***************************************************************** 11/08/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.289 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 (Oil for NK) Ship departs, diplomats huddle* 2 U.S. Confident of Iraq Draft Approval 3 MoD's culture of secrecy condemned 4 Report From Basra: Iraq Prepares For War* * 5 U.S., France reach accord on Iraq resolution in U.N. 6 Commentary: All bark and no bite on Iraq* 7 U.N. Prepares to Vote on Iraq Plan 8 NK: Diplomatic dithering 9 'Bush's axis of evil is wild, hyperbolic and silly' 10 Powell: N. Korea Danger to Neighbors 11 Nuclear Dispute Discourages S. Korea 12 Uganda: Atomic Laws Review Due 13 US: President Outlines Priorities 14 Bush Reaffirms Diplomatic Solution to NK Nuclear Crisis 15 US: Timetable: Next steps on Iraq 16 Commentary: N.Kor crisis exposes US risks* 17 US: Bush out-hawked on North Korea? 18 Pyongyang's real nuclear capability 19 Downer: N. Korea nukes must go 20 TEPCO to buy LNG from three Japanese utilities NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh sites for nuclear power plants 22 US: NRC Staff to Hold Meeting with Progress Energy on November 14 To 23 US: Hydrogen ignites at N-plant 24 US: NRC: Indian Point Plant Wall Faulty 25 US: Dose of reality for residents NUCLEAR SAFETY 26 UK: 'Student was at helm of crash sub' 27 US: Dose of reality for residents * 28 Trainees on board grounded nuclear sub 29 Britain Issues Terror Warning 30 British Nuclear Sub Suffers Damage 31 Canadian energy plants warned to beef up security 32 Britain Withdraws 'Dirty Bomb' Warning 33 Japan: Govt holds nuclear disaster drill 34 Blunkett admits terror warning error 35 THE Royal Navy recorded one of its worst accidents in 1990 when 36 THE Royal Navy's 12-strong hunter-killer flotilla is the forward NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 37 NRC Staff to Hold Meeting with DCS on November 12 To Discuss 38 EU: Commission proposes creation of joint undertaking for nuclear wa 39 US: Cleanup at Maxey Flats nearly complete 40 US: Sandia Research With New Reactor Could Mean Significant Savings 41 The Vulnerability of the UK's Nuclear Facilities to Terrorism 42 US: Sanford likely to drop DOE lawsuit 43 US: David Crombie to chair Nuclear Waste Management Organization 44 US: Envirocare foes fear legal lash NUCLEAR WEAPONS 45 No carrots, no sticks for N Korea - 46 Can Blix nix Iraq's tricks? 47 The return of inspectors will solve nothing 48 AU: Fledgling weapons inspectors find they have a lot to learn - 49 Zinn on Iraq conflict: Look at history US DEPT. OF ENERGY 50 Ecology pardons DOE fine 51 FFTF supporters push for injunction 52 Cabinet shows interest in FFTF 53 TRIDEC, Bechtel to help firms work in nuclear industry 54 State forgives Hanford fine 55 Officials try to stop shutdown of reactor 56 Secretary Abraham Expresses Appreciation to Dr. John McTague UC 57 BNFL says no to losing shirt twice on cleanup 58 Jurors summon Lockheed ex-hands - OTHER NUCLEAR 59 Be Careful What You Ask For 60 EDITORIAL: Letting Mr. Jeffords have it 61 Environmentalists Fear GOP Gains ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 (Oil for NK) Ship departs, diplomats huddle* *by Kim Young-sae * November 08, 2002 As a tanker ship loaded with heavy fuel oil pulled out from Singapore's harbor bound for North Korea, senior diplomats from the three countries with the most at stake in the North's nuclear weapons program -- South Korea, the United States and Japan -- begin a series of consultations today in Tokyo. The nuclear issue will be the central topic on the agenda, Seoul said, but the talks may not necessarily result in a decision on a move to pressure the North. In Washington, before the ship and its cargo of 40,000 tons of oil set sail, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher hinted that the ship could be turned around "while it is on the high seas" if necessary. That decision is up to the executive board member countries of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. The board, with U.S., Korean, Japanese and European Union representatives, is scheduled to meet Monday. Comments in Seoul reflected deep unhappiness with what officials here evidently believe will be strong U.S. pressure to stop the shipments. Echoing an expression of hope by another Seoul official earlier that the oil deliveries would go through as planned, a senior official close to the ongoing diplomacy on the nuclear issue questioned yesterday whether it would be practical to order the ship back after it departed. Seoul's Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Tae-shik will meet with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and Japanese Foreign Ministry's director for Asia Pacific affairs, Hitoshi Tanaka, in Tokyo this weekend before the KEDO board meeting. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Kelly said he saw very little support in the U.S. Congress to continue the shipments, which are 80 percent funded by the United States. Even if the oil shipments are halted, the senior Seoul official said, that would not automatically represent a termination of the 1994 Agreed Framework between Washington and Pyeongyang. Pyeongyang officials, backtracking from comments made to Mr. Kelly in Pyeongyang last month, told a private American delegation earlier this week that it still considers the agreement in force, even if it is "hanging by a thread." The weekend meetings in Tokyo and the KEDO board meeting in New York may have taken on more importance after Secretary of State Colin Powell canceled his visit to Seoul for a Community of Democracies meeting, citing Iraq-related duties. ***************************************************************** 2 U.S. Confident of Iraq Draft Approval Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | From the Associated Press [UP] Friday November 8, 2002 1:30 PM UNITED NATIONS (AP) - After eight weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the United States is confident of winning U.N. approval Friday to finally force Saddam Hussein to disarm or face ``serious consequences'' that would almost certainly mean war. The breakthrough came Thursday when France and the United States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq. The Security Council scheduled a vote on the resolution at 10 a.m. EST. President Bush predicted victory and was so confident that he was already talking about the resolution's adoption as a foregone conclusion at a White House news conference on Thursday. ``When this resolution passes, I will be able to say that the United Nations has recognized the threat and now we're going to work together to disarm him,'' Bush said. ``And he must be cooperative in the disarmament.'' U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he's also confident his team will be back in Iraq soon, after a nearly four-year absence. While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying. At the same time, it gives Saddam ``a final opportunity'' to cooperate with weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and reaffirms the country's sovereignty. After distributing the final text to council members Thursday evening, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said there was ``broad support'' for the resolution. ``We are hoping for consensus,'' said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock. Washington and London have been trying to get all 15 Security Council members to approve the resolution to send a united message to Saddam - but Syria is likely to abstain, vote ``no,'' or not vote at all. Syria had asked for voting to be delayed until after an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this weekend. Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov wouldn't say how his government will vote. But a U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed a ``positive'' message during a conversation with Bush on Thursday, assuring him that the resolution would pass without saying whether Russia would vote ``yes'' or abstain. ``We have heard the latest amendments,'' Lavrov said. ``We got explanations that neither of the cosponsors interprets the language as containing automatic use of force.'' In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said on Friday that Russia still has concerns over the U.S. resolution but ``the important thing is that the automatic use of force against Iraq was scrapped.'' The United States had given council members a revised draft on Wednesday, but France and Russia still had problems over possible hidden triggers that could automatically launch an attack on Iraq. In Thursday evening's final revision, just two words were changed to meet French, and hopefully Russian concerns about a possible trigger. In a key provision that would declare Iraq in ``material breach'' of its U.N. obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction. Such a determination, France and Russia feared, would have triggered an attack on Saddam. The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of any Iraqi violations. French President Jacques Chirac's office confirmed the agreement with the United States. French officials said it eliminated ``ambiguities'' that could be used to trigger military action, and kept the Security Council as the key body in dealing with the Iraqi issue. Syria had repeatedly opposed any new resolution, but appeared to shift its position earlier Thursday when Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said Damascus would vote for the resolution if the United States accepted changes on the hidden trigger issue and inspections. After the United States introduced its final draft, however, Mekdad expressed disappointment that not all the changes Syria wanted were included. In Iraq, the government-controlled media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council not to bow to American demands. ``America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation,'' the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday. According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad more time. Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance. Inspectors will have ``unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all sites, including eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 3 MoD's culture of secrecy condemned Scotsman.com Fri 8 Nov 2002 /JOHN ROSS/ LIKE hit-and-run victims the people of Skye were bemused and not a little angry yesterday, their feelings not eased by the fact they did not know they had been hit - or just how close they had come to something far more serious. The first most of the island population knew that a nuclear submarine had struck rocks off Skye was when they heard it on the radio or read the papers. By that time, the perpetrator - HMS Trafalgar - had been and gone, having left the scene of the accident without immediately informing the local authorities. The awakening island learned that 24 hours earlier - at 7:58am on Wednesday to be precise - the sub had been damaged during a military exercise. Where? North-west Skye. But where exactly? "We can?t say," said the Ministry of Defence. Two crew had been slightly injured, the underside of the vessel was said to be damaged - but the men from the MoD assured everyone that the hull and nuclear reactor remained unharmed. But as the news filtered through, the lack of detail about the incident became apparent and anger began to mount. Local coastguards did not know of the incident, nor did lifeboat crews, not even Northern Constabulary or the Highland Council?s emergency services department. Allan Beaton, the local councillor, said he learned of the incident late on Wednesday night from journalists. He in turn was the first to break the news to the local lifeboat men. Mr Beaton said the ministry?s 14-hour delay in relaying information about the accident was "amazing". He added: "No-one knew a thing about it. The lack of openness is a very big problem. We have had a worry on the west coast for many years over large tankers and vessels carrying nuclear cargoes going up and down all the time. "When a nuclear submarine, which has the most sophisticated navigational equipment around, can go to ground it makes people very concerned. "The waters on the west coast are among the cleanest in the British Isles and support large numbers of jobs in the shellfish industry and fish farming. Pollution of these waters could lead to total devastation." Mr Beaton said he, and apparently everyone else on Skye, did not know the extent of the risk caused by the accident: "We don?t even know where it happened. All they [the MoD] will say is that it was off north-west Skye. Well, that is a very large coastline. Just where it happened and how serious it was we just don?t know." On behalf of the islanders, he hoped for more glasnost from the ministry in the future. "We hope the Royal Navy will be open about it now. It?s very important the findings from the investigation are made public. The wonder is that it happened at all, there must be human error." Mr Beaton stressed that he did not necessarily want the military exercises stopped in the area: "As long as they are open and, if an accident happens, people are advised. It may have been a very slight accident but the authorities should have been told straight away. It was a case of ?We have a problem but we don?t need your help?." Skye residents have become accustomed to seeing military vessels in the area. It is frequently used for exercises, with ships and submarines, backed by reconnaissance aircraft, regularly seen off Rudha Hunish in the far north of the island and around the submarine base on the island of Rona. But as they studied the front pages yesterday, the islanders were looking for answers. Ron MacLeod, from Dunvegan, said: "We see the ships and sometimes don?t think anything of it, but when something like this happens it makes you wonder. "They say it was a minor incident but you just never know and I suppose we might never find out." In Uig, where the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry sails to North Uist, they were also concerned. Tracy Batty, a local shopworker, said: "I just heard about this on the news. It?s a disgrace that something like this could happen and people here do not know about it. We are completely in the dark. "I know they like to keep these things secret, but it?s just not on. Surely they should tell the emergency services that something went wrong? We just don?t know how serious this could have been. Does it have to take a very serious accident for them to tell us? By that time it could be too late." A local couple, who did not wish to be named, also learned of the incident via the media: "I?m not too excited about it," said the man. "It is inevitable and we just have to live with it." However, his wife said: "We don?t know what it had on board. It could have been a highly radioactive substance and if there had been a major crash, it would be worrying." Bill Fulton, chairman of Highland Council?s protective services committee, was alarmed that emergency services had not been told. "People should be made aware and they can make up their own minds about what to do," he said. Brian Downie, the council?s emergency planning officer, agreed: "I would have been much happier if the authorities and blue light services had been made aware of this incident. It?s easier to respond reasonably quickly if you are forewarned." ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 4 Report From Basra: Iraq Prepares For War* * By JEREMY SCAHILL | IraqJournal.org 11/07/2002 Iraqi troops carry coffins containing remains of soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war in Basra, Iraq, Tuesday Oct. 29, 2002. The war ended in 1988. - ALI HAIDER | AP Photo * BASRA?Iraq's southern oil-belt is preparing for what many here see as an inevitable massive attack by Washington. Small military bunkers, equipped with sandbags, barbed wire fences and machine guns line the long stretch of highway heading north out of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. Army soldiers stand guard on large concrete walls, stretching around military garrisons. * For hundreds of years, Basra was called the Venice of the East. Sinbad the Sailor's adventures were launched from its shores. The city is connected by a web of footbridges and canals that empty into the Shatt Al Arab, a focal point of the Arab sea trade for more than 1300 years. It endured both Ottoman and British occupation and, more recently, 20 years of war. From morning until night, the waterfront is crowded with the hustle and bustle befitting the country's main port. Fishermen and ships line the boardwalk that houses 101 towering, individual bronze statues, each representing an Iraqi Army soldier killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Each of the figures is unique and contains intricate details on the faces of each of the men. They stretch down the boardwalk for a mile, all of them with their arms raised, fingers pointing accusingly toward the Iranian border, some 6 miles to the east. Over the last few months, amid threats from Washington, the soldiers have been given a new coat of black paint. Young boys sit at the bases of the statues, selling cigarettes and imitation Pepsi and 7-up. Old men play dominoes on cardboard boxes, as ships move along the canal. But the statues serve as a haunting reminder that Basra has long ceased to be thought of as anyone's Venice. The city's strategic location at the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab, one of the most ancient and busiest trade routes of the Middle East, has doomed the city. Basra has been one of the most fought-over areas in the world. It's a stone's throw from both Iran and Kuwait and suffered tremendously during both the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Many buildings along the boardwalk remain riddled with bullet-holes. Though war has not been declared on Iraq, Washington's warplanes regularly bomb in and around the city under the guise of so-called no-fly zones. Officially, the Bush administration says the planes are there to protect the Shi'ite Muslims from the forces of the central government. But no one in Basra says the missiles make them feel safer. These zones have no basis in international law and were never authorized by any body of the United Nations. Baghdad says that more than 1,300 civilians have been killed in these attacks. Throughout Basra, people are paying very close attention to what is happening at the UN Security Council in New York. Many a street corner houses a gathering of older men huddled around transistor radios. In addition to the state radio broadcasts, they also get BBC, Radio Monte Carlo and other Arabic language foreign broadcasts. This is certainly true throughout Iraq as well, but in Basra people know that they are likely to be living in a major frontline of any "new" war. This, coupled with the regular sound of air-raid sirens and bombings, has caused many residents to have nervous breakdowns. Several people we spoke with, particularly women, reported having severe emotional and psychological problems sparked by the sound of American and British jets. While people are generally well informed on the current developments and haggling at the UN, no one rules out a surprise attack from Washington. Throughout Iraq, Disaster Preparedness Teams are training to respond to a US attack. An Iraqi who is working on these teams in the south told Iraqjournal.org that weekly meetings are being held and "pick-up" routes are being plotted to gather members of the disaster teams in various areas in the event of bombings. "Disseminators" from the teams are holding workshops in factories, schools and union halls to educate people on such things as how to cope with a total absence of clean drinking water in the event that water treatment plants are targeted as they were in 1991. Separate from this, several people said that courses are also being conducted in "civil-defense" to prepare for the possibility of a ground invasion. Indeed, in several rural locations outside of Basra, we saw what appeared to be armed civilian militias. Men riding on trucks or gathered on roadsides, dressed in traditional Iraqi garments carrying automatic weapons. Already, most Iraqi households have guns--and not just pistols. Several non-military people have boasted to us that they have M-16s or other machine guns in their homes. This would seem to contradict the Bush administration's assertion that the Iraqi government sees its own population as a great threat. The weapons are certainly in circulation for an uprising. But if the government viewed this as a danger to its stability, it could easily ban the possession of guns by private citizens. What is clear is that the government knows well that regardless of what people think of Saddam Hussein, they intend to fight a foreign occupier. What is also significant is that these armed militias are in the south of Iraq, one of the areas touted by the Bush administration as a potential hotbed of anti-government activity in the event of a US attack. In 1991, after the Gulf War, Shi'ite guerrillas in the south heeded "Big Bush's" call for the Iraqis to take matters into their own hands. For days, a bloody rebellion ensued, resulting in the execution and torture of members of the Ba'ath Party and other people considered to be "collaborators." Despite numerous appeals for assistance from the Bush administration, Norman Schwartzkopft's forces stood idly by as Baghdad's forces mercilessly crushed the rebellion. In fact, at the time, Washington even lifted its ban on over-flights, allowing Iraqi attack helicopters to suppress the rebellion. This history is well remembered in the south. Add to that the bloody toll the "no-fly zone" attacks and sanctions have taken on the predominantly Shi'ite population and one can see Bush's dreams of a Northern Alliance type force floating slowly down the banks of the Shatt Al-Arab. Another factor that cannot be ignored when gauging potential support for the US in the south is the unimaginable suffering caused here by the sanctions. Basra and its surrounding area were the epicenter of Washington's use of depleted uranium munitions and the hospitals are like virtual morgues for children with leukemia and other treatable diseases. In the words of one doctor in Basra, rampant congenital deformities (birth defects) have parents "no longer asking the sex of their children, but whether or not they will have a healthy child or a child with a malformation." While Basra is a poor devastated area, the people are proud and dignified. Even in the poorest slums, people speak of defending their homes against American invaders. In some cases, these are rat-infested hovels with no plumbing, running water or electricity. People are scared and anxious. The military and militias are being prepared and once again families brace for their children to be caught in the middle, as they have been in Basra so many times through the centuries. Sadly, one man told us that he doesn't need to talk to his children about what may lie ahead, saying, "War is like daily bread to them." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Jeremy Scahill is an independent journalist, who reports for the nationally syndicated Radio and TV show Democracy Now! He is currently based in Baghdad, Iraq, where he and filmmaker Jacquie Soohen are coordinating Iraqjournal.org, the only Web site providing regular independent reporting from the ground in Baghdad./ /©Santa Fe New Mexican 2002/ ***************************************************************** 5 U.S., France reach accord on Iraq resolution in U.N. Vote in Security Council likely today; Bush voices confidence in passage From Wire Reports Originally published November 8, 2002 UNITED NATIONS - The United States and France reached agreement yesterday on a new Security Council resolution on Iraq, removing a key hurdle to passage of the U.S.-drafted plan for tough new weapons inspections. With a vote on the resolution likely to take place this morning, President Bush expressed confidence in its passage, calling Saddam Hussein "a real threat" and declaring that "it's now time for the world to come together and disarm him." Bush said yesterday that he did not want war with Iraq but that the new resolution would not handcuff the United States from attacking if necessary to destroy Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "I hope we don't have war. I hope this can be done peacefully," Bush said. But, he added, "We will do what it takes militarily to succeed. This time we mean it." According to French diplomats, the United States agreed to change wording in a key provision that would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations. The change addresses concerns by France, Russia, Syria and others that the original wording would have let the United States determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction. Such a determination, France and Russia feared, would have triggered an attack on Iraq. China's deputy U.N. ambassador, Zhang Yishan, the current Security Council president, said the 15 members were "getting closer" to agreement and if negotiations continue on their current track "the sunlight of unity is about to come." The world body's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said he's confident his team will be back in Iraq soon, after a nearly four-year absence, and said a resolution supported by all 15 council members "strengthens our hand." Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said earlier that a vote was possible today if the United States and Britain come up with several concessions. "There are still some problems," he said. Syria has repeatedly opposed any new resolution, but appeared to shift its position yesterday. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa discussed Iraq with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin yesterday and said afterward that any new resolution should not provide the least possibility of using force against Iraq, according to the official Syrian news agency. Syria's deputy U.N. ambassador, Fayssal Mekdad, added that "on this issue all Arab countries are united." He said he proposed several changes to the U.S. text, on the hidden trigger issue and inspections. "Once they are taken on board," Mekdad said, "we have every confidence that we can join the consensus." Whether the United States and its cosponsor, Britain, can agree to Syria's proposals remains to be seen. But at the White House, Bush was clearly prepared for victory. Twice during a wide-ranging news conference, the president referred to passage as an issue of "when," rather than "if." "When this resolution passes, I will be able to say that the United Nations has recognized the threat and now we're going to work together to disarm him," Bush said. "And he must be cooperative in the disarmament." Bush said he had not decided how long he was prepared to wait to see whether inspections worked. He brushed aside warnings from intelligence officials that an attack on Iraq could incite terrorists and convince Hussein to use chemical and biological weapons against the invading forces or Israel. "That's like saying we should not go after al-Qaida because we might irritate somebody, and that would create a danger to Americans," Bush said. "There's a risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned." In Iraq, the government-controlled media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council not to bow to American demands. "America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation," the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said yesterday. "The Security Council should not give [the Americans] a pretext and a cover for the coming aggression." According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms. Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to begin work and must report to the Security Council 60 days later on Iraq's performance. In the meantime, any Iraqi obstructions or noncompliance would be reported immediately to the council for assessment. At the same time, the resolution offers Iraq the possibility of lifting a decade of crippling sanctions if it complies fully with its obligations. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 6 Commentary: All bark and no bite on Iraq* United Press International By Eli J. Lake UPI State Department Correspondent Published 11/7/2002 10:01 PM WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- After nearly two months of haggling over the wording of a resolution to disarm Iraq, the United Nations is poised to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to give up his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program. In fact the latest draft of the resolution, expected to be voted on Friday, specifically states that the resolution is aimed at giving the Iraqi leader "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council." The draft states that Iraq is in "material breach" (a term that has presaged military action in the past) of prior U.N. resolutions, even those not dealing with the concealment of his weapons programs. And it states there will be "serious consequences" this time around for non-compliance with the inspectors the Security Council will send to tally those weapons he must forswear. The State Department would like you to believe that this represents a victory for the president. And the president would like you to believe his diplomats have crafted a "new, tough resolution." He said Thursday at a news conference, he was pleased with it, "otherwise, we wouldn't have put it down." After all, there are sound tactical reasons for obtaining the United Nation's blessing for military action against Iraq's government. A U.N. resolution will likely make it easier to convince other countries to share the costs for not only ending Saddam's 23-year reign of domestic terror, but also the burdens of rebuilding his country once he's gone. Furthermore, the United Nations is helpful in cajoling and jawboning other aggressors on the world stage to abide by their agreements and respect the sovereignty of their neighbors. If the United States, so the argument goes, ignores this cherished principal, then what is to stop Burkina Faso from doing likewise? All of this would stand up if the resolution the State Department negotiated reflected the aims of the president's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations, the actual policy of the U.S. government. In plain English he said, "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material." He did not say, "If the Iraqi regime wishes to avoid another meeting of the U.N. Security Council." But for all of the diplomatic bluster of "material breach" and "serious consequences," the big stick lurking behind the resolution circulating in Turtle Bay is just another Security Council get-together. The president also did not stop at weapons inspections. He added that Saddam must end his persecution of his civilian population; stop any and all support for international terrorism; and return prisoners of war to Kuwait along with the documents and property he stole in his invasion of that country in 1990, again, if "the Iraqi regime wishes peace." The draft resolution now makes only fleeting reference to resolutions referencing those conditions in its preamble. It is entirely unclear whether Saddam's failure to comply with these demands will carry any consequences at all. On the issue of weapons inspections, the U.N. resolution says any obstruction of the inspectors, false statements or omissions of fact would be grounds for the Security Council to convene immediately to "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to restore international peace and security." However there is a catch. The person who will be in charge of detecting Iraqi treachery is a man who has been duped by the Iraqis before. Hans Blix, the Swedish weapons inspector was head of the International Atomic Energy Agency prior to 1991 when that body reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program. After the first Gulf War, the United States and subsequent weapons inspectors found ample evidence that Blix was wrong. In a recent Washington Times editorial, Sweden's former deputy prime minister, Per Ahlmark called his former colleague "weak and easily fooled. I can think of few European officials less suitable for a showdown with Saddam." No wonder Blix was summoned last week to Washington to meet with Bush, and before that with the president's senior foreign policy advisers. When State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was asked directly about the Bush administration's faith in Blix to spot treachery on Wednesday, he did not say what kinds of assurances Blix made to the United States that he would not allow the kind of obstruction for which Saddam has been known to place in the path of inspectors in the past. A senior State Department official later said, "We've made clear to him his job is not to decide whether there is peace or war." But that is precisely what Blix's job is. And on this score he has been willing so far to give the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. Only a week and a half after the president's Nov. 12 speech to the United Nations, Blix was in negotiations with the Iraqis on returning inspectors on the terms of the old inspections regime, a set of ground rules prohibiting checks of Saddam's presidential palaces and with private interviews with Iraqi officials working on the programs Saddam has tried for so long to conceal. Should Saddam again figure out a way to stay in power, the real losers will be the Iraqi people. There is some evidence now that Iraqis themselves are becoming emboldened. Last month, Baghdadis put together two impromptu demonstrations against the regime, asking about the fate of relatives, either dead or in jail, after Saddam's amnesty order. These brave people will surely be crushed if Saddam is allowed to hang on. And ultimately Secretary of State Colin Powell and the president should ask themselves whether all this diplomacy has helped or hindered their aspirations. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 7 U.N. Prepares to Vote on Iraq Plan Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | From the Associated Press Friday November 8, 2002 1:30 PM UNITED NATIONS (AP) - After eight weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the United States is confident of winning U.N. approval Friday to finally force Saddam Hussein to disarm or face ``serious consequences'' that would almost certainly mean war. The breakthrough came Thursday when France and the United States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq. The Security Council scheduled a vote on the resolution at 10 a.m. EST. President Bush predicted victory and was so confident that he was already talking about the resolution's adoption as a foregone conclusion at a White House news conference on Thursday. ``When this resolution passes, I will be able to say that the United Nations has recognized the threat and now we're going to work together to disarm him,'' Bush said. ``And he must be cooperative in the disarmament.'' U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he's also confident his team will be back in Iraq soon, after a nearly four-year absence. While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying. At the same time, it gives Saddam ``a final opportunity'' to cooperate with weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and reaffirms the country's sovereignty. After distributing the final text to council members Thursday evening, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said there was ``broad support'' for the resolution. ``We are hoping for consensus,'' said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock. Washington and London have been trying to get all 15 Security Council members to approve the resolution to send a united message to Saddam - but Syria is likely to abstain, vote ``no,'' or not vote at all. Syria had asked for voting to be delayed until after an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this weekend. Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov wouldn't say how his government will vote. But a U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed a ``positive'' message during a conversation with Bush on Thursday, assuring him that the resolution would pass without saying whether Russia would vote ``yes'' or abstain. ``We have heard the latest amendments,'' Lavrov said. ``We got explanations that neither of the cosponsors interprets the language as containing automatic use of force.'' In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said on Friday that Russia still has concerns over the U.S. resolution but ``the important thing is that the automatic use of force against Iraq was scrapped.'' The United States had given council members a revised draft on Wednesday, but France and Russia still had problems over possible hidden triggers that could automatically launch an attack on Iraq. In Thursday evening's final revision, just two words were changed to meet French, and hopefully Russian concerns about a possible trigger. In a key provision that would declare Iraq in ``material breach'' of its U.N. obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction. Such a determination, France and Russia feared, would have triggered an attack on Saddam. The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of any Iraqi violations. French President Jacques Chirac's office confirmed the agreement with the United States. French officials said it eliminated ``ambiguities'' that could be used to trigger military action, and kept the Security Council as the key body in dealing with the Iraqi issue. Syria had repeatedly opposed any new resolution, but appeared to shift its position earlier Thursday when Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said Damascus would vote for the resolution if the United States accepted changes on the hidden trigger issue and inspections. After the United States introduced its final draft, however, Mekdad expressed disappointment that not all the changes Syria wanted were included. In Iraq, the government-controlled media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council not to bow to American demands. ``America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation,'' the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday. According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad more time. Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance. Inspectors will have ``unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all sites, including eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 8 NK: Diplomatic dithering United States and allies can no longer pretend North Korea won't get nuclear weapons By Henry Sokolski November 3, 2002 With North Korea's angry admission that it had been cheating on its pledges not to make nuclear weapons, the bitter fruit of nearly a decade of U.S. diplomatic dithering came due. President Bush must come clean with the American public on what went wrong by explaining what truly heady trouble is ahead if North Korea continues to build. Certainly, North Korea with its enrichment program is now even more able and anxious to deal. Four times burnt - on Pyongyang's l985 nuclear nonproliferation pledge to open up to nuclear inspections by l987; its l992 commitment to Seoul not to build a plutonium chemical separation plant; its International Atomic Energy Agency agreement to be open to full inspections in l992; and its l994 pledge not to obtain or store nuclear weapons - we need to listen but should offer nothing. Paying extortion - as we did for these pledges, by endorsing Pyongyang's safeguarded nuclear program in l985; withdrawing our tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in l991; and offering Pyongyang advanced U.S.-designed reactors, diplomatic normalization, and hundreds of millions of dollars of aid in l994 and l998 - may well have been diplomatically expedient. But, whenever you rush into blackmail, do it too long, glorify it or willfully ignore that you are failing to fend off what you are paying to prevent, then it becomes a terrible and all-too-addictive mistake. This, then, leads to the next imperative - to clarify the costs of further dithering. North Korea is believed already to have one or two bombs. It can chemically strip out enough plutonium on a one-time basis from its known reserves of spent fuel to produce another six. In addition, it can produce a bomb's worth of plutonium a year from its one completed reactor. Finally, 12 months from now, it is likely to complete an enrichment plant capable of producing six bombs worth of weapons uranium a year. Mate these numbers with North Korea's missile arsenal, and in 36 months you have an armory of over 20 nuclear missiles capable of targeting all of Japan (including U.S. troops in Okinawa), a good part of the Pacific and military facilities in the U.S. territory of Guam. This is bad for the United States, the region and the world. It means that our ability to defend our friends and interests in one of the globe's richest regions will increasingly come within the crosshairs of a hostile nuclear sniper. Nor should we assume that South Korea, which has already tried to go nuclear once, or Japan, which sits on thousands of bombs' worth of plutonium, will sit by idly if we do. China, moreover, has a reserve of nearly 2,000 bombs' worth of weapons material. Unlike proliferation in the Middle East, nuclear rivalries here will be measured in weapons numbers that could easily keep the United States (and Russia) from reducing their own massive stockpiles. This suggests that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is not just another multilateral charade. Certainly if we want to avoid further nuclear threats, theft and terrorism, we actually need to concede that Amy Carter was right and, for the first time, actually work to enforce the treaty. This not only means that the United States and its allies must penalize Saddam for deceiving inspectors and trying to get the bomb but make North Korea pay a price for its nuclear cheating. We certainly should not fool ourselves again into thinking that further bribes or continuing our current energy payoffs to Pyongyang will earn anything but its contempt and more cheating. Instead, the United States and like-minded nations should go to the United Nations and insist that North Korea quickly open up and disarm. If they refuse, we must engage our friends to isolate and contain North Korea until the regime and the nuclear threat it presents goes the way of the Soviet Empire. Henry Sokolski is director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., and author of "Best of Intentions: America's Campaign Against Strategic Weapons Proliferation." The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 'Bush's axis of evil is wild, hyperbolic and silly' Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | David Fickling Friday November 8, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] "Nuclear proliferation still poses the single greatest threat to mankind," says Richard Butler, sipping mineral water in a pavement cafe near his home in Sydney. Much of Butler's adult life has been dedicated to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, and since September 11 he has been wheeled out as a supporter of military action on Iraq. This has only added to his reputation - among left-wing critics, fellow weapons inspectors, and of course the Iraqi regime - as a stooge of US intelligence. When you meet him, though, he doesn't seem much of a hawk. "Whatever we do must be done for the right reasons," he says. "If the reasons are phoney or tendentious that will be found out, and I think there's been an inadequate answer to the question of 'Why now?'. I believe the case against Saddam Hussein is utterly proven. The man should be tried for crimes against humanity. But what I'm unconvinced by is the question of why it was inconvenient to deal with the problem two or three years ago and now, today, it's imperative. What actually is motivating that?" When it comes to the question of a UN-sponsored war on Iraq he becomes oddly reticent. He prefers to talk about the security council making it clear that "the game is up", rather than alluding directly to the threat of war. His view is that if diplomacy does not work with Saddam, we're going to be in big trouble. "I think that if Saddam felt that he was going down, his desperate action would be to attack Israel to try to bring it into the war and galvanise all Arabs against the west," he says. "And I have no doubt that if Israel looked like being seriously harmed, they would use their nuclear weapons. That would mean we'd crossed the nuclear line which we've striven for 50 years never to cross again, and the world would be changed intolerably. If the state of Israel uses those weapons, it will be the last thing it will ever do." The claims that he was a stooge, he dismisses as a smokescreen. Unscom was compromised in many ways, he says - there were lots of spies. "I had meetings with my senior staff knowing that there were people in my office writing down every word I said, which later on that day would be given to their embassy. The Iraqis often knew we were coming to inspect the places we did, because we were penetrated by spies." He says that he depended on intelligence from up to 40 countries to break through the "wall of deception" put up by the Iraqis. "I have no regrets whatsoever about our use of intelligence," he says. "Where do weapons experts come from? They come from defence and intelligence. The very idea that you could do something as hard-edged and as tough as that job without experts in weapons and intelligence is just a joke." He is particularly impatient of claims that he is close to the current US administration. Most of Washington's hawks, he says, refuse to talk to him. A public discussion with Pentagon policy adviser Richard Perle earlier this year was "not exactly a shouting match, but certainly a very robust exhange of views". Such disagreements become understandable when you hear his criticisms of American foreign policy. He describes Bush's "axis of evil" speech as "wild and hyperbolic and silly". At a Sydney university seminar last month, he said that US foreign policy ideas were fuelled by Hollywood storylines, and that the country's nuclear weapons were "just as much of a problem as those of Iraq". Asked his views on national missile defence - which would provide America with a "son of Star Wars" shield against ballistic missile attacks - he twice describes the policy as a "disgrace" before correcting himself. "It's an illusion," he says. "It will not provide security, because whether the Americans say so or not, it clearly rests on a decision by them to rely on nuclear weapons in perpetuity. "That utterly contradicts the solemn promise they gave the world to progressively eliminate nuclear weapons. Provided these weapons continue to remain in the hands of the US, Britain, Russia, China and France, it is folly to think that other states can be successfully told, 'These weapons are necessary for our security but not for yours.' "It's fundamentally unfair. How can countries with nuclear weapons go somewhere like Tehran and say: 'You can't acquire a nuclear bomb of your own.'? It just won't wash. And the inevitable consequence of it will be more proliferation." He is putting his faith in the international community. While Islamists and the American right routinely run down the UN, he is adamant that its endorsement would make the difference between an illegal American invasion of Iraq and a legitimate military enforcement of international resolutions. "I could imagine Arab newspapers writing somewhat justifiably cynical articles about the sort of arm-twisting that's going on in the security council to get that resolution, and there will be some people in the Arab world who will say this has all been a concocted deal. But then there are people in America who think the government is controlled by people in black helicopters - you can't be led around by what these people think. If it isn't done, then the authority of the security council will be absolutely shredded." Useful links Arab Gateway: Iraq briefing [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/iraq.htm] Middle East Daily [http://www.middleeastdaily.com/] Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq [http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/] Iraq sanctions - UN security council [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm] UN special commission on Iraq [http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/index.html] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 10 Powell: N. Korea Danger to Neighbors Las Vegas SUN November 07, 2002 By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- Secretary of State Colin Powell, ruling out a dialogue with North Korea, is defending the decisions of Japan and South Korea to maintain contacts with Pyongyang because both have "greater concern" about the North's military activities than the United States. Powell spoke in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press as South Korea was holding economic discussions with North Korea in Pyongyang. The discussions followed meetings between Japanese and North Korean officials last week in Malaysia. The United States, he said, has no plans for discussions with North Korea beyond the two days of talks conducted a month ago in Pyongyang, at which U.S. officials were told that a uranium enrichment project was under way as part of a secret nuclear weapons development program. In addition to South Korea and Japan, Powell said China and Russia also are engaged with the North. "All of those nations should have a greater concern about this than we do," Powell said. "They are the neighbors. They are within range." The U.S. position, shared by South Korea and Japan, is that economic cooperation with the North is not possible until Pyongyang dismantles its nuclear program. Powell said the Bush administration was handling North Korea and Iraq in different ways because the United States does not have a "cookie-cutter" foreign policy. A military showdown with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on hidden chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program could still be months away, Powell said, as United Nations weapons inspectors determine whether Iraq is disarming. "Iraq has been a problem for years, and it has finally come to a head," he said. Powell said a comprehensive system must also be put in place to ensure that North Korea abides by any promise to dismantle its weapons. "To verify you have to be able to go, look, see, touch and examine," Powell said. He added that verification would not only apply to the North's dismantling of its nuclear program but also to "other elements of their national strategy with which we have had problems - proliferation activities, removing troops from the DMZ and other things." Powell's mention of proliferation refers to Pyongyang's persistent efforts to export medium- and long-range missiles to the Middle East and other regions. The Bush administration considers these sales to be destabilizing. Powell said the U.S. concern is not only with the North's uranium bomb program but also its plutonium supply, now under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision. If the North were to expel the IAEA, Powell said it would be just a matter of months before Pyongyang would have the ability to weaponize the material. The CIA believes the North already has at least one plutonium-based bomb in its arsenal. Powell suggested that the main problem with Pyongyang is its uranium enrichment program, carried out in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States. "Until that violation has been corrected, it's difficult to see a way forward," he said. "The suggestion that somehow the rest of the world should come forward now and start to offer things to North Korea because they violated their obligations is not something we can accept." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 Nuclear Dispute Discourages S. Korea Las Vegas SUN November 08, 2002 By PAUL SHIN ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea- Taken aback by North Korea's nuclear weapons program, South Korea on Friday rejected a request by the communist country to expand joint economic projects, South Korean pool reports said. Delegates of the two Koreas met in the North's capital, Pyongyang, for a second straight day Friday to discuss economic cooperation, but the discussion was overshadowed by the North's nuclear issue. Since North Korea admitted to having a secret nuclear weapons program in early October, the United States has been trying to garner international support to pressure Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions. A five-member South Korean delegation, led by Vice Finance and Economy Minister Yoon Jin-sik, refused to expand inter-Korean economic cooperation beyond what has already been agreed on, said pool reports. The two-day meeting in Pyongyang, the third of its kind since 2000, was supposed to review ongoing inter-Korean projects and set new goals. But South Korea made it clear that it can't proceed unless the North promptly addresses international concerns about its nuclear program, they said. South Korea, the reports said, turned down repeated requests by North Korea to start new joint projects in the fields of fishing and electricity. North Korea suffers an acute power shortage. North Korea, the reports said, avoided a direct answer to the South Korean demand for scrapping its nuclear weapons program, saying only that it was "seriously contemplating" the issue. Key joint economic projects include a cross-border railway under construction and an industrial park to be built on the North Korean side of the border. The park is mainly for South Korean plants. South Korean delegates reportedly turned down a North Korean invitation to visit a candidate site for the industrial park. In an apparent show of disappointment at the lack of progress at the talks, North Korean officials imposed tight restrictions on South Korean press coverage, the reports said. Photographers were not allowed to take pictures outside officially permitted areas. A South Korean television crew was asked to erase a panoramic view of the North Korean capital taken from a hotel where they stayed. The pool reports did not say whether the crew complied with the North's demand. North Korea had admitted to visiting U.S. diplomats on Oct. 3-5 that it had a program to enrich uranium, a breach of the 1994 agreement under which it pledged to abandon its nuclear ambitions in return for two light-water reactors plus 500,000 metric tons of fuel oil annually. North Korea has complained that the reactor project, being pushed by a U.S.-led international consortium, is years behind schedule. North Korea has expressed willingness to resolve the nuclear issue if the United States agrees to a nonaggression treaty. Washington rules out any discussions unless the North first abandons its nuclear ambitions. The Koreas were divided in 1945. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 Uganda: Atomic Laws Review Due allAfrica.com -- Posted to the web November 7, 2002 David Muwanga Kampala Government is reviewing the Atomic Energy Decree No. 12 of 1972 and statutory Instruments No. 43 of 1996 with an objective of protecting workers who are exposed to radioactive materials. Radioacctive materials are used in the treatment of cancer at the Cancer Institute at Mulago Hospital and other hospitals where they also use X-rays, research centres on plant breeding and are also used in mineral exploration among others. Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development Fred Kabagambe-Kaliisa said that the major problem is that what we call radioactive materials are not physically seen and are therefore not properly controlled. Copyright © 2002 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica ***************************************************************** 13 President Outlines Priorities President Bush Thursday said, "The single most important item of unfinished business on Capitol Hill is to create a unified department of homeland security that will vastly improve our ability to protect our coasts and our borders and our communities. For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 7, 2002 Presidential Hall Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming. This is an important week for our country and for the world. The United Nations will vote tomorrow on a resolution bringing the civilized world together to disarm Saddam Hussein. Here at home, our citizens have voted in an election that I believe will strengthen our ability to make progress for all the American people. I congratulate the men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who were elected this week to public office all across America. I appreciate their willingness to leave their private lives and to serve their communities and to serve our nation. I also commend the millions of voters across America, and across the political spectrum, who went to the polls. At a time when our freedoms are under attack, it is more important than ever that our citizens exercise the rights and responsibilities of our democracy. Now that the voters have spoken, I urge the members of both political parties to come together to get things done for the American people. I've talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want to work with them. I talked to Senator Daschle yesterday and said that, although the Republican Party now leads the Senate, I still want to work with him to get things done for the American people. I talked to Leader Gephardt, as well. [President George W. Bush holds a press conference in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Nov. 7. White House photo by Eric Draper.] I look forward to working with members of the Congress and the newly-elected governors to make America's families safer in their homes and their communities, to make our economy stronger so people can find work, to make our country a better and more compassionate place. Members of the new Congress will take office in January and they'll have a full agenda. The current Congress, however, will return in just a few days to take up some unfinished business. We have a responsibility to protect the American people against threats from any source. I'm grateful to the members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, that came together to support the war against terror, and authorize, if need be, the use of force to disarm Iraq. We must bring the same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the urgent task of protecting our country from the ongoing threat of terrorist attack. The single most important item of unfinished business on Capitol Hill is to create a unified department of homeland security that will vastly improve our ability to protect our coasts and our borders and our communities. The election may be over, but a terrorist threat is still real. The Senate must pass a bill that will strengthen our ability to protect the American people. And they must pass a bill that preserves the authority every President since John Kennedy has had to act in the interest of national security. It's imperative that the Congress send me a bill that I can sign before the 107th Congress ends. We have a responsibility to strengthen the economy so people can find work. We're working to keep this economy moving. And one immediate thing Congress should do to help people put -- back to work is to pass legislation so that construction projects can get insurance against terrorism. This will spur construction and create thousands of good hard-hat jobs that are currently on hold because projects without insurance cannot be built. Although it's late in the process, Congress must show fiscal discipline. At a time when we're at war and a time we need to strengthen our economy, Congress must be wise with the people's money, fund the nation's priorities and control wasteful spending. The workers of America deserve our action on these important issues, which have been stalled, yet, when approved will strengthen our economy. Many of the fundamental economic indicators are good. Interest rates are low, so Americans can buy more homes. Inflation is low, so paychecks go further in buying groceries and gas. The productivity of our workers is high. The economy has come out of a recession and is growing, but I'm not satisfied because I know we can do better. We must have an economy to grow at a faster and stronger pace so Americans can find a job. And so I'll work with new Congress to pass new growth and jobs packages early next year. I look forward to welcoming a new Congress. And I look forward to working with the current Congress to finish some very important work. And now it's my privilege to take some of your questions, starting with Sandra. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that Tuesday's election gave you personally a mandate? And now that you have the Republican Congress, what will you do specifically, beyond terrorism insurance and government spending restraints, to address the real anxieties -- of everyday Americans -- THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First, I think candidates win elections because they're good candidates, not because they may happen to have the President as a friend -- or a foe, for that matter. Races that were won were won because people were able to convince the voters they could trust their judgment, convince the voters they care deeply about their circumstances. I believe if there is a mandate in any election, at least in this one, it's that people want something to get done. They want people to work together in Washington, D.C. to pass meaningful legislation which will improve their lives. The best way to win an election is to -- is to earn the trust of the voters, and that's what happened in state after state after state. We had some really good candidates who overcame some pretty tough odds. They were running against incumbents, in a lot of cases, and they ran great races. And they were reassuring people. And I really attribute the successes to the nature of their candidacies, and the hardworking people that turned out the vote. There were some really effective voter turnout organizations around the country. And I think the way to look at this election is to say the people want something done. They see the risks are high, the risk of being able to find a job or the risk of keeping the homeland secure. And they want people to come together to work on it, and that's what I intend to do. Helen. Q The specifics of your -- THE PRESIDENT: Oh, sorry, yes. Well, I'll let you know at the right time. For right now, we got to get through a lame duck session. A lame duck session, for people who don't know what that means, it means the Senate is coming and the House is coming back between now and Christmas and they've got a few days to get some big things done. And the most important thing to get done, I want to emphasize, is get a department of homeland security finished. Some rumors moving around that we may not be too keen on getting that done. I want it done. It is a priority. We got a good bill out of the House, and they need to get a bill out of the Senate and to conference, and to my desk. I don't know how much time that's going to take, but having watched the debate prior to the election, it may take some time. But it doesn't matter how long it takes, they need to get it done. Secondly, they need to get a budget done. We need to get the bills, the appropriation bills done. And I mentioned, they've got to get the terrorism insurance bill done. Now, given the amount of time they're likely to be here, that's a pretty big agenda. And in terms of afterwards, I'll let you know. But there are some issues, of course, that I intend to work with the Congress on, and one of them is to get prescription drug benefits to our seniors. That's an important issue. It's an issue that I talked about at every speech. The candidates, I'm sure both political parties, talked about it. And that's something that we need to get done. But let's get this -- get out of this lame duck session first. Steve. Q Mr. President, how confident are you that the Security Council will approve the tough new resolution on Iraq? And if that happens, what happens next; what's the next step? Is war inevitable? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the resolution we put down is a tough new resolution. It talks about material breach and inspections and serious consequences if Saddam Hussein continues to defy the world and not disarm. So, one, I'm pleased with the resolution we put down. Otherwise, we wouldn't have put it down. I just talked to Jacques Chirac, and earlier today I talked to Vladimir Putin. I characterize our conversation -- I'm loathe to put words in somebody else's mouth. That's, evidently, not the case with a lot of people in Washington, but nevertheless, I am. And I'm optimistic we'll get the resolution vote tomorrow -- let me put it to you that way. And, Steve, the resolution is a disarmament resolution; that's what it is. It's a statement of intent to, once and for all, disarm Saddam Hussein. He's a threat. He's a threat to the country, he's a threat to people in his neighborhood. He's a real threat. And it's now time for the world to come together and disarm him. And when this resolution passes, I will -- we'll be able to say that the United Nations has recognized the threat, and now we're going to work together to disarm him. And he must be cooperative in the disarmament. So the job of inspectors is to determine his level of cooperation, see. He has got to be the agent of disarming; he's got to agree that what we're doing is what he said he we do. And just like the United Nations has agreed that it is important to disarm him, for the sake of peace, and so the next step will be to put an inspection regime in there to -- after all the declarations and after all the preamble to inspections, that he's got to show the world he's disarming. And that's where we'll be next. Let's see here. Helen. Q I have a follow-up -- THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have a list. (Laughter.) I don't want to be so discriminatory that people will say that I haven't thought this through. After all, the new arrangement -- and by the way, we're here in honor of Ari Fleischer; otherwise we'd be in his house. But since he's getting married this weekend, I thought it appropriate to leave the podium that he occupies empty, in honor of the fact that he's getting married. I hope you all have sent your gifts to him. (Laughter.) Ari, I did what you asked me to do. (Laughter. I'm sure he's on C-SPAN right now. Helen. Q Mr. President, what is the logic of your insistence on invading Iraq at some point, which may someday have nuclear weapons, and not laying a glove on North Korea, which may have them or may produce them? Both of which, of course, would be against international law. And I have a follow-up. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Well, I may decide to let you have that follow-up or not depending upon -- (laughter) -- depending on whether I like my answer. (Laughter.) I am insistent upon one thing about Iraq, and that is that Saddam Hussein disarm. That's what I'm insistent on. He agreed to do that, by the way. Saddam Hussein said he would disarm. And he hasn't. And for the -- Q And you don't -- THE PRESIDENT: Is that the follow-up? (Laughter.) Okay, that is the follow-up. I do care about North Korea. And as I said from the beginning of this new war in the 21st century, we'll deal with each threat differently. Each threat requires a different type of response. You've heard my strategy on dealing with Iraq. I've been very clear on dealing with the strategy all along, and tomorrow it looks like part of that strategy is coming to fruition. With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy, initially, and it's this -- that we're going to work with countries in the neighborhood to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interest that they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium. We know they've got the capacity through plutonium; we have IAEA inspectors there watching carefully their plutonium stockpile. And then we discovered that, contrary to an agreement they had with the United States, they're enriching uranium, with the desire of developing a weapon. They admitted to this. And so, therefore, we have worked with our Japanese friends and South Korean friends, with the leadership in China -- I will talk with Vladimir Putin about this after my trip to the NATO summit -- to remind North Korea that if they expect to be a -- welcomed into this family of peaceful nations, that they should not enrich uranium. I thought it was a very interesting statement that Jiang Zemin made in Crawford, where he declared very clearly that he wants a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula. That was, in my judgment, an important clarification of Chinese policy that I hope the North Koreans listen to. Believe we can achieve this objective, Helen, by working closely with this consortium of nations, which have got a valid interest in seeing to it that North Korea does not have nuclear weapons. Terry. Q Mr. President, can I have a follow-up -- THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you can. Yes, it's fine. (Laughter.) If the elections had gone a different way, I might not be so generous. (Laughter.) Q You are leaving the impression that Iraqi lives, the human cost doesn't mean anything -- THE PRESIDENT: Say that again? Q You are leaving the impression that you wouldn't mind if you go to war against Iraq, but you deal with another nation which may have weapons in a different way. But there are two other impressions around. One, that you have an obsession with going after Saddam Hussein at any cost. And also that you covet the oil fields. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I'm -- some people have the right impressions and some people have the wrong impressions. Q Can you -- THE PRESIDENT: Well, those are the wrong impressions. Q Okay. THE PRESIDENT: I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody. That's not the intention of the American people or our government. We believe in freedom and we believe in peace. And we believe the Iraqi dictator is a threat to peace. And so that's why I made the decisions I made, in terms of Iraq. Now, Terry Moran. Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, you've said many times that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed militarily, if necessary, by the U.N. or the U.S. and others. There's a school of thought that says that going to war against Iraq would be a dangerous and misguided idea because it would generate a tremendous amount of anger and hatred at the United States, and out of that you'd essentially be creating many new terrorists who would want to kill Americans. What's wrong with that analysis? THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's like saying we should not go after al Qaeda because we might irritate somebody and that would create a danger to Americans. My attitude is you got to deal with terrorism in a firm way. And if they see threats you deal with them in all different kinds of ways. The only way, in my judgment, to deal with Saddam Hussein is to bring the international community together to convince him to disarm. But if he's not going to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make the world a more peaceful place. And some people aren't going to like that -- I understand. But some people won't like it if he ends with a nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I intend to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful. Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully -- don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don't -- it's my last choice. But nevertheless, it is a -- it is an option in order to make the world a more peaceful place. Let's see here. King. John King, that is. Q Sir, in referring to the elections, you're being quite humble about the results and your role. But many conservative lawmakers and many more conservative groups are saying, seize the moment. They say early in the new Congress, you should push your plan to partially privatize Social Security; you should push for new restrictions on abortion; you should push and re-nominate the judges that were rejected by the Senate; and that you should push a total overhaul of the tax code. What are your views on that? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate all the advice I'm getting. (Laughter.) One of the things about this job, if you listen carefully, you get a lot of advice. And I -- it's important for a President to set priorities, and the two biggest priorities are the protection of the American people -- that's why I wanted to get this homeland security department done -- and the other one is people being able to find jobs. And we'll work on those. And tax relief or tax reform, however you want to describe it, is part of, in my judgment, of creating economic vitality. But there are other things we can work on. Obviously, I'd like to see some of my judges get a good -- a fair hearing and get approved; and Medicare, prescription drugs is a very important issue, needs to get done. Terrorism insurance is an important issue; energy bill is an important issue. I mean, there's a lot of things we can do and should do when they come back. And I can't remember the litany of things -- listen, there's going to be a huge laundry list of things people want to get done, and my job is to set priorities and get them done. And job creation and economic security -- job creation and economic security, as well as homeland security, are the two most important priorities we face. Q Social Security and any new restrictions -- THE PRESIDENT: No, I think the Social Security debate is an incredibly important debate. And we call them personal savings accounts, John, so that people have the option, at their choice, to manage their own money. That would be younger workers. Obviously, we've got to assure older workers that the promises we have made will be kept. And the danger, really, is for young workers. That's the threat, as to whether Social Security will be around for young workers without some massive tax increase. And I still strongly believe that the best way to achieve security in Social Security for younger workers is to give them the option of managing their own money through a personal savings account. Yes, it's an important issue, as well. Listen, there's a lot of important issues. The budget is an important issue. The budget is an important issue coming out of the lame duck session. And the budget, as you know -- you're an old hand around here -- is always an important issue in the next session. So that's always an issue, too. There are some practical matters, as well, that will occupy time here in Washington, D.C. Roberts. John Roberts, that is. Q I'm wondering, sir, is Harvey Pitt, the Chairman of the SEC, just the first member of your economic team to go? And a separate question: Will you ask William Webster to resign? THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me start with Pitt. Harvey Pitt did some very good things at the SEC, and it's important for the American people to know that. Right after 9/11, he did a lot to get the markets opened. He really was -- played a major role in that, and received good credit for that. And I want to thank Harvey Pitt for that, and the American people should, as well. He has done a lot to make it clear to corporate Americans that think they can -- don't have to be responsible in their positions -- a lot of enforcement, more so than ever in the history; he's enforced the corporate responsibility ethos. He has disbarred more people, more money has been disgorged as a result of illegal activity. And that's positive, what Harvey has done, as well. And under his watch, CEOs now must verify their returns, and that's good. All that's positive. He made the decision himself that he thought that he couldn't be as effective as he needed to be. I received his letter. I appreciate his service. William Webster, the -- there's a IG investigation going on there at the SEC; we'll see what that says. But I will tell you, William Webster is a fine man. He is a decent, honorable public servant who has served our country well. Q -- with respect to -- THE PRESIDENT: Is this a three-part question? Q No. I'm just kind of reiterating the first. He is just the first member of your economic team to go? The implication is -- do you have -- THE PRESIDENT: Listen, my economic team came in during very difficult times. There was a recession; there was a terrorist attack; there were corporate scandals. We have done a lot to return confidence and to provide a -- provide stimulus through tax cuts. My economic team developed a tax cut package, sold the tax cut package, is implementing the tax cut package. And for that, they deserve a lot of credit. They made good -- we're making good progress on the economy. There's still work to do. And I appreciate the hard work of the economic team. Campbell. Q Thank you, Mr. President. You were very gracious earlier, giving credit in this last election to the individual candidates. But a lot of those candidates say they have you to thank. Given the fact that your own election for President was so close it had to be decided by the Supreme Court, do you now feel personally reassured that these midterm elections validated your presidency? THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that loaded question. (Laughter.) Look, sometimes you win them, and sometimes you lose elections. That's just the way it is. And I was pleased with the results. I was more particularly pleased for the candidates who worked so hard, and their families and their workers. That's how I feel about it. I really don't put this in personal terms. I know people in Washington like to do that. You know, George Bush won, George Bush lost. That's the way they do it here. Zero sum, in Washington. And I know that. But if you're really interested in what I think, I think the fact that Norm Coleman ran a very difficult race in difficult circumstances and won speaks volumes about Norm Coleman. The fact that John Thune ran a difficult race against difficult circumstances and at this point is still short, nevertheless, speaks volumes about his desire and his intention to serve the country. There's case after case of people who have put their reputations on the line, who spent a lot of time away from their homes and their families, shaking a lot of hands and putting their hearts and souls -- in both parties. They deserve the credit. Thank you for trying to give it to me, but they deserve the credit. I know what it's like to run for office. I know the strains it puts on families. I know the tired -- the endless hours you spend campaigning, and all the wonderful questions you have to answer as part of a campaign. I know all that. And these candidates deserve all the credit. And I was proud to help some of them the best I could. But the way you win a race is you convince the people of your state or your district that they can trust your judgment and they can trust your character and they can trust your values. And it takes a lot of work to do that, and these candidates get the credit. And I -- I appreciate you pointing out that some people have given me credit. The credit belongs to people in the field. Yes, sir, Wendell. Q Mr. President, thank you very much. You have put a lot of effort toward getting the United Nations to rally the world to disarm Saddam Hussein. And yet you and your aides have expressed a great deal of skepticism about whether Saddam Hussein will actually comply. Can you give us an idea, sir, how long you think it might take for the world to know whether Saddam Hussein actually intends to go along with the call of the world to disarm? Will it be a matter of days or weeks, months, or perhaps a year, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Well, Wendell, this much we know -- it's so far taken him 11 years and 16 resolutions to do nothing. And so we've got some kind of history as to the man's behavior. We know he likes to try to deceive and deny, and that's why this inspection regime has got to be new and tough and different. The status quo is unacceptable, you know, kind of send a few people in there and hope maybe he's nice to them and open up the baby milk factory -- it's unacceptable. And so that's why you'll see us with a different inspection regime, one that works to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. It's his responsibility to disarm. I don't put timetables on anything. But for the sake of peace -- sooner, better. And we'll see. But you must know that I am serious -- so are a lot of other countries -- serious about holding the man to account. I was serious about holding the U.N. to account. And when they pass this resolution, which I hope they do tomorrow, it shows that the U.N. is beginning to assume its responsibilities to make sure that 11 years of defiance does not go unanswered. It's very important that the U.N. be a successful international body because the threats that we face now require more cooperation than ever. And we're still cooperating with a lot of nations. We're still sharing intelligence and cutting off money the best we can. And there's still law enforcement efforts taking place all around the world. And that's why the international -- this international body called the U.N. is an important body for keeping the peace. And it's very important that they're effective. And we'll see tomorrow -- starting tomorrow. And then the key on the resolution, I want to remind you, is that there are serious consequences. And that's one of the key elements to make sure that everybody gets the picture that we are serious about a process of disarming him in the name of peace. Hopefully, he'll choose to do so himself. Sammons, Super Stretch. Q Thank you, Mr. President. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: You and I are eye-to-eye, right? (Laughter.) Q Now that the 2004 presidential campaign has unofficially begun, can you tell us whether Vice President Cheney will be your running mate again? Or will you, instead, choose someone who might harbor greater presidential ambitions to, perhaps, succeed you one day? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I'm still recovering from the '02 elections. And we got plenty of time to deal with this issue. But should I decide to run, Vice President Cheney will be my running mate. He's done an excellent job. I appreciate his advice. I appreciate his counsel. I appreciate his friendship. He is a superb Vice President, and there's no reason for me to change. I also want to thank him for all his hard work during the campaign. He was out there toiling along, working hard and turning out the vote, and I want to thank him for the hours he put out there, as well. Please, yes. Q If I may follow? Last time you had -- THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for not standing up, you block the cameras. (Laughter.) Q Last time you had to kind of convince him to take the job. Have you talked to him this time, whether he is interested in serving another term? THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident that he will serve another term. Judy. Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said this afternoon that the U.N. Security Council vote tomorrow would bring the civilized world together against Iraq. But broad opposition remains all over the world to your policy. Will you continue to try to build support and, if so, how will you do that? Or do you think that a Security Council vote would be all the mandate you need? THE PRESIDENT: First of all, broad opposition around the world not in support of my policy on Iraq? Q Yes, sir. THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think most people around the world realize that Saddam Hussein is a threat. And they -- no one likes war, but they also don't like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon. Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we don't know how close he is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one. But we don't know. We know he was close to one at one point in time; we have no idea today. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Imagine how the Israeli citizens would feel. Imagine how the citizens in Saudi Arabia would feel. Imagine how the world would change, how he could alter diplomacy by the very presence of a nuclear weapon. And so a lot of people -- serious people around the world are beginning to think about that consideration. I think about it a lot. I think about it particularly in the regard of making the world a more peaceful place. And so it's very important for people to realize the consequences of us not taking the case to the U.N. Security Council. People need to think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude, or maybe hoped that he would not invade somebody again, or just hoped that he wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to mount. I'm not willing to take those kind of risks. People understand that. I think a lot of people are saying, you know, gosh, we hope we don't have war. I feel the same way, I hope we don't have war. I hope this can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make that choice. I also want to remind you that, should we have to use troops, should it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to worry about that. We will do -- we will do -- we will do what it takes militarily to succeed. I also want to say something else to people of Iraq, that the generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for their behavior. Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in a way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will be held to account. And as to the Iraq people, what I said before -- the Iraqi people can have a better life than the one they have now. They can have a -- there are other alternatives to somebody who is willing to rape and mutilate and murder in order to stay in power. There's just a better life than the one they have to live now. I think the people of the world understand that too, Judy. I don't take -- I don't take -- I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act; I've just got to know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously. Elizabeth. Q Thank you, sir. You just said you've reached out to Democrats. Does this mean that you will be governing more from the center and taking fewer cues from the conservative arm of your party? THE PRESIDENT: I don't take cues from anybody, I just do what I think is right. That's just the way I lead. And what's right is to work to stimulate the economy. I strongly believe the tax relief was the right thing to do. If people are really interested in job creation, they ought to join me in my call to make the tax cuts permanent. It's an important part of sending a signal that there is certainty in the tax code; that all the benefits from tax relief don't go away after 10 years. As I like to say -- you might have heard me once or 10 times or a hundred times -- the Senate giveth and the Senate taketh away. That means there's uncertainty when that happens. And you've got to have certainty in a system that requires risk. And making the tax cuts permanent is an essential part. I mean -- and so that is a common-sense drive, to create jobs. I will just tell people what I think about how to solve the problems we face. And I ran on a political philosophy; I'm not changing my political philosophy. I am who I am prior -- the say guy after the election that I was prior to the election. That's just who I am and how I intend to lead this country. Jean Cummings. I'm having such a good time. (Laughter.) Jean Cummings -- there she is, yes. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the question of Harvey Pitt. THE PRESIDENT: Pitt, yes. Q What kind of person are you looking for to fill that position now? And how quickly do you want to move on that? And then also, as much as you said that Mr. Webster is a well-respected and quality person, do you think that the chairman -- whoever that new chairman is -- should have a chance to select their own person and have a fresh start? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- that's kind of the double-whammy hypothetical there, Jean. I think that the -- on Webster, first, let's find out what the facts are so that everybody knows. That's why they're doing this investigation. And it's -- one fact is irrefutable, he's a decent man. He's served the country well. And I know he can do that job. Secondly, as soon as possible, for the SEC nominee, and somebody who is going to continue to fulfill the obligation that -- of holding people to account. In other words, holding wrongdoers to account and making sure the numbers are fair and open and transparent, and everybody understands the facts when it comes to -- to accounting, so we continue to regain confidence in our system. That people, when they invest based upon the numbers of a particular stock, are confident in that which they read. And that's an essential part of the SEC job, and I'm confident we can find somebody soon to be able to do that. Hutch. Q Thank you. I wanted to go back to your earlier point about the risk of an action versus the risk of inaction. THE PRESIDENT: Where would that be, in the Congress or at the U.N.? Q With Iraq. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay. Q Your CIA Director told Congress just last month that it appears that Saddam Hussein "now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks against the United States." But if we attacked him he would "probably become much less constrained." Is he wrong about that? THE PRESIDENT: No. I think that -- I think that if you would read the full -- I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you, I know George Tenet well. I meet with him every single day. He sees Saddam Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the context of that quote is. I'm telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must deal with him. And, you know, it's like people say, oh, we must leave Saddam alone; otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us. Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it. The debate about whether we're going to deal with Saddam Hussein is over. And now the question is how do we deal with him. I made the decision to go to the United Nations because I want to try to do this peacefully. I want Saddam to disarm. The best way to convince him to disarm is to get the nations to come together through the U.N. and try to convince him to disarm. We're going to work on that. We've been spending a lot of time -- I wouldn't exactly call it gnashing of teeth, but working hard on the U.N. resolution. It took a while, but we've been grinding it out, trying to bring a consensus, trying to get people together, so that we can say to the world the international community has spoken through the Security Council of the United Nations and now, once again, we expect Saddam to disarm. This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This time we mean it. See, that's the difference -- I guess. This time it's for real. And I say it must not have been for real the last 16 times because nothing happened when he didn't. This time something happens. He knows -- he's got to understand that. The members of the U.N. Security Council understand that. Saddam has got to understand it so he, so, in the name of peace, for a peaceful resolution of this, we hope he disarms. Jackson, from Texas. You got anything -- a Texas question? Q As a matter of fact, I do. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Q Do you intend to resuscitate the nomination of Priscilla Owen and Charles Pickering? And, also, how bloody do you think the next Supreme Court nomination will be? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I want the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to understand that I am very serious about the reforms that I suggested in the East Room, about how to get this process of nominating judges and approving judges on the right course, not only for this administration, but future administrations; not only for this Senate, but future Senates. And so step one on the judiciary process, I believe there needs to be reform. I would be glad to reprise the reforms if you can't remember them. Q Owen and Pickering, are they going to -- THE PRESIDENT: I'll be there in a minute. (Laughter.) I'm using this as an opportunity to make a point on judicial reform. And that is that if a judge thinks he's going to retire, give us a year's notice, if possible. And then we will act -- "we," the administrative branch, will nominate somebody and clear them within 180 days. And then the Senate judiciary has got 90 days to go through the process and then get the person's name to the floor, and 180 days for an up or down vote. To me that would be a needed and necessary reform. So step one on the nomination process is to work with Senator Hatch -- and Senator Leahy -- to put these reforms in place; is to convince members of the Senate we're serious about a process that will get rid of the old bitterness of the judicial process. This is probably not to your liking, by the way. You love those court fights. I'm confident it makes great covering and great stories. I also said at the time of Priscilla Owen's being -- not being put to the floor of the Senate that I would hope that the judiciary committee would let her name out to the Senate floor at some point in time. We don't have to recommit them, they never -- they're there. Pickering and Owen are still there at the committee level. They just weren't ever -- their names were never let to the floor for a vote. By the way, if they had been let to the floor for a vote, we believe they would have won the vote -- perhaps the reason why they were never let to the floor for a vote. But -- so, I hope that judiciary committee will let their names out and they get a fair hearing. I thought you were going to talk about the Texas elections. But that's okay. (Laughter.) April, last question. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: How's your child, April? Q She's wonderful. THE PRESIDENT: Georgia W? (Laughter.) Q My husband is watching, and the name is Ryan Tyler James. (Laughter.). THE PRESIDENT: You might as well turn to the camera when you say that. (Laughter.) Q Well, Mr. President, some critics contend there is a racial disparity in how immigrants are handled here, and speaking of the Haitians versus immigrants, the other immigrants. Do you support the current law on the books about Haiti, and why, either way? THE PRESIDENT: April, first of all, the immigration laws ought to be the same for Haitians and everybody else -- except for Cubans. And the difference, of course, is that we don't send people back to Cuba because they're going to be persecuted. And that's why we've got the special law on the books as regards to Cubans. But Haitians and everybody else ought to be treated the same way. And we're in the process of making sure that happens. It's been an enjoyable experience. END 2:47 P.M. EST ***************************************************************** 14 Bush Reaffirms Diplomatic Solution to NK Nuclear Crisis Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Nov.8,2002 16:18 KST In his first public appearance since his party's sweeping victories in the mid-term elections, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his stance on North Korea's nuclear program. Speaking to reporters at a press conference Thursday, the US leader noted his administration was taking a different approach with North Korea, compared to Iraq. "We're going to work with countries in the neighborhood to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interest that they develop a nuclear weapon," President Bush said. Bush has said he would seek a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the North's nuclear issues, but his latest remarks suggest Washington is considering mustering diplomatic pressure, if Pyongyang refuses to heed international calls to scrap its uranium enrichment program. He said the US has been working with Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing to try to resolve the latest nuclear crisis, adding that he plans to talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the North's nuclear efforts after a NATO summit. (Arirang TV) ***************************************************************** 15 Timetable: Next steps on Iraq BBC NEWS | Middle East | Friday, 8 November, 2002, 11:36 [A member of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier flight deck crew stands on deck ] The US could go to war within months After nearly two months of diplomatic wrangling, the United States has won United Nations Security Council approval to force Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious consequences" that analysts say would almost certainly mean war. The Security Council resolution gives a timeframe of up to 15 weeks for a final verdict on whether or not the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. While the resolution has removed any automatic resort to force against Iraq, if Baghdad is deemed to have impeded the work of UN arms inspectors, Washington would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action. The timetable according to the resolution: + Iraq has seven days to accept the resolution after it has been adopted. Analysts say it is likely to accept its terms as a rejection would almost certainly trigger war. + Iraq then has up to 30 days to declare any of its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programmes. The US has made it clear that failure to provide a full reckoning will amount to a "material breach" of Iraq's obligations, which correspondents say would provide a pretext for war. + Weapons inspectors must have resumed work in Iraq within 45 days of the resolution being passed. However, correspondents say chief weapons inspector Hans Blix intends to travel to Iraq within two weeks. + The inspectors have 60 days to report on their progress to the Security Council. It is not clear from the draft resolution whether the clock runs from the day they arrive in Iraq. However, at any point the inspectors can decide that their work is being obstructed. If weapons inspectors find that Iraq has failed to co-operate with their work, then the US would discuss the consequences with Security Council members, but would not have to wait for another UN resolution before taking military action. The US would have to take into account that prolonged debate within the Security Council would see conditions for troops in Iraq begin to become dangerously hot as summer approached. According to GlobalSecurity.org, temperatures in the Iraqi desert will begin to heat up by March. In July and August, the average temperature is higher than 48 degrees Celsius (120 degrees Fahrenheit). Troops will have to be dressed in chemical protection gear the whole time, which will become unbearably hot. Also, April marks the beginning of Iraq's windy season, when sandstorms could severely reduce air operations. The weather would not cool down again until October. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 16 Commentary: N.Kor crisis exposes US risks* United Press International By Ted Galen Carpenter From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 11/7/2002 10:25 PM WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- North Korea's dramatic announcement that it has pursued a covert nuclear weapons program in violation of the agreement it signed in 1994 underscores the gravity of the security burdens and risks the United States continues to bear in Northeast Asia. In a normal international system, the nations that would be most concerned about a possible North Korean nuclear weapons capability would be Pyongyang's immediate neighbors: South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. They also would logically take the lead in formulating policies to deal with the crisis. But thanks to more than a half-century of U.S. smothering behavior, there is nothing normal about the situation in Northeast Asia. Japan and South Korea continue to rely heavily on the United States for their defense needs, and given the ingrained pattern of dependence, they look to Washington to resolve the looming problem posed by North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Even China and Russia expect the United States, as the principal military power in the region, to assume the lead role in that frustrating and probably unrewarding mission. If it were not for the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and the nearly 50,000 stationed in Japan, the United States could afford to view the prospect of a nuclear North Korea with relative detachment. U.S. officials regard those troops as crucial military assets in the region, but if Pyongyang cannot be dissuaded from building a nuclear arsenal-and one dare not be optimistic on that score-those troops are no longer assets. They are nuclear hostages. There is no need to expose American military personnel to such risks. During the early decades of the Cold War, there was a respectable rationale for keeping troops in the region and giving security guarantees to Japan and South Korea. Washington understandably wanted to keep both countries out of the orbit of a rapaciously expansionist Soviet Union or a hostile and volatile China. For many years, Japan and South Korea were also too weak to provide for their own defense. Today's security environment bears no resemblance to that earlier era. The Soviet Union has been replaced by a weak, noncommunist Russia. China's relations with the United States, while tense at times, are dramatically better than they were when America made its security commitments to Northeast Asia. Even more important, Japan and South Korea are vastly more capable than they were when they became Washington's security dependents. South Korea now has twice the population of North Korea and an economy some 40 times as large. If Seoul spent even a respectable amount on defense, it could easily outpace its decrepit communist neighbor. But it chooses to spend a smaller percentage of its gross domestic product on the military than does the United States -- even though North Korea is on its border, not America's. Japan's timidity on security matters is even more indefensible. Despite a prolonged recession, Japan still has the second largest economy in the world. It also has a population 6 times larger than North Korea's. It is pathetic to see a country with those characteristics -- one of the world's great powers -- rely on another country to resolve a security issue that so clearly impinges on Japan's vital interests. Washington should begin to reduce its discretionary security risks in Northeast Asia. It is time -- indeed, it is well past time --to tell Japan and South Korea that they must provide for their own defense and take responsibility for dealing with security problems in their region. The continuing reliance of those two countries on the United States is not healthy for them-and it certainly is not healthy for America. Japan and South Korea, together with China and Russia, should bear the burden of dealing with a dangerous and unpredictable North Korea. -0- (Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including "Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic.") Copyright © 2002 United Press International *Copyright © 2002 United Press International. All rights ***************************************************************** 17 Bush out-hawked on North Korea? Asia Times By Tim Shorrock WASHINGTON - With the Republicans now in control of both the House and Senate in the aftermath of Tuesday's mid-term elections in the United States, it's a foregone conclusion that President George W Bush will have a much easier time pushing his foreign policy agenda through Congress, particularly his military budgets for the coming war against Iraq. But on the issue of North Korea and its recent admission that it has embarked on a uranium-enrichment program, there are signs that Congress could be even more hawkish than Bush. That could spell trouble for Japan, South Korea and China as they seek to defuse the nuclear crisis that is slowly reaching a boiling point on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, Bush is likely to come under strong pressure from lawmakers to suspend the shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea that are a key part of the US contribution to the 1994 Agreed Framework under which Pyongyang agreed to dismantle its weapons program. Although officials in both Washington and Pyongyang have indicated that the framework is dead, neither side has formally moved to end it. On Wednesday, after a brief trip to North Korea, former US ambassador to Seoul Donald Gregg said the framework "is hanging by a thread", but added that "North Korea is still supporting it". Meanwhile, a tanker carrying 42,500 tons of fuel purchased by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) is scheduled to depart on Sunday from Singapore carrying this month's promised shipment. If many in Congress - and a few officials in the Bush administration - had their way, that tanker would never leave port, and no more would follow. When the Bush administration briefed congressional staffers in the days after the news broke that North Korea had informed assistant secretary of state James Kelly about its uranium program, many Republicans were furious that the White House was doing nothing to stop the October shipment and threatened to move quickly to defund the program. A precipitous move like that could further inflame the situation and persuade North Korea that further negotiations with the United States are fruitless. The government of Kim Jong-il, according to Gregg and other Americans who have been talking to Pyongyang, want to use their admission about the uranium program as leverage to begin negotiations on a non-aggression treaty. "I think they would like the United States to give them some assurances that we don't want to blow them out of the water," Gregg said in Seoul. At the same time, South Korea has made it clear it wants the oil shipments to continue. US, South Korean and Japanese officials will discuss the future of the 1994 nuclear deal when the KEDO consortium meets in New York next Thursday. During those talks, the South "will call on the United States and Japan not to suspend the light-water reactor project or cancel fuel-oil provisions to the North even if it fails to take swift action regarding the nuclear issue", a South Korean government official told the Korea Herald on Wednesday. The nuclear deal will also be discussed this weekend, when Kelly meets with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts for the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group. It is used by the three countries to coordinate their policies toward North Korea. Kelly himself has not said whether the administration wants to cut off the oil shipments. But in an interview last week on US public television, he expressed strong doubts about continuing the program. "For the next year, I see very little support in the US Congress to continue providing these fuel shipments," he said. On Tuesday, the New York Times, citing unnamed officials, said the Bush administration "would prefer to stop" this month's shipment but has been unable to persuade KEDO to go along. The situation is all the more dangerous because some of the lawmakers pressing for a more aggressive policy toward North Korea are Democrats who like to flex their foreign-policy qualifications by taking positions to the right of the White House. They are led by Representative Ed Markey, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. Well known in Washington for his expertise on energy and nuclear power, Markey has taken the lead in pressing the Bush administration to terminate all funding for fuel oil and the light-water reactors being built by KEDO. Markey, unlike many in the administration, apparently believes that North Korea represents a greater threat than Iraq. Last month, Markey and three other lawmakers wrote a letter to Bush saying the oil shipments "should be permanently terminated" and asking the administration to urge Japan and South Korea to terminate KEDO's reactor program. The letter was also signed by Senators Jon Kyl, Jesse Helms and Bob Smith and Representative Chris Cox. All of them are Republicans; both Helms and Smith will leave the Senate after this term. Taking a page from Bush's "regime change" policies, the letter encouraged the administration to "work aggressively with its allies to prepare for a future beyond the current Stalinist regime" in Pyongyang. "We see no viable alternative given the proven failure of subsidizing North Korea and of relying upon that country's promises, as well as the regimes continued deplorable treatment of the North Korean people." Markey further displayed his hawkish tendencies in an interview, also on public television, on October 21. Taking issue with officials who say North Korea's history is different than Iraq's, he declared that each country has "a homicidal maniac running the country". Both regimes, he added, are "attempting to obtain ballistic missiles, but North Korea is far ahead of Iraq. And third, they're each attempting to develop a nuclear payload, but again Korea is far ahead of Iraq. So in terms of what it is that is driving our concern with this axis of evil, North Korea is actually further ahead." That characterization goes much further than some of the hardliners within the Bush administration. And while Bush himself has called the latest developments "troubling", he has publicly urged a diplomatic solution. For those favoring a negotiated end to the standoff, there may be hope in the Senate. With Helms retiring and the Democrats now in the minority, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be led by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Lugar, a conservative who favors negotiation over confrontation, played a bit part in the 1994 North Korea crisis when he was asked by then president Bill Clinton to travel to Pyongyang as a US emissary. But North Korea refused entry to Lugar and Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, and instead welcomed former president Jimmy Carter. Carter's discussions paved the way for the framework agreement. On Thursday, Lugar made it clear that he favors diplomacy with North Korea. In a press briefing, he rejected the stance taken by Markey and some in the administration, including Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who rejected any talks with Pyongyang until North Korea ends its uranium-enrichment program. "Negotiations with North Korea have to continue, whether or not we have formal talks," Lugar said. Noting the enormous military presence on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone, he said, "We have to keep going here." (©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please ***************************************************************** 18 Pyongyang's real nuclear capability [http://www.ft.com] By David Lowry Published: November 8 2002 4:00 | Last Updated: November 8 2002 4:00 Sir, Richard Wolffe's analysis of North Korea's nuclear weapons capability (Comment Analysis, November 1) quoted in its headline Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, as saying: "You don't look at this regime that has 60 tons [around 60,000kg] of reprocessed plutonium and assume they're bluffing." It is of considerable concern that such a senior member of the US administration could make such a fantastic exaggeration of the size of the plutonium stockpile held by this aspirant atomic weapons state. Nobody outside that secret state knows the exact size of the North Korean stockpile, but one thing is certain, it is nowhere near the magnitude postulated by Mr Powell. The large reprocessing facility to separate plutonium at the Yongbyon Nuclear Center, about 100km north of the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, has been suspected of diverting plutonium for weapons since 1987, when US government analysts became suspicious of activities monitored at the site. But North Korea simply does not have the reactor capacity to produce so much plutonium. As an example, the UK stockpile of separated plutonium is about 60 tons, and the country has been in the nuclear business for over 50 years. The US and Russia each have about 100 tons, with all their multi-billion dollar infrastructure. Even the most pessimistic US analysts believe North Korea so far only possesses enough separated plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, at say 10kg to 15kg per warhead. Bad as that may be, and dangerously in violation of North Korea's Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments, it is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from 60,000kg. David Lowry, Former Director, European Proliferation Information Centre, Stoneleigh, Surrey, KT17 2NH, UK FT.com ***************************************************************** 19 Downer: N. Korea nukes must go asahi.com : ENGLISH Asahi Shimbun www.asahi.com [http://www.asahi.com/] JAPANESE The Asahi Shimbun North Korea must abandon its uranium-enrichment project unconditionally, visiting Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Thursday in an exclusive interview with The Asahi Shimbun. Downer was adamant North Korea must not receive additional assistance in return for abandoning its nuclear weapons development program. ``It is our view that North Korea should be no further rewarded and that there should be no additional support for North Korea in exchange for abandoning their uranium-enrichment program,'' Downer said. ``We feel quite strongly that the international community needs to send strong but united messages to them.'' Downer also said that even if Pyongyang implements a range of reform measures, the ensuing change would not necessarily lead to the collapse of the Kim Jong Il regime. ``Our sense is that as time goes on, (North Korea) does have the potential to normalize their relations with the broader international community and upgrade their relationships with countries like ours,'' Downer said. Despite reports of dire economic conditions in North Korea, Downer said Pyongyang was not on the verge of collapse. ``I do think they are desperate for money, fuel and food, but I don't think they are on the threshold of losing control of their people,'' he said. Downer said North Korea must reform and open up to other nations to improve its economic circumstances. ``The only way they can achieve some degree of economic prosperity is through engagement with the outside world,'' Downer said.(IHT/Asahi: November 8,2002) (11/08) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction or ***************************************************************** 20 TEPCO to buy LNG from three Japanese utilities Planet Ark : JAPAN: November 8, 2002 TOKYO - Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc said yesterday it planned to buy more than 120,000 tonnes of liquefied natural gas from three Japanese power and gas utilities to make up for a shortage of fuel for thermal power plants. Japan's largest power utility has been forced to shut down several nuclear reactors since September due to lapses in safety checks and has turned to thermal plants to cover the supply gap. The LNG will be bought from Tokyo Gas Co Ltd , Kansai Electric Power Co Inc and Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc , a TEPCO spokesman said. The LNG, worth $18-24 million at current prices, would be supplied by the end of the year. The spokesman said TEPCO would buy at least one LNG tanker of the fuel from both Kansai Electric and Kyushu Electric. An LNG tanker carries 60,000 tonnes of LNG. The volume to be bought from Tokyo Gas, which will be supplied by a pipeline, has not been decided, the spokesman said. "At the moment, we know that we will be buying more than 120,000 tonnes of LNG," he said. The most likely sources of the LNG are Malaysia, Brunei and Australia, countries with which the three utilities have long-term purchase contracts. The TEPCO spokesman said the long-term contract price of the LNG would be applied as TEPCO's purchase price. Nine of TEPCO's nuclear reactors are currently closed, six for safety checks after controversy over past safety checks. The nine together provide about 8.63 gigawatts (gW) of power, accounting for some 14.6 percent of TEPCO's total output and 49.9 percent of its nuclear supply. TEPCO is due to lose another 4.34 gW in nuclear power early next year when it begins to shut down another four reactors for regular maintenance, which must be held once every 13 months. To help make up for the shortage in power supply, TEPCO plans to restart some mothballed thermal power plants, which together will provide about 4.13 gW of electricity. It has said that it expects to secure power supply of 53 gW for the winter, which it says should be sufficient. Its typical winter demand is about 51 gW. THERMAL FUEL NEED RISES Since the start of the unplanned reactor shutdowns, TEPCO has revised upward its LNG procurement plan under existing contracts by one million tonnes to 16 million for the year to next March. Apart from this, TEPCO said last month that it had bought 120,000 tonnes of LNG for the first time from Oman. The TEPCO spokesman said that further purchases of LNG would depend on when the company was able to restart its closed nuclear reactors as well as on winter power demand. A second spokesman said TEPCO would buy an additional 2.5 million kilolitres (kl) of fuel oil and crude oil as its initial plan to buy 3.0 million kl for the year was insufficient to meet its sudden needs. He said it was unclear if the company would purchase more. Analysts say the impact on TEPCO's earnings will hinge on the length of time and the scale of its dependence on thermal power to fill the supply gap. Some analysts also say, however, that TEPCO is unlikely to raise electricity rates given the ongoing industry deregulation, which is expected to bring increased competition. TEPCO has said it is currently unable to provide a timetable for the restart of the closed nuclear reactors. Thermal power plants are much more expensive to operate due to higher fuel costs. Daily generating costs rise by about 100 million yen ($822,000) if a one-gigawatt nuclear plant is closed and replaced by a thermal power plant. Shares in TEPCO ended trade at 2,210 yen, down 1.78 percent, while the Nikkei share average slipped 0.37 percent. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE [http://www.reuters.com] ***************************************************************** 21 Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh sites for nuclear power plants Sify News *Panaji, Nov 2* Nuclear Power Corporation of India is awaiting the centre's nod for building have six nuclear power plants along the coast line in the eleventh five year plan. Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Dr V K Chaturvedi, who was here for the seventh Indo-Russian joint cordination committee meeting, told reporters today that though three coastal sites of six units (five in Maharashtra and one in Andhra Pradesh) of 11,000MW have been selected by the Sites Selection Committee, approval if the Centre is awaited. Dr Chaturvedi said, the seventh joint cordination committee meeting was held in Goa to review the progress and development of Kudankulam project in Tamil Nadu, a joint Indo-Russia venture consisting two units of one thousand MW each which will be operational in the year 2007-2008. He said, once the project is commissioned the rate of the power will be cheaper. Director General of Atom Stroy export Russian company in Moscow V V Kozlov who was also present said, Russia already has orders of five units, two in India, two in China and one in Iran. He said, China and India have a big market for nuclear projects. / UNI/ | Terms | Today in London ***************************************************************** 27 Dose of reality for residents * */By Dan Gravel / dgravel@cnc.com /* Wednesday, November 6, 2002 Potassium iodide purchased in case of nuclear accident/// //Selectmen have agreed it is better to be safe than sorry, voting to distribute through local pharmacies a drug that could battle the effects of a release of radioactive materials at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth.// //"From a public awareness point of view this may raise fears," said Selectmen Chairman Peter Mullen. "We're not trying to cause anyone undo panic or fear, but at the same time we want to ensure proper access to residents."// //One way to combat the effects of a radioactive release is with the drug potassium iodide, commonly known as KI. In the event of an accident at the nuclear power plant, radioactive iodine could be released into the air, which can cause thyroid cancer and disease, and mental retardation in children of exposed pregnant women. The use of potassium iodide could help protect against these dangers by blocking the thyroid with a harmless form of iodine, according to advocates.// //Marshfield Police Chief William Sullivan and Emergency Operations Center Director Dan Welch explored the possibilities of having KI available for pickup by residents in local pharmacies or undertaking a mass distribution, before settling on the former. They said distribution at pharmacies, which will be subsidized by the town, will be a safer, more cost-effective way to proceed. It will also allow people to speak with pharmacists and understand the proper dosage to take.// //Sullivan believed a bulk mailing would provide children with "uncontrolled access" to the drug and the effectiveness of the distribution would be unknown.// //A year ago Marshfield selectmen discussed the possibility of stockpiling the drug and decided it should not be done, citing the remote possibility of a nuclear accident, as well as Marshfield's proximity to the Pilgrim plant and also the difficulty in affecting a major distribution in the event of an accident. The board of health also did not support the measure in agreement with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.// //The southern portion of Marshfield is on the fringe of a 10-mile radius where radiation from the Pilgrim plant would suffuse, selectmen said.// //Sullivan said the town will now get approximately 40,000 pills and is hoping many can be received from the state.// //Potassium iodide is an over-the-counter drug and has a five-year shelf life. Mullen said a plan should eventually be put in place to distribute new pills after four years.// //"It's a very nice plan and we think it's one that will work," he said.// //At the 2000 Town Meeting, Duxbury voters approved the purchase of more than 20,000 doses for schools and shelters at a cost of only $5,000.// © Copyright by TownOnline.com and Herald Interactive ***************************************************************** 28 Trainees on board grounded nuclear sub Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Kirsty Scott Friday November 8, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] A trainee naval commander may have been in control of the nuclear submarine which ran aground off Scotland during a military exercise, it emerged yesterday. HMS Trafalgar, which was damaged after striking a rock near the Isle of Skye on Wednesday, was being used to train student submarine commanders, but the Ministry of Defence would not confirm if a trainee was at the helm of the vessel when the accident happened. A board of inquiry has been launched into the incident which damaged the £300m vessel's sonar and ballast tanks and injured two crewmen. There have been calls for the findings of the investigation to be made public, and the MoD has been criticised for keeping the accident quiet for more than 12 hours and failing to alert the coastguard. Royal Navy officials have insisted that the submarine's pressure hull and nuclear reactor were undamaged and there had been no danger to the public. But they admit the incident is embarrassing and could offer no immediate explanation as to why a vessel bristling with navigational aids could founder in this way. "That's what the board of inquiry wants to find out as well," said Captain Andrew Cameron, the naval officer in charge of the training exercise. The Trafalgar is one Britain's 12 nuclear-powered, hunter-killer submarines, and was deployed in the first wave of attacks against Afghanistan last October. It can carry Tomahawk cruise missiles, but the MoD would not confirm if it was armed at the time of Wednesday's incident. Cruise missiles would have been located at the front of the submarine where the damage occurred. HMS Trafalgar, which is based at Devonport, had been taking part in a two-week war games exercise with vessels from eight other countries, including the US, Norway and Germany. It was escorted back into the Faslane naval base on the Clyde yesterday under its own power. The submarine had been in 50 metres of water and travelling at 15 knots when the accident took place at 8am near a rocky outcrop known as Fladda Chuin, three miles off Skye's north-west coast. The MoD said the vessel, which hit the rock a "glancing blow", surfaced immediately and an initial assessment revealed damage to the forward port section, the area which houses the torpedo tubes. Two crewmen suffered minor injuries; one broke his nose and another strained his back. Four trainee submarine commanders had been among the 130 crew on board. At a press conference at Faslane yesterday, the navy's senior Scottish officer Rear Admiral Derek Anthony said the submarine was being used for a course which places students under pressure, simulating wartime scenarios as closely as possible. The rear admiral said the submarine captain was responsible for the operation and safety of his vessel at all times. The students themselves were all experienced submariners. "Naturally we are concerned at any navigational incident of this nature and can't comment any further on that until we know what happened... Obviously we would prefer this had not happened. The degree of embarrassment you can judge for yourself." The delay in making the accident public was to give officials time to contact the crew's families. He said the coastguard had not been informed because help had not been required. The Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, whose constituency includes Skye, has called for the investigation's findings to be made public, and anti-nuclear campaigners have demanded an independent assessment. Useful links British army [http://www.army.mod.uk/] Royal Navy [http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/] RAF [http://www.raf.mod.uk/] Ministry of Defence [http://www.mod.uk/] Nato [http://www.nato.int/home.htm] United Nations [http://www.un.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 29 Britain Issues Terror Warning Las Vegas SUN November 07, 2002 By THOMAS WAGNER ASSOCIATED PRESS LONDON- Britain warned Thursday that al-Qaida might use new methods to carry out terror attacks, but a statement listing radioactive devices and poison gas was later withdrawn. The confusion came as visiting Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge discussed the terrorism threat with British officials. At first, the British government gave reporters a statement about anti-terrorism measures that listed possible methods of attack. It said of al-Qaida terrorists, "They may attempt to use more familiar terrorist methods, such as leaving parcel or vehicle bombs in public places, to hijacking passenger aircraft. However, they may try something different, perhaps as surprising as the attacks in the World Trade Center, to the theater siege in Moscow." It went on to say, "Maybe they will try to develop a so-called dirty bomb, or some kind of poison gas; maybe they will try to use boats or trains, rather than planes. The bottom line is that we simply cannot be sure." A "dirty bomb" is a conventional explosive device packed with radioactive material that can contaminate an area without a full-scale nuclear blast. A Home Office spokeswoman said the first version was an early draft that had not been authorized. The second version of the statement dropped the specific references. The spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the original statement was withdrawn because the government did not want to limit the public to thinking in terms of specific threats. In a speech in London on Thursday evening, Ridge said America would "wrestle forever" with the impact of Sept. 11, and that the threat from al-Qaida and other groups was "unlike any other we have faced." Looking ahead to future risks, Ridge said, "Our enemies are working to obtain chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons." He rejected claims that America was overreacting to the terrorist threat. "Great Britain and other European nations have been terrorized before and have survived," Ridge said. "However, the new terrorist threat is unlike any other we have faced." Al-Qaida remains our most "immediate and serious threat," he said, even though hundreds of its operatives have been "captured or killed." Ridge said the recent bombing in Bali, the attack on the French oil tanker, the slaying of Europeans in Pakistan and the killing of a U.S. Marine in Kuwait strongly suggest that al-Qaida retains the capability to orchestrate attacks and to inspire sympathizers. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 British Nuclear Sub Suffers Damage November 08, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS LONDON- A British nuclear submarine ran aground off Scotland's Isle of Skye, suffered considerable damage to its sonar and a ballast tank and will need several months for repairs, a navy spokeswoman said Friday. The HMS Trafalgar limped into the Clyde naval base Thursday, one day after hitting rocks while traveling underwater during a two-week training exercise with other British and NATO vessels. Two of the 130 crewmen aboard the submarine were injured. The submarine was not carrying nuclear weapons, and its nuclear reactor suffered no damage, the official said, on customary condition of anonymity. Damaged sections included sonar and a ballast tank. Scotland's senior naval officer, Rear Admiral Derek Anthony, has said that a trainee commander may have been at the helm of the 5,200-ton submarine when it ran aground. The Royal Navy has 16 submarines in its fleet, 12 of which are nuclear-powered attack subs like the HMS Trafalgar. The accident was the second this year involving Royal Navy vessels. In July, the destroyer HMS Nottingham ran into rocks off Australia. The ship, with 253 crew members aboard, nearly sank when a large gash was cut into its hull near Lord Howe Island in the Tasman Sea. None of the crew was injured. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Canadian energy plants warned to beef up security /Last Updated Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:01:17 / CALGARY - Foreign spies have already accessed a Canadian gas plant and pose a threat to all Canadian energy companies, said the head of a major natural gas supplier. Nancy Southern, co-chair of ATCO Group, made the comments Thursday during a counter-terrorism conference in Calgary. She said two spies from a foreign country toured one of ATCO's natural gas processing plants at Empress, Alberta, in July 2001. "I can tell you that we are aware of agents of foreign powers that have been at our facilities, touring our facilities," Southern said. Posing as engineers, the two men had said they wanted to build a gas plant in Iran. Southern said the security breach scared her and her staff. "What is more volatile and more dangerous than nuclear power but natural gas?" The incident reinforces the need for more security at oil and gas facilities, according to Greg Stringham, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Southern says ATCO has beefed up security at its natural gas plants around the world. She's also issued a warning to the head of other energy companies not to be lulled into a false sense of security. Written by CBC News Online staff *H e a d l i n e s : C a n a d a * ***************************************************************** 32 Britain Withdraws 'Dirty Bomb' Warning Crosswalk.com Mike Wendling London Bureau Chief London (CNSNews.com) - U.K. officials were backtracking Friday from a mistakenly released terror warning about a potential "dirty bomb" or poison gas attack against Britain. The warning was part of the preface to a report on anti-terror measures Britain has taken since the Sept. 11 attacks. It was released as U.K. Home Secretary David Blunkett met with U.S. Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge in London. Shortly after the report was issued to journalists Thursday evening, the Home Office requested that the document be returned. It was replaced with a version that left out references to poisonous gas and "dirty bombs" -- conventional explosives designed to disperse radioactive material over a wide area. The original draft, which despite the recall was printed in several national newspapers, read: "We cannot be sure of when and where or how the terrorists will strike, but we can be sure that they will try. They may attempt to use more familiar terrorist methods, such as leaving parcel or vehicle bombs in public places, or hijacking passenger aircraft. "Maybe they will try to develop a so-called dirty bomb, or some kind of poison gas; maybe they will try to use boats or trains rather than planes. The bottom line is that we simply cannot be sure." The amended version placed more emphasis on the types of terror Britain has confronted as a result of the conflict in Northern Ireland. It read: "The kind of risk that the U.K. is used to because of our experience with terrorism related to Northern Ireland -- car bombs and parcel bombs in public places, assassinations for example -- must be taken seriously, and the public must remain vigilant." "But as we have seen with the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, the theater siege of Moscow, the attack on a French ship off Yemen and the scale of the attacks in Bali, today's breed of terrorist is looking for ever more dramatic and devastating effect. "If Al Qaeda could mount an attack upon key economic targets, or upon our transport infrastructure, they would. If they could inflict damage upon the health of our population, they would," the document read. A Home Office spokeswoman said Friday that the first version of the report was an early draft and that the warnings in both documents did not relate to any specific intelligence about dirty bombs, poison gas or terrorists from Northern Ireland. The language about specific types of attack was toned down in the final report, she said, so as not to cause undue panic or concentrate attention on one particular type of threat over another. "There is no hidden message here," she said. "Both reports contain basically the same message, that the public must be vigilant against terror attacks." "The types of attacks mentioned in the report are not risks linked to specific information, they're purely examples," the spokeswoman said. Terror threats were also the subject of a speech given by Ridge on Thursday evening. "Our enemies are working to obtain chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons," he said. "Great Britain and other European nations have been terrorized before and have survived," Ridge said. "However, the new terrorist threat is unlike any other we have faced." The homeland security director is on a weeklong tour of European nations to discuss counter-terror operations. © Copyright 2002, Crosswalk.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use. ***************************************************************** 33 Japan: Govt holds nuclear disaster drill Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun The Fukui prefectural government and the central government Thursday conducted a joint nuclear disaster drill at a nuclear power plant operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. in Oicho, Fukui Prefecture. The scenario for the exercise supposed there had been a major radiation leak, similar in scale to the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States. About 1,900 local residents, including people living in a facility for the disabled in the area, participated in the drill, as did 117 organizations, including experts who monitored the level of radiation leakage. Residents living within a two-kilometer radius of the nuclear plant were evacuated, and those living up to seven kilometers south of the plant were told to stay indoors. At 8:33 a.m., Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told Gov. Yukio Kurita to take appropriate measures following a teleconference in which the premier told the governor, "I have declared a state of emergency." Kurita reported to Koizumi on the scale of "damage" as well as the measures that were being taken. In an exercise starting at 10:20 a.m., about 250 residents living within the two-kilometer radius were evacuated to primary schools. Two "victims" exposed to radiation were helicoptered to a Fukui hospital. Ministers involved in the government's task force on nuclear disaster held the first meeting of the task force at the Prime Minister's Office. Koizumi, who heads the body, directed the ministers to cooperate by sharing information on emergency measures, saying, "We must settle the situation quickly while assigning the highest priority to people's safety." Meanwhile, the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency established a secretariat of the government's task force at the agency's emergency center, and checked whether information channels among the secretariat, local headquarters and the Prime Minister's Office were working smoothly. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 34 Blunkett admits terror warning error BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Friday, 8 November, 2002, 17:50 GMT [Police search the scene of the bombing at the Sari nightclub in Bali] The original warning feared a Bali-style bomb in UK Home Secretary David Blunkett says a warning on terrorism was toned down in order to avoid "creating unjustified panic and disruption". The draft statement was released in error on Thursday, but withdrawn minutes later and replaced with a revised text. Text of withdrawn terror statement The original release warned of a possible chemical or nuclear terrorist attack on the UK using a "dirty bomb" or poison gas. The later statement contained a more general warning of "ever more dramatic and devastating" terror attacks. Mr Blunkett said the initial statement was released as a result of "a simple clerical error". Maybe they will try to develop a so-called dirty bomb, or some kind of poison gas; maybe they will try to use boats or trains, rather than planes Original warning But he said the underlying message - the need for vigilance in the face of the threat from al-Qaeda - was more important than the mistake. He said he took responsibility for errors in his department. He said: "I want to use language that people can understand but which is also an accurate reflection of the information presented to me at any time. Duty "That and that alone is the explanation for the difference between the two drafts." Mr Blunkett said his duty was to give an assessment of any threats faced while also balancing that "against the risk of creating unjustified panic and disruption which would itself give the terrorists the victory they crave". He said: "No one should be in any doubt that the protection of the public is my highest priority as Home Secretary. "Where tough measures are needed, I will not flinch from them. But I will balance those measures by safeguarding the very liberties that they are designed to protect." Downing Street said the administrative slip-up should not divert attention from "a serious and ongoing threat from al-Qaeda". Poison gas The draft statement warned that al-Qaeda could strike with traditional terror tactics or new, "surprising" methods. "Maybe they will try to develop a so-called dirty bomb, or some kind of poison gas; maybe they will try to use boats or trains rather than planes," it said. The second statement said: "If al-Qaeda could mount an attack upon key economic targets, or upon our transport infrastructure, they would." The warnings came in the foreword to a summary of anti-terrorist measures taken by Britain in recent months. Both statements urged people to remain vigilant to the continuing threat of Irish and international terrorism. Wider threat And Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said that was the key message which should not be overshadowed by the administrative mistake. [Home Office press releases on terrorism] The two statements released by the Home Office He said: "What it says is that there is a serious and ongoing threat from al-Qaeda, that that is confirmed by intelligence reports from various parts of the world, that that threat applies just as much to this country as to others. "And as we learned on September 11, this is a qualitatively different kind of threat from previous terrorist threats." BBC correspondent Frank Gardner said the truth was that Britain's security services faced the dilemma of believing the threat of an attack was high, but not knowing where it might come from. "They want to warn the public to be vigilant but at the same time not panic them," he said. 'Not inaccurate' Professor Paul Wilkinson of the Centre for Terrorism Studies at St Andrews University said it was a "possibility" that there was a threat from a "dirty bomb" attack in the UK. Text of revised statement So-called "dirty bombs" scatter deadly radioactive material using conventional explosive devices. While not as immediately destructive as traditional explosives, they could ultimately prove far more devastating in terms of casualties, as they have the potential to spread radioactive material over a wide area, possibly leading to cancer and radiation poisoning. Professor Wilkinson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the original home office warning was "not inaccurate". "I suspect that really the reason for its withdrawal was that they did not want to highlight specific threats. "They wanted to point out that the threat was from a whole variety of tactics," he added. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 35 THE Royal Navy recorded one of its worst accidents in 1990 when the hunter-killer HMS Trenchant sunk the trawler Antares, from Carradale in Kintyre. Four fishermen were dragged to their deaths in the Sound of Bute off Arran after their nets were snagged by the submarine during an exercise. Despite an outcry from fishermen, the nuclear-powered HMS Valiant breached guidelines in 1993 off the Butt of Lewis when its towed-array sonar cable snagged the nets of the Sutherland trawler Audacious. It took two years for the Royal Navy to admit blame. The nuclear submarine HMS Triumph struck the seabed off the west coast of Scotland in November 2000. The Trafalgar-class vessel, with 100 crew, made "grazing contact with soft sand and shells" in international waters, according to the Ministry of Defence. Two officers were court marshalled. In the same month, the Trident submarine HMS Victorious ran aground on the Skelmorlie sandbank in the Clyde. The HMS Tireless sprang a leak in her reactor cooling pipes in May 2000, pumping almost 20 gallons of radioactive coolant overboard, and limped into Gibraltar for repairs. - Nov 8th ***************************************************************** 36 THE Royal Navy's 12-strong hunter-killer flotilla is the forward edge of British intelligence-gathering in hostile waters worldwide. It is also Downing Street's latest means of striking hard at long range without risking manned bombers over enemy turf. The submarine-launched cruise missile, with a 1000-mile range, has become the precision weapon of choice. The nuclear-powered fleet submarine is the new capital ship of anyone's navy, equipped with a range of lethal hardware which includes wire-guided homing torpedoes, Harpoon anti-shipping and US Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. The navy refused to confirm whether Trafalgar had Tomahawk missiles aboard on Wednesday, but sources say part of the current exercise was a test-run before deployment as part of the UK's military commitment to a possible attack against Iraq. The Ministry of Defence bought 95 of the submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles from the US to start equipping its hunter-killer fleet. An unknown number have since been fired in anger against Serb targets in Kosovo and al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. Trafalgar is the latest fleet boat to be adapted for cruise missile operations. In skilled hands, it can nose its way undetected into enemy coastal waters to drop off raiding or reconnaissance parties from the Royal Marines' Special Boat Service - the naval equivalent of the SAS - or to sift the airwaves from periscope depth for military signals traffic with its custom-built electronic collection masts. Working in open ocean, its surface-skimming Harpoon missiles can be fired from torpedo tubes to sink ships more than 50 miles away. As a strategic asset, its Tomahawks can be programmed to strike targets deep inland from up to 1000 miles away. Nine or 10 of the RN's fleet boats can be available at any time. At least four, including Trafalgar, have been converted to Tomahawk launch platforms. Two boats are normally earmarked to transport, launch and recover teams of SBS commandos for covert close reconnaissance missions. Four-man frogman groups of the 230-strong SBS can be carried within a few miles of their target before leaving the submarine through pressurised escape compartments to swim the rest of the way ashore. Pick-up is done in reverse, with the commandos swimming out to a pre-arranged rendezvous point two or three miles off shore. The hunter-killer stays at periscope depth - about 60ft - scanning with her sensors for pursuit or other threats to her returning guests or her own crew. The SBS and its submariner host service exercise frequently off the coast of Arran. Kilchattan Bay on the island of Bute and the Mull of Kintyre are other favoured practice landing sites. All RN fleet boats test their sensors on the sonar range in the Sound of Raasay between the island and the mainland. HMS Trafalgar, now tied up alongside at Faslane awaiting damage assessment, should be immune from the kind of accident she has just had. The 5200-tonne vessel has sonar fitted to her bow and both flanks. It also has collision avoidance radar and a powerful video camera mounted on the "sail", the vessel's conning tower. Maritime mishaps - Nov 8th ***************************************************************** 37 NRC Staff to Hold Meeting with DCS on November 12 To Discuss Construction Plans for Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility NRC: News Release - Region II - 2002- 48 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov No. II-02-048 November 8, 2002 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov [opa2@nrc.gov] Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Duke, Cogema, Stone and Webster, or DCS, at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, to discuss the company’s plans for construction of a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River site in South Carolina. The meeting will be held in the NRC's Region II offices on the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, and will be open to public observation. NRC officials will be available prior to the close of the meeting to answer questions from interested observers. DCS submitted an application to the NRC for the facility in February 2001. The company has plans to build and operate a MOX facility that would convert surplus weapons-grade plutonium, supplied by the Department of Energy, into fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors. DCS must receive NRC approval prior to initiating construction and operation of the mixed oxide processing facility. The facility must be built in accordance with strict safety standards set forth in the agency's regulations. The NRC expects to make a decision on the MOX construction authorization request late next year. Friday, November 08, 2002 ***************************************************************** 38 EU: Commission proposes creation of joint undertaking for nuclear waste research European Communities. ***************************************************************** 39 Cleanup at Maxey Flats nearly complete MyInKy November 7, 2002 HILLSBORO, Ky.- A multi-million dollar cleanup of a former nuclear dump in Fleming County is nearly complete and will be open for public inspection this weekend. The site, Maxey Flats, was billed in the 1960s as an economic development project that would attract nuclear industry to the area _ 280 acres on which low-level radioactive waste could be handily disposed. Instead, Maxey Flats became an environmental nightmare, leaking radioactive waste. The site was closed in 1978, and Maxey Flats became one of the largest "Superfund" sites in the Southeast. It's expected to cost perhaps $100 million. Dozens of contractors have worked to clean up Maxey Flats under the watch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet since 1996. Nuclear waste has been removed from the site and a cap has been installed. But the end of the cleanup does not mean the end of all work. Regulators will have to keep watch over Maxey Flats for generations. "Soon the state will take over responsibility and the other contractors will leave. Then we'll do environmental monitoring," Matthew Hackathorn, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Cabinet, said. "It becomes pretty boring after that. We have to maintain that cap for 100 years." The cleanup and repair of Maxey Flats required buying adjacent farmland to create a 600-yard buffer zone around the dump. Huge sheets of black plastic are being laid over it to seal out rainwater. A six-foot fence topped with barbed wire encloses the site to keep people and animals away. Buried within Maxey Flats is 4.75 million cubic feet of waste from nuclear plants, hospitals, universities and industries. Waste was shipped to the dump from more than 600 sources. More than 120 water wells and 25 springs are within five miles of the dump, but nearby residents receive drinking water from a municipal water system, according to the EPA. When Maxey Flats was in operation, waste was buried in trenches. When a trench was filled, workers covered it with soil. But water collected in the trenches over time, leaching waste into the environment. Cleanup work included pumping contaminated water out of the ground and mixing it with cement and additives. The mixed material was poured into bunkers to solidify. A lining over the bunkers is expected to be put into place in the spring, according to the EPA. The public opening is scheduled Saturday from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. EST. Information from: The Ledger Independent ***************************************************************** 40 Sandia Research With New Reactor Could Mean Significant Savings In The Eventual Safe Transport, Storage, Disposal Of Nuclear Waste ScienceDaily News Release: [http://www.sandia.gov] 11/8/2002 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Recent experiments by Sandia National Laboratories researcher Gary Harms and his team are using a new Labs-built reactor to provide benchmarks showing that spent nuclear fuel — uranium that has been used as fuel at a nuclear power plant — is considerably less reactive than the original fresh fuel. This could mean significant savings in the eventual safe transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear waste. “The conservative view has always been to treat spent fuel like it just came out of the factory with its full reactivity,” Harms, project lead, says. “This results in the numbers of canisters required in the handling of spent nuclear fuel to be conservatively high, driving up shipping and storage costs.” The more realistic view is that as nuclear fuel is burned, the reactivity of the fuel decreases due to the consumption of some of the uranium and to the accumulation of fission products, the “ash” left from burning the nuclear fuel. Accounting for this reactivity decrease, called burnup credit, would allow for the spent nuclear fuel to be safely packed in more dense arrays for transportation, storage, and disposal than would be possible if the composition changes were ignored. “Allowing such burnup credit would result in significant cost savings in the handling of spent nuclear fuel,” Harms adds. This seems obvious on the surface, but in the ultraconservative world of nuclear criticality safety, an effect must be proven before it is accepted. Thus, prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ever agreeing to the more realistic view, it would have to be proven in actual experiments and compared to computer models showing the same effects. In 1999 Harms obtained a three-year grant from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Energy Research Initiative to make benchmark measurements of the reactivity effects that fission products have on a nuclear reactor. The project was called the Burnup Credit Critical Experiment (BUCCX). Rhodium, an important fission product absorber, was chosen for the first measurements. To do this the BUCCX team first designed and built a small reactor, technically called a critical assembly, which uses low-enriched fuel. The control system and some of the assembly hardware for the reactor came from the 1980s-era Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) Critical Experiment project, designed to simulate the behavior of a nuclear rocket reactor. The reactor, which operated during the experiments at a lower power than a household light bulb, was subjected to several layers of safety reviews. During the experiments, it performed safely exactly as predicted. “It took us most of the three years to build the reactor and get authorization to use it. Only in the last few months have we begun actual experiments,” Harms says. “Much of the time was involved in getting approvals from Sandia and DOE and to make sure it meets all ES concerns.” The core of the BUCCX consists of a few hundred rods full of pellets of clean uranium that originally came from the nuclear powered ship NS Savannah. Thirty-six of the rods can be opened to insert experiment materials between the fuel pellets. Prior to conducting experiments with the rhodium, the researchers loaded the reactor to critical with only the uranium fuel. This provided a baseline point of where uranium goes critical — information that could be compared to later experiments. Then, the BUCCX team added about 1,200 circular rhodium foils between the uranium pellets in the 36 rods. The intent was to measure the extent to which the rhodium reduced the reactivity of the uranium. “We then compared the critical loading of the assembly with the rhodium foils to the critical loading without rhodium,” Harms says. And, not to anyone’s surprise, it took significantly more fuel to reach critical with the rhodium-doped rods than without them. Months before running the physical experiments on the reactor, Harms was modeling on Sandia’s sophisticated computers to determine where the uranium doped with rhodium would go critical. “I was curious,” Harms says, “I did calculations ahead of time so I could lay out the experiment and get a peek at what the experiments would say. In the end, I was fairly impressed with how accurate the calculations were compared to the actual physical experiments.” Of course, the computer codes weren’t perfect, and had a small bias when compared to other criticality safety benchmarks. And in analyzing the actual experiments in the reactor, Harms took that bias into account. Harms says two other fission products absorb neutrons better than rhodium. However, he selected rhodium to run the experiments because it is one of the few byproducts of fission that has a single stable isotope, which means the experiment would not be contaminated by the effects of other isotopes. Also, no one else has done any experiments with rhodium in a critical assembly. Subsequent experiments could address the dozen or so other fission products that are important to burnup credit. Also, to his knowledge, no other lab in the US is doing actual burnup credit experiments. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is running codes to determine how much the reactivity of spent fuel is reduced by fission products, but not doing actual experiments. At the end of the three-year funding period, Harms says the Sandia program has come a long way in proving that the reactivity of spent fuel is considerably less than that of fresh fuel. “In essence Sandia is helping pave the way for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the safe and cost-efficient transport and storage of nuclear waste,” Harms says. Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here [http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2002/nuclear-power/burnup.html ] . Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote any part of this story, please credit Sandia National Laboratories as the original source. You may also wish to include the following link in any citation: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021107075247.htm ***************************************************************** 41 The Vulnerability of the UK's Nuclear Facilities to Terrorism Reprosessing plant Sellafield, located at the western coast of England, is the largest source to radioactive contamination of the north-east Atlantic ocean. Bellona Position Paper OSLO - The events on 11 September 2001 highlighted the vulnerability of critical national infrastructure to terrorist attack. Bellona's position paper examines the vulnerability of the United Kingdom's nuclear facilities to terrorist attack. Zackary Moss, 2002-11-08 13:05 In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — the risk that a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) might be used as a radiological weapon has received much attention post-11 September 2001. While there is no danger of a nuclear-yield explosion if a NPP were attacked, a successful terrorist attack or sabotage attempt at a NPP containing a range of hazardous materials and facilities could cause the release of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. This would disperse radioactive contamination over a wide area. The contaminated area would thus become uninhabitable, with grave consequences for the environment, the economy and future generations. An attack on a NPP would at best cause the disruption to domestic and commercial energy supplies, at worst radioactive fallout, public hysteria and mass fatalities. Attack on a Nuclear Power Plant or Spent Fuel Facility In 2002, the United Kingdom (UK) had in operation 31 nuclear reactors in 13 NPPs.1 Of these reactors, 30 are gas-cooled and graphite-modified types: 16 of these are the Magnox reactors operated by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL); while 14 are Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) owned by the private nuclear power generator British Energy. The last reactor to enter service was a Pressure Water Reactor (PWR) completed in 1995, owned by British Energy. NPPs in most countries are protected by containment vessels several feet thick and are equipped with redundant safety systems. Armed guards and other security systems also protect them.2 In order to cause a core meltdown and disperse a substantial amount of the NPP’s radioactive material into the atmosphere, attackers would have to defeat the plant’s security systems and destroy or disable its multiple safety systems simultaneously. Yet NPPs are capable of withstanding a commando-style raid by only a small group of lightly armed insurgents. A heavily armed group might therefore be able to overwhelm a NPP’s security systems, especially with insider knowledge of the security. Besides a commando-style raid, other methods of attack exist. These might involve hijacked airplanes, a maritime vessel with crew-served weapons on-board (surface-to-surface missiles, for example), or a truck packed with explosives. In fact, a large truck bomb detonated outside the protected area of a NPP could cause sufficient damage to critical safety systems and lead to a core meltdown.3 By far the most potentially devastating radiological release would come from sabotage to a NPP or spent fuel facility: both of these facilities contain huge concentrations of highly radioactive material and would generate the nuclear or chemical energy needed for wide dispersal of the radioactive material. International security standards differ, however. The Three Mile Island NPP facility in the USA was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, although it might be vulnerable to a full speed, direct hit from larger commercial airliners, such as a 767. But the UK’s NPPs were never constructed with such an attack in mind. The fact that 30 out of 31 of the UK’s reactors are graphite-moderated types is also a cause for concern because when graphite is used as moderator it burns easily. In 1986, the fire in the graphite-type Chernobyl reactor lasted for over a week and released radioactivity over 1,000 metres high into the atmosphere, spreading it over a large area. If an airliner crashed into a UK graphite reactor, a similar long lasting fire with long-distance fallout is possible. Bellona recommends improved security at the UK's NPPs, including better containment for reactors to withstand the crash impact from an airliner or from a high-yield conventional explosive detonated offsite. Security improvements at the Magnox reactors could prove uneconomical, as they are due to close by 2010. NPPs burn uranium fuel in their cores, which produce highly radioactive and physically hot spent fuel rods: rods are removed from the reactor and those from the Magnox and AGR stations are plunged into onsite cooling ponds for a short period of time before being transferred to containers (flasks) and sent to Sellafield for reprocessing – a method of handling spent nuclear fuel. Rods from the PWR station are initially stored in onsite water-filled storage pools. BNFL operates two reprocessing plants at Sellafield, Magnox B205 and Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). B205 operates according to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction method and reprocesses fuel from British Magnox reactors. THORP was designed to separate plutonium for use in ‘breeder’ reactors, but now reprocesses spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from British AGRs as well as imported SNF.4 Other than Sellafield, there are only two other major reprocessing plants in operation worldwide: Cap de la Hague in France and Mayak in Russia. The Sellafield plant houses 21 steel tanks in above ground concrete cells that contain high level radioactive waste in the form of self heating, acidic liquid. This radioactive waste has to be constantly cooled and stirred to prevent a chain reaction, which is achieved by continuously being cooled and agitated to prevent the stored waste from boiling and causing a radiological release. The tanks contain 2,400kg of caesium-137, a radioactive material responsible for offsite radiation exposure from Chernobyl, although the amount released from Chernobyl was approximately 27kg. It is estimated that if an airliner crashed into one of the key structures at Sellafield, it would release into the atmosphere 44 times the radioactivity of the 1986 Chernobyl accident.5 If the cooling system were sabotaged, or if terrorist attack on the facility were successful, it would release liquid waste into the Irish Sea, along with strontium-90, caesium-137 and technetium-99, which has a half-life of 213, 000 years. Such radioactive substances would contaminate fisheries and travel north from Cumbria, heavily contaminating fisheries in western Scotland. Anywhere downwind of Sellafield during the release would be rendered uninhabitable for generations, and people caught in the fallout would have a higher chance of contracting cancer. Depending on the wind direction, cities such as Dublin, Edinburgh, Leeds and Newcastle would be well within fallout range. Indeed, in a report to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 9 January 2002, Dr Gordon Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Research and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggested that an attack on the B205 facility could release 100 times the radioactivity produced by the Chernobyl accident, which would make the north of England uninhabitable for generations.6 Moreover, a report by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on 2 July 2002 reported that two sets of tanks housing medium-level radioactive waste at Sellafield were so old and in such a dangerous condition that they pose an unacceptable risk. BNFL has been warned that neither the structural integrity of the tanks, nor the building containing them, could be guaranteed beyond ten years. While BNFL has already surrounded the tanks with a steel building and commissioned specialist machinery to empty the tanks, the condition of the tanks require the building of new tanks or another solution for processing the waste. Bellona advocates the need for crash-proof tanks to contain the medium and high-level radioactive waste stored at Sellafield. The liquid waste should be vitrified as soon as possible and disposed of geologically. Attack on Reprocessing or Storage Transports In 1996, BNFL opened the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) for the production of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, receiving its licence for production in October 2001. The only use for the plutonium that THORP and B205 have produced is to mix it with uranium oxide and fabricate MOX fuel for use in Light Water Reactors. While the UK has the facilities to produce MOX fuel, it does not use MOX fuel. And given the cost of conversion, British NPP operators have no plans to convert their power stations to burn MOX fuel. BNFL, having already built a MOX fuel manufacturing plant, have been forced to look overseas for customers in countries including Germany, Switzerland and Japan. The transportation of nuclear materials, such as fresh MOX fuel and SNF for reprocessing, means that there will be an ever increasing traffic in nuclear materials by air, land and sea. Shipments of SNF and fresh MOX fuel might be vulnerable to terrorist attack and could be used to create a radiological explosion or to gain the material to fabricate a radiological device such as a "dirty bomb". No nuclear freight is allowed to travel through the Channel Tunnel. Previously, SNF for reprocessing sent to Sellafield was shipped into Dover Docks by train-ferry before travelling on by rail. The ferry has now been withdrawn from service and all flasks go by sea to Barrow-in-Furness, and then by train to Sellafield. Flasks are made of steel and are lead-lined in order to contain the intense heat and radioactivity of the spent fuel rods, and are carried on special low-loading freight wagons.7 While the flasks are designed to meet international safety standards drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a successful terrorist attack might cause either a high-speed derailment or collision, which could release the radioactive contents. BNFL operates seven vessels for the transport of MOX fuel. Two of these vessels are armed with 30mm cannons. Armed officers from the UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA) Constabulary, which provide security for civil nuclear sites and for the transport of nuclear material within the UK, are on guard against boarders. Should the Constabulary be overpowered, would-be attackers would than have to crack open the vessels’ reinforced hatch covers and unload the rods without the aid of deck cranes.8 Yet BNFL's vessels only have a top speed of 13 knots and are not as maneuverable or well-defended as a military or coastguard escort vessel.9 Jane’s maritime specialists suggest that the vessels are capable of repelling a light attack and should be protected by at least one well-armed frigate.10 And while MOX fuel flasks can resist temperatures of 800C for up to 30 minutes, fires on ships can burn for 24 hours at a temperature of 1,000C. Because MOX fuel is merely plutonium and uranium blended and held in ceramic form, it is possible to undertake the chemical separation of plutonium from fresh MOX fuel. While it is debatable whether or not this could be used to fabricate a crude nuclear device, the material could be used to make a dirty bomb capable of scattering plutonium dust in the wind: just one speck of plutonium breathed into the lungs is enough to cause cancer, so the population near any blast involving radioactive material would have to be evacuated immediately. Given the security threats of transporting fresh and spent MOX fuel, including the risk of accidents at land and sea and nuclear material proliferation, as well as the additional costs to increasing security, Bellona calls for a ban to be placed on the international transport of MOX fuel. Reducing the Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants Since 11 September 2001, attention has been drawn to the physical protection of NPPs. By deploying point air-defence systems around Cap de la Hague, French defence officials have tightened security around Europe’s largest nuclear processing plant. In the UK, the House of Commons defence committee stressed that attention should be focused on the vulnerability of nuclear installations. The UK Home Office, too, has underscored the need to protect the UK’s key nuclear facilities through the government’s Civil Contingencies Committee. The Royal Air Force Tornado F3 fighters based at Coningsby, Lincolnshire, are responsible for intercepting hijacked commercial aircraft deemed a threat to UK nuclear sites. In July 2002, the British government published a White Paper entitled "Managing the Nuclear Legacy: A Strategy for Action" which proposed to transform the UKAEA Constabulary into a stand-alone force the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC).11 The new, armed force will be able to make arrests at non-nuclear locations such as sea ports, airports and railway stations. It will also be able to patrol and stop and search individuals and vehicles up to three miles from nuclear sites. Bellona believes that these responses do not tackle the underlying vulnerability of NPPs, however. What is needed is a comprehensive upgrade of security systems including improved reactor containment. In fact, in the short term, security standards should be improved, and it would be prudent to enhance security systems. In the long term, however, Bellona advocates an end to commercial reprocessing and the vitrification and disposal of high-level radioactive waste preferably in a dry-storage geological repository. Nuclear energy provides 23% of Britain’s total energy requirements, so reducing the need for nuclear power is feasible, especially on financial grounds. In 2001, BNFL developed a £1.7bn “net asset deficit” in its accounts. To avoid prosecution under the 1985 Companies Act, BNFL managers called an extraordinary general meeting on 28 November 2001. Since then, the British government has set up a Liabilities Management Authority to take responsibility for and control the UK's nuclear waste including everything owned and run by the UK Atomic Energy Agency and BNFL. It appears that BNFL failed to set aside sufficient money to pay for cleaning up old nuclear power stations and has developed a £44bn deficit. The bill for dealing with nuclear waste alone exceeds £38bn, and the British taxpayer will now have to pay £1.5bn a year in liabilities.12 Notes 1. For more information, see Erik Martiniussen, Bellona Working Paper, ‘Sellafield: Reprocessing Plant in Great Britain’, No.05: 2001, (29 October 2001), (http://www.bellona.no/pdfs/wp5_2001_Sellafield_English.pdf). 2. Matthew Bunn and George Bunn ‘Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Sabotage’, Intersec, (Vol.12, Issue 4, April 2002). 3. Power Technology, ‘Nuclear Terrorism’, (http://www.power-technology.com). 4. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Briefing Paper, ‘Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons’. 5. BBC News, ‘Sellafield Time Bomb Warning’, (23 October 2001). 6. Paul Brown and Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Terror attack on Sellafield would wipe out the north’, (10 January 2002). 7. CND, Rail Transport: fact sheet, ‘UK Nuclear Power Stations and Nuclear Fuel Transport’. 8. BBC News, ‘MOX: The Voyage Home’, (11 July 2000). 9. Greenpeace, Background Briefing, ‘The Sellafield MOX Plant’, (October 2001). 10. Geoffrey Lean, ‘Pirates could snatch plutonium’, the Independent, (4 July 1999). 11.(http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/announce_pubs/conspubs/nuclear_legacy/ index.shtml). 12. Paul Brown, 'Nuclear fallout', the Guardian, 14 December 2001. 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 ***************************************************************** 42 Sanford likely to drop DOE lawsuit The State | 11/07/2002 | Governor-elect disagreed with blocking shipments of plutonium to S.C. By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer Gov.-elect Mark Sanford said Wednesday he "would be inclined" to drop a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy over plutonium shipments to the Savannah River Site. A day after defeating Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges, Sanford said he didn't agree with Hodges' strategy of suing to block plutonium shipments from other atomic weapons sites. Hodges sued the DOE in May, arguing that the plutonium shouldn't be sent to SRS without more environmental study. He accused the Bush Administration of failing to ensure the deadly atomic weapons-making material would eventually be removed from SRS, a 300-square-mile federal complex near Aiken. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide early next year whether to hear an appeal of the case. If the court dismisses Hodges' appeal of lower court rulings, the issue could be moot by the time Sanford takes office, Hodges' lawyer, Billy Want, said. If the court rules in favor of Hodges, Sanford would have to decide whether to continue the case. "I would be inclined toward dropping the lawsuit," Sanford said. "I've long believed that the legislative strategy is a much more valid way of bringing about change." Sanford cautioned that he has not fully studied the matter and could change his mind. But he said the suit was a "particularly unproductive route to go." Federal legislation pending before Congress would establish timetables to process and remove the plutonium from SRS. The material, coming from other nuclear sites across the country, is supposed to be turned into mixed oxide fuel, then shipped to nuclear power plants operated by Duke Energy Corp. But Hodges has contended that the legislation isn't strong enough. He says the DOE could change its mind about processing plutonium, and South Carolina would be stuck with the material. About 34 metric tons are to be shipped to SRS from Rocky Flats, Colo., and other federal sites. Republican U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, who was elected senator Tuesday, said Wednesday he's optimistic the federal legislation will pass. It is expected to be discussed next week in Congress as part of the federal defense authorization bill, according to Graham's office. Hodges spokesman Morton Brilliant was unavailable Wednesday for comment. ***************************************************************** 43 David Crombie to chair Nuclear Waste Management Organization Advisory Council - Members named Attention News Editors: OTTAWA, Nov. 7 /CNW/ - The Honourable David Crombie has been named chair of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) Advisory Council. The announcement was made today by Richard Dicerni, chair of the NWMO board of directors. Mr. Crombie is President and CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute. A past mayor for the City of Toronto and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, he has served on and chaired several high profile panels and commissions. Mr. Crombie was the first Chancellor of Ryerson Polytechnic University and is the recipient of honorary doctorates of law from the Universities of Toronto and Waterloo. "Mr. Crombie is a person of great integrity," said Mr. Dicerni. "The Nuclear Waste Management Organization will benefit immensely from his experience and his judgement as it consults with Canadians and investigates approaches for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel." Other members of the Advisory Council are: - David Cameron, Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto - Helen Cooper, former mayor of Kingston, community worker - Gordon Cressy, Vice President of Ryerson University - Frederick Gilbert, President of Lakehead University - Dr. Derek Lister, holds Chair in Nuclear Engineering, University of New Brunswick - Donald Obonsawin, former Deputy Minister of several Ontario Ministries - Daniel Rozon, Department Head, Engineering Physics at Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal "The long-term management of used nuclear fuel is a significant public policy issue," said Mr. Crombie. "I look forward to working with this outstanding panel providing advice to the NWMO as it develops its plans." "The combined talents and experience of the Advisory Council will bring a wide breadth of perspectives to our challenging and important task," said Elizabeth Dowdeswell, president of the NWMO. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been established under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA). Its members are Ontario Power Generation, Hydro Québec and New Brunswick Power, Canadian companies that produce used nuclear fuel as a byproduct of electricity generation. The NFWA requires the organization to complete a study of approaches within three years, and put forward a recommended plan to the federal government for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The Advisory Council has been appointed to provide independent and arms-length guidance and advice to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization concerning its study of approaches for the long-term management of nuclear waste. Its comments to the NWMO on the approaches for the management of used nuclear fuel, the study, and the organization's triennial reports will be made public. Editor's note: member photos will be emailed upon request BACKGROUNDER The Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Organization October 24, 2002 OTTAWA - The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has been established under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NWFA) to investigate approaches for managing Canada's used nuclear fuel. The NWFA results from the Government of Canada's response to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, which was chaired by Mr. Blair Seaborn and reported in March, 1998. The Government of Canada introduced Bill C-27 for First Reading on April 25, 2001. Following House and Senate Committee reviews, the legislation received Royal Assent on June 13, 2002. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act requires electricity generating companies which produce used nuclear fuel to: - establish a waste management organization to provide recommendations on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel to the Government of Canada and, - establish segregated trust funds to finance the long term management of the used fuel. The NWFA also requires the NWMO to: - establish an Advisory Council whose comments on the waste management organization's study and reports will be made public. Among the first activities for the organization will be a study of long-term management approaches for used nuclear fuel, including the design of an innovative and wide-ranging program of public consultation. Within three years of the legislation coming into force, the NWMO is to submit to the Minister of Natural Resources proposed approaches for the management of used nuclear fuel, along with comments of the Advisory Council, and a recommended approach. The legislation authorizes the Governor in Council to decide on the approach. The government's choice will then be implemented by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, subject to all of the necessary regulatory approvals. BACKGROUNDER November 07, 2002 NWMO ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTTAWA - The following members have been appointed to the Advisory Council for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization: HON. DAVID CROMBIE (Chair) David Crombie has had an extensive career in education, community affairs and politics. He is best known for having served as Mayor of the City of Toronto from 1972 to 1978. He was first elected to the House of Commons in a by-election in 1978 and was sworn to the Privy Council eight months later. Mr. Crombie has been a member or chair of several commissions and panels including the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Ontario government's "Who Does What" panel. He was the first Chancellor of Ryerson Polytechnic University and the chair of the Toronto 2008 Summer Olympic Bid. Mr. Crombie is the current President and C.E.O. of the Canadian Urban Institute. DAVID R. CAMERON A graduate of the University of British Columbia and the London School of Economics, David Cameron has held a number of senior government positions in the federal and Ontario civil service. During his career, he has advised on a wide range of governmental issues. Before leaving the civil service, Dr. Cameron held a Deputy Minister position in the Ontario Public Service, acting also as special advisor to the Premier. Dr. Cameron teaches in the Political Science Department at the University of Toronto, and maintains an active interest in government and politics. He has authored three books and numerous publications on federalism, constitutional reform and national unity, and research reports for the Boyd Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Walkerton Inquiry. He is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and the recipient of the 2002 Governor General's International Award for Canadian Studies. HELEN C. COOPER A former mayor of Kingston, Ontario (1988 - 1993), Helen Cooper has more than 25 years experience in community development, municipal governance, organizational planning, teaching and public speaking. Her varied career includes work with the Ontario Municipal Board, Cancer Care Ontario, the Ontario Early Years program and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as well as numerous consulting positions with organizations like Queen's University, Health Canada and the Canadian Conference on Ethical Leadership. She earned her M.Sc. at the London School of Economics and Political Science and did her undergraduate studies in chemistry and mathematics at Queen's University. GORDON CRESSY Gordon Cressy is the Vice-President, University Advancement at Ryerson University. He is the Founding President of the Learning Partnership, a past President of the United Way of Greater Toronto, a past Vice President of Development and University Relations at the University of Toronto and a former City of Toronto alderman. Mr. Cressy has a lengthy record as a community volunteer, serving such diverse organizations as the YMCA of Trinidad and Tobago, The Nelson Mandela Children's Fund and George Brown College. He is the recipient of numerous awards including the Urban Alliance on Race Relations Award, the Metropolitan Toronto Gardiner Award and the Queen's Silver Jubilee Award. FREDERICK FRANKLIN GILBERT Frederick Gilbert is the President of Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. With an academic background in Biology and Zoology and a PhD from the University of Guelph, he has had a lengthy teaching and administrative career in the United States and Canada and has held several environmental and wildlife management public service positions. Since 1985 he has been Interim Chair of the Department of Natural Resource Sciences at Washington State University, Founding Dean of the Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies at the University of Northern British Columbia and Vice- Provost at Colorado State University prior to his current appointment at Lakehead University. Dr. Gilbert has served on many boards, advisory groups and committees, and currently is a board member of Ontario's Living Legacy Trust and the Northwestern Ontario Technology Centre. He has authored and co- authored over 60 scientific publications, several book chapters and two books, one of which he co-edited. He has academic interests in resource management practices, public relations issues and the sustainable use of the natural environment. DEREK H. LISTER Dr. Derek Lister holds the Industrial Research Chair in Nuclear Engineering at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, where he is also the Chairman of the Chemical Engineering Department. After studying Chemical Engineering at Manchester University in England, he earned his doctorate in Physical Chemistry at the University of Leicester. He began his Canadian career at the AECL Laboratory in Chalk River where he held several positions including Group Leader, Senior Scientist and Branch Manager. His main research interests are in the areas of chemistry and corrosion associated with nuclear systems; he has published extensively and given many presentations on these subjects and is frequently consulted as an expert by organisations around the world. Dr. Lister serves on several advisory panels and is affiliated with a variety of professional institutes and societies. DONALD OBONSAWIN Donald Obonsawin has had a lengthy career as a senior civil servant with the governments of Canada and of Ontario. Prior to his recent retirement, he was Deputy Minister of seven Ontario government ministries over a 15 year period. Within the federal civil service, he held a number of senior positions in such departments as Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Health and Welfare Canada. Prior to that, as Executive Director for the Municipal Advisory Committee for Northeastern Ontario, he was responsible for the development of sectoral strategies for municipalities in the region. His varied career includes managing a centre for the performing arts in Sudbury, Ontario, television host, university lecturer and administrator and newspaper reporter. Mr. Obonsawin continues to serve on a number of advisory committees and boards. DANIEL ROZON Dr. Rozon holds a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering from McMaster University. His early career was with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Hydro-Quebec, working in areas of reactor physics and nuclear engineering. He joined Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal in 1977 as an Assistant Professor and has advanced to Full Professorship and Head of the Engineering Physics Department. Dr. Rozon has served as a member of several national advisory committees on Nuclear Issues and a speaker or lecturer at numerous international conferences on energy issues. A member of the Canadian Nuclear Society since its creation, he has been a session chairman and organizer at many of its conferences. Dr. Rozon is a recognized expert on nuclear affairs and is often called upon to discuss current issues in radio and television interviews. Editors note: Member photos will be emailed on request -30- For further information: contact: Michael Krizanc, (416) 592-3701 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION has 3 releases in this database. © 2002 Canada NewsWire Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Envirocare foes fear legal lash [deseretnews.com] Thursday, November 7, 2002 By Jerry D. Spangler and Donna Kemp Spangler Deseret News staff writers Cindy King remembers the day in 1986 when the words of her 4-year-old daughter, Chelsea, struck her with the force of a sledgehammer. Frank Pignanelli, left, and Doug Foxley's lobbyist firm is being sued by the owner of Envirocare because of their support for Initiative 1. Keith Johnson, Deseret News "Mommy, why is our government killing us with all this pollution?" her daughter asked. King went out and promptly joined the Sierra Club, where she has spent the past 15 years immersed in Utah's volatile world of waste disposal, becoming a national expert and a perpetual burr under the saddle of Tooele County waste companies. And for that reason alone, King says, she has been targeted by one company, Envirocare of Utah, which filed a defamation lawsuit against her in January 2001. Plain and simple, she believes she has been "SLAPPed," as in "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," a legal tactic used by deep-pocketed companies and wealthy individuals to intimidate critics and silence opposition. King is not alone in that belief she has been SLAPPed, nor is she alone in feeling the wrath of Envirocare's attorneys, who have a growing reputation for firing off threatening letters to those who criticize the company that operates a landfill in Tooele County for low-level radioactive waste or its wealthy founder Khosrow Semnani. Jason Groenewold, another prominent environmentalist, recently felt the sting of a letter threatening litigation, as did the two organizers of the recently failed citizens initiative that would have raised Envirocare's taxes. They all say the message was loud and clear: To speak out against Envirocare is to risk litigation. "SLAPP suits are a very effective way to silence critics," said First Amendment attorney Jeff Hunt, himself involved in defending an American Fork publisher against a SLAPP suit in Utah County. "They cause average citizens to worry about speaking out on issues of public importance for fear they will be sued for doing so." SLAPP-happy Has Envirocare become SLAPP-happy in recent years? Hunt won't say. But company critics answer a resounding "yes," pointing out one case after another where opponents have been sued or threatened with a lawsuit. And the Cindy King case, they say, is Exhibit A. But Envirocare attorney Rod Snow says those who have been sued had stepped over the line by colluding with Envirocare competitors seeking to drive the company out of business. "We don't care that she (King) is an activist, but we do care if she hooks up with a competitor and spreads false information," Snow said. The same goes for the other defendants. King was among 10 people named in a defamation lawsuit filed in January 2001. Six defendants have been dropped from the complaint after settling with Envirocare. Officially, terms of the settlement are confidential, but none of the defendants are speaking out publicly or privately. "You can read into that what you want," said one defense attorney. Jason Groenewold, director of the environmental watchdog group Families Against Incinerator Risk (FAIR) — the most prominent of environmental groups watching Envirocare — is not a defendant in that lawsuit. But he nonetheless feels the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. "You are on notice that you have defamed Mr. Semnani, Envirocare and other honorable people," Snow warned in a letter hand-delivered to Groenewold and FAIR intern Jason McDonald, taking both to task for a laundry list of inaccuracies published in FAIR's newsletter, The Smokeout. "You have continued to ignore your obligations to be responsible and objective as you pursue your environmental goals," Snow wrote. "Your approach is most unfortunate and continues to damage a number of people, as well as your own cause." Snow said the strongly worded letter was right to the point: Do not publish falsehoods or you will be sued. "When people are spreading, openly and surreptitiously, false information, we cannot sit back," Snow said. "We have to challenge it, or the people who we deal with commercially might tend to believe (the falsehoods)." But it was more than the "chilling" message in Snow's letter, Groenewold insists. Envirocare also subpoenaed Groenewold to give testimony in an unrelated case that he knew nothing about. One FAIR staffer quit the group out of fear he would be hit by an Envirocare SLAPP suit, Groenewold said. But he is not intimidated by the SLAPP tactics, noting "the only assets I have are an old car and college debts." But he worries about what happens if Envirocare turns on FAIR board members — average citizens concerned about their Tooele County environment who cannot afford to defend themselves in court. Indeed, many of those contacted by the Deseret News for this story — activists, former Envirocare employees and even attorneys involved in litigation with Envirocare — refused to comment out of fear they would be sued by Semnani. First Amendment concerns Hunt, who routinely defends newspapers in libel and defamation actions, said the issue is not clear-cut for either side in a SLAPP suit. Publications have a responsibility to check out the facts, publish correct information and publish corrections when they get it wrong. On the other side of the coin, the entity that feels slighted must prove it was injured. It is not enough that it disagrees with the information or the opinions expressed, Hunt said. Hunt would not address the Envirocare case specifically because he represented one individual who settled his defamation suit. But he is disturbed by what he sees as an increasing prevalence of SLAPP suits in Utah, despite a Utah law passed in 2000 that outlawed the practice. "The Supreme Court has recognized that in a healthy and vibrant democracy we need to encourage the free flow of information," he said, "recognizing that mistakes will be made and erroneous facts will be communicated. It is a cost of free speech and democracy." Snow insists the lawsuits filed by Envirocare and its owner are not SLAPP suits designed to chill free speech and stifle criticism. Rather, they are efforts targeted at individuals who knowingly spread outrageous falsehoods about Envirocare and its owner, he said. According to the January 2001 lawsuit, filed in Utah's 3rd District Court, the rumors promulgated by the 10 defendants, among them King and former state Rep. David Adams, R-Monticello, the defendants initiated or repeated rumors that included allegations that Semnani was financing Mideast extremist groups, diverting radioactive materials to weapons brokers for delivery to Arab countries, having sex with women regulators and was receiving CIA protection because of his ties to the Iranian government. They are the kinds of defamatory statements that cross the line well beyond "environmental activism," Snow said. "We don't have any problem with environmental activism," Snow said. "But it ought to be responsible. Let's debate the issues. Let's debate whether it (waste storage) is a long-term risk and whether it is safe." Slap back Envirocare critics say Envirocare's litigation and threats of litigation go far beyond protecting Semnani's reputation, even to the point of threat letters from lawyers over which facts and figures are correct. In one letter dated June 4, Envirocare general counsel Craig Thorley accused Frank Pignanelli and Doug Foxley — both instigators of Initiative 1 on November's ballot, which would have greatly increased Envirocare's taxes and earmarked the money for education and the homeless — of spreading falsehoods. Thorley's beef? A disagreement over public statements made by initiative backers as to how much waste actually goes to Envirocare, and what the legal differences were between a "line of credit" and a "letter of credit." Thorley demanded a retraction. But Pignanelli and Foxley wrote, "be advised that we will not be intimidated by tactics used by Envirocare and its officers in threatening to utilize the courts to censor free speech on important issues." Foxley and Pignanelli can afford to thumb their noses at Thorley, even if it should end up in court. Both are attorneys employed by Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough, one of the largest and most prestigious firms in the state. But Doug DeVore is not so lucky. The first-year law student at the University of Utah was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Envirocare's political arm, Utahns Against Unfair Taxes. The lawsuit accused DeVore of maliciously and deliberately deceiving Utah voters. His crime? He was an intern for Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control, the initiative proponents, and he was one of five people who signed the initiative paperwork required at the State Elections Office. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, but DeVore, who has a wife and two young daughters, fears the incident could haunt his future employment, not to mention his ability to apply for a home mortgage or loans. "It was disconcerting," DeVore said. "The thing I realized is that, for some people, the legal system is just a game. That's unfortunate the law can be used as a game, used on a whim." High-stakes game But attorneys say the lawsuits are anything but a game. Rather, they are calculated attempts to snuff critical voices, loud mouths and busy bodies. They are also effective tools to get at information Envirocare cannot find on its own, things like the names of government regulators who might be leaking sensitive information, correspondence with competitors, and environmental strategies for blocking Envirocare's efforts to accept different and hotter wastes. Groenewold and Foxley said have endured such "fishing trips" for information when they were deposed by Envirocare attorneys. In early 2001, a waste consultant hired by the state to look into potential taxing schemes on Envirocare's waste abruptly quit and took his research with him to South Carolina. Lawmakers said Virgil Autry was visibly shaken after a conversation with then-Envirocare president Charles Judd, who reportedly threatened him with litigation. "I won't be back," he told the Deseret News at the time. Envirocare insisted at the time it only reminded Autry that he was under "open contract" from Envirocare to provide historical information on the volumes of waste and rate structures at a South Carolina competitor. And working for the state, the company warned, would be a conflict of interest. Foxley said he also was threatened with a lawsuit when he met with the House GOP caucus to discuss the same kind of information Autry was to have presented. "We've got a guy here who is a billionaire who can spend anyone under the table," Foxley said, adding that lawsuits are part of Envirocare's calculated corporate strategy to snuff opposition voices. Cindy King has spent 14 hours in depositions on her case. Furthermore, her computer has been confiscated under court order so that all files can be downloaded and any Envirocare-related data given to Envirocare attorneys preparing the case against her. King's attorney, Steve Russell, says the legal tactics have "caused her to tread more carefully," in effect having the desired effect of getting her not to be as aggressive in her activism, even though she continues to speak out at public meetings. "There's a dark cloud over her head," Russell said. "SLAPP suits are not filed to win, but to be a direct and indirect threat to keep quiet." SLAPP test Hunt says a SLAPP suit usually meets several criteria, including: + The lawsuit targets an individual who has been speaking out at public meetings and commenting on public documents. + There is an economic advantage if the criticism is silenced. + There is a large imbalance of economic power between those who bring the suits and those being sued. + And the case drags on without any real resolution in sight. On the first point, King is and has been a dogged activist for more than a decade. She obtained a degree in environmental hazardous materials, training in those materials by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and a master's degree in public administration where her research was directed at how government entities facilitate public involvement in their oversight. She developed a network of confidential sources inside the waste industry and inside the bureaucracy that regulates it. Even though the company dismisses her as a "nut case," Envirocare's regulatory hearings would probably go a lot smoother without her opposition voice. And there is no question Semnani and Envirocare have limitless economic resources compared to King, who once contemplated divorcing her husband just so he could protect their family home, their only real asset, from Envirocare's lawsuit. And the timeliness issue? "They filed this lawsuit almost two years ago, and they haven't done much but take her deposition," said Brett DelPorto, King's original attorney, who has since gone to work for the Utah Attorney General's Office. "Given that the suit was without merit in the first place, draw your own conclusions." King is lucky in that the Sierra Club is standing behind her and she doesn't have to mortgage the family home to pay a defense attorney. And the Sierra Club has not backed off at all on its watchdogging of Envirocare, insists Lawson LeGate, southwest region director for the nation's largest environmental organization. "These kinds of things (SLAPP suits) are annoying," LeGate said. "But the kind of people who get involved in environmental issues tend to be pretty tough people who don't scare easily." E-mail: spang@desnews.com [spang@desnews.com] ; donna@desnews.com [donna@desnews.com] © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 45 No carrots, no sticks for N Korea - November 8, 2002 Give Kim Jong Il an unambiguous message on his nuclear weapons By Hai Piper So I have a solution: 'regime change', as they say in Washington. No, not by force of arms, the way President George W Bush wants to change Iraq's regime. That would be lunacy. I don't want Kim Jong Il's soldiers marching this way. I'm thinking, rather, of what Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are trying to do to Yasser Arafat: declare him irrelevant and wait for 'moderate elements' to come forward. It could be a long wait. Kim Jong Il is only 60; his father lived to 82. Dialogue with North Korea is like the running gag in the Peanuts comic strip: Lucy holds the football and invites Charlie Brown to kick it, but as he runs up she snatches the ball away and Charlie Brown collapses in an inglorious heap. We have had three 'negotiated solutions' with North Korea in a decade. In 1992, it agreed with South Korea that neither would have nuclear weapons. In 1994, after a confrontation with the Clinton administration that nearly led to war, Pyongyang signed a Geneva agreement to suspend its nuclear weapons programme. At the Korean summit in 2000, it signed more pieces of paper about peace and cooperation on the peninsula. Now, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung is picking himself up from the heap again. He's game for another run at the football. It's very saintly of him, but it doesn't seem likely to produce what we all want - a secure peace on the peninsula. South Korea claims to have been the first to spot the nuclear shenanigans in the North three years ago and to have tipped off Washington. It also says the evidence was not 'conclusive' until three months ago. 'Conclusive' or not, this means that when Bush embarrassed Kim in Washington in March 2001 by saying he had 'some scepticism' about Kim Jong Il, he was not lacking goodwill or acting like a right-wing know-nothing. He had good reason to harbour 'some scepticism'. And it means that Kim went to the 2000 summit and never confronted the North Korean leader with his duplicity. Get the family reunions going and the rails linked, the president evidently felt, and overlook the naval provocations. Eventually, North Korea will realise that we mean it no harm and voluntarily give up its nuclear hole card. It was a brave and generous policy, worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. It showed the single-minded determination of a great leader. Unfortunately, it also shows that Kim is a patsy. Now we are being told that Pyongyang's 'voluntary' confession of its nuclear programme shows that it is eager for dialogue and ready to show 'transparency'. But this confession was not volunteered; it was elicited by a US diplomat who produced irrefutable proof, reportedly including receipts and customs documents, of Pyongyang's cheating. Should we nevertheless try one more time to kick Lucy Jong Il's dialogue football? The danger of isolating North Korea, as Kim Dae Jung pointed out, is that it will only go ahead with both nuclear programmes - the plutonium reprocessing that was stopped by the 1994 agreement, and the new uranium enrichment programme. In short order, Pyongyang could have 10 or a dozen bombs and could sell fissile material to terrorists or rogue states. North Korea is cornered and desperate, and it has us where it wants us. But maybe not. Every country in North-east Asia is against Pyongyang on this issue. China certainly does not want nukes in North Korea to be a pretext for nukes in Japan. It should be possible to give an unambiguous message to Kim Jong Il: 'If you want help, stop the nuclear nonsense and open up to inspections. When we are satisfied that you are no longer a nuclear menace, we will talk - not before.' It's a no-carrot, no-stick policy. Carrots don't induce desired behaviour from Kim Jong Il; he just eats them. Sticks - threats of what we will do if he doesn't comply - won't work either because we really don't want to run the risk of using our sticks. And he knows it. If US intelligence can produce receipts and customs documents, it should be able to detect and intercept attempted sales of bomb material to terrorists and rogue states. If Kim Jong Il builds 10 bombs, so what? He can't use them and survive. If he is as desperate for help as Seoul's doves fervently hope, Kim will do what he has to do to get it. If not, we can afford to wait for regime change. He can't. - LAT-WP The writer is editor of JoonAng, an English-language newspaper in Seoul Copyright © 2002 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Can Blix nix Iraq's tricks? Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | If the UN security council today approves a resolution on Iraq, a quiet Swede will hold the country's fate in his hands. How he reacts to a locked door could determine whether we go to war. Oliver Burkeman goes in search of the real Hans Blix Friday November 8, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] There are many glamorous jobs in international diplomacy, but being a UN weapons inspector is not one of them. Those who took part last time remember a life of endless frustrations thrown up by their reluctant Iraqi hosts - the bugged hotels, the hostile minders, the suspicious traffic-jams en route to chemical facilities, the laboratory doors that could only be unlocked by officials who were, sadly, unavailable. "One individual, by our calculations, had three weddings in the space of a few weeks," says David Kay, who headed nuclear inspections for the UN. Another inspector, interviewed by Gary Milhollin, of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, remembers an official throwing documents out of the window to the street, where they were picked up by a colleague who jumped onto a bus. A UN worker scrambled outside, blocking the vehicle, but it drove on; fearing for his life, he leapt for the kerb. "It's Gilbert and Sullivan," says Kay. "I would love to write the operetta." So perhaps there is a masochistic streak in Hans Blix, the 74-year-old Swedish diplomat who is about to go through all this again as chief inspector for the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). If the security council votes to send inspectors back in, as seems likely, there will be far more at stake this time: it will be up to Blix to judge whether the Iraqis are guilty of obstructing inspections, and therefore no exaggeration to say that the future of Iraq will rest largely with him. If he maintains that Baghdad is cooperating, Washington could, of course, overrule him and go to war - but only at great cost to its international support. The inspectors' past record is unlikely to fill Blix with eager anticipation. When they were withdrawn, in 1998, it was because of Iraqi intransigence - but by then, in any case, the system had collapsed into bitter recriminations between Unmovic's predecessor, Unscom, and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversaw the nuclear part of the process. IAEA inspectors accused Unscom's staff of macho brashness. "I remember when they dismantled one facility, they had T-shirts printed with a boot on Saddam Hussein's head," one person familiar with the inspections recalls queasily. There were rumours, energetically promulgated by Saddam, that senior Unscom inspectors under then-chief Richard Butler were really western spies. (The US government later admitted that the Unscom team had indeed included undercover intelligence officers working for Washington.) Unscom staff, for their part, accused IAEA inspectors of near-criminal timidity in the face of Iraqi challenges - an accusation that carries particular significance today because of the man who served until 1997 as director-general of the IAEA, one Hans Blix. To say that Blix keeps himself to himself would be an understatement. During two recent days of talks with the Iraqis in Vienna, he dined alone at the drab hotel restaurant next to the UN's offices on both nights, despite, presumably, having made friends and acquaintances there during his 16 years at the IAEA (a term of office that included coordinating the global response to the Chernobyl catastrophe). His supporters and opponents agree that he is an extremely hardworking man of conservative habits and a conservative approach to diplomacy. They agree that he emerged from his time in the Swedish foreign service, eventually becoming foreign minister, and as a professor of international law at Stockholm University, with a scholarly approach to foreign policy according to which the sovereignty of nation-states is sacrosanct. They just disagree about whether this is a good thing or not. "He's a very courtly gentleman, a lawyer who has a tremendous respect for international agreements, norms and law," says Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary for non-proliferation in the Bill Clinton and early George W Bush administrations. "He believes, I think, that the security council's ability to enforce compliance in Iraq is a crucial test... and that the stakes are high, both for the future of international arms agreements and the UN." Kay - who resigned from Unscom after falling out with Blix's IAEA over a stand-off with the Iraqis in the car park of a facility they were inspecting - puts it somewhat differently. "His view is of sovereign states, all of whom deserve equal respect. He does not make distinctions between good guys and bad guys, between people who have invaded countries versus those who have defended them," he says. "He's very concerned with perceived fairness. I've always said he'd be better as a bankruptcy lawyer. Or a divorce attorney." (Iraq would later claim that Kay was one of the spies on the inspections teams; Blix, despite their differences, has publicly declared this to be false.) Ultimately, the American decision on whether to go to war could come down to a single locked gate in the Iraqi desert, or one door to which the key could not be immediately located. Blix, understandably, might be loathe to spark a bloody conflict over that kind of detail. Some old hands insist, however, such delays - often lasting a matter of minutes - are all that Saddam's officials need to spirit away key elements of his weapons programmes. One Unscom alumnus says he watched satellite footage of an inspection, "and you can literally see the Iraqis moving the stuff out of the side entrance while Unscom was at the front", negotiating over an absent key. "Blix doesn't want to be blamed for going to war," says David Albright, a former IAEA consultant who participated in the inspections and is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "But in my view, there's nothing wrong with having somebody there who can get through locked doors, and I'm not sure Blix would agree with that. You've got to use investigative techniques like the police do. Blix comes from an environment where the nation state is supreme, but this is a criminal state, Iraq, where you have to use lock-pickers, or people who can retrieve information from computers if it's just been erased." And so Kay, for one, says he "recoiled" a week ago when Blix told the security council he would report "only significant results", rather than every tiny act of Iraqi recalcitrance. "If you have any hope of getting cooperation from the Iraqis, you don't tell them what they can do to frustrate you that won't be called an obstruction," Kay fumes. "I used to loudly tell the Iraqis I would report them to the security council - it was the only force I had available. I think he's just handed them a large salami slicer to slice away at the inspections regime." Blix addressed the dilemma at a news conference last month. "What works best as a matter of psychology: shouting, or soft speaking with some leverage? Well, I don't know. My habit is not to shout." Not a lot of shouting goes on, by all accounts, in the corridors of Sweden's foreign service, but beneath the surface it is a place of intense political rivalries. Blix - who was born in 1928 in the ancient Swedish university town of Uppsala and entered the service, after an academic career, in 1963 - soon found himself in competition with another diplomat seven years his junior, Rolf Ekeus. Perhaps fatally for the first round of inspections, Ekeus would go on to become the chair of Unscom, while Blix was at the helm of the IAEA. Kay remembers having to call his opposite number at the IAEA after Blix and Ekeus had exchanged chilly phone calls. "We used to joke that everything would be OK if we could only keep them from talking in Swedish," he says. "We'd be sitting there mute, each listening to one side of a conversation in Swedish, and then we'd have to get on the phone to each other and straighten everything out." (Ekeus was succeeded by Butler, blamed by many for politicising the inspections and discrediting the process altogether in Iraqi eyes.) In fairness to Blix, the most damning Unscom gossip about the IAEA inspectors tends to focus not on him but on his deputy and chief inspector in Iraq, Maurizio Zifferero, an Italian diplomat who died in 1997. People who worked with Zifferero in Iraq are unwilling to go on the record speaking ill of the dead, but off the record, he emerges as a liability of cinematic proportions, often the worse for alcohol by midday, and prone to speaking loudly about which sites he intended to inspect in hotel rooms that everyone knew were bugged. Blix was not the US's first choice for the post he now holds - Rolf Ekeus was. The Clinton administration viewed the younger Swede as made of tougher stuff, and it hardly helped that Blix had been forced to admit that, before the Gulf war, Saddam had hidden an advanced nuclear development programme from the IAEA during his tenure there. ("It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis," he told the Guardian earlier this year.) But France and Russia fiercely opposed Ekeus, hoping for a gentler approach and fearing Iraq would never cooperate with someone so closely associated with Unscom. Blix was the compromise candidate. It is a safe bet that there will be no Saddam-kicking T-shirts on display when the Unmovic inspectors move into Iraq. "We certainly feel there is a right to undertake inspections on a Friday, or on a holiday or during the night," Blix has said, "but we do not see any need to undertake any unnecessary provocations." Deciding where to draw the line could be tricky, though. It's unclear, for example, whether he would tolerate something like Kay's surprise inspection of the Al Fallujah military facility in 1991. "I played on the fact that most people who learn a foreign language don't master the prepositions," Kay says. "So I told the Iraqis we wanted to go 'towards' a different facility where there was nothing, not 'to' it. The road took us past Al Fallujah, and we made a 180-degree turn across a divided highway and pulled up at the gate." The facility's guards prevaricated, claiming they would have to contact Baghdad for authority to admit them, but did not stop inspectors climbing up a nearby water tower. "Ninety seconds later, we could see huge tank transporters moving out the back gate carrying calutrons" - used to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs. Another inspector hastily caught the trucks on videotape and stuffed the film into his underpants for safekeeping. Some critics wonder what Blix, schooled in soft-speaking and unwilling to provoke, would have made of this comic opera in the desert. Either way, Blix's job is not one to envied. Too great a degree of perceived closeness to Iraq or to the US, for example, could be fatal. It is, finally, impossible to see how Blix can even attempt to complete his task without becoming the subject of scathing criticism, whether for helping precipitate a devastating war, or for ensuring the survival of a dangerous tyrant. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 47 The return of inspectors will solve nothing Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Saddam will never be honest about his weapons programmes Martin Woollacott Friday November 8, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] In her diary of the Gulf war, Nuha al-Radi wrote of meeting a relative some months afterwards in Baghdad who told her "she'd like a catastrophe to envelop the US and swallow the whole continent. 'What about my two brothers who live there?' the husband Mahmood asked. 'They can go down with it,' she said. 'Serve them right for living there.' Hatred for the US is paramount here," al-Radi concluded. The exchange, quoted in Kenneth Pollack's new book, The Threatening Storm, on the case for invading Iraq, is as illuminating today as it was then, but not for the reasons which seem apparent. Iraqi anger with the US after the war was above all anger at America's perceived failure to finish the job it had begun. That anger replaced an earlier desire to "get it over with", also recorded by al-Radi, to have the Americans in Baghdad and an end to Saddam's era, a hope which has flickered from time to time since. But the more persistent feeling was that it was outrageous that Iraqis had been bombed and battered but still had to put up with Saddam as a result of American design or indifference or incompetence. They had to put up with both Saddam and sanctions, as well as periodic bombings and missile attacks, as it turned out, for another 11 years. No doubt Iraqis have just as contradictory feelings now as then toward a country which seemed to promise liberation but has given them the opposite. Yet, if Iraqis wanted to get it over with in 1991, how much more true that must be of Iraqis in 2002. The sentiments of people all over the world, when they are not just wishing the whole terrible thing would go away, are probably the same. They sense an element of charade in the tussling at the UN over words. Wanting to get it over with, of course, is not the same as wanting a war. But Iraqis may not be alone in feeling that if it has to happen, let it be done with, let the worst be met with in reality rather than in imagination. The resolution on Iraq now before the security council may well be seen by those in this resigned state of mind as a stage in the process of getting it over with - theatre at the UN before action begins in the theatre of war. Could war, nevertheless, be averted? The answer is that Saddam will have to be either very lucky, in his combination of declaring weapons and continuing to conceal them, or very unlucky, in that he is swept away by a coup before the deadline arrives. War could clearly be avoided if Saddam made a complete and honest declaration of his weapons programmes, but careful students of his character think that hugely unlikely. If he kept such programmes during the years when inspections were at their strongest and indeed expanded them - Iraq's nuclear weapons work was more advanced in 1994 than it was in 1991 - why should he give up now? The evidence suggests that weapons of mass destruction are a personal obsession of the Iraqi dictator, and that he regards them both as a means of maintaining dominance at home and as the key to a final attempt at regional mastery. He might well regard a capitulation on the issue as a prelude to his fall and death and the destruction of his family, and he might well be right. Assuming, then, that he does try to keep some weapons, could he get away with it, would we then avoid war, and, if so, would that be the best outcome? Kenneth Pollack has spent more than 10 years studying Iraq as an analyst for the CIA and the National Security Council. A Democrat, he is leery about the views of some of the Republican hawks now so strongly placed in the Bush administration, but has come to the reluctant conclusion that an invasion is the least worst course. His argument on new inspections is worth considering now that the UN will soon again have a system in place. He considers them a dangerous trap in that they could not possibly establish whether or not Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruc tion within the period during which the US can maintain a heavy military presence around Iraq. "The key problem," he writes, "is that we cannot hold the gun to Saddam's head for as long as it would actually take to disarm Iraq." American forces could not stay in the region in a state of readiness to invade for longer than six months or a year at most. The strain on the reserves and the diversion of so many of America's military assets would be too much, and in any case the Gulf states could not cope politically with such an extended stay. Yet, says Pollack, the consensus among inspectors is that it would take 12 to 18 months just to establish a baseline, by which he means find out what has been done since 1998 when the previous inspectors left, let alone start truly reliable new inspections. Pollack quotes a former senior inspector as saying that in all their years in Iraq, UN inspectors were never able to stage more than six or seven true surprise inspections. Pollack's views give some idea of the difficulties ahead. The resolution, whatever its virtues in reconciling for the moment the approaches of America and other leading nations, solves nothing in itself. A genuine renunciation of weaponry by Saddam is the least likely consequence, and in any case could not be verified. Yet, if Pollack is right about inspection difficulties, Saddam could well get away with continued concealment. Unless the US already has some very reliable intelligence on a facility that Saddam tries to deny to the inspectors, which is not impossible, Washington could be denied the "caught red-handed" case that would convince the world. If so, the evidence of a breach could be indirect or partial, and we would be back again to a situation in which the US and Britain saw a cause for war and others chose not to see the same thing. Some advantages arise from the resolution. If it does not make war less likely, it does make an early recourse to hostilities by Saddam more remote. If he made an attack on the American forces building up in the region, especially if he used weapons of mass destruction, he would convict himself in advance. If Saddam holds still, in that sense anyway, the region will not. Political change in Israel, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan could bring fresh dangers. The difficult truth is that while a war might conceivably end the crisis, it could equally worsen it, yet avoiding war could lead on to dangers as bad or worse. Whichever way it goes, "getting it over with" may be as elusive as it has been in the past. Baghdad Diaries by Nuha al-Radi, published by Saqi Books The Threatening Storm by Kenneth M Pollack, published by Random House m.woollacott@guardian.co.uk Useful links [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/iraq.htm] [http://www.middleeastdaily.com/] [http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/] [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm] [http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/index.html] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 48 AU: Fledgling weapons inspectors find they have a lot to learn - smh.com.au By Alissa Rubin in Vienna November 9 2002 About 50 scientists and engineers yesterday completed a five-week crash course in Austria in the tricky business of searching for weapons in Iraq. Little is known about their training, which began behind soundproof doors on the seventh floor of a United Nations complex and then moved to undisclosed locations for hands-on sessions. Will these new inspectors be ready for the job? Interviews with former inspectors and instructors suggest: not at first. "This is sort of a new profession for most of them," said a UN official involved in the training. "They are experts in a certain area. They are doing very technical work, but we ask them to become inspectors. Only a few of them have previous experience." Former inspectors say it can take a few tours of duty to get the hang of the job. The new inspectors would go into Iraq for three to four months at a time. ");document.write(" advertisement "); } } // --> The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said he can have an advance team of inspectors in Baghdad within 10 days once the UN Security Council approves a new resolution on Iraq. The inspectors will have 60 days to submit an initial report to the council. Their reports could avert or precipitate a war. About 260 people been trained by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission over the past three years. A far smaller group, destined for leadership roles, takes advanced courses in specialised areas. Iraqis have accused some past UN inspectors of using their tours of duty for spying. The task facing inspectors is slow and far from glamorous. It requires skills as diverse as map reading, diplomacy, a knack for psychology and the ability to write a cogent lab report. Former inspectors emphasised the art of seeing both what is there and what is absent. Does everything look the way it should? Is the explanation of a facility's purpose plausible? Is there something that fails to fit? Inspectors are drawn from the armaments industry, aerospace companies, chemical and pesticide manufacturers and engineering. Some are academics; others work for governments. In addition to an introduction to the legal rights of inspectors, all trainees attend lectures on Iraq's history and political situation; the effects of 10 years of UN sanctions on the Iraqi people; and cultural sensitivity. Trainees spend three days with an Austrian military division that specialises in chemical, biological and nuclear safety. They learn how to use and work in protective gear and how to detect symptoms of exposure to toxins. Los Angeles Times Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 49 Zinn on Iraq conflict: Look at history The Daily Northwestern spacer Speaker says history of war shows lack of U.S. success; encourages anti-war action Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States," speaks Wednesday night at Coon Forum. Graham Webster/The Daily Northwestern By Kara Reinhardt November 07, 2002 Howard Zinn applied his historical knowledge of international conflict to the current war on terrorism Wednesday night -- and he encouraged the audience in the packed Coon Forum to do the same. Zinn, author of the acclaimed "A People's History of the United States," said during an hour-long speech that having a knowledge of history leads to skepticism about going to war. "If you don't know about history, it's as if you were born yesterday, and if you were born yesterday, anyone can tell you we have to go to war," Zinn said. A World War II veteran, Zinn said he initially was enthusiastic about fighting fascism but eventually came to the conclusion that war solves nothing. "It may seem you've done something, but it's a temporary high," he said. "It's like crack. Then shortly you're down and you need another fix, you need another war." The key to breaking this cycle is studying the history of conflict, according to Zinn. "Then you know the lies and deception that accompany every war," he said. Zinn said arguments for a war against Iraq do not hold up in the context of history. He said U.S. leaders cannot claim to be ousting a tyrant because of moral obligations when their predecessors have permitted other tyrants in the past in countries such as Indonesia. He said the United States also cannot expect to restructure the Iraqi government without opposition. He said regime changes in the past have led to oppressive dictatorships instead of improving the lives of the country's citizens. Zinn said the United States, with thousands of nuclear weapons, cannot go to war to eliminate the possibility of another country constructing similar weapons. "Do you think the U.S. would agree to inspection?" he asked a crowd that roared in support. Zinn said the sentiments of the United States' public are slowly turning against government policy on Iraq. "The elements are there for an anti-war movement," he said. Zinn cited anti-war demonstrations across the country and reminded the audience that policy has been turned around before through protest. "Things have changed as a result of social movements, not as a result of edicts from on high," he said. Naureen Shah, a member of NOWAR and the Peace Project, said Zinn's confidence that protesters can make a difference motivated her to continue her involvement in the anti-war movement. "He believes we can change the course of this war," said Shah, a Medill junior. Zinn said anti-war movements should also target the war on terrorism, because it causes the same damage as a conventional war. "We have a war on terrorism, which is kind of absurd," he said. "War breeds terrorism. War is terrorism." Zinn said military action is not an acceptable way to combat a terrorist threat. "If we were serious about fighting the war on terrorism, we would fill all those ships and planes with food and medicine and take it around the world," he said, as he was nearly drowned out by cheers from the crowd. Zinn said the bombing of so-called "military targets" in Afghanistan is killing innocent people, even if it is helping eliminate terrorism. He pointed out that since World War II, civilian casualties have outnumbered military casualties in each conflict the United States has fought. "Any war is a war against civilians," he said. "Any war is a war against children. If you think of it that way, you can't accept war." ***************************************************************** 50 Ecology pardons DOE fine This story was published Wed, Nov 6, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The state has conditionally forgiven a $57,800 fine against Hanford for losing track of hazardous chemicals -- provided site operators avoid a repeat offense. Washington's Department of Ecology has signed a legal settlement with the Department of Energy and Fluor Hanford that suspends the fine for mislabeling and losing track of a potentially explosive chemical called collodion. The state levied the fine in March 2001, two months after a Fluor employee reported a suspicious solution of collodion. Collodion is a liquid, usually 75 percent ether or alcohol, commonly used in radiological chemistry. If left alone for a few years, the chemical can partially crystallize and become shock-sensitive. It could explode with at least the intensity of a firecracker -- breaking its glass container and shooting shards of glass -- if bumped or jostled. If the chemical crystallizes in the threads that hold the cap on a vial or bottle, unscrewing the cap could trigger an explosion. Investigators found more than 2 quarts of years-old collodion that were mislabeled and stored in the 222-S lab. They also found 2 ounces of collodion in another central Hanford lab, with no one apparently knowing the vial was there for the past five years. And 4 1/2 ounces of collodion were found improperly stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, even though it had been more than 10 years since the PFP last used that chemical. The state decided to fine DOE and Fluor $57,800 because those discoveries were the latest in a long series of Hanford violations in storing hazardous chemicals. Before the $57,800 collodion penalty, Hanford had been fined more than $650,000 for chemical storage violations over the past five years. Forgotten and aging chemicals were responsible for a 1997 explosion at PFP, and several other chemical violations were discovered in 1997 and 1998 at Hanford. DOE and Fluor appealed the collodion fine to the state's pollution controls hearing board. But both sides wanted to avoid a long and expensive legal battle. The result was an agreement that the state will forgive the fine if DOE reinforces proper hazardous waste disposal policies at all Hanford prime contractors within 45 days, and conducts up to four hours of classroom training on the issue for all Fluor Hanford employees within six months. DOE also is supposed to offer the same training to all Battelle and Bechtel Hanford employees who are involved with hazardous wastes. However, the $57,800 fine will be reinstated on top of any new fine if Hanford violates another state hazardous waste storage regulation in the next year, said Bob Wilson, a state Ecology Department inspector. If a violation occurs within 12 to 18 months, $37,800 of the original fine will be added to the new fine. Any violation within 18 months to 24 months will see $17,800 of the original fine reinstated. "We think this settlement is equitable, beneficial and fair to all parties," said DOE spokeswoman Andrea Powell. Wilson said the state hopes the settlement's provisions for new training will correct Hanford's poor record for storing hazardous chemicals. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 51 FFTF supporters push for injunction This story was published Wed, Nov 6, 2002 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Supporters of Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility were rushing to pull together the paperwork to ask a federal judge to halt shutdown work at the reactor Tuesday. Benton County and the city of Richland plan to file a lawsuit Thursday in Spokane or Richland, whichever federal court has a judge available to hear its arguments in the hours remaining before a critical phase of the shutdown begins. Work starts Monday to drain sodium from the reactor's secondary loops. Without an injunction to stop the drain, the next task for supporters is "to hold a very sad party," said Claude Oliver, president of Citizens for Medical Isotopes and a Benton County commissioner. "With sodium drained, it reaches a crossroads that many technical engineers are not willing to certify it" as safe to operate again, he said. County commissioners are expected today to remove a requirement that the citizens group be co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit to prevent claims of conflict of interest stemming from Oliver's dual roles. The suit is planned to send a message to Washington, D.C., and give supporters more time to convince federal officials that the reactor has valuable roles to play in saving cancer patients and supporting the president's energy policy. Doctors cannot get reliable supplies of some types of medical isotopes to research promising new ways of treating disease, including cancer, say supporters of the reactor. They also believe that as new medicines using radioactive isotopes come to market, pharmaceutical companies will have trouble buying the isotopes they need. Now most medical isotopes are imported from other countries. FFTF also is the only U.S. reactor capable of the advanced nuclear testing that will be needed if new reactors are developed to generate energy, as called for in the federal energy policy, Oliver said. "And we're going to find energy independence?" he asked. If the citizens group gets an injunction to stop the sodium drain, supporters plan to continue discussing the nation's nuclear medical needs with Health and Human Services and financial issues with the Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Energy has made clear that it has no use for the reactor and wants it permanently shut down. However, a coalition of Mid-Columbia governments is asking that it be declared surplus and operated privately. Money from the private operation would be set aside to eventually shut down the reactor permanently, sparing taxpayers the cost. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 52 Cabinet shows interest in FFTF This story was published Thu, Nov 7, 2002 By Annette Cary and Nathan Isaacs Herald staff writers The secretary of health and human services has asked the energy secretary to consider a proposal for private use of Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility, saying he's concerned about medical isotope supplies. Citizens for Medical Isotopes on Wednesday received a copy of a letter dated Oct. 8 sent from one Cabinet secretary to another. The group had asked HHS for some indication of its interest in the reactor as Benton County prepares to take legal action today to save the reactor. "Christmas is coming early with a big red bow," said Claude Oliver, president of CMI and a Benton County commissioner. "Essentially, it's a Cabinet officer asking to give (our proposal) consideration." HHS is not in a position to make a judgment on the technical merits and economic feasibility of the proposal, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson wrote about the plan to convert FFTF to private use rather than permanently shutting it down. "But given that one of its intentions is to increase the supply of radioisotopes for medical treatment and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources, I ask you to give the proposal every consideration," Thompson wrote. The letter also mentioned DOE's new policy of no longer subsidizing production of isotopes. Supporters of restarting FFTF want it to be used to make isotopes for new medicines and for research. Thompson asked the director of the National Institutes of Health to assess the impact of that policy on high priority research initiatives. "While our staffs are working toward ensuring that radioisotopes will be available for research purposes, I remain concerned that there may be insufficient quantities of radioisotopes for treatment and diagnostic purposes in the larger community," Thompson said. "It was brought to my attention that the demand for medical isotopes may exceed the supply in the near future." That's the same argument supporters of restarting the reactor have been making. Thompson also discussed the United States dependence on Canada and to a lesser extent Europe, Russia, Israel and South Africa for 90 percent of isotopes approved for medical use here. "Thus, the United States may be unduly dependent on radioisotopes produced overseas," he wrote. "The U.S. medical radioisotope supply depends on production that we cannot control, and we cannot assure that radioisotopes can be reliably and securely imported." Thompson predicted that the need for isotopes used in nuclear medicine will increase as new diagnostic and treatment uses are found. He also noted one recent initiative to increase isotope production in the United States -- a DOE plan to convert uranium stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to medical isotopes for use in cancer research. However, a month after Thompson's letter was sent to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, plans are proceeding to begin the process of draining liquid sodium from the reactor Monday. Benton County plans to file suit in federal court this morning and ask for an injunction to stop the sodium from being drained from the dormant reactor's cooling system. Should that work not be stopped, Oliver believes the costs to restart the reactor would be too great to continue any further. "This is our line in the sand," he said. In a special meeting Wednesday, Benton County commissioners revised for the third time a resolution to sue the Department of Energy and earmarked $70,000 to the effort. The change removed a requirement that Richland and the Citizens for Medical Isotopes be co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Richland was removed after the city informed the county in a letter Wednesday that it would contribute $16,500 to the cause, but did not want to be a plaintiff. The citizens group was removed after the county's legal staff advised Oliver that he would be exposed to a potential ethics violation charge because of his role as chairman of both the commission and citizens group. State guidelines for public contracts preclude an elected officer from voting on a matter in which he may have a "beneficial interest." The resolution was adopted with a 2-1 vote, with Commissioner Max Benitz Jr. voting against it. Oliver said Tuesday's election results may help save FFTF if the county succeeds in getting an injunction to stop shutdown work. With Republicans in control of the Senate, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is in line to become chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. He's been a friend to FFTF in the past, Oliver said. There also may be more support for the president's energy policy, which calls for a new generation of nuclear reactors. The reactors under consideration would require advanced nuclear testing that could be done only at FFTF or in another country. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 53 TRIDEC, Bechtel to help firms work in nuclear industry This story was published Thu, Nov 7, 2002 By Wendy Culverwell Herald staff writer Once upon a time when America and the world were happily building nuclear power plants, businesses across the land adopted the atomic industry's exacting quality standards. But then a darkness came, and nuclear construction came to a halt, at least in the United States in the last two decades. With their customers gone, many American businesses found it difficult and costly to maintain their Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) certifications. So they let them expire. Now the Tri-City Industrial Development Council and Bechtel National Inc., the company building the nuclear waste glassification plant at Hanford, are teaming up to address the shortage of businesses qualified to work in the nuclear industry. Wednesday, TRIDEC and Bechtel announced an initiative to help companies determine if they are candidates for NQA certification. Strong candidates then can decide if it's worth pursuing their NQA status, and by extension, become suppliers to Bechtel and other nuclear operators worldwide. NQA-certified firms operate under quality programs that assure all parts and procedures meet government-set standards. NQA is the nuclear industry's equivalent of the quality standards the military imposes on contractors that supply it with jet aircraft, weapons and nuclear vessels. NQA is a step above the more commonly known ISO 9000 standards adopted by commercial businesses. Ron Naventi, Bechtel's glassification project manager, said the company realized early on that the dearth of NQA-qualified suppliers would affect its ability to purchase goods and services as it builds the multibillion-dollar waste treatment plant. "It's been an issue with all of the procurements we've had," he said. The initiative helps answer criticism lobbed by a group of local business leaders who complain Bechtel National isn't doing enough to develop a self-sustaining economy. The Tri-Cities Local Business Association has said more businesses would invest in meeting NQA requirements if they had assurances they would get work. Sid Morrison, chairman of the association, applauded the Bechtel-TRIDEC initiative but said it still falls short of assuring businesses they will be compensated for their trouble if they undergo the rigorous process, designed to ensure nuclear suppliers can document every service and item they produce. Association members, he said, don't need to be assessed, they need contracts. Naventi said the TRIDEC initiative is the result of a need for NQA-certified suppliers and not complaints from the business association. He said potential customers go well beyond Bechtel and the Hanford project. Yucca Mountain, slated to become the nation's nuclear repository, needs qualified suppliers and so does the nation's aging collection of nuclear plants, including Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station. TRIDEC President Bill Martin said helping businesses decide if they're NQA-eligible could become a springboard to helping others pursue other quality designations including ISO 9000. The offer of assistance could be a helpful tool for recruiting businesses here, he said. A casual survey indicates at least eight local businesses are interested in becoming NQA certified, and Martin said he's interested in hearing from anyone who wants to know more. TRIDEC and Bechtel will start by first looking for a local firm capable of performing assessments. The group, which will operate under a TRIDEC effort to nurture local businesses, will meet Dec. 17 with companies interested in being evaluated. For information, call Martin at 735-1000. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 54 State forgives Hanford fine DJC.COM: provided by Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce November 8, 2002 RICHLAND (AP) -- The state has forgiven a $57,800 fine against the U.S. Department of Energy and its primary contractor at Hanford nuclear reservation for losing track of hazardous chemicals. The state Department of Ecology's agreement with the Energy Department and Fluor Hanford, which manages the nuclear reservation, suspends the fine for mislabeling and losing track of a potentially explosive chemical called collodion -- as long as there are no repeat offenses in the next two years. "We think the settlement is equitable, beneficial and fair to all parties," said Andrea Powell, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department. Copyright ©2002 Seattle Daily Journal and djc.com. ***************************************************************** 55 Officials try to stop shutdown of reactor The Seattle Times: Local News: November 08, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Linda Ashton The Associated Press YAKIMA — The city of Richland and Benton County are trying to stop the U.S. Department of Energy from permanently pulling the plug on an experimental reactor at Hanford nuclear reservation. They planned to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Richland today, seeking a court order to halt the dismantling of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), said Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver. Next week, work is to begin draining the sodium from the cooling system — often considered the point of no return in the shutdown of a surplus reactor. Oliver, several local government agencies in the Tri-Cities of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco and a cancer-fighter group called Citizens for Medical Isotopes, of which Oliver is chairman, want the federal government to give them more time to find a private investor to use the reactor to make medical isotopes. Their hopes were bolstered by a letter last month from Tommy Thompson, U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, expressing concern about the future of the domestic supply of radioisotopes for medical diagnoses and treatment. A radioisotope is a form of a radioactive element. Some 90 percent of the medical isotopes used in the United States are made in other countries, primarily in Canada. FFTF's advocates believe making medical isotopes here is the key to saving both the reactor and human lives. "What we're looking at, for this region and for this nation, is a historic application of nuclear medicine that, frankly, changes the world," Oliver said. The local coalition would like to assemble a $250 million to $300 million conversion package, with a 30- to 40-year lease for a private company to use the reactor. Money from product sales could then be set aside to help pay the cost of eventually dismantling FFTF, Oliver said. The Energy Department kept the FFTF on standby — maintained without fuel for a possible restart — for 10 years while it searched for a mission for the 400-megawatt reactor. The FFTF, completed in 1978, is the Energy Department's newest reactor, large and versatile because it was designed to research advanced forms of nuclear fuel for breeder reactors, which produce as much or more plutonium than they consume. The federal government ended its breeder reactor program in the 1980s after deciding it had misjudged the nation's electricity needs. http://www.seattletimescompany.com/] ***************************************************************** 56 Secretary Abraham Expresses Appreciation to Dr. John McTague UC VP of National Laboratories Retires --> energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: November 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham praised the contributions of outgoing University of California Vice President of Laboratory Management John McTague today. "John has made many contributions to the Department of Energy," Abraham said. "He was the first chairman of the Laboratory Operations Board and served on the first Secretary's Energy Advisory Board. We are indebted to John for his role in leading the University of California's efforts to improve its management of our department's Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories." Two University of California managed labs, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, are overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency of the Department of Energy. NNSA Acting Administrator Linton Brooks also had kind words for McTague after his retirement was announced. "Our national laboratories are the backbone of our national security research and development, and John helped strengthen the management at those run by the University of California. We will miss John's leadership," Brooks said. McTague announced his intention to return to the classroom once a successor is appointed. He holds the position of professor of materials at University of California, Santa Barbara. Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 Bryan Wilkes, 202/586-7371 Release No. NA-02-25 ***************************************************************** 57 BNFL says no to losing shirt twice on cleanup The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- Friday, November 8, 2002 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff BNFL lost its shirt once; they aren't about to lose it twice. So says Jeff Stevens, general manager. Stevens confirmed Thursday that the company has informed Bechtel Jacobs that if the cleanup manager doesn't change its fixed price contracting tune, BNFL won't be among the chorus of bidders for the mammoth decommissioning of Buildings K-25 and K-27. Bechtel Jacobs responded that it's not about to change contracting song in mid-verse. "That's ingrained in the Bechtel Jacobs culture," said Dennis Hill, spokesman. "Fixed price is what we've been doing since we got the contract, and we aren't going to change or alter the philosophy." Hill said that the request for proposals now under review by DOE, will hit the street later this month and will be bid under a fixed price scenario. That's a risky road that BNFL refuses to travel again, said Stevens. "We've told Bechtel Jacobs that under the contract scenario of fixed price we will not bid on that work," said Stevens. He noted that it is "almost impossible" to know going into a project like those at the former gaseous diffusion plant the scope of problems workers will encounter along the way. So to fix the price up front is to kiss the money good-bye. "Under the absolute best of scenarios, we will lose $150 million on the three building project," said Stevens of the company's current cleanup of Buildings K-29, K-31 and K-33, now heading toward completion. That project was bid fixed price to much cost-savings fanfare by the Department of Energy. But cost overruns have been the norm, multiplying over the life of the project. Part of that was due to the Energy Department calling a halt to the potential profit-generating recycling of metals there, but also in part to an ill-defined scope of work on the front end and safety issues. "Without a fixed scope of work we will not bid fixed price," said Stevens. "With so many unknowns Š we are not willing to take that risk." But Hill maintains that Bechtel Jacobs has defined the scope of work. "The scope of work is clear and well defined -- they know what's in there," said Hill. "It's clear it was a uranium enrichment facility." Though BNFL has taken a bath on its current $238 million contract at the K-25 site, many in the cleanup community had assumed the company was positioning itself for a long stay in Oak Ridge, with possibly more than a billion dollars worth of future cleanup contracts here and at other DOE sites. Now the contracting community is looking on with interest. "Wow, that's pretty astonishing," said Jenny Freeman, on hearing of BNFL's the announcement. Freeman is executive director of the East Tennessee Environmental Business Association. "BNFL is a major qualified competitor for that work," she said. "They have the workers with clearance on that site, they have the equipment, they have the expertise. I would think DOE would be worried to have that kind of talent drop out of a major job like that." DOE could not be reached for comment prior to The Oak Ridger's deadline this morning. Freeman said a contracting change on Bechtel Jacobs' part would be viewed favorably in the sub-contracting community. "Bechtel Jacobs has embraced the fixed price contracting scheme and they are reluctant to back off in any way," said Freeman. "But in a situation like this with K-25 and K-27, they would be justified to back off because of the risk involved. Another scheme would give companies more leeway to perform the work in a reasonable way." Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which advises the DOE on reservation environmental issues, agreed that the scope of work in the gaseous diffusion buildings would be difficult to define. "BNFL is probably entirely justified," said Gawarecki. "It's a complex project. And I would think the DOE would like for them to be a bidder, but maybe not at the expense of what they view as unlimited cost." Hill said that indeed, Bechtel Jacobs' fixed price scheme saves money. "It requires diligence on the contractor's part to really sharpen their pencils on the front end. That way you get the best value for the taxpayer and for DOE," said Hill. He noted that as work gets underway, change orders can be applied for and additional resources found for justified unforeseen problems. But BNFL and many in the contracting community say change orders can become numerous in an ill-defined scope of work, increasing costs in terms of dollars and time for everyone involved. In a letter to Bechtel Jacobs, dated Nov. 7, and obtained by The Oak Ridger, BNFL stated "We conclude that your contracting approach has high potential for unfavorable safety performance as well as establishing a contentious and litigious relationship between the subcontractor and BJC (and our ultimate customer, DOE)." Gawarecki said she would expect other contractors to be "cheering" BNFL on "but not necessarily joining in the boycott." "I wouldn't call it a contracting revolt," said Stevens. "I would say that the issue, and we are an example, is how much risk is a company willing to take? We have taken the risk on this (three building project) and lost and we are not willing to take that risk again unless Bechtel Jacobs changes the scenario." He offered a parting piece of advice for other contractors: "If you're going into a fixed price scenario on a large contract you'd better be prepared to continue to bank roll the project through the numerous changes that will occur." Stevens said that BNFL has the history, and the monetary loss, to back up that contention. The "boycott" comes at what many say is a critical time, as Bechtel Jacobs, which heads up the DOE's environmental management for the Oak Ridge Operations office, is awaiting a contract extension from the department. Also, pressure is on for a quick transition for cleanup on the two buildings, as that contract is part of the accelerated cleanup program which is slated to close the site by 2008. The award for the K-25 and K-27 buildings is due in May, and work is scheduled to start in June. Stevens said that not winning that work "does not necessarily mean the end of us in Oak Ridge." He noted that a local presence would be maintained through ownership of Manufacturing Sciences Corporation, plus BNFL's work through its super compactor would continue and possibly expand. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 58 Jurors summon Lockheed ex-hands - By Bill Bartleman [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Friday, November 08, 2002 The grand jury's subpoenas are confirmed by the company that operated the Paducah plant for DOE from 1982 until 1992. By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Lockheed Martin Corp. confirmed that some of its former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant employees have been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury that is investigating whether environmental laws were violated when the company operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energy. Tom Jurkowsky, Lockheed Martin spokesman, said he didn't know the identity of the former workers, whether any were top managers or the content of their subpoenas. "We have not been informed if the company is the target of the investigation," Jurkowsky said. "We are cooperating fully." Lockheed operated the plant for DOE from 1982 until 1992, when the uranium enrichment operation was privatized and taken over by USEC Inc. The workers were then transferred from Lockheed to USEC. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said late Thursday that she didn't know whether any of those subpoenaed are still working at the plant. The grand jury began meeting Wednesday, and one of those to testify was Harold Hargan of Pulaski County, Ill., who worked at the plant for almost 40 years, including the 10 years the plant was operated by Lockheed Martin. He retired in 1992. Hargan said he was asked about how workers handled trichlorethylene, a highly toxic chemical that was used to clean radioactive material and other chemicals from processing equipment. He said he testified that workers in the 1980s did not follow long-standing procedures, which resulted in TCE spills on the floor of the C-400 building that were being washed into drains. Investigations have revealed that TCE from the C-400 building leaked into a drainage ditch, causing contamination not only from the TCE, but also from radioactive material that had been cleaned from the equipment. One of the major problems around the plant is groundwater contamination. Hargan said workers dipped the processing equipment into huge vats filled with TCE. He said that if the equipment was properly rigged, all of the TCE would drain back into the vat after the equipment was removed. "They didn't do it right, and TCE would run onto the floor," Hargan said. He estimates that at least 5,000 pounds of the chemical were washed into the building's drains over a 10-year period. It eventually ran into the north-south diversion ditch, believed to be the source of major contamination. Hargan said he also told the grand jury that supervisors and managers ignored his repeated warnings that the process being used by workers was wrong and causing contamination. "Instead of listening to me, the plant management tried to punish me and run me off," he said in an interview Thursday after he returned to his home from Louisville, where the grand jury is meeting. The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating claims made in a whistleblower suit filed in June 1999 that the hundreds of millions of dollars in operating fees that Lockheed received were improperly earned because it was filing false environmental reports. "Lockheed denies the allegations that it failed to operate the facility properly and will defend the civil action," Jurkowsky said. "We have been cooperating fully." The suit asks that the improperly earned operating fees be returned to the federal government. If successful, those who filed the suit — three current and former workers and an environmental group — would receive up to 25 percent of the proceeds. Joe Egan, the environmental attorney who filed the suit, said the potential settlement is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Department of Justice has spent several million dollars investigating the claims in an effort to determine whether it wants to become a co-plaintiff. The U.S. attorney's office in Louisville has recommended that the government join the suit, and a final decision is pending in Washington. After receiving 13 extensions, federal officials now face a Dec. 17 deadline for making the decision. Hargan said government attorneys and investigators did not give him details about what laws they think were violated or how long the grand jury probe will last. He said that before testifying Wednesday afternoon, he met for several hours with criminal investigators for the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department of Justice. The U.S. attorney's office in Louisville would not comment. Hargan is a plaintiff in another suit that was filed two years ago. That class-action suit against Lockheed and former operator Union Carbide seeks about $10 billion for current and former employees who became ill while working at the plant. That suit is pending in U.S. District Court in Paducah. ***************************************************************** 59 Be Careful What You Ask For The New York Times November 8, 2002* *By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF* Republicans are really in a pickle now. No, it's true. Just consider the picture in the fall of 2004 as President Bush battles to hold onto Congress and his own house: ? The new Scalia Supreme Court has accepted an abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in America. The federal budget deficit has hit $400 billion, and the expanded 2003 tax cuts mean that the federal debt is out of control. This has kept the Dow below 7,000. ? The '02 election has emboldened conservatives to take hard-line positions and overshoot their mandate, just as they did under Newt Gingrich in 1994, so that more high school students now learn about creationism than about condoms. The result, once again, is rising public anger at right-wing ideologues. ? In response to huge budget deficits, states have had to slash school spending. Test scores are dropping, and a growing number of children are being left behind. Even centrists are angered by logging of old-growth forests and the administration's fervent push to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ? The occupation of Iraq is increasingly unpopular at home, with an average of one American killed there every two weeks and Iran gaining influence in the anarchic south. The catastrophic failure to engage North Korea has led that country to start up its Yongbyon reactor, churn out many nuclear weapons and test its new three-stage Taepodong 2 missile, which can reach New York. The above paragraphs will self-destruct next year, well before they could embarrass me by being juxtaposed with reality. As Mark Twain said, the art of prophecy is difficult, especially with regard to the future. But it does seem plausible that Republicans will overinterpret their mandate (if 22,000 votes had gone differently, the Senate could have remained Democratic in January). President Bush is, like President Reagan but unlike his father, a natural leader who is unafraid to use political capital and even borrow some from the bank. If he pushed an aggressive platform before, with a minority of the popular vote and a divided Congress, imagine what he'll seek now. Already the Republicans are oozing hubris. (You can't much blame them. As David Letterman observed about the Democrats, You know you're in trouble when your bright young star of the future is Frank Lautenberg.) Yet the reality is that this will be an excruciating economic climate in which to govern. New York State alone will face a $6 billion shortfall next year, and war spending and tax cuts could easily push the federal deficit to between $200 billion and $400 billion in 2004, up to a precarious 4 percent of G.N.P. Services and school programs around the country will be cut, and voters will find someone to blame in two years' time. The Democrats, out of power, won't make a convenient whipping boy. John Ellis, a Bush cousin and longtime conservative political analyst, gets it exactly right on his Weblog: "The 2002 result is a strong vote of confidence for the Bush administration. It is not a mandate. The great danger that now looms for the G.O.P. is that it will mistake the vote of confidence for a mandate." In his press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush gave no sign he is intoxicated by election vapors; even when goaded by reporters looking for a good story, he didn't speak dreamily about appointing John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court, drilling for oil in Yellowstone or exiling liberals to Guantánamo. The key test, though, will be in the coming weeks as we see whether he reads the soon-to-be-passed U.N. resolution on Iraq the same way everyone else does. Mr. Bush's problem is that he has launched a diplomatic process in which he has little faith. The reality is that he went to the U.N. to get international legitimacy, not weapons inspections. So he may soon be tempted to short-circuit the diplomatic process. The resolution, as it is presently drafted, requires Saddam Hussein to make a full declaration of his secret programs within 30 days. It's a good bet that there'll be a lot of doubt that his declaration is completely truthful, and so hawks will encourage Mr. Bush to launch a war at that time. They will urge him to announce that the declaration is false and constitutes a "material breach" ? and then send the bombers. If that happens, we could be at war by year's end. We might be paying for such hubris for years to come. *Forum:* Join a Discussion on Nicholas D. Kristof's Columns (Moderated) Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 60 EDITORIAL: Letting Mr. Jeffords have it reviewjournal.com -- Opinion: Friday, November 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal It was Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, of course, who jumped ship from the Republican Party last year, throwing the balance of power in the U.S. Senate to the Democrats. And his fellow Vermonter, Patrick Leahy, is the Democrat who has spent the past 15 months snarling and stalling President Bush's judicial nominees. To say the Green Mountain State's delegation thus faces some hard times in a Senate newly recovered by the Republican Party might prove to be a slight understatement. "Every now and then, there are people in politics who get exactly what they deserve," GOP consultant Ed Rogers observed to The Washington Post. As yet, however, "There hasn't been time for thoughtful retribution planning." The Senate is still a fairly gentlemanly fraternity, of course. In fact, it's a good bet the hard feelings will eventually be forgotten, and effusive tributes and encomia flow forth from their Senate brethren whenever the first of them feels the time has finally come to retire. Who knows, the Senate might even want to name something for them -- something in keeping with their home state's reputation for granite-solid stability and trustworthiness; something like, oh ... the Jeffords/Leahy Memorial Mount Mansfield National Nuclear Waste Repository. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 61 Environmentalists Fear GOP Gains iWon News [http://news.iwon.com] Nov 8, 1:34 AM (ET) By ANGIE WAGNER (AP) Alaska native hunter Mickey Agiak pulls a sled as he drives his snowmobile past a test drilling... LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democrats weren't the only ones who watched this week's election results with mounting discomfort. Environmentalists also were alarmed by the GOP's tightened grip on Congress. Many conservationists fear Republican gains in the Senate and House mean President Bush's agenda on natural resource issues could face a friendlier reception, from proposals to log in national forests to drill in Alaska. "I think it's very, very bad news for the environment of the West," said Debbie Sease, Sierra Club national legislative director. "I think it's going to result in more timber being cut in our national forests. There'll be attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act." But some analysts said Bush is unlikely to get everything he wants, including drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Democrats, joined by a handful of moderate GOP lawmakers, likely still have enough clout to stop the proposal. "It's not doom and gloom for the environmentalists. It's just now we're going to have an open debate about these issues," said Chris West, vice president of the timber industry's American Forest Resource Council in Portland, Ore. The House in August approved an energy bill that included drilling in the Arctic refuge, but the Senate has rejected development there. Some geologists estimate as much as 11 billion barrels of oil may lie beneath the refuge. Drilling in the refuge is a top energy priority of the White House, which argues the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain can be tapped without disrupting wildlife or polluting the environment. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has pledged to "impose the toughest environmental standards ever applied to oil production" if the refuge is opened. Democrats have blocked drilling, saying the risk is too high and the potential benefit too low. Development, they say, could disrupt caribou calving areas, the home of musk-oxen, the winter dens of polar bears and the summer stopover for millions of migratory birds. Republican gains in midterm elections Tuesday also may improve the outlook for Bush's proposal to cut wildfire risk by allowing loggers more access to national forests. The conflict centers on a disagreement over how much logging should be allowed to remove unnaturally high levels of brush and small trees that have resulted from decades of suppressing fires. In centuries past, small fires periodically cleared forests of such undergrowth. Groups including the American Lands Alliance, Citizens for Better Forestry and the National Forest Protection Alliance held rallies across the country Thursday to demonstrate against the Bush-backed forest legislation. "It's a very dangerous time," said Brian Vincent, California organizer for the American Lands Alliance. "There is no doubt a cocky White House and their gloating allies in Congress are going to use their inflated muscle to try to open up public forests to industrial-strength logging." Republicans want to speed up logging projects, which supporters say routinely get bogged down for years in studies and appeals. A leading GOP proposal would streamline environmental studies, require the government to look at fewer alternatives and limit administrative and judicial appeals. Some western Democrats agree with the need for forest thinning - and quicker decisions - but differ with Republican proposals they say are too sweeping. Critics say the thinning programs are abused to remove larger, commercial-sized timber. Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada predicted the new GOP majority in the Senate would vote to allow both increased logging in forests and drilling in Alaska. But Jerry Hood, executive committee member of Arctic Power, the state-funded group that lobbies in favor of drilling, said it's too early to predict what will happen. "I don't think just because the Republicans are back in control of the Senate that that means any great swings on those types of issues," Hood said. "It's not going to be a cakewalk by any means." For Dave Alberswerth of The Wilderness Society, the new political reality means environmentalists must learn to deal with the new and strengthened Republican majorities. "That is a fact of political life in America today," he said. On the Net: Wilderness Society: http://www.wilderness.org Arctic Power: http://www.anwr.org Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************