***************************************************************** 10/09/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.260 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 US: NRC Cites D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station for Violation Of Low t 2 US: NRC Issues "Lessons Learned" Task Force Report on Agency's 3 Falsification at Leningrad nuclear power plant 4 US: Lowest level alert declared at Seabrook after motor fire 5 US: Midlands Voices: Respected company is approached about Cooper nu 6 US: NRC cites nuclear plant for "low to moderate" safety violation * NUCLEAR SAFETY 7 *Radioactive man refused entry to Russia* 8 AU: Every cloud had a plutonium lining - 9 Russian Tries to Sell Tons of Uranium Abroad NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 10 US: Panel told Nevada should keep up pressure against nuclear dump 11 US: Nevada lawyers say lawmakers should bond on Yucca 12 US: Nuclear waste committee warned not to trust feds 13 US: DOE gets new boss for Yucca 14 US: Nevada lawyers say lawmakers should bond on Yucca* 15 US: Panel told Nevada should keep up pressure against nuclear dump* NUCLEAR WEAPONS 16 [southnews] UK support for Iraq action at new low of 32% 17 US: [southnews] bush pressures CIA For 'Cooked Info' on Iraq 18 US: Robert Fisk: What the US President wants us to forget 19 Peace Demonstrations Worldwide: 1.5 Million in Italy -- US 20 Kennedy | The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption 21 US: Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill 22 Excerpts From the Debate in the Senate on Using Force Against Iraq 23 Bush fails to sway most European skeptics 24 Straw fails to secure Arab support for UN resolution 25 US: Comment This marks the death of deterrence Bush's new doctrine 26 UK: Marshalling the facts 27 US: Chickenhawks, Armey Shouldn't Criticize 28 US: White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' 29 U.S. Monitors Ex-Iraqi Nuke Sites 30 US: Congress Opens 3-Day Debate on Iraq 31 US: White House: CIA Advances Iraq Case 32 US: Bush Iraq Plan Gets Fresh Support 33 South Africa: Iraq Allegedly Sought SA Nuclear Material 34 Nuke agency seeks tough resolution -- 35 Crown fails in Sheridan appeal 36 US: CIA calls Iraqi threat limited 37 U.S. intelligence monitors activity at former Iraqi nuclear sites US DEPT. OF ENERGY 38 Lab Aglow Over Davis' Award 39 Robert Fisk: What the US President wants us to forget 40 HEARING SET ON SHUTDOWN OF IDLE NUCLEAR PLANT 41 Report reveals cracks in SRS pipe 42 DOE official reveals nuclear plans 43 Taxpayer Group Calls for Demise of Energy Department -- 44 Brief: Meeting to discuss plant's possible plutonium production 45 Secretary Spencer Abraham, Former Secretaries of Energy Celebrate 46 Energy Secretary Applauds University of South Carolina and South 47 Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Office of Science Director OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 NRC Cites D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station for Violation Of Low to Moderate Safety Significance NRC: News Release - Region III - 2002-057 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-057 October 8, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that a violation of NRC safety regulations at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power station near Bridgman, Michigan, should be characterized as white, meaning that it is an issue of low to moderate importance to safety. The two-reactor facility is operated by American Electric Power Company. During an inspection conducted between August 2001 and May of this year, NRC inspectors determined that an essential service water (ESW) strainer was improperly installed. This resulted in lake sediment and debris being drawn into the water system on August 29 of last year. When debris entered the system, which provides cooling for the emergency diesel generators and other plant safety equipment, the water flow to various heat exchangers was reduced. The plants four emergency diesel generators were not operating nor needed at the time; however, if they had been needed to supply power to plant safety systems, their function might have been impaired. NRC inspection findings are evaluated using a four-level scale of safety significance, ranging from "green" for a finding of minor significance, through "white" and "yellow" to "red," for a finding of high safety significance. The debris problem at D. C. Cook was initially characterized as a "yellow" finding in an inspection report available for viewing in the NRC's electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using this on-line system is available by contacting the NRC Public Document Room at 301/415-4737 or 1/800/397-4209. On July 25, the NRC held a regulatory conference with the utility to further discuss the companys views on this issue. The NRC staff used the information presented by the utility in the regulatory conference and correspondence, along with its inspection findings, to issue the final safety significance determination of the problem as white. The final determination is posted on the NRC's web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/reactors/. In addition to the white determination, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to American Electric Power for violation of the NRC requirement that activities affecting quality must be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, and drawings. The licensee had taken corrective action to preclude recurrence of the problem addressed in the Notice of Violation. Because this is the utilitys second white finding in the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone in the Reactor Safety and Strategic Performance Area, the NRC will increase its oversight activities for the utility. The previous white finding involved the failure of the Unit 2 Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump to start. It is described in NRC News Release III-02-029 issued on May 20. The news release is posted on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2002/. Wednesday, October 09, 2002 ***************************************************************** 2 NRC Issues "Lessons Learned" Task Force Report on Agency's Handling of Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel Head Damage NRC: News Release - 2002-119 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-119 October 9, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a lessons learned report on the agencys handling of issues associated with the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant. The facility, operated by First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, is located near Oak Harbor, Ohio. On March 5 of this year workers at the Davis-Besse plant found a cavity, caused by boric acid corrosion, in the top of the reactor vessel during repair activities while the plant was shut down. The plant remains shut down for replacement of the reactor vessel head and for broad safety reviews and performance improvement activities. A Lessons Learned Task Force, which completed the report, was formed to review the full scope of NRC regulatory activities related to the Davis-Besse damage, including the agency inspection and assessment program, industry-wide generic activities, research work, and international practices. It was comprised of NRC staff members not previously associated with the oversight of the Davis-Besse plant. Art Howell, a senior manager at the NRCs Region IV Office in Texas, directed the effort. An official from the Ohio State Emergency Management Agency participated in the task force as an observer. The Task Force will present its findings in a public meeting in the near future -- in Oak Harbor, Ohio. Members of the public attending the meeting will have the opportunity to make comments and ask questions of the task force. Details will be announced shortly. The findings and recommendations of the task force will be evaluated by an NRC Senior Management Review Team, headed by Dr. Carl Paperiello, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research and State Programs. The team will then recommend to the NRCs Executive Director for Operations any changes to agency policies and practices to address the issues arising out of the task forces review. The recommendations are expected by the end of November. The other senior managers on the review team are Samuel Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Martin Virgilio, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards; Ashok Thadani, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; and Ellis Merschoff, Regional Administrator, NRC Region 4. The Executive Summary of the Lessons Learned Task Force is attached. The full 96-page report (plus attachments) will be available on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/ne ws.html. Additional background and documents related to the reactor vessel head damage and the response of the NRC are available on the web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.ht ml. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NRC Davis-Besse Lessons Learned Task Force Objective and Scope The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has conducted a number of lessons-learned reviews to assess its regulatory processes as a result of significant plant events or plant safety issues. Consistent with this practice, the NRCs Executive Director for Operations (EDO) directed the formation of an NRC task force in response to the issues associated with the extensive degradation of the pressure boundary material of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head. The degraded RPV head was identified by the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensee for DBNPS, on March 5, 2002. The objective of this task force was to independently evaluate the NRCs regulatory processes related to assuring RPV head integrity in order to identify and recommend areas for improvement that may be applicable to either the NRC or the nuclear industry. Consistent with its charter, the task force reviewed five general areas, including: (1) reactor oversight process issues; (2) regulatory process issues; (3) research activities; (4) international practices; and (5) the NRCs Generic Issues Program. In reviewing these areas, the task force used processes and techniques that were similar to those used in NRC Incident Investigation Team and Diagnostic Evaluation Team reviews. A representative from the State of Ohio observed selected task force review activities. The task force conducted fact finding at DBNPS, which consisted of a review of the RPV head degradation condition and related issues. The task force conducted review activities at NRC regional and headquarters offices, which consisted of assessments of several NRC programs and functional areas. The task force held discussions with representatives from a number of external organizations. Background On March 12, 2002, the NRC dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to gather facts surrounding the circumstances associated with the March 5, 2002, discovery of a cavity in the DBNPS RPV head. The discovery of the cavity occurred following a plant shutdown for a refueling outage, during which the licensee was conducting inspections for reactor pressure vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzle cracking due to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC). These inspections were being conducted in response to an NRC bulletin. During these inspections, the licensee discovered cracks in several VHP nozzles. Subsequent to the machining process to repair VHP Nozzle 3, the nozzle was observed to displace, or tip in the downhill direction as the machining apparatus was withdrawn. The displacement led DBNPS personnel to examine the region adjacent to VHP Nozzle 3. The licensee discovered a cavity with a surface area of approximately 20-30 square inches. Upon further examination, the licensee identified that the cavity extended completely through the 6.63 inch thick carbon steel RPV head down to a thin internal liner of stainless steel cladding. In this case, the cladding withstood the primary system pressure over the cavity region during operation. However, the cladding is not designed to perform this function. Boric acid corrosion of the carbon steel RPV head was the primary contributor to the RPV head degradation. The VHP nozzles, which are made from a nickel based alloy, are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants. The VHP nozzles are highly resistant to general corrosion, but can be susceptible to PWSCC. Borated water is used in PWR plants as a reactivity control agent to aid in control of the nuclear reaction. If leakage occurs from the reactor coolant system (RCS), the escaping coolant flashes to steam and leaves behind a concentration of impurities, including boric acid. Under certain conditions, boric acid can cause extensive and rapid degradation of carbon steel components. If undetected and uncorrected, VHP nozzle leakage could potentially propagate to a failure of a nozzle and result in a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). In addition, boric acid-induced material wastage of the RPV head could result in a LOCA independent of catastrophic failure of a VHP nozzle. The cracking of Alloy 600 nozzles was first discovered in the late 1980s. The cracking of VHP nozzles was first observed at a French PWR, Bugey, Unit 3 in 1991. As a result of the Bugey experience, the NRC implemented an action plan to address PWSCC of VHP nozzles fabricated from Alloy 600. This action plan included an NRC staff review of safety assessments conducted by the PWR owners groups. These owners group reports addressed VHP nozzle cracking and the potential for boric acid degradation of RPV heads from leakage through the VHP nozzle cracks. The U.S. industry reports concluded that axial cracking, even if through-wall, was not highly safety significant. These owners group reports also concluded that circumferential cracking of VHP nozzles was improbable and boric acid attack of the RPV head, if it were to occur, would be discovered through boric acid walkdown inspections well before safety margins would be compromised. In a safety evaluation dated November 19, 1993, the NRC agreed with this assessment, but reserved judgment regarding circumferential cracking on a case-by-case basis, and encouraged the industry to develop enhanced VHP nozzle leakage monitoring techniques. In 1997, continued NRC concern with this issue led the NRC to issue a generic letter which requested PWR plant licensees to inform NRC of their plans to monitor and manage cracking in VHP nozzles and their intentions, if any, to perform non-visual, volumetric examinations of their VHP nozzles. Also, this NRC generic letter requested information regarding the occurrence of resin bead intrusions in PWR plants because of the concern that such intrusions could result in circumferential intergranular attack of VHP nozzles. In July 1997, the owners groups submitted their generic responses to the NRC on behalf of their members. The generic responses ranked the potential for the VHP nozzles of their member plants to develop PWSCC. Subsequently, inspections conducted in response to the generic letter led to the discovery of extensive circumferential cracking of several VHP nozzles at Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Unit 3 in the spring of 2001. Circumferential cracking in VHP nozzles is more safety significant than axial cracking since it creates the potential for separation of the nozzle if the cracking is severe enough. As a result of the ONS cracking experience, the NRC issued a bulletin which requested licensees to address the potential for similar cracking at their plants and to discuss their plans for VHP nozzle inspections. The Electric Power Research Institute/Materials Reliability Project took the lead for the industry in binning plants by susceptibility relative to ONS. The Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) plants, such as ONS and DBNPS, were all considered to be highly susceptible to the potential for circumferential cracking. By the end of November 2001, all but one of the other B&W units had identified circumferential cracking of VHP nozzles, while the remaining unit had identified VHP nozzle axial cracking. For highly susceptible plants, the bulletin recommended that VHP nozzle inspections be performed by December 31, 2001. The licensee believed that it was safe to operate the plant until the next scheduled refueling outage in the spring of 2002 before conducting the VHP nozzle inspections recommended by the bulletin. Because FENOC did not intend to perform the inspections recommended in the bulletin by the requested date, the NRC initiated action to prepare an immediately effective order to require DBNPS to cease power operations by December 31, 2001. Subsequently, the licensee provided additional information to the NRC. The NRC accepted FENOCs justification to operate DBNPS only until February 16, 2002, provided that DBNPS implement compensatory measures to reduce the risk of VHP nozzle failure and perform volumetric examinations of 100 percent of the VHP nozzles. During subsequent inspections, DBNPS discovered VHP nozzle cracking, including through-wall cracking of several VHP nozzles. The licensee discovered a long axial crack in VHP Nozzle 3. This crack was the source of the leakage that was likely the most significant contributor to the RPV head degradation. Observations and Conclusions About 10 years ago, the NRC and industry recognized the potential for an event such as the one that occurred at DBNPS. In spite of the wealth of information, which includes extensive foreign and domestic PWR plant operating experience, as well as research activities involving tests and engineering analyses, the DBNPS event occurred. Events involving the material wastage of components stemming from primary system leaks have been reported for more than 30 years. For more than 15 years, Alloy 600 nozzle leakage events in U.S. PWR plants have been reported. In 1993, the industry and NRC specifically addressed the possibility of extensive RPV head wastage stemming from undetected VHP nozzle leaks involving axial cracking caused by PWSCC. The industry and the NRC concluded that the likelihood of such an event was low because VHP nozzle leaks would be detected before significant RPV head degradation could occur. The task force concluded that DBNPS VHP nozzle leakage and RPV head degradation event was preventable. The task force focused on understanding why the event was not prevented. While this focus was primarily introspective, this question could not be answered without considering industry activities and DBNPSs performance. The task force concluded that the event was not prevented because: (1) the NRC, DBNPS, and the nuclear industry failed to adequately review, assess, and followup on relevant operating experience; (2) DBNPS failed to assure that plant safety issues would receive appropriate attention; and (3) the NRC failed to integrate known or available information into its assessments of DBNPSs safety performance. Because the NRC and nuclear industry concluded that Alloy 600 VHP nozzle cracking was not an immediate safety concern, the NRC and the industrys efforts to further evaluate this issue became protracted. Also, the NRC and industry continued to rely on visual inspections of VHP nozzles. These inspections are incapable of characterizing the extent of nozzle cracking and damage. While the industry initiated actions to improve non-visual inspection capabilities, the requirements governing inspections remained unchanged. The NRC recognized that some affected PWR plants could potentially operate with small leaks which would not be detected by boric acid corrosion control walkdown inspections. Rather than adopt an approach of leakage prevention, the NRC focused on measures intended to enhance licensee capabilities to detect small VHP nozzle leaks. Because of this, the NRC believed it was prudent for the industry to consider implementing an enhanced leakage detection method for detecting small leaks during plant operation. Leakage detection would serve as a means of providing defense-in-depth to account for any potential uncertainties in the industry analysis that boric acid corrosion walkdown inspections would be an effective means of detecting VHP nozzle leaks before significant degradation could occur. However, PWR plant licensees have not installed enhanced leakage detection systems designed to detect VHP nozzle leaks. The licensee for DBNPS, as well as the NRC, failed to learn a key lesson from boric acid leakage and corrosion operating experience. Specifically, predictions regarding boric acid-induced corrosion rates, for in-plant boric acid leaks, have not been reliable in all cases. Operating experience reveals instances in which corrosion rates were significantly underestimated for identified boric acid leaks because of erroneous assumptions regarding the nature of the leakage, environmental conditions, the relationship between the actual leakage and experimental data, or other factors. As a consequence, in some instances, carbon steel components have been corroded to a much greater extent than anticipated. A number of these events occurred even though the underlying leakage had been previously identified by licensees, as they deferred material wastage assessments and repairs on the basis of the assumption that the corrosion rates would be inconsequential. At least two such events occurred at DBNPS prior to the discovery of the RPV head degradation. The NRC and the industry regarded boric acid deposits on the RPV head as an issue that required attention; however, the NRC and industry did not regard the presence of the boric acid deposits on the RPV head as a significant safety concern because they expected that boric acid crystals would form from flashing steam and such crystals would not cause significant corrosion of RPV heads. For example, the NRC and industry were concerned that the presence of boric acid deposits, from CRDM flange leakage in the case of B&W PWR plants, could obscure the indications of VHP nozzle leakage. While dry boric acid crystals would not be expected to result in significant corrosion rates, representative testing of nozzle leakage indicated that corrosion rates from boric acid solutions could be in the range of 4 inches per year. These rates of corrosion could occur at primary system leakage rates that are significantly lower than the typical PWR plant technical specification limit, namely, at a rate too small to directly measure with the current leakage detection systems. Even at somewhat lower rates of corrosion, properly implemented boric acid corrosion control programs may not lead licensees to detect VHP nozzle leaks before significant RPV head degradation could occur. The results of these tests, while known within the NRC, were not widely recognized by the NRC staff. The recurring nature of boric acid leakage and corrosion events generally indicates a lack of effectiveness of industry corrective actions in these areas. This event also indicates that DBNPS failed to effectively implement its operating experience review program. Also, the NRC failed to adequately review, assess, and followup on relevant operating experience to bring about the necessary industry and plant specific actions to prevent this event. While much was known within the NRC about nozzle cracking and boric acid corrosion, other important details associated with these two issues, such as the number of nozzle cracking events, as well as insights from foreign operating experience and domestic research activities, were not widely recognized or were viewed as not being applicable. The NRC accepted industry positions regarding the nature and significance of VHP nozzle cracking without having independently verified a number of key assumptions, including the implementation effectiveness of boric acid corrosion control programs and enhanced visual inspections of RPV heads. None of the NRCs previously identified generic issues pertained directly to either VHP nozzle cracking or boric acid corrosion; although, there was one generic issue that pertained, in part, to boric acid corrosion of fasteners. This generic issue was classified as resolved in 1991. The task force identified multiple DBNPS performance problems that indicated DBNPSs failure to assure that plant safety issues would receive appropriate attention. Specifically, the licensee failed to: (1) resolve long-standing or recurring primary system component leaks; (2) establish and effectively implement a boric acid corrosion control program; and (3) adequately implement industry guidance and NRC recommendations intended to identify VHP nozzle leakage. Collectively, these and other performance issues involved: (1) strained engineering resources; (2) an approach of addressing the symptoms of problems as a means of minimizing production impacts; (3) a long-standing acceptance of degraded equipment; (4) a lack of management involvement in important safety significant work activities and decisions, including a lack of a questioning attitude by managers; (5) a lack of engineering rigor in the approach to problem resolution; (6) a lack of awareness of internal and external operating experience, including the inability to implement effective actions to address the lessons-learned from past events; (7) ineffective and untimely corrective actions, including the inability to recognize or address repetitive or recurring problems; (8) ineffective self-assessments of safety performance; (9) weaknesses in the implementation of the employee concerns program; and (10) a lack of compliance with procedures. For a number of years, the NRC was aware of the symptoms and indications of active RCS leakage. The NRC even reviewed some of these individual symptoms during routine inspections; however, the NRC failed to integrate this information into its assessments of DBNPSs safety performance. As a result, the NRC failed to perform focused inspections of these symptoms. If focused inspections had been performed, then the NRC may have ultimately discovered the VHP nozzle leaks and RPV head degradation. The former senior resident inspector became aware of boric acid deposits on the RPV head at the onset of the spring 2000 refueling outage; however, he did not inform his supervisor and did not perform inspection followup. There were other licensee performance data that were available for review, in the context of the NRCs inspection program, but the NRC did not review or assess this information. Actual and perceived weaknesses with inspection, enforcement, and assessment guidance, as well as inadequate VHP nozzle and RPV head inspection requirements, contributed to the NRCs failure to identify the problem. During the period in which the symptoms and indications of RCS leakage were visible, the managers and staff members of the NRCs regional office responsible for DBNPS oversight were more focused on other plants that were the subject of increased regulatory oversight. This distracted management attention and contributed to staffing and resource challenges impacting the regulatory oversight of DBNPS. The dissemination of some licensee information resulted in actual and potential missed opportunities for the NRC to have identified the problem. Also, there were a number of licensing process issues that contributed to the NRCs failure to identify the problem. Recommendations As a result of its review, the task force determined that the NRC should take specific actions directed toward areas it considered contributors to the DBNPS event. The task forces recommendations are addressed in Section 3 of the report. Appendix A provides a consolidated listing of these recommendations. The recommendations involve the following areas: (1) inspection guidance; (2) NRC and industry processes to assess operating experience; (3) industry code inspection requirements for RCPB components (ASME requirements); (4) assessment of NRC programs, processes, and capabilities; (5) NRC staff training and experience; (6) technical specification requirements related to RCPB integrity; (7) reactor coolant system leakage monitoring practices and capabilities; (8) stress corrosion cracking and boric acid corrosion technical information and guidance; (9) NRC licensing process guidance development and implementation; and (10) previous NRC lessons-learned reviews. Wednesday, October 09, 2002 ***************************************************************** 3 Falsification at Leningrad nuclear power plant ST PETERSBURG - Sergey Kharitonov, researcher at the Environmental Rights Centre Bellona, a former Leningrad NPP (LAES) employee turned whistle-blower and fired for his activities, made public an internal document of LAES, showing falsifications during repairs at one of its reactors. Rashid Alimov, 2002-10-09 12:39 "Report on investigation of violations in LAES's operation" (3RZ-06-08-02, issued on August 29th 2002) documents, that while repairing the third reactor unit, the plant's personnel installed used and defective flow-meters, instead of new ones. "This report circulates only among the LAES directors. The forged documents on flow-meters, revealed by an internal LAES investigation, remind falsification of safety reports for nuclear plants in Japan," — says Sergey Kharitonov. What is a flow-meter A flow-meter is a complicated device, installed on each of the 1693 fuel channels inside a reactor. The flow-meter is used to measure consumption of cooling water, which comes into the channel to turn into water-steam mixture. In the separating chamber the mixture divides into water and steam, and steam goes on to rotate the turbine and produce electricity. The cooling water passes through the flow-meter at a high-speed pressure of 80 atmospheres, and at a temperature of 270 degrees Celsius. And the Lack of reliable control over water consumption may result in a nuclear accident, if some loose object obstructs the channel. In 2000, the first reactor unit of LAES was shut down, because a rubber object got into the reactor channel. The object blocked the water circulation and a serious accident was avoided only because the flow-meter had shown in time that the water circulation had stopped. Each flow-meter has a permit, and inspectors from various departments — reactor, thermal automatic machinery, and nuclear safety — have to certify it. Forgery The third reactor unit of LAES had been under repairs for nine months. The goal of the repairs was to extend life-term of the equipment designed — life of the unit expires in 2009. The investigation showed that during the repairs personnel installed already used flow-meters. Total number of the 'old' flow-meters was 241 out of 1693. Old flow-meters were installed not by mistake, but intentionally — shows the investigation report. Signatures of nuclear safety inspectors were forged in the permits of 231 flow-meters. Those were the old flow-meters, which broke on August 5th 2002, while launching the third reactor unit. When 14 flow-meters failed, LAES authorities carried out an investigation, and when it was revealed that old flow-meters had been installed, the third reactor was shutdown. From September 2nd to September 4th, LAES changed 241 old flow-meters to the new ones. On September 6th, the unit or reactor was restarted at its rated capacity. To hide the fact that these flow-meters had already been used in the reactor, and to lower their radioactivity, LAES personnel deactivated and polished them in the chemical department. "There are suppositions, that new flow-meters were stolen and sold to some other nuclear plant, for example, to Kursk nuclear power plant", — Sergey Kharitonov says. Investigation Report But even the LNPP internal report cannot be named an objective document. For example, this report reads the event did not result in the shutdown of the reactor, the cut in electricity production or the irradiation of personnel. But even the official LAES's Vestnik LAES paper, admits that the reactor was shutdown and energy was under-produced while defective flow-meters were being replaced with new ones. Speaking about personnel, they undoubtedly were exposed to additional irradiation while carrying out the replacement of flow-meters. Bellona claims this event needs federal investigation, and its results should be published. "We're all afraid of terrorism. LAES doesn't need explosives for a nuclear catastrophe. For this, it's enough that personnel forge documents and installs defective equipment. Bin Ladens are working inside Leningrad LAES," — Sergey Kharitonov says. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 4 Lowest level alert declared at Seabrook after motor fire Boston Globe Online: By Associated Press, 10/9/2002 05:56 SEABROOK, N.H. (AP) A low-level alert was declared at the Seabrook nuclear plant after a fire damaged a water pump early today. The plant declared an unusual event, the lowest of four emergency levels, just after 3 a.m., after fire damaged one of three pumps that bring ocean water into the plant to cool steam after it passes through the generators, said spokesman Alan Griffith. ''It's not serious. It was under control very quickly. There were no injuries,'' Griffith said. Griffith said plant personnel brought the fire under control in minutes and did not require help from the town fire department. The alert was terminated shortly before 6 a.m., he said. The pumphouse is separate from the reactor building. The plant remains at 100 percent power, as the two other pumps in the steam cooling system continue working normally, Griffith said. He said the pump automatically shut down, then caught fire. Engineers are seaching for a cause. The unusual event was declared because the fire burned for more than 10 minutes, Griffith said. ***************************************************************** 5 Midlands Voices: Respected company is approached about Cooper nuke station Omaha.com Published Tuesday October 8, 2002 BY WILLIAM R. MAYBEN /The writer is president and CEO of the Nebraska Public Power District./ The Wall Street Journal recently reported that state regulators in California are alleging that power generators in that state deliberately withheld electricity during the California energy crisis, forcing businesses to shut down and utilities to black out neighborhoods. If the state's five largest independent electricity producers had operated all of their available generation, the article said, the state could have avoided all four days of blackouts in Southern California, 65 percent of the blackout hours in northern California and the majority of the service interruptions to large industrial customers throughout the state. "The only reason that is imaginable" to withhold power from the state's electric grid, according to the general counsel for the California Public Utilities Commission, was so "they would drive the price up." Publicly owned utilities across the nation traditionally celebrate Public Power Month during October, and this year, I suggest there could be no better testimonial for public power than the Wall Street Journal story. And that's because the story highlights the fundamental difference between the gener- ators in California and the utilities in Nebraska: Publicly owned utilities are not driven as their privately owned counterparts are to make a profit. Our mission is to reliably, dependably produce the power, pass it on to you at the cost of service and always be there when you need us. Nebraska Public Power District supplies electricity to most of the state - directly or indirectly through our wholesale partners. This past summer has been hot and dry, placing even more demand on our system than almost any of us could have imagined. In fact, our customers have used 28 percent more electricity than we expected them to - mainly due to increased irrigation and air-conditioning needs. But the most important part of that statistic to us is this: You never noticed a thing. No blackouts, no brownouts. NPPD power plants across the state worked 24/7 to produce reliable, dependable energy because our customers needed it. Not only did we meet the demand, but one of those power plants, Gerald Gentleman Station near North Platte, also recently was ranked No. 2 in a national survey of coal plants that produce electricity at the lowest possible cost. That same survey of top plants also recognized the Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson, Wis., for having the No. 1 nuclear plant in the nation in terms of producing power at the lowest possible cost. NPPD is negotiating with NMC to operate its nuclear plant, Cooper Nuclear Station in southeast Nebraska. NMC's track record of improving performance and lowering costs are two of the major reasons why we're negotiating with the company. NPPD will still own Cooper, so its publicly owned status is not in question. And, since NMC owns several nuclear plants around the country, such an arrangement would enhance the employment potential for our employees. NPPD remains committed to the safe operation of Cooper Nuclear Station, and we are proud to say that preliminary reports from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicate we have passed an extensive exercise conducted recently on the plant's ability to respond to an emergency. In addition to our generating plants, I'm proud of our linemen, who maintain thousands of miles of transmission and distribution lines across the state. Reliability on our transmission system exceeds the regional average. And our crews are the only ones in Nebraska using the "bare hand" method of repairing power lines, which means working on power lines while they're still energized. Our crews are highly skilled and deliver on our promise every day to make sure the power is always there when you need it. Storms and outages don't confine themselves to an 8-to-5 schedule; neither do we. When you have a downed power line, you'll reach someone at our Norfolk-based call center around the clock. In addition to producing reliable, dependable power, we're striving constantly to lower our costs. Over the last year, we cut $20 million from our budget, in an effort to drive down our cost of service - so Nebraskans may continue to have rates about 20 percent below the national average. NPPD's management and locally elected board of directors strive to provide you with reliable, responsive electric service. We're directly accountable to the people we serve and working hard to be good stewards of your assets. During Public Power Month and always, thank you for trusting us with the investment you've made in public power and the opportunity to serve you. Omaha World-Herald: ***************************************************************** 6 NRC cites nuclear plant for "low to moderate" safety violation * *The Associated Press 10/8/02 11:03 PM* BRIDGMAN, Mich. (AP) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that a violation of safety regulations at D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station was "of low to moderate importance to safety." NRC inspectors determined during an inspection conducted between August 2001 and May that a strainer on a water intake was improperly installed. The plant, owned by Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power, was powered down in late August to correct problems caused by silt and zebra mussels entering cooling-water intakes. Unit 1 was shut down Aug. 27 and Unit 2 on Aug. 30. When debris entered the system, which provides cooling for the emergency diesel generators and other plant safety equipment, the water flow to various heat exchangers was reduced, the NRC said in a written statement released Tuesday. The nuclear power plant draws about 1.5 million gallons of cooling water per minute from nearby Lake Michigan. The water is used by emergency-system condensers and generators. The NRC also issued a Notice of Violation to American Electric Power for violation of the requirement that activities affecting quality must be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, and drawings. The NRC said it would increase its oversight for the utility because it was the utility's second low to moderate finding in the "Reactor Safety and Strategic Performance Area." On the Net: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, http://www.aep.com/cookinfo/cookplant.htm Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov American Electric Power Co., http://www.aep.com Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 *Radioactive man refused entry to Russia* Ananova A Chinese man has been refused entry to Russia after he set off a Geiger counter at the border. Radiation levels from his body registered 200 times higher than normal. He set off the detector at the border station in the far-eastern Primorye region. Further checks showed radiation levels were highest around the man's throat. The man claimed he was taking a special radioactive medication to cure his thyroid gland problems but he was deported back to China as a safety precaution. Story filed: 09:44 Wednesday 9th October 2002 Copyright © 2002 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 8 AU: Every cloud had a plutonium lining - theage.com.au October 09 2002 [Ric Johnstone] Picture: ANDREW TAYLOR Ric Johnstone, a veteran of atomic bomb tests at Maralinga. The photo behind is a 15 kiloton detenation at Maralinga in 1956. Fifty years ago this month, Britain began testing atom bombs in Australia. The tests left thousands of Australians with serious health problems, and those who are still alive are struggling to get compensation. Aidan Windle reports. At 8am on October 3, 1952, Britain detonated its first atom bomb aboard the HMS Plym, which was anchored offshore of the Montebello Islands, 80 nautical miles off northern Western Australia. The 25kilogram nuclear fission device vaporised the Plym and its surroundings in a test codenamed Operation Hurricane. It was the beginning of a series of 29 British nuclear tests in Australia and several South Pacific islands from 1952 to 1958, in which more than 22,000 British, 14,000 Australian and 500 New Zealand servicemen were involved. The Menzies government supported the tests until 1957, when scientist Hedley Marston revealed that radioactive fallout was widespread. The tests were then moved from Maralinga to Christmas Island, where the last six explosions of the program took place. During the tests, these servicemen and the many civilians who took part were exposed to ionising radiation that left many with serious and often lifethreatening health problems. Bill Paterson, 69, a stoker on board HMAS Karangi, took part in the ship's mission to recover materials from around the Plym following Operation Hurricane. His home - among the wooded hills of Milgrove, east of Melbourne - is a long way from the desolate Monte Bello Islands, which members of the Karangi's crew explored during recreation breaks. Today, radiation contamination on the islands prohibits visits of longer than one hour. But back then, the crew spent extended periods of time feasting on fish caught near the nuclear test site - despite the fact that the fish had levels of radiation that would now be designated as unsafe. "They told us you could just wash it off. But if the stuff's inside you . . . ?" Paterson asks. While his own health has thankfully been unaffected, Paterson feels betrayed for those many veterans who have died or are dying of radiationrelated illnesses. "Somebody must have known how dangerous it was," agrees Walter Diston. The 71yearold Vermont veteran served as a cook aboard HMAS Warrego, which surveyed the Monte Bello area after the explosion. "We were just doing the job - we didn't think any more about it." Operation Hurricane was the first of Britain's 21 bomb tests in Australia and on Christmas Island. Each blast spread radioactive fallout over areas up to 160 kilometres from ground zero. Atmospheric radiation levels increased throughout Australia and as far abroad as New Zealand and Fiji. Local indigenous people were also at risk, as authorities made only token efforts to protect them from fallout. After the first nuclear test at Emu Field, in outback South Australia, a black mist of oily radioactive dust passed over Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara communities camped nearby. They reported deaths and sickness from the cloud and its noxious drizzle. While scientific understanding about the dangers of radiation was less developed than today, many involved in the tests were not given even the most rudimentary of lessons in how to protect themselves because secrecy dictated that information be kept to the bare minimum required for workers to fulfil their tasks. The Karrangi's captain, Richard Taudevin, knew as little about radiation as Paterson, and he later died of cancer. Service personnel working under the scorching sun at desert test sites often shed their suffocating protective outfits, unaware that onemillionth of a gram of plutonium could cause cancer in anyone who inhaled it. Perhaps the most sinister component of the testing program was experimentation into the ability of service personnel to endure the physical and psychological conditions of nuclear war. Professor Sue Rabbitt Roff, from the University of Dundee, last year unearthed a document from the Australian National Archives confirming that Australian service personnel were deliberately exposed to radiation during the second test at Maralinga in 1956. The British Government admitted that 24 of the 280 service personnel comprising a Commonwealth Indoctrination Force were ordered to march and crawl across radioisotopelaced dust and shrubbery. But it has continually denied that troops were treated as guinea pigs, arguing that the tests were designed to examine what sort of protective clothing was most effective rather than assessing the damage inflicted by exposure to radioisotopes. Ric Johnstone, 69, remembers the year he spent at Maralinga - 850 kilometres northwest of Adelaide - as a time of hardship. His job was to travel into the "hot" area around ground zero after each explosion during Operation Buffalo in 1956 and assess the damage and contamination to target response vehicles placed to gauge the bomb's power. When a bomb was detonated, most of the service personnel and civilians watched the awesome spectacle from a nearby compound. They turned their backs to the bomb and listened to a countdown. On zero they pressed their palms into their eyes. "Your skull seemed to light up. The whole world was going up in a fireball," Johnstone says. There was a moment of silence before an extraordinary shudder and a blast of hot air that knocked many off their feet. "It made you feel like an ant under a boot." Johnstone runs the Australian Nuclear Veterans' Association (ANVA) from his home in Gosford, NSW. He wears the stubborn smile of an almost beaten soldier refusing to surrender. What he is fighting to change is the fact that nuclear test veterans have been excluded from the health care and welfare provided to veterans of wartime, peacekeeping or hazardous operations under the Veterans' Entitlement Act. The surviving veterans of Britain's nuclear tests in Australia in the 1950s have had to endure the terrible effects on their health over the years. For example, Ric Johnstone has endured openheart surgery, a nervous disorder, a blood condition and has had his gall bladder removed. A variety of musculoskeletal, skin and gastrointestinal problems are common in nuclear test veterans, although doctors are divided on the extent to which radiation is to blame. Cancer is the big killer. Like many veterans he knows, Johnstone must have "half a pound of meat cut out" every six or so months to fend off carcinomas that he knows will some day overpower him. Hundreds of service personnel who suffered the devastating legacy of radiation contamination have died angry. Johnstone says veterans often call him from their deathbeds, one lamenting, "The fing government has killed me and now they won't even give my wife anything". While the Australian Government offers compensation to nuclear test veterans for illness or injury through the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service, just nine of 358 claims to date have succeeded, while seven claims remain unresolved. Consequently, some veterans pursued their claims through the courts. The British and Australian governments hold most nuclear test documentation and the onus of proof is on victims. Without medical records and personal radiation exposure measurements, victims have found it difficult to prove that their cancers were caused by the nuclear tests rather than other potential causes, such as poor diet or sun damage. Johnstone won his compensation claim in the NSW Supreme Court in 1989, but only after a 17-year legal battle. He says each time the case was about to reach trial, his legal aid was withdrawn. A doctor's report stating that he was suffering from radiation sickness clinched the case. Many veterans believe that the stalling tactics employed by successive governments are designed to outlast them. If this is the case, then it is working. All the ANVA members with court cases pending have died. A vociferous body of 2000 ANVA members has withered to 600 as veterans have died or given up hope of receiving recognition and compensation for their service. For his part, Johnstone was awarded $900,000, about $200,000 went to pay his legal costs. Just $20,000 was allocated for future loss of income, because, as he puts it, "they didn't expect me to last long". Some widows of veterans have successfully claimed compensation. Peggy Jones was the first, receiving an $8600 lump sum under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act in 1974. Her husband, Warrant Officer William Jones, died of cancer 13 years ago, after spending two days working near ground zero after an explosion as part of the Operation Totem nuclear tests at Emu Field, South Australia, in 1953. Veterans have welcomed a planned study by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) into cancer and mortality and the nuclear tests. The study finally comes after years of calls for such an investigation from veterans who began to notice patterns of radiogenic maladies among their ranks several years after the tests. Shadow veterans' affairs minister Mark Bishop says the study has taken too long to get underway, particularly since many veterans are suffering from cancer. But a spokesman for Veterans' Affairs Minister Danna Vale says the Howard Government is the first government to respond to the nuclear test veterans' concerns. Meanwhile, the DVA is awaiting the report of the Independent Committee to Review Veterans' Entitlements, due in midNovember. The review received more than 100 submissions for health and welfare support for nuclear test veterans like that available to war veterans and their families. After their decadeslong struggle for recognition of their service and its legacy, nuclear test veterans are hoping the findings will deliver symbolic justice in the survivors' final years. Aidan Windle is a Melbourne writer. Copyright © 2002 The Age Company Ltd advertise ***************************************************************** 9 Russian Tries to Sell Tons of Uranium Abroad Pravda.RU Oct, 08 2002 We used to speak about a couple of kilos, but now we speak of tons Today, a sensation from Siberia comes in. East-Siberian customs agents nabbed a Russian citizen attempting to transport over 27 tons of uranium abroad. The man’s name, as well as the country to which he intended to take the uranium to, have not been released due to the on-going investigation. However,, if you look at a map of East Siberia, you will easily understand that the only possible destination could have been China. At the same time, it would not be correct to come to the conclustion that China was the final destination. After China, the Uranium could have been shipped anywhere. For the time being, it is too early to make any conclusions. The investigation is supposed to answer all questions. Yet, such an incident might bring harm to Russia’s international reputation. As is well known, officials and media outlets of the USA and other Western countries continue to say that the Russian mafia sells radioactive materials to terrorists. American special services claimed that Al-Qaeda conducted negotiations with Russian criminal organizations about purchasing nuclear weapons. Illegal sales of radioactive materials are not a big surprise in Russia. News about certain “businessmen” who try to sell uranium abroad is not rare. However, no one has attempted to sell tons of the stuff, just several kilos. A Siberian vendor set the record. To date, Russian law-enforcement officers have managed to prevent illegal attempts to sell radioactive materials. However, the increasing number of such incidents raises much concern. Sergey Alexandrov PRAVDA.Ru Translated by Dmitry Sudakov Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When ***************************************************************** 10 Panel told Nevada should keep up pressure against nuclear dump Las Vegas SUN October 08, 2002 By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Lawmakers were told Tuesday any negotiations with the federal government over a proposed nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain would reduce Nevada's leverage in its fight against the project. Bob Loux, director of the state Office of Nuclear Projects, said the federal Department of Energy, which is pushing the nuclear waste project, has a history of making "empty promises." Loux told the Nevada Legislature's Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste that the best strategy for Nevada is "to keep an arms-length, adversarial relationship." Nevada should take note of what happened in New Mexico, where the DOE opened its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in 1999 after years of fighting over whether to allow it, Loux said. "The DOE has either reneged on or ignored every commitment it has made to New Mexico over the course of 20 years of interaction related to WIPP," he added. New Mexico, in agreeing to negotiate with the DOE, wound up in "a position of real weakness," unable to sue the agency, he said. Marta Adams, senior deputy Nevada attorney general in the state's litigation against the DOE, agreed with Loux that the state shouldn't try to bargain for funds or other benefits in the event the dump opens here. "It's the wrong time to indicate any chink in the armor that Nevada presents to the federal agencies," Adams said, adding the state shouldn't take money "in exchange for the health and safety of Nevadans." The state has five lawsuits against elements of the Yucca project in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Oral arguments on part of the litigation is scheduled next February. The Energy Department has argued that congressional approval this summer for President Bush's selection of the Yucca Mountain site made the state lawsuits moot. But Joe Egan, the McLean, Va., attorney who's leading the state's legal fight, said judges handling the cases have said they want to hear the cases - and want to see hundreds of thousands of pages of documents related to the dump. Egan added that Nevada's legal team was able to turn up many documents that had not been in the court record previously - apparently the result of "a conscious effort (by the federal government) to hide them." He said the Nevada team was able to get the documents, including some that are "really quite astonishing," and the courts are allowing the information to be filed as part of the state's case. Loux also said producers of the waste that could wind up in Nevada may ultimately pay less than $40 billion into a fund being tapped to finance the project - but the actual cost could approach $200 billion. The DOE wants to store 77,000 tons of the nation's highest-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas. The cost estimate includes construction and licensing of the dump along with transportation-related expenses. On the Net: Nevada Attorney General's Office Web site: http://www.ag.state.nv.us [http://www.ag.state.nv.us] Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office Web site: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste] U.S. Department of Energy Web site: http://www.energy.gov [http://www.energy.gov] Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov [http://www.ymp.gov] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 Nevada lawyers say lawmakers should bond on Yucca Ray Hagar [rhagar@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 10/8/2002 10:07 pm State lawmakers should show solidarity in support of Nevada’s legal battle against the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the state’s lawyers said Tuesday. Members of the legal team also told the Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste that Nevada’s court battle is going well and could be decided within a year. The state has filed five separate lawsuits surrounding the Yucca Mountain issue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging a variety of alleged flaws in the process and environmental reviews. “We are poised to win some of these cases and it would certainly be the wrong thing to do to indicate any sort of chink in the armor,” said Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams. Congress, President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham have approved the storage of up to 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste as early as 2010. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting hearings that could stretch into 2007 before issuing a license for the repository. Some members of the committee said they would strongly oppose the repository site even without the urging of the legal team. “Everybody is pretty much committed in standing firm behind the governor and the congressional delegation opposing this,” said Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon. “I think there will be some setbacks, but it’s good to hear they think they are on solid legal footing.” The state’s legal battle against the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has come under scrutiny during the current election campaign for legislative seats. Some candidates and lawmakers have proposed striking a deal with federal officials to get financial considerations in exchange for transporting and storing the waste at Yucca Mountain. “This would be the wrong time to talk about money in exchange for health and safety of Nevadans,” Adams said. “At the core of this is that this is a dangerous project, and the DOE’s track record is not good on safety and environmental protection.” Joe Egan, the attorney from Washington, D.C., who heads Nevada’s legal team, said Nevada’s five lawsuits deal with safety and lawfulness of the geology of Yucca Mountain; environmental impact of the repository; lawfulness of the health rules surrounding the project; lawfulness of the safety rules of the project and general safety. He said Nevada recently scored a major legal victory when the court of appeals decided to hear Nevada’s arguments on each lawsuit. “We are happy where we are. We are happy with the judges we have,” Egan said. “The main challenge we faced was, ‘Are we going to get the chance to bring all these cases to the merits of the courts?’ ” Egan said. “That has been resolved, and the answer is yes.” “We do not have the opportunity for a trial,” Egan said. “It is not a hearing where evidence is presented with cross-examination. We are forced to confine ourselves to the paper record that these agencies created to develop their rules and regulations. We are forced to attack those regulations on their merits or we are forced to say that the agency does not comply with the statute that governs it or that the statute does not comply with the Constitution. And we are taking every one of these tactics.” The state Board of Examiners recently approved $4 million for Egan’s legal team. The Nevada Protection Fund, a combination of state and private money amassed for the fight against the nuclear repository, grew to as much as $9 million last year. Yet $2 million was spent on a television ad campaign in Vermont, Utah and Wyoming before the congressional votes, hoping to sway federal lawmakers to vote against the Yucca Mountain project. If the project is eventually approved, transportation of nuclear waste would probably start in 2010, said J. Russell Dyer, DOE’s project manager of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization office. Although routes have yet to be established, Dyer said of the 175 annual shipments, 130 would be moved by train and 45 would be trucked. Over a 24-year period, there would be 1,079 truck shipments and 3,215 shipments by rail, Dyer said. Committee members criticized Dyer for DOE’s failure to communicate with local and tribal leaders about the hazards of shipping nuclear waste thorough Nevada’s small towns. DOE studies have identified five preliminary rail routes to Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles north of Las Vegas, and could include passage though towns such as Beowawe, Caliente, Jean and Goldfield. Under the waste transport plan, local tribal and state officials would be responsible for any transportation accidents, with backup from federal agencies. “All we hear is that our training is coming,” Sen. Lawrence Jacobsen, R-Minden, said. “We want to get a jump on things. We want to be trained prior to any direct-route happenings.” Dyer said local fire protection agencies and hazardous material teams should not expect to hear from any federal agency about training until at least 2006. ***************************************************************** 12 Nuclear waste committee warned not to trust feds Nevada Appeal October 9, 2002 Geoff Dornan, Appeal Capitol Bureau Don't try to negotiate with the federal government over the proposed nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada legislators were warned Tuesday. Some officials, including Sens. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, and Lawrence Jacobsen, R-Minden, have argued the state should negotiate instead of fight every step of the way to make sure Nevada gets as much as possible when the dump is finally approved. But Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the evidence shows Nevada should never trust the Department of Energy to keep its word. Loux said when DOE proposed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, project east of Carlsbad, N.M., to store transuranic wastes, they promised New Mexico everything from veto power to monetary compensation. But over the 15 years it took before that project was built, he said, federal officials consistently reneged on those promises while holding New Mexico to its promise to negotiate. "New Mexico's relationship with DOE on WIPP is one that is characterized by broken promises, repeated failures to live up to commitments, even court-stipulated agreements, and political gamesmanship," Loux reported to the committee. He said DOE's conduct confirms much of what has happened to Nevada and what Nevada can expect if it tries to negotiate with DOE over Yucca Mountain. "From the initial promise of a state veto over the project to promises about waste transportation to commitments about financial compensation, DOE consistently followed a pattern of appearing to agree to state requests, then systematically backing away form those commitments and promises," Loux told the Legislative Committee on High Level Radioactive Waste. But since New Mexico initially agreed to take the project and negotiate an agreement, he said, the state was effectively put "on a slippery slope" and couldn't avoid the dump even though DOE fought to break all of its original commitments. He advised the committee to maintain "an arms-length adversarial relationship" with the energy department. "The governor and our congressional delegation are in complete agreement with this position," he said. Loux said Nevada has had numerous similar problems with DOE and warned that licensing and permitting hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be an uphill battle since NRC staff will be advocating for DOE to get its permits. "This is anything but a fair and objective process when you have a federal agency advocating for another federal agency," he said. "DOE almost doesn't have to show up." John Egan, the special deputy attorney general hired to fight attempts to force the Yucca Mountain dump on Nevada, gave the committee headed by Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Las Vegas, what he said was better news. Egan said the state has five legal actions moving forward in the Washington, D.C., appellate court and that Nevada has won rulings that allow it to bring in documents crucial to proving the Department of Energy broke the law. "There seems to be a conscious effort to hide the best documents, but we have them and some of them are quite astonishing," he told lawmakers. In a key ruling, he said, the justices have agreed to hear the cases on their merits, which means they won't be blocked from arguing Nevada's side by some technical legal maneuver. Egan also said three of the five lawsuits have been combined and he is hoping the others can be as well. "We want the court to hear all of these cases at the same time so they'll see the big picture," he said. /Copyright Nevada Appeal. Materials contained within this site ***************************************************************** 13 DOE gets new boss for Yucca Las Vegas SUN Today: October 09, 2002 at 11:17:22 PDT By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department has created a new position to oversee Yucca Mountain, but it wasn't immediately clear why. Department officials on Tuesday announced that department veteran W. John Arthur III in early December will start work as the deputy director for repository development, a new job title. Arthur will lead the effort to develop and license the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, department officials said in a press release. "John is an experienced and able manager with an extensive background in managing large, complex organizations and programs both at DOE headquarters and in the field," Yucca project chief Margaret Chu said in a written statement. The Senate in March confirmed Chu to manage the Yucca program as the new director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Chu had been manager of the Sandia National Laboratories' nuclear waste management program. Energy Department spokespeople in Washington and Las Vegas were not available for comment today about why the new Las Vegas-based post was necessary. The new position raised eyebrows among Yucca critics. "If we appointed Margaret Chu to this position, why did they need to hire someone in addition to her?" asked Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Creating a new Yucca post may be another case of the Energy Department's mismanagement on Yucca, Hafen said. It was odd, she said, that the department would expand its management ranks at a time when department officials are decrying budget cuts and pleading with Congress for money to keep the project on track. "Yet suddenly they find funds to create an entirely new position?" Hafen asked. Lisa Gue, a policy analyst with Public Citizen, a watchdog group, said, "It does raise some questions about who is running the ship over there. It seems to be an indication that there may be some trouble in the ranks." Arthur has been manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration's office in Albuquerque since February. The NNSA maintains and secures the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. A call to Arthur's Albuquerque office was not returned. Gayle Fisher, a spokeswoman for the Yucca project office in Las Vegas, said the department was declining requests to interview Arthur. The Yucca project this year entered a new phase. After 20 years of Energy Department research, President Bush and Congress this year approved Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the best site for the dump. Now the department faces the complex task of submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain a construction license. The application won't be submitted until December 2004. Arthur brings a "broad perspective and excellent management skills" to the licensing process, Chu said. Arthur has 24 years of experience with the Energy Department. He served as manager of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M., an underground repository for low-level nuclear wastes. Yucca Mountain would be the world's first dump for high-level waste, mostly highly radioactive spent-fuel rods from commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines. Arthur has published over 30 environmental technical documents for the Energy Department and served on international nuclear safety working groups, according to the department. He has a bachelor of sciences degree in wildlife management. He earned his master of science degree in health physics from Colorado State University in 1977. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Nevada lawyers say lawmakers should bond on Yucca* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL Ray Hagar 10/8/2002 10:07 pm State lawmakers should show solidarity in support of Nevada?s legal battle against the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the state?s lawyers said Tuesday. Members of the legal team also told the Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste that Nevada?s court battle is going well and could be decided within a year. The state has filed five separate lawsuits surrounding the Yucca Mountain issue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging a variety of alleged flaws in the process and environmental reviews. ?We are poised to win some of these cases and it would certainly be the wrong thing to do to indicate any sort of chink in the armor,? said Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams. Congress, President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham have approved the storage of up to 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste as early as 2010. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting hearings that could stretch into 2007 before issuing a license for the repository. Some members of the committee said they would strongly oppose the repository site even without the urging of the legal team. ?Everybody is pretty much committed in standing firm behind the governor and the congressional delegation opposing this,? said Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon. ?I think there will be some setbacks, but it?s good to hear they think they are on solid legal footing.? The state?s legal battle against the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has come under scrutiny during the current election campaign for legislative seats. Some candidates and lawmakers have proposed striking a deal with federal officials to get financial considerations in exchange for transporting and storing the waste at Yucca Mountain. ?This would be the wrong time to talk about money in exchange for health and safety of Nevadans,? Adams said. ?At the core of this is that this is a dangerous project, and the DOE?s track record is not good on safety and environmental protection.? Joe Egan, the attorney from Washington, D.C., who heads Nevada?s legal team, said Nevada?s five lawsuits deal with safety and lawfulness of the geology of Yucca Mountain; environmental impact of the repository; lawfulness of the health rules surrounding the project; lawfulness of the safety rules of the project and general safety. He said Nevada recently scored a major legal victory when the court of appeals decided to hear Nevada?s arguments on each lawsuit. ?We are happy where we are. We are happy with the judges we have,? Egan said. ?The main challenge we faced was, ?Are we going to get the chance to bring all these cases to the merits of the courts?? ? Egan said. ?That has been resolved, and the answer is yes.? ?We do not have the opportunity for a trial,? Egan said. ?It is not a hearing where evidence is presented with cross-examination. We are forced to confine ourselves to the paper record that these agencies created to develop their rules and regulations. We are forced to attack those regulations on their merits or we are forced to say that the agency does not comply with the statute that governs it or that the statute does not comply with the Constitution. And we are taking every one of these tactics.? The state Board of Examiners recently approved $4 million for Egan?s legal team. The Nevada Protection Fund, a combination of state and private money amassed for the fight against the nuclear repository, grew to as much as $9 million last year. Yet $2 million was spent on a television ad campaign in Vermont, Utah and Wyoming before the congressional votes, hoping to sway federal lawmakers to vote against the Yucca Mountain project. If the project is eventually approved, transportation of nuclear waste would probably start in 2010, said J. Russell Dyer, DOE?s project manager of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization office. Although routes have yet to be established, Dyer said of the 175 annual shipments, 130 would be moved by train and 45 would be trucked. Over a 24-year period, there would be 1,079 truck shipments and 3,215 shipments by rail, Dyer said. Committee members criticized Dyer for DOE?s failure to communicate with local and tribal leaders about the hazards of shipping nuclear waste thorough Nevada?s small towns. DOE studies have identified five preliminary rail routes to Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles north of Las Vegas, and could include passage though towns such as Beowawe, Caliente, Jean and Goldfield. Under the waste transport plan, local tribal and state officials would be responsible for any transportation accidents, with backup from federal agencies. ?All we hear is that our training is coming,? Sen. Lawrence Jacobsen, R-Minden, said. ?We want to get a jump on things. We want to be trained prior to any direct-route happenings.? Dyer said local fire protection agencies and hazardous material teams should not expect to hear from any federal agency about training until at least 2006. ***************************************************************** 15 Panel told Nevada should keep up pressure against nuclear dump* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL October 9, 2002 Associated Press Lawmakers were told Tuesday any negotiations with the federal government over a proposed nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain would reduce Nevada's leverage in its fight against the project. Bob Loux, director of the state Office of Nuclear Projects, said the federal Department of Energy, which is pushing the nuclear waste project, has a history of making"empty promises." Loux told the Nevada Legislature's Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste that the best strategy for Nevada is"to keep an arms-length, adversarial relationship." Nevada should take note of what happened in New Mexico, where the DOE opened its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in 1999 after years of fighting over whether to allow it, Loux said. "The DOE has either reneged on or ignored every commitment it has made to New Mexico over the course of 20 years of interaction related to WIPP,"he added. New Mexico, in agreeing to negotiate with the DOE, wound up in"a position of real weakness,"unable to sue the agency, he said. Marta Adams, senior deputy Nevada attorney general in the state's litigation against the DOE, agreed with Loux that the state shouldn't try to bargain for funds or other benefits in the event the dump opens here. "It's the wrong time to indicate any chink in the armor that Nevada presents to the federal agencies,"Adams said, adding the state shouldn't take money"in exchange for the health and safety of Nevadans." The state has five lawsuits against elements of the Yucca project in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Oral arguments on part of the litigation is scheduled next February. The Energy Department has argued that congressional approval this summer for President Bush's selection of the Yucca Mountain site made the state lawsuits moot. But Joe Egan, the McLean, Va., attorney who's leading the state's legal fight, said judges handling the cases have said they want to hear the cases _ and want to see hundreds of thousands of pages of documents related to the dump. Egan added that Nevada's legal team was able to turn up many documents that had not been in the court record previously _ apparently the result of"a conscious effort (by the federal government) to hide them." He said the Nevada team was able to get the documents, including some that are"really quite astonishing,"and the courts are allowing the information to be filed as part of the state's case. Loux also said producers of the waste that could wind up in Nevada may ultimately pay less than $40 billion into a fund being tapped to finance the project _ but the actual cost could approach $200 billion. The DOE wants to store 77,000 tons of the nation's highest-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas. The cost estimate includes construction and licensing of the dump along with transportation-related expenses. On the Net: Nevada Attorney General's Office Web site: http://www.ag.state.nv.us Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office Web site: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste U.S. Department of Energy Web site: http://www.energy.gov Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal , a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 [southnews] UK support for Iraq action at new low of 32% Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:54:02 -0500 (CDT) Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ---------- Support for Iraq action at new low of 32% Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour Tuesday October 8, 2002 The Guardian Support for military action against Iraq among British voters has fallen to 32%, the lowest level recorded during the five weeks that the Guardian/ICM weekly tracker survey has been running. The slight fall will prove a disappointment to Tony Blair who made his appeal for support a key part of his conference speech a week ago. It comes as a senior cabinet minister warned that a quarter of Labour party members will resign if Britain goes to war against Iraq alongside the United States without explicit support from the United Nations in a fresh resolution. This week's ICM results of the regular tracker question on attitudes to war in Iraq show a further rise to 27% in the number of "don't knows". This growth in scepticism among the electorate follows the negotiations over the past week over weapons inspection and the arguments over United States and British demands for a tougher UN reso lution. It may indicate that a significant section of the electorate has been left confused by the arguments and now feels unsure about which view to take. At the same time, opposition to military action has dipped over the past three weeks from 46% on the third weekend in September to 41% now. Most of the movement has been between those who disapprove of military action and the "don't knows". The warning from a cabinet minister implies that as many as 70,000 party members could tear up their party card. Labour conference organisers were able to prevent a public party split last week by ensuring the motion passed by the conference could be interpreted in different ways. The international development secretary Clare Short said the motion insisted a war could only go ahead with explicit UN support. The foreign secretary Jack Straw claimed it supported action as a last resort without a new UN resolution. 7 ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults by telephone between October 4-6. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ---------- 20,000 UK troops destined for Iraq Tim Ripley and Foreign Staff [The Scotsman] Tue 8 Oct 2002 TONY Blair is to authorise the sending of an expeditionary force of up to 20,000 servicemen and women to the Middle East for a US-led war against Iraq. Senior Whitehall sources said the Prime Ministers decision, expected at the end of the month, comes amid growing concern among defence chiefs at the lack of strategic direction from the government to allow them to prepare troops for any mission to Iraq. Mr Blair kept war planning within a small group of civil servants and military officers working in the Cabinet Office to prevent leaks prior to the Labour Party conference. "Now the conference is out of the way, the Prime Minister feels more confident to start winding up military preparations," said one source. "Up to now, the line has been that no decisions have been made about war. This will start to change ." Last month, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, visited Donald Rumsfeld, his US counterpart, to offer British troops for an Iraqi campaign. However, defence sources said that since then, there had been little feedback from the US on what type of troops they want and how they would be used. The sources said a prompt decision from the government was needed to allow the army to begin training for desert warfare. The "big" British contribution would involve heavy armoured forces to fight alongside US divisions currently gathering in Kuwait. An enlarged armoured brigade with Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior troop carriers will be the core of the UK force. Most of the units will be drawn from the 1st Armoured Division and 7th Armoured Brigade, based in Germany. Two Scottish regiments, the Black Watch and Scots Dragoon Guards, are currently assigned to the Desert Rats Brigade and will play a key role in any desert deployment. Up until last month, they were on stand-by for firefighting duty, but were then told to return to normal military training. Military sources described this ring-fencing of Germany-based combat units as prudent contingency planning to allow initial preparations to be made in the run-up to Mr Blairs deployment announcement. A strong RAF contingent is also expected to be sent to the Middle East to join Tornado squadrons from RAF Lossiemouth, in Morayshire, and RAF Leuchers, in Fife, that are already in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on no-fly zone patrol duty. President George Bush was last night preparing to make what White House aides described as his most comprehensive case yet on the threat posed by Iraq and why a US-led war on Saddam Husseins regime may be necessary. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, meanwhile urged the Iraqi military to defy Saddam if he orders attacks on US forces: "The message to Iraqi commanders is, Think before you act. You do not have to obey the orders Saddam Hussein gives you and the United States takes very seriously the criminal nature of these acts, particularly acts that would involve the use of chemical and biological weapons." The US has an estimated 2,400 troops in Oman. About 500 more are based in the United Arab Emirates and the US navys 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain. Another 3,300 US soldiers are stationed in neighbouring Qatar, where the US recently upgraded its al-Udeid air base, the forward command centre for any US war on Iraq. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 17 [southnews] bush pressures CIA For 'Cooked Info' on Iraq Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:53:58 -0500 (CDT) Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ---------- White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday October 9, 2002 The Guardian President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent. "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence. In his address, the president reassured Americans that military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but he made the most detailed case to date for the use of force, should it become necessary. But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month. However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons. "I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here," said a department of energy specialist. David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge. Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: "There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA." Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent." There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush's claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year". An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government. There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases". Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States." A source familiar with the September 11 investigation said: "The FBI has been pounded on to make this link." In making his case on Monday, Mr Bush made a startling claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas". "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he warned. US military experts confirmed that Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets, known as L-29s, into drones, but said that with a maximum range of a few hundred miles they were no threat to targets in the US. "It doesn't make any sense to me if he meant United States territory," said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information. Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon. "CIA assessments are being put aside by the defence department in favour of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now." Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ---------- C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror By ALISON MITCHELL and CARL HULSE [The New York Times] October 9, 2002 [W]ASHINGTON, Oct. 8 The Bush administration pushed Congress today for a broad vote to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. But a new element was injected into the debate by a C.I.A. assessment that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of an attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force. The judgment was contained in a letter signed by the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, on behalf of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. It was alluded to in a hearing of a Congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and then released tonight, after the House opened its debate on Iraq. [Text of the letter and excerpts from the debate, Pages A12 and A14.] The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." The letter dated Oct. 7 also declassified an exchange from a closed Congressional hearing on Oct. 2 in which a senior intelligence official judged the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's initiating an attack in the foreseeable future as "low." Mr. Tenet said tonight that "there is no inconsistency" between the C.I.A. views in the letter and those of the president. He emphasized the Iraqi leader's use of such weapons against his own citizens. Senior administration officials insisted that the letter did not contradict President Bush's assertions on the imminent threat posed by Mr. Hussein. They pointed to another section of the letter that noted that the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's using weapons of mass destruction "for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise, grows as his arsenal builds." The letter also cited credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq has provided members of the terrorist group with training in the areas of poisons, gases and bomb making. One lawmaker on the intelligence committee, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, cited the letter today as he registered his opposition to granting the president broad authority to use force unilaterally. "I'm not convinced regarding a clear and present threat," he said in Senate debate. Even so, his was a minority sentiment a day after President Bush told the nation that Iraq "stands alone" as a threat, armed with weapons of mass destruction controlled by a "murderous tyrant." Bipartisan approval of a resolution on force that President Bush negotiated with Congressional leaders is now considered all but certain. But administration officials worked to expand their support so that the president would be able to say that his backing was resounding when the final votes are taken. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told Republican Senators at a closed-door caucus that Congressional unity would help him press his case at the United Nations for a tough new resolution holding Iraq to account for its violations of a raft of past United Nations resolutions. "What I'm interested in seeing is solid, overwhelming support as a signal of American determination," Mr. Powell, flanked by Democrats and Republicans, told reporters. Despite the administration's push there were strongholds of dissent. A fervent minority of determined lawmakers in both House and Senate argued in debate that it was a mistake to give President Bush such broad authority for force. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, also served notice that he would use all the procedural weapons at his disposal to slow debate a move that could push off a final Senate vote until next week. Others also made their opposition known. Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent whose change of parties gave the Democrats control of the Senate last year, said today that he could not open the door to a unilateral military incursion by the United States. "I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our nation internationally and stir up greater hatred of America," he said. In the House, the sharp divide among Democrats was on plain view, even as most Republicans who spoke supported the president. And Democratic opponents of unilateral action predicted that more than 100 members of Congress would vote against the war resolution. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened 21 hours of formal House debate, saying that before the Sept. 11 attacks Americans had lived in "splendid isolation," but that the nation now realized it could be touched by those in countries that formerly seemed distant. "Is there a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?" asked Mr. Hastert, who sought to bring the issue directly to lawmakers, saying the Capitol itself had been a Sept. 11 target. "The president thinks so and based on what I have seen, I think so also." Democrats took pains to stress that any differences were matters of conscience. "There is no party position on an issue of this gravity," said Representative Martin Frost, Democrat of Texas and party caucus chairman, who supports the resolution. Still, many House Democrats criticized the reach of the current resolution and the broad latitude it would give the president. "War with Iraq will not bring peace to the Middle East," said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia. "War is easy. But peace is hard. Peace is right, and it is just and it is true." Representative David E. Bonior, a Michigan Democrat who was one of three lawmakers who traveled recently to Iraq, asked, "By going it alone, what signal do we issue by tossing aside diplomacy?" Other Democrats clashed with Republicans over the extent of American cooperation with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, saying previous administrations had provided the Iraqi leader with the foundation of his biological weapons program. "Sure he has biological weapons," said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. "We gave them to him." Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy ---------- In the Battle for Hearts and Minds, Watch Out for the Psy-Ops Forked-Tongue Warriors by Ian Urbina Village Voice October 9 - 15, 2002 http://www.villagevoice.com/ Wedged between a rack of 99-cent Cheetos and a display of pork rinds stood a life-sized cardboard cutout of a buxom blond in a red miniskirt. Resting on her inner thigh was a frosty bottle of Miller Genuine Draft. "That's essentially what we do," an army major remarked, pointing to the stiletto-heeled eye-catcher. "But we don't sell beer."The scene was a recruitment barbecue conducted by the U.S. Army's 11th Psychological Operations Battalion ("Psy-ops," for short), held last month at Andrews Air Force Base, outside of Washington, D.C. Amid the Cheetos, cheesecake, and a sweaty game of softball, there was casual chitchat about the workplace challenges faced by these fatigue-wearing PR execs whose job it is to sell Brand America in foreign and hostile territory. Part ad men and part ethnographers, these specialists, some of whom are just back from Afghanistan, are dispatched regularly to front lines in the Middle East for hearts-and-minds campaigns aimed at undercutting the enemy's military morale and winning over civilian support. Many are waiting eagerly for a call to Iraq. With the U.S. military deploying in every corner of the globe, demand is booming in the psychological-warfare industry these days, and Psy-ops is especially eager to recruit outsiders who have experience or interest in the Middle East. Hence, the barbecues, accompanied by war storiesactually, psy-war stories. Recruiters and guests wouldn't speak to me for attributionI was invited but I'm a reporterbut they did reluctantly share some yarns. "Much of the time on the ground," one private recalled about a tour of duty in Asia, "is spent driving around the desert in humvees mounted with nine speakers, each blasting a thousand watts of noise. Tank treads, helicopter propellers, huge gunswe broadcast anything that'll scare the shit out of 'em." When music is chosen, the playlist tends to be short: Beach Boys, AC/DC, and Jimi Hendrix's shrill "Star-Spangled Banner," repeated ad nauseam until the enemy submits out of sheer annoyance. Other psy-opers parachute in and then remain stationary, setting up the army's equivalent of a battlefield Kinko's to churn out agitprop handbills in the millions. Some operatives are airborne aboard Commando Solo, an air force cargo plane converted into a $70 million flying radio and TV station, beaming news, tunes, and an occasional bit of disinformation to the enemy. "We just deliver the goods," quipped the major who played host to me. "The guys down South drawing the cartoons are the ones paid six figures to know that because bananas are a delicacy in Iraq, they should get drawn into the picture with an enticing feast scene." Headquartered at the 4th Psychological Operations Group in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the psy-op artists typically rely on cartoon animations to get their messages across. But it's psy-op history itself that belongs in a comic strip: Its collection of harebrained schemes is sometimes almost too colorful to believe, though all of the following tales have been reported on from time to time. One such plan initially investigated by the air force before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait entailed the projection of a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad and instructing Iraqi civilians to overthrow Saddam. The idea was promptly dropped after scientists informed the Pentagon that it would require a mirror that was a square mile in area, not to mention the added problem that no one knows what Allah looks like. Furthermore, since divine portrayals of any kind are strictly forbidden in Islam, the hologram would surely have gotten a reaction, but probably not exactly the one intended. Framing an understandable message is always tough. When using comic strips, captions need to be as concise and simple as possible. Yet, even in small amounts, the use of text raises questions. One has to wonder, for example, whether it was really effective to drop millions of text-based leaflets on Afghanistan, where barely 30 percent of its 27 million people can read. In all cases, well-crafted animations are a must, and for the highest quality drawings the 4th at Bragg sometimes opts to contract out. In 2000, it hired DC Comics to produce special versions of Superman and Wonder Woman comic books, in the languages of the Balkans, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, to educate locals on the dangers of land mines. But even Superman can be a bit confusing at times. Though widely understood in some contexts, thought bubbles appearing above a cartoon character's head left some readers, especially rural ones, completely baffled, according to press accounts. Often more confusing than convincing, psy-ops can suffer hugely from the smallest graphical errors. A T-shirt used in Cambodia to try to deter kids from entering certain unsafe zones featured a boy squatting over a mine that he was poking with a stick. The silk-screened shirt was yanked from production, according to one account, when angered villagers kept asking why American personnel were distributing images of kids defecating over land mines. The squatting boy was eventually redrawn. Bigger mistakes mean bigger consequences. Leaflets dropped in Somalia in 1992 prior to the UN troop arrival were meant to assure the populace of the mission's humanitarian intentions. Unfortunately, of all the personnel the U.S. initially deployed in the country, only two were native speakers, and one turned out to be the son of the country's bloodiest warlord. Pamphlet proofreaders, needless to say, were in short supply, and the result was sometimes quite embarrassing. Instead of announcing help from the "United Nations," the pamphlets spoke of help from the "Slave Nations," and as anyone who has seen the movie Black Hawk Down can certainly attest, neither the blue helmets nor the boys with stars and stripes were welcomed with open arms when they eventually landed ashore. The backflow of misinformation can also be a serious problem. Though the Pentagon and the CIA are barred by law from propaganda activities in the United States, during the mid 1970s increased scrutiny of military intelligence operations revealed that programs planting fake leaks in the foreign press had resulted in false articles running back through the U.S. media. But sometimes the false articles are intentional. When the American public seemed to be developing weak knees about the Nicaraguan contras, the Office of Public Diplomacy, part of the Reagan-era State Department, quickly leaked fake intelligence to The Miami Herald that the Soviet Union had given chemical weapons to the Sandinistas. Distribution of misinformation overseas can be trickier. In 1999, during the NATO air war in Yugoslavia, more than 100 million leaflets were to be dropped on Kosovo. But at the designated time, there was too much ground-to-air fire for planes to fly lower than 20,000 feet. Swept by strong winds, many leaflets landed in the wrong country, according to press reports. Sometimes, though, the packages land in the right place, and the enemy is quite happy about it. During World War II, the Japanese utilized the standard tactic of telling American soldiers that their girlfriends were getting busy while they were away from home. But on the air-dropped handbills the Japanese illustrated their point a little too well, using graphic pornography that was otherwise tough to come by on the front lines. According to military historian Stanley Sandler, "Our guys loved it. They'd trade them like baseball cards . . . five for a bottle of whiskey." But there are also some psy-ops success stories. In Vietnam, U.S. planes sprinkled enemy territory with playing cards, but prior to carpet bombing, they dropped only the ace of spades. Before long, the Pavlovian technique took hold, and just the dropping of aces was sufficient to clear an entire area. Incessant rock music did the job in Panama, getting Manuel Noriega to surrender from his presidential bunker. During the Persian Gulf War, many Iraqi soldiers surrendered with U.S. leaflets in hand. Throughout that war, American forces also cleverly floated 10,000 bottles with intimidating notes in the gulf toward Iraqi shores. According to subsequent interviews with captured Iraqi soldiers, the bottled messages effectively increased concerns in Baghdad over the possibility of a massive amphibious landing. No such landing took place. Enemy psy-opers occasionally brag, too. The North Vietnamese peppered American soldiers with leaflets using anti-war slogans from the States. "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" was a particular favorite appropriated by Vietcong leafleteers. When American soldiers finally came home, many commented that the printed reminders of stateside opposition to the war really wore down morale. Last decade, the Iraqis made occasionally smart use of disinformation, often disseminated through their old enemy, Iran (making it more believable). According to U.S. military sources, leaflets were circulated in Bangladesh citing a Tehran radio report that U.S. troops had opened fire on Bangladeshi troops who refused to join the military strike on Iraq. The incident, allegedly leaving hundreds dead, was a complete fabrication. Less than an exact science, psy-ops is a clumsy art that has seen few real innovations over the years. Alexander the Great ordered his metalworkers to craft giant helmets to fit men the size of 20-foot monsters. His soldiers would then leave the helmets strewn about in conquered villages, hoping to inflame the wildest imaginations of enemy armies passing through the area. Folklore has it that along the same lines, though pitching at a slightly lower angle, American psy-op specialists in Vietnam left foot-long condoms along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, presumably to preoccupy the enemy soldiers with hiding their wives and daughters. The laundry list of actual psy-ops bloopers is certainly long and dirty, leaving some in the U.S. military skeptical of whether the American forked-tongued brigades are keeping up with the enemy. A May 2000 report by the Defense Science Board Task Force, an advisory panel to the Defense Department, concluded, "While the United States is years ahead of its competitors in terms of military technology, in terms of psy-ops there are already competitors on par with, or even arguably more sophisticated than, the U.S." But in other circles, confidence is unwavering. At a recent press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "If Saddam were to issue such an order to use a chemical or biological attack, that does not necessarily mean his orders would be carried out." Rumsfeld's oblique speculation rested on the dubious hope, gaining popularity on Capitol Hill, that psychological operations might just do the trick on Saddam's key weapons handlers. But as one unnamed senior defense official pointed out to USA Today, the men in charge of the supposed Iraqi chemical or biological weapons and missile forces are likely Saddam's most loyal soldiers. In fact, if our psy-ops people are left to their old devices, the Iraqi commanders might just hit those red buttons all the faster. ------------------- Ian Urbina is based at the Middle East Research and Information Project in D.C. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 18 Robert Fisk: What the US President wants us to forget Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:20:27 -0500 (CDT) http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=340836 Robert Fisk: What the US President wants us to forget Independent (London) 09 October 2002 Each day now, someone says something even more incredible - even more unimaginable - about President Bush's obsession with war. Yesterday, George Bush was himself telling an audience in Cincinnati about "nuclear holy warriors". Forget for a moment that we still can't prove Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Forget that the latest Bush speech was just a re-hash of all the "ifs" and "mays" and "coulds" in Tony Blair's flimsy 16 pages of allegations in his historically dishonest "dossier". Forget that if Osama bin Laden ever acquired a nuclear weapon, he'd probably use it first on Saddam. No. We've got to fight "nuclear holy warriors". That's what we have to do to justify the whole charade through which we are being taken now by the White House, by Downing Street, by all the decaying "experts" on terrorism and, alas, far too many journalists. Forget the 14 Palestinians, including the 12-year-old child, killed by Israel a few hours before Mr Bush spoke, forget that when his aircraft killed nine Palestinian children in July, along with one militant, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - a "man of peace" in Mr Bush's words - described the slaughter as "a great success". Israel is on our side. Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush used it in his speech yesterday, 30 times in half an hour - that's one "terrorism" a minute. But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians - which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him. Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy - in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was - wait for it - Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no. Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz - which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget. We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds - when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al -President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons. And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam - as he did last night - we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 - and did nothing. We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and - when they obeyed - did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country. We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year - and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" - this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity - and one of the few things which George Bush junior knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration - which is never mentioned. In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday - pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" - there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget. ***************************************************************** 19 Peace Demonstrations Worldwide: 1.5 Million in Italy -- US Nationwide Go To Original [http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20021005-022012-6259r] (*Editors Note | Note: Demonstrations are planned all over the world this weekend. Hundreds of thousands of people marched in Rally's all over Italy, some estimates indicated over 1.5 million took part. As this story goes to print marches are happening all over America. As reports come in we will update you.) 1.5 Million Take to the Streets in Italy to Protest Bush War Plans Analysis: Rallies Change Italy on Iraq? By Eric J. Lyman UPI International Saturday, 5 October, 2002 ROME, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- More than 1.5 million Italians took to the streets of dozens of cities Saturday afternoon and evening to protest possible U.S. military action against Iraq -- a surprise show of discord that could be fervent enough for the Italian government to re-think its support of Washington. The larger-than-expected protests took place without violence, despite speculation from some fronts that the gatherings could become dangerous, especially to U.S. citizens. On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Rome circulated a warning to citizens residing in or visiting Italy to stay away from the demonstrations because of fears that they could become targets for violence. But even though the protests were peaceful, demonstrators made it clear that they opposed U.S. action against Baghdad. The stance is significant because up to this point, Rome and London have been President George W. Bush's strongest allies in Europe. Most European leaders -- most vocally France's Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany -- have called on diplomatic means to diffuse tensions between the United States and Iraq. "For several weeks, Italians have been saying that they are opposed to action against Iraq, but this is the first time they have put those words into action," Maria Rossi, co-director of the polling firm Opinioni, told United Press International. "The site of thousands of Italians on the streets protesting against the potential war in Iraq has to be a sobering sight for government officials who will need public support for other issues." Government officials were not available for comment on their stance on U.S.-Iraq relations on Saturday, but local television drew the same conclusion as Rossi. "If the government can ignore this ... it can ignore anything," said one on-the-scene journalist for the network La 7 in Milan. "On this day, the Italian people have spoken ... and they say they are against support for the American position." Opinion polls support that view, with a week-old survey from Opinioni showing that more than two out of every three Italians opposed any armed conflict over Iraq, and nearly four out of five Italians opposed to Italian participation in such action unless it was as part of a United Nations-sponsored force. Most of the anti-war demonstrations took place on Saturday morning, with the biggest of those in Milan, drawing a crowd that police estimated at between 60,000 to 100,000 people. Signs in the crowd showed Bush's head on the body of a hawk -- a reference to the president's hawkish stance toward Iraq's Saddam Hussein -- and others that showed Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British leader Tony Blair as Bush's pets, referring to their support of U.S. policies. Other large morning rallies took place in Bologna, Florence, Naples and Palermo. But the day's biggest march was held in the evening in Rome, where police said as many as 200,000 people gathered in protest. "Our point is that we cannot support the United States's plan to kill innocent Iraqis in order to win the upcoming (Congressional) elections," Marco Filiberti, 38, a protester who came to Rome with six friends from the nearby city of Latina, told UPI. Claudia Bacigalupo, 24, a teacher from Rome, said she hoped the day's unexpectedly large rallies would convince the government to backtrack on its support of Washington. "We cannot control what the United States does, but we can tell them that if they want to march into Iraq they will have to do so without the support of the Italian military," Bacigalupo said. Whether that will be the case or not is unclear. In the past, Berlusconi has paid only limited attention to public opinion -- which, combined his eagerness to support Washington on a variety of issues -- might make a change of plans unlikely. But pollsters say that because of the support the government will need to address an array of domestic issues, the public's view on Iraq could create a degree of doubt about the course the prime minister has chosen. "Over the coming months, the government will try to pass a so-far unpopular budget, revisit controversial labor reform legislation and start to tackle painful pension reforms," Rossi, the pollster, said. "With the economy weakening, the government may have to pick its most important battles ... (and) what we don't know is whether Iraq is one of them." The United States has taken an aggressive stance against Iraq -- including calls for Hussein's government to be toppled -- on fears that the Iraqi leader is building an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. [http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standar OregonLive.com Sunday, 6 October, 2002 An estimated 6,000 people paraded through downtown Portland streets Saturday afternoon. Organizers said as many as 12,000 people participated in the march and rally that followed -- one of more than two dozen protests planned in cities nationwide in the next few days. Although they were of different ages, occupations, religions and political persuasions, their voices spoke in unison on potential U.S. military involvement in Iraq: "No more war." "I'm totally against our involvement in this war effort. I feel that it's being railroaded, and I feel that people have already made up their minds," said Carolyn Rux, 60, who cut short a vacation on the Oregon coast in order to march with her husband, Pete Rux, 61. Like many others attending Saturday's march and rally, it was the first time the Portland couple had participated in a war protest. "In the '60s, I was busy raising my family. Now I have time to be involved. I just don't feel that it's justified or that there's an immediate threat. I don't think war is the answer anymore," Rux said, as she hoisted a hand-painted sign that read: "World to Bush: Back off Iraq." This was also the first war protest for 48-year-old Dave Kurtz of Sherwood. A member of the Portland Mennonite Church, Kurtz said he decided to come out on a gray and damp afternoon because it's "important to speak out for peace." Others agreed it was not only important but imperative to speak out before it's too late. "I believe we can make a difference if we make our voices heard," said Mike Hanson, 37, who marched with his wife, Lori, 36, and their 21/2-year-old daughter, Raina. Even as President Bush prepares a national address to sway the Senate and public opinion in favor of using force against Saddam Hussein, many of the people who marched in Portland said the United States should give peace a chance. "I believe that we need to teach our children, and we need to learn ourselves that issues can be settled without war," said John Liedel, 53, of Portland. Wearing khaki slacks and a salt-and-pepper beard, Liedel said he's no stranger to peace rallies -- including a giant Vietnam protest rally held in the fall of 1969 in Washington, D.C. Asked whether the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made him feel reluctant or somehow unpatriotic to be protesting U.S. military action, Liedel shook his head. "No," he said. "I don't believe that patriotism demands that you blindly agree to everything your government wants you to do." Organizers said the last large anti-war protest in Portland was in January 1991, when more than 12,000 people rallied against the Persian Gulf War. Kory Harding, 13, was another of the seasoned protesters in the crowd. The eighth-grader rode in with his mother Saturday from their home in Mount Hood. Harding said his first protest was against the Gulf War. "I was really young -- a toddler in my mother's backpack," he said. On Saturday, Harding carried a sign he'd made himself. "I want to tell Bush that we don't want a war -- especially over oil," he said. The march stretched for dozens of blocks, delaying traffic at a number of intersections. Portland Police reported no arrests and only one minor incident, where a young man climbed onto a portico at City Hall. The youth waved a protest sign, ate an orange and then climbed down. "It shows that people can cooperate and get their point across," said Officer Henry Groepper, a police spokesman. Organizers said the crowd exceeded their expectations. "We're thrilled with the turnout and thrilled with how peaceful it was," said William Seaman, spokesman for a coalition of more than a dozen groups that sponsored the march and rally. It's too early to say whether the response will generate more events of its kind. At the very least, Seaman said, "It is an opportunity for people who were very likely unaware of the work being done in the community to now plug into it." (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) ***************************************************************** 20 Kennedy | The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption Delivered on the Floor of the US Senate The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption Monday, 7 October, 2002 We face no more serious decision in our democracy than whether or not to go to war. The American people deserve to fully understand all of the implications of such a decision. The question of whether our nation should attack Iraq is playing out in the context of a more fundamental debate that is only just beginning -- an all-important debate about how, when and where in the years ahead our country will use its unsurpassed military might. On September 20, the Administration unveiled its new National Security Strategy. This document addresses the new realities of our age, particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics. The Strategy claims that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that we should "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." But in the discussion over the past few months about Iraq, the Administration, often uses the terms "pre-emptive" and "preventive" interchangeably. In the realm of international relations, these two terms have long had very different meanings. Traditionally, "pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel's borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in pre-emptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond. By contrast, "preventive" military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned military buildup by the United States in the Pacific. The coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established international principles against aggression. Pearl Harbor has been rightfully recorded in history as an act of dishonorable treachery. Historically, the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war, because it violates basic international rules against aggression. But at times in our history, preventive war has been seriously advocated as a policy option. In the early days of the Cold War, some U.S. military and civilian experts advocated a preventive war against the Soviet Union. They proposed a devastating first strike to prevent the Soviet Union from developing a threatening nuclear capability. At the time, they said the uniquely destructive power of nuclear weapons required us to rethink traditional international rules. The first round of that debate ended in 1950, when President Truman ruled out a preventive strike, stating that such actions were not consistent with our American tradition. He said, "You don't 'prevent' anything by war...except peace." Instead of a surprise first strike, the nation dedicated itself to the strategy of deterrence and containment, which successfully kept the peace during the long and frequently difficult years of the Cold War. Arguments for preventive war resurfaced again when the Eisenhower Administration took power in 1953, but President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles soon decided firmly against it. President Eisenhower emphasized that even if we were to win such a war, we would face the vast burdens of occupation and reconstruction that would come with it. The argument that the United States should take preventive military action, in the absence of an imminent attack, resurfaced in 1962, when we learned that the Soviet Union would soon have the ability to launch missiles from Cuba against our country. Many military officers urged President Kennedy to approve a preventive attack to destroy this capability before it became operational. Robert Kennedy, like Harry Truman, felt that this kind of first strike was not consistent with American values. He said that a proposed surprise first strike against Cuba would be a "Pearl Harbor in reverse. "For 175 years," he said, "we have not been that kind of country." That view prevailed. A middle ground was found and peace was preserved. Yet another round of debate followed the Cuban Missile Crisis when American strategists and voices in and out of the Administration advocated preventive war against China to forestall its acquisition of nuclear weapons. Many arguments heard today about Iraq were made then about the Chinese communist government: that its leadership was irrational and that it was therefore undeterrable. And once again, those arguments were rejected. As these earlier cases show, American strategic thinkers have long debated the relative merits of preventive and pre-emptive war. Although nobody would deny our right to pre-emptively block an imminent attack on our territory, there is disagreement about our right to preventively engage in war. In each of these cases a way was found to deter other nations, without waging war. Now, the Bush Administration says we must take pre-emptive action against Iraq. But what the Administration is really calling for is preventive war, which flies in the face of international rules of acceptable behavior. The Administration's new National Security Strategy states "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." The circumstances of today's world require us to rethink this concept. The world changed on September 11th, and all of us have learned that it can be a drastically more dangerous place. The Bush Administration's new National Security Strategy asserts that global realities now legitimize preventive war and make it a strategic necessity. The document openly contemplates preventive attacks against groups or states, even absent the threat of imminent attack. It legitimizes this kind of first strike option, and it elevates it to the status of a core security doctrine. Disregarding norms of international behavior, the Bush Strategy asserts that the United States should be exempt from the rules we expect other nations to obey. I strongly oppose any such extreme doctrine and I'm sure that many others do as well. Earlier generations of Americans rejected preventive war on the grounds of both morality and practicality, and our generation must do so as well. We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme. It is impossible to justify any such double standard under international law. Might does not make right. America cannot write its own rules for the modern world. To attempt to do so would be unilateralism run amok. It would antagonize our closest allies, whose support we need to fight terrorism, prevent global warming, and deal with many other dangers that affect all nations and require international cooperation. It would deprive America of the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad. And it would give other nations -- from Russia to India to Pakistan -- an excuse to violate fundamental principles of civilized international behavior. The Administration's doctrine is a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept. It is the antithesis of all that America has worked so hard to achieve in international relations since the end of World War II. This is not just an academic debate. There are important real world consequences. A shift in our policy toward preventive war would reinforce the perception of America as a "bully" in the Middle East, and would fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the Islamic world and beyond. It would also send a signal to governments the world over that the rules of aggression have changed for them too, which could increase the risk of conflict between countries such as Russia and Georgia, India and Pakistan, and China and Taiwan. Obviously, this debate is only just beginning on the Administration's new strategy for national security. But the debate is solidly grounded in American values and history. It will also be a debate among vast numbers of well-meaning Americans who have honest differences of opinion about the best way to use U.S. military might. The debate will be contentious, but the stakes - in terms of both our national security and our allegiance to our core beliefs - are too high to ignore. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues in Congress to develop an effective and principled policy that will enable us to protect our national security and respect the basic principles that are essential for the world to be at peace. * ***************************************************************** 21 Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill (*Editors Note | Perhaps the soldiers being deployed to fight in Iraq should reconsider. We have a President that doesn't believe they should be compensated for disabilities. Every other government employee upon retirement can recieve their retirement pay and disibility if they qualify. Only the military has to choose one or the other. George w. Bush can find billions for new weapons programs but cant find money to compensate disabled veterans. Yet another case of misguided priorities. -- sg) Go To Original [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51794-2002Oct6?language=printer] President Wants Costly New Disabled Military Pension Benefits Eliminated By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A02 Alarmed by the cost of expanding military entitlement programs, President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade. "We simply cannot continue to add ever-expansive obligations to the defense budget," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in a letter to the conferees, who could decide the issue this week. "This would divert critical resources away from the war on terrorism, the transformation of our military capabilities and important personnel programs such as pay raises and facilities improvements." The Pentagon spends in excess of $35 billion a year -- approximately the military budget of France -- on military pension and health care entitlements that are among the most generous in the country for public- or private-sector employees. With the new pension program, the defense budget would become one of the federal government's fastest-growing entitlements. The pension provision would for the first time allow military retirees to collect retirement benefits from the Pentagon and disability benefits from the Veterans Administration at the same time. Proponents call this "concurrent receipt." Some critics use another term -- "double dipping." Under the law, a military retiree's pension benefits must be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of disability benefits received from the VA. The House-passed version applies only to military retirees who are considered 60 percent disabled or more by the VA, and it would cost $18.5 billion over the next 10 years. The Senate version applied to virtually all military retirees receiving VA disability compensation and would cost $58 billion over the same period. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the conferees, said Friday that overwhelming majorities in both houses passed a version of the "concurrent receipt" provision out of basic fairness. Disabled veterans should be able to receive military retirement benefits and VA disability benefits without an offset, he said, because retirement pay is for length of service and disability compensation is for pain and suffering incurred in uniform. Although McCain supports the Senate's expansive version, one compromise discussed by conferees to get around a presidential veto, he said, would be to limit "concurrent receipt" only to combat-injured military retirees, greatly reducing the cost of either House or Senate version. "No other category of federal employee," said Bob Manhan, assistant director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars legislative office, "is required to relinquish a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because they are also receiving VA disability compensation." But David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said VA disability compensation is intended, not to supplement military pensions, but to compensate disabled veterans who leave the military after a few years' service and do not qualify for full military pensions. Military retirees with disabilities who qualify for pensions, Chu said, are more than adequately compensated without VA benefits. Their pension benefits are already among the most generous in the United States and fully indexed annually for inflation. Military retirees also receive lifetime health care and other benefits, he said. "The bottom line is, we don't see the problem for which $58 billion of the taxpayers' money over the next 10 years is required to solve," Chu said. There is no question, he added, that allowing disabled veterans to concurrently receive retirement and disability pay will take money from weapons procurement and other accounts intended to benefit active-duty personnel. "We're going to rob Peter to pay Paul," he said, "and the question is, should Peter really lose here?" Enactment of a "concurrent receipt" provision would come on top of legislation Congress passed in 2000 extending lifetime health and prescription benefits under the military's Tricare health insurance system to 1.4 million uniformed service retirees age 65 and older and family members and survivors. The new benefits, which set military retirees well apart from other senior citizens, cost $3.9 billion last fiscal year. This year, the cost jumps to $8 billion in Pentagon contributions to a fund designed to pay for the added health benefits on an accrual basis. In testimony in May before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said the total cost of military health care, including the new lifetime health and prescription benefits for the elderly, would be a "breathtaking" $22.8 billion this year, more than Italy's defense budget. "The hard truth is that this line item promises to grow and put pressure on all other categories of the budget -- research and development, modernization, transformation, pay and the like," Rumsfeld said. "We need to face up to it." A year before passing lifetime health care and prescription benefits for military retirees, Congress repealed a pension reform act passed in 1986 that reduced pension benefits for those entering military service after Aug. 1, 1986, from 50 percent to 40 percent of final pay after 20 years. The cost of that repeal adds an additional $1.1 billion to this year's defense budget. Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that advocates fiscal responsibility and lobbies for Social Security, said Congress's willingness to increase benefits for disabled veterans is "part of a pattern" that began with the pension reform repeal and continued with passage of lifetime health care and prescription benefits. "When the budget surpluses started happening, politicians stopped thinking in terms of hard choices and started expanding entitlements," Bixby said. "Now we're back into deficits, but nobody has scaled back their desire to expand entitlements they developed in the days of surpluses." This is particularly true when it comes to the military, he said. "The military is in a favored environment right now because we're in a war setting," he said. "Anything in the military gets a pass, whether it's related to the war or not." In a report last month, the General Accounting Office concluded in a study on Pentagon benefits that military personnel get all the retirement, health and employment benefits as private-sector employees -- and more, particularly after a series of recent enhancements designed to improve retention rates. "These include free health care for members, free housing or housing allowances and discount shopping at commissaries and exchanges," the GAO said. "Major enhancements to benefits included the restoration of retirement benefits that had been cut for military service members who entered military service on or after August 1, 1986, and increases in the basic housing allowance to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for service members not living in military housing." Pay has also been substantially improved. "Congress approved across-the-board pay raises of 4.8 percent for fiscal year 2000 and 3.7 percent for fiscal year 2001, along with targeted pay raises to mid-level officers and enlisted personnel," the GAO said. "For fiscal year 2002, Congress approved pay raises ranging between 5 and 10 percent, depending on pay grade and years of service." (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) ***************************************************************** 22 Excerpts From the Debate in the Senate on Using Force Against Iraq The New York Times *October 9, 2002* / Following are excerpts from the Senate debate on Iraq yesterday, as recorded by The New York Times. The speakers included Senators James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont; Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho; Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana; Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; and John McCain, Republican of Arizona./ * Senator Jeffords* I'm very disturbed that President Bush's determination that a threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush through a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, C.I.A. Director Tenet and other top administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the president. I have heard nothing, nothing, that convinces me that an immediate pre-emptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term. Saddam Hussein's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern. Based on the information that has been provided to me by this administration, I believe this threat is best dealt with in the context of the United Nations. The U.N. must aggressively move to insure unfettered inspections and bolster its efforts to stop the proliferation of materials that can be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. I urge the U.N. secretary, the Security Council to take immediate and strong action to deal with Iraq and its infractions. Should Iraq fail to comply with the United Nations resolutions, it is incumbent on the United States to aggressively work with member nations to develop means to bring Iraq into conformance. But at this time I cannot in good conscience authorize any use of military force against Iraq other than in the context of the U.N. Security Council effort. If we receive information that the threat is more imminent or if the United Nations' efforts fail, then the president should come back to Congress for consideration of the next step. Providing the president with authorization at this time for unilateral U.S. military action would undercut the U.N. Security Council's efforts to disarm Iraq. We must insure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our nation or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends. I spoke at length on the Senate floor last week about pressing problems that will determine the future strength of our nation ? inadequate, grossly inadequate, funding for education; declining access to affordable health care; degradation of the environment; and erosion of pension security for many hard-working Americans. Mr. President, Saddam Hussein is as bad a dictator as they come. His past actions speak volumes about his true intentions. But is the only solution to this dilemma a military solution? Experience tells us otherwise. Ten years of containment through enforcement of two no-fly zones and U.N. economic sanctions have prevented Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military to any significant extent. With respect especially to our security, his military strength remains significantly weaker than when he moved against Kuwait more than a decade ago. There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence that he has developed nuclear capability and less that he could deliver it. While there is talk of cooperation with Iraq and Al Qaeda, I don't believe ? I doubt, rather ? that there has been some cooperation. I have not seen any hard evidence of any close cooperation. There is, however, a great deal of evidence of Saddam's paranoia and his distrust of all but his closest inner circle. He has wiped out any viable political opposition and tightly holds onto the reins of control. Even if he were to develop a nuclear capability, which he does not have, I have a hard time believing that Saddam Hussein would turn these weapons over to any organization, particularly a terrorist organization, after he has paid so dearly to acquire them. Our greatest problem, it seems to me, is that we have very little good intelligence on what is going on inside Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein's intentions are bad, but we don't have a clear picture of what his capabilities actually are or if they exist. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations. But the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off at the side, secretly hoping it that it will fail. We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain more, much more, if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. * Senator Craig* Make no mistake that the acquiring of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein is a very clear imminent and present danger to the United States, our allies and to the stability of the Middle East. To do nothing in response to this buildup of weapons and this threat would be irresponsible on the part of our nation and this body. We cannot sit back and wait on an aggressive act of terrorism to occur and consequently be forced into a position where we must face our fellow Americans and explain a horrific act that could have been prevented. It would be imprudent and irresponsible as a senator of the United States who is sworn to protect the freedoms of this great nation and to defend our fellow countrymen. In this new century, and in a post-9/11 era, it is clear we face a new threat. Unfortunately, this new threat requires a course of action previously not undertaken in order to deter this menace to our freedoms and to our peace. However, we must take this new course to defend our nation and our allies with understanding and with a nation united. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 23 Bush fails to sway most European skeptics French premier cautions against unilateral force Associated Press Originally published October 9, 2002 PARIS - France insisted yesterday that force must be a last resort against Saddam Hussein and cautioned the United States against ignoring international opinion about the best way to confront the Iraqi threat. French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, whose nation is at the forefront of an effort to offer an alternative approach to disarming Baghdad, insisted no single country can determine the course of action against Iraq. "The law does not exclude the use of force, but international rules exclude unilateral force," Raffarin said, reflecting fears the United States might act outside the United Nations. Raffarin was laying out his country's position at the start of a debate by French lawmakers on Iraq. He did not directly comment on President Bush's speech Monday. But in an oblique reference to Bush, Raffarin eschewed a "simplistic vision of the war of good against evil." He said: "We must not consider the use of force except as a last resort after all else has been tried to resolve the situation by diplomatic means." Bush's speech failed to move most European skeptics but gained guarded support in Asia and Australia. In Europe, only Britain reiterated its firm support for Bush's latest bid to rally support for a tough approach to disarm Iraq of chemical, biological and any nuclear weapons. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he and Bush share "the same analysis" of the threat posed by Hussein. Germany remains firmly opposed to military action against Iraq. The United States wants a resolution that threatens force outright if Iraq fails to fully cooperate. Across the Middle East, Arabs said they felt Bush's speech showed that the United States would attack Iraq. In Jakarta, Indonesia, more than 100 youths waved banners outside the U.S. Embassy with messages including "No More Blood." Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 24 Straw fails to secure Arab support for UN resolution Independent.co.uk By Kim Sengupta and Anne Penketh 09 October 2002 *War against terrorism* Britain was rebuffed by Arab leaders yesterday as the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, attempted to drum up international support for a new United Nations resolution on Iraq that could pave the way for a military invasion. Egypt and Jordan insisted that Saddam Hussein's acceptance of the return of weapons inspectors meant the standoff could be resolved under existing UN resolutions. However as negotiations continued among the UN Security Council powers on a new resolution, it appeared that key states were narrowing their differences on the need to open up all suspect weapons sites to the inspectors ? including presidential compounds. The major focus of the negotiations is on the trigger for military action, on which Russia and France have strong reservations. Under the American draft, backed by Britain, any UN member could launch a military strike if it concluded Iraq had violated new Security Council demands relating to its suspected weapons of mass destruction.Mr Straw, who is on a four-day tour of Arab capitals, was told by the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher in Cairo that there was no need to "rewrite the rules in the middle of the game". In both Egypt and Jordan, Mr Straw was told that the priority should be the early return of the inspectors, not military action to overthrow President Saddam. King Abdullah of Jordan said: "Jordan hopes that the acceptance by Iraq of the return of the inspectors will lead to the implementation of all UN decisions linked to the Gulf War and will contribute to lower the tension and avoid a new conflict in the region." Echoing the words of US President George Bush, who outlined his Iraq strategy in a speech on US television on Monday, Mr Straw said: "Use of force in Iraq is not inevitable. President Bush made that crystal clear in his speech yesterday, which I greatly welcome." President Bush, in his 25-minute speech in Cincinnati, called President Saddam a "homicidal dictator" and said that his "nuclear holy warriors" could have developed a nuclear weapon within a year. Iraq dismissed the speech, in which Mr Bush said Iraq may be planning to attack the US with biological or chemical weapons, as "lies". The Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said: "The speech contained misleading information through which Bush is trying to justify an illogical and illegitimate attack on Iraq." In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov hinted his government was moving closer to the US position in its draft resolution regarding access to suspect weapons sites. "If proposals aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the activities of international inspectors in Iraq are brought to the UN Security Council, we will support them," Mr Ivanov said. However, he warned against "artificial obstacles". The Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov stressed that any new UN resolution on Iraq must not provide for the automatic use of force and must not contain tough measures that Baghdad could not accept. The French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, making his first speech on Iraq to the French National Assembly, agreed that Iraq represents a "potential threat" to the region but warned that force should only be used as a last resort. ***************************************************************** 39 Robert Fisk: What the US President wants us to forget Independent.co.uk 09 October 2002 Each day now, someone says something even more incredible ? even more unimaginable ? about President Bush's obsession with war. Yesterday, George Bush was himself telling an audience in Cincinnati about "nuclear holy warriors". Forget for a moment that we still can't prove Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Forget that the latest Bush speech was just a re-hash of all the "ifs" and "mays" and "coulds" in Tony Blair's flimsy 16 pages of allegations in his historically dishonest "dossier". Forget that if Osama bin Laden ever acquired a nuclear weapon, he'd probably use it first on Saddam. No. We've got to fight "nuclear holy warriors". That's what we have to do to justify the whole charade through which we are being taken now by the White House, by Downing Street, by all the decaying "experts" on terrorism and, alas, far too many journalists. Forget the 14 Palestinians, including the 12-year-old child, killed by Israel a few hours before Mr Bush spoke, forget that when his aircraft killed nine Palestinian children in July, along with one militant, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon ? a "man of peace" in Mr Bush's words ? described the slaughter as "a great success". Israel is on our side. Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush used it in his speech yesterday, 30 times in half an hour ? that's one "terrorism" a minute. But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians ? which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him. Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy ? in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was ? wait for it ? Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no. Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz ? which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget. We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds ? when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al ?President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons. And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam ? as he did last night ? we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 ? and did nothing. We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and ? when they obeyed ? did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country. We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year ? and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" ? this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity ? and one of the few things which George Bush junior knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration ? which is never mentioned. In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday ? pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" ? there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget. energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC - Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and four former Secretaries of Energy celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Department of Energy today at a ceremony at the agency's Washington, D.C. headquarters. The event honored the department's employees, particularly the nearly 2000 employees who have been with DOE since its inception in 1977, and the accomplishments of DOE's 25 years of service. Joining Secretary Abraham at the celebration were the department's first Secretary, James R. Schlesinger (August 1977-August 1979); Secretary James B. Edwards (January 1981- November 1982); Secretary James D. Watkins (March 1989-January 1993); and Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary (January 1993-January 1997). Secretary Schlesinger in his keynote recounted stories of the beginning days of DOE, from the selection of the Forrestal Building as the headquarters to the first pieces of legislation influenced by the new department. Secretary Edwards noted his transition from South Carolina Governor to his time in the Reagan Administration. Secretary Watkins mentioned the importance of nuclear power both in our past and for the future. Secretary O'Leary praised the employees of DOE past and present. Secretary Abraham delivered the Anniversary Address to the assembled dignitaries, employees, and former officials. "In 1977 the new Department of Energy brought together for the first time not only most of the government's energy programs but also science and technology programs and defense responsibilities that included the design, construction and testing of nuclear weapons," Secretary Abraham said. "During the next 25 years and beyond, the Department of Energy will be one of the most vital and exciting agencies in the federal government. I am genuinely thrilled for the future of this department." "The mission we all share - enhancing America's energy and national security - is even more profound today than it was in October 1977. October 2002 finds us a nation at war. It finds us a nation facing serious energy challenges over the coming decades. But it is also a nation that finds in us a Department dedicated to meeting the challenges of the future. We have a highly disciplined, highly dedicated workforce capable of meeting those challenges, and a president with great confidence in our ability to do so." The Secretary also announced at today's ceremony that Dr. Raymond F. Davis Jr., who was an employee at the Department's Brookhaven National Laboratory, was named by the Nobel Prize Committee to be a recipient of this year's prize for physics, specifically, for his pioneering work in the detection of solar neutrinos. This Nobel Prize is first and foremost a tribute to Dr. Davis. But it is also further testimony to the high quality of the scientific work that the department has underwritten throughout its history. The Department of Energy opened for business on Oct. 1, 1977. In the 25 years since its inception, the department has enjoyed countless scientific achievements and technological successes, and has contributed to the United States national security. Some of the key scientific breakthroughs in the department's national security and scientific initiatives over the past 25 years include DNA sequencing and computational technologies that made possible the historic unraveling of the human genetic code, our blueprint for life; new holographic computerized imaging technology that can rapidly identify hidden weapons, even non-metallic ones, through the clothing of airline passengers; microbes that eat waste and can be harnessed to clean up contaminated sites; securing the safety of nuclear materials within the former Soviet Union; and certifying that the nation's nuclear stockpile is safe, secure and reliable without testing. www.25yearsofenergy.gov [http://www.25yearsofenergy.gov] Media Contact: Christi Doenges, Chris Kielich, 202/586-5806 Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-213 Back to ***************************************************************** 46 Energy Secretary Applauds University of South Carolina and South Carolina State University for Establishing New Nuclear Engineering Programs DOE Support Helps Launch Only Nuclear Engineering Degree Program at an Historically Black College and University energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC– The Department of Energy (DOE) applauds the announcement today of new undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering programs at South Carolina State University (SCSU) in Orangeburg and the University of South Carolina (USC) in Columbia, S.C. respectively. These nuclear reactor-oriented programs, recently approved by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, are the first nuclear engineering university programs established in the U.S. in over 20 years. "I applaud South Carolina State and USC for their foresight in establishing degree programs that support America's National Energy Policy and help ensure that well qualified nuclear professionals are available to support America's nuclear security," Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. Both programs respond to state and national needs for nuclear engineering graduates. The state of South Carolina is deeply involved with nuclear energy, with seven power reactors operating in the state, a commercial fuel fabrication facility, a low-level waste disposal facility, and the Energy Department's Savannah River Site. Since 2000, the Energy Department has provided over $600,000 to South Carolina State University, assisting the university's transition from an engineering technology-based program to a nuclear engineering program. DOE's support has included funds for two junior faculty and scholarships for 12-14 students each year. SCSU's new undergraduate nuclear engineering program will be offered in partnership with the University of Wisconsin. Students accepted into the program will complete their degree requirements at both SCSU and the University of Wisconsin. While the majority of courses can be completed at the South Carolina campus, students will need to round out their education with reactor physics courses and other courses that take advantage of the availability of a research reactor at Wisconsin's Madison campus. Eleven students are currently enrolled in the program at SCSU and the university hopes to enroll about 30 students for the upcoming school year. The University of South Carolina's nuclear engineering graduate program announced today will offer a Master of Science, Master of Engineering, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees, with research expected to be developed in the general areas of reactor design, reactor safety, material applications, and other applications. Fifteen students are currently enrolled in introductory nuclear engineering graduate courses at USC and the university anticipates about 30 students enrolled in graduate studies for the upcoming year. Attending today's activities at the two universities were Mr. William D. Magwood IV, director of DOE's nuclear energy office, and officials from the department's Savannah River Operations Office, Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Aiken Economic Development Partnership, and the South Carolina Universities Research and Education Foundation. Additional information on the Office of Nuclear Energy's nuclear education and infrastructure initiatives can be found on the office's web site, nuclear.gov [http://nuclear.gov] . Media Contact: Joe Davis, 202/586-4940 Hope Williams, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-214 ***************************************************************** 47 Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Office of Science Director Raymond Orbach Salute Raymond Davis, Jr., Recipient of 2002 Nobel Prize energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: October 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC — Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham lauded Raymond Davis, Jr., a retired chemist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven Laboratory, for receiving the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences made the announcement earlier this morning. Dr. Davis, who worked in the Brookhaven Laboratory's chemistry department from 1948 until his retirement in 1984, was awarded the Nobel Prize for detecting solar neutrinos, ghostlike particles produced in the nuclear reactions that power the sun. DOE and its predecessor agencies have supported more than 70 Nobel Prize winners. Dr. Davis shares the prize with Masatoshi Koshiba of Japan and Riccardo Giacconi of the United States. "I take special pleasure in congratulating Dr. Davis on this richly deserved honor," Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. "Dr. Davis did the pivotal work for which he has been awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics at the Energy Department's Brookhaven National Laboratory." "Indeed, the timing of Dr. Davis' honor could hardly be more poignant given the Department of Energy is celebrating its 25th anniversary, a full quarter century in dedicated service to its missions of energy security, national security, environmental restoration and science." "This Nobel Prize is testimony not only to Dr. Davis' genius," Abraham concluded, "but also to the high quality of the scientific work that the Department of Energy has underwritten throughout its history." The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Dr. Davis the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics "for pioneering contributions to astrophysics, in particular the detection of cosmic neutrinos." Neutrinos offer a unique view of the sun's inner workings because they are produced in ts heart by the same process that causes it to shine – nuclear fusion. Davis' experiments detected these neutrinos, confirming that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. The same experiments, however, showed that only one third of the solar neutrinos predicted by theory were detected, opening up a new area of physics not predicted by the Standard Model. "Dr. Davis conducted a brilliant experiment with profound insights that led to further investigations of great important," said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, which manages Brookhaven and 9 other national laboratories for the Energy Department. "The Department of Energy and its Office of Science are very proud of our association with Dr. Davis," Dr. Orbach said. "We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Davis, the latest in a remarkable constellation of Nobel laureates whose work has been supported by the Energy Department." For additional information about Dr. Raymond Davis, Jr., his discovery of solar neutrinos and the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics, please see the Nobel Prize web site http://www.nobel.se.physics/laureates/2002/press.html [http://www.nobel.se.physics/laureates/2002/press.html] and the Energy Department's Brookhaven National Laboratory web site http://www.bnl.gov [http://www.bnl.gov] . Media Contact: Jill Schroeder Vieth, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-215 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************