***************************************************************** /03/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.254 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: NRC Announces a Workshop on License Renewal Guidance Development 2 US: Boeing-Led Team Wins Contract to Advance Nuclear Electric Power 3 Taiwan: Activists take nuclear-free call to Cabinet 4 FEATURE-Russian 'atomic city' builds future on nuclear dreams 5 GW's push for war 6 EU prepares for US nuclear trade war 7 N-watchdog has few teeth, digs up even fewer bones 8 TEPCO head apologizes 9 Danes again urge neighboring Swedes to set date to shut down 10 EU head office open to Bulgarian proposals on inspecting nuclear 11 U.S. envoy visits 'evil' N. Korea - 12 US: NRC Will Hold Public Meeting October 30 in Tennessee To Discuss 13 U.S. faces tough going at U.N. council / France comes up with 14 Bulgaria puts off closure of Soviet-era nuclear reactors 15 Times Online British Energy bail out NUCLEAR REACTORS 16 US: NRC expands investigation of radiation exposure at Davis-Besse 17 Bulgaria torn between nuclear pride and EU goal 18 US: NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas Implements Hurricane 19 UK: CHAPELCROSS could pilot a new generation of nuclear power plants 20 Five Men on Trial in Minsk for Allegedly Selling Chernobyl 21 Nuclear expert at OPG retires 22 US: Fire at PPL's Susquehanna nuclear power plant * 23 US: Ads Aim at Shutting A-Plant NUCLEAR SAFETY 24 US: Berkeley Nucleonics Provides National Radiation Detection 25 US: NRC expanding investigation of workers exposed to radiation - 26 US: Berkeley Nucleonics Provides National Radiation Detection 27 US: Filled With Risk 28 US: N.C. to give pills against radiation 29 US: TVA Runs Nuclear Disaster Drill - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 30 US: Parsons Awarded Contract for Salt Waste Facility Disposal 31 US: Cost for nuclear waste treatment plant rises NUCLEAR WEAPONS 32 Full-Scale Invasion a 'Hair-Trigger' Away 33 UK: UN inspectors must be backed by a new resolution 34 US: Text of U.S. Resolution on Iraq 35 UN awaits N.Korea response on nuclear inspections 36 NUCLEAR TEST 'GUINEA PIGS' TO TAKE PROTEST TO LONDON 37 US: Text of a resolution agreed upon Wednesday by President Bush and 38 WAR ON TERROR* Does al-Qaida have 20 suitcase nukes? 39 US: Talks focus on weapons, technology -- 40 Explaining Mr. Putin: Russia's New Nuclear Diplomacy 41 Whitcomb: Iraq talk politically motivated 42 Path to war on Iraq gets murkier 43 Australian servicemen remember UK nuclear tests. 44 UK 'should ban nuclear arms' US DEPT. OF ENERGY 45 6,000 Nuclear Warheads Eliminated by USEC and TENEX; 46 Journal' blasts plutonium plan 47 Book reveals SRS history 48 DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Grants Awarded --> OTHER NUCLEAR 49 *Nuclear physicist to speak on UFOs* 50 Nuclear expert at OPG retires 51 Boeing-Led Team Wins Contract to Advance Nuclear Electric Power ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 NRC Announces a Workshop on License Renewal Guidance Development NRC: News Release - 2002-118 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-118 October 3, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a workshop on October 22 and 23 to obtain stakeholder comment on implementation of the license renewal rule and associated guidance documents. The two-day workshop will be held from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. on October 22, and from 9 a.m. until 12 noon on October 23, in NRCs Auditorium, located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Day one will focus on the license renewal application format and content, and staffs process in developing interim guidance to review and evaluate license renewal applications. Day two will focus on environmental review issues. The workshop will provide participants with the opportunity to obtain information, ask questions, and make comments and suggestions for NRC consideration. The guidance documents are available for public inspection and duplication at NRCs Public Document Room by calling 301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209, and at the NRCs web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/guidance.html. For more information about the guidance documents and upcoming workshop, contact Raj Anand at 301-415-1146, or by email at rka@nrc.gov [rka@nrc.gov] . ***************************************************************** 2 Boeing-Led Team Wins Contract to Advance Nuclear Electric Power For Space . A unit of The Boeing Co., Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. With headquarters in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $23 billion business. It provides systems solutions to its global military, government and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in launch services. CONTACT: The Boeing Co. Dan Beck (Boeing Rocketdyne), 818/586-4572 daniel.c.beck@boeing.com or Ann Beach, 562/797-4222 ann.m.beach@boeing.com ***************************************************************** 3 Taiwan: Activists take nuclear-free call to Cabinet The Taipei Times Online: 2002-10-03 DEMANDS: Participants at the 10th No Nuke Asia Forum gave the Cabinet six requests, including a call for a halt to work on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant By Chiu Yu-tzu STAFF REPORTER Anti-nuclear activists yesterday presented the Executive Yuan with six major requests following the conclusion of the 10th No Nuke Asia Forum (NNAF) yesterday. Twenty-five of the forum's participants went to the Executive Yuan to urge Premier Yu Shyi-kun, Atomic Energy Council Chairman Ouyang Min-shen (¼Ú¶§±Ó²±) and Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) Chairman Lin Nen-bai (ªL¯à¥Õ) to phase out the use of nuclear energy in Taiwan. The representatives presented Yu with six requests from the forum's conclusion, which was arrived at by all of the participants from the nine countries that participated: Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Russia, the Philippines, the Netherlands, the US, India and Germany. One of the requests called for an immediate halt to the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and for a national referendum to be held on the controversial plant's future. Ritsuya Okuno (¶ø³¥«ß¤]) of the No Nuke Asia Forum in Japan, also gave Yu documents pertaining to Japanese power companies' failure to replace damaged core shrouds and other parts at Japanese reactors that it operated in the 1990s. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was exposed in August as being in violation of Japan's Electric Utility Law for its role in that scandal. Okuno said that the Japanese subcontractors that were also involved included Hitachi and Toshiba, which are both under contract to build advanced boiling-water reactors for the Taiwan plant. The activists then urged Yu to investigate whether the Japanese scandal could have a negative impact on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Yu expressed his appreciation for the latest information on the Japanese utility scandal and promised to investigate its implications in Taiwan. Yu also said that Taiwan had carried out policies to build a nuclear-free country, but that existing radioactive waste poses a great challenge to the government. Japanese anti-nuclear activists stressed that Taiwan should carefully consider the consequences before it imports nuclear technology from Japan, a country they said is paying a heavy price for embracing nuclear technology. Hideyuki Ban (¦ñ­^©¯), secretary-general of the Japan-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, told the Taipei Times that the TEPCO scandal had sparked a nationwide anti-nuclear movement. Ban said that anti-nuclear activists had demanded a meeting with firms involved with the scandal, but that their request was rejected. Ban said that Japanese anti-nuclear groups would not give up and that they are determined to force the involved companies to give the Japanese public a clear explanation of what happened. "In addition, we will urge the TEPCO to inform the foreign utilities with which it has close business ties, such as Taipower, of any potential impact," Ban said. According to NNAF organizers, the 11th NNAF will be held in Taiwan again next year. They plan to hold the meeting to coincide with the delivery of imported reactors for use in the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, in order to attract the attention of the international community. The forum plans to expand into a greater network, integrating anti-nuclear groups from both Asia and Europe. Next year, the first No Nuke Eurasia Forum will be held in the Netherlands. This story has been viewed 192 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/10/03/story/0000170503] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 FEATURE-Russian 'atomic city' builds future on nuclear dreams October 01, 2002 10:01 PM ET By Larisa Sayenko ZHELEZNOGORSK, Russia, Oct 2 (Reuters) - The streets of this Siberian city are eerily clean and uniform, free of the buzz of commerce and jumble of billboards found even in the smallest and poorest of Russian provincial cities. The few visitors who pass into the city through the kilometres (miles) of pine forest and the rings of barbed wire are met instead by a banner reading "Honour and homeland above all." It is not easy to get into Zheleznogorsk, one of Russia's nine 'closed cities', a well-preserved bastion of the Soviet defence complex where satellites are built and the plutonium stuffing of nuclear warheads was produced. With the country scrapping, not building, nuclear weapons and Russian space programmes chronically under-funded, the big business in this city is the burial of spent nuclear fuel from Russian reactors and former Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe. "You think the city sighs with joy when the country sends up a new satellite?" asked one Zheleznogorsk resident. "No, only when a train arrives with spent nuclear fuel. That means salaries will probably be paid for the next six months." Zheleznogorsk's hopes for prosperity rest on a storage facility that holds 6,000 tonnes of spent fuel from Russian and foreign nuclear power plants. Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry has said the storage facility earns $50 from each kg (2.2 lb) of Russian spent fuel, $200 from that sent from former members of the Soviet bloc, and hopes to earn $1,000 from the unwanted fuel of developed countries. HOLES IN THE FENCE At the nuclear cemetery, 3,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel already lie cooling in containers under several metres of clear water. Many residents of Zheleznogorsk would happily take more. Some worry that with the pools more than half full, space is running out. As it is, there is often not enough is the state coffers to pay the scientists, most of whom say they survive on the produce from their vegetable gardens. "I know of some holes in the fence (surrounding Zheleznogorsk)," a local journalist said. "People with cottages make them to get to their vegetable patches quicker." A local engineer said the city had tried plans to convert military plants to civilian use but they had not worked out. "This is how we live -- we look forward to each trainload of somebody else's crap," said the engineer, who like other sources declined to be identified. NUCLEAR COMPETITION For more trains carrying spent fuel to roll into Zheleznogorsk, Moscow needs to cut a deal with the United States, which has made Russia's nuclear ambitions a bone of contention. Washington says Russia's contract to build civilian nuclear reactors in Iran could end up helping Tehran acquire nuclear weapons and that without proper security Russia's own nuclear materials could end up in a 'dirty bomb.' Washington has the power to influence Russia's access to 90 percent of the world's spent fuel, according to the Natural Resources Defence Council, a U.S. nongovernmental organisation. "Russia has two options: One, act alone and lose the market, or two, enter into a cooperative agreement with the United States," Tom Cochran, director of the NRDC's Nuclear Programme, said in Moscow. Residents, however, say they see a 'great game' unfolding between the United States and Russia for an international market in spent nuclear fuel. Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry has plans to build a new facility to hold 20,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in Zheleznogorsk, nearly an eighth of the world's total. President Vladimir Putin last year signed a law allowing the import of foreign spent fuel into Russia despite opinion polls that showed a vast majority of Russians opposed it. The government, however, has yet to sign a series of decrees needed to bring fuel in from further abroad than former Soviet satellites such as Bulgaria. Soviet era reprocessing agreements with those countries are still in effect, allowing them to ship fuel to Russia. 'LIFE IS GOOD THERE' Russia's environmentalists have rallied to oppose nuclear waste imports. A national environmental group, Ekozashchita, set up a tent camp on the road to the Krasnoyarsk nuclear camp earlier this year to protest against spent fuel import plans. But in Zheleznogorsk itself, even the local environmental newspaper, Citizen Initiative, writes about spent fuel in economic terms. "In our rich region, it is a crime to live in poverty. We should put the situation to rights as far as payment for spent fuel storage is concerned and get full payment, not the crumbs that the Atomic Energy Ministry throws us," Citizen Initiative wrote recently. Its pages are also full of obituaries. "People don't live so long there," said a Krasnoyarsk taxi driver. "What's worse, radiation can wreck a man below the belt." "But life in the closed cities is good. The bus is free, and they get free coupons to the cafeterias. Everything is good, like it was before." ***************************************************************** 5 GW's push for war United Nations -- A day after Iraq opened the door to weapons inspections with some limits, a tough U.S. proposal seeking "all necessary means" to force full compliance with past U.N. resolutions appeared to be in trouble Wednesday in the Security Council. With France proposing an alternative measure designed to delay military intervention, several council members complained that the U.S. approach would more likely lead to war than prevent it. The shift in attitude, if it holds up, suggests difficult negotiations lie ahead for Washington. "Right now, the U.S. and U.K. don't have enough votes in favor of their proposal," said Ginette de Matha, France's spokeswoman at the world body. "The automatic use of military force is not acceptable." A Security Council resolution needs support of nine members -- and no veto by any of the five nations with permanent seats, the United States, Britain, China, Russia and France. So far, only Britain has backed the Bush administration's draft resolution, with Colombia hinting that it might follow suit. However, encouraged by signs of cooperation by Iraq, the rest of the Security Council seems to be leaning toward France's two-step approach, which first allows weapons inspectors a chance to establish whether President Saddam Hussein's regime has eliminated chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and the missiles used to deliver them. If Baghdad fails, then the Security Council would need to pass a second resolution authorizing military force. Though U.S. diplomats delayed the formal introduction of their text in the face of the council's heightened resistance, they said Wednesday the United States would stand firm. "We'll work it out," said a senior State Department official. "We have a history of prevailing, and we intend to." The United States has drafted a resolution that would give inspectors broad new powers to hunt for suspected weapons of mass destruction and provide them armed security while they conduct their search. If Iraq does not accept its terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes "all necessary means" to force compliance -- in other words, a military attack. The U.S. text, drafted in consultation with Britain, has other requirements that Security Council members may resist. It demands that Iraq provide full disclosure of the extent of its weapons program, including the names of scientists who worked on the effort. It includes provisions to take Iraqis and their families out of the country for private interviews, a term diplomats say is an invitation to defect. It also would allow any Security Council member to place a representative on an inspection team to report back to his or her home government, a provision that Iraq most likely would view as authorizing intelligence gathering. "We see it as a hard-line text designed for negotiation," said a diplomat who opposes the U.S. proposal. "These are terms almost no one can accept. If we did, it would be an invitation for war." Washington's hard-nosed strategy seems to have been undermined by Iraq's last-minute softening at the talks in Vienna on terms of inspections that ended Tuesday. Every Iraqi signal of cooperation -- no matter how grudging and limited -- seems to bolster council resistance to the U.S. strategy of regime change. U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix will brief the Security Council today on the Vienna talks and describe what powers his inspectors would need to do their job effectively. He said this week that he could send advance teams to Iraq as early as Oct. 19. But the United States insists that the team wait for a new resolution that strengthens their mandate and repeals conditions restricting impromptu inspections of the eight presidential sites. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 12 ***************************************************************** 14 Bulgaria puts off closure of Soviet-era nuclear reactors Wednesday, 02-Oct-2002 2:10PM Story from AFP / Vessela Sergueva Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) SOFIA, Oct 2 (AFP) - Bulgaria's parliament voted on Wednesday not to close two ageing Soviet-designed nuclear reactors before the poverty-stricken country joins the European Union, despite EU demands that the reactors be decommissioned by 2006. The parliament in Sofia took a much harder stance on the issue than that adopted last week by the government, which is keen to close the energy chapter of its membership negotiations before the end of the year. As a pre-condition for starting membership negotiations with Bulgaria, the EU insisted that the two oldest reactors at the Soviet-era Kozloduy nuclear plant, which provides 40 percent of Bulgaria's electricity, be shut down before 2003. The 15-nation bloc demanded that the equally obsolete reactors three and four at Kozloduy, which are also of Soviet design, be closed by 2006. Brussels says the ageing reactors are dangerous and do not meet EU environmental and safety standards. In a resolution approved by 209 votes to one, Bulgaria's parliament insisted that the date for closing reactors three and four "must take into account the country's socio-economic capacities and must not take place before Bulgaria's full and complete entry into the EU". The parliament also demanded that a mission of EU experts visit Kozloduy, in northeastern Bulgaria, to examine reactors three and four. The Bulgarian government has invested 129 million euros (127 million dollars) to improve safety standards at the plants in line with those required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the hope of keeping them functioning until 2008-10. Parliament said the EU mission and an IAEA report on Kozloduy published earlier this year would provide "supplementary arguments" for delaying the closure of the reactors. The timetable for decommissioning reactors three and four was supposed to be decided this year. Closing the reactors by 2006 would cut the capacity of Bulgaria's energy system by 20 percent, raise energy prices and "could be a destabilising factor" in the country and the Balkan region, which depends on Bulgarian exports, Energy Minister Milko Kovachev said in an interview with the daily Standard on Wednesday. In 2001 Kozloduy exported seven billion kilowatt hours (KwH) of energy to the Balkans, and it aims to maintain the same volume of exports in 2002 and in 2003, when reactors one and two have been shut down. Kozloduy also has two more modern reactors, whose future is not under threat. Bulgaria is not among 10 mainly ex-communist countries likely to join the European Union in 2004 but it still hopes to conclude membership negotiations by the end of 2003 and be admitted in the next round, in 2006. "Joining the European Union is an indisputable strategic priority for us," Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg told parliament. On September 24 the government made plans to provisionally accept 2006 as a closure date for reactors three and four, on condition that the EU agrees to send experts to inspect the plant for the first time in 10 years. This would allow Sofia to conclude the energy chapter of its membership negotiations, while the closure date for the reactors would have to be reconsidered before negotiations are complete, according to government strategy. Opposition parties slammed this stance as "capitulation" and "incapability of defending national interests" in parliament on Wednesday. Conservative opposition United Democratic Forces President Nadejda Mikhailova noted that Latvia and Slovakia, both due to join the EU in 2004, will not close their obsolete nuclear reactors until several years later. ***************************************************************** 15 Times Online British Energy bail out October 03, 2002 Are accountants and banks the only winners in the Government's energy policy? THE TIMES states (September 16) that British Energy is to employ a second bank and has also hired auditors at KPMG to aid it in using the short-term loan from the Government, which in turn has hired Deloitte &Touche to ensure that funds from the loan are spent correctly. Is it possible to calculate how much money is being spent on accountancy fees in one form or another to facilitate this loan? Will these fees be part of the loan? Are this and future such loans to bail out failed privatisation issues merely a licence to maintain accountancy firms from the public purse? Barry Worrall, Ireleth, Cumbria Unanswered questions WHEN I invested money in British Energy over the years, I did so because it was a firm with well-run power stations with a first-class safety record producing a necessity of life. It had limited growth prospects but a steady divident income which was a bit better than a building society. I was therefore saddened and puzzled when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said: “There will be no blank cheque for shareholders”, a theme your leader-writer echoes. Shareholders, even those investing their pension contributions at two removes via an institutional investor, are people, too. There are several questions to be asked. One relates to the heavy weighting of the nuclear industry towards initial capital costs. Hiring capital has become cheaper; why is this not helping BE? Another relates to its reprocessing contracts with BNFL. Would the Government let it escape from these? If so, part of the problem would be shifted to the Government-owned BNFL, which needs this business to support the Thorp plant. A third is how the Treasury can justify a carbon tax on an industry that produces none. Finally, the Financial Services Authority is looking at the assurances given on August 14 that all was well with the company. Since I made my last purchase of shares on August 15, at the price of £1.01, you can imagine my interest. G. M. Wedd, High Littleton, Somerset Slaves to market forces IF THE Government insists on structuring the energy industry in a daft way then it should expect to get daft outcomes. A proper and informed debate on diverse energy supplies should identify the need to secure supply and make policies and plans accordingly. Market forces will build you cheap forms of energy supply that use up one form of energy, gas for example, and put out of business others. California brownouts are the lessons the politicians should be learning. Also, if the myth of cheap renewables is perpetuated beyond common sense rather than as a necessary form of diversity, and when wind and solar energy fail to supply the necessary amount of power, and you can’t get hydro through planning or it is hit by water shortages and ecosystem difficulties, then a bewildered public fed with propaganda from the misnamed “greens” will not be happy. Come on, politicians. Instead of making political capital and bending the facts to suit the dogma, examine how BE got into this financial mess. And remember, if BE pulls the plug you will have to find 20 per cent more electricity from your “cheaper” sources. Helen S. Rycraft Holmrook, Cumbria What energy policy? I WOULD like to throw a few pebbles into the the pond on the matter of electricity prices. Why do I pay 5.61p per unit of electricity to a supplier when they purchase the same unit of electricity from a generator at 1.4p? Why have the new electricity trading arrangements not considered the market effects created when suppliers crosssubsidise their generating interests by overcharging their retail consumers (and to the detriment of those generators who don’t have retail consumers)? Surely it was the intention that customers would benefit from lower generation prices. We have yet to see this. Do we have an energy policy? If so,does it really hinge on the regulator’s view that any administrator/receiver appointed to a distressed generating company will continue to generate electricity? Two years ago I doubted that we could ever face a Californian-style crisis here. I am not sure that I have such confidence today. John Watkins, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Competing in the market THE new electricity trading arrangements are mainly to blame for the collapse of the price of electricity. How can a company survive if it costs more to produce a megawatt of electricity than it sells it for? There are a few options that could help them. For instance, Midlands Electricity was up for sale. If, somehow, BE could have got that, it would have been able to sell electricity at a profit. The option, too, of removing carbon tax and bringing the rates of its power stations down to the same level as coal-fired power stations should be considered. BNFL could play a big part in reducing fuel costs and reprocessing. Tie all this together and you would have a competitive company. British Energy had a great opportunity to become competitive when it was outbid by the French in the sale of London Distribution. It’s a bad day when we have to rely on the French to prop up our electricity when we have all the resourses on our own doorstep. John McDougall, East Lothian The future is nuclear UNDER Tory and Labour politicians, our electricity supply and distribution system has gone from “world-class leader” to “Third World loser”. We now have no companies big enough to compete in a global context. Greenpeace has no concept of the power industry. While nuclear power may be complex, it is necessary for the future when gas and coal become scarce and expensive. Our politicians are not engineers. Most of the decision-makers could not boil an egg, let alone understand the complexity of operating nuclear plant. Sadly, our future rests with nuclear power. Peter Wilton, Preston, Lancashire Megawatts to the pound HOW many megawatts of wind-power energy could have been produced from the same amount spent on the bail-out to the nuclear power business? Julie Grace, [viburnum@iprimus.com.au] [http://www.timesonline.co.uk ***************************************************************** 16 NRC expands investigation of radiation exposure at Davis-Besse Indiana Newspapers Inc.--> By Malia Rulon Associated Press Last updated 06:56 AM, EST, Wednesday, October 02, 2002 merhofondlmaeo WASHINGTON (AP) -- Regulators are investigating whether the radiation exposure was higher than originally estimated for workers who accidentally carried on their clothes tiny radioactive particles out of an Ohio nuclear power plant. Estimates of exposure by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission differed from the assessment of the plant operator, the NRC said Tuesday. Five workers left the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in February with the particles, which were found in hotel rooms and homes in Ohio, Texas, South Carolina and Virginia, according to FirstEnergy Corp., which operates the plant near Toledo, Ohio. While the situation is unusual, particles have been carried out of other plants before and the workers in question are healthy and still working, said Viktoria Mitlyng, an NRC spokeswoman. She said that in this case, urine and fecal samples indicate that the workers inhaled the particles, and that factor was not included in the company's original estimates. It was unclear if that factor would mean higher dose estimates. "We can't conclude what the internal exposure was until we take a look at exactly what particles were inhaled and how large those particles were," Mitlyng said. The company maintains that the particles, which are too small to see, don't pose a health risk because they generate radioactivity at a low level. Richard Wilkins, a spokesman from FirstEnergy, said a lab error on the first dose analysis made it appear the workers were exposed to a higher amount of radiation, but a second analysis showed safe levels, and a third analysis by a different lab is pending. Workers typically wear protective clothing in nuclear plants, then remove their suits in a safe area where they are screened to make sure radioactive particles do not escape. The NRC investigation earlier found that one of the three devices used to screen workers had been improperly set. The NRC also is investigating leaks that allowed boric acid to eat a 7-inch wide hole almost through the 6-inch thick steel cap that covers the Davis-Besse plant's reactor vessel. The leak was discovered in March, during a maintenance shutdown. On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov FirstEnergy Corp.: http://www.firstenergycorp.com Copyright 2002 The Indianapolis Star | Questions, comments? Contact us ***************************************************************** 17 Bulgaria torn between nuclear pride and EU goal October 03, 2002 10:17 AM ET By Anna Mudeva SOFIA, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Bulgaria is walking a tightrope, haggling with the European Union over the fate of two ageing nuclear reactors while campaigning for early entry to the bloc. Brussels wants Bulgaria to close old reactors at its Soviet-era Kozloduy nuclear power plant, which it considers cannot be made safe at a reasonable price. Bulgaria says it needs the electricity and cannot yet afford the shutdown costs. A refusal to close Kozloduy's number three and four reactors by 2006 might derail Sofia's entry talks, government officials and diplomats say, hurting its paramount foreign policy goal of early EU accession. "If we remain stuck on the energy talks we will not be able to meet our target of wrapping up entry negotiations by the end of 2003," a senior government official told Reuters. Early closure would end Bulgaria's role as the leading power exporter in the region and raise domestic power bills, which the poor already find hard to pay. Bulgaria has agreed to shut Kozloduy's two oldest reactors this year but wants the 20-year-old water-cooled three and four reactors to stay in operation until 2008 and 2010, as agreed with the EU in 1999, before Brussels changed its mind. Kozloduy's six reactors produce 3,760 megawatts, half of Bulgaria's energy. The Balkan country covers nearly half of the region's annual electricity deficit with power exports. BULGARIANS OPPOSE CLOSURE The government faces pressure at home, where people vehemently oppose the closure, calling it a national betrayal. "Bulgarians are inexplicably sentimental about Kozloduy. It is so strange that there is not a single voice saying the plant might be unsafe," a Sofia-based EU diplomat told Reuters. People fear a return of the power rationing of the 1980s and 1990s from before Kozloduy was fully onstream. To please both critics at home and the EU, the government last week agreed to close the two reactors by end-2006 if Brussels will send experts to check safety next year. Sofia hopes the inspection will prove the units are safe to operate and allow it to negotiate later closure. A June mission by the IAEA, the world nuclear watchdog, concluded the government had addressed all safety issues at Kozloduy, says Energy Minister Milko Kovachev. If Sofia fails to extend the reactors' lives it wants compensation from Brussels, following the example of Lithuania, which is shutting its nuclear power plant to gain EU entry, says European Integration minister Meglena Kuneva. Other officials admit Sofia's chances of winning EU sympathy are small, given that many member states want Kozloduy shut. "We are running out of time and should act fast because Greece, the severest Kozloduy's opponent is taking over the EU presidency in January," a cabinet official added. ***************************************************************** 18 NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas Implements Hurricane Response Procedure for Area Nuclear Plants NRC: News Release - Region IV - 2002-042 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov No. IV-02-042 October 2, 2002 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Region IV office in Arlington, Texas has implemented its hurricane response procedure for monitoring of Hurricane Lili at the Waterford and River Bend commercial nuclear power plants near New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the South Texas Project plant near Bay City, Texas. The office will activate its Incident Response Center at 4:00 p.m. (CDT) today. NRC inspectors from the Region IV office are currently at each of the three plant sites reviewing preparations for the impending severe weather. NRC regional administrator Ellis Merschoff said the agency will dispatch an NRC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agencys Region 6 office in Denton, Texas, on Thursday morning and will maintain frequent communications with the states of Louisiana and Texas as needed. Merschoff said that, while none of the plant sites are currently projected to be directly in the path of hurricane force winds, there is an increased concern for the possibility of damage from tornados, wind damage to facilities offsite, and flooding of evacuation routes. Lili is expected to make landfall in central Louisiana as a Category 4 hurricane sometime Thursday afternoon. ***************************************************************** 19 UK: CHAPELCROSS could pilot a new generation of nuclear power plants. chapelcross 2 An MP is bidding to get the site into the limelight as a possible future electricity generating centre. By David Bennett Russell Brown is lodging a formal submission to create a research plant on the soon to be closed site, with energy minister Brian Wilson. Mr Brown believes new nuclear plants will need to be built to provide enough power for Britain. And he is suggesting Chapelcross would be ideal as the home for a prototype new-design nuclear reactor. The submission for a formal consultation comes after BNFL chiefs announced they were to accelerate the Chapelcross closure with the loss of more than 400 jobs.. It will now shut in 2005 instead of 2008. Mr Brown’s proposals have been given the backing of shop stewards at the plant. He said: “We know that over the next two decades existing nuclear reactors will be decommissioned, and by 2023 there will only be one nuclear power station functioning in Britain. I firmly believe that in no way can renewable energy alone replace our current levels of nuclear power generation, so that means it is vital new nuclear power stations are built and I hope Chapelcross can be part of that. “Chapelcross is an ideal site for new nuclear reactors as it is linked to the grid and a feasibility study some eight years ago by BNFL showed that the position and size of the site was ideal for a new build. It is also located in a community where people understand and are familiar with the concept of nuclear power.” He added: “There are a number of other nuclear reactors still in the development stage that are being designed by British companies in partnership with companies in South Africa and America. “If they are eventually to be used to generate electricity they will require to be properly tested in a full-scale commercial-sized prototype. “Therefore in my submission I have suggested that the government uses Chapelcross as a research and development facility and commissions the building of a prototype. “This proposal has come about following discussions with trade unions in the industry as not only would this help maintain skills and talents within the UK industry, it would also help develop future nuclear reactor designs.” ***************************************************************** 20 Five Men on Trial in Minsk for Allegedly Selling Chernobyl Uranium MOSCOW - Belorussian authorities have put five men on trial for attempting to sell 1.5 kilograms of uranium dioxide that was allegedly smuggled from Chernobyl — site of the world's worst nuclear catastrophe to date — to Minsk, where the group intended to rake in a black market purchase price of nearly $800,000. Charles Digges, 2002-10-03 14:19 The facts of the case — which first emerged in vivid detail in the government controlled Minsk newspaper Sovietskaya Belorussia — remain difficult to verify independently. One opposition journalists in Minsk, who requested anonymity, characterized Sovietskaya Belorussia as "the daily journal of official lies" in a telephone interview with Bellona Web Wednesday. But the events outlined by the newspaper — which spin the narrative of a former Chernobyl employee and four cohorts attempting to sell the uranium in Minsk and being foiled by a daring operation conducted an undercover Belorussian KGB agent, "who played his role wonderfully" — were confirmed in general terms by Belorussian Embassy officials in Moscow and a spokesman for the KGB prosecutor's office in Minsk, all of whom declined to be named. "Yes a trial is underway for five suspects and yes we are certain that the uranium came from the Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station in Ukraine," said the KGB spokesman in a telephone interview from Minsk with Bellona Web on Wednesday. Experts with the Bellona Foundation indicated that the amount of 2 percent LEU seized in the apparent sting — 1.5 kilograms— is not enough to make a true weapon of mass destruction. For that, according to Bellona, some 5 kilograms of highly enriched uranium would be required — and for that, any potential buyers who meant to make a nuclear bomb out of the stolen uranium would need a nuclear reactor to enrich the LEU for that purpose. The LEU could also have been rigged to conventional explosives — a so-called "dirty bomb — which could have caused mass panic, but would have presented small health risks. There is, so far, no word on what the intended use of the LEU was, the KGB spokesman said. The trial of the alleged smugglers, which began on September 30th names five men — one Ukrainian and five Belorussians — and implicates them in a plot supposedly hatched earlier this year to sell the 1.5 kilograms of Chernobyl pedigree uranium dioxide earlier this year, the KGB spokesman said. The alleged smugglers, who were identified by the newspaper and the KGB prosecutors' office only by their surnames, are named as Veselovsky, of Ukraine, and four Belorussians, Kurdesov, Bankalyuk, Volchenko and Gurinovich. The KGB spokesman, however, noted there must have been a rift among the conspirators: During interrogation Kurdesov and Veselovsky allegedly said they planned to sell the five fuel rods for $250,000. Volchenko apparently said he planned to sell the rods for $800,000. According to the KGB spokesman and Sovietskaya Belorussia, the serial numbers on zirconium tubes — where the uranium dioxide pellets are stored in RBMK-1000 reactor fuel assemblies — had been removed. These numbers would have established without doubt that the rods came from Chernobyl. Other tests, however — that neither the KGB spokesman nor the newspaper described — had determined that the uranium came from Chernobyl. Indeed, the ties that investigators have established between the uranium and Chernobyl are circumstantial, and centre on Veselovsky, who according to the spokesman, had worked at the Chernobyl plant. In 1987, according to the spokesman and the paper's version of events, Veselovsky was appointed as a foreman in Chernobyl's reactor shop, where radioactive elements are processed. A spokesman for the Chernobyl nuclear power plant confirmed Veselovsky's employment there to Bellona Web. Veselovsky had also worked at a nuclear power plant in Russia prior to Chernobyl, but the paper did not indicate which, and the KGB prosecutor's spokesman declined to say. The case for Veselovsky's involvement in the apparent heist hinges on a theft of 7.6 kilograms of 2 percent (LEU) that was stolen from Chernobyl in 1993. According to Lyudmila Zaitseva, who operates one of the world's most comprehensive databases at Standford University's Institute for International Studies that documents stolen or missing nuclear material, the 1993 theft was never solved. But during the Ukrainian investigation, the KGB spokesman said, Veselovsky was questioned as a witness. Zaitseva said — as did the spokesman — that the alleged 1.5 kilograms of LEU Veselovsky and his four alleged accomplices are charged with attempting to sell may be a part of that same 1993 theft. The KBG spokesman added that another factor tying the uranium dioxide to Chernobyl was a stamp in Veselovsky's passport from early this year showing that he had crossed the Ukrainian-Belorussian border into Belorussia at Novaya Yolcha. The checkpoint, according to Sovietskya Belorussia, services short-distance electric trains that run between Chernigov, Ukraine and Yolocha, Belorussia. "This, until now, has not been an especially strong border checkpoint — it resembles the simple pedestrian crossing point between Russia and Estonia" said the KGB spokesman. "So we think Veselovsky chose this point to cross because he knew he wouldn't be checked for the fuel rods [he was allegedly carrying]." This would indicate that Veselovsky waited several years before allegedly searching for potential buyers. Soveitskaya Belorussia conjectured that this was because he wanted noise from the theft to die down, said the KGB spokesman. But the case becomes more clouded when the role of Belorussian national Kurdesov is taken into consideration. He spent several years living in Ukraine, but the KGB spokesman said he had no history of working in the nuclear sector. Both Veselovsky and Kurdesov deny the charges against them and further accuse each other of being in the one who obtained the uranium, according to the KGB spokesman and the newspaper. The KGB spokesmen would not confirm the remaining twists of the case in specific terms, but said Sovietskaya Belorussia's account of ensuing events was "accurate to the best of my knowledge." Citing investigators, the paper reported that Kurdesov moved back to Belorussia in 2001, slightly before his co-defendant Veselovsky, and settled in the town of Mogiliev. Upon arrival Kurdesov allegedly hinted to his acquaintance — and now co-defendant — Bankalyuk that he was looking for a customer to whom to sell uranium. Bankalyuk was at the time employed at the Minsk Ball-Bearing factory. Bankalyuk allegedly agreed to assist Kurdesov in this endeavour and, the paper reported, and soon put him in contact with Gurinovich who then apparently put the pair in touch with Volchenko, the paper said. The KGB eventually got wind of the alleged scheme in December — typically, neither Sovietskaya Belorussia nor the KGB spokesman would say how — and decided to place an informant posing as a potential client in the smuggler's midst as a possible buyer for the uranium. Volchenko, the paper reported, verified the undercover agent/s underworld connections, found them satisfactory and agreed to strike a deal: The agent would by one fuel rod for $10,000 to test the quality of the uranium, the paper said. If that passed muster, the agent would buy the rest for a price the paper did not name. At that prompting, Kurdesov allegedly began a relay to get a uranium rod to the "client," passing it first to Gurinovich, who passed it to Volchenko and arranged the meeting. After agents had the rod in their possession, the paper reported, tests revealed that it was genuine uranium and they made arrangements to by the further lot, which ended in the arrests of the suspects and the return of the uranium. Other Minsk-based journalists interviewed were highly sceptical of the source of so detailed an account — namely the KGB. Nonetheless, several conceded it probably has basis in fact simply because it advances no obvious political point. As one put it "if Sovietskaya Belorussia wanted it to look like the security services had made a strike against world terrorism, they would be trying these men for trying to sell plutonium." Standford's Zaitseva was also willing to grant the report some veracity, as it made reference to the 1992 theft from Chernobyl and other typical patterns surrounding nuclear theft. "Unfortunately, follow-up articles on illicit trafficking incidents' investigations and trials are rare, but they provide a wealth of important information, such as the description of the culprits, their intent and modus operandi, site and border control vulnerabilities, origin of the material and its possible destination," she wrote in an email interview from Palo Alto, California. "What this case has shown again is that insiders — people who work at nuclear facilities and have access to nuclear material — are most likely to commit a theft because they know the vulnerabilities of security systems and can smuggle the material out undetected" Another common and truthful thread she found in the article was the ineptness of the thieves themselves, who neither know what they have, what its value is, nor whom to sell it to. "This case has also confirmed that most 'nuclear smugglers' have little knowledge about the material they deal with, on the one hand, and unrealistically high expectations about its value on the other," Zaitseva wrote. "Most of them do not know exactly who would be interested in buying, and end up selling the stuff from one criminal group to another for a profit." Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President: [frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 21 Nuclear expert at OPG retires Thestar.com/Nuclear expert at OPG retires Thu Oct 3, 2002 - Updated at 04:35 PM Eugene Preston returning to U.S. By John Spears Business reporter The chief nuclear officer of Ontario Power Generation Inc. has retired, as the provincially owned company races to restart its troubled Pickering A generating station. Eugene Preston — whose base salary was 50 per cent higher than that of the company's chief executive, Ronald Osborne — retired Tuesday. The retirement was announced internally. A company spokesperson confirmed it yesterday. The company's annual information form says Preston's current employment agreement runs until Jan. 31, 2004. Preston held the title of executive vice-president at Ontario Power Generation (OPG), as well as chief nuclear officer. His salary for 2001 was $1,237,488, according to OPG's annual information form. That far outstripped Osborne's base pay of $825,000. Osborne's total pay was higher, however, because he pulled in a bonus of $752,813, while Preston's bonus was $185,981. Preston was one of a team of seven Americans hired in 1997 to fix the nuclear mess at what was then Ontario Hydro. Part of their solution was to shut down the Pickering A and Bruce A nuclear stations. With Ontario now short of power, plans are afoot to restart both stations. Bruce Power, which has leased the Bruce nuclear facility, wants to get two of four Bruce A reactors going by next spring. Pickering A was supposed to be up and running this summer, but has encountered delays and cost increases. In mid-2000, the cost was estimated at $1.2 billion. But by this year, OPG was saying that the cost of restarting the first reactor alone would be $960 million, with the startup of the three remaining reactors costing between $900 million and $1.2 billion, for a total of as much as $2.1 billion. The generating station was supposed to be in service by this summer. It was not, and the province had trouble keeping the lights on, with the agency responsible for the electric grid pleading with consumers on four separate occasions to conserve power to prevent brownouts or blackouts. The first unit is now due to be back in service early in 2003, with the remaining units following one by one, at intervals of several months each Ontario Auditor-General Erik Peters fingered Pickering A as a source of concern in June, urging the government "to take a very active interest in the cost overruns and delays being experienced in restarting Pickering A." John Earl, spokesperson for OPG, said Preston had previously discussed retirement with Osborne. "He had a three-year contract that he agreed to extend, but he's asked if he can retire, and we were lucky to have him beyond the first three-year contract," Earl said. "He has chosen to take his wife and retire and move back to the U.S." OPG's annual information form says this about Preston's contract: "Unless extended by mutual agreement, the current employment agreement will terminate as of Jan. 31, 2004." Earl said OPG has a "very deep management team" in place at Pickering. Bill Robinson, currently in charge of the Pickering B station will also oversee the Pickering A project, Earl said. No chief nuclear officer has been appointed to take Preston's place. Instead, Earl said, OPG's nuclear division will report directly to chief operating officer Graham Brown, as do its hydro, fossil fuel and green energy divisions. Toronto Star Newspapers ***************************************************************** 22 Fire at PPL's Susquehanna nuclear power plant * *The Associated Press 10/3/02 9:25 AM* BERWICK, Pa. (AP) -- A fire broke out early Thursday at PPL's Susquehanna nuclear power plant, officials said. The fire in a start-up transformer on Unit 2 was detected around 2:30 a.m. and quickly put out, according to a company news release. The fire was confined to the transformer, which will be replaced with a spare on site, PPL said. The fire has been classified as an "unusual event," indicating it was a minor problem, PPL said. The category is the lowest of four emergency classifications by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Company spokesman Herbert Woodeshick said the fire apparently was caused by an internal failure in the Unit 2 transformer. He could not give a monetary estimate of the damage. PPL Corp. is a global energy company based in Allentown. Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 23 Ads Aim at Shutting A-Plant The New York Times October 3, 2002* *By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA* Environmentalists will start running a series of advertisements today to turn up the pressure on Gov. George E. Pataki to shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which they call a terrorist target and a threat to millions of people. The ads, financed by the group Riverkeeper, include an ominous television spot with satellite views of Indian Point at the center of an immense bull's-eye. The narrator speaks of the "evacuation zone" and "peak fatality zone," and says, "within the peak injury zone, there are some pretty big towns," as the camera zooms in to Manhattan. Riverkeeper's campaign raises the volume and the political stakes of one of the most heated issues in the Hudson Valley. The television ad will appear in New York City and the Hudson Valley, and will coincide with print ads in Metro-North Railroad stations and some newspapers. Officials at Riverkeeper say they hope to force the governor's hand now, because they believe he will be more likely to move against the plant under the pressure of a political campaign, when he has more to fear from public opinion, than after the election. Polls show Mr. Pataki with a sizable lead over his Democratic rival, H. Carl McCall, who has said the plant should be closed. Mr. Pataki's office would not comment directly on the ads, or on the concerns raised by Indian Point's opponents. Instead, a spokesman read a statement that said Mr. Pataki had "launched the most comprehensive effort in the nation to combat terrorism and enhance safety at public facilities across the state." In the past, the governor has declined to take a position on shutting down Indian Point. Larry Gottlieb, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which bought the two operating Indian Point reactors in the last two years, called Riverkeeper's campaign "an act of desperation," and he accused the group, which has not made an endorsement in the gubernatorial race, of "using their dollars to push one candidate over another." The movement to shut down Indian Point ballooned after the Sept. 11 attacks, when one of the airplanes that struck the World Trade Center flew down the Hudson, almost directly over the plant, raising questions about what would happen if it was hit. Experts in nuclear power and federal officials have said that nuclear power plants could be terrorist targets. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 24 Berkeley Nucleonics Provides National Radiation Detection Training Program SAN RAFAEL, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 2002--Berkeley Nucleonics Corp. (BNC) is sponsoring a new series of radiation detection training seminars focused on use of the firm's touted Model 935 radiation Surveillance and Measurement system (SAM 935). The next "Radiation Detection, Surveillance and Measurement Training Seminar" will be held Nov. 18-19, 2002 in Washington, D.C. BNC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory co-sponsored a radiation detection and measurement seminar centered on Emergency Response and Anti-Terrorism techniques at the laboratory in August. Demand for the training was such that BNC repeated the program to an overflow group of attendees in San Francisco the following month. The company is now ramping up to offer the curriculum nationally. "Our goal is to provide a nationwide program that is responsive to the critical need for real-time radiation detection, identification and measurement training for emergency response, law enforcement, health physics and domestic preparedness personnel," said Julius Mills, BNC Director of Training. "With the advanced capabilities of the SAM 935, and the expertise of our training instructors, we hope to make a significant contribution to the homeland security effort," Mills said. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Radiological Assistance Program (RAP), which is tasked with responding to accidents and emergencies involving radioactive material, has participated in the BNC training program and is currently deploying the SAM 935 in all eight of its regions across the country. Other government agencies who use the system and have attended a BNC training seminar include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secret Service, NASA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Air Force. BNC's mobile, portable SAM system is able to accurately detect and identify more than 200 radioactive isotopes almost instantly, including special nuclear materials (SNM) and materials that could potentially be used in illicit radiation dispersal devices, also known as "dirty bombs." The SAM 935 is also effective at identifying radiological sources in pedestrian traffic, moving vehicles and in-motion cargo. The unit is capable of pinpointing unlawful nuclear and radiation trafficking even when the sources are masked or shielded, providing clear applications for homeland and airport security. The user-friendly SAM system has myriad industrial and medical applications and is currently used by private entities including Bechtel Corp., Pantex, Earth Tech, Inc., Safety and Ecology Corp. (SEC) and Raying Technology. Personnel from all these companies have recently attended one or more training seminars conducted by BNC. For information on attending upcoming BNC Radiation Detection, Surveillance and Measurement seminars contact Julius Mills, BNC Director of Training, at julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com . Information is also available by phone at 800/234-7858. --30--nj/sf* CONTACT: Berkeley Nucleonics Julius Mills, 800/234-7858 julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com ***************************************************************** 25 NRC expanding investigation of workers exposed to radiation - portclintonnewsherald.com Wednesday, October 2, 2002 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station By JENNIFER FUNK Staff writer CARROLL TOWNSHIP -- An inquiry into low-level radioactive particles from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station found off-site in the spring has led to greater focus on conditions inside the plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials -- five radiation specialists in all -- are at the plant now to conduct further inspections in connection with the particle incident. The NRC's involvement stems from when low-level radioactive particles were found on contract workers' clothing and in their homes after they worked on Davis-Besse's steam generator during the February outage. The plant never restarted from that outage because about the same time, workers found a football-sized hole in the reactor head, which had been corroded away by excessive amounts of boric acid. First, NRC officials looked into how those particles, which are of no danger to the general public, got outside the plant. Now, officials want to see just how much radioactive exposure those contract workers received while working on the steam generator -- and how much was ingested or inhaled. According to NRC officials, during the review it was found the agency had differing measures of internal worker exposure than FirstEnergy, the plant's parent company. "We see nothing that would be life-threatening or expected to cause injury," explained Jan Strasma, a spokesman for the NRC's Region III, which governs Davis-Besse. "We at this point do not know if exposures were within the NRC limits or not -- that's one thing we're looking at." FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said Wednesday the company is cooperating, but that some of the NRC's concerns may be based on skewed data received from a laboratory. A sample was taken from one of the workers, Wilkins said, and was sent to a lab for results. Those results came back incorrect, but the NRC requested the data, and FirstEnergy officials obliged. "The information was contradictory on that preliminary report," Wilkins said. "So we contacted the lab and said it didn't make sense, and they said 'Yes, you're right." The lab checked the equipment and found minor contamination that affected the results, he explained, adding the sample was redone and no overexposure was found. "We went back and took more samples from two employees and sent those samples to another lab," he continued. "Those results won't be back for some time." The work done on the steam generator consisted of about six different workers coming in a couple of days at a time for several weeks, Wilkins said. He anticipated the NRC will look at the procedures in place by the company's Radiological Control Program to ensure those are adequate for protecting workers. Originally published Wednesday, October 2, 2002 Copyright ©2002 News Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Berkeley Nucleonics Provides National Radiation Detection Training Program SAN RAFAEL, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 2002--Berkeley Nucleonics Corp. (BNC) is sponsoring a new series of radiation detection training seminars focused on use of the firm's touted Model 935 radiation Surveillance and Measurement system (SAM 935). The next "Radiation Detection, Surveillance and Measurement Training Seminar" will be held Nov. 18-19, 2002 in Washington, D.C. BNC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory co-sponsored a radiation detection and measurement seminar centered on Emergency Response and Anti-Terrorism techniques at the laboratory in August. Demand for the training was such that BNC repeated the program to an overflow group of attendees in San Francisco the following month. The company is now ramping up to offer the curriculum nationally. "Our goal is to provide a nationwide program that is responsive to the critical need for real-time radiation detection, identification and measurement training for emergency response, law enforcement, health physics and domestic preparedness personnel," said Julius Mills, BNC Director of Training. "With the advanced capabilities of the SAM 935, and the expertise of our training instructors, we hope to make a significant contribution to the homeland security effort," Mills said. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Radiological Assistance Program (RAP), which is tasked with responding to accidents and emergencies involving radioactive material, has participated in the BNC training program and is currently deploying the SAM 935 in all eight of its regions across the country. Other government agencies who use the system and have attended a BNC training seminar include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secret Service, NASA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Air Force. BNC's mobile, portable SAM system is able to accurately detect and identify more than 200 radioactive isotopes almost instantly, including special nuclear materials (SNM) and materials that could potentially be used in illicit radiation dispersal devices, also known as "dirty bombs." The SAM 935 is also effective at identifying radiological sources in pedestrian traffic, moving vehicles and in-motion cargo. The unit is capable of pinpointing unlawful nuclear and radiation trafficking even when the sources are masked or shielded, providing clear applications for homeland and airport security. The user-friendly SAM system has myriad industrial and medical applications and is currently used by private entities including Bechtel Corp., Pantex, Earth Tech, Inc., Safety and Ecology Corp. (SEC) and Raying Technology. Personnel from all these companies have recently attended one or more training seminars conducted by BNC. For information on attending upcoming BNC Radiation Detection, Surveillance and Measurement seminars contact Julius Mills, BNC Director of Training, at julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com [julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com] . Information is also available by phone at 800/234-7858. --30--nj/sf* CONTACT: Berkeley Nucleonics Julius Mills, 800/234-7858 julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com [julius.mills@berkeleynucleonics.com] ***************************************************************** 27 Filled With Risk The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, October 3, 2002 Like Dave Rose, (Forum, Sept. 1) we are all concerned that every death leaves a grieving family and nobody's life should be put in danger. Yet we daily choose activities that are dangerous enough to kill more than a few citizens every year. If Yucca Mountain takes 20 years to fill, with a loss of 31 lives during accident-free transportation, that would be less than two deaths caused per year. If we use Rose's emotional appeal instead of logic, we should immediately stop any activities likely to cause two or more deaths per year, such as driving (42,000 deaths per year), using electricity from coal-fired power plants (30,000), keeping household poisons, climbing ladders, enjoying water sports, or working at virtually any job. The risk of this plan, of course, is that we would all die of starvation, if not from boredom. Living involves necessary risks, which we should seek to minimize. Suppose nuclear power were expanded by 250 new plants in the next 20 years, enough to replace all of today's coal-fired plants, and suppose this would fill up two more Yuccas in 20 years, causing three more deaths per year. Could we justify this? Saving 30,000 lives per year, by eliminating coal smoke, seems like a good candidate. Emotional appeals, which dramatize the horrors of a one-sided view, are no substitute for reasonable risk assessment. Contrary to their very good intentions, anti-nuclear activists sometimes become proponents of sickness and death. Even nice people can sometimes be blind guides. STEVEN C. BARROWES Salt Lake City © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 28 N.C. to give pills against radiation Charlotte Observer | 10/02/2002 | [http://www.charlotte.com] Residents within 10 miles of nuclear plants eligible; S.C. still deciding whether to distribute free tablets SCOTT DODD Staff Writer About 165,000 people living within 10 miles of the Charlotte area's nuclear plants can receive two tiny salt pills later this month that could help save their lives in a radiation-spewing disaster. But thousands more on the other side of the state line will have to wait or buy their own. N.C. counties in the Charlotte area will distribute free potassium iodide pills from the federal government on Oct. 19 and 22. Times and places where residents can pick up tablets will be announced next week. South Carolina, however, says it hasn't decided whether to offer the pills, which can prevent thyroid cancer caused by radiation. Other N.C. counties near nuclear plants will make their own plans for distribution. The pills don't block all potentially harmful radiation from a nuclear accident. So officials warn that taking potassium iodide, known as KI, shouldn't make people feel safe. They still need to evacuate if officials tell them to. "This is a very small sliver of protection," said Mecklenburg Health Director Peter Safir. People living more than 10 miles from the plants, including most Charlotte residents, aren't eligible for the free pills, although they might also be vulnerable to radiation. Studies suggest that a major nuclear accident might increase the risk of thyroid cancer more than 100 miles away. Anyone, however, can buy potassium iodide at drug stores for about $1 a tablet or over the Internet -- including at a locally owned site, NukePills.com. No prescription is needed. Mecklenburg County health officials say they've alerted major pharmacy chains that they might want to increase their local supplies in case they see more demand in the coming weeks. Sixteen of the 34 eligible states have requested KI from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At least one state has chosen to buy the pills from other sources. The Carolinas have a dozen nuclear plants, including McGuire on Lake Norman and Catawba on Lake Wylie, both near Charlotte. In February, officials in both Carolinas rejected the federal government's offer to provide free pills for anyone within 10 miles of a nuclear plant, saying the drug had limited effectiveness and that evacuation was safer. That changed in North Carolina after officials received hundreds of complaints and reviewed studies of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union, which showed that a region up to 150 miles away saw a 100-fold increase in thyroid cancer cases. Areas of a similar distance in Poland, where people took potassium iodide to guard against radiation poisoning, suffered no increase. Also under public pressure, S.C. officials decided to reconsider this summer, but have made no decision yet. The Department of Health and Environmental Control says it is studying the issue. "We want to make a decision as soon as possible, but we have a lot of questions to be answered," spokeswoman Jan Easterling said. Mecklenburg, Gaston, Catawba, Iredell and Lincoln counties will receive 350,000 pills from the NRC stock. Mecklenburg officials expect fewer than half the eligible residents to want them. If they run low, however, local officials may ask for more. When Illinois offered the pills last month, about 15 percent of those eligible showed up. Locally, distribution will take place at several sites. Residents will be given two pills for each member of their family. "It's a bit of an honor system," Safir said. People who work within 10 miles of the plants will be offered KI later; officials aren't sure when. Potassium iodide is "not very different in its chemical structure from table salt," said Dr. Stephen Keener, Mecklenburg County's medical director. Table salt doesn't protect against radiation. The pills will come with instructions and should not be taken unless a disaster occurs. Officials will make an announcement telling residents to use them. Some people are allergic to iodide, and others can suffer minor side effects, such as rashes. Officials urge people who receive the pills to check with their doctor if they're not sure it's OK for them. KI can be given to people of all ages, although newborns younger than 1 month should only take an eighth of a pill. Infants and children, who have more active thyroid glands than adults, are at particular risk of thyroid cancer in a radiation-spewing disaster. Potassium iodide received Food and Drug Administration approval in 1982, three years after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. For years, health experts urged federal, state and local officials to stockpile the pills for emergency civilian use. But it took the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to convince the NRC to act. Until recently, both Carolinas kept small KI stockpiles -- enough to protect only emergency workers and civilians who could not evacuate quickly, such as hospital patients and prison inmates. Distribution after a disaster also was a concern -- officials would prefer to see residents evacuate rather than stand in line for pills -- which is why they decided to distribute them to residents now, rather than storing them to pass out after an event. "Potassium iodide is not a substitute for evacuation in an emergency," Keener said. "That is the No. 1, 2 and 3 priority." But evacuating everyone within 10 miles of the McGuire or Catawba plants could take at least eight to 24 hours, according to local emergency plans. Less than four hours is considered optimal by the federal government. The worst kind of nuclear accident could release enough radiation within a few hours to pose a potential cancer risk for people nearby. The chance of that happening, the NRC says, is very low. Scott Dodd: (704) 358-5168; [sdodd@charlotteobserver.com] . About Charlotte.com ***************************************************************** 29 TVA Runs Nuclear Disaster Drill - News 12 Chattanooga Workers and Citizens Face Mock Disaster By Randy Golson WDEF-TV News 12 Oct 2, 2002 People living near the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant are alerted to the sounds of danger today. Warning sirens sounded at noon and emergency crews sprang into action. But there is no cause for alarm. It's high noon in the Tennessee Valley and the Soddy Daisy hills are alive . . ., with the sound of trouble. SIREN SOUNDS The sound is from the sirens of TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Denise Madison / Bledsoe County "I had no clue what it was I was driving down the road." Denise Madison knows TVA does tests on Wednesday, but today she is uncertain about the sirens. Denise Madison / Bledsoe County "After Watts Bar's incident . . . I'm a little leery." Mary Ann Polk / Soddy Daisy "It's a test." Other's like Mary Ann Polk know it is a drill. But if the sound were from a real disaster folks like Mary Ann would need help fast. Mary Ann Polk / Soddy Daisy "What are you supposed to do if it is the real thing.? . . . I don't really know ha ha ha ha." But this time the real test is not what citizens know. but how well workers at TVA would manage a true radioactive accident which in this scenario catches them by surprise. Carol Ayers / TVA "It is revealed to them as it develops there is a small group of people that know the scenario and they know what is going to happen and the workers are fed the information." At TVA's situation room downtown, federal, state and county workers from Hamilton and Bradley counties coordinate getting information to the media and manage the evacuation of a ten mile radius surrounding Sequoyah Nuclear. Back at the plant itself, workers use a simulator manage the crisis which involves a number of major problems including a radioactive leak. Laura Johnson / Soddy Daisy "I really think that is a good idea to have drills like that as a practice." The drill is an extended operation and it will be at least two days before TVA accesses how well they managed the drill. At Sequoyah Nuclear Randy Golson News 12. The N-R-C requires utilities with nuclear power plants to conduct annual emergency exercises. Every two years.. FEMA evaluates state and county readiness to protect the public health and safety. [http://www.mediageneral.com] ***************************************************************** 30 Parsons Awarded Contract for Salt Waste Facility Disposal PASADENA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2002-- Parsons to Prepare Conceptual Design for the DOE at the Savannah River Radioactive Waste Salt Disposal Site in Aiken, South Carolina Parsons has been awarded a significant contract by the Department of Energy to provide conceptual design for a facility to process highly radioactive waste from underground storage tanks at the Savannah River Site (SRS) located in Aiken, South Carolina. Parsons was awarded one of two contracts valued at approximately $10 million to develop the basic building and processing layout for the Salt Waste Processing Facility at the former nuclear weapons complex. Once the conceptual design has been completed, DOE will select one contractor to complete design, construction and commissioning for the facility. "About 34 million gallons of the 37 million gallons of highly radioactive waste at SRS is salt waste," Energy Department spokeswoman Julie Petersen said. This salt waste resulted from weapons production operations during the Cold War. The proposed facility will separate the highly radioactive cesium and actinide from the salt solution using precipitation/filtration and solvent extraction technologies. After separation, the concentrated cesium and actinide waste will be sent to the Defense Waste Processing Facility to be immobilized in a glass matrix and stored until it can be disposed of in a geological repository. The decontaminated salt solution will be disposed of in a grout matrix in vaults at the Savannah River Site. According to Parsons Senior Vice President and Project Manager Chuck Terhune, "The Parsons Team is ready to take on this unique technological challenge. The DOE has prepared a sound technical baseline. Our staff excels in design and construction of `one of a kind' facilities utilizing advanced technology processes. Everyone on the team is excited and working to meet early project milestones. Our long term goal is to assist the Department of Energy in meeting its regulatory commitments to safely treat and dispose of the legacy high-level waste at the Savannah River Plant." Parsons, a leader in many diverse markets such as infrastructure, advanced technology, transportation, energy, chemicals, refining, environmental and planning, provides technical and management solutions to federal, regional and local government agencies as well as private industries worldwide. For more about Parsons, please visit us on the world wide web at www.parsons.com [http://www.parsons.com] . --30--WAM/la* CONTACT: Parsons Erin Kuhlman, 626/440-4590; fax: 626/440-2650 Erin.Kuhlman@parsons.com [Erin.Kuhlman@parsons.com] Charles Terhune, 626/440-2221; fax: 626/440-6195 Chuck.Terhune@parsons.com [Chuck.Terhune@parsons.com] ***************************************************************** 31 Cost for nuclear waste treatment plant rises Thursday, October 3, 2002 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YAKIMA -- The price for the huge waste-to-glass treatment complex at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has gone up, from $4 billion to $5.6 billion, the U.S. Department of Energy said yesterday. The change is a result of a number of things, including more accurate cost estimates, design changes and some errors, said Roy Schepens, manager of the agency's Office of River Protection, which is overseeing the project. The plan is to clean out 177 aging underground tanks loaded with nearly 54 million gallons of radioactive waste and convert the waste into glass logs for long-term storage. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 32 Full-Scale Invasion a 'Hair-Trigger' Away Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:10:59 -0500 (CDT) "I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected" Published on Thursday, October 3, 2002 in the Guardian/UK US Hardline on Iraq Leaves Full-Scale Invasion a 'Hair-Trigger' Away by Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill, and Ian Black in Brussels Washington last night revealed its intention to use UN weapons inspections as a possible first step towards a military occupation of Iraq by sending in troops, sealing off "exclusion zones" and creating secure corridors throughout the country. In a leaked proposal for a UN resolution drafted by the US with help from British officials, the Bush administration is seeking to transform the inspections process into a coercive operation. The resolution would place a full-scale invasion of Iraq on a hair trigger, authorizing UN member states "to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security" if Iraq does so much as make an omission in the weapons inventories it presents to the security council. Weapons inspectors would operate out of bases inside Iraq, where they would be under the protection of UN troops. UN forces or the forces of a member state would enforce no-fly and no-drive zones around a suspected weapons site, preventing anything being removed before inspection. Diplomats at the UN said there was no doubt that US troops would play a leading role in any such enforcement, allowing the Pentagon to deploy forces inside Iraq even before hostilities got under way. The release of the draft helped Washington regain momentum in security council talks a day after Iraq took the initiative by agreeing to inspections under existing UN guidelines. That agreement was welcomed by France and Russia, but dismissed as empty by the US and Britain. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, called the existing guidelines "defective". The resolution will be debated over the next few days among the permanent five security council members. President George Bush's negotiating position was bolstered yesterday when the House of Representatives agreed to a war powers resolution handing him open-ended authority to take military action against Iraq. The Senate, where there was tougher opposition to such a blanket authorization, was reported to be moving towards support of the White House line. Under the US draft, security council member states could send their own inspectors into Iraq to operate alongside the official UN teams and these extra inspectors would have the "same rights and protections accorded other members of the team". Member states could also "recommend" to the UN teams which sites to search and how to do it. Iraqi officials could be taken out of the country, along with their families, for questioning, in order to remove the fear of Iraqi government reprisals. The Iraqi deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, said there was no need for a new resolution and that the existing resolutions were good enough for inspectors to do their job. John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington military thinktank, said the resolution was worded in such a way that Iraq was almost certain to reject it, even if the alternative was invasion. "I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected," Mr Pike said. British officials said the draft represented more of a discussion paper for the five permanent members than a formal document to be circulated within the full security council. British experts worked alongside their US counterparts at the state department in the early stages of its drafting, but it was then handed to the White House and the Pentagon, who added some of its tougher elements. A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We are not going to comment until final resolutions are published." But it was clear that London was uneasy with some items in the draft, particularly the use of troops to quarantine suspect sites and to guard the inspectors' routes to the sites. One British official pointed out that it was put within square brackets and could be jettisoned later. The intention behind the clause, the official said, was to avoid the situation under earlier inspection regimes whereby "inspectors were coming in the front door and kit was moving out the back." Further anxiety about the US position came from Chris Patten, the EU's commissioner for external relations. In a speech in Chicago today he will say: "If the US were to fall prey to the temptation to act alone and outside the framework of international order, even for the best of motives, it would be setting off down a very dangerous path." Diplomats in New York and Washington said it was clear there was a split between the state department and the Bush administration's hawks over how far the US should compromise, particularly over the threat of force. The French have proposed an alternative resolution, which would make inspections tougher, but omits the authorization of military action in the event of Iraqi intransigence or evasion, deferring such a decision to a later resolution. Resolution main points: 7 The US (as a permanent member of the UN security council) can ask to be present in any inspection team and thus gain access to any part of the country 7 The inspectors can set up bases throughout the country. They will be accompanied at those bases by soldiers under the UN banner sufficient to protect them 7 The UN will have the right to declare no-fly, no-drive and exclusion zones, ground and air transit corridors, to be enforced either by the UN or by member states which could include the US 7 Iraq must agree to free and unrestricted landing of aircraft, including unmanned spy planes 7 The UN can take anyone it wishes to interview out of Iraq, along with his or her family 7 Any false information provided by Iraq or any failure to comply with the resolution would automatically entitle member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace. ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 33 UK: UN inspectors must be backed by a new resolution Times Online October 03, 2002 Unfettered access No one should criticise Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations weapons inspection team, for the agreement he reached with the Iraqis on a return of the inspectors. Mr Blix acted swiftly and in good faith in fulfilling the mandate he was given. But the mandate was wrong. He should not have been asked to seek agreement on the basis of old resolutions that were palpably insufficient and have been the basis on which Saddam Hussein was able to stall, cheat and lie during the years when the inspectors were combing Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has put the cart before the horse: the inspectors must indeed return as soon as possible — but only when armed with proper sanction to do their work. A new resolution authorising force if the inspections fail is still essential. This crass misjudgment of timing has left everyone in difficulties — except Saddam. It was not easy, or politically convenient, for Colin Powell to denounce a deal, barely before the ink was dry, on the very demand that President Bush himself articulated with such eloquence at the General Assembly. It does not help Tony Blair’s task of convincing the country that Washington’s recourse to the UN was no mere charade to conceal a decision already taken to launch an attack for the purpose of “regime change”. And it certainly makes it far harder now to persuade those other countries, including France and Russia, unwilling to stand up to Saddam that Iraq has still not fulfilled the obligations imposed on it a decade ago. Nevertheless, Britain and America must now redouble their efforts to persuade the Security Council that the Vienna deal is inadequate. The first obvious point they should make is that not including Saddam’s “palaces” within the inspectors’ remit is a glaring loophole in the original resolutions. These “palaces” are not what the term implies. They are huge military compounds, as large as towns, where the installations hidden behind fences are almost certainly the hiding places for some of the deadliest weapons being developed apace. In the wake of the Gulf War, the Security Council ordered Iraq to open up all its territory to inspection. It has no interest in ransacking presidential salons and bathrooms; but it rightly insists that no compound can be off-limits. That must be spelt out again unambiguously. The second point to make is that Saddam has consistently refused to honour his promises unless threatened with overwhelming force. The fact that he has continued to develop chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in clear contravention of the undertaking he gave on his defeat in 1991 is the most obvious proof that the earlier resolutions were insufficient. Only if threatened with immediate military retaliation should he renege on this latest agreement can he be persuaded to allow the inspectors to search wherever they need for deadly weapons. France, Russia and China are now, prematurely, insisting that Iraq has done enough. The French want a two-step approach, first defining the new inspections regime and then, only if the inspections fail, authorising the use of force. The problem here is obvious: who is to decide, and at what point, that the inspectors cannot do their job? Saddam will have every incentive to use bureaucracy and obfuscation to hamper them while insisting that he was co-operating. Russia, however, appears to be softening, yesterday suggesting, significantly, that it would be ready to consider a new resolution. Britain and American cannot legally prevent the return of the inspectors to Iraq. But Mr Powell noted that the US would go into “thwart mode” if they did so without a proper mandate. The wrangle would fatally undermine their authority, and that of the UN. The Security Council must instead face the challenge, insist first that the inspectors have unconditional and unfettered access and only then send them back. Times [http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/] ***************************************************************** 34 Text of U.S. Resolution on Iraq Las Vegas SUN: Today: October 03, 2002 at 0:25:06 PDT By the Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS The following is a text of the U.S. draft resolution calling for the U.N. Security Council to authorize force against Iraq if it fails to comply with weapons inspections. It was obtained by The Associated Press. Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April, 1995 and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President and noting the additional resolution ( ) issued by the Council as a companion hereto. Recognizing the threat of Iraq's noncompliance with Security Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1991) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area. Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area. Deploring the fact that Iraq has never provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their component and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear weapons-usable material. Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly refused to allow access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), refused to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNCSOM and IAEA in 1998 and for the last three years has failed to provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Committee (UNMOVIC) established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM and the IAEA, as it was first obliged to do pursuant to resolution 687 (1991), and as the council has repeatedly demanded that it do, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people. Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third party nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq. Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein. Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance. Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions. Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is the necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions. Acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Decides that Iraq is still, and has for a number of years, in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991). Decides that in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, the government of Iraq shall provide to the Security Council prior to the beginning of inspections and not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution an acceptable and currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles, including all holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and IAEA immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or IAEA wish to interview pursuant to any aspects of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that such interviews shall occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government, and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections by ( ); To that end, demands that Iraq immediately comply with its obligations: decides that Iraq shall submit to UNMOVIC all outstanding biannual declarations, and decides that any permanent member of the Security Council may recommend to UNMOVIC and IAEA sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, the conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected and receive a report on the results: Decides that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in paragraph 3 above, the Security Council hereby establishes the following revised procedures, notwithstanding prior understandings, to facilitate their work in Iraq: UNMOVIC and IAEA shall determine the personnel on their inspection teams, except that any permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection team with the same rights and protections accorded other members of the team, shall have unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including unrestricted access to presidential sites notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998), shall be provided regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq, including offices for inspections teams in regions outside Baghdad; shall have the right to names of all personnel associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and the associated research, development and production facilities, teams shall be accompanied at their bases by sufficient U.N. security forces to protect them, shall have the right to declare for the purpose of this resolution no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones, and/or ground and air transit corridors, (which shall be enforced by U.N. security forces or by member states;) shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including unmanned reconnaissance vehicles; shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; shall have the right to unrestricted voice and data communications, including encrypted communications; shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspection and to seize and export any equipment, materials, documents taken during inspections and shall have the access to any information that any member is willing to provide; further decides that these procedures shall be binding on Iraq: Decides further that Iraq shall immediately cease, and shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member states taking action pursuant to any Security Council Resolution: Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of the foregoing steps in paragraph 5 and decides that within seven days following such notification, Iraq shall state its acceptance of these steps and the provisions of paragraph 2,3,4 and 6 above; Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information on Iraqi attempts, including since 1998, to acquire prohibited items; Directs the Executive Director of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference with or problems with respect the execution of their mission; Decides that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq to the Council and the failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area; Decides to remain seized of the matter. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 UN awaits N.Korea response on nuclear inspections ***************************************************************** 36 NUCLEAR TEST 'GUINEA PIGS' TO TAKE PROTEST TO LONDON 09:00 - 02 October 2002 Veterans from the Westcountry who claim they were used as guinea pigs during nuclear tests will take part in a demonstration in London. Derick Redfern, from Newquay, will be among an estimated 300 ex-servicemen, their widows and offspring who will stage a two-hour demonstration opposite Downing Street on Thursday. Mr Redfern, vice-chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, said the protest was intended to raise awareness of the chronic illnesses suffered by men and women 50 years after the first British nuclear tests were carried out. He said: "It will be a moving day. We want people to be aware of what happened to us, and we want recognition of all our problems. Why won't the Government help us? All we have ever asked for was our pensions and they won't give them to us." The tests, which were conducted during the 1950s and 1960s, included the detonation of a large number of nuclear devices by Britain and America. Troops from the UK, the Commonwealth and the US were involved and many civilians also allegedly witnessed the nuclear programme. In July, a group of veterans and civilians started legal proceedings against the Ministry of Defence, which denied the allegations that men and women were used as guinea pigs. The MoD said that there was no evidence of excess illness or mortality among the veterans which could be linked to their participation in the test programme. ***************************************************************** 37 Text of a resolution agreed upon Wednesday by President Bush and House leaders: Weapons Chief Expects a Delay ***************************************************************** 38 WAR ON TERROR* Does al-Qaida have 20 suitcase nukes? WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 2 2002 Author claims bin Laden purchased them in '98 from ex-KGB agents for $30 million © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com A new book by an FBI consultant on international terrorism says Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network purchased 20 suitcase nuclear weapons from former KGB agents in 1998 for $30 million. The book,"Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror," by Paul L. Williams, also says this deal was one of at least three in the last decade in which al-Qaida purchased small nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear uranium. Williams says bin Laden's search for nuclear weapons began in 1988 when he hired a team of five nuclear scientists from Turkmenistan. These were former employees at the atomic reactor in Iraq before it was destroyed by Israel, Williams says. The team's project was the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used "to transform a very small amount of material that could be placed in a package smaller than a backpack." "By 1990 bin Laden had hired hundreds of atomic scientists from the former Soviet Union for $2,000 a month ? an amount far greater that their wages in the former Soviet republics," Williams writes. "They worked in a highly sophisticated and well-fortified laboratory in Kandahar, Afghanistan." This work continued throughout the 1990s, the author says. In 1993, according to the book, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a bin Laden agent who turned into a Central Intelligence Agency source, purchased for al-Qaida a cylinder of weapons-grade uranium from a former Sudanese government minister who represented businessmen from South Africa. The purchase price was $1.5 million and the uranium was tested in Cyprus and transported to Afghanistan. Al-Fadl reported that, at the time of this transfer, al-Qaida was already working on a deal for suitcase nukes developed for the KGB. Williams says the Russian Mafia made another mysterious deal with "Afghani Arabs" in search of nuclear weapons in 1996. The Russians who sold the material now live in New York. Then again in 1998, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim was arrested in Munich and charged with acting as an al-Qaida agent to purchase highly enriched uranium from a German laboratory. That same year, according to Williams, bin Laden succeeded in buying the 20 suitcase nukes from Chechen Mafia figures, including former KGB agents. The $30 million deal was partly cash and partly heroin with a street value of $700 million. "After the devices were obtained, they were placed in the hands of Arab nuclear scientists who, federal sources say, 'were probably trained at American universities,'" says Williams. Though the devices were designed only to be operated by Soviet SPETZNAZ personnel, or special forces, al-Qaida scientists came up with a way of hot-wiring the bombs to the bodies of would-be martyrs, according to the book. Suitcase nukes are not really suitcases at all, but suitcase-size nuclear devices. The weapons can be fired from grenade or rocket launchers or detonated by timers. A bomb placed in the center of a metropolitan area would be capable of instantly killing hundreds of thousands and exposing millions of others to lethal radiation. Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America" and the U.S. Congress' top terrorism expert, concurs that bin Laden has already succeeded in purchasing suitcase nukes. Former Russian security chief Alexander Lebed also testified to Congress that 40 nuclear suitcases disappeared from the Russian arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Williams quotes an anonymous federal official as saying: "The question isn't whether bin Laden has nuclear weapons, it's when he will try to use them." In addition to the suitcase nukes, Williams reports that al-Qaida has also obtained chemical weapons from North Korea and Iraq. Williams says the FBI confirmed to him that Saddam Hussein provided bin Laden with a "gift" of anthrax spores. Williams says al-Qaida also includes in its arsenal plague viruses, including ebola and salmonella, from the former Soviet Union and Iraq, samples of botulism biotoxin from the Czech Republic, and sarin from Iraq and North Korea. © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Talks focus on weapons, technology -- The Washington Times October 3, 2002 By Nicholas Kralev THE WASHINGTON TIMES      The first U.S. official to visit North Korea in two years arrives today in Pyongyang to discuss nuclear weapons, missile technology and conventional forces even as key Republican senators are calling for a suspension of support for the two nuclear reactors under construction for the benefit of Pyongyang.      A parallel objective of the visit by James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs, is to gauge the reclusive state's willingness to deal with the United States.      In a letter to Mr. Bush dated Sept. 26, the senators said building the reactors should be conditional on the North's granting U.N. weapons inspectors full access to all of its suspected nuclear sites.      The letter was signed by Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, and Republican Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire and Mike DeWine of Ohio.      The five senators said they "have been skeptical" of the framework since the beginning and "feared it would allow Pyongyang to work clandestinely on its nuclear weapons program at the same time it receives tangible benefits from the agreement."      They also cited a National Intelligence Council report saying that North Korea has already produced "one, possibly two, nuclear weapons."      The administration yesterday tried to lower expectations for Mr. Kelly's visit, although it said it was hoping for a "useful and productive" trip.      "We are not expecting him to come back with an agreement in his pocket, but at the same time we wouldn't have sent him if we didn't think that there is some value in the trip," a State Department official said.      The administration was reluctant to disclose Mr. Kelly's schedule and agenda even in basic details, saying that the officials he would meet and the specific topics he would discuss would not be clear until the last moment because of North Korea's infamous unpredictability.      The State Department said, however, that security issues — such as Pyongyang's frozen nuclear program, its production and exports of missile technology and its huge conventional force — are Washington's top priorities in any meetings with the North Koreans.      Mr. Kelly's visit was supposed to take place earlier this year, but was postponed because of objection by hard-liners in the administration and a fatal naval clash in the Yellow Sea between vessels from North and South Korea in June, for which Pyongyang later issued a rare apology.      The eight-member U.S. delegation was in Seoul yesterday for meetings with South Korean Foreign Minister Choi Sung-hong, two top national security advisers to President Kim Dae-jung, Yim Sung-joon and Lim Dong-won, and other officials.      "We hope special envoy Kelly's visit to North Korea will serve as a launching pad for improving ties between the North and the United States," said Park Sun-Sook, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kim. "We also hope the visit will produce best results to help bring about peace and stability to the Korean Peninsula."      Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright traveled to Pyongyang in October 2000 for talks with President Kim Jong-il.      She won a pledge from the North's leader to stop making missiles if the United States would find rockets to launch its satellites into outer space.      In the final months of the Clinton administration, officials sought to cement such a deal and have President Clinton travel to Pyongyang for a summit.      The effort proved unsuccessful, and Mr. Bush rejected negotiations shortly after coming to office and ordering a review of U.S. policy toward North Korea.      After talks in North Korea, Mr. Kelly plans to fly back to Seoul and then to Tokyo to brief officials on his discussions.      Mr. Kelly will be traveling as a special envoy of Mr. Bush, who in January branded the North, along with Iran and Iraq, as part of "an axis of evil" with intentions to develop weapons of mass destruction.      The State Department said last week that Mr. Kelly's agenda would include North Korea's missile proliferation, the nuclear program that it suspended in a 1994 deal with Washington, its heavy deployment of conventional weapons and troops along the border with South Korea, and human rights issues.      The United States keeps about 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against the North.      North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-ju is expected to take part in the negotiations in Pyongyang.      The North revived stalled reconciliation with South Korea in August and hosted an unprecedented visit by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Sept. 17. All site contents copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Explaining Mr. Putin: Russia's New Nuclear Diplomacy Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Explaining Mr. Putin: Andrew C. Kuchins Since at least 1999, much of the arms control and Russia-watching communities repeatedly cautioned that U.S. plans to develop and deploy national missile defense would bring on the next “great train wreck” in U.S.-Russian relations (to say nothing of the nonproliferation regime). Some Russian analysts in 2000 and 2001 expressed concern that the one-two punch of killing the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and expanding NATO to include the Baltic states would strike such a blow to U.S.-Russian relations that it risked bringing on another Cold War and an arms race as well as a possible security alliance between Moscow and Beijing.1 The Russians repeated over and over the mantra that the ABM Treaty was “the cornerstone of strategic stability” and, if the United States abandoned it, the entire architecture of arms control would unravel. Russian President Vladimir Putin, like his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, warned his American counterparts that U.S. unilateral action on the ABM Treaty would receive an “adequate response” from the Russian side—a warning that U.S. and Russian analysts often interpreted as including a variety of measures, such as withdrawing from the START regime; putting multiple warheads on the Topol-M ballistic missile; deepening strategic cooperation with China, Iran, and perhaps others; and pulling back from cooperative threat reduction efforts to secure Russian weapons and fissile materials. Although some of these predictions may come to pass—in fact, it can be argued that some already have, with Moscow’s withdrawal from START II and its talk of increased cooperation with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea—it is clear that, at least in the short term, the reaction from the Russians has been much more positive than expected. With the ABM Treaty dead and NATO poised to invite the Baltic states to join its next round of expansion, U.S.-Russian relations and Russia’s ties with the West are arguably better than anytime since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin quietly critiqued the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty as a “mistake” rather than a catastrophe. Despite the withdrawal, he made it clear that he was committed to improving U.S.-Russian relations and supporting the counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan. Now one may reasonably assert that U.S.-Russian relations have improved in spite of rather than because of Bush administration policies. The fact remains, however, that the Russians have behaved in a manner contrary to the predictions of most experts in the Russia-watching and arms control communities. As Ricky Ricardo often said in response to Lucy’s vexing antics, “You have a lot of ‘xplaining to do.” The improvement in U.S.-Russian relations stands as one of the major positive developments from the shock to the international system brought on by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last September. It would have raised more than a few eyebrows a year ago to speculate that U.S.-Russian relations would be closer than any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union even after the United States had withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, supported NATO expansion to the Baltic states, established military bases in Central Asia, and sent military advisers to Georgia. September 11 and the decisions of the Putin administration to unconditionally support the United States have had a tremendously catalytic effect toward improving U.S.-Russian relations. But was it just September 11 that so fundamentally altered the strategic environment from Putin’s perspective that his views on nuclear issues underwent a metamorphosis akin to that of biblical Saul on the road to Damascus? Or did Putin recognize that in Russia’s weakened condition there was little Russia could do in response to U.S. offensive and defensive nuclear strategy that would advance Russian interests? Or did Putin want to distract attention from his decision not to cut a deal with the Clinton administration that might have been more favorable to Russian interests, salvaging the ABM Treaty and generating a new START III agreement?2 As is often the case in explaining complex phenomena, no single explanation is sufficient. To understand the response of the Putin administration to the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty we must account for September 11 and changing Russian foreign policy priorities, the post-Cold War structure of the international system, and—to the extent we can—the calculations of Putin in a domestic and foreign political context. Russia Reassesses Its Priorities There is no doubt that September 11 increased Russia’s strategic value to the United States and that U.S. and Russian interests were closely aligned in overthrowing the Taliban and destroying al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. In fact, for years Moscow had been stressing to Washington the dangers of terrorism and Islamic-inspired and -supported separatist groups. At the Ljubljana summit in June 2001 where he first met George W. Bush, Putin proposed greater intelligence sharing on nonproliferation and terrorism and specifically addressed the terrorist threat emanating from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.3 Unconditional Russian support for the United States and the international coalition in Afghanistan through intelligence sharing, arms supplies to the Northern Alliance, and acquiescence to the U.S. use of military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan catalyzed the dramatic U.S.-Russian rapprochement of the fall of 2001 that served as the backdrop for discussions and negotiations on the future of the ABM Treaty and nuclear arms reductions. But the momentum of U.S.-Russian rapprochement predated September 11. The Bush administration realized in the spring of 2001 that to pursue its goals of national missile defense and NATO expansion it needed to somehow bring the Russians on board, in great part to mollify its European allies who feared a breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations.4 Bush made a concerted effort to cast relations between Washington and Moscow in a warm light. At their first meeting in Slovenia, Bush stated, “I said in Poland, and I’ll say it again, Russia is not the enemy of the United States. As a matter of fact, after our meeting today, I’m convinced it can be a strong partner and friend, more so than people could imagine.”5 Putin essentially agreed with these sentiments, but the Russian warmth was more than a function of tactical maneuvering on specific issues. Powerful internal and external changes have contributed to an increasingly pro-West and pro-U.S. orientation in Russian foreign policy that transcends the impact of September 11 and helps us understand the stance Putin has taken on the ABM Treaty and nuclear arms reductions in the past year. Putin’s foremost preoccupation is the economic recovery and modernization of Russia, and he clearly understands that the West is an essential partner for success in this task. Not only will continuous and stable economic growth be essential for his own political future, but Putin knows that only through strengthening Russia’s global economic position will Russia restore its place as a respected major power in the international system. Putin’s outlook for Russia can be likened to that of Deng Xiaoping, who more than 20 years ago concluded that long-term economic recovery was essential for restoring Chinese international influence as well as bringing prosperity to the Chinese people. In fact, Russia’s continued interaction with Iran and Iraq—which on the one hand could be seen as a strategic rebuff to the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty—could also be seen in a purely economic light. Russia makes money from selling arms and civilian nuclear technology to Iran, and it wants to develop oil in Iraq and reclaim its Soviet-era debt from Baghdad. There is also an increasing tendency in Russia to view the West, notably the United States, as a key security partner in Eurasia. This was most vividly demonstrated by the strong coincidence of interests between Russia and the United States in overthrowing the Taliban and destroying the bases and training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It would be an overstatement to say that Russia is unequivocally pleased with the U.S. military presence in Central Asia and now Georgia; Moscow remains sensitive to the possibility that Russia’s influence could be seriously curtailed in this traditional sphere of influence. But as the Russian president has stated on a number of occasions, there are real dangers and threats emanating from Russia’s southern periphery including terrorism, religious extremism, and drug trafficking. Russia recognizes that it shares an interest with the United States in addressing these threats in Central Asia, including Afghanistan and the Caucasus, and it realizes that alone it does not have the resources to guarantee security and stability there. Concomitant with these developments is the view in Moscow that the West, including the United States and NATO, is not a direct threat to Russia. The mentality of the current Russian military leadership was shaped and trained in an environment when the West was the primary threat, and existing documents approved in 2000 in the wake of the war in Kosovo still identify the hegemonic and unbridled power of the United States as a major threat to Russian interests. But increasingly, the formative military experiences of the Russian military leadership will be conflicts in the south, beginning with Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Chechnya. In fact, the Russian government is in the process of drafting a new security doctrine that is expected to be released this fall. Finally, Russia is coming to realize that in traditional power terms it cannot compete with the United States. Many analysts, observers, and politicians who have warned for the last decade that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, expansion of NATO, war in the Balkans, and other possible actions taken by the United States and the West will lead to a new Cold War neglect the essential point that Russia simply lacks the resources to engage in such a pitched battle for any foreseeable future.6 World Bank calculations for 1999 have the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) as more than 20 times the size of that of Russia; even adjusted for purchasing power parity, the U.S. GDP is 9 times that of Russia. For comparison sake, GDP figures for the Soviet Union and the United States in 1982 had the Soviet GDP at about 46 percent of that of the United States.7 Even in its salad days, competing with the United States was beyond the means of the Soviet Union. Soviet efforts to compete with the United States and its NATO allies greatly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet economy, and the Russian leadership is painfully aware of this history. Russians may not be comfortable with the deep power asymmetry of the U.S.-Russian relationship, but Putin and many Russians have reconciled themselves to Russia’s position in the world and no longer harbor superpower illusions. The Russian leadership also understands that this is not an “equal partnership,” as no country really has such a relationship with a global hegemon such as the United States, whose combination of economic and military power is unparalleled in modern times. Rather than trying to balance the power of the United States as espoused in the multipolar world framework associated with former Prime Minister Yevgeniy Primakov, Putin has elected to “bandwagon” with U.S. power. It was a highly effective strategy of former U.S. adversaries Germany and Japan after World War II. Putin hopes that by becoming an accepted member of the Western club, Moscow may have more influence on the definition of the “rules of the game” in ways that will better serve Russian interests. The Impact on Nuclear Strategy This great power asymmetry means that, when it came time for changes to the U.S.-Russian nuclear relationship, in many respects Moscow did not have a choice but to go along with what the Bush administration wanted. For example, Russia’s choice on missile defense was either to withdraw from the ABM Treaty jointly or to watch the United States unilaterally withdraw. Not surprisingly, Putin chose the latter course since the former offered no domestic or foreign political incentives for him. The situation was similar with the strategic nuclear reductions agreement signed in May. The assessments of the U.S. and Russian arms control communities were fairly unanimous in the view that the treaty leaves much to be desired on counting rules, the speed of reductions, and transparency and verification measures. Because it does not call for the destruction of downloaded warheads, the agreement leaves Russia, which is being forced to reduce its deployed arsenal for economic reasons, facing a United States that will be capable of rapidly reconstituting its forces. But Russia faced a Hobson’s choice between a bad treaty or no treaty at all—between accepting a lightweight treaty that allows maximum flexibility for both the United States and Russia or risking the complete demise of the nuclear arms reduction treaty regime. At least this treaty’s minimalism gave Russia some benefits, such as the ability to keep MIRVs in its arsenal. John Holum, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, accurately captured Russia’s position when he recently explained why the Russians agreed to such a minimalist arms reductions treaty: President Putin came to the negotiating table with virtually no leverage. He could not bargain warhead numbers down because it has long been obvious that Russia cannot afford to maintain its existing forces and, in fact, Moscow has for years been pushing for a lower number than the United States would accept. Previously, Putin’s main leverage to extract lower numbers and other concessions had been his ability to withhold amendment of the ABM Treaty, but that card evaporated in December when President Bush gave notice of U.S. withdrawal from that treaty.8 The long-time Russian arms control negotiator, Georgy Mamedov, must have felt a bit like John Maynard Keynes did in World War II negotiating financial terms with the demanding allies in Washington. Keynes dreaded these discussions, and on his last mission he wrote, “May it never fall to my lot [again] to have to persuade anyone to do what I want with so few cards in my hand.”9 Those in the Russian government tasked with defending the arms reduction treaty could muster little enthusiasm. Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov was only slightly disingenuous when he said, “Neither side, neither Russia nor the United States, surrendered any national interests while drafting this agreement…. This agreement is the result of a compromise, like any other international agreement.”10 Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov evaluated the situation a little more honestly in simply concluding, “It was the most that we could get.” 11 Alexei Arbatov, deputy chair of the Duma Defense Committee, agreed with this conclusion, but argued that Russia had weakened its bargaining position by announcing its reductions plans and failing to proceed more rapidly in the development of the Topol-M force, a weapon that he insists is a generation ahead of the Americans’. In Arbatov’s view, if Russia had proceeded more aggressively with the Topol-M, the United States would have likely taken a softer stance both on the ABM Treaty and arms reduction talks.12 Maybe, but it is doubtful. But Russian acquiescence on the ABM Treaty withdrawal and a suboptimal strategic reductions treaty represents more than just a bitter psychological pill that the Russians have been forced to swallow because of a power imbalance. It also reflects Russia’s increasingly pro-Western foreign policy, as discussed above. If the West is not a potential adversary in any foreseeable future, there is no need for Russia to maintain an anachronistic nuclear posture that emphasizes the ability to destroy the United States. In accepting ABM Treaty withdrawal and signing a new arms control agreement, Putin has effectively agreed with the Bush team’s assertion that nuclear issues, offensive and defensive, are now a relatively smaller piece of a broader and deeper U.S.-Russian relationship. A most insightful commentary on why Putin signed the nuclear arms reduction treaty was offered by Izvestia commentator Georgy Bovt: In signing such a treaty, Putin does not simply bow to the necessity of taking into account the new realities and limited financial capabilities of the country but tries to literally push Russia to a new relationship level with the United States and the entire world…. The real threats to Russia these days are coming not from the West but from the South….13 The current U.S.-Russian nuclear relationship is truly a Cold War relic that correlates less and less with other key indices of the international balance of power. Neither does the nuclear relationship correspond with the improvement of bilateral relations that has occurred in fits and starts over the last decade or so. Although the United States and Russia may not be “friends,” as Bush administration officials are fond of saying, we certainly are not enemies. Yet, contradicting the quality of the bilateral relationship at its core is enduring nuclear deterrence.14 Getting beyond deterrence, however, is an admirable but very long-term goal. Despite the Bush administration’s claims, the “balance of terror” that characterized the Cold War has not been eliminated. Both the United States and Russia still insist on having the ability to destroy each other. Rather, the most salient conclusion one can draw from the Russian positions on the ABM Treaty and the signing of the Treaty of Moscow is that the Kremlin is taking a major step toward getting beyond the parity paradigm that has characterized the U.S.-Russian nuclear relationship. The Treaty of Moscow maintains the appearance of parity, which remains important for some of Putin’s domestic political constituencies, but in effect it allows both the Russians and the Americans a great deal of flexibility to pursue their own nuclear strategies. Because of financial constraints, Russia is likely to deploy 1,700 or fewer warheads while the United States remains at the 2,200-warhead upper limit allowed by the treaty. Nuclear parity will therefore no longer exist. Calculations and Miscalculations In reviewing Putin’s policies on nuclear security with the United States since he came to power nearly three years ago, we cannot understand his motivations without taking into account his domestic political context. The decisions Putin has made not to protest the actions of the Bush administration too loudly can be seen in part as an attempt to deflect attention from what, in retrospect, may seem like miscalculations. In the months before the United States announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Putin had reason to believe that a deal could be reached with the Bush administration. At a June 2001 press conference in Ljubljana, he dismissed comments by U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the United States would deploy a national missile defense, saying, But we took due note of the other statements of senior administration officials. Now the secretary of state, for example, said….“The United States is not seeking destruction of the ABM Treaty of 1972, but firmly intends to follow the course for creating effective but limited missile defenses.”… I think this is a very serious statement. The U.S. is not seeking the destruction of the ABM Treaty.15 Putin and other Russian officials thought—as did many in Washington—that a deal was even more likely after September 11 since the United States “needed” the Russians. That the United States made the withdrawal decision after the tide had turned in Afghanistan made the Russians feel used. Coming so quickly on the heels of the dramatic post-September 11 U.S.-Russian rapprochement, it was an embarrassing slap in the face and a disappointment for Putin. Putin’s relatively mild response to U.S. withdrawal can thus be seen as an attempt to distract attention from Washington’s poor treatment of Moscow, which seemed to suggest that Russia was not in fact that important in the post-September 11 world. Perhaps more importantly, had Putin protested loudly, it might have highlighted what must have seemed, in retrospect, like a serious miscalculation: the fact that he had not made a deal with the Clinton administration that would have preserved the ABM Treaty and provided for a more satisfactory and far-reaching—if not deeper-cutting—treaty on nuclear arms reduction. Did Putin really think that he could possibly get a better deal with a new Bush administration if elected? There was a conventional wisdom running in Russian foreign policy elite circles that it would be easier to do business with the so-called more realistic, hardball Republicans than with the more “romantic” Democrats as the Soviets had cut deals with previous Republican administrations from Nixon to Reagan to Bush the elder. But this explanation is based on such a fundamentally flawed assumption that it stretches the imagination to believe Putin fully bought into it. The flaw, of course, is that during those earlier Republican administrations—at least Nixon and Reagan (the most frequently noted analogous cases for Russian punditry)—Washington believed that Soviet international power was, if not on the rise, then on par with the United States. In 1999 and 2000, that was obviously no longer the case. Furthermore, dismissive and negative comments about Russia by candidate Bush and some of his leading advisers in 1999 and 2000 should also have led Putin to conclude that an incoming Republican administration would be more difficult to deal with on arms reduction and the ABM Treaty. A more plausible explanation is that the new and inexperienced Russian president did not feel politically powerful enough to make a bold deal with the Americans in 2000. In an environment of high anti-Americanism in influential Russian circles in the wake of the war in Kosovo, the new president’s popularity was more likely to be enhanced if he was seen as standing tall against the Americans and not budging from defending Russia’s national interest in preserving the “cornerstone of strategic stability,” the ABM Treaty. There was virtually no domestic political upside for Putin to compromise on a modified ABM Treaty that would allow for the United States to pursue a limited national missile defense. Conclusion It has almost become conventional wisdom in analysis of Russian foreign and security policymaking that economic imperatives drive much of the decision-making. Whether the issues are energy development, arms sales, or nuclear policy, a lot of mileage can be gotten from an economically driven analysis. Just as the demands of economic modernization led Mikhail Gorbachev to undertake perestroika in the late 1980s, so much of Putin’s foreign policy program is both motivated and constrained by economic factors. But it would be a serious mistake to conclude that economics are the whole story and that politics do not matter in Russia today. Russia is hardly a perfect democracy, but we should not underestimate the importance of public opinion—and not just that of the elites. Although building good relations with the West, including the United States, remain popularly supported goals in Russia, strengthening those ties at the expense of perceived excessive concessions of Russian national interests is not. For Putin, his high political ratings in Russia constitute essential political capital that he will ration very carefully. On the ABM Treaty, Putin calculated that he was best off letting the United States walk away from the treaty. Reaching a compromise with the Clinton administration or jointly withdrawing with the Bush administration would have been roundly criticized in Russia as kowtowing to the United States. Whether the issue is Kosovo, the ABM Treaty, or now Iraq, Putin can only go so far to accommodate U.S. interests lest he risk, fairly or unfairly, being viewed like Gorbachev, who was pilloried for making many concessions to the United States and getting little in return. But Putin’s post-September 11 orientation has been reasonably well rewarded, and he can make a plausible argument that Russia is now getting from the West as good as it is giving. First, there is the nuclear arms treaty rather than a handshake. There is a new and potentially tighter institutional relationship between Russia and NATO. Russia has been recognized as a market economy by both the European Union and the United States—important steps in the World Trade Organization accession process. And in July, Russia was accepted as a full member of the G-8 beginning in 2006. Nuclear security is not unimportant, but it is not as important as economic recovery and development for Russia. Not only does Putin understand that his personal political future depends on the latter, but so does Russia’s return as an influential major power. NOTES The author thanks Rose Gottemoeller for comments on an earlier draft and Anne O’Donnell for her research and editorial assistance. 1. See, for example, the comments of Sergei Rogov, director of the U.S.A. and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace conference, “Russia—Ten Years After,” June 8, 2001. 2. In his recent book The Russia Hand (Random House, 2002), former Undersecretary of State Strobe Talbott discusses the efforts of President Clinton to convince Putin to reach such a deal. Relevant sections were excerpted in Arms Control Today, June 2002. 3. This proposal was in response to a question from Patrick Tyler of The New York Times. See “President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin Joint Press Conference,” Federal News Service, June 16, 2001. 4. The rhetorical turning point was the address on national missile defense that President Bush delivered at National Defense University on May 1, 2001, when, after several months of very sharp criticism of Russia, the president spoke very warmly about the importance of close ties with Moscow and joint U.S.-Russian interests. 5. Federal News Service, June 16, 2001. 6. President Putin said as much in his press conference at the Slovenia summit in his discussion about the impact of excessive military spending on the Soviet economy. See “Bush and Putin Joint Press Availability,” Federal News Service, June 16, 2001. 7. For more analysis of these figures, see Andrew C. Kuchins, “Russia Rising” in Russia after the Fall, Andrew C. Kuchins, ed. (Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002). 8. John Holum, “Assessing the New U.S.-Russian Pact,” Arms Control Today, June 2002. 9. Robert Skidelsky, “Imbalance of Power,” Foreign Policy, March/April 2002. 10. Angela Charlton, “Russian Defense Minister Insists Arms Control Deal with U.S. Wasn’t a Sellout,” Associated Press, May 15, 2002. 11. Vladimir Isachenkov, “Senior Lawmaker Predicts Swift Ratification of U.S.-Russian Arms Deal in Russian Parliament,” Associated Press, May 21, 2002. 12. Arbatov made this argument on many occasions in 2001 and 2002. See, for example, “Press Conference with Alexei Arbatov, Vice Chairman of the State Duma committee for Defense and Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, Vice President of the Geopolitical Problems Academy on May 2002 Russia-West Summits,” June 28, 2002. 13. Andrei Zolotov, Jr., “Press Puts a Positive Spin on Summit,” The Moscow Times, May 24, 2002. 14. James E. Goodby most eloquently made this argument in his fine book Europe Undivided: The New Logic of Peace in U.S.-Russian Relations, (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1998). 15. “Putin Interview with American Media,” Federal News Service, June 18, 2001. Andrew C. Kuchins is the director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. © 2001 Arms Control Association, 1726 M Street, NW; Washington, DC; 20036; Tel: (202) 463-8270; Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 41 Whitcomb: Iraq talk politically motivated Pantagraph.com - News - 10/03/02 Online NORMAL -- The man who helped train the last United Nations weapons inspectors to work in Iraq questions the timing of U.S. plans to declare war on the Middle Eastern nation. --> Thursday, October 3, 2002 By Kelly Josephsen Pantagraph Staff NORMAL -- The man who helped train the last United Nations weapons inspectors to work in Iraq questions the timing of U.S. plans to declare war on the Middle Eastern nation. Christopher Whitcomb, a 15-year FBI veteran, spoke at Illinois State University on Wednesday. Whitcomb said nobody does anything in Washington, D.C., without a firm grasp of the political fallout, and he suspects declaring war on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is no different. "I find it interesting that they won't decide until after the interim elections (in November)," he said. "It's indicative of there being other issues behind this." Whitcomb said there is nothing new since inspectors were last in Iraq that justifies an attack. "Nothing has changed, so I don't understand why it's imperative. Saddam Hussein is a significant threat. But he has been for many years, so to suddenly make this a priority is suspect." George W. Bush wants to do what is right for America, Whitcomb said he believes, but the president is caught up in the timing of the war on terrorism. "We're in a war posture, but we've run out of war," he said. "I understand that mindset, but I also understand there's a steep downside to it." Whitcomb's top concern is that a U.S. attack on Iraq would worsen unrest in the Middle East. He said it would also deepen the hatred of the United States some people in the region feel. "When someone points a gun at you, you immediately deal with the gun and then the motivation behind the gun. We dealt with the gun, but the motivation is hatred for the United States." Whitcomb wouldn't go so far as to say anti-Americanism was the only thing behind Sept. 11, but he feels people in other countries resent the power of U.S. culture and policy. He fears invading Iraq would be another example of America "trying to do something good but doing something awful." Another concern is leaving someone worse than Hussein in power. Whitcomb said people are "waiting in the wings" should Hussein be deposed, and they are every bit as dangerous. That's not to say the United States should do nothing, however. He said Iraq definitely has anthrax and nerve gas in its weapons stockpile, and the FBI strongly suspects it has botulism too. Nuclear weapons are probably "years away," but Iraq has tried to buy the components for making nuclear warheads. Aside from Iraq, Whitcomb touched on other hot issues: • He doesn't think the U.S. is at risk for another Sept. 11. "Terrorism is hard in this country. Even though we're vulnerable, it's unlikely that we'll suffer on that scale again." • The Department of Homeland Security does more harm than good. "Adding another layer of bureaucracy is not the answer. It won't do anything but make things more complicated." • Osama bin Laden is probably not dead. Whitcomb thinks he escaped across Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, into a no-man's-land ruled by tribal leaders loyal to the Taliban. "When the United States started bombing," he explained, "They didn't guard the backdoor." Copyright © 2002, Pantagraph Publishing Co. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Path to war on Iraq gets murkier | csmonitor.com from the October 03, 2002 edition ACCORD: Hans Blix (l.), chief UN weapons inspector, and Amir Al Sadi, head of the Iraqi delegation, announce an agreement on the inspectors' return to Iraq. DIETHER ENDLICHER/AP As UN inspectors prepare to head for Baghdad in two weeks, the US seeks tougher terms, and consequences. By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – With fresh prospects for a United Nations weapons-inspection team entering Iraq in the next two weeks, the Bush administration's march to war with Saddam Hussein appears to have gotten significantly more complicated. The US has hit a wall of resistance in the UN Security Council to its underlying goal of "regime change" in Iraq. And it now appears ready to back off that goal – at least in its rhetoric – as it works to strengthen the rules under which UN inspectors may enter Iraq. Whether that means the path to confrontation has been seriously obstructed remains to be seen. If UN inspectors enter Iraq without tougher inspection rules, the US could declare the inspections effort a sham – and proceed along a military course. In one sense, the inspections agreement "reduces the US options for dealing with this crisis," says Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. "What it really says is that the idea of working through the UN to seriously deal with Saddam Hussein ... is not on." If the UN goes along with inspections under rules that allow Mr. Hussein to commit "fraud," this would simply assure "that military force will be required to accomplish the goal," he says. Yet for the moment, the emphasis appears to have shifted – in the administration's negotiations both with Congress and the UN – to perhaps giving peace, or at least international diplomacy and other efforts, a chance. "All of us recognize the military option is not the first choice," President Bush said at the White House Tuesday. Returning to the theme of his Sept. 12 speech to the UN General Assembly, in which he called on the UN to enforce its own resolutions and remove the threat in Iraq, Bush said his objective was "putting some calcium" in the backbone of UN dealings with Iraq. A Blix burr in Bush's saddle But Bush's push for tough new rules to govern any inspections plan in Iraq is complicated by this week's deal between Hans Blix, chief of the UN's inspection commission, and Iraqi officials. They agreed that inspectors will return to Iraqi weapons-development sites within two weeks. Mr. Blix, a Swede who directed the International Atomic Energy Agency before taking his current post in 2000, sounded upbeat as he said in Vienna that he had found in the Iraqis "a readiness to accept inspections that did not exist before." He said "our planning remains based upon the [UN] resolutions we have now," although his team is "aware of the new resolution on the table." But that resolution, circulated by the US this weekend, wasn't introduced at the Security Council Tuesday as earlier anticipated. That change of plans, as well as a shifting White House tone, are at least in part attributable to the more complicated gameboard the US is now playing on. "The agreement in Vienna makes it more difficult now for the administration to get a very hardnosed and demanding UN resolution," says Stephen Walt, an international relations expert at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. "The harder we push now, the more it will look to other states like we're unwilling to take 'yes' for an answer." Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday he would be working "over the next two weeks" to secure a new UN resolution. He suggested the US would act to derail any entry of inspectors into Iraq under current UN resolutions – but his timetable also suggests the difficulty the US still faces in getting the kind of resolution it wants, with strict timetables, authorization of armed UN guards with inspection teams, and unfettered access to all sites. The principal fallout will be the complication of the road to authorization of military force in the UN. Fog ahead That may mean the road ahead is murkier, since it could raise again divisions within the administration over the wisdom of seeking international cooperation in dealing with Iraq. "The president has stated very plainly and to the world his policy for dealing with Iraq, but there are people inside his own administration who don't agree with it and who are beavering away at that policy," says Mr. Gaffney. "It wouldn't surprise me to see the disagreement resurfacing...." Others say the agreement will raise the kind of "here we go again" response some US officials and observers like Gaffney are offering. That suggests Bush could face again, even within his team, a dove-hawk tug-of-war. "This will encourage some in the administration and some influential commentators outside it to push for independent action," Professor Walt says, "but it would also increase the political cost of acting unilaterally." Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Australian servicemen remember UK nuclear tests. 3/10/2002. ABC News Online Thursday, October 3, 2002. Posted: 07:20:54 (AEDT) A commemorative service will be held on the Monte Bello islands off Western Australia's northern coast today to mark 50 years since Britain tested its first nuclear bomb in Australia. Some of the ex-servicemen have returned to the islands to lay wreaths for those they say have died from their exposure to the blast. On October 3, 1952, Britain detonated its first nuclear bomb on a frigate anchored amongst the Monte Bello group of islands. It was the first of a series of nuclear blasts in the darkest days of the Cold War, as Britain scrambled to develop a nuclear capacity to match the United States. Thousands of Australian and British servicemen watched the blast from the shores of adjacent islands or from naval vessels moored at sea. They were told to cover their eyes and turn away from the blast. Today, some have returned to remember the historic event. The president of the British Nuclear Test Survivors Association, Ron Knight, says those involved in the tests are only seeking recognition for their service. "They're not looking for compensation, they're looking for compassion and the governments to admit they were wrong, because they knew when we went out there what they were doing," Mr Knight said. [http://www.abc.net.au] © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 44 UK 'should ban nuclear arms' Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Arsenal of arms to ignite a race war - Scientists urge government not to replace Trident Richard Norton-Taylor Thursday October 3, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The government should immediately announce that Britain will abandon nuclear weapons when the Trident missile system reaches the end of its life, a group of eminent scientists say today. A report by the Pugwash group to mark the 50th anniversary of the first British nuclear test - on the island of Montebello, in the Indian ocean off Australia - says such a move would not jeopardise the country's security yet would put pressure on other nuclear states to disarm. Decommissioning of the UK's Trident submarines will start soon after 2020, and a decision on whether or not to replace them would have to be taken by about 2010. The authors of the report say the government should set up a public inquiry into Britain's nuclear weapons policy, an issue they say has been ignored for far too long. The government should justify the number of nuclear warheads it deploys and clarify the circumstances in which they might be used. "Even at the height of the cold war, Britain's nuclear weapons had no influence on the course of events. They deterred no enemy," says the report. "Not only have UK nuclear weapons been of no military value, they are dangerous to possess." Britain is legally committed to nuclear disarmament under the terms of the non proliferation treaty. The report's authors include Sir Joseph Rotblat, a Nobel peace prize laureate who worked on the American Manhattan project during the second world war, and Sebastian Pease and John Finney, two scientists with experience of the government's nuclear research programmes. General Sir Hugh Beach, a former senior military figure, is also among the authors. They write: "Were the UK to show a more determined commitment to nuclear disarmament, especially following a decision not to replace Trident, it could expect to become a leading member, if not the leader, of the group of states actively working for the creation of a nuclear weapon-free world." Britain has already played a leading role in promoting chemical and biological weapons disarmament. The Pugwash report suggests that extending disarmament to nuclear weapons is particularly important now that George Bush's administration is planning to develop "mini nukes" to use against such targets as bunkers. Scientists at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire, could use their experience and skills to verify nuclear arms control agreements and ensure the security of nuclear materials, notably in Russia, rather than design nuclear warheads, it adds. The annual cost of maintaining Britain's nuclear weapons is estimated to be about £2bn. Britain's four Trident submarines are each armed with American missiles with a maximum of 48 warheads. Each of the 100 kiloton Trident warheads is capable of devastating a built-up area 15 to 30 kilometres across. In its 1998 strategic defence review, the government referred to a "sub-strategic" role for Trident but has never explained what this means and what would be the targets. Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has suggested that Trident missiles might be used to attack countries, such as Iraq, which possess chemical and biological weapons. But placing small, low yield, less devastating "usable" nuclear warheads on Trident missiles would be even more dangerous, the authors argue. "Trident in its current form is less provocative to non-nuclear weapon states than justifying UK nuclear weapons afresh by placing new emphasis on sub-strategic nuclear capability," they say. It would be far preferable, the Pugwash authors suggest, "for the UK to oppose apparent US moves to incorporate low yield nuclear weapons into areas of conventional defence planning". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 45 6,000 Nuclear Warheads Eliminated by USEC and TENEX; ( BW)(MD-USEC)(USU) Unique Program Stands at the `Intersection of Global Security, Commerce and The Growing U.S. Partnership with Russia' BETHESDA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2002--USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU) announced today a significant milestone in the effort to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism: the elimination of more than 150 metric tons of Russian weapons-grade uranium--the equivalent of 6,000 nuclear warheads. This warhead material has been transformed into electricity-producing fuel, used to light and power American homes and businesses. Since 1994, USEC and its Russian partner, TENEX, acting as executive agents for the U.S. and Russian governments, have implemented this remarkable program, popularly known as "Megatons to Megawatts"--denoting the conversion of nuclear warheads into electricity. To date, the program has produced enough fuel to power a city the size of Boston for about 230 years. When this program is completed in 2013, 500 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium--equivalent to 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads--will have been converted into enough fuel to power the entire United States for about two years. USEC and TENEX are implementing a government-to-government program on commercial terms, with no need for taxpayer funds. The warhead material is converted to nuclear fuel in Russia. USEC then purchases the fuel to market to its utility customers. To date, USEC purchases from Russia have totaled more than $2.5 billion. The Russian fuel makes up approximately one-half of USEC's annual supply. The other half is produced domestically by USEC at its facility in Paducah, Kentucky. In a joint statement released today, USEC and TENEX called the Megatons to Megawatts program "a unique example of the intersection of global security, commerce and the growing U.S. partnership with Russia. It also reflects the enormous dedication and commitment of numerous people in the U.S. and Russian governments." The complete joint statement accompanies this release. In remarks delivered this morning at a press conference in Washington, DC, USEC President and CEO William H. Timbers said "Each and every day, the Megatons to Megawatts program eliminates more nuclear warhead material. And from this warhead material we derive a valuable resource--clean-burning nuclear fuel, used to light and power our nation from coast to coast." Dr. Vladimir Smirnov, General Director of TENEX, said "We have reached a milestone on the way to a better future. The celebration today would be inconceivable without the constant cooperation of the executive agents, the goodwill they have demonstrated so many times and their constant readiness to seek mutually acceptable solutions." USEC and TENEX also credited the electric utilities that use the Megatons to Megawatts fuel for contributing to a safer, cleaner world--by helping to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and by operating nuclear power plants, which do not emit greenhouse gases that cause air pollution and contribute to global warming. The Megatons to Megawatts program's benefits are far reaching for both countries. While the United States fulfills a critical homeland security objective and receives a supply of power plant fuel, the Russian Federation receives a steady stream of income that supports improvement of nuclear safeguards and environmental clean-up activities. Development of the Megatons to Megawatts program began in the early 1990s, when the U.S. government began discussions with Russia on the concept of converting Russian nuclear warheads into fuel for nuclear power plants. In 1993, the United States and Russia signed an agreement for the dilution of 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium fuel to be purchased by a U.S. executive agent. USEC and TENEX were appointed U.S. and Russian executive agents responsible for implementing the agreement on commercial business terms. In 1994, USEC and TENEX signed the 20-year commercial implementing contract that would bring Russia $8 billion for its conversion of warheads to nuclear fuel purchased by USEC. The first shipment of Megatons to Megawatts fuel was received by USEC on June 23, 1995. For more information, or to download photos and graphics, visit the Megatons to Megawatts section of the USEC website, www.usec.com . USEC Inc., a global energy company, is the world's leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Joint Statement by USEC and TENEX On 6,000 Nuclear Warheads Eliminated Through the Megatons to Megawatts Program October 3, 2002 Washington, DC and Moscow, Russia: USEC and TENEX, executive agents for the Governments of the United States and Russia, are pleased to announce a significant milestone in the implementation of the Megatons to Megawatts program. The program has served as a unique example of the intersection of global security, commerce and the growing U.S. partnership with Russia. It also reflects the enormous dedication and commitment of numerous people in the U.S. and Russian governments. Over the past eight years, Megatons to Megawatts has eliminated weapons-grade uranium equivalent to 6,000 nuclear warheads by converting it to clean-burning fuel for nuclear power plants. By already completing about one-third of our 20-year goal of eliminating 500 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium, this milestone achievement has measurably reduced the threat of nuclear terrorism in the world. The benefits to both the United States and Russia are substantial and will continue to grow. By 2013, at the contract's scheduled conclusion, we will have eliminated 500 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium--the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads. There are many unique and remarkable aspects to the Megatons to Megawatts program, not the least of which is that this multi-billion dollar program is commercially implemented at no expense to the taxpayers. The program also serves as an outstanding example of the benefits of nuclear power. Converting warhead material into fuel for nuclear power plants is a positive use of existing resources that also makes the world safer. The fact that nuclear power does not emit any greenhouse gases associated with global warming demonstrates its importance as a clean energy resource that helps power the world. Those electric utility companies using Megatons to Megawatts fuel can be proud of their contribution. USEC and TENEX look forward to continuing our strong working relationship and to maintaining a high level of cooperation and flexibility as we complete the remaining two-thirds of this remarkable program. --30--CRB/ph* CONTACT: USEC Inc. Charles Yulish, 301/564-3391 or Elizabeth Stuckle, 301/564-3399 ***************************************************************** 46 Journal' blasts plutonium plan Augusta Georgia: Metro:' Web posted Thursday, October 3, 2002 By Eric Williamson [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau AIKEN - One of the nation's most influential newspapers took the Bush administration to task Wednesday for its support of using plutonium as a fuel component in commercial nuclear reactors. "Commercial use of plutonium is a gift to the world's terrorists and rogue states," The Wall Street Journal contended in its lead editorial. The newspaper made specific reference to the mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication plant that is planned at Savannah River Site. As part of a 2000 arms-reduction agreement with Russia, the plant would dismantle nuclear triggers shipped from Colorado, turn the plutonium from the triggers into a purified oxide form, and mix the resulting powder with uranium oxide to form pellets. The pellets would be inserted into metal fuel assemblies to be burned in reactors. The Wall Street Journal is one of the first major U.S. newspapers to characterize the U.S. decision to convert plutonium to fuel as too risky. The program has been promoted as a way to make the world safer. The Journal's opinion writer said the level of transportation required is unacceptable because a small amount of plutonium, if seized, could produce results on par with the destruction at Nagasaki. Todd Kaish, a spokesman for Duke COGEMA Stone &Webster, which is designing the MOX plant, said purifying plutonium for a bomb wouldn't be simple. "It gives the impression plutonium is still relatively easy to separate out," Mr. Kaish said of the editorial. "If you happen to have a $1.5 billion facility lying around, possibly you could make a statement like that." He did not speculate on the possibility that terrorists would make "dirty bombs," which are cheaper, makeshift methods for spreading nuclear materials. The editorial expressed even less confidence in the parallel Russian MOX program because of that country's poor security history. Russia has expressed interest in creating a new generation of breeder reactors, which are plutonium-fueled rather than mostly uranium based. Mal McKibben, representing Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, a group bankrolled by the nuclear industry, said breeder reactors will be needed because of dwindling energy resources, including the depletion of uranium during the next few decades. He called equating the commercialization of plutonium with weapons proliferation "a great leap" and said there are no known thefts of nuclear materials for weapons purposes. Reach Eric Williamson at (803) 279-6895 or eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] . [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 47 Book reveals SRS history Augusta Georgia: Metro: By Eric Williamson [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau Jeffrey M. Allison, the Energy Department's acting manager at Savannah River Site, holds Savannah River Site at 50 as he talks with pupils at New Ellenton Middle School. A copy of the book was given to the school Wednesday. RON COCKERILLE/STAFF NEW ELLENTON - In the preface to a new history book on Savannah River Site, Dr. J.W. Joseph III writes that, until age 6, he thought his father was a barber. His father, in fact, was a nuclear scientist sworn to secrecy by the government. His family often would pick his dad up from the car pool dropoff - a barbershop between Aiken and New Ellenton. "He couldn't talk about it, we couldn't ask him about it. It was a matter of national security and we had an obligation as citizens to help maintain that security," Dr. Joseph writes. "And so my father went from being a barber to a nuclear scientist, and I think in some respect I must have been uncomfortable with the transition, because while I knew what barbers did, I had not a clue about nuclear scientists and the place they worked." These days, Dr. Joseph has a greater perspective on the former nuclear weapons plant and its Cold War significance. He is one of several authors commissioned by the government to communicate that significance in Savannah River Site at 50, a technical history of the Department of Energy installation and its changing missions. The book is highly specific - charting the birth of nuclear physics, the process by which the plant was selected in 1950, the plant's production processes and the post-Cold War focus on cleanup and research. The 720-page text also features a number of human-interest sidebars that make portions accessible to all readers, Dr. Joseph said. The book was officially released Wednesday during a presentation for schoolchildren at New Ellenton Middle School. A hands-up survey of Bonnie McNeil's seventh-grade class for gifted pupils showed that about half have family connections to SRS. Although the site's veil of secrecy has been largely lifted, many pupils had trouble describing exactly what their parents do or grandparents did at the site, just as Dr. Joseph did as a boy. The children were full of answers, most of them correct, about the history of SRS. The class is working on presentations with the theme "rights and responsibilities in history." Jeffrey M. Allison, DOE's acting manager at the site, was on hand to present the book to the school's library. Savannah River Site at 50 is part of a $1 million history project conducted by New South Associates of Stone Mountain, Ga., which bills itself as a "professional cultural resources consulting firm." WANT A COPY? What: Savannah River Site at 50 DESCRIPTION: A 720-page technical history of SRS from 1950-2000, with oral histories and anecdotes, indexed and illustrated with color and black-and-white photos, maps and drawings FORMATS: The book costs $65 and is available through the Government Printing Office, (866) 512-1800, and its Web site: bookstore.gpo.gov; a CD-ROM version is available for free from the DOE's Office of External Affairs, (803) 725-2889 Reach Eric Williamson at (803) 279-6895 or eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] . [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 48 DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Grants Awarded --> energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 3, 2002 [ WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have jointly funded six basic research projects intended to expand our understanding of the health effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. The six three-year projects will be funded for a total of $6.69 million. The research teams will apply similar experimental techniques and research designs to study problems that are relevant to both the DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program and the NASA Space Radiation Health Program. The goal of DOE's program is to help determine human health risks from exposures to low levels of radiation encountered in work and cleanup environments. Similarly, the goal of NASA's program is to pinpoint health risks from radiation exposure to astronauts working in the space environment. DOE's research focuses on very low doses of x-rays and gamma rays, whereas NASA studies low levels of particulate ionizing radiation (alpha particles, protons and high energy heavy ions) that comprise the solar wind and cosmic rays. In both cases, this information is needed to determine adequate and appropriate protective measures for personnel. The projects will be funded by the DOE Office of Science's Office of Biological and Environmental Research and by NASA's Space Radiation Health Program, Office of Biological and Physical Research. A list of the joint DOE/NASA investigators, their institutions, research projects and level of funding follows. Additional information on the individual projects is available from the DOE/NASA press offices or on the World Wide Web at: [http://lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu] + Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. Betsy M. Sutherland "DNA Damage Clusters in Low Level Radiation Responses of Human Cells" $1,698,000 + Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. Terumi Kohwi-Shigematsu "SATB1 Deficiency Accounts for High Susceptibility to Low Dose Radiation" $1,211,724 + Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, Calif. Lora M. Green "Low Dose Gamma Irradiation Potentiates Secondary Exposure to Gamma Rays or Protons in Thyroid Tissue Analogs" $899,968 + Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Wash. Eric J. Ackerman "Effects Of Low Doses of Radiation on DNA Repair" $871,211 + Texas Engineering Experiment Station The Texas A &M University System, College Station, Texas John R. Ford "Low Dose Response of Respiratory Cells in Intact Tissues and Reconstituted Tissue Constructs" $1,050,000 + University of Texas, Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas Michael N. Cornforth "Cytogenetic Response of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation" $957,980 Media Contact: Jeff Sherwood (DOE), 202/586-5806 Dwayne Brown, (NASA), 202/358-1726 Release No. PR-02-208 ***************************************************************** 49 *Nuclear physicist to speak on UFOs* Daily PressDaily Press By LEIGH MUZSLAY/Staff Writer VICTORVILLE ? About 50 years ago, a bargain-bin book set Stanton Friedman on a new career path. As a young nuclear physicist in 1950s, Friedman was ordering books and needed an extra one so he could get free shipping and handling. He saw one on unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, for a $1 ? marked down from $2.95 ? and purchased it. ?I thought, ?Gee, if these things are real, maybe they use nuclear power and that can help our program,? ? Friedman said. Three books, more than 80 published papers and hundreds of lectures later, Friedman was honored Sept. 21 with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Leeds International UFO Conference in England. Tonight at Victor Valley Community College, Friedman, 68, will give an illustrated lecture titled, ?Flying Saucers are Real!? After years of study and visits to 19 document archives, Friedman believes that visits by alien spacecraft have been covered by the government in a kind of ?cosmic Watergate.? He said that in his audiences, about 10 percent of the crowd says they?ve seen a UFO. But, he said that only 10 percent of them ever reported it because they fear not being believed. Since his first lecture in 1967, Friedman has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including ?Larry King Live,? ?Entertainment Tonight,? ?Nightline,? ?Sightings,? ?Unsolved Mysteries,? ?Leeza? and ?Art Bell.? Leigh Muzslay can be reached at leigh_muzslay@link.freedom.com or 951-6234. ***************************************************************** 50 Nuclear expert at OPG retires Thestar.com Thu Oct 3, 2002 - Updated at 04:35 PM Eugene Preston returning to U.S. By John Spears Business reporter The chief nuclear officer of Ontario Power Generation Inc. has retired, as the provincially owned company races to restart its troubled Pickering A generating station. Eugene Preston ? whose base salary was 50 per cent higher than that of the company's chief executive, Ronald Osborne ? retired Tuesday. The retirement was announced internally. A company spokesperson confirmed it yesterday. The company's annual information form says Preston's current employment agreement runs until Jan. 31, 2004. Preston held the title of executive vice-president at Ontario Power Generation (OPG), as well as chief nuclear officer. His salary for 2001 was $1,237,488, according to OPG's annual information form. That far outstripped Osborne's base pay of $825,000. Osborne's total pay was higher, however, because he pulled in a bonus of $752,813, while Preston's bonus was $185,981. Preston was one of a team of seven Americans hired in 1997 to fix the nuclear mess at what was then Ontario Hydro. Part of their solution was to shut down the Pickering A and Bruce A nuclear stations. With Ontario now short of power, plans are afoot to restart both stations. Bruce Power, which has leased the Bruce nuclear facility, wants to get two of four Bruce A reactors going by next spring. Pickering A was supposed to be up and running this summer, but has encountered delays and cost increases. In mid-2000, the cost was estimated at $1.2 billion. But by this year, OPG was saying that the cost of restarting the first reactor alone would be $960 million, with the startup of the three remaining reactors costing between $900 million and $1.2 billion, for a total of as much as $2.1 billion. The generating station was supposed to be in service by this summer. It was not, and the province had trouble keeping the lights on, with the agency responsible for the electric grid pleading with consumers on four separate occasions to conserve power to prevent brownouts or blackouts. The first unit is now due to be back in service early in 2003, with the remaining units following one by one, at intervals of several months each Ontario Auditor-General Erik Peters fingered Pickering A as a source of concern in June, urging the government "to take a very active interest in the cost overruns and delays being experienced in restarting Pickering A." John Earl, spokesperson for OPG, said Preston had previously discussed retirement with Osborne. "He had a three-year contract that he agreed to extend, but he's asked if he can retire, and we were lucky to have him beyond the first three-year contract," Earl said. "He has chosen to take his wife and retire and move back to the U.S." OPG's annual information form says this about Preston's contract: "Unless extended by mutual agreement, the current employment agreement will terminate as of Jan. 31, 2004." Earl said OPG has a "very deep management team" in place at Pickering. Bill Robinson, currently in charge of the Pickering B station will also oversee the Pickering A project, Earl said. No chief nuclear officer has been appointed to take Preston's place. Instead, Earl said, OPG's nuclear division will report directly to chief operating officer Graham Brown, as do its hydro, fossil fuel and green energy divisions. *Legal Notice:*- Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com ***************************************************************** 51 Boeing-Led Team Wins Contract to Advance Nuclear Electric Power For Space ST. LOUIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2002--A team of government, industry and academia, under the leadership of The Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA), has been awarded a NASA contract to meet the challenge of developing nuclear electric power for deep space exploration. Responding to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's call to move forward with a "nuclear propulsion initiative," Boeing and a team consisting of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Glenn Research Center, Honeywell, Swales Aerospace, Auburn University and Texas A will develop power conversion technologies that enable future reactor electric propulsion missions. "Our team's proposal was designed to meet the challenge NASA has made to further our exploration of the planets and deep space," said Terry Murphy, division director for Boeing Energy Systems at Boeing's Rocketdyne Propulsion &Power unit. "This reactor technology would give us a 100-fold increase in power and a 30-fold increase in propulsion efficiency compared to conventional, storable rocket propellants. This means that a mission would take a fraction of the travel time and provide years of scientific discovery." The focus of the Boeing team's approach is on the Brayton Power Conversion System (BPCS) technology as the baseline concept solution. Critical features of the BPCS have been proven in jet aircraft and terrestrial power plants, and integrated system testing, on a reduced scale, has been performed under separate NASA programs. "By leveraging proven technology and an established database, we will be able to avoid the more expensive and higher risk development program elements associated with other power conversion cycles," said Richard Rovang, Boeing program manager and leader of the BPCS team. "Using BPCS technology as a baseline concept will satisfy all design requirements and minimize cost, development time and risk to the program." At the heart of the team are NASA's Glenn Research Center and its strengths in Brayton technology development, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a center of excellence in system and mission design. The Boeing participants on the team come from Rocketdyne, with five decades of experience in rocket propulsion, space electric power and space reactor power applications. They join an industry and university team equally rich in experience in these crucial areas. "Each member of the team provides extensive experience and leading edge facilities to make space reactor electric power a success," Rovang said. The contract calls for an initial study to define a conceptual design and development plan. This will be followed by two one-year options. The result will be minimal development risk and high-yield technology advancement toward operational reactor electric power for space. Rocketdyne Propulsion &Power, with headquarters in Canoga Park, Calif., is a global leader in the design, development and manufacture of rocket propulsion and space and ground power systems. From developing the rocket engines that powered virtually every major U.S. space program to developing the only U.S. operational nuclear reactor to be placed in orbit (SNAP-10A) to providing the electrical power system for the International Space Station, Rocketdyne draws on more than 50 years of experience to meet current and future NASA challenges. Details of Boeing Rocketdyne's heritage in space power can be found at www.BoeingEnergy.com [http://www.BoeingEnergy.com] . A unit of The Boeing Co., Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. With headquarters in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $23 billion business. It provides systems solutions to its global military, government and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in launch services. --30--EZ/np* KT/np CONTACT: The Boeing Co. Dan Beck (Boeing Rocketdyne), 818/586-4572 daniel.c.beck@boeing.com [daniel.c.beck@boeing.com] or Ann Beach, 562/797-4222 ann.m.beach@boeing.com [ann.m.beach@boeing.com] ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************