in August 1995 of the mastermind of the Iraqi weapons programs, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamel. Kamel’s defection proved to be a key break in the UNSCOM investigation because he revealed that, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had loaded biological agents into aerial bombs and Scud missile warheads. The UN inspection regime was also successful in eliminating major elements of Iraq’s weapons programs, setting them back several years. Tens of thousands of chemical munitions were destroyed, as well as key facilities involved in the nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile production complexes. In addition, ongoing monitoring and verification at dual-capable facilities, including the installation of closed-circuit video cameras and air-sampling devices, helped to increase the difficulty, expense, and political cost to Iraq of attempting to reacquire weapons of mass destruction, serving to deter further violations. And monitoring of Iraqi imports of sensitive dual-use technologies made it more difficult for Iraq to reconstitute its weapons programs. On the negative side, UNSCOM could not account for major historical gaps in the chemical and biological weapons programs and never found Iraq’s stockpile of VX, the most deadly type of chemical nerve agent, or any filled biological munitions. Although ongoing monitoring and verification prevented Iraq from using its dual-use facilities to reconstitute its chemical and biological programs, the monitoring continued only as long as the inspectors were on the ground. It’s also important to point out that the inspectors were unarmed and that their authority derived from a united Security Council and the implicit threat of military action if Iraq did not comply. The political foundation of the inspection regime was gradually weakened, however, as Iraq shrewdly played the permanent members of the Security Council against one another. Iraq also managed to negotiate directly with the UN secretary-general over special inspection procedures for so-called presidential sites, such as Saddam’s palaces, seriously undermining UNSCOM’s authority and credibility. Finally, the revelation that the United States was piggybacking on UNSCOM to conduct its own intelligence operations, and reports that UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler was working closely with the Clinton administration, lost the public relations war for UNSCOM. In terms of lessons learned for a future inspection regime under UNMOVIC, it’s clear that the inspectors must have access to all facilities of interest throughout Iraq and that presidential and “sensitive” sites (such as government ministries) must not be subject to less intrusive inspection procedures, as they were under UNSCOM. Of course, even with an “anywhere, anytime” inspection system, Iraq will be able to constrain the timeliness of inspections to some extent by means of logistical delays. But there should be a general principle that any suspect site in Iraq can be subjected to immediate inspection on demand. Also, it’s important that UNMOVIC have the authority to interview Iraqi weapons scientists without the presence of Iraqi officials. During the UNSCOM period, Iraqi government “observers” sat in on all such interviews, which had an intimidating effect and prevented cooperative sources from revealing much of what they knew. Some carrots as well as sticks will be required to secure Iraqi cooperation. As Bob Gallucci pointed out, the Security Council should make it clear that the Iraqi regime will be allowed to remain in power if—and only if—it cooperates fully in eliminating its stocks of weapons of mass destruction and submits to ongoing monitoring and verification for a period of years. Absent an assurance of regime survival as a quid pro quo, Saddam Hussein has no long-term incentive to cooperate. Another key factor is that UNMOVIC can be effective only to the extent that the inspectors know where to look. Iraq is a large country, about the size of California, with many places to hide weapons and clandestine production facilities, so the inspection process must be supported with accurate and timely intelligence. This need will require the United States and like-minded countries to share sensitive data on clandestine Iraqi weapons production and storage sites. UNMOVIC must also have, as UNSCOM did, intelligence-gathering assets such as U-2 aircraft and its own analytical unit. Short-notice inspections can increase the likelihood that Iraq will make mistakes and leave behind telltale indicators of illicit activity. In addition, the combined use of various tools, such as overhead surveillance, trade flow monitoring, visual inspection, sampling and analysis, and other techniques, can yield valuable synergies. Overhead surveillance can serve both to cue onsite inspections and to monitor the Iraqi response while an inspection is underway—observing, for example, if Iraqi officials are trying to remove sensitive documents or materials out the back door. In conclusion, a realistic goal of the UN inspection regime is not to eliminate every last weapon, which is probably impossible, but to deny Iraq a militarily significant mass-destruction capability. I believe that goal is probably achievable if UNMOVIC is given full access to relevant facilities throughout Iraq, supplied with accurate and timely intelligence, and supported by a united Security Council. Jessica T. Mathews I agree with virtually everything my colleagues have said, but I have a few additional thoughts. Let me describe some of the crucial elements behind the concept of coercive inspections and then give you a sense of where I think we are in terms of policies in the administration. The Carnegie Endowment’s study on coercive inspections began with the belief that, among all the grievances the United States has against Saddam Hussein, his weapons of mass destruction are the only aspect of his regime that pose a threat to us. We therefore began with the premise that U.S. policy ought to be aimed at weapons of mass destruction rather than at regime change per se. At that time, that was a very radical belief. Having determined that, we then asked the question of whether there was any policy that could get us beyond the more than half- decade of impotence in the face of Iraqi behavior, that could deal effectively with its weapons of mass destruction short of regime change, and we came to the conclusion that the answer was yes. In our view, however, such a policy required a radically different inspection regime than either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC. We looked at the history of Iraqi behavior, the technical successes and failures of UNSCOM, and the political successes and failures of the Security Council, and we concluded that three factors accounted for the success of UNSCOM in its first five years. The first of these was the credible and immediate threat of force that began with the presence of U.S. Desert Storm forces in the region when UNSCOM was formed. The second was unity among the permanent five members of the Security Council, which persisted, I think, until the United States undermined it, beginning in about 1995, by equivocating about whether its goal was disarmament or regime change. After that, Iraq became increasingly confident and increasingly successful at the techniques of divide and conquer in the Security Council. And the third was Saddam Hussein’s belief, which he held at the outset of inspections, that he could successfully hide what he had. Now, all three of those conditions for success are currently gone, but we believe the first two could be reconstituted—the third is obviously gone for good. We felt that because of Saddam Hussein’s political success over the past five years and also the relative painlessness and ineffectiveness of pinprick bombing against his weapons of mass destruction, the new inspection regime had to be more than just marginally strengthened. And we came to the conclusion that the tougher the inspection regime, the tougher the initial resolution under which inspectors begin their work, the more likely we will be able to avoid war. The report therefore proposed not only strengthening UNMOVIC’s mandate, but a good deal more—namely, having inspectors accompanied by an armed force that would provide security for the inspectors themselves, major technological resources, and the ability to determine the pace of inspections and achieve go-anywhere, go-anytime inspections. This is a regime we call “comply or else” inspections, and the “or else” is obviously an invasion, which is where I think we are at this point. It’s a regime that depends a great deal less on Iraqi cooperation but rather more simply on Iraqi compliance, and it was designed not to be negotiated but to be presented as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I still believe, as I think most of us who worked on this do, that that is the only way to approach Iraq—that the only thing that will separate Saddam Hussein from his weapons of mass destruction is the immediate threat of the end of his regime, but that faced with that choice, he will choose even this inspections regime. Nobody knows whether we’re correct or not, but I believe that if you look at the record of his behavior over the last 15 years, there are solid reasons for believing that the man is not insane and will make the rational choice. We also agreed that inspections can be successful in the way they have been in the past. So, why a military requirement now? First, the current situation is much more dicey and could end, if challenged, in failure, and therefore there is a much higher risk of hostage-taking. This force is designed to prevent, if it should come to that, any hostage-taking of inspectors. Second, we also feel that a military force is required to get Saddam Hussein’s attention and change his mindset. Third, it is designed to prevent Iraq from causing delays that affect what the inspectors can find and to provide the elements of really strong operational and communications security that we believe are essential. The core of this plan is the ability to impose both no-fly zones, which we have used before and currently have in effect over part of Iraq, and military no-drive zones. For example, with little advance notice, Iraq would be told that in this broad region all day tomorrow there is both a no-fly and a military no-drive zone. The region would be large enough that the Iraqis would not know exactly where the inspectors intended to go. Where are we now? Well, last week two core beliefs of administration policy changed, at least for the time being, and that is of enormous importance. The first is that inspections cannot effectively disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, and the second is that even if they could that would not be enough, that it was necessary to get rid of him. Instead, we heard a statement by Minority Leader Trent Lott as he left the White House and several statements by Secretary Powell that, if Saddam Hussein could be divested of his weapons of mass destruction, that would be “ideal.” This is a hugely important change, which I think the press largely missed in its attention to two secondary issues. One is this obsession about one resolution versus two, when what matters is not how many there are but what they say. And the second is the full coverage of what the Iraqis say, which matters not at all because whatever it is they say on day one will be different on day two and day three. This we know. So really, there should be no attention paid to that. And that last comment encapsulates the spirit behind the proposal for coercive inspections: it is feckless to give Iraq another chance to prove its bona fides on inspections. We know that Saddam Hussein views inspections as the continuation of war by other means, so if we’re going to conduct inspections, we’ve got to do them in a way that really accomplishes their objective. Inspections under the old regime or the old regime-plus are almost certain to lead both to the embarrassment of the United Nations and ultimately to war. I am not really clear where the administration stands right now. There are elements in what we know of the draft UN resolution that are very encouraging. There is no evidence, however, that the Pentagon is doing planning on the kind of coercive inspection regime that I believe is necessary, and of course, none of us knows what elements of the resolution are bargaining chips and what elements are bottom line, although we can make some inferences. Finally, I want to just point out that it’s hard to look beyond Iraq right now, but this situation has broader implications for arms control and for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If war proves to be necessary to control weapons of mass destruction, that will almost certainly be a very heavy blow—perhaps somewhat paradoxically—to the strength and resilience and effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime because the United States is not going to go to war with country after country after country. If, on the other hand, the international community proves it is possible to levy a dire threat with determination and persistence and unity over time, that sends a very, very different message to current and possibly future proliferators. Questions and Answers: Question: Given UNSCOM’s experience with the technical aspects of inspections—like using the U-2 aircraft—what additional intelligence assets might be required for the new inspections regime? Tucker: I think basically the same assets should be provided to UNMOVIC, although some new technologies could be applied—for example, rapid detection techniques for biological agents, which were not available 10 years ago. More broadly, it is essential not only for UNMOVIC to have its own analytic and intelligence-collection capabilities but for like-minded countries to provide information on suspect sites in Iraq because, of course, the intelligence-gathering resources of the United States and other countries are vastly greater than UNMOVIC’s. And just to reiterate, Iraq is a large country. There are many possible hiding places. It’s also likely that Iraq has built underground facilities, which are difficult to detect without advanced-technology systems. So sharing of national intelligence with UNMOVIC is really critical if the inspectors are to be effective. Mathews: We have urged the deployment not just of U-2s but AWACS, JSTARS, Global Hawks, Predator—the whole panoply of the top of the line U.S. intelligence collection, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities—as being vital to the success of this effort. Gallucci: When we talk about this range of intelligence collection, it can sound awfully intrusive, which makes some people uncomfortable. But it needs to be understood that this is a very special case. I direct this comment mostly to those in Paris and Moscow who are contemplating this new resolution. It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn’t, that this is not a cooperative arrangement. The Iraqis have established themselves as hostile to inspections. This is not a game, but it certainly is a contest where an inspection regime is trying to find things that the Iraqis are trying to hide. So, there should be no arguments about Iraqi sovereignty being compromised because Iraq compromised Kuwait’s sovereignty when it invaded it in 1990. The intrusiveness of the inspection regime and the intelligence that must go along with it should not be thought of as compromising an international organization—this is the argument about whether there are spies associated with the regime. We have to understand that the inspection teams are not simply looking to hire chemists or biologists or nuclear engineers; they’re looking for experts in chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons. These people come from the governments of various countries and sometimes from intelligence communities. A certain amount of maturity about this is absolutely essential. So, using intelligence from various governments is not compromising an international organization; it is supporting an international organization in conducting inspections against a member state that has violated international rules and laws. If it’s understood that way, I think it should be more acceptable in those capitals that appear to be having some difficulty with the intrusiveness of the regime. Question: Will the Security Council, particularly the Russians and the French, agree to such a tough new resolution for inspections? Gallucci: First, to underline what Jessica said, that’s the right question. The question is not what Iraqis will accept. Second, I think that the decision for countries on the Security Council has to be put in terms of “compared to what?” The United States has been very clear in saying that the alternative will be military action, so that should provide an incentive. I can’t say whether they’ll end up doing the right thing, but it seems to me that this is a way to have an inspection regime in which you can have reasonably high confidence of separating Saddam from his weapons. Mathews: I think the elements of a compromise are clearly on the table. That is one of the reasons that I mentioned how major the U.S. shift was last week and how underplayed I think media reports of this have been. The French and the Russians both have, in effect, won a major victory in the shift of the administration’s position from defining regime change as the removal of Saddam Hussein to defining it as a change in his behavior. That is a huge reversal. And it is exactly what the other permanent five members of the Security Council were arguing for in August. Even this hang-up on the question of whether military action would be automatic if the inspections fail has the elements of compromise. It is essential to the success of inspections that the link to war is explicit. It’s essential for the Iraqis to believe that the choice is totally unfettered inspections or invasion for regime change. That’s absolutely essential. It is also essential, as Bob said, that they have to believe that if they do comply we won’t invade, or else there’s no reason for them to comply. The French don’t mind that link being made in the first resolution, but they don’t want military action to be triggered by violation of that resolution. In other words, they want some kind of second action to approve military action, and now they are suggesting that it doesn’t have to be a formal Security Council resolution. So, a compromise is to leave the linkage in the resolution but not include the actual trigger, which is what the United States has been rightly insisting on. You have to spell out the consequences. Of course, there are a million ways this could fail between now and whenever a vote takes place, but the elements of a compromise are clearly there. Question: The inspections, at least initially, were predicated on a cooperative Iraqi regime, which might have allowed us to be certain that Iraq had disarmed. But clearly, Iraq did not cooperate and, even with a coercive arrangement, how do you get around the fact that the inspectors would still be in a position of trying to prove a negative—that is, that Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction? Gallucci: I would disagree with the premise that when we began inspections we thought that were working with a cooperative state. We didn’t. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which was implementing a part of Resolution 687, I think had an ethic of cooperation with the host government, but that fell away very quickly. Within the first two inspections, the IAEA team that was working with UNSCOM was extremely aggressive. So, I don’t really think that we proceeded on any assumption of cooperation. With respect to the proposition that inspectors are trying to prove a negative, that there’s nothing there, I’m not sure I consider that the political challenge to the inspection regime. It seems to me that what they need to do is to find what’s there that is not supposed to be there and to continue the inspection process, which makes it very difficult—hopefully nearly impossible—for Iraq to regenerate militarily significant programs in any of the weapons areas. The idea that they’re trying to prove that nothing is there may, in fact, be captured in some of the language of the resolution, but it is not the political charge of the inspection regime. Question: But you’re still left with a predicament, are you not, of proving the negative? If Saddam Hussein doesn’t tell you where the bodies are buried, so to speak, how can you certify that the country is disarmed? Tucker: Well, for one thing the United States and the British governments have claimed recently that Iraq retains significant capabilities in the chemical, biological, and missile disciplines. It is to be hoped that both governments will provide some or all of their information to UNMOVIC for the inspectors to track down. Second, the inspection regime, as I mentioned, is not focused exclusively on finding weapons and destroying them but also on preventing reconstitution of the various weapons programs through ongoing monitoring and verification of dual-use facilities, which presumably will continue for a period of years. That element of preventing Iraq from reacquiring its mass-destruction capabilities in the coming years is complementary to efforts to ferret out whatever weapons Iraq may currently possess. Kimball: This is a question that comes up in arms control all the time: how do you verify with 100 percent confidence that a particular state is not violating a particular legal obligation? One hundred percent confidence is impossible, but one of the chief advantages of a strengthened inspections regime is that it can provide high confidence that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs are contained and do not pose a threat. Mathews: I think Jonathan Tucker gave a nice feel for how this thing proceeds. It is a huge puzzle, and when you start it, it’s kind of like a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle. At first you think it’s impossible, that you’ll never get through this, but the more pieces you put in place, the smaller the number of unknowns that remain. It is true that Saddam Hussein has had a number of years to alter records, to hide things, to move things, to improve his capabilities. But the UNMOVIC team has had a lot of time to learn what we do know and, as Jonathan has said, there’s a lot more intelligence that they can get access to. Another key point is that a lot of what inspectors do is interview people. And while there are an awful lot of places in a country the size of California, there are fewer people that are key to the success of these weapons programs. So, one can look at where those people are, where they were trained, where they work, what trucks go to and fro. There are a thousand pieces to put together, but over time you can zero in with higher and higher confidence on what’s around. Question: The president has focused national and world attention on Iraq as an imminent threat, but aren’t there other, similar threats? Is this the most important one? Why go to war at this moment? Gallucci: I think the most salient threat posed to the security of this country is al Qaeda, and as a citizen I hope, expect, and believe that the Bush administration is doing everything it can to deal with that threat. I know that there are those who have suggested that a military engagement with Iraq might distract us from the war against terrorism broadly and al Qaeda specifically, but I rather think we can, in fact, do both, particularly if we judge that the Iraqi threat is getting worse with each passing day. I don’t think that you can say that a switch has been thrown that has made the threat from Iraq catastrophic today where it wasn’t six months ago. But there haven’t been inspectors in Iraq since 1998, and we have good evidence that the Iraqis have been working to regenerate programs in the nuclear, chemical, and biological areas, as well as their ballistic missile program. So, the threat is getting worse over time, and it will not simply grow incrementally. When Iraq does enrich uranium to high levels or acquire plutonium or highly enriched uranium, the threat will all of a sudden jump in seriousness, and that will be an enormous concern. And we don’t want to get to that point, given Iraq’s past behavior. I understand the administration has been making an effort to link Iraq to al Qaeda specifically, and what I have heard has not been overwhelmingly persuasive to me. But from my perspective, absent that, there is still a good reason for concluding that passively containing Iraq is not a prudent, durable policy for the United States and that we have been driven to our current course of action by the Iraqi resistance of inspections over time. Containment has failed as a policy. The situation is worsening, and I think the administration and the international community does have an obligation to deal with it. Tucker: I would just add that Iraq is a special case because it is a country that invaded its neighbors, both Iran and Kuwait, and lost the Gulf War. It was the object of a series of Security Council resolutions that it then proceeded to violate. So, I think that the Security Council does have an obligation to enforce those resolutions, to make sure that other countries are not emboldened by Iraqi noncompliance to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to invade their neighbors. A general principle of international law is at stake here. Kimball: Let me add a different facet to the answer. Although quick action is needed, as many experts and observers have pointed out, the administration has not been able to present evidence about Iraq’s program that is particularly new. Nevertheless, action is needed to move weapons inspectors back in there under more effective rules. I want to go back to one thing that Jessica Mathews said earlier about the administration’s shift toward embracing the idea that strengthened weapons inspections can work. I would just point out that the administration is not simply doing what its allies want, but that this approach is also clearly in the interest of the United States and the Bush administration because a war with Iraq could involve weapons of mass destruction. If the Iraqis do indeed have chemical and biological weapons capabilities, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons in a last attempt to stave off attack. That could have very serious consequences, of course, for U.S. troops and countries in the region. Israel, for one, has nuclear weapons and might respond. So, an all-out war to disarm Saddam Hussein could produce the very effect that we’re all so concerned about. Question: There are stories where UNSCOM inspectors would enter an Iraqi facility and the Iraqis would simply go out the back door. How do you prevent that from happening again? And if you need to use force, how do you do that without putting the inspectors in danger? Tucker: I’m uncomfortable with the idea of inspectors being accompanied by armed troops because I think it could put the inspectors in jeopardy. It would also make their work more difficult because the inspectors need to talk to Iraqi scientists, technicians, and plant managers, and people generally won’t talk with a gun pointed at their head, at least not freely. So, I think there should be a credible threat of military force if Iraq refuses to comply, but the forces should not be right there on the scene. They should perhaps be deployed nearby in the region, but it would be highly problematic for troops and inspectors to be intermingled. Gallucci: There’s a nice contrast here that can be built between what we had in UNSCOM in one of our more aggressive inspections that was successful and what we could have had if we’d had more aggressive inspections. If you remember in September of 1991, we had what inspectors called the “parking lot tour,” where we spent four days in a parking lot because we wouldn’t give up some documents on the design of Iraqi nuclear weapons. Now, what people have forgotten is that the day before the parking lot standoff happened, we were at another building where we tried to do without any military capability what the Carnegie report recommends with coercive inspections. We had inspectors armed only with little Sony Handycams, and we arrived at o-dark-thirty and surrounded the building before we started to search. The idea was to contain the situation and then launch a thorough search of the building. In the course of that, there was an awful lot of movement by the Iraqis as they began to figure out that we had actually come upon the right place. When the end of the day came and we had actually found nuclear weapons design information, the Iraqis took a lot of the material from us. They physically just took it away from us. We had boxed it up and put it in our vehicle. They shoved us aside and they took the material from us. The next day, we were a little smarter and we put the material on our bodies to raise the level that the Iraqis would have to go to to seize the material that we had found. They decided not to strip search 41 UN inspectors, so that led to the parking lot situation. What we were trying to do was raise the threshold in a small way—and that could be done in a much more demonstrative way. There’s a proposal for a no-fly, no-drive zone so that you have military capability to contain an area for an inspection. Then you can make sure that, if the Iraqis want to prevent an inspection team from a successful inspection, they have to use force greater than the force that’s deployed, in which case they have tripped a wire, which unambiguously leads to an invasion, and that’s the whole point. © 2001 Arms Control Association, 1726 M Street, NW; Washington, DC; 20036; Tel: (202) 463-8270; Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 16 The war debate / Destabilize the middle east [http://sfgate.com] [jcuriel@sfchronicle.com] Saturday, November 2, 2002 --> Kanan Makiya is professor of Middle East studies at Brandeis University and a scholar-in-residence at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, where he runs the Iraq Research and Documentation Project. Makiya, born and raised in Iraq, is the author of "Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq" and "Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising, and the Arab World." He is a member of the Democratic Principles Working Group convened by the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq initiative. . As the U.N. Security Council debates the authorization of possible U.S. and allied military action against Iraq, many in the Bay Area have voiced concern over what they perceive as a lack of public discussion on the subject. The Chronicle is featuring voices from a variety of perspectives, seeking to highlight some of the key questions and issues involved. . Peace activists and progressives who object to a military campaign in Iraq and criticize American "global hegemony" or American unilateral action are not seeing the opportunity that the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime presents: a wonderful opportunity to change the basic parameters of American policy in the Arab world. Up to now it has been about supporting autocracies and dictatorships and nasty regimes of one sort of another. Some have warned that a military campaign would destabilize the Middle East. Well, war brings change. And if that change has ripple effects - if that change is for the better - then let it destabilize the Middle East, I say. Iraqis outside and inside the country want this war. You could compare them to, say, citizens of the former Soviet Union just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. They've lived under a totalitarian system and are sick and tired of ideologies. They want to have lives. They want to have businesses. In the beginning, they didn't take the talk of "regime change" very seriously. They thought it was another public relations ploy. Their experience of the United States has been a bitter one. They felt let down after what happened after the Gulf War, when coalition forces stopped short of Baghdad and let Saddam Hussein crush the rebellion - a rebellion, by the way, in which far more Iraqis died than during the Gulf War. The Europeans are convinced, and many Arabs seem convinced, that the whole Arab world will rise up in fury and anger at a U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq. But when you see Iraqis welcome American troops, that's going to change overnight. Compared to the way Afghans welcomed the Americans, it would be magnified 100-fold because at least the Taliban had a genuine social base and loyalty in their own ranks. The only thing that holds the Iraqi regime together is fear of alternatives, the police apparatus and so on. I think it's going to be an extremely welcome liberation. How long it lasts is the real political question. The U.N. role I don't see anything good coming out of weapons inspections. The regime simply will not tolerate inspections with real teeth. Thus far, they have focused on trying to find things, objects, of one kind of another. This cat- and-mouse game went on for years until 1998 (when U.N. inspectors pulled out of Iraq). As Khidhir Hamza, the former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, testified in Washington, we should be able to interview Iraq's nuclear scientists outside of Iraq - in Cyprus, for example - because they can't speak freely inside Iraq. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said Iraq can't accept that. Of course they can't. It would reveal their whole weapons of mass destruction program and the regime's innermost secrets. The scientists will want to defect. But without it, the inspections game will be played either how the regime likes to play it, or the government will obstruct it and the United States will go to war. Yes, it would be deeply desirable to have the Security Council back a military campaign. Anything that can bring the U.N. along is good. But let's be honest about an inspections program: It's a rear-guard action to postpone and keep on postponing. That kind of honesty is what the Europeans don't want to face up to. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 12 ***************************************************************** 17 Hydro shocker: What went wrong Thestar.com/ Thestar.com  > News Nov. 2, 2002. 03:23 PM Why Ontario's plan to privatize utility backfired By Thomas Walkom NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER Ontarians used to take their electricity for granted. You flipped a switch and the lights went on. Even before your hydro bill arrived, you knew roughly how much you would have to pay. No more. Now, six months after Premier Ernie Eves ushered in the Conservative government's so-called market-opening reforms for electricity, Ontarians are beginning to appreciate the real effects of this move. For the vast majority, hydro bills are either skyrocketing, or in the case of Toronto residents, set to do so. In some parts of the province, they've doubled. That wasn't the way it was supposed to be. Back in May, the government billed market opening as a way to bring electricity prices down. "In my opinion, it's going to, over the long term, create a more competitive environment that will keep rates lower," then energy minister Chris Stockwell said at the time. Instead, it seems, matters are getting worse. The Independent Market Operator, the government agency set up to monitor the new market, estimated in September that the province's power shortage will continue into next spring, meaning more high electricity bills. That gloomy forecast worsened last week after news that four out-of-service generators at the provincially owned Pickering nuclear power station won't even start coming back on line until June. With Pickering delayed again, the IMO says, the electricity situation in the province will "deteriorate significantly," a polite way of warning that more price hikes or even brown-outs may be in store. The long term, too, is cloudy. The stated purpose of market reforms was to encourage private firms to build new generating plants. These would produce more power, compete with one another and drive down prices for consumers. That was the idea. So far, reality has not matched theory. Only one new private plant, a 510-megawatt generating station in Sarnia, is scheduled to be completed within the next 18 months. But even the start time of that planned generator has been pushed back by six months, says the IMO. Other proposed private generators have been scrapped altogether. Earlier this week, Sithe Energies Inc. announced it is indefinitely shelving plans to build two new 800-megawatt gas-fired generating plants. Sithe vice-president Duane Cramer said his company has put its plans on hold because it's not convinced prices will stay high enough, long enough, for it to make the money it wants. At the same time, the private market has led to other problems. Consumers already had to deal with unscrupulous door-to-door salespeople flogging electricity contracts. Now, the IMO has quietly revealed that some firms supplying wholesale power have been engaging in equally sharp practices. One scheme which the IMO detailed in a report released last month is known in the trade as "implied wheeling" or the ricochet. Pioneered in California by the now discredited energy giant Enron, the ricochet scam works this way: When supply is tight, a trader buys cheap power in Ontario for sale to the U.S. It then turns around and resells the same power back into Ontario at the exorbitantly high prices used to attract imports. As the IMO points out, the perfectly legal scheme involved no new generation of electricity, just the transfer of money from Ontario consumers to speculators. The government agency says it has put in place new rules to curtail ricocheting and is investigating other possible scams. Meanwhile, on the political front, electricity is shaping up as a defining issue for the next provincial election campaign. Both New Democrats and Liberals smell blood. Even Conservative backbenchers are beginning to grouse. Eves himself has signalled that his government will move quickly to do something to assuage angry voters, possibly by moving up a plan to distribute about $1 billion in so-called rebates to electricity consumers. These rebates are, in fact, public subsidies to private generating firms. The money is to come from Ontario Power Generation, the provincially owned successor to Ontario Hydro. The conduit is the consumer who could receive somewhere between $130 and $250 for the year to partially offset higher prices. The net beneficiaries are private generating firms operating in Ontario that are able to charge these high prices. "It's obvious something is drastically wrong with hydro deregulation," NDP leader Howard Hampton told Eves this week. "If your MPPs can figure it out, why are you so slow?" In fact, many of the problems that bedevil the Ontario electricity industry predate both Eves and market opening. Under the old system, electricity was a public monopoly in the hands of Ontario Hydro. Hydro did everything. It planned new generating stations based on its estimates of future demand. It built them, ran them and transmitted the power to local utilities. Its weakness, however, was that very scale. Hydro alone was responsible for supplying power; if it made a mistake, the cost could be staggering. Which is what happened. Enthralled by the worldwide enthusiasm for atomic power, Hydro built three massive nuclear generating plants, Pickering and Darlington near Toronto, plus Bruce on Lake Huron. At one level, nuclear plants are efficient. Once built, direct operating costs are low. Unlike coal- and gas-fired plants, they emit no smoke. But nuclear plants face two problems. No one yet knows how to permanently neutralize the nuclear waste they produce. In that sense, there is a cost to nuclear power that has never been calculated. The other is more immediate. They are expensive to build and fix. Hydro was hit by the second problem first. In the 1980s, construction costs for Darlington spun out of control. Yet the Tory government was unwilling to let consumers bear the cost immediately. Instead, Hydro charged only the rates that a succession of Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic governments figured they could get away with politically. The rest of the nuclear costs were simply added to the utility's mounting debt. By 1995, when Mike Harris and his Tories came to power, this debt stood at a stunning $35 billion. Harris just made matters worse. He froze rates — which kept consumers happy but aggravated the debt problem. In 1997, the second Hydro shoe dropped. After years of trying to fix its troubled nuclear division, Hydro abruptly announced it was shutting down four generators at Pickering. The generators were in such bad repair, the utility said, that they would have to remain out of commission indefinitely. They are now expected to be back up by 2006. Already under pressure from big industry to terminate the Hydro monopoly, Queen's Park was goaded into action. If a crown corporation couldn't run the electricity system, the free market should be given a try. A year later, the legislature passed one of the most sweeping bills in the province's history. Hydro was split up and ordered to sell off the bulk of its generating plants. More importantly, the bill set in motion plans for a market. Private firms looking to make profits would be allowed to build new plants. Once built, these plants would sell electricity through a kind of auction house run by the new Independent Market Operator. The price set by the forces of supply and demand in this new market would be the price paid by consumers. Key to these market reforms was the question of who decided on new generating plants. No longer would an overarching public entity be charged with determining the province's power needs. Instead, such decisions would be made by private firms. If prices rose, the theory went, firms would build new generating plants. This, in turn, would lead prices to fall again. At the time, California — which had just deregulated its electricity market — was held up by the government as the model. But as California's experience with price spikes and blackouts soon showed, the theory of market opening — while elegant — was impractical. The reasons are both technical and political. Electricity is unlike other commodities. It can't be effectively stored. As well, it has few substitutes. Most people can't run their toasters on gasoline. All of this leads to volatile prices. If demand suddenly rises or supplies shrink, prices will shoot up. Conversely, if demand suddenly falls, say due to a recession, prices will collapse. It is this volatility that makes electricity generation so risky for private firms. When California opened its market, it expected private companies to fall over one another building new generating stations. However, few did. Instead, they preferred to buy existing plants. In this, they were being perfectly rational. Why generate more electricity that can only push prices down and reduce profits? Why not, instead, buy existing plants, hope that demand rises and make money when prices go through the roof? To a certain extent, that is what has happened in Ontario. British Energy, for example, did not enter the field to build a new nuclear plant and create additional power. Rather, it preferred to lease an existing nuclear plant — Bruce — that was assured of making money. All of this, in turn, leads to the political problem. No government is willing to let electricity rates spin out of control. In California's case, the state capped the price paid by consumers, a move that seemed smart when instituted but which ultimately led to even more problems. In Alberta, the government shelled out $2.3 billion to subsidize consumers faced with the high electricity bills. In Ontario, the government appears to be contemplating the Alberta subsidy route. As a short-term political strategy, that might work. In the long term, it will succeed only if the more fundamental problems of supply are solved. But here, the experience of other jurisdictions is not hopeful. "We were all naïve, hoodwinked, mesmerized by the idea that competition was so much more attractive than monopoly," David Freeman, head of the California Power Authority, a new state agency charged with assuring adequate electricity supply, told a Toronto audience earlier this year. "How wrong we were ... Anyone who tries to explain away California — it's not that different from Ontario." Additional articles by Thomas Walkom www.thestar.com ***************************************************************** 18 EU says UK nuclear firm rescue illegal-paper Forbes.com: Reuters, 11.02.02, 5:58 PM ET LONDON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti has said in a letter that UK government aid to the privatised nuclear electricity firm British Energy Plc is illegal, the Observer Sunday newspaper reported. In the letter to a Green European legislator, the MEP Dr Caroline Lucas, Monti said the 650 million pound ($1.02 billion) rescue package that runs until November 29 "does constitute illegal aid since it was granted without proper authorisation", the newspaper reported. British Energy, producer of more than one fifth of the UK's power, won the bailout from the government in September when it said it would otherwise become insolvent. Electricity market liberalisation reforms in the UK that exposed industry overcapacity have sent electricity prices down below British Energy's cost of production. Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service Send comments [letters@forbes.net] ***************************************************************** 19 Rezoning Vote For Uranium Plant Passed NewsChannel 5.com News A proposed uranium plant that's generated lots of controversy in Trousdale County is one step closer to reality. Officials with the Four Lake Regional Industrial Development Authority voted unanimously to seek rezoning to build the one billion dollar facility in Hartsville. Louisiana Energy Services announced back in September that it had chosen the Hartsville site for its new plant. The Four Lake area covers Trousdale, Macon, Smith, Sumner and Wilson counties. The proposed plant has drawn opposition from many residents because of the possible health risks involved. The rezoning issue now goes to the Trousdale County Planning Commission. © 2002 NewsChannel 5.com ***************************************************************** 20 Pataki campaign will keep nuke money November 02, 2002 By Wayne A. Hall Times Herald-Record waynehall@th-record.com [waynehall@th-record.com] Indian Point – Gov. George Pataki won't return $11,000 in campaign contributions from Entergy, the company that owns the two Indian Point nuclear power plants, his campaign staff said yesterday. Environmental groups are battling to close the plants and have enlisted support from politicians such as gubernatorial candidates Tom Golisano of the Independence Party and Democrat H. Carl McCall. "Given the sensitivity of the Indian Point issue, it would be highly advisable for the governor to return the contribution," said Andy Mele, executive director of the environmental group Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, which is seeking to have the plants shut down. "If he keeps it, he'd be sending a questionable signal to all of us. I would urge elected officials to stay away from the contributions as if they were radioactive." In fact, Rep. Sue W. Kelly, R-Katonah, did just that this year, returning $1,000 from Entergy. She wants the plant to stay open but said, "I didn't want anyone to [think] Entergy was giving me money and could buy my vote." But Friends of Pataki spokeswoman Molly Fullington said no returns are coming from Pataki. "I don't expect that will happen," she said. "Since Sept. 11," she said, "the governor assembled a task force to assess the safety at Indian Point and [now] James Lee Witt [the former chief of the Federal Emergency Management Agency] will evaluate the evacuation plans." After all, said Fullington, Pataki "and his family live in the shadow of the plants. The governor is keeping an open mind." Should Witt recommend closing the plants, Pataki has said he will consider doing just that. He doesn't have direct closure power, but could put political pressure on the federal agency that does – the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Witt's working group report is due after the election in December. A member of his group was recently replaced because he had worked for Entergy. The contributions from Entergy Corporation Political Committee-New York in 2001 and 2002 weren't meant to sway the governor, said company spokesman James Steets. "We make multiple campaign contributions. I'm sure the governor will make decisions based on what he thinks is the right thing to do for the residents of New York state," Steets said. ENPAC-New York also gave $5,000 to the New York State Democratic Committee, $3,000 to the state Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee, $2,000 to the state Senate Republican Campaign Committee, $2,000 to GOP state Senate leader Joe Bruno, all in 2001 and 2002. None of them had refunded the contributions as of the last refund filing before the elections, according to state Board of Elections records. Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. [http://www.recordonline.com Have a tip about a news story? Contact THR Managing Editor Meg McGuire at mmcguire@th-record.com [mmcguire@th-record.com] or call 346-3202. ***************************************************************** 21 Reactors to mock crisis gain mostly high marks Hampton Union Local News: Hampton, NH Friday, November 1, 2002 By Susan Morse [smorse@seacoastonline.com] SEABROOK - Seabrook Station successfully completed its objectives in an emergency drill held Wednesday, Oct. 23, according to spokeswoman Susan Perkins-Grew. On Monday, the nuclear power plant received a preliminary evaluation for its emergency response during that drill from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, representatives from the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts and North Atlantic Energy Service Corp., owners of Seabrook Station. In the simulated exercise, the plant was brought to a full-scale disaster, with the release of radiation and the evacuation of residents within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook Station. A full evaluation is expected to be published in 90 days, with Seabrook Station given a pass or fail grade. The graded exercise mobilizes emergency workers in the state, in Massachusetts and in all towns within the 10-mile zone. It is held every two years. Perkins-Grew said she felt confident that the plant had successfully met its objectives. "We were very happy with the way it came out," said Al Griffith, another spokesman. There were some issues. The biggest stemmed from confusion as to when emergency workers should ingest potassium iodide, or KI, a nonprescription drug used to saturate the thyroid and protect it from the effects of radioactive iodine. New Hampshire and Massachusetts both recently implemented KI policy owing to the heightened possibility of a terrorist attack, said spokesmen for those states, James Van Dongen of New Hampshire’s Office of Emergency Management and Peter Judge, of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. Also, a freak snowstorm the day of the drill added to incoming calls from the public to town emergency stations. On Monday, a panel of five presented the findings of 55 FEMA evaluators stationed at various emergency sites. They addressed fewer than 20 people in the audience who turned out for the public hearing at Seabrook’s Community Center. Only participants in the drill were allowed comment. None did. The public was given an address to send written comment. The panel consisted of Lee Kimball, acting deputy director of the state Office of Emergency Management; Dan McElhinney, director of affairs for National Preparedness, FEMA Region I, Boston; Linda Lecuyer, regional planner for Massachusetts; Deborah Bell, a FEMA representative; and Perkins-Grew. According to preliminary evaluations of individual emergency operations centers: l The New Hampshire State Police and the Department of Transportation worked well together to establish traffic control points. l Those at the media center in Newington demonstrated outstanding teamwork. But the public was given only one phone number to call the emergency operations center, with the potential for the line to be overwhelmed. l At the Rockingham County Dispatch Center, there was confusion over the phrase, "This is not a test." l In Exeter, the Office of Emergency Management was "exemplary." l In Greenland, there was a "disciplined message plan, with displays updated every 10 minutes." l In Hampton, the Emergency Operations Center worked well as a team, "in tight quarters." l In Hampton Falls, the three members of the Board of Selectmen interacted well with the emergency operations center. l Kensington displayed a unified team. l In Kingston, at noon, a radiological defense officer told the workers to take KI prior to the state order at 12:38 p.m. l In New Castle, the staff fielded resident calls well, but the EOC officer did not receive information in a timely manner. l North Hampton was extremely well organized. But the EOC was using an outdated list of those in town with special needs. l Portsmouth demonstrated an outstanding response, particularly on the part of the radiological defense officer. l Rye started its own backup system with bull horns on emergency vehicles. l In Seabrook, participation and support were excellent, with two selectmen taking part. l Stratham’s radiological defense officer was excellent. Host stations in Dover, Manchester and Rochester were also evaluated, with no issues reported at these evacuation facilities. In Massachusetts, one issue brought up: the public was given an emergency phone number that was no longer in service. | Back to the Hampton Union Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Newspapers. Copyright © 2002 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please read our ***************************************************************** 22 FPL closes deal for Seabrook nuclear plant PalmBeachPost.com: By Deborah Circelli, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 2, 2002 JUNO BEACH -- FPL Group Inc. added a third nuclear plant to its portfolio Friday after closing a $798 million deal to buy a majority interest in the Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station in New Hampshire. The purchase price is lower than the $837 million announced in April because of adjustments over the past few months for fuel and other inventory, according to FPL Group. FPL Group (NYSE: FPL, $59.05) bought an 88.2 percent interest in the 1,161-megawatt plant from a group of six utility companies. The plant started construction in the 1970s, but did not become operational until 1990 because of controversy surrounding anti-nuclear protests. "This acquisition strengthens our competitive position in the Northeast and is an excellent complement to our existing portfolio in the region," said Lew Hay, FPL chairman and chief executive officer. Seabrook Station, located about 40 miles north of Boston, and its 800 employees will become part of subsidiary FPL Energy, which operates more than 6,500 megawatts of power in 16 states. "There is a great deal of optimism and anticipation," said Allan Griffith, a Seabrook spokesman and employee for four years. "We are going to be part of a bigger family with more resources and a commitment to the same high level of safety we've always prided ourselves on." FPL Group, parent company of Florida Power & Light Co., already owns the 1,678-megawatt St. Lucie nuclear plant on Hutchinson Island and the 1,386-megawatt Turkey Point plant near Miami. deborah_circelli@pbpost.com [deborah_circelli@pbpost.com] Copyright © 2002, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 New zoning to allow uranium plants debated * Neill Sandler Buick * *Saturday, 11/02/02 | HOME | LOCAL NEWS © Copyright 2002 The Tennessean A Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 NRC inspects Point Beach Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter - Posted Nov. 02, 2002 Tests indicate cooling system may malfunction BY TARA MEISSNER Herald Times Reporter TWO RIVERS — An inspection of a potential problem with Point Beach Nuclear Power Station’s auxiliary cooling system began Thursday. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the auxiliary feedwater system might fail to function, under certain abnormal conditions. The auxiliary feedwater system is used to safely shut down the reactor if problems occur during plant operations, and to continue removing heat from the reactor after shutdown, according to the NRC. “You need a certain amount of water flow to prevent damage to the pumps, and in one of the pumps the flow was reduced by some kind of foreign material,” NRC spokesperson Viktoria Mitlyng said. Point Beach plant personnel found a substance, probably silt or corrosion products, clogging the flow of water on Oct. 24 during testing of one of four pumps in the system, Point Beach Communications Manager Doug Day said. “This system is not used in day-to-day operations,” Day said. “We are not sure how significant it is.” The other three units were fine, and the clogging was too small to reduce the flow, Day said. It is too early to determine the safety significance. “We are looking at it; the main thing we are looking at is how much does the clogging reduce the flow of water,” Day said. The auxiliary pumps are designed to start automatically, when needed, but the pump flow must be subsequently adjusted by reactor operators to meet reactor cooling requirements, according to the NRC. Both reactors at Point Beach will remain in operation throughout the inspection. It is undetermined how long the inspection will last. Tara Meissner: (920) 686-2137 or TMeissner@smgpo. gannett.com. [http://www.gannett.com/map/propmap.htm] [http://www.wisinfo.com/terms.html] . ***************************************************************** 25 Nuclear panel starts special inspection of Point Beach Green Bay Press-Gazette - Posted Nov. 02, 2002 The Associated Press TWO RIVERS — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it has started a special inspection of a cooling system at the Point Beach nuclear power plant. The company reported Tuesday that the system, which is used to shut down the plant’s two nuclear reactors if problems occur and remove heat from them, might fail under abnormal conditions. Plant personnel found that rust and other corroded material was reducing flow in one of the system’s four water pumps. No problems were found in the facility’s other three pumps. The NRC said the company fixed the problem quickly. Both of Point Beach’s reactors are operating. The NRC began investigating Thursday how the pump became clogged and how to fix it in the future, NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said. “The problem was resolved to the point that the plant could continue operating, but they will ultimately need to take further action,” Strasma said. Discuss this topic in our forums [http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/forums/] ***************************************************************** 26 Tritium Production Licenses Granted to Civilian Power Plants Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: [%20ckucia@armscontrol.org] Breaking the taboo of using civilian nuclear reactors to supply nuclear weapons materials, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved licenses September 24 and October 1 to allow tritium production at two Tennessee nuclear power plants. Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is used in a thermonuclear weapon to boost its yield. It must be replenished regularly because it has a half-life of only 12 years. With the license, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, is authorized to insert tritium-producing burnable absorber rods into its Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors. The rods will be irradiated over each reactor’s 18-month fuel cycle and then shipped to the DOE-owned Savannah River Site in South Carolina so that the tritium can be extracted for use in nuclear weapons. The NRC granted the first license amendment September 24, which will allow the Watts Bar reactor to produce tritium in up to 2,304 burnable absorber rods. The Watts Bar reactor is expected to begin tritium production in the fall of 2003. On October 1, the NRC announced the approval of a second tritium production license for the Sequoyah nuclear power plant. Sequoyah’s reactor units 1 and 2 will each irradiate up to 2,256 tritium-producing burnable absorber rods for one fuel cycle. Sequoyah’s two reactors will commence tritium production separately, with Unit 2 beginning irradiation in the fall of 2003 and Unit 1 a year later. The DOE halted all tritium production in 1988. Although the tritium extracted from dismantled weapons can be used to meet short-term needs, the department sought to identify a new production source before 2005 to provide enough tritium to maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile at START I levels, as required in a presidential directive. ( [http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_11-12/dond98.asp] .) As a result of the May 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, the tritium requirement might be lower in the future, but for now the DOE’s plans are based on START I numbers. Following an extensive review of options, including building a linear accelerator or remodeling a mothballed nuclear power plant, in 1998 the DOE chose the less-costly option of using civilian light-water reactors for its production. The department designated the Watts Bar and Sequoyah facilities to produce tritium to help maintain the country’s nuclear arsenal. The license amendments for the two TVA-operated reactors allow the contractor to install and irradiate rods for the life of each power plant. The United States has traditionally discouraged other countries from using their civilian nuclear capabilities for military purposes. Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, maintained in an October 25 interview that the U.S. tritium decision does not reflect a shift in policy because “the use of the TVA reactors to irradiate [rods] is to support the existing U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.” He emphasized that “the United States is not producing new nuclear weapons and has not since 1989.” According to Beckner, the United States has no plans to re-examine options for tritium production. “This approach was judged to be the least costly and offered the greatest flexibility in meeting changing demands. With the Moscow Treaty in place, tritium demands in the coming years are expected to decline.” Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 2001 Arms Control Association, 1726 M Street, NW; Washington, DC; 20036; Tel: (202) 463-8270; Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 27 Normal Cancer Rate Found Near Three Mile Island Plant The New York Times November 1, 2002* *By MATTHEW L. WALD* A new study of 32,100 people living within five miles of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., found no significant difference in the overall rate of cancer deaths compared with the general population. The study did find some differences when cancers were analyzed by time period, type of cancer and sex of the patient. The study, by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, said that their surveillance "provides no consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the nuclear accident has had a significant impact on the overall mortality experience of these residents." But the study also said that "several elevations persist and certain potential dose-response relationships cannot be definitively excluded." The study generally agreed with earlier evaluations, that the 1979 accident did not add significantly to cancer risk. But the researchers said their study was stronger because it covered from 1979 through the end of 1998 and that cancers that take years to develop would have done so by then. The study is to be published today on http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov, a Web site that is part of the National Institutes of Health. It will be published later in the institutes' journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. The lead author, Dr. Evelyn O. Talbott, said in a telephone interview, "When you compare observed with expected cancer, there was virtually no difference." But Dr. Talbott added, "We did see one blip." From 1985 to 1989, 24 women in the group died of lymphoma or hematopoietic tissue (blood-forming organs), up from 14 that were expected to contract the disease during that period. Among men, she said, the rates of those cancers were the same as what was expected, but the cancers were more common in those whom researchers believe were exposed to more radiation from the accident than in those who are thought to have received less. (The accident exposures were calculated, not measured.) Even the largest dose from the accident, though, was "very tiny," she said. "You would expect, really by chance, when you do 20 or more analyses, you're going to have a couple that by random chance come up," Dr. Talbott said. But she added, "You still need to report it when you see it." The study was not thorough enough to capture other risk factors, she said. "Did we adjust for everything under the sun? No," she said. Among the questions that researchers might pursue, she said, is whether those with higher cancer rates had more exposure to medical X-rays, pesticides or other possible risk factors. After the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor, in Ukraine, in 1986, researchers found numerous cases of thyroid cancer. But the new Three Mile Island study found only one thyroid cancer death in the area over the period. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 28 Hot Waste, Cold Cash: Nuclear Industry Campaign Contributions to Federal Candidates in the 2002 Election* Public Citizen through */Nov. 1, 2002/* /*Report Traces Nuclear PAC Contributions in Competitive House and Senate Races*/ WASHINGTON D.C.? In the 2002 election cycle, the nuclear industry doled out more than $1.5 million to federal candidates in competitive races, according to a report released today by Public Citizen. The sizable contributions from nuclear power plant owners and operators suggest that the outcome of these competitive races could have a dramatic effect on nuclear policy over the next two years. The nuclear industry is desperately seeking to secure a primary role in energy policy discussions and pushing an aggressive legislative agenda for such things as subsidies to build new nuclear reactors and more money for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. "The many pet projects of the nuclear industry require a political blind eye to their many environmental, economic and safety problems," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen?s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Voters in the upcoming election should consider whether campaign contributions will jeopardize the candidates? commitment to policies that point toward a safe energy future." Using Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen analyzed contributions from certain political action committees (PAC) to major party candidates in 76 House races and 17 Senate races during the 2002 election cycle (November 2000 to October 2002). The contributions came from nuclear power plant owners and operators and three leading trade associations in which many of them are members: the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Among the report?s findings: * Exelon, the biggest U.S. nuclear operator, made the most contributions to federal candidates in competitive races, followed by Entergy. Exelon and Entergy are both participants in the U.S. Department of Energy?s /Nuclear Power 2010/ program, which puts tax dollars toward the subsidized construction of new commercial reactors. * Among candidates in competitive House races who received more than $20,000 from nuclear PACs, Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) received the most PAC money, followed by Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Joseph Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Tom Latham (R-Iowa) Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), Michigan Secretary of State Candice Miller, Karen Thurman (D-Fla.), Robin Hayes, (R-N.C.), Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), Chet Edwards (D-Texas), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Edward Whitfield (R-Ky.), Charles Stenholm (D-Texas), Charles Bass (R-N.H.), and Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), all incumbents. * Among candidates in competitive Senate races who received more than $20,000 from nuclear PACs, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) received the most PAC money, followed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Elizabeth Dole, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Rep. John Sununu (R-N.H.), Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and former Rep. Jim Talent of Missouri. * Among incumbents in competitive races, only six representatives and one senator received no contributions from nuclear PACs: Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), Rep. Julia Carson (D-Ind.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.). * The top incumbent recipients among House and Senate candidates sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, respectively. These committees are key for legislation relating to energy policy. * In the races analyzed, nuclear contributions favored Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 3-to-1. To read the report, click here. Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 29 Report: Grand jury to investigate uranium plant allegations MyInKy November 2, 2002 PADUCAH, Ky.- A lawyer who filed a "whistleblower" lawsuit alleging false environmental reports at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant said workers who may have witnessed violations have been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury, The Paducah Sun reported Saturday in a copyright story. Washington environmental lawyer Joe Egan told the newspaper he learned late Thursday that subpoenas were being issued for several current and former workers. Lockheed Martin Corp., which operated the plant from 1982 to 1992, has strongly denied the allegations. Harold Hargan of Pulaski County, Ill., who worked at the plant for 39 years, said he was notified late Friday that he will be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury Wednesday morning in Louisville. Hargan said that while working at the plant, he witnessed workers and supervisors diluting samples of chemicals and radionuclides for dumping purposes, leaving deteriorating drums of highly radioactive substances leaching into a ditch, handling a hazardous degreaser carelessly throughout the plant, and drinking on the job. He said his complaints about such activity were ignored and that he often was chastised for raising his concerns. "It looks to me they are finally looking into what went on," Hargan said. Since retiring, Hargan has been outspoken about former plant operations and has talked with federal investigators who have been looking into allegations made in the suits, including the one filed by Egan. One of the people with whom Hargan met was Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Campbell, who on Friday would not comment on whether a grand jury is being impaneled to investigate the claims. He noted that it is the policy of the Department of Justice not to confirm or deny whether investigations were in progress. Egan's suit received national attention, and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson came to Paducah and admitted that workers in the past had been exposed to toxic chemicals that caused illness and death. Congress then approved a compensation program to pay sick workers $150,000 each. Bill McMurry, a Louisville attorney who has filed a separate class-action suit seeking $10 billion for workers who became ill because of contamination at the plant, said he also had been informed that a grand jury will launch a criminal investigation. "It is very refreshing that government officials are finally realizing the criminality of the conduct of those who have operated the plant," McMurry said. Information from: The Paducah Sun [http://www.myinky.com ***************************************************************** 30 Whistleblowers seek end to government delay MyInKy November 1, 2002 PADUCAH, Ky.- Whistleblowers who sued the former operator of the uranium plant at Paducah want a judge to force federal officials to decide whether to join in the suit, which seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to the government. They suggest a deadline of Dec. 17. The Justice Department on Thursday asked for an extension _ the 13th extension since the suit was filed in June 1999 against Lockheed Martin Corp. Plaintiffs in the suit in U.S. District Court include three current and former plant employees _ Ronald B. Fowler, Charles F. Deuschle and Garland E. Jenkins. The Natural Resources Defense Council and one of its members, Thomas B. Cochran, also are plaintiffs. Lockheed and its predecessor companies operated the uranium enrichment plant for the Department of Energy from 1982 until 1992. The suit claims Lockheed made false statements involving storage and disposal of radioactive waste, exposure of workers to contaminants and contamination of groundwater and soil. As a result, the suit alleges, Lockheed was paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fees that it didn't deserve. It wants Lockheed to refund the money. If successful, the whistleblowers would get up to 25 percent. Lockheed denies the claims. The suit has been delayed while the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy have spent more than $1 million investigating the claims. Government attorneys and experts have reviewed thousands of pages of documents, tested the contents of landfills and interviewed current and former plant workers. Attorneys for the whistleblowers contend in a court document filed Thursday that the investigation has "largely affirmed the allegations" made in the suit. However, the Energy Department has failed to make a decision on whether to get involved, they contend. In Thursday's filing, Joe Egan, lead attorney for the whistleblowers, said he did not think another extension was justified. But he asked U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. to grant a delay until Dec. 17 "with instructions that this extension shall be the last." Information from: The Paducah Sun [http://www.myinky.com ***************************************************************** 31 Utah: N-Waste Initiative Critics Deny Bias The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, November 2, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS and LINDA FANTIN All but two of the 74 state lawmakers urging voters to reject the ballot measure to limit radioactive waste have accepted campaign contributions from the only company in Utah licensed to dispose of such materials. Since 1990, Envirocare of Utah, its owner Khosrow Semnani, and the company's other officers have given at least $58,000 to lawmakers opposing the initiative and at least $238,891 to other politicians who have come out against Initiative 1 and their causes. And that is not counting another $143,445 donated to political organizations, such as the state Republican and Democratic committees that dole out money to their candidates' campaigns. Nor does it count the small army of lobbyists who press the company's cause in the Capitol. The political money, which, according to records filed with the State Elections Office, totals $440,880 since 1990, is a pittance compared with the $3 million Envirocare has spent on such things as ads, consulting and legal advice to defeat the initiative. Yet, the ballot measure's backers say so many lawmakers have received Semnani contributions that the Legislature cannot be trusted to deal impartially with the radioactive waste issue. Lawmakers reject the allegation, noting that many of them also received contributions from the Utah Education Association, which has donated at least $64,000 to legislators in the past election cycle alone. UEA is the initiative's leading supporter and its 18,000 members would benefit because most of the waste tax would aid schools. Hugh Matheson, who leads the opposition campaign, called any suggestion that Envirocare is trying to buy the election "a wild accusation." "If money were the issue, you would expect UEA to be creaming us," he said. "We have got almost 2,000 signatures on endorsement cards from people opposed to the initiative. It could be the reason that people are against this [Initiative 1] is because it's a bad idea." On the list of legislators opposed to Initiative 1 are two senators who have not taken campaign contributions from Envirocare or its principals. There is no record of Salt Lake City Republican Sen. Carlene Walker accepting any. Nor is there of Salt Lake City Democratic Sen. Alicia Suazo. (However, $500 from Semnani and Envirocare helped finance campaigns of Suazo's late husband, Pete, whose seat she assumed upon his accidental death in 2001.) Threefold Proposal: The proposed law, the Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act, has three main goals. It would raise taxes on low-level radioactive waste currently disposed of in Utah, prevent the state from accepting anything hotter and require state employees involved in regulating radioactive and hazardous waste to wait three years before taking a job in the industry. Envirocare, which has 260 employees, paid $300,800 in radioactive-waste taxes last year on an estimated $120 million in revenues, or one-quarter of 1 percent. The initiative would raise taxes paid by the out-of-state companies that use Envirocare to $208 million, according to estimates by the Legislature's accountants. Although proponents say the tax is reasonable, a majority of legislators and many community leaders say the tax would drive the company out of business, sap $20 million from the economy and leave hundreds jobless. One point they do not mention, though, is that the law also would bury Envirocare's bid to tap into a $75 million market to accept "hotter," more dangerous waste. So-called "B" waste consists mostly of rubbish from nuclear power plants, including everything except nuclear fuel rods. The B currently goes to two sites that will be forced by law to hand over two-thirds of the lucrative market to Envirocare within six years -- as long as the Legislature and the governor approve the Utah landfill's operating permit by the summer of 2006. If the initiative fails, lawmakers are free to sign off on the B plans, which already have passed the state Division of Environmental Quality's safety and technical tests. If the initiative gets voter approval -- 95,974 registered voters already signed petitions to place the law on Tuesday's ballot -- lawmakers will decide whether to tinker with the new Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act or, perhaps, how hard to fight it in court. "It's like they [in the statehouse] already have shown their hand," said Initiative 1 proponent Jason Groenewold of Families Against Incinerator Risk. "They are going to line up behind Envirocare." And, as opponents often point out, there is no guarantee Capitol Hill will carry out Initiative 1's goals, to staunch the flow of radioactive waste to Utah -- a record 14.35 million cubic feet last year -- and to funnel tax revenue from that already-allowed waste for money-starved school and anti-poverty programs. It would take just a majority of lawmakers to amend, or rescind, the initiative law in future sessions. Proponents of the initiative say it is hypocritical for those who have tirelessly campaigned to block the Skull Valley Goshute Indians from storing nuclear waste on their Utah reservation to treat Initiative 1 like it is radioactive. Gov. Mike Leavitt has benefited enormously, receiving at least $132,600 in donations linked to Envirocare. He also is one of the prominent figures who has come out against Initiative 1. In other states where there are big waste businesses, Leavitt said there is intense political involvement. "They [at Envirocare] have done that, and they have done that effectively," he said, calling such donations a "dilemma" for politicians everywhere and adding that a contribution does not guarantee his support. "I'm sure there have been many times they have been disappointed," Leavitt said of Envirocare. He said this week he will not give the company the approval it wants for accepting hotter radioactive waste. Bipartisan Opposition: But Envirocare could wait until Leavitt is out of office to seek approval for hotter wastes. Among those lining up for Leavitt's job is House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, who is second behind Leavitt in the amount of money received from Envirocare and its affiliates. He did not respond to calls seeking comment. The list of opposing lawmakers is atypically bipartisan, and many have accepted donations from UEA, too. In the 29-member Senate, where 22 openly oppose Initiative 1, the number includes 18 of 20 Republicans. In the 75-member House of Representatives, 44 of 52 Republicans and 8 of 23 Democrats have added their names to the "no" list. Just three lawmakers have voiced their support for the initiative, Sen. Ed Mayne, D-West Valley City, Rep. Patrice Arent, D-Holladay, and Rep. Mike Thompson, an Orem Republican who even gathered signatures for Initiative 1. Mayne and Thompson have gotten $400 apiece from Envirocare or its principals. Meanwhile, UEA has given at least $64,285 this election cycle to 30 legislators, mostly Democrats. Arent, locked in a pricey battle to unseat Republican Sen. Steve Poulton in District 4, has received at least $5,282 in campaign contributions from UEA. UEA President Pat Rusk said there is "a big difference" between Envirocare's political giving and the donations her political action committee gives to candidates chosen by members. "It represents the views of a lot of interests," she said, adding that UEA PAC donations go toward getting money for all schools and schoolchildren, rather than a single, private business. Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, devotes much of his political and professional effort to helping children and the disadvantaged. Yet he fought vociferously to keep Initiative 1 off the ballot, encouraging the Legislature's lawyers to defeat the state's citizen initiative law before the Utah Supreme Court, even though the law diluted the value of a vote cast in his urban district, compared to a vote cast in rural counties. Money Trail? Davis has accepted $3,100 in campaign contributions from Envirocare and its principals, the third highest sum accepted by any legislator opposing the initiative. And the Semnani Foundation has given 12 times as much, $37,160, to Davis' employer, Valley Mental Health, according to the foundation's tax records. Davis said he never has solicited donations from Semnani and insisted his motives for opposing the initiative have nothing to do with money. He argues the proposal is too broad and causes a fundamental shift in the state's policy to tax toxic waste just enough to cover the costs of regulation, not to make a profit. "This is designed to go after one company, not an industry," he said. "That's wrong." Other noteworthy decision makers listed as Initiative 1 opponents are: * U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has received $7,500 from Envirocare and its principals. He has said Initiative 1 issues "are best handled by the state Legislature." His son, Brent, has been paid for legal work opposing the initiative. * Retiring U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen, who has received $5,500 in political contributions from the company and its officers. He also has a son, Joe, who was paid by Utahns Against Unfair Taxes. The Republican congressman lent his voice to automatic-dial phone calls urging voters not to sign Initiative 1 petitions. * Former Utah Attorney General Jan Graham. In 1997, Graham's office found no obvious constitutional or statutory concerns with a Senate bill that would have raised radioactive waste taxes from $2.50 a ton to $50 a ton. Yet Graham claims the current initiative, which also seeks a tax increase, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. She said the 1997 review was "perfunctory" and her office rarely noted legal problems with bills. Graham has acknowledged that she received campaign contributions from Semnani and that her law firm was recently paid a $25,000 retainer by Envirocare to mount a legal challenge to the initiative should it pass. House Minority Leader Ralph Becker, a Salt Lake City Democrat with strong environmental credentials, is among those lawmakers who stands out for not having weighed in on the initiative and has received money from Envirocare -- campaign funds and wages. In the late 1980s, Envirocare hired Becker to help kill a competing toxic waste dump proposal in western Colorado. Since 1998, Becker has accepted $850 in campaign funds from his former client. 'Rush-Through Proposal': "My involvement with Envirocare was six or eight years before I ever ran for the Legislature," Becker said. "I certainly wouldn't hesitate for a minute to impose a tax or prevent hotter radioactive waste from coming into this state. But this [initiative] has been a rush-through proposal. I'm still sorting out all the conflicting information." While Becker insisted he has not been compromised by Envirocare's generosity, he does not deny that is the company's intent. "There's no question that Envirocare has invested tremendous resources to affect the process," Becker said. "They are very influential up here [on Capitol Hill], as are Envirocare's opponents." fahys@sltrib.com lfantin@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 32 Utah Leavitt: No Hot Waste The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, November 2, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS Gov. Mike Leavitt says he will not sign off on a permit for a Tooele County radioactive-waste landfill to accept "hotter," more dangerous radioactive waste. And, in a separate move, Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said he would introduce legislation to raise taxes on the landfill, operated by Envirocare of Utah, if Initiative 1 fails in Tuesday's election. Bramble and Leavitt have publicly announced their opposition to the initiative. And both announced their pledges just days before voters statewide will be asked to decide on the Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act, a citizens initiative that would hike taxes on Envirocare and kill its plans to accept higher-level, "B" radioactive waste. Envirocare already has passed the state Division of Radiation Control's safety and environmental tests. To expand into the lucrative business of disposing "B" waste -- which includes most nuclear plant waste, but not spent fuel rods -- the company also needs approval from the Legislature and the governor. The company withdrew its request for final approval of the permit a year ago but has until summer 2006 before it lapses. Leavitt reportedly told the company he could not support the permit while trying to block plans by a consortium of out-of-state utilities to store spent nuclear fuel rods on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, also in Tooele County. "I made it pretty clear, if it came to my desk, it would be disapproved," said Leavitt in an interview Thursday. He said his reasons were the Skull Valley project and "because I didn't want [B waste] here." Bette Arial, a spokeswoman for Envirocare, said she has not heard that Leavitt has flatly refused to approve the B permit. "I don't know that we have asked him," she said. "We are not pursuing it at this time." Bramble said he looked at the $3 million Envirocare has spent fighting Initiative 1 in the past seven months, compared it with the $300,800 in radioactive-waste taxes the company has paid during its first year and decided a tax hike was probably in order. His measure would not channel money into schools and homelessness programs as the initiative mandates. Good-government activist Claire Geddes shrugged off the permit rejection and the tax-hike proposals as ploys to get voters to back off the initiative. "The only way we can be assured that higher-level waste does not come to Utah is to vote for Initiative 1, which will immediately terminate Envirocare's permit," said Geddes, an Initiative 1 supporter. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 33 Initiative would affect only low-level waste - thespectrum.com Thursday, October 31, 2002 Proponents talk of benefit to Utah's students; opponents say Initiative 1 targets Envirocare but does no good By PATRICE ST. GERMAIN patrices@thespectrum.com When it comes to casting ballots on Initiative 1 on Tuesday, the two sides -- Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control and Utahns Against Unfair Taxes -- are both hoping that voters will agree with their side of the issue. The two groups are on far ends of the spectrum, with one group claiming the initiative will do nothing to help Utah school children and that it is unconstitutional. The other group claims that the initiative will stop any higher classes of radioactive waste from being dumped on state-controlled lands and that, through taxes, it will provide revenue to benefit schools and Utah's homeless. One issue the two groups do agree on is that whether the initiative passes or not, it will not prevent high-level nuclear waste from being stored on the Goshutes Reservation in Skull Valley before the waste is shipped for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Because the American Indians have sovereignty on the land, the state cannot pass laws preventing the storage of nuclear waste at the site. Hugh Matheson, chairman of Utahns against Unfair Taxes, said the initiative targets one Utah business: Envirocare, a business that provides one Utah county with 25 percent of its tax base. Matheson claims the initiative would put the company out of business, and it would not prevent the Legislature from passing laws to allow Class-B and C nuclear waste from coming into the state. Although it is not mentioned by name on the initiative, Envirocare, a privately owned business that disposes of low-level nuclear waste in Clive, near the Goshutes Reservation. It currently accepts Class-A nuclear waste, which Matheson said is less radioactive than a home smoke detector, which falls under Class-B and C waste. Envirocare, the largest private disposal site in the country for low-level radioactive waste, had $120 million in gross revenue last year. The initiative would impose on Envirocare, in some cases, up to a 2,000 percent tax increase for disposal fees of nuclear waste, Matheson said. Legislation in 2001 already raised taxes on 11 types of nuclear waste, which makes Utah's tax on the waste the highest in the country. Frank Pignanelli, campaign director for the Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control, said the initiative does target one business that is already operating in Utah but would also target any future businesses that may open. Pignanelli said Envirocare is targeted, but part of the reason is that the company wanted a monopoly and stopped other similar businesses from opening in the state. But Envirocare is not the only business that has goods taxed. "We can't do anything to stop a business from accepting low-level nuclear waste, but what the initiative does is tax the dumping to those who use the facilities," Pignanelli said. "So if you dump radioactive waste, you pay for it. We have taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, liquor -- a long, long list of many companies that are taxed." Pignanelli said that currently, the state is getting the waste without the benefits, and radioactive waste produced within the state is shipped elsewhere. "Utah produces very little radioactive waste but what it does produce has to be sent to Washington and they (Washington) have no problem posing taxes on the waste," he said. Envirocare does accept more waste and collects less tax, but Matheson said that is a simply because of what type of waste is disposed of by Envirocare. Matheson said the volume of waste is more with less tax because it is Class-A waste rather than B or C waste. Matheson said the initiative would tax Envirocare $208 million on the $120 million gross revenue it claimed last year. "The volume comparisons are just bogus," Matheson said. "You can earn those high kinds of revenue but your are talking about B and C waste." Radioactivity is measured in curies, and by comparing curies, one shipment going to a facility in South Carolina could have as much radioactivity as the entire Envirocare site, Matheson said. Although the Legislature can override Initiative 1, Pignanelli said legislatures are reluctant to make changes forged by public opinion and despite what the Utahns Against Unfair Taxes have to say, Pignanelli said the initiative is not unconstitutional. But Matheson disagrees and said the initiative sets a dangerous precedent for the state. "One of the real issues are we going to pass an initiative that is unconstitutional, supports corporate warfare and is so complicated, most people can't understand it?" Matheson said. "If one group can pass an initiative against one business in the state, no business is safe against the initiative process." Matheson said the increased taxes that would be imposed on Envirocare, regardless if the company is ever permitted to take higher classes of waste, would most likely shut the company down. Even without higher-classified waste, Initiative 1 would tax Class-A waste that the company currently is able to accept at a higher rate. The initiative would not only hurt the company, but the people employed there and the county in which the business resides. If the company shuts down, the Utah schoolchildren and homeless will not be better off because there would be no tax base instead of more. Pignanelli's group claims the initiative would not put any company out of business, and because so many nuclear power plants are being decommissioned, the company accepting nuclear waste will see an increase in business. The state would see an increase in nuclear waste dumped within Utah's borders. So who will win the vote on Nov. 5? Both groups are optimistic. Matheson, a campaign consultant paid largely from funds the campaign has received from Envirocare, said he is optimist voters will see through all the "smokescreens" that the citizen's initiative has put up. "The voters can see who is behind us on this all the way from Congressman Jim Hansen up to the governor himself," Matheson said. "It's never over until its over, but the indications are positive and we urge everyone to consider carefully and go out and vote." But Pignanelli, who is working along with almost everyone else for the initiative without pay, said he hopes the message is complete enough in the voter information guide for people to understand the issue and make the right choice about who will benefit from the initiative. "I know Envirocare finds it hard to believe that people would work for a cause because they believe in it but that is what we are doing," Pignanelli said. "Right now, Envirocare is outspending us seven to one." The Utah Education Association, the National Education Association and the Crusade for the Homeless have provided funds in support of Initiative 1. Like Matheson, Pignanelli is optimistic that the voters will vote the right way -- in favor for the initiative. "I'm a Democrat in Utah. I have to be optimistic." Pignanelli said. If the initiative passes, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2003. Originally published Thursday, October 31, 2002 Copyright ©2002 The Spectrum. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Radioactive soil found outside Millstone - norwichbulletin.com [Norwich Bulletin] Saturday, November 2, 2002 Uranium and hydrazine elements are characterized as naturally occuring. By JENNY BONE MILLER WATERFORD -- The soil outside Millstone Nuclear Power Station has low levels of elements that may threaten public safety, according to an independent study. The Star Foundation, an organization made famous by Christie Brinkley's endorsement, performed chemical and radiological tests on some soil samples outside the plant. The tests found hydrazine and uranium in the vicinity of Millstone, Scott M. Cullen, executive director of the foundation, said. They mailed the results of their tests to the state Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP Radiation Division staff said the types and levels of radiological contaminants reflect naturally occurring levels that would occur even if there were no nuclear power facility nearby. The amount of hydrazine actually discharged at Millstone station is a very small fraction of that which is safely authorized, Robert L. Smith, chief of the water management bureau, said. The DEP further said the Star report stated that it had found hydrazine, but it had actually found dimethylhydrazine (UMDH), a similar but different chemical. UMDH is used as a component of jet and rocket fuels, as a stabilizer in plant growth regulators, in organic synthesis and in photography. Millstone maintains that it has never used UMDH, so the DEP says it has no logical explanation for the levels of UMDH in the sediment samples the Star Foundation found in two locations. The Star Foundation testing was conducted through a grant secured by the New York State Assembly. Their report pointed out the dangers of hydrazine contamination and human consumption through seafood, which includes cancer, birth defects and central nervous system and immune system disorders, especially in children. Georgia Institute of Technology found no problem with the levels of hydrazine in soil around the plant in their independent study, Smith said. Many years of ambient radiological sampling performed by the Millstone station conducted according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency requirements and independent monitoring by the DEP support the conclusion that the levels of dangerous elements are natural to the environment, he said. [jbmiller@norwich.gannett.com] Copyright © 2002 Norwich Bulletin. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 NAVAJO GROUPS QUESTION WHY IUC NOT INCLUDED IN INITIATIVE 1 PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, November 02, 2002 Contacts: Hazel Merritt, Utah Navajo Downwinders (435) 651-3402 Lori Goodman, Diné CARE (970) 259-0199 NAVAJO GROUPS QUESTION WHY THE INTERNATIONAL URANIUM CORPORATION MILL IN BLANDING  UTAHS COVERT DUMP - IS NOT INCLUDED IN INITIATIVE 1 Initiative 1 would raise the dumping fees on Class A hazardous waste and would ban the dumping of Class B and C wastes in Utah. However it appears that the initiative would also remove taxes from waste that is permanently disposed at the International Uranium Corporations (IUC) Blanding mill and disposal site. Utah Navajo Downwinders, an Aneth Navajo citizens group and Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment (Diné CARE), question why Initiative 1 seems to play favorites among Utahs hazardous waste dumps. The IUC License from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits the mill to process radioactive waste and to permanently dispose of the resulting tailings in the mill's tailings facility. There are no limits stated in the mill's License as to the total quantities that may be accepted by the mill annually. The mill License also imposes no restrictions on the jurisdictions from which the waste may originate. So Hazel Merritt of Navajo Utah Downwinders wonders This permanent disposal sure sounds like a dump to us. So we dont understand why Initiative 1 would treat this dump, and its operator, differently than other hazardous waste dumps in the state. According to Lori Goodman, of Diné CARE, IUC can accept and process materials containing natural uranium in any form and associated products from relatively low grade material to very high grade materials - IUC has handled material grading at over 40% U3O8. Ms. Goodman notes that IUC practically admits that it is a dump, stating on its website ( [http://www.intluranium.com] ) that the mill is [only] different from disposal-only facilities in its ability to process uranium-bearing materials for recycling and extraction of uranium and other commercially valuable metals. Since 1993, the IUC mill has accepted and permanently disposed of radionuclide-contaminated soils, refinery-related organic compounds, organic solvents, calcium fluoride waste, potassium duranate solids, filter ash, mono- and di-butyl phosphate and other hazardous wastes from New York, California, Ontario and several other locations. In addition, the IUC mill has had groundwater contamination problems since at least 1999  problems which have not been cleaned up. We believe that the IUC mill should not be allowed to operate a covert dump, by hiding behind the smokescreen that it is only a mill, said Ms. Merritt. Therefore, we would urge that Utah treat all its hazardous waste dumps and operators equally, so that, whether by accident or design, our communities do not bear the sole burden of the impacts from these dumps. ***************************************************************** 36 Decision sought in lawsuit against uranium plant Daily news from Louisville, Kentucky and Southern Indiana from courier-journal.com Home [http://www.courier-journal.com] · News Saturday, November 2, 2002 Associated Press PADUCAH, Ky. -- Whistleblowers who sued the former operator of the uranium plant at Paducah want a judge to force federal officials to decide whether to join the suit, which seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to the government. They suggest a deadline of Dec. 17. The Justice Department on Thursday asked for an extension -- the 13th extension since the suit was filed in June 1999 against Lockheed Martin Corp. Plaintiffs in the suit in U.S. District Court include three current and former plant employees -- Ronald B. Fowler, Charles F. Deuschle and Garland E. Jenkins. The Natural Resources Defense Council and one of its members, Thomas B. Cochran, also are plaintiffs. Lockheed and its predecessors operated the uranium enrichment plant for the Department of Energy from 1982 until 1992. The suit claims Lockheed made false statements involving storage and disposal of radioactive waste, exposure of workers to contaminants and contamination of groundwater and soil. As a result, the suit alleges, Lockheed was paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fees that it didn't deserve. It wants Lockheed to refund the money. If successful, the whistleblowers would get up to 25 percent. Lockheed denies the claims. The suit has been delayed while the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy have spent more than $1 million investigating the claims. Government attorneys and experts have reviewed thousands of pages of documents, tested the contents of landfills and interviewed current and former plant workers. Attorneys for the whistleblowers contend in a court document filed Thursday that the investigation has ''largely affirmed the allegations'' made in the suit. However, the Energy Department hasn't decided whether it will get involved, they contend. In Thursday's filing, Joe Egan, the lead attorney for the whistleblowers, said another extension was not justified. But he asked U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. to grant a delay until Dec. 17 ''with instructions that this extension shall be the last.'' Home [http://www.courier-journal.com] · News Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 37 DEP clears Apollo sewer project of radioactive contamination PittsburghLIVE.com - [Valley News Dispatch] By Mary Ann Thomas [mathomas@tribweb.com] Friday, November 1, 2002 APOLLO: It's safe to proceed with a sewer line project in the borough, according to a state study released Thursday. The state Department of Environmental Protection hired AMEC Earth &Environmental, Inc. to study if radioactive contamination would pose a problem for excavating portions of the borough for a proposed sewer line project. The study examined results from soil samples from more than 1,000 locations in the borough. "After an exhaustive study of existing testing data, DEP concluded that there would be no risk from radiation to the community or its workers during the excavation project for the new sewer lines," said John Matviya, DEP southwest regional environmental cleanup manager. Digging up anything in the borough has been a concern since the cleanup of the former nuclear fuel plant, founded by NUMEC in 1958 and subsequently owned by the Atlantic Richfield Co. and Babcock &Wilcox. Operations ceased in 1986 and the plant was demolished and cleaned up in the 1990s. Additionally, DEP would like to have one of its inspectors for excavation along Warren Avenue and Seventh Street — the streets closest to the former plant. The DEP does not believe contamination exists in the soil in that portion of the borough, said DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison, but the agency wants to monitor that area as a precaution and to address public concerns. Borough council Chairman John Ameno isn't satisfied. "I'm disappointed," Ameno said. "They did not do what we asked." Earlier this year, Ameno requested core sampling — sampling at depth between approximately seven feet and 20 feet, testing of the borough's current sewer system and testing of the Kiski River. "We got none of the three," Ameno said. The state will conduct river sampling over the next several months, Matviya said. And results from testing by the site of the new Apollo bridge should be available by the end of the month. The DEP study was conducted to see if core sampling was needed in the borough, he said. "I was not confident in telling anyone not to do core drilling," Matviya said. That's why the state spent about $41,000 to see if more sampling was needed. "After seeing the results, there is no evidence of radiation at depth and we should not waste money for core sampling," Matviya said. Depending on how many core samples would be taken, such a project would cost thousands of taxpayer dollars. Ameno is concerned that not enough of the proper tests were done in the borough to protect the health and safety of workers and the community. He plans on forwarding the DEP study to an independent contractor for their opinion. "We want someone who is independent of the DEP and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look at this," Ameno said. Matviya said the review was independent, that the consultants hired were not involved in the cleanup of the Apollo site. Not just Ameno is calling for core sampling. So is the sewage authority that serves Apollo and 12 other Valley communities. "If there is a potential for health liability, they should resolve it, and the only way to do that is core drilling at prime areas where's there is the best chance of a problem," said Bob Kossak, manager of the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. "But I recommend that they limit the amount of core sampling, because its expensive," he added. But Matviya said monitoring excavation of the sewer and soil beneath the sewer near the former plant would provide a more extensive test to see if there is any contaminated lines or dirt. "If you take a few samples, you might miss any potential contamination," he said. If contamination is found, whether by sampling or monitoring during excavation, the problem of cleanup still exists. "Either way, if contamination is found, you still have to deal with safely removing the dirt." Ameno said he wants more answers before the any kind of public project involving removing dirt begins. "How do we dig here with a clear conscious?" Mary Ann Thomas can be reached at mathomas@tribweb.com [mathomas@tribweb.com] or (724 )226-4691. Images and text copyright © 2002 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 38 Soil-testing timeline still uncertain 11-1-02 [Canon City Daily Record - Canon City and the Royal Gorge Region, Colorado] [http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com] State officials meet with area residents over Cotter contaminants B.J. Plasket Daily Record News Group CANON CITY — Tests for plutonium, lead and molybdenum in Lincoln Park and surrounding areas are unlikely to begin before December and test results may not be available until late winter, a state health official said Thursday. Those tests almost certainly will include McKinley Elementary School but will not include the impoundment or tailing ponds at Cotter, according to Tony Harrison, the head of the radiochemistry lab at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. "We don't have a lot of money to spend on this," Harrison told a group of local residents, adding that the health department will test no more than 20 sites in the area. "If we find evidence of plutonium on the surface, we will do a lot more testing," Harrison said. "If we can't get a good hit from 20 samples, we're done." The health department also announced that a second meeting intended to gather public input regarding the testing would be held on Nov. 14 in Cañon City. That meeting is set for 6:30 p.m. at the county commissioners' meeting room. The department also announced a one-month public comment period on the testing. That comment period begins today and ends Dec. 4. Harrison said that after a testing plan is developed the dates for the testing would be largely determined by the weather. "I'm not going to sample in a snowstorm and I'm not going to sample mud," he said. Harrison said the Cotter containment ponds, which the health department has said it has never tested, will not be among the locations tested for plutonium because there are many materials contained in the ponds and that "you would have to dig up the whole thing" to look for plutonium. He said pond testing would also create the danger of perforating the Hypalon liners in the ponds. Other areas of the mill property are likely to be among the places tested. Tony Belaski, a member of the Citizens Against ToxicWaste (CCAT) group, asked that areas near Cotter's "incinerators" be tested in light of allegations that plutonium waste was burned there. Cotter representative Steve Landau, however, said the mill has never had an incinerator, but has what he called furnaces. Landau said the mill has "never burned radionucleides." Harrison said the tests on each of the yet-to-be-determined 20 sites will include samples or "scrapings" from several smaller areas. He said the samples are likely to be mixed and pulverized in order to create "homogenized" samples. Harrison said he would be surprised if the tests show the presence of the rare isotope Plutonium 244 and said the health department "had never heard of it" until private tests conducted 10 years ago were circulated recently. He said the testing would also look for other plutonium isotopes. The tests, according to Harrison, will closely resemble tests performed in and around the former Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant near Golden in the 1980s. Harrison said the methods used at Rocky Flats have proven accurate when compared with other tests. "We're pretty good at finding plutonium," he said. Bert Huscza, the head of business services for the Fremont Re-1 School District, told Harrison that the testing of McKinley School "is imperative" and said the school district "will insist" on tests at the school. Huscza said the school district is also likely to have its own tests conducted. contents Copyright Ó 2000 Royal Gorge Publishing Corporation. All ***************************************************************** 39 Credible Or Incredible home / contact Friday, November 01 2002 @ 02:34 AM GMT In Bush?s UN speech, he argues that the world "has been more than patient" with the Iraqi regime. It appears that his patience with the Israeli regime?s brutal occupation is infinite, but his patience with the Iraq regime is an ultimatum of three weeks or else the consequences of war. *Alden C. Mayfield* The issue of a regime change in Iraq has preoccupied the Bush administration as it seeks to prevent Iraq from amassing and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Such has been the feverish and irrational drumbeat of war in the Bush administration that Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice have naively argued that Iraq is within months of creating a nuclear bomb and should be attacked even if United Nations weapon inspectors are invited back into Iraq. However, many nations around the world (except for Britain and Israel) argue that Iraq is not a threat to other nations and that its weapons programme is considerably less dangerous than the Bush administration would have the world believe. It should be noted that the U.S. government has known for many years that Iraq has had chemical weapons, which the U.S. generously supplied during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, several military and political think-tanks argue that Iraq is not capable of building nuclear weapons in the very near future and that Bush really has no case against attacking Iraq. The majority of peace-loving nations argue that the only legitimate way to deal fairly with Iraq is to go through multi-lateral institutions such as the UN Security Council and the return of UN weapons inspectors. In fact, traditional American allies, such as France, Germany, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have argued that any unilateral action taken by the U.S. would be counter-productive and would not serve the interests of the UN and the rule of international law, and that if the U.S. first resolved the bigger issue of the grossly imbalanced Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would better serve its vested interests of a regime change in Iraq. Recent surveys in the United States have shown that the majority of Americans do not support U.S. unilateral action against Iraq as Bush has not provided a credible case. In seeking to develop a case against attacking Iraq and thus changing the Iraqi regime, Bush asserted in his speech to the UN that if the UN Security Council does not rubber-stamp his plans to go to war with Iraq, he will act alone in going to war with Iraq. Bush argues that Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, "has made the case against himself by continuing to violate the human rights of his own people." Despite Bush?s noble-sounding rhetoric delivered to the UN, his case for a regime change in Iraq is not credible as the U.S. has become irrelevant in settling international conflicts as it continues to tolerate and support Israeli State terrorism with unqualified military, diplomatic and financial aid all in the name of democracy and its nebulous war on terrorism. It is incredible that the U.S. government is so patient with the Israeli regime as it has been illegally, brutally, occupying and resettling on Palestinian lands for the past 35 years, but it is not patient with the Iraqi regime that has lost more than 1 million people as a direct result of U.S. economic sanctions and it is neither occupying nor resettling on another nation?s lands. In Bush?s UN speech, he argues that the world "has been more than patient" with the Iraqi regime. It appears that his patience with the Israeli regime?s brutal occupation is infinite, but his patience with the Iraq regime is an ultimatum of three weeks or else the consequences of war. This is a clear double standard. It is well known that the State of Israel is capable of launching nuclear and chemical weapons from land, sea and air, yet the U.S. is more concerned with Iraq?s weapons that can?t hurt a proverbial fly. Shouldn?t Iraq be given the right to deter future Israeli aggression? Fair is fair. If the U.S. wants to disarm Iraq, it should also disarm Israel. But it is obvious that the U.S. wants to appease the Jewish lobby in Washington as it seeks to go to war in order to strengthen Israel and weaken all its neighbours. It is also interesting to note that the U.S. government is concerned with Iraq using such weapons, even though it is the only nation on record that has vaporized entire cities with its testing of the atomic bomb in Japan. It is incredible that the U.S. government is so concerned with pleasing domestic concerns such as the Jewish lobby, re-elections, oil and arms companies, not to mention that war is a convenient ploy to deflect attention away from a weak U.S. economy and its crooked corporate Chief Executive Officers, including Cheney, but it is not interested in listening to the basic human rights concerns of the Palestinian people who are literally being dehumanized on a daily basis as they have been caged up like animals with Israel?s apartheid-style curfews and closures as a means of collective punishment. Such is the utter insanity of allowing American domestic concerns to begin a war with Iraq that former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who supervised weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991-1997 argues that "this is about President Bush?s own domestic political agenda in which he and his administration have invested so much political capital behind the concept of getting rid of the Iraqi president that they?ve boxed themselves in to a rhetorical corner and are desperate to advance this situation. So they?re using weapons inspections as such an excuse (GlobeandMail, 7 September 2002)." Other respected leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan have echoed Scott Ritter?s evaluation of Bush?s motive for a regime change and war with Iraq. In no uncertain terms, Mr. Mandela criticizes the United States for acting unilaterally and thus undermining the United Nations as a forum for settling international disputes. "Hard-line U.S. policies," asserts Mandela, "are aimed to please American oil and arms companies (GlobeandMail, 12 September 2002)." Not content with criticizing Bush?s domestic motivation for war against Iraq, Mandela points out that traditional U.S. contempt for the UN and international law may be linked to racism and nothing more as "there is an element of racism behind Washington?s unilateral policies (GlobeandMail)." To be sure, Mandela continues by saying that "many people say quietly, but they don?t have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white (UN) secretaries-general you didn?t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you?ve had black secretaries-general like, Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have nothing but contempt for it (GlobeandMail)." The same valid criticism of racism could be applied to Washington?s pro-Israel policy that gives unqualified support to Israeli State terrorism as it regularly and illegally confiscates and settles on Palestinians lands, and tolerates Israel?s State policy of torturing and holding suspected Palestinian freedom fighters without due legal process. But this shouldn?t surprise us as the U.S. is doing the same thing to unlawful combatants in Guantanomo Bay. It is incredible that the U.S. government is concerned with the security and peace of Israel and itself, but it is not concerned with the security and peace within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the rest of the world. The Bush administration claims that Iraq, part of its misinformed "axis of evil" rhetoric, is a threat to world peace and, in particular, to stability in the Middle East. However, many respected world leaders have argued that Washington?s uncritical and unqualified pro-Israel policy in the Middle East is a threat to world peace. The U.S. threatens war with Iraq if it defies any future UN resolutions on weapons inspections, but the U.S. never threatens Israeli State terror that defies (with the diplomatic influence of the U.S.) UN resolutions with regard to complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Despite Bush?s promise in his UN speech that America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict,_ the reality is that the U.S. government continues its unqualified pro-Israel policy. Policy speaks louder than political lies. Bush claims that Iraq has broken its promises to fulfil UN resolutions to disarm itself; the U.S. has broken its many promises to create a Palestinian State that serves its own people?s interests as it continues to support Israeli State terrorism all in the name of security and peace for Israel, but not for the Palestinians. Yes, it is right to criticize Iraq for gassing its own people, but the world needs to know that the U.S. government not only supplied Iraq with chemicals and technology necessary to build such weapons, it also turned a blind eye to such crimes against humanity. Also, the world needs to know that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has committed numerous war crimes against Palestinians. Recently, Sharon joyfully applauded an Israeli F-16 missile attack on a Palestinian residential area that resulted in the deaths of nine children. Despite this clear war crime against Palestinian civilians, Bush shakes Sharon?s hand and proclaims him a man of peace in the Oval Office. Instead, Sharon should be standing before a war crimes tribunal for all his crimes against humanity. Thus, several leaders have rightly pointed out that such uncritical U.S. support of the Israeli regime is a threat to world peace, which causes desperation within Palestinian circles and thus the sad resort to suicide bombings to resist and critique American-backed policies of the Israeli terrorist regime. For example, Mandela is not shy to make the following conclusion "that the attitude and policies of the United States of America are a threat to world peace (GlobeandMail, 12 September 2002)." For many years, Dr. Noam Chomsky, Dr. Edward Said, and many others have argued that America?s imbalanced pro-Israel policy is a real threat to world peace. Bush makes the case against himself in his UN speech as he has discredited his own government and its nebulous motives for going to war with Iraq instead of dealing justly with the bigger issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has firmly stated, "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had produced the world?s most dangerous crisis, but Iraq?s behaviour was in second place" (GlobeandMail, 12 September 2002). Bush argues that if the UN does not enforce its own laws of forcing weapons inspectors into Iraq, the World Body will become irrelevant. However, as argued above, many have argued that the U.S. has discredited itself for showing contempt for the UN and international law as it continues to give unqualified support to Israeli State terrorism as it illegally and brutally occupies Palestinian lands. Despite the U.S.?s many hollow promises of Palestinian Statehood, freedom and justice, the U.S. continues to support Israeli State terrorism. Policy speaks louder than political promises: the U.S. has just approved more than $3 billion in aid to the State of Israel even though it continues to illegally confiscate and settle on Palestinians lands. /Alden C. Mayfield is a Canadian academic presently teaching English in Asia/ /-Palestine Times (ptimes.org). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA)./ /Last Updated Fri, 01 Nov 2002 18:10:17 / TORONTO - Switching from fossil fuels to alternatives such as solar or wind power won't be enough to slow global warming, scientists and engineers reported Friday. Canadian and American scientists assessed solar power, windmills, fuel cells and nuclear power. They found these alternative power sources alone aren't the answer for emission-free energy on a commercial scale. * INDEPTH: Energy Alternatives /Wind power alone is insufficient/ Alternative energy simply won't generate the power needed as people around the world consume more electricity, the researchers found. "If you want to reduce dependence (on fossil fuels), we're going to have to come up with technologies and energy sources that do not currently exist," said McGill University economist Christopher Green. * INDEPTH: Kyoto Protocol Stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the middle of the century while global economic expansion continues at its current level would require about 30 trillion watts of alternative power worldwide, the study found. Green and his co-authors estimated a planet-wide solar grid of Manhattan-sized arrays could make 10 trillion watts of power. Trapping excess carbon dioxide emissions underground would also reduce the harm to the environment. *Consider reducing consumption, critics say* But other scientists were sceptical of the study, which appears in Friday's issue of the journal /Science/. /Solar powered car/ University of Toronto geologist Danny Harvey pulled out of the research project because of what he said his colleagues chose to ignore. "There was too much emphasis on the need to find alternative sources of energy and not enough attention drawn to the opportunities to reduce our need for energy in the first place," said Harvey. The study's authors said it was meant to spark an ambitious search for new ways to generate power. Harvey said although he doesn't agree with many of the report's findings, he hopes it will at least re-ignite a debate that could benefit the environment in the long term. Written by CBC News Online staff ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************