***************************************************************** 11/03/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.284 ***************************************************************** 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 North Korea says nuclear program negotiable Country willing to 2 Kim Urges NK To Give Up Nuclear Ambitions 3 Oil for North Suspended Temporarily 4 US Presents Russia What is Likely a Final Plan for Long-Stalled 5 British Energy in bid to dodge rates 6 US: TVA makes offer DES may refuse 7 NK: Coming unstuck 8 Can 3-Way Alliance Stop NK Runaway Train? 9 British Energy in bid to dodge rates 10 Report: N. Korea Wants U.S. Talks NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 US: Seabrook nuclear plant sale a windfall for state 12 Cameco mulls increased stake in Bruce Power to shield reactor invest NUCLEAR SAFETY 13 US: Tri City Peace Action hosts forum on dangers of nukes NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 14 New zoning to allow uranium plants debated * 15 Trousdale residents' group decries planned uranium enrichment 16 US: N-Waste Initiative Critics Deny Bias 17 US: NRC Publishes Revised Notice On Nuclear Fuel Services? Request T 18 US: Yucca Mountain fizzles as issue in fall campaigns NUCLEAR WEAPONS 19 Iraq on BBC 20 US: Trust Me, He Says 21 US: The bad old days before the wall tumbled down 22 US: *CURSE OF THE A-BOMB: 50 YEARS OF LIES: WE MUST PAY UP FOR SUFFE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 23 Glassification plant's price tag still up in air 24 DOE To Maintain Site Manager Role for Oak Ridge Facilities --> 25 DOE denies appeal of ruling vs. UT-Battelle OTHER NUCLEAR 26 CH2M Hill trying to fix electrical woes 27 Group announces politicians' grades on environmental 28 Top CIA analyst rips the shroud off secrets ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 North Korea says nuclear program negotiable Country willing to dismantle its uranium-enrichment program Tri-Valley Herald www.trivalleyherald.com" November 03, 2002 - 3:01:54 AM MST By Philip Shenon New York Times WASHINGTON -- 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 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 U.N. 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 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 economically isolate North Korea. In a speech on Friday, John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state, ruled out talks with North Korea until it "completely and verifiably" ends 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 refuses to negotiate, they said, they would welcome the intervention of an intermediary, like former President Jimmy Carter or other prominent U.S. 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 leader, Kim Jong Il, and his late father, Kim Il Sung -- 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. "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 that 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 diplomatic and economic ties, and because of long delays in the completion of two civilian nuclear power plants that were promised under the pact. North Korea had been startled, he said, by the Bush administration's hostility toward it from the start, when the administration shut down wide-ranging talks begun during the Clinton administration. 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 Bush's repeated statements beginning last summer that the United States would pre-emptively attack nations that threatened it with weapons of mass destruction. "The U.S. has put the DPRK on a list of pre-emptive strikes," he said, using the initials for Democratic People's Republic Of Korea. "So we would like to ask the American people: What is the alterative? What is the choice for the DPRK?" Han, who is understood to be a crucial member of his country's Foreign Ministry, said his statements had been authorized at senior levels of the government, which he said was acting to open a new "means of communication with United States government and its people." The North Korean mission contacted The New York Times through a New Jersey restaurateur, Robert Egan, who is the chairman of a trade group that has worked to improve ties between the United States and North Korea. Officials of North Korea, he said, "want the American people to understand their position." Members of Congress and Korea specialists in the United States said the series of statements was highly significant if only because they suggest the North's eagerness to resolve the nuclear issue. At the same time, the North has spoken of a desire to mend relations with Japan, and taken steps to open up parts of its economy to foreign investment. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in an interview that he was "skeptical" and "mistrustful" about any new North Korea offer to shut its nuclear weapons program. But he said that the United States would need to resume a dialogue with North Korea, and that the Bush administration's refusal to talk for nearly two years before last month's confrontation had the effect of "guaranteeing a negative outcome." "I'll tell you that I thought the administration made an enormous mistake not to engage with the North Koreans from day one," he said. "We didn't trust the Soviet Union, but we talked to them and ultimately engaged them in a ratcheting down of the arms race." Stephen W. Bosworth, who served as the U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1997 until 2000, said the North Korean statements suggested that "they are feeling pushed into a corner" and even under threat from the United States. "They may be paranoid, but they do have enemies," he said. "Certainly there is no reason for them not to think of the Bush administration -- and more generally, the United States -- as an enemy." He said that "in the end, I think we're going to have to talk to them again." InsideBayArea.com home [http://www.insidebayarea.com] ©1999-2002 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 2 Kim Urges NK To Give Up Nuclear Ambitions Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Nov.3,2002 15:53 KST Seoul has reaffirmed its stance on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, announcing plans to urge North Korea, to abandon its nuclear ambitions by taking prompt and visible actions, according to President Kim Dae-jung in a meeting with related ministers at Cheong Wa Dae Saturday morning. President Kim stressed the country will work with Japan and the United States to convince North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program so as to find a peaceful resolution. To this end, the three nations will discuss their "next step" in dealing with the Stalinist state during the two-day Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group, or TCOG meeting scheduled to begin in Tokyo next Friday. The issue will also top the agenda during trilateral foreign ministerial talks slated for November 11 in Seoul. (Arirang TV) ***************************************************************** 3 Oil for North Suspended Temporarily Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Nov.3,2002 17:01 KST by Kwon Kyung-bok (kkb@chosun.com) The plan to send 400,000 tons of oil to North Korea this week has been temporarily halted it was learned Sunday. A South Korean government official announced Sunday, that alongside the US and Japan a final decision upon sending the oil will be made around November 15 after the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group, or TCOG meeting scheduled to open in Tokyo and Seoul from November 8. Considering limiting various aid sent to Pyongyang, the three countries also reached an agreement to make concrete counter plans in case North Korea continues its clandestine nuclear development programs. In accordance with this, the three are considering boycotting a Nuclear Accident Compensation Protocol meeting between KEDO and Pyongyang originally scheduled for this month. The official said, the US, Japan and the South will continue its firm principal requesting prior suspension of Pyongyang's nuclear program and if it fails to comply, phased counter measures will be applied. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said Saturday during an interview with the central news agency, "The reason we are developing special weapons in spite of economic difficulty is due to hostile relations between Pyongyang and Washington. Considering this fact, it is natural for us to develop such weapons." ***************************************************************** 4 US Presents Russia What is Likely a Final Plan for Long-Stalled MOX Non-proliferation Programme MOSCOW - After nearly eight years of false starts and billions of dollars spent, the Americans — at least — have a plan to dispose of their half of 68 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium in MOX fuel, as part of a bilateral agreement with Russia, reached between the countries under their previous presidents, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, sources close to the ongoing negotiations said. Thomas Nilsen/Bellona Charles Digges, 2002-11-01 18:34 The catch is whether the Russian side will agree to the concept — which was developed by the American nuclear concern Duke, Cogema, Stone , or DCS. According to spokesmen, officials and former officials close to the talks, the DCS model outlines a procedure for disposing of 34 tonnes of surplus US weapons-grade plutonium at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina. If the Russians accept the American model, DCS would then build, as nearly as possible, mirror facilities in Russia and America. The Russian programme would be then administered by the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry, or Minatom — and the American programme by the US Energy Department, or DOE. At a Paris meeting in September, officials from the DOE were promised an answer from Minatom by October 31st on whether Russia would proceed with the MOX programme under the DCS concept, and early this week a high power DOE delegation flew to Moscow in the hopes of getting that answer. The DOE officials John Baker, James Lacy, Robert Boudreaux and Edward Siskin and the State Department's Michael Guhin — collectively seen as the American political MOX team — were all in Moscow until Thursday to get the promised response from Minatom about whether the MOX plan would proceed under the DCS model. The answers were not forthcoming. "[The DOE was] met with more questions. Evidently, those people in Minatom who were supposed to supply the answers did not do so — and this was a political move on Minatom's side: The answers weren't there because someone didn't want them to be," said a source in Russia, who follows nuclear issues closely. In June, many Russian nuclear officials, former and present, where dismayed that the long-expected decision about the Russian disposition option was dusted under the carpet, as Bellona Web reported in July. "It was a non decision," said many Russian nuclear officials at the time. The nuclear industry expert said that another meeting — to follow on this week's — which would include DOE and DCS technical personnel, is scheduled from November 11th to November 14th, though it was unclear if the meeting would take place in Moscow, officials said, thanks to difficulties a number of DOE and DCS technical staff may have getting their visas under Russia's new visa regime, which goes into effect on November 1st. The trip undertaken by the US Government officials was done using a discretionary travel fund controlled by US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, as travel restrictions have been placed on defence-related journeys made by government officials because of the ongoing battle in US Congress over the Defence Authorization bill. Indeed, the press office at the US Embassy would not deny or confirm the arrival of the officials. Nonetheless, members of the DOE-State Department delegation were reached by telephone at their hotels in Moscow, though none would comment on the trip. Siskin, Baker, and Boudreaux referred questions and comments on their visit to DOE's public affairs office in Washington, D.C. Guhin did not return phone calls, despite several messages left for him. Lacy was likewise unavailable for comments. Baker also made no contact after Bellona Web faxed and emailed a copy of this article to his hotel, requesting in the message that he confirm or comment on the information on the purpose of the delegation's trip, or alert Bellona should any inaccuracies be contained in the account. Joseph Davis, DOE's deputy director of public affairs in Washington, told Bellona Web in an email interview: "I can't comment one way or the other on your information." The MOX debate, which has raged since 1996, is a sensitive disarmament issue between the Kremlin and Capitol Hill. What the process involves is mixing of some 4 percent of weapons-grade plutonium oxide into uranium oxide — hence the term MOX fuel, or mixed oxide fuel, — and the subsequent burning of that fuel mixture in modified conventional reactors. What is produced as waste, therefore, is highly radioactive, but certainly unsuitable for use in conventional nuclear weapons. But the plan is both financially and philosophically unpopular with the Russians, who — unlike the United States — operate a closed fuel cycle that relies on reprocessing spent fuel produced by burning of uranium rods, largely for the harvesting of reactor grade plutonium. Waste from MOX burning, however, yields plutonium that is extremely difficult to extract for weapons or energy purposes. It is thus an article of faith at TVEL, Russia's leading nuclear fuel producer — which maintains close ties with Minatom — that a rod of MOX fuel produced is a rod of uranium fuel wasted. "You therefore have to be some kind of super-patriot, bent on disarmament, to go for MOX," said the industry observer. "Nobody wants MOX, not the Americans, not the Russians — it's just unprofitable junk." The disposition of plutonium via MOX also hinders Minatom's little-publicized plans to eventually convert its nuclear industry to a full closed plutonium fuel cycle with the help of fast neutron, or so called "breeder," reactors, that can both run on plutonium and use the plutonium produced in waste as fuel. So far, Russia has one of these — the BN-600 in operation at the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant. Another fast neutron reactor — the BN-800 — is in the early stages of construction, also at Beloyarsk. In contrast, in the United States, during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, 1976 to 1980, and Ronald Reagan, 1980 to 1988, breeder research and reprocessing became politically anathema because of the proliferation risks such reactor blocs and their large stores of plutonium could pose. Plutonium was therefore taken out of private hands and relegated to state-owned test reactors and warhead construction — which was already in full swing anyway. But recently, according to the American press, the idea of re-commercialising plutonium and fast neutron reactors has received a warmer reception from some members of the administration of George Bush and the Bushite DOE. Were this idea to be pursued more vigorously, it would stand the US-Russia MOX agreement to burn the two countries' surplus plutonium on it head. For now, however, the MOX negotiation trips will continue as the Americans attempt to seal the deal, and this week's visit was no exception. Lyudmila Petrova of the Minatom fuel cycles department confirmed that DOE had dispatched a team to seeking answers about the DCS plan, though she refused to give the names of those who participated. "Other things were [also] discussed," she said in a telephone interview with Bellona Web. "But the DCS plan was among those items included in the conversations. We are aware of the DCS plan DOE is putting forward and we have questions about it." Petrova also confirmed that another meeting was scheduled for November, which she said would be taking place in Moscow, presuming that Russia's new visa regimen poses no problems for scheduled participants. She emphasized, however, that Minatom and DOE are "constantly" having meetings regarding the MOX programme, and that November's scheduled visit is "not especially significant." When GAN was phoned, inquiries about the DOE delegation, and MOX fuel in general, were directed Dr. Andrei Kislov. Kislov, head of the fuel cycle licensing division at Russia's nuclear regulatory agency, Gosatomnadzor (GAN), also said the DOE delegation was in town for negotiations on the MOX plan. Though Kislov was not present at any of the meetings between DOE and Minatom officials, he said: "I know that Minatom now is carrying out negotiations on this." Kislov's agency will ultimately have the responsibility of licensing any MOX production and burning in Russia. What likely indicates that this most recent visit by DOE is linked to the DCS model for the US, however, is the detail in which a DCS spokesman laid out how the US side of the bilateral MOX plan is to work, should it ever take effect. DCS spokesman Todd Kaish — though referring inquiries regarding the DOE delegation trip to Moscow back to DOE's Davis — confirmed the DCS concept for the United States that the well-known consultant said the DOE delegation was working to get Minatom to accept. According to Kaish, who spoke to Bellona Web by telephone from Charlotte, North Carolina, the DCS, in conjunction with DOE, would virtually destroy 34 tonnes of surplus US plutonium in retrofitted pressurized water reactors, or PWRs, which are similar, but not identical, in their design to Minatom's VVER-1000s — which are slated to burn MOX in Russia. Kaish added, though, that he knew of no plans on the DCS drawing board for modifying the VVER-1000s, nor anything about the Russian side of the MOX programme in general. But these are details that would most likely be handled first by Minatom before they were passed to DCS for future execution. Indeed, until this summer, it was forbidden for Russian and American scientists working on the MOX programme to even communicate beyond official visit frameworks, according to the consultant. It is not expected, even after the scheduled November meeting, that Minatom will embrace the US and DCS concept right away, said the consultant, and a grace period of some weeks would be offered the ministry while it assesses the viability of the plan in Russia. "But there will be no more of this multi-million-dollar research and development that stretches on for months and years," said the industry observer. "If the Russians turn the DCS plan down, then the MOX programme is finished and something else will have to be done with the 68 surplus tonnes of plutonium." Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 5 British Energy in bid to dodge rates Sunday Herald Troubled nuclear firm asks councils to defer its multi-million payments in bid to avoid bankruptcy By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor Taxpayers could be burdened with huge extra expenses because the crisis-ridden nuclear power company, British Energy, is seeking to delay multi-million pound rates payments to local authorities. The company wants to defer paying Scottish councils massive bills for its nuclear power stations at Torness in East Lothian and Hunterston in North Ayrshire for three months. This is in addition to the £650 million bail-out it has already received from the government to prevent it from going bankrupt. On Monday British Energy is holding an extraordinary general meeting in Edinburgh in an attempt to win shareholders' approval for future borrowing up to £1.6 billion. 'It should be noted that if the proposed resolution is not approved then the company may need to cease trading,' warned BE executive chairman, Robin Jeffrey. BE, local authorities and the Scottish Executive all declined to discuss requests to defer rates payments on the grounds that they were commercially confidential. However the Sunday Herald has established that all the local authorities in which BE has power stations have received such requests. This includes East Lothian and North Ayrshire in Scotland, and at least five councils in England. Despite protests from Green councillors, Lancaster City Council has decided to allow BE to defer until February a £1.7m monthly payment due on Friday for the two nuclear stations at Heysham. The precise payments owed for Torness and Hunterston, which are calculated using a special formula by the rates assessor, are not known. But the rateable value of each site is thought to be in the region of £10 million, which should incur multi-million pound annual rates bills. Prolonged delays in payments across all the UK nuclear sites could cost councils and the government hundreds of thousands of pounds in interest and other charges. The revelation has provoked a furore amongst environmentalists, who have been suggesting that BE should simply be allowed to die. 'Once again the taxpayer is being asked to cough up for another of the nuclear industry's hidden subsidies,' said Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. 'If permission is given to allow the company to defer paying its business rates then it will be the taxpayer who loses out once again. If anything, the company should have its business rates increased to fully compensate us all for the pollution and waste legacy it is leaving behind.' Friends of the Earth Scotland is planning to protest outside BE's meeting tomorrow at the Murrayfield Stadium Conference Centre. 'With less than 24 hours to go until its emergency meeting, it is hardly surprising that British Energy do not wish to discuss this matter. However, the public has a right to know that it is they who will eventually have to pay the price if the company is given the nod to increase its borrowing limit to a staggering £1.6 billion,' argued Dunion. 'Nuclear power has proven itself unreliable, uneconomic and unsafe. It deserves no special favours and certainly no more money. At tomorrow's meeting shareholders must vote to finally turn off the money taps and begin instead the company's phased shutdown.' The government initially agreed on September 9 to give BE a loan of £410 million for three weeks. Then on September 26 ministers increased the loan to £650 million and extended the deadline for repayment to November 29. 'Discussions with the UK government about the options for restructuring British Energy are continuing. However, no decisions have been taken by the UK government and no commitments given on the company's long term future,' Robin Jeffrey has told shareholders. 'If these discussions are not successful, and there can be no guarantee they will be, the company may be unable to meet its financial obligations and therefore the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings.' Asked about the rates deferrals, a spokeswoman for British Energy said: 'As far as we are concerned, the information is confidential between us and any councils concerned, so we're not commenting any further.' The Scottish Executive accepted that delays in BE's rates payments could affect UK taxpayers. Though an Executive spokesman said that the amounts that were due were a matter for local authorities. A spokeswomen for East Lothian Council said: 'Because of client confidentiality, it is not appropriate for us to comment.' North Ayrshire Council was also unable to make any comment. ©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights ***************************************************************** 6 TVA makes offer DES may refuse State Gazette 11/01/02 BILL HILES Respond to this story [bhiles@stategazette.com] The Tennessee Valley Authority is making an offer Jimmy Williamson, manager of the Dyersburg Electric System, may refuse. "I don't think it's a bad deal, but I'm not sure we need to tie up a million dollars of our reserves," Williamson said. "It might be worth doing to show our support of TVA, which is one of the lowest-cost utilities in the United States. "We certainly want TVA to survive because it's been beneficial not only to Dyersburg but to the Tennessee Valley." TVA has offered DES and its other 153 distributors in the region a program called the Discounted Energy Unit Program. The program is designed to help TVA finance the restart of Unit 1 at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama. The program offers TVA distributors the opportunity to purchase discounted energy units (DEUs) in $1 million increments which entitle them to a 2.5-cent per kilowatt-hour discount on a specified quantity of firm load for a specified term. The minimum purchase is $ 1 million for 10 years, which would entitle a distributor to the discount on 435,000 kilowatt hours of power per month. "The program would tie up our reserves for 10 years and shield that portion of our load from any TVA rate increases for the 10 years," Williamson said. "But 435,000 kilowatt hours is only about 0.6 percent of our monthly volume, so a million-dollar investment would hardly be worth tying up our reserves for10 years because the return on the investment would work out to only about 41/2 to 5 percent and, while that may be a pretty good return now, it won't in 10 years, we hope." Williamson said DES's monthly electric usage totals about 69 million-kilowatt hours. "We keep our reserve funds as small as possible because it's our customers' money and we just keep enough for about a month or a month-and-a-half of operations in case of some emergency such as a bad storm," he said. "We'd like to increase our reserves to at least two months' operating funds, but it would require keeping more of customer funds." Williamson said another problem with investing the funds with TVA is that if the DES had an emergency it would have to borrow money to meet it. "You'd be getting about 41/2 to 5 percent on the money and if you had to make a bond issue for an emergency it would cost you 41/2 to 5 percent, so it's basically a wash," he said. "There's really no advantage for us to tie up our money." The offer to distributors is similar to one being considered by officials of Memphis Gas Light and Water Division to pre-buy electricity from TVA. "They're a lot bigger than we are and they're talking about a $1.5 billion buy for which they want to issue bonds," Williamson said. "The federal rules say you can't borrow money through tax-free bonds to invest and that's what MLGW is trying to do." Federal arbitrage regulations forbid the use of proceeds from tax-free bonds to finance investments. MLGW is TVA's largest distributor, purchasing approximately 11 percent of TVA's power. MLGW serves more than 400,000 electric customers. "We couldn't borrow the money to participate in this program because it would be participating in arbitrage to try to make money on the transaction," Williamson said. The DES board of directors voted Wednesday to submit a letter of interest in the DEU program to keep its options open. "We have until Dec. 15 to make a final decision and I might make a recommendation that we participate during our November power-board meeting," Williamson said. "I don't think I will, but I'm still mulling it over in my mind." TVA is the nation's largest public power producer, and its power system is self-financed. TVA provides power to large industries and 158 power distributors that serve 8.3 million consumers in seven southeastern states. ***************************************************************** 7 NK: Coming unstuck Sunday Nov. 03, 2002, Philippines PRESIDENT George W. Bush is strapped in a bind as he presses the United Nations to approve a tough US-sponsored resolution to disarm Iraq while another rogue state, North Korea, rejects diplomatic pressure calling on Pyongyang to stop its nuclear weapons development program. Iraq and North Korea now loom as menacing threats with their growing capability to unleash weapons of mass destruction after the disclosure last month that Pyongyang was going ahead with a project to enrich uranium to develop atomic weapons. And yet Washington is so obsessed with the disarming of Iraq that it cannot seek to open a second front in Bush's war on international terrorism without spreading its military resources thinly and undermining its effort to broaden its coalition in the war on Iraq. The unwelcome prospects of fighting the war on not only two but three fronts invite military disaster. They also pose the danger of opening a larger conflict in the Middle East and in Asia. The question has been raised: Why is Bush so afraid of President Saddam Hussein when North Korea is as much a clear and present danger after it has admitted it has missiles and nuclear warheads and is building its nuclear arsenal further? The United States cannot now seek a UN mandate to go to war with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons. Such a move would clutter the US-sponsored resolution in the UN Security Council, where it has been stalled for six weeks already by the determined opposition of France, Russia and China to its proposal that it be authorized to attack Iraq automatically if it fails to comply with a new round of more stringent UN inspection of Iraq's weapons facility and installations. North Korea has defied international calls for an end to its nuclear weapons program, saying that it was entitled to weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against US aggression. In its approach toward the Iraqi and North Korean threat of possessing weapons of mass destruction, the United States is being twisted by the inconsistency of its responses. On North Korea, it has used Japan to exert diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang while the two countries were having talks on the normalization of their relations. The talks centered on the issue of Japanese nationals kidnapped by North Korea. The talks were complicated by Korea's admission of its clandestine uranium- enrichment program. The United States has put pressure on Japan to persuade Kim Jong-il to end the build-up of his nuclear arsenal. Japan's warning to the Koreans that it would not consider granting aid to North Korea's battered economy unless it abandoned its program only angered Pyongyang and set back the normalization talks. The larger picture in the failure of diplomatic efforts to respond to two threats-one at the Security Council on Iraq, and the other in the use of Japan as the point person on North Korea-is that the United States' role, aggressively pursued by the Bush administration, of acting as an international gendarme to counter the threat of international terrorism, whether it is of the al-Qaeda, Saddam or Kim Jong-il variety, in the post Cold-War international order is coming unstuck. This war-like posture, driven by the US determination to make foreign policy decisions unilaterally rather than seeking consensus, is not only encountering increasing resistance even among its own allies, which gave its coalition broad support in the Gulf War. Its diplomatic effort, using Japan as a bridge to North Korea, has been unsuccessful and, more importantly, has increased tensions between the two countries. Its diplomatic offensive and pressure on the Security Council have backfired. No matter how militarily powerful the United States is, Bush is forced to work out a mandate to attack Iraq within the framework of the United Nations. He is biting off more than he could digest. The key issue in the Security Council debate has now boiled down to a few words which are not merely technical constructions. The issue is whether the United States can attack Iraq if the new UN inspection fails, with the United States, not the Council, determining whether the inspection has failed. The United States also reserves for itself the right when to attack, with or without another UN authority. If the United Nations gives Bush the unilateral mandate to invade Iraq, an attack on North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil" defined by Bush cannot be far behind. ©2002 www.inq7.net all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 8 Can 3-Way Alliance Stop NK Runaway Train? [KoreaTimes National] S. Korea-US-Japan Alliance Looks Strong North Korea is fast becoming a runaway train armed with nuclear weapons, after it confessed to a secret nuclear weapons program last month. South Korea, the United States and Japan are trying to stop this train disaster hits. At the early stage of the second nuclear standoff in 10 years, it is hard to predict how this salvage operation will turn out. A peaceful nuclear-free Korean peninsula, inter-Korean detente and the lives of Koreans and others are at stake. Nearly three weeks after the revelation of North Korea¡¯s confession to running a secret nuclear weapons program, a three-way alliance between South Korea, the United States and Japan looks like it is holding. Putting to rest suspicions held by its allies of Seoul as the weakest link in the trilateral alliance, President Kim Dae-jung renewed his determination to see Pyongyang disarm itself of nuke ambitions, if it harbors them, at an emergency meeting at Chong Wa Dae Saturday. ``President Kim is determined to devote his remaining days in office to resolving the problem,¡¯¡¯ Yim Sung-joon, Kim¡¯s national security advisor, said in a briefing after the meeting attended by national security-related Cabinet ministers. Kim will leave office in February at the end of his five-year single term. Before Saturday¡¯s meeting, Kim appeared to be torn by two priorities regarding Pyongyang¡¯s nuke revelation. He wanted to keep his legacy as peacemaker on the Korean peninsula. As Nobel Peace Prize winner for his ``Sunshine Policy¡¯¡¯ of engaging the North, he had persisted in giving to the impoverished Pyongyang in the hope that it would change its erratic behavior and become a responsible citizen of the global community. However, the North¡¯s nuke self-confession almost mangled such hopes, forcing him to get tougher on the Stalinist country. He threw his support behind a three-way coalition forged by U.S. President Bush together with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the first tangible result of which was a joint statement issued after their confab ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Los Cabos, Mexico last week. In the trilateral statement, the three leaders united to call on the North to give up its nuclear program in a ``prompt and verifiable¡¯¡¯ manner. Kim, however, didn¡¯t seem to be fully convinced that the tough way was the best option. During his stopover in Seattle en route to Seoul from Los Cabos, he warned Washington against cutting off fuel oil supplies to the North, pledged in return for a promise to freeze its nuclear activities under the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. Kim¡¯s warning came amid moves by Washington to slap economic sanctions on the North, including the cutoff of oil supplies and a halt to the construction of nuclear reactors, also promised in the eight-year-old pact. As things stand now, Kim is expected to take a dual approach _ persuading the North when he can and standing united with Washington. This approach may not go well with the Bush administration. Washington has not let up on its tough stance _ no talks before Pyongyang dismantles its nuclear program. In reference to the North¡¯s nuclear program, U.S. Secretary of State Powell said, ``No North Korean children can eat enriched uranium.¡¯¡¯ He previously indicated that Washington did not have any intention to keep its end of the deal on the Geneva pact, saying that it was Pyongyang that first declared it nullified. ``It is fool¡¯s gold for the North,¡¯¡¯ he said. In a related development, the U.S. boycotted a working-level meeting by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) and turned the cold shoulder on participating North Koreans. The KEDO is an international consortium responsible for the construction of alternative reactors to be provided to the North. U.S. Congress is giving further teeth to Bush¡¯s moves as five of its hawkish members last week asked for the permanent termination of oil supplies to the North and called for steps for a regime change in Pyongyang. Adding to this battle cry were reports by U.S. news organizations that Pyongyang might opt to lift a self-imposed ban on missile testing, something that could increase tension on the Korean peninsula. The North test-fired a multiple stage missile in 1998, jolting not only Seoul and Washington but also Tokyo. Out of fear of a nuclear-armed Pyongyang, Japan has held on to the tougher line agreed on by Seoul and Washington. In the first round of normalization talks since Koizumi¡¯s Sept. 17 visit to the North, it told Pyongyang to scrap its nuke program, putting a higher priority on the issue of Japanese abductees but the North refused to accept it. ÀԷ½ð£ 2002/11/03 18:00 [webmaster@hankooki.com] ***************************************************************** 9 British Energy in bid to dodge rates Troubled nuclear firm asks councils to defer its multi-million payments in bid to avoid bankruptcy By Rob Edwards , Environment Editor Taxpayers could be burdened with huge extra expenses because the crisis-ridden nuclear power company, British Energy, is seeking to delay multi-million pound rates payments to local authorities. The company wants to defer paying Scottish councils massive bills for its nuclear power stations at Torness in East Lothian and Hunterston in North Ayrshire for three months. This is in addition to the £650 million bail-out it has already received from the government to prevent it from going bankrupt. On Monday British Energy is holding an extraordinary general meeting in Edinburgh in an attempt to win shareholders' approval for future borrowing up to £1.6 billion. 'It should be noted that if the proposed resolution is not approved then the company may need to cease trading,' warned BE executive chairman, Robin Jeffrey. BE, local authorities and the Scottish Executive all declined to discuss requests to defer rates payments on the grounds that they were commercially confidential. However the Sunday Herald has established that all the local authorities in which BE has power stations have received such requests. This includes East Lothian and North Ayrshire in Scotland, and at least five councils in England. Despite protests from Green councillors, Lancaster City Council has decided to allow BE to defer until February a £1.7m monthly payment due on Friday for the two nuclear stations at Heysham. The precise payments owed for Torness and Hunterston, which are calculated using a special formula by the rates assessor, are not known. But the rateable value of each site is thought to be in the region of £10 million, which should incur multi-million pound annual rates bills. Prolonged delays in payments across all the UK nuclear sites could cost councils and the government hundreds of thousands of pounds in interest and other charges. The revelation has provoked a furore amongst environmentalists, who have been suggesting that BE should simply be allowed to die. 'Once again the taxpayer is being asked to cough up for another of the nuclear industry's hidden subsidies,' said Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. 'If permission is given to allow the company to defer paying its business rates then it will be the taxpayer who loses out once again. If anything, the company should have its business rates increased to fully compensate us all for the pollution and waste legacy it is leaving behind.' Friends of the Earth Scotland is planning to protest outside BE's meeting tomorrow at the Murrayfield Stadium Conference Centre. 'With less than 24 hours to go until its emergency meeting, it is hardly surprising that British Energy do not wish to discuss this matter. However, the public has a right to know that it is they who will eventually have to pay the price if the company is given the nod to increase its borrowing limit to a staggering £1.6 billion,' argued Dunion. 'Nuclear power has proven itself unreliable, uneconomic and unsafe. It deserves no special favours and certainly no more money. At tomorrow's meeting shareholders must vote to finally turn off the money taps and begin instead the company's phased shutdown.' The government initially agreed on September 9 to give BE a loan of £410 million for three weeks. Then on September 26 ministers increased the loan to £650 million and extended the deadline for repayment to November 29. 'Discussions with the UK government about the options for restructuring British Energy are continuing. However, no decisions have been taken by the UK government and no commitments given on the company's long term future,' Robin Jeffrey has told shareholders. 'If these discussions are not successful, and there can be no guarantee they will be, the company may be unable to meet its financial obligations and therefore the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings.' Asked about the rates deferrals, a spokeswoman for British Energy said: 'As far as we are concerned, the information is confidential between us and any councils concerned, so we're not commenting any further.' The Scottish Executive accepted that delays in BE's rates payments could affect UK taxpayers. Though an Executive spokesman said that the amounts that were due were a matter for local authorities. A spokeswomen for East Lothian Council said: 'Because of client confidentiality, it is not appropriate for us to comment.' North Ayrshire Council was also unable to make any comment. / ©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Report: N. Korea Wants U.S. Talks Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | [UP] Sunday November 3, 2002 1:00 PM SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - A senior North Korean diplomat said the communist country was willing to negotiate with the United States over its newly disclosed nuclear weapons program, according to a news report Sunday. ``Everything will be negotiable,'' North Korean ambassador to the United Nations Han Song Ryol told The New York Times. ``There must be a continuing dialogue. If both sides sit together, the matter can be resolved peacefully and quickly.'' Asked if Pyongyang was willing to consider shutting down its uranium enrichment program, Han said: ``Yes, I believe our government will resolve all U.S. security concerns.'' Han also said Pyongyang would consider allowing international inspections of the uranium facilities. Since the nuclear dispute surfaced last month, North Korea has maintained that it would abandon its nuclear weapons program if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty. U.S. official said they have no plan to engage in talks with the North unless it scraps the nuclear program. Han said his government was ``stunned'' by the refusal of the United States to continue talks on the nuclear issue and that it thinks that Washington was ``preparing for war.'' ``Our government will resolve all U.S. security concerns through the talks, if your government has a will to end its hostile policy,'' Han said. He said the North Korean government was startled when President Bush suspended bilateral security talks that began during the final months of the former Clinton administration. Bush suspended talks with North Korea soon after coming into office in 2001 for a policy review. He offered in June that year to resume talks, but the North said no. In January, Bush called North Korea a part of an ``axis of evil'' along with Iraq and Iran, further chilling U.S.-North Korea relations. After the two year standstill, Washington and Pyongyang resumed talks last month with a visit to Pyongyang by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, during which the North admitted having the nuclear weapons program. Since the revelation, the United States and North Korea have accused each other of violating a 1994 agreement, under which the North promised not to develop nuclear weapons in return for two U.S.-designed light-water reactors. North Korea has said it considered the agreement dead because of delays in delivery of reactors, initially planned to be completed by 2003. U.S. officials anticipate at least five years of delay. The United States fought on South Korea's side in the 1950-53 Korean War. Washington keeps 37,000 troops in the South, a legacy of the war that ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 11 Seabrook nuclear plant sale a windfall for state Portsmouth Herald Local News: Portsmouth, NH Saturday, November 2, 2002 By Larissa Mulkern lmulkern@seacoastonline.com [lmulkern@seacoastonline.com] SEABROOK - Seabrook Station officially changed ownership Friday in an acquisition that yielded more than $6.24 million in real estate transfer taxes for the state and $261,407 for Rockingham County. "This is the largest real estate transfer in the history of Rockingham County," according to Register of Deeds Cathy Stacey in announcing the transaction. She noted that her office recorded the transaction within 15 minutes of arrival. The real estate transfer tax is based on $15 per each $1,000 of assessed value. The recording at the deeds office completes the acquisition by the FPL Group Inc. and the members of the Seabrook Station consortium selling their interests, which include Northeast Utilities. Seabrook Station spokesman Alan Griffith said the sale to the FPL group will not affect staffing levels. Recently, former president Ted Feigenaum moved on to the top slot at Maine Yankee, and Mark Warner has been named the new site vice president. "It’s a great day for Seabrook Station," Griffith said. "The core of what we do at Seabrook doesn’t change a bit, doesn’t change our mission. Our job of energy generation doesn’t change. As far as personnel, we don’t expect any dramatic overnight change. Seabrook has been acknowledged as a top performer in the industry," Griffith said. Under the terms of the agreement, according to a FPL Group statement, the company agreed to purchase 88.2 percent interest in the 1,161-megawatt Seabrook Station for a net adjusted value of $789 million. With the sale, Seabrook Station becomes part of FPL Energy, the independent power producer subsidiary of FPL Group, based in Juno Beach, Fla. The company owns and operates a diversified fleet of nuclear, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric facilities in the region. The sale is good news for the county, as well. The county earns money from the transaction with a 4 percent commission off the total $6.5 million real estate transfer tax, and the $261,407 share is will be reflected as revenue and applied to the 2003-2004 budget. The windfall is unanticipated revenue. County finance office Director Theresa Young said the register of deeds office is already running $1 million above anticipated revenues for the county and state. At the deeds office, Stacey stressed the timeliness of the transaction, countering her political opponents’ recent criticism that the office is backed up with unrecorded transactions. "We record on a daily basis," said Stacey, who is running for re-election to the office she has held for eight years. "We’re not four months behind, as my opponent has said. People can transfer every day," she said. Stacey is being challenged by Ray Will. "I want people to know we are absolutely up to the minute." Copyright © 2002 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please ***************************************************************** 12 Cameco mulls increased stake in Bruce Power to shield reactor investment Friday » November 1 » 2002 STEVE ERWIN Canadian Press TORONTO (CP) - Cameco Inc. may increase its minority investment in Bruce Power by the end of this month, taking a bigger share from financially struggling British Energy PLC, which controls the Ontario nuclear complex. Saskatoon-based Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer, has a 15 per cent share in Bruce and confirmed Friday that it is negotiating with British Energy to increase its stake in the nuclear reactors on the shore of Lake Huron near Kincardine, Ont. Cameco, which has invested $77 million in Bruce, wants to protect its interests in the money-making reactors by helping to prevent a financial collapse of British Energy, which owns 82.4 per cent of Bruce. The Power Workers union owns the remaining 2.6 per cent of the operation. "These negotiations may lead to Cameco increasing its stake . . . as Cameco has a right of first offer should BE sell all or a portion of its interest," Cameco said in a statement. Bruce is an important investment for Cameco, which expects the nuclear facility to "contribute significantly" to 2003 earnings. Bruce is on track to contribute $12 million in pre-tax profit to Cameco this year, the company said. British Energy, under tremendous financial pressure amid a huge downturn in U.K. electricity prices, has received loan guarantees from the British government worth more than $1 billion Cdn. That loan is due Nov. 29 and a Cameco spokesman hinted the Canadian company is working toward making a deal by then. "The U.K. government put a time schedule on whole matter of Nov. 29. I think everybody is working toward that," Jamie McIntyre said from Saskatoon. However, McIntyre noted that in addition to Bruce Power the British multinational energy company has "a whole range of issues" to sort out. Bruce Power is a newly privatized part of Ontario's deregulated electricity market, which has suffered supply problems this year. Maintenance is still going on at one of four Bruce B reactors, which should be back online this quarter, while two of four idle A reactors are scheduled to return to service next summer. The four B reactors and two A reactors would provide about 4,600 combined megawatts. Ontario's electricity demand in peak periods has surpassed 25,000 megawatts. Cameco is also considering a legal challenge to a provision of the British government's loan to British Energy that could put Bruce Power on the hook for millions of dollars. The loan in September was conditional on guarantees by British Energy and its subsidiaries, including Bruce Power - an attempt to prevent U.K. taxpayers from being on the hook should British Energy default. Cameco said the Bruce Power board never voted on guaranteeing the loan. "It is our view that the guarantee extracted by the British government from British Energy and its subsidiaries was not properly authorized by Bruce Power," Cameco chief executive Bernard Michel told analysts Friday in a conference call discussing the company's $7-million profit for the third quarter. "Our view here is that these issues will be resolved," Michel added. Under its existing agreement, Cameco said is not obligated to invest more than $100 million or provide financial guarantees in excess of $102 million. McIntyre said it's unlikely Cameco would seek to own a majority of Bruce. "We don't see it as our core business and it's unlikely that we would take that kind of a role." Gregory Barnes, a Toronto-based analyst with Canaccord Capital, said Cameco could seek an American or French partner in Bruce, with British Energy maintaining "a small slice of the pie." Another analyst, who asked not to be named, said British Energy could keep a majority stake and still shave hundreds of millions of dollars from its debt by selling part of Bruce to Cameco or a third party. British Energy's potential insolvency has created uncertainty over Bruce's operating licence with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and its long-term lease from Ontario Power Generation, Michel said. The plant's operating licence requires that $222 million be available to keep the nuclear station, which employs 3,000 people, in a safe condition for up to six months if it were forced to shut down for financial reasons. Shares in Cameco closed unchanged Friday at $34.94; the stock (TSX:CCO) has a 52-week range between $48.65 and $25.15. © Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press Copyright © 2002 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest ***************************************************************** 13 Tri City Peace Action hosts forum on dangers of nukes Tri-Valley Herald Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 3:02:27 AM MST By Melissa Evans STAFF WRITER FREMONT -- Tri-City Peace Action, a group opposed to the war with Iraq, is sponsoring a discussion forum Monday evening about the danger of nuclear weapons. Chris Schriner, a local minister who earned his doctoral degree studying ballistic missile defense, will speak on "Nukes, Kooks and National Security," as part of the program at the Fremont Main Library. Dr. Robert Gould, president of the Bay Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, will speak on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons. The discussion will be held at the Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, at 7:30 p.m. "The nuclear weapons policy we are pursuing is actually making us more vulnerable," said Schriner, pastor of Fremont's Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Church. "I'm concerned about nuclear terrorism. I think we're going about this in a backward way." Gould will speak and show slides featuring information about health and environmental effects relating to the production, testing and use of nuclear weapons. He will also explore the dangers of accidental nuclear war, and discuss a range of solutions for this problem. Tri-City Peace Action holds peace vigils at 6 p.m. every Friday at the corner of Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue in hopes of discouraging war with Iraq. Melissa Evans can be reached at (510) 353-7005 or mevans@angnewspapers.com [mevans@angnewspapers.com] . InsideBayArea.com home [http://www.insidebayarea.com] ***************************************************************** 14 New zoning to allow uranium plants debated * *Saturday, 11/02/02* By KELLI SAMANTHA HEWETT /Staff Writer/ Trousdale County leaders are working on a compromise for zoning changes that could allow for a controversial $1.1 billion uranium processing plant proposed for Hartsville. Leaders met yesterday to discuss expanding Trousdale County's one zoning category for manufacturing, known as M1. They have tentatively agreed to add an M2 and M3, for heavier industry and more sensitive, high-tech operations. Possibilities for M3 could include uranium processing. Trousdale County Executive Jerry Clift emphasized that this does not mean the leaders are now deciding in favor of the uranium plant but that the zoning policies needed to be more specific to fit the current industries. The uranium plant is being considered along the way, he said. Trousdale County Planning Commission members will take up the rezoning issue at their regular meeting Thursday evening. Attorneys and experts for Four Lake Regional Industrial Development Authority and the uranium company Louisiana Energy Services are set to request the change then. Leaders have set another Planning Commission meeting for Monday night to continue discussing the issue if needed. From there, the Trousdale County Commission would have to review the change at two separate meetings to finalize the change. A Planning Commission vote will be the first political hint as to the leaders' feelings about the project. Most officials say they remain undecided on whether a uranium processing plant should come to Hartsville. ''I haven't made up my mind yet,'' Clift said. ''The earliest this could possibly be approved is December or January.'' Details of the three zoning categories may still be fine-tuned in the next few days. ''What we are trying to reach is a compromise position to satisfy everyone involved,'' said Dick Walker, who heads Four Lake, which is made up of the five neighboring counties that own the land in question. ''Everyone wants to say this is a done deal, but it's not,'' Walker said. The land is currently zoned for agriculture, even though a number of industries are on it. Leaders say it was a technical detail overlooked when the land was sold earlier this year. Some planning commissioners, though, are still scratching their heads about their role in this LES issue, and what may be ahead. ''I have no earthly idea'' what will happen next, said Planning Commissioner Mary Agnes Chitwood, who is the planning commission secretary. ''I think it's a big mess,'' she said. Planning Commissioner David Freeman said he was also uncertain of the next step. ''You probably know as much about it as I do,'' Freeman said. As for a position on the LES project in general, Freeman said he remains undecided as he searches for more information on the health and environmental risks. ''I still don't know LES from Joe Blow in California,'' Freeman said. Planning Commission Chairman Rod Bowen, who attended yesterday's meeting, could not be reached for comment. HOME | LOCAL NEWS © Copyright 2002 The Tennessean ***************************************************************** 15 Trousdale residents' group decries planned uranium enrichment plant By The Associated Press November 3, 2002 NASHVILLE - Leftover radioactive materials would be stored indefinitely at a proposed $1.1 billion uranium enrichment plant in Trousdale County, alarming opponents as local officials moved the process forward. The top executive of the consortium that wants to build the plant tried to ease fears of locals who oppose it. But a letter to county officials was short on details about how long the leftover nuclear materials known as tails would remain at the plant. That lack of information is one of the main sticking points with opponents. "We don't want it there for one day, one hour or one minute," said Barbara Crossman of the residents' group Citizens for Smart Choices. "We are looking out for our future generation." The plant would process uranium into nuclear fuel for use in power-generating reactors. It would not have nuclear reactor capabilities or use materials with high-level radiation. Louisiana Energy Services CEO George Dials said the tails, labeled as waste by some, would be stored for several years in Hartsville but would not remain forever. "We would like to keep it there as long as possible" in case a market opens up to sell it for reprocessing, Dials said. "It's very safe." Details are not being divulged because plans for storing or removing tails have not been completed, Dials said. LES, a consortium of Britain-based Urenco and U.S. utilities Duke Power and Exelon, will have to submit a plan with its government application in January. "There are always these promises that things are going to be done," Tennessee Environmental Council member Will Calloway said. "I don't have any doubt about their intent, but that intent has been around for decades." Dials said most of the tails at LES plants in Europe are stored at the plant sites. Because LES is a new, private project, it could qualify for new storage options. The health and safety aspects of any deal between LES and the Energy Department would have to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, project manager Tim Johnson said. The proposed plant would be built on old Tennessee Valley Authority land 40 miles northeast of Nashville and owned by five counties - Sumner, Wilson, Smith, Macon and Trousdale. Officials with the Four Lake Regional Industrial Development Authority voted unanimously Thursday to seek rezoning to allow the facility. The proposal goes to the Trousdale County Planning Commission for recommendation to the county commission, which decides zoning issues. LES has said about 400 people would be hired to build the new plant, and about 250 would be hired to work there afterward. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 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 ***************************************************************** 17 NRC Publishes Revised Notice On Nuclear Fuel Services? Request To Amend Its License * *125 West Summer Street - Greeneville, TN - (423) 798-0545* By: /By BILL JONES/Staff Writer / Source:/ The Greeneville Sun / 11-01-2002 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Wednesday published in the Federal Register a revised public notice about Erwin-based Nuclear Fuel Services? request to amend its special nuclear materials license. The notice is a revised version of a notice published in the Federal Register on July 9 that later was found to have been incomplete by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board administrative judge who had been appointed to review petitions filed by area residents who were seeking a public hearing on the NFS license amendment request. Wednesday?s NRS notice stated, ?On July 9, 2002, the NRC issued a notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the amendment of Materials License SNM-124, a notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and a summary of an Environmental Assessment for the amendment of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Materials License SNM-124 to authorize construction and operation of the Uranyl Nitrate Storage Building. ?The Federal Register notice published on July 9, 2002, provided inadequate identification of the license amendment application. The notice neither set forth the date upon which the application had been filed nor supplied any information as to how the content of the application might be located. This revision is intended to correct those deficiencies.? Project Described NFS, according to the NRC, is seeking to amend its special nuclear materials license so that it can begin a new production process in which highly enriched uranium will be down-blended to make it suitable for use in making fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Called the Blended Low Enriched Uranium (BLEU) project, the project is part of a Department of Energy (DOE) program to reduce stockpiles of surplus high-enriched uranium (HEU) through reuse or disposal as radioactive waste, according to the notice filed on Wednesday by the NRC. ?Reuse as low enriched uranium (LEU) is considered the favorable option by the DOE because: ?1? weapons-grade material is converted to a form unsuitable for nuclear weapons (addressing a proliferation concern), ?2 ? the product can be used for peaceful purposes, and ?3 ? the commercial value of the surplus material can be recovered,? the Federal Register notice states. ?An additional benefit of reuse is avoidance of unnecessary use of limited radioactive waste disposal space.? The NRC notice indicates that Framatome ANP Inc. has contracted with NFS to down-blend surplus highly enriched uranium (HEU) material to a low-enriched uranium (LEU) nitrate and to convert the LEU to an oxide form. The NFS LEU-oxide product is expected to be fabricated into commercial reactor fuel at a separate facility, for use in a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear power reactor. However, the NFS-proposed action ?is limited to the production of low-enriched uranium (LEU) oxide, receipt and storage of LEU nitrate, down-blending of HEU to LEU, and conversion of LEU nitrate to LEU oxide.? NRC Holds Positive View As was the case with the public notice published in July, the notice published by the NRC in the Federal Register on Wednesday indicates that the NRC feels the BLEU project will not impact public health or the environment. ?The NRC has concluded that the proposed action to construct and operate the UNB at the NFS site will not result in significant impact to human health or the environment,? the notice states. ?The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment . . . related to the amendment of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-124. On the basis of the assessment, the Commission (NRC) has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. ?Accordingly, it has been determined that a ?Finding of No Significant Impact? is appropriate.? 30 Days To Request Hearing However, members of the public who are concerned about the BLEU project have 30 days from Oct. 30 to file requests for a public hearing on the NFS license amendment request. Procedure Spelled Out The NRC notice published in the Federal Register on Wednesday spells out the procedure for filing a petition for a public hearing. ?The NRC hereby provides notice of an Opportunity for Hearing on the Feb. 28, 2002, license amendment request to construct and operate the Uranyl Nitrate Building (UNB) under the provisions of 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings,? the notice states. ?Pursuant to Sec. 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing. In accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d), a request for hearing must be filed within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, either: ?1 ? By delivery to the Docketing and Service Branch of the Office of the Secretary at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; or ?2 ? By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. ?In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail, to: ?1 ? The applicant, Nuclear Fuel Services, 1205 Banner Hill Road, Erwin, TN 37650-9718. A copy of the request for hearing should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee; and ?2 ? The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. ?In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 2 of the NRC's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in detail: ?1 ? The interest of the requestor in the proceeding; ?2 ? How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in Sec. 2.1205(h); ?3 ? The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and ?4 ? The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d). ?The request must also set forth the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes a hearing. ?In addition, members of the public may provide comments on the subject application within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. ?The comments may be provided to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. ?In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's Rules of Practice, the Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this proposed action will be available electronically for public inspection from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), accession number ML021790068,? the NRC notice published on Wednesday stated. ?ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).? © 2002 East Tennessee Network - R.A.I.D. (Regionalized Access ***************************************************************** 18 Yucca Mountain fizzles as issue in fall campaigns Sunday, November 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Other matters overtook debate after summer By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- One of the more controversial issues debated in Congress this year, nuclear waste transportation has played only a limited role in this fall's election campaigns, analysts say. As they assembled a broad environmental coalition in the spring to fight President Bush's designation of Yucca Mountain in Nevada for a nuclear waste repository, some Democrats predicted the issue would be a winner for the party, particularly in Western states. Early on, Democratic Senate challengers in Colorado, Oregon and Oklahoma drew distinctions between themselves and Republican opponents who supported the president's nuclear waste strategy. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., predicted voters would react along corridors where radioactive spent fuel might travel on the way to the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But after the Senate on July 9 voted 60-39 to finalize Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage, the issue virtually dropped off the table, according to interviews with close to two dozen people who manage and analyze races and have worked on the Yucca issue in various states. To some extent, Iraq and the economy have overshadowed education and the environment as Bush and Democrats have tried to "nationalize" the elections, some said. In some states, environmentalists chose to focus on clean air and water matters of more immediacy than radioactive waste shipments that may take place late this decade or beyond, if ever. "You saw (nuclear waste) play a lot before the (Senate) vote, and then it disappeared," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the Cook Political Report, a respected campaign monitor. "It was almost everywhere along the proposed routes and then it went away," Duffy said. "People just figured it wasn't that topical anymore. It became a loser issue for the Democrats." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led an anti-Yucca campaign during congressional debate that included nurturing a coalition of environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists around the country, said he was satisfied with how nuclear waste has played this fall. Reid, who campaigned in June at an anti-nuke rally in Denver, predicted Colorado Democrat Ted Strickland will win over Republican incumbent Sen. Wayne Allard and nuclear waste transportation will be one of the reasons why. "I'm happy with what we're going to do," Reid said. Others expressed disappointment. "We were trying to make a case that transporting this waste through so many places is hazardous, but it wasn't a message we got through as well as we would have liked," said Dan Vicuna, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "For the most part it hasn't worked very well as a wedge issue," Vicuna said. "We made our arguments but they didn't resonate the way we would have liked. It just didn't catch on." The league is working against a "dirty dozen" of candidates it says are unfriendly to the environment. The campaign drives focus on clean air, clean water and toxic chemical issues but not nuclear waste transportation. "We do polling in all our dirty dozen races and for the most part we looked at what was going to resonate among local issues," Vicuna said. "We didn't think the nuclear waste issue would." In Oklahoma, internal polling by Senate hopeful David Walters, a Democrat, showed nuclear waste "didn't poll well as a campaign issue" even though Oklahoma City could become a major through-route along interstates 40 and 35, a campaign official said. Forty percent of those polled declared the issue a "minor concern," leading Walters to conclude nuclear waste "is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind thing in Oklahoma," the official said. During the congressional debate, the nuclear power industry carried out major media and lobbying campaigns in key states. Nuclear power proponents believe they neutralized the Yucca issue with their message that a Nevada repository faces further government reviews and transportation routes won't be cemented for several more years, said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "It's become a nonissue with the voting public," Singer said. "We were pretty successful in getting out the message that this was just another step in the process." Singer said the House and Senate approved a Yucca resolution with strong and bipartisan margins, suggesting its political value may be limited. The House vote was 306-117 in favor of a repository. "The politicians must have gauged the feelings of their constituents and thought either they were in support of this, or this is an issue not of concern to them," Singer said. Voters may sense "there's no immediate consequence," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, "Two or three (election) cycles down the road, if Nevada isn't entirely successful (in legally challenging Yucca), then questions of nuclear waste shipments are going to be much more imminent, as well as the issue of relicensing power plants." Phil Clapp, executive director of the National Environmental Trust, said candidates have directed voters to other issues. "The president has made this election be about Iraq and that bully pulpit is very powerful," he said. "And the economy is suffering and Democrats have made that their lead issue. When you have those dynamics, almost any other issue falls to the bottom." Even in Colorado, the nuclear waste issue lost its legs, said Carmi McLean, director of Colorado Clean Water Action. McLean said some questioned how Strickland could favor moving nuclear waste out of the Rocky Flats facility outside Denver while opposing nuclear waste moving through Colorado to Nevada. "The issue got convoluted and mixed up," she said, adding focus soon shifted to issues involving Allard's votes on air quality and arsenic standards in drinking water. One state where the nuclear waste issue endured was in Minnesota, and there it involved how fast spent fuel could be removed from the state. In the race to represent a newly drawn congressional district that includes XCel Energy's Prairie Island nuclear plant, which is exhausting its storage space for spent fuel, Democrat Bill Luther came under fire by GOP opponent John Kline for his vote against Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste storage was declared by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune as the most divisive environmental issue among the four major candidates for Minnesota governor. Democrat Roger Moe and Ken Pentel of the Green Party oppose adding storage at Prairie Island when it runs out of cooling pool space in 2007. Republican Tim Pawlenty and Tim Penny of the Independence Party favor allowing more nuclear waste to be produced and stored on site until it can be moved to Nevada or to temporary storage being pursued in Utah. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 19 Iraq on BBC Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 00:01:15 -0600 (CST) Now, BBC is taking comments, here are mine: "BBC: why is your picture next to "should iraq be attacked" Saddam Hussein, rather than Iraqi civilians in bombed out hospitals and villages, precisely what happened in 1991? My fellow Americans: you are being lied to. Search google for Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, top level Iraq-assigned UN officials who BOTH quit in protest about the lies told about Iraq's "weapons" and about the sanctions' murderous effects on Iraqi civilians. Or is the truth too uncomfortable? Shall we ignore it and bomb as if in a video game, silencing the cries of the dying children?" It was all I could fit to try to keep it short enough to be hopefully published. BBC page for comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2223082.stm If any listener out there isn't convinced attacking Iraq would be madness on a mass-murderous scale, if you still haven't read what Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck have to say, below is the main link and a few following. We're all "Busy", yet anyone seriously considering action that they know full well will lead to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of civilians (as happened in 1991 in Iraq, as happened in Panama when we were told it would "stop drugs" which is didn't do, while just replacing Noriega with another, more US-friendly strongman) -- the moral imperative upon those even slightly contemplating that, it seems clear, would be to listen to what the silenced voices of people like Halliday and von Sponeck are saying, to vigorously examine the documented facts US corporate media suppress. If you read just one: http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm Additional interviews: Interview with Halliday: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/barsamian.htm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2131 Main resource for lots of articles: http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm Below is a repeat of parts of previous post, including five Questions and five answers with Dennis Halliday.. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead Bush and co. will do their worst; the only question is whether we will do our best. Peace, Harel ******************** DID YOU KNOW?? That Dennis Halliday was the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq from 1997-1998 and resigned in protest over the sanctions? This man had been with the U.N for 34 years and had formerly been Assistant Secretary-General of the U.N. He must have had some very strong reasons to resign. Is he on CNN? On ABC? On the front page of the NY Times? Why are Americans not allowed to hear his voice? He was also excluded from Sen. Biden's "discussion" of Iraq... Halliday was replaced by someone that -- one can only assume -- the U.N. thought would be "safer" for that position. That was Hans von Sponeck who was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to 2000 -- and ended up ALSO resignign in protest. You would think that their voices would be among the most important for Americans to hear: the very heads of the UN oil-for-food and other programs...yet why are their voices so strongly excluded? Why the need to protect American ears from the truth? Want to find out what they don't want you to hear? Here are three links: * Interview with Halliday: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/barsamian.htm * Article from The UK Guardian by von Sponeck: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2131 * Halliday and Sponeck jointly write on "The Hostage Nation" and ask, "Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?" adding "The UK and the US..are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws.." Their statement: http://www.zmag.org/halsponiraq.htm (footnote1) Lastly as far as the lies about the Iraq civilian deaths being not because of the sanctions but "IT'S ALL SADDAM'S FAULT, NOT OURS", myths, please read : http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm "HALF A MILLION CHILDREN UNDER FIVE ARE DEAD AND DYING IN IRAQ -- WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?" An interview with Dennis Halliday by David Edwards. And here's just a sample from that: Q: "The British and US Governments claim that there are plenty of foodstuffs and medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem is that they are being cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime. In a letter to the New Statesman recently, Peter Hain, Minister of State, wrote: "The 'oil for food' programme has been in place for three years and could have been operating since 1991 if Saddam had not blocked it. The Iraqi people have never seen the benefits they should have." Is there any truth in that? Dennis Halliday: "There's no basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in Iraq. Say the wheat ship comes in from god knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this programme, then they follow the flour to the recipients and even interview some of the recipients -- there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two years. The Secretary-General would have reported that." These facts and details are not exactly widely broadcast in the corporate-run mainstream media of the US... For more details, see http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm Just a bit more eye opening information, what about medicine? Q: What about medical supplies? In January 1999, George Robertson, then defence secretary, said, "Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute." DH:"We have had problems with medical drugs and supplies - there have been delays there. There are several good reasons for that. One, is that often the Iraqi government did some poor contracting; so they contracted huge orders - $5 million of aspirins or something - to some small company that simply couldn't do the job and had to re-tool and wasted three, four, five months maybe. So that was the first round of mistakes. But secondly, the Sanctions Committee weighed in and they would look at a package of contracts, maybe ten items, and they would deliberately approve nine but block the tenth, knowing full well that without the tenth item the other nine were of no use. Those nine then go ahead - they're ordered, they arrive - and are stored in warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores that cannot in fact be used because they're waiting for other components that are blocked by the sanctions committee." Q: What was the motive behind blocking the one item out of ten? DH:"Because Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say that the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to produce weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense. That's why I've been using the word `genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage." Q: The British government claims that Saddam is using the money from the `oil for food' programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain, for example, recently stated, "Over $8 billion a year should be available to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods and medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational material. No one should starve." DH:"Of the $20 billion that has been provided through the `oil for food' programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation claims. That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If you divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22 million, it leave some $190 per head of population per year over 3 years - that is pitifully inadequate." ... And perhaps this was on your mind too: Q: How many people share your views in the UN? Is it a widespread feeling? DH:"Well I'll tell you, when I walk into the UN today, it's so amusing; people come up to me from nowhere, delegates and staff, and sort of look both ways and whisper in my ear, `You're doing a great job, keep it up!' and then they run away. There's a sort of a fear, I think, that to be associated with Halliday now is dangerous if you want a career in the UN; that's a sort of perception. In fact I find a lot of people, particularly from the Arab Islamic world, and `the South', are so pleased that somebody from the North has had the - whatever it is - to stand up and take on this issue. Coming from them it has no credibility; coming from me it has a certain amount of credibility. "Of course Peter Hain is trying to destroy that as quickly as he can. But I think I've hung onto some credibility in most quarters and I think the resignation of Hans von Sponeck has underlined it. So I think between the two of us, representing almost 65 years of experience, two and a half years of managing the damn thing in Iraq, we both have exactly the same view, and I think that says something. A BBC producer recently said to me, `That's an indictment'." ..but this isn't "the news that's fit to print" or air in the US...unless enough American citizens speak up about this, "not in my name...not with my tax dollars.." ***************************************************************** 20 Trust Me, He Says TIME.com: Trust Me, He Says /*red style for page links */ a { color: In confronting Iraq, George W. Bush is writing a new compact with America. A look at the fine print By NANCY GIBBS AND MICHAEL DUFFY CHRISTOPHER MORRIS/VII FOR TIME The President has frequently altered his Iraq pitch to try to win support Sunday, Nov. 03, 2002 Democracy depends on clarity and daylight; diplomacy is all about secrets and fog. So how can a President show enough cunning to outwit the enemy but enough candor to lead the folks at home? It may be hard to follow George W. Bush's path to Baghdad because he is walking down two roads at once. The only way diplomacy can succeed is if Bush is fully prepared for it to fail. So word spreads that his generals are planning to mount a military exercise in the Persian Gulf in December and to call up more than 250,000 reserves in the event of war--even as his diplomats are hard at work on a United Nations resolution designed to show Saddam Hussein what he must do to avoid one. For Bush, a convincing threat would cost less than a battle; rattling a saber is smarter than simply using one. If Bush can draw the line and enlist the allies and persuade Saddam to disarm and leave town, he could conceivably prevail without launching a single sortie. Thus has it gone all fall, as the President simultaneously plans for war and talks of peace and sounds willing to go either way. From where Bush sits, if Hussein folds under international pressure, it will mean a crisis defused, though maybe only temporarily. On the other hand, if it comes to war, having the U.N. on board means more troops to fight with, fewer friends for Saddam to run to and more help rebuilding the country after the shooting stops. And even if the U.S. ends up fighting virtually alone, Bush will be able to say he at least tried the alternatives. The President sounds impatient when he tells the U.N. to act or get out of the way, which among other things is a steely way of keeping all his options open. The target audience for all this diplomatic effort is not overseas; it is here at home. "It is important for the American people to see that before you order their sons and daughters into battle, you have done everything you can to find a solution," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tells Time. The President "is not anxious to go to war. He is prepared to go, but if there is another solution, he is more than prepared to take it." Even Bush's supporters privately concede that while most people trust the President to fight the war on terror, they are much more skeptical about launching a new military adventure. And less than one-third of Americans surveyed in a Time/cnn poll say they are willing to go along without the U.N.'s blessing. In recent weeks, support for the President has been drifting down as concerns over war and the economy rise. Only half the American people, the poll suggests, now feel they can trust Bush to handle Iraq. After a year in which America's sense of security has been shattered--by bombers and snipers, crashing markets and predator priests and all the other sorry, scary stories of the season--it takes enormous confidence for a President to plunge ahead. He is contemplating something much riskier than even his father tried--to launch an invasion, a pre-emptive one, of a heavily armed nation in the most perilous part of the world. Just a few months ago, there was no hint that two-thirds of Americans would believe the country is going to war. Many are still trying to figure out why: Why pick this fight, with this enemy, at this time? Everyone gets a chance to make a judgment, but the President gets to make the decision. Bush is about to launch his greatest faith-based initiative--and America is asked to trust him to get it right. What are the terms of that bargain? At some point this fall, in the backrooms of the U.N. and in capitals around the world, a debate that the U.S. wanted to be about Saddam and his weapons turned out to be one about Bush and his instincts. The President's red alert on Iraq is what hastened the U.N.'s effort to send weapons inspectors back to Baghdad--but the threats that were designed to scare America's enemies frightened its allies as well. They hear beneath Bush's words a new Manifest Destiny, in which the world's lone superpower obeys only the laws that suit it and respects only the nations that resemble it. Since the start of this year, Bush has blown through door after door. He moved past the unfinished war on terrorism, cracked open a doctrine of "pre-emptive defense," stymied the opposition and manhandled the evidence--all in the service of a mission that may begin and end with Saddam Hussein but may go even further. It's hard to quarrel with Bush when he declares that "if we fight terror, we can achieve peace ... not only for America; we can achieve peace in parts of the world where some have quit on peace." But the more messianic people around him imply something much bigger. Transplanting democracy to a region where it has never taken root would be every bit as historic as Reagan's pledge to confront the "evil empire." America's values and interests could at last cohere: America could fire Saudi Arabia as its Arab proxy unless it changes its medieval ways, jump-start the Middle East peace process and spark an outbreak of secular prosperity, so that the soil becomes less h! ospitable to the next generation of Osama bin Ladens. The emirs aren't quite ready for those talking points, but some true believers in Bush Land have dreamed of them for years. These are laudable goals, but trying to achieve them could mean detonating the entire Middle East and wrecking the economy, estranging America's allies and enraging its enemies. It could mean nonstop al-Jazeera TV footage not of Iraqis welcoming G.I.s in the streets but of fighting them while the world's jihadists cheer and moderate Muslim leaders either crack down hard or are toppled themselves. A campaign to make the world safer may wind up making it even more dangerous, as every anxious European editorialist has warned. Yet the very size of the risk cuts both ways for Bush at home. Much as it unnerves people, it also convinces many that he must know something they don't or he would never try something this risky. Confidence is a Bush family trademark--cocky was the word everyone used to describe George W. for years--yet he came into office without the one kind of confidence he needed most: America's faith in him. Every President is supposed to have the public's trust, or at least the benefit of the doubt, on Inauguration Day. But the tortured 2000 election outcome meant that Bush would have to start by earning it, and in the end it took a national crisis to do that. The nation's trust in Bush was lifted when so much else was lost. "Times have changed after September the 11th," Bush said recently in Pennsylvania. "It used to be we thought oceans would protect us." But not anymore. "We don't have any choice in this new war, see. We learned that the enemy has taken the battlefield to our very own country. My most important job is to protect America." In the wake of the attacks, while many people wrestled with how to address Islamic hatred of America, Bush was consumed only with how best to fight it. The man who said his own father had failed to spend his political capital was not going to make the same mistake. He had his own evil empire to battle now. In Bush's view, everything that worked through 50 years of tyrant containment--treaties and deals and bribes and threats--was expunged all at once by an enemy with no home address, who can't be pressured, can't be bombed, can't be sanctioned, can only kill or be killed. "That's why I've started and stimulated a discussion on Iraq," Bush says, mixing a familiar enemy like Saddam with a new and terrifying one like al-Qaeda. If there was no visible evidence to link the two, he just used that fact to argue his point: the danger is everywhere, even if we can't see it; the threat is growing, even if we can't prove it. The Administration's argument for war is based not on the str! ength of America's Intelligence but on its weakness. On the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recalled that "the missile shipments to Cuba took the U.S. completely by surprise." More than a generation later, he said, "the only time we'll have perfect evidence that a terrorist regime has deliverable weapons of mass destruction may be after they've used those weapons. And needless to say, that's a bit late." That leap of faith is all but impossible for the President's critics to make. They flinch at his bluster, challenge his evidence and wonder where it will end. Even some Republicans who want to see Saddam gone wish that Bush would show more discipline when he makes his case. Iraq's record is bad enough, they say, without embroidering it. Yet when the CIA can't put hard evidence of an al-Qaeda-Iraq connection on the table, the Pentagon forms its own mini intelligence agency to find it instead. If Iraq is importing aluminum tubes, the Administration says it can only be for enriching uranium for bombs; if there are al-Qaeda agents hiding out in Iraq, they must be guests of the government. And that message has been received: nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping al-Qaeda; 71% think it is likely he was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, something even the hawks haven't said aloud. "They just assert a reality and stick with it,! " says a former Clinton Administration official with evident frustration. "They do it with tremendous discipline. They keep it simple and use the bully pulpit, and they say it again and again and again until people believe it." Whatever Bush actually knows or believes, exaggeration itself can be a deliberate tactic. To an adversary who has consistently underestimated America's resolve, it signals that the nation will assume the worst and act on that assumption. While Bush sounds hell-bent on making war, his more subtle defenders will cite the lessons of master warmakers back to Sun Tzu: "To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." While many Presidents may have appeared reluctant about war, even if, like Woodrow Wilson, they were more than willing to enter the fray, Bush has chosen the opposite path, flaunting all the ways he is preparing to fight because doing so may mean he won't have to. In the spirit of cold war Presidents facing nuclear nightmares, it even serves his purpose to seem a little irrational in his itch to fight. "Iraq will not cooperate," Secretary of State Colin Powell told Nat! ional Public Radio last week, "unless the element of pressure in the form of potential military force is there." For all the focus on the U.N., what bush needs most is the solid support of the American public. And even though Congress voted overwhelmingly to back him in Iraq, Bush hasn't really closed the deal at home and has actually lost ground in recent weeks. For the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks, his overall approval ratings dropped to around 60%, just 6 points higher than before the attacks. Americans instinctively trust the President in a foreign policy crisis, but the check isn't blank. Since they sense Bush is deadly earnest, they naturally are asking a lot of questions, looking for enough information to feel at peace with war. The conversation is taking place everywhere. It's not always an argument but certainly an exploration of means and ends. The number of Iraq-related Internet searches on Google more than doubled from July to August, more than quintupled from August to September and doubled again from September to October. A wider war is an increasingly common topic in church; lawmakers on Capitol Hill notice that their fax machines are often flooded on Sunday afternoons. At Westminster Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, Tenn., deep in the heart of Bush country, the congregation last week launched a four-part discussion on the "Impending War with Iraq." The parishioners want to know why America is going to war and what's at stake and what the response should be. "People are questioning," says JoAnn Reafsnyder, director of adult education. "We hear, we speculate on what's going on in Iraq, but we're not sure. We're not sure about the role of economics, the politics of fear, the politics of oil." The need for more information increased after Tennessee Congressman John Duncan Jr. became one of only six Republicans to vote against giving Bush the authority to use force. "I don't think anybody is for keeping Saddam Hussein," Reafsnyder says, "but they're trying to find a more peaceful way of doing it." For more than 100,000 people last month, that involved descending on Washington and elsewhere for the largest antiwar demonstr! ations since Vietnam. As Bush works to win over the public, it's worth remembering that he's never really taken his eye off it. Back in August, wise old Republican hands from his father's Administration were landing salvos on the Op-Ed pages, saying Bush needed to rethink his approach. But current Administration hawks dismissed the need for alliances--"It's often the case that when America leads, the world follows," observed Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. White House lawyers said they didn't need a congressional resolution because the President had all the legal authority he needed to invade Iraq without it. Vice President Dick Cheney said that all weapons inspections do is provide a sense of "false comfort." By then, Bush's approval ratings had begun to flutter. And so over the following weeks, the Bush team adjusted the dials. His appeal to the U.N. seemed like a course correction to many, coming after months of unilateral talk. "The most amazing thing he accomplished for himself is that he has shifted so skillfully since Labor Day," says a diplomat who worked for Bush's father. "He is now standing for the very things he criticized others for in the early part of the year, yet paid no price for it. In fact, he's being praised for it." But it is also possible--and the Bush team will certainly argue as much--that the Administration had planned for things to go this way all along: that they went into the U.N. in September in as belligerent a dress as possible to shock what it regards as a risk-averse international body into action. Only in the face of a U.S. threat to go it alone would the U.N. realize it was being left behind and rouse itself to take on Saddam. Administration officials concede now that Bush wanted the U.N. not only to act but to act in a different way than it had during the bomb-and-back-off years of the Clinton era. "We're talking about a changed set of circumstances," says a top White House official. "The most important element that has changed is the fact that the U.S. is prepared to use force to enforce the resolutions." Condi Rice said last week that the only inspections regime that the U.S. would accept is one that places a much bigger burden on Iraq than past U.N. resolutions have required. "It's important that people understand what we are saying about inspections this time," she tells Time. "The world has to have a zero-tolerance view on Iraq. This is a country the size of France. You can always hide things in a country that big. So it is not incumbent on the U.N. to find things. What we're saying is that it is incumbent on Saddam Hussein to show that he is compliant." And so the game goes on and the pressure keeps rising. Bush officials revealed last week that the Administration is preparing a litany of war-crimes charges to level against Saddam and his henchmen--another sword dangling over his head as he decides whether to comply with U.N. inspections. And while Bush made clear that he would not wait forever for the U.N. to approve a new weapons-inspections regimen, he and his aides also said that if inspections resume and Saddam drags his feet or shuts down the search teams, the U.S. would be willing to consult with the Security Council before attacking. An official put it this way: "If he defies the United Nations, we're not going to wake up the next day and go to war. We are more than willing to come back to the U.N. and discuss it." The President, meanwhile, kept the pressure on. "This country is in for the long haul," Bush said. "We understand that some in the world may blink, but we're not blinking." There is no book in the White House library about how to get the country in the mood for war, but there are some lessons from history. Robert Teeter, who has polled for every Republican President since Gerald Ford, says Bush has rather quickly convinced a lot of people that it might be wise to shift from a defensive foreign policy doctrine to a more aggressive, pre-emptive stance. And if the public isn't sold yet on possible war with Iraq, Teeter notes that the public is seldom eager for military action. "There is always anxiety about sending people over to a shooting war," he said recently. "That tends to change once the war begins." --With reporting by Amanda Bower/ New York and Massimo Calabresi and John F. Dickerson/ Washington Copyright © 2002 Time Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 The bad old days before the wall tumbled down thedesertsun.com | Desert residents recall the Cold War, remodel their bomb shelters By Wes Woods II The Desert Sun November 3, 2002 Go ahead, drop that bomb. Some digging is required, but those ’50s and ’60s Cold War bomb shelters are still around. Coachella Valley residents have cleaned out the mounds of mud, dirt and creepy critters to showcase these secluded sanctuaries. "Whoever made this must have been serious," says Cliff Orent, 52, retired chairman of a biotechnology company, when he saw his Palm Springs home’s dumpy yet extensive bomb shelter. The bomb asylums are associated with a different era. Many Americans still remember John F. Kennedy’s dramatic televised address to the nation about his conflict with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on Oct. 22, 1962. "We were really scared," remembers Desert Hot Springs resident Herb Moniz, 46, who was then a 7-year-old in Torrance. His elementary school "would show us these films and you would see where the houses would get blown apart." Moniz realized how ill-prepared the school was with its safety program. "I’m thinkin’ this desk ain’t happening." Jack Garfield, a retired dentist and fashion photographer living in Palm Springs who went to school during the Cold War, also had his doubts about protection -- and he owns a bomb shelter. "I can’t see my family down there for too many days," he admits. Garfield’s bomb shelter is just below a small shed in the back of his house. The outside of the shed has a bomb casing poking out of the roof. Inside the shed is various bomb memorabilia, colored lights and another bomb casing. You must scale 20 feet down a wood ladder while holding a steel railing to reach the lead-lined, concrete-block-floor shelter. Now, the shelter with its sparkling white walls lined with psychedelic and alien posters has become a refuge for Garfield’s 11-year-old son Andy. It’s where he watches DVD movies including "The Mummy" and "Dr. Strangelove" or does his homework. Garfield says he spent close to $500 repairing the bomb shelter. "The first day we opened it, there were a million cockroaches and black widow spiders coming out." They found a decayed toilet and ventilation system, rusted cans and moldy food -- all part of a mess they cleaned up with buckets and shovels. "It was the bucket brigade. We sterilized it with bleach … It was a lot of hours of our time," he says. Deserted space Orent knew his house had a bomb shelter when he bought it in April 2001. Although it was junked up, he says, "I found it interesting, different. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. It was a much more peaceful environment than now. I wouldn’t have the same reaction now." He hired a contractor to clear mattresses and other debris from his bomb shelter. The white concrete shelter, with its rusted screws, various hooks and wood cabinet, is eerily quiet and deserted. Orent says he’s trying to figure out what to do with the 112-square-foot space. "I’d love to use it for storage but it’s a little humid," he says. He also didn’t leave out converting it into a wine cellar. Memories But it’s hard to compare today with the terrifying Cold War. "I remember it like it was yesterday, the impending doom and everybody tripping off it," Moniz says. He remembers his grandpa comparing the time to a television Western shoot out and "big, circling wagons. Russia and the Cold War was happening, it was insane. Khrushchev, him banging something, I didn’t really like those guys." The bomb shelter owners don’t like to think about a bomb being dropped now. "I hate to admit it, but … I would go down there if we’re attacked," Garfield says. But Orent can’t huddle in his shelter because he doesn’t have a generator for oxygen. He isn’t concerned about buying one. "I don’t think so," he says. With the radioactive fallout, "how would you know the time to come out? " Wes Woods II is a features reporter for The Desert Sun. He can be reached at 778-4645 or via e-mail at wes.woods@thedesertsun.com http://www.thedesertsun.com ***************************************************************** 22 *CURSE OF THE A-BOMB: 50 YEARS OF LIES: WE MUST PAY UP FOR SUFFERING* Friday 1st Nov 2002 IN my training at the University of Edinburgh I was taught by geneticists that no radiation was safe - or for that matter, chemicals - as far as genetic damage was concerned. Of course, it is true that sometimes for medical cures radiation and chemicals are necessary treatments. But the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and subjecting army personnel to the hazards of nuclear tests did not involve voluntary acts. So in the Seventies and Eighties I was completely sympathetic to the campaigning of the British nuclear test veterans and when I became an MP in 1997 several of my constituents approached me with their experience of the tests and also their stories of medical ailments in their families. Multiple myeloma - a bone cancer - was fairly common among them and it comes as no surprise that a survey showed children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of my constituents might develop blood cancers. It is often argued by successive governments that the studies by the National Radiological Protection Board ruled out the existence of greater levels of disease in the veterans compared with the population at large. But epidemiological studies often look at disease over short periods and fail to look at those still alive - concentrating instead on causes of death which are often erroneously recorded. Radiation causes cancer and genetic disease which pass from one generation to the next. None of the veterans were monitored properly to test the levels of exposure. Most were dangerously close to the bomb blast and to the fall-out. Those are the facts. It is not good enough for the Government to hide behind statistics when the radiation dosage is not even available for scientists to question. As the International Agency for Cancer Research in Lyon, France, has stated, governments must look at real evidence, not just evidence from studies. In the case of the British nuclear veterans, that evidence is there. The veterans are telling the truth and my Government should do the honourable thing and pay up - not just to the veterans but their descendants as well. That is why I have tabled a Commons motion calling for compensation and an inquiry - and I will be supporting my colleague Siobhan McDonagh when her emergency debate comes before the House. The evidence is as good as it gets... and the Government is trying to cover it up. ***************************************************************** 23 Glassification plant's price tag still up in air This story was published Fri, Nov 1, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer Whether the Hanford glassification project's estimated price tag will remain at $5.6 billion won't be determined until early next year. That means the 2003 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be several months old before the glassification complex's long-term budget is nailed down. At the same time, Hanford won't know how much money it will receive for 2003 until probably somewhere around the first of the year. Despite those uncertainties, Department of Energy officials say the glassification project will need $690 million in fiscal 2003. That's because 2003 work on the early stages of construction will remain the same, regardless of what future years will require. Roy Schepens, manager of the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection at Hanford, said Thursday that the delay on determining the overall project cost "gives my staff and I additional time to evaluate some issues." On Wednesday, Schepens briefed DOE's top brass in Washington, D.C., about the current estimate to build and test Hanford's tank waste glassification complex through 2011. The $5.6 billion estimate surfaced this summer after Bechtel National, the Office of River Protection and two outside review panels reviewed the project's plans. The new estimate is at least $800 million more than DOE's original calculations. Schepens does not expect to present the latest glassification plant estimates to DOE's Energy Systems Acquisitions Advisory Board until early next year. In the meantime, Hanford officials plan to see if the estimate can be further trimmed and to renegotiate the project contract with Bechtel to encourage the contractor to trim costs. A complicating factor is that DOE will submit its fiscal 2004 budget request to Congress in late February. It is unknown if DOE's acquisitions board will approve the glassification plant's budget by then. However, Schepens said a steady $690 million budget in 2004 should keep the project on track. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 24 DOE To Maintain Site Manager Role for Oak Ridge Facilities --> energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: November 1, 2002 Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science today announced that it will maintain a single, centralized "site manager" responsible for department operations at its Oak Ridge Reservation, excluding the work performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, as a provision of the department's restructured management model. The site manager position will report directly to the DOE Office of Science headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Office of Science is in the process of selecting a Manager to fill the position at Oak Ridge. "By maintaining a strong site manager at Oak Ridge, we will be able to meet our diverse mission requirements, coordinate differing interests among the Oak Ridge facilities and programs, manage crosscutting issues related to the Oak Ridge Reservation, and preserve the 'one-stop-shopping' concept for the community," said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the department's Office of Science. "Oak Ridge's science program is a great anchor for the community and asset to the Nation. We recognize that having a strong, single site manager is appropriate to the breadth and complexity of missions at the Oak Ridge Reservation." Restructuring plans at the Oak Ridge office are part of a restructuring and reengineering initiative launched by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham in support of the President's Management Agenda, which calls for reducing layers of management, streamlining decision making, clarifying lines of authority, and saving money. The decision for a single manager addresses the findings of a number of management studies completed at Oak Ridge this summer. It is also consistent with the framework developed during the course of the Office of Science's restructuring project, and the approach being implemented by other DOE organizations across the Nation. The Oak Ridge office is responsible for major Department of Energy science, technology and environmental management programs. The 34,241-acre Oak Ridge Reservation, located in the City of Oak Ridge in Anderson and Roane Counties, is the site of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education, and the Y-12 National Security Complex. Crosscutting issues for the Oak Ridge facilities include overall reservation management and emergency response. Media Contact: Joe Davis, 202/586-4940 Steve Wyatt, 865/576-0885 Release No. PR-02-233 ***************************************************************** 25 DOE denies appeal of ruling vs. UT-Battelle KnoxNews: Local Saturday, Nov 2 'Whistleblower' complaint upheld By Randy Kenner, News-Sentinel staff writer November 3, 2002 The Department of Energy has upheld an earlier ruling that UT-Battelle terminated a radiation safety engineer in retaliation for her reporting of safety concerns at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. George B. Breznay, the director of DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals, informed UT-Battelle last week that its petition asking the Secretary of the Department of Energy to review the ruling in Janet L. Westbrook's favor had been dismissed. That means, Breznay wrote, that the May 9 administrative ruling that he made "constitutes the final agency decision on the Westbrook complaint." "We're thrilled because we have won," Margaret Held, a Knoxville lawyer who represents Westbrook, said Friday. "It is amazing to me that UT-Battelle just can't accept the fact that they have lost." UT-Battelle, which argued in its filings that it laid off Westbrook for legitimate reasons and not because she reported any safety problems, is still seeking to reverse the decision in a dispute that is now nearly 2 years old. UT-Battelle is asking that Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham personally review the case and make the final decision, a company spokesman said Friday. UT-Battelle is arguing that the DOE's regulations call for that, and that Breznay cannot deny an appeal of a ruling that he made. UT-Battelle may consider an appeal to federal court if that fails. "That's a decision that we will have to address when it arises," said Billy Stair, director of communications for UT-Battelle, which manages the Oak Ridge lab for the DOE. Westbrook said Saturday she was pleased by the dismissal of UT-Battelle's appeal but isn't getting her hopes up that this will really end the matter. She said she thought earlier last week that "I had won, but since then, it seems like the refs are talking it over to see if I did or not." Westbrook added, "I've learned not to break out the champagne until the fat lady has sung. That's the stance I'm taking about anything involving DOE." UT-Battelle has contended it had to cut two of three engineers in Westbrook's group and her performance rated in the bottom two. Westbrook, who was 50 at the time, according to documents, was laid off as part of a reduction in force, in December of 2000. She had been employed at ORNL since 1989 and had received high performance reviews throughout her career. UT-Battelle indicated that one of the reasons she was selected for the reduction was that she was difficult to get along with and could not "cultivate customers" who could be charged for her services. Dr. Steve Sims, who was the director of Battelle's Office of Radiation Protection in the summer of 2000, identified 11 employees who objected to working with Westbrook, according to Breznay's ruling. Held countered by presenting evidence that UT-Battelle managers lowered Westbrook's performance rating in 2000 from a "6" to a "4" (out of a possible "7"), despite the objections of her direct supervisor. That reduction came, documents state, after Westbrook aired her concerns about safety problems during meetings in June of 2000 with Carol Scott, the director of the Occupational Safety Services Division. The radiation safety engineer presented at least six radiation safety concerns to Scott, according to Breznay's May 9 ruling. One involved "the Laboratory's decision to raise the dosage level to 5 rem per hour before (a review) was required to be performed, a (radiation) level Westbrook noted is significantly higher than the 1 per hour used at other DOE facilities," Breznay wrote. Another concern involved a decision to let technicians perform some radiation safety reviews, rather than let them by carried out by the engineers who had been performing the reviews. UT-Battelle argued that her positions were unmerited. "The company's position was that no reasonable person, especially a radiation engineer like Westbrook could have reasonably believed that the problems she noted revealed a substantial violation of law (or regulations)," Breznay wrote. Held also argued that company documents show that managers made the decision to get rid of Westbrook before the reduction in force came up. Held wrote in one filing that "within five days of Ms. Scott's meetings with Ms. Westbrook (regarding safety concerns), Ms. Scott met privately with Dr. Sims and stated outright that Dr. Sims had to 'lose' Janet Westbrook." After she was terminated, Westbrook protested through a DOE program designed to encourage the reporting of unsafe or illegal practices and to protect "whistleblowers." Under DOE regulations, the employee has the burden of establishing that he or she made a disclosure and was the victim of retaliation as a result. The contractor, in this case UT-Battelle, has the burden to prove that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not made the protected disclosure. Westbrook, who has master's degrees in physics and nuclear engineering, lost during her initial hearing in 2001 but appealed the ruling. Breznay, after hearing testimony and considering records in the case in a two-day hearing this year, subsequently ruled in her favor. He found that UT-Battelle failed to support its contention that it would have laid off Westbrook in the absence of her safety complaints. He wrote that the complaints that Westbrook had trouble getting along with others were based on secondhand accounts and were "the type of speculative problem often used to justify dismissal of a whistleblower." "I have reviewed the criteria set out on the (reduction in force) sheets and find troubling inaccuracies and manipulation," Breznay wrote in his ruling. "They lead me to doubt the company's position that the process by which Westbrook was not selected as the retained employee was unrelated to the protected (safety) disclosures." Westbrook is seeking reinstatement and back pay among other remedies. Randy Kenner may be reached at 865-342-6305 or kenner@knews.com Copyright 2002, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 26 CH2M Hill trying to fix electrical woes This story was published Fri, Nov 1, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer CH2M Hill is tackling fix-it work to address several potentially dangerous incidents involving live electrical systems. Ten incidents have occurred in the past six to seven months, the company said, most recently on Sept. 20 at central Hanford's 242-A Evaporator, where water is boiled out of radioactive tank wastes to decrease their volume. An engineer told an electrician to set up a jumper cable between two electrical terminals, a task that was not authorized or planned. The engineer was working with an incomplete blueprint that did not show an existing jumper cable. The combination of two jumper cables activated an electrical line that was not supposed to be live. No one was hurt, but the incident resembled a July 15 accident that mildly burned an electrician at a CH2M Hill training site at Hanford, said a recent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board memo. A board representative contacted CH2M Hill about the similarity. CH2M Hill agreed the incidents were similar and analyzed the 10 recent electrical incidents to see if they had common causes, said David Amerine, CH2M Hill Hanford Group executive vice president. Except in the July 15 accident, no one was hurt. Amerine said CH2M Hill has a better safety record than most companies at Department of Energy sites nationwide. "This (seven-month) period had thousands and thousands of (electrical) jobs well done," he said. CH2M Hill is in charge of maintaining, handling and transporting 53 million gallons of radioactive wastes held in 177 underground tanks. The 10 incidents were cases in which workers removed a safety barrier or trimmed safety margins while working around live wires. CH2M Hill also looked at three other incidents involving inactive electrical equipment or pipes. The common thread among them appeared to be a lack of attention to detail in planning or actual work, Amerine said. He said remedial measures are under way, including improving coordination, better educating employees on work authorization procedures and increasing awareness of electrical lines and equipment. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 27 Group announces politicians' grades on environmental issues 11/03/02 Online The U.S. House and Senate delegations from Illinois earned above-average grades in the 2002 Environmental Scorecard recently released by the League of Conservation Voters. --> Sunday, November 3, 2002 By Scott Richardson Pantagraph staff The U.S. House and Senate delegations from Illinois earned above-average grades in the 2002 Environmental Scorecard recently released by the League of Conservation Voters. The ratings are based on how representatives and senators cast votes on a series of environmental issues. They ranged from a failed bill to halt federal funds from subsidizing factory farms to the successful bid to stop arctic oil drilling to an exemption for pickup trucks from future fuel economy standards, which was defeated. Others included a requirement that 20 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020, which failed, to the vote to create a central storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, which passed. The release of the scorecard is timed to help environmentally-friendly legislators in Tuesday's election. Nationally, the average score in the House was 47 percent. Average score in the Senate was 43 percent. In Illinois, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat running for re-election, scored 92 percent. That compares to an average 62 percent for other freshman senators. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican who is also a freshman, scored 52 percent. Scores achieved by the Republicans representing the Pantagraph area in the House were: • Timothy Johnson, 50 percent. The LCV previously endorsed Johnson for re-election, calling him a "leader in protecting drinking water and promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy." Johnson also voted against President Bush on the Energy Bill because it contained a provision to allow oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The LVC said average score among freshmen House members like Johnson was 35 percent; • Ray LaHood, 36 percent; • Jerry Weller, 18 percent. U.S. Rep. Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic candidate for Illinois governor, scored a 77 percent. Other Illinois representatives and their ratings were Democrats Bobby Rush, 64 percent; Jesse Jackson Jr., 100 percent; William Lipinski 36 percent; Luis Gutierrez, 86 percent; Danny Davis, 91 percent; Jan Schakowsky, 100 percent; Jerry Costello, 59 percent; Lane Evans, 86 percent; and David Phelps, 45 percent. Republican representatives and their scores were Henry Hyde, 14 percent; Phil Crane, 5 percent; Mark Kirk, 59 percent; Judy Biggert, 59 percent; Donald Manzullo, 9 percent; and John Shimkus, a zero. Congressional delegations from Vermont led the way for all states with an overall score of 95 percent in the House and an 86 percent score in the Senate. Kentucky and Oklahoma scored lowest. [http://cgi.pantagraph.com/cgi-bin/recommend.cgi] Copyright © 2002, Pantagraph Publishing Co. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 Top CIA analyst rips the shroud off secrets Ventura County Star: National Saturday, Nov 2 Experts around world connect dots to keep Bush informed By John J. Lumpkin, The Associated Press November 3, 2002 McLEAN, Va. -- Jami Miscik does not like surprises. As the CIA's top analyst, it is her job to ensure that President Bush, too, is not caught off guard by world events. Her reports, and those from the agency's analytic corps, boil the world's events and some of its deepest secrets down to an essence that Bush and his advisers use to make fast and fundamental decisions. Much effort goes into getting it right. "We truly are speaking truth to power," she said in an interview with The Associated Press. Miscik, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, leads the thousands of analysts in the agency's Directorate of Intelligence. They serve as the scholarly complement to the Directorate of Operations, which manages case officers and covert operations overseas. Her outfit has experts in almost everything: + Aerospace engineers who work alongside biologists, scouring intelligence reports for clues about whether a foreign military can disperse anthrax from a Scud missile. + Explosives experts, who travel to terrorist attack sites to figure out what kind of bomb was used. + Psychologists, who study world leaders. + Academics, who can apply knowledge of two thousand years of Chinese history to sort out the hidden leadership struggles in the modern Communist Party. + Linguists. + Economists. Their findings are often accurate, but certainty is rare. "Sometimes people just surprise you," she said. "Despite all of the reporting, all of the information that points in a certain direction, for whatever reason, the other decision gets made. You haven't had the opportunity to warn our policy makers." That happened in 1998, when India stunned the world and tested a nuclear weapon. The CIA was criticized for not predicting it ahead of time. But in the shadowy intelligence world, successes are almost by definition a secret, and are therefore rarely heralded. This summer it was CIA officers, including some of Miscik's analysts, who connected the dots and learned about North Korea's renewed efforts to construct nuclear weapons. Terrorists are among the CIA's most difficult targets. Analysts who followed the affairs of nations now must track the actions of a few dozen extremists bent on killing Americans. "We deal in a world of secrets," Miscik said. "The most valuable secrets are those that are the most highly protected. Trying to get into the plans and intentions of two or three key individuals would be quite a difficult nut to crack." Success means linking enough pieces of disparate information to send operatives or foreign authorities after a terrorist cell, Miscik said. CIA analysts are watching for signs that Osama bin Laden's organization is reconstituting outside of its former home of Afghanistan, Miscik said. Analysts look for money transfers, word of newly forged alliances with other extremists, and other reporting that indicates members of the group have found a safe haven. Miscik's team also assembles the President's Daily Brief, which CIA Director George J. Tenet provides to Bush and his top advisers most mornings. In it is the CIA's take on world events, plus information on critical secrets the agency's operatives have uncovered. Miscik acknowledged CIA analyses sometimes put the agency at odds with officials elsewhere in the government. "We may not be bringing a message they want to hear," she said. CIA information also often ends up part of a national debate, sometimes tailored by politicians to support their own views. In recent weeks, hawkish administration officials have highlighted intelligence reports, some of questionable reliability, that suggest links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government and bin Laden's al-Qaida network. At the same time, anti-war senators disclosed selected elements of CIA analyses that say Saddam would use his chemical and biological weapons only if he was backed into a corner by a U.S.-led war. "We present the analysis exactly as we see it," Miscik said. "We have no policy agenda." In Miscik's view, the best analysts are not just able to make connections. They also can communicate their ideas to leaders with a thousand other things on their minds. "There's a fair amount of creativity required -- that sounds weird when it comes to intelligence -- in terms of how to present this information in a way that a policy-maker can absorb it, digest it, and take the key themes from it," she said. Born in Chicago and raised in Southern California, Miscik planned a career as an economist but a lousy job market led her to the CIA in 1983. After holding several key positions, she took over as top analyst in May. She spoke to the AP as part of events marking the 50th anniversary of the Directorate of Intelligence, which is also conducting a recruiting push to expand its numbers by 25 percent. Already, a new crop of analysts has started work at the agency. Many are about age 30, have graduate degrees and could be making more money in the private sector, Miscik said, but are drawn by the chance to serve their country. On the Net: CIA: www.cia.gov 2001 © The E.W. Scripps Co. Ventura County Star ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************