***************************************************************** 03/09/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.60 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Spain sees 6.5bln euro investment in power buildup 2 Finland does not need more nuclear energy - EU 3 US: Senators advance sweeping energy bill 4 US: GE shareholder group calls on company to exit nuclear business 5 Myanmar told IAEA of nuclear plan last year: sources NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 Lithuania should choose energy future 7 US: Agency Rips W'chester Indian Point Nuke Plant 8 US: Specter to discuss security at Shippingport nuclear plant 9 US: Cornell U.'s decision to close reactor unswayed by lobbying effo 10 US: NRC to relaunch US nuclear plant status report NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 US: Food Irradiation Threatens Public Health, National Security 12 US: Beryllium results awaited at NLV site NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 13 US: Yucca: Disposing of Nuclear Wastes 14 US: NRC gives Utah tribe reprieve on money from nuclear utilities 15 US: Open competitive bids may speed cleanup of West Valley site, tas 16 US: Goshute: Leaders don't have to account for funds 17 US: Local utility bills pay / into nuclear disposal NUCLEAR WEAPONS 18 U.S. CONCERNED OVER CHINESE NUKE AID 19 US: Pentagon Lists Nuclear Targets 20 US: U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms 21 The Axis of Incitement 22 US: Apocalypse soon? 23 US: U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms 24 US: Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable 25 US: Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable 26 U.S.: The lone ranger - 27 China, Iran said balking at test ban pact cooperation US DEPT. OF ENERGY 28 DOE defends plan to give more money to Hanford cleanup OTHER NUCLEAR 29 Senate OKs Tougher Pipeline Safety 30 (Bush) Poisoning the Superfund 31 California Not the Master of Disaster It's Reputed to Be ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Spain sees 6.5bln euro investment in power buildup SPAIN: March 8, 2002 MADRID - Spanish companies need to spend about 6.5 billion euros ($5.68 billion) in the next decade to expand and improve the country's electricity and gas distribution networks to meet growing demand, Energy Secretary Jose Folgado said this week. The investment, part of the goverment's 10-year energy plan, "would guarantee the coverage of final energy demand, which will grow an annual 3.5 percent to 2011 in the period," Folgado told Spain's Congress. These investments, determined by the government, are in addition to companies' own expansion plans. A large chunk of the investment will go to those areas of Spain where power supplies have not been able to keep up with demand, prompting power cuts in deep winter. Of the total figure, 3.8 billion euros will be spent on gas which is expected to see demand triple as more gas-fired power stations come on steam. The remaining amount is scheduled for the electricity grid, including power lines and substations. This outlay will be topped up by supplementary investments of 2.3 billion euros for gas and 1.2 billion for electricity, he said. By 2010, gas is seen contributing 22 percent of total energy demand, the government said in a statement. Consumption of oil should remain steady at 50 percent of total energy consumption while demand for coal will continue its slide, falling to 6.8 percent. Nuclear power will decline to just below 10 percent from 13 percent now while renewable energies will more than double to 12 percent. The growing use of natural gas - seen as a relatively clean fuel - will make it Spain's biggest energy source for power generation in 2010, accounting for 34.2 percent of the total, the statement said. Rapidly developing renewable energy will be the second choice for power generation at 28.9 percent, compared to 20.1 percent for nuclear power and 12 percent for coal. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 2 Finland does not need more nuclear energy - EU FINLAND: March 8, 2002 HELSINKI - The European Union's top environment official said yesterday Finland did not need another nuclear power station, instead urging the resource-poor country to focus on alternative energy sources. Finland is the only country in Western Europe currently considering building a new plant as others are opting for alternative energy sources to meet rising demand from consumers and industry. "You don't need to invest in the massive use of nuclear power," EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom told a news conference in Helsinki. "We want to see an increased use of renewable energy." The government has said the best way to satisfy increasing energy demand while ensuring Finland meets its greenhouse gas emissions obligations under the U.N. Kyoto protocol was to build a fifth nuclear reactor, its first in more than two decades. But Wallstrom said Finland could meet the emission targets without building more nuclear power by relying more on natural gas and renewable energy. Backers say boosting nuclear capacity was the only way to meet those goals and keep Finland from becoming dependent on imported electricity. The government proposal is now with parliament, which is expected to vote on it in coming months. The European Union has left it up to individual member states to decide on their nuclear power policy. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 3 Senators advance sweeping energy bill Las Vegas SUN March 08, 2002 SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved tougher pipeline safety provisions today and reached agreement on measures that would sharply increase the use of ethanol in gasoline, while phasing out an additive blamed for water pollution. The pipeline safety measure, approved by a 94-0 vote, was inserted into a sweeping energy bill being debated by the Senate. Similar pipeline measures cleared the Senate in each of the past two years, but never made it through the House. Separately, senators announced agreement on a measure that would triple the amount of ethanol produced for gasoline to 5 billion gallons and ban MTBE, the gas additive blamed for fouling waterways in many states. On Thursday, the Senate renewed for 10 years a government-backed insurance plan for nuclear power plants that makes taxpayers liable for accident clean-up costs beyond $9.5 billion. The ethanol agreement would phase out MTBE over four years and require at least 5 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be used by refiners by 2012. It also would end the federal mandate that gasoline contain a certain amount of oxygenate in areas with clean air problems. The agreement had been worked out over several weeks in negotiations among farm interests, the oil industry, environmentalists and MTBE manufacturers. Most of the provisions are already in the bill, but the compromise assured they would not be stripped from the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., called it "a fine balance of often disparate and competing interests" that will provide refiners with greater flexibility in federal gasoline regulations while continuing to protect air quality. Senate approval of the pipeline measures were spurred by concern over several major pipeline accidents including a fiery one in 1999 in Bellingham, Wash., where three young people were killed, and a pipeline explosion in 2000 in New Mexico that killed 12 campers. The amendment calls for better training of federal and state pipeline inspectors, and expansion of pipeline monitoring and reporting by industry. In response to security concerns, raised by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Senate added provisions to bar the release of some sensitive pipeline data that in the past had been readily available. Meanwhile, there were signs that Republican support for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will erode if the controversy threatens Senate passage of the broader energy legislation, say some lawmakers. While supporters of such drilling may be able to muster a narrow majority, they have been unable to get close to the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by Democrats who have vowed to protect the refuge. Thursday's action on the insurance plan, called the Price-Anderson Act, was approved as an amendment. The House passed the act as a separate bill in November, so House and Senate negotiators likely will negotiate its final form. According to the legislation, corporate owners of the nation's 105 nuclear reactors would pool roughly $9.5 billion to pay for a nuclear accident. Congress would be liable for expenses beyond that. Lawmakers who support the act said a catastrophic accident with clean-up costs in the billions is highly unlikely. In the 45-year history of the Price-Anderson plan, no nuclear accident has required a government bailout. The Three Mile Island accident cost about $70 million. But anti-nuclear groups and Nevada lawmakers oppose the Price-Anderson Act, calling it an unfair government subsidy of the nuclear industry. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called it a "sweetheart deal" during debate Thursday. The act is set to expire in August. If it expired, current nuclear plants would continue to be covered under the liability-pooling plan, but any new plants would not. Nuclear industry officials say renewing the act is key to the future of U.S. nuclear power. The act was first passed in 1957 because private insurance companies would not insure nuclear plants. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 GE shareholder group calls on company to exit nuclear business [Reuters] Friday March 8, 6:58 pm Eastern Time NEW YORK, March 8 (Reuters) - A shareholder group on Friday demanded General Electric Co., the world's largest company by market value, to exit the nuclear power business because of the financial and environmental costs. ``GE's commitment to a declining industry with growing risk is contrary to the interests of GE shareholders and the public,'' the GE Stockholders' Alliance said in a proposal listed in the company's 2001 annual statement. The group asked for the company's management to issue a report in four months on the feasibility of withdrawing from the production of new nuclear power reactors and the decommission of GE reactors currently on line. The group recommended, however, for GE to continue servicing reactors still in use. The report will assist shareholders and management in bringing GE to a ``high moral ground of corporate responsibility and leadership'', the group said in the proxy statement. Final voting on the proposal, which was mailed out to shareholders today, will take place at the company's annual meeting on April 24, Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE said. The proposal has been around for several years, a company spokesman said, and last year got 6 percent of the votes. GE's board of directors recommended shareholders to vote against the proposal. A company spokesman said GE did not have any additional background information on the shareholder group. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 5 Myanmar told IAEA of nuclear plan last year: sources KYODO NEWS VIENNA, March 8, Kyodo - The military government of Myanmar notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last year of its plan to build a nuclear research facility in Myanmar, diplomatic sources said Friday. IAEA officials have also confirmed that the international nuclear watchdog agency has been notified of the Myanmar plan. The Myanmar government, reacting to U.S. media reports that Myanmar was building a nuclear reactor with Russia's help, has acknowledged that Myanmar has a nuclear science program and insisted that Myanmar has nothing to hide. ''Our main objective to study nuclear science was for peaceful purposes, for the health and agriculture sectors, firstly to produce radio isotopes for medical purpose,'' Myanmar Deputy Foreign Minister Khin Maung Win told reporters on Jan. 21. Diplomatic sources said the IAEA received a report from the Myanmar government last year that it plans to acquire a small nuclear reactor from Russia as part of its nuclear research program. When the IAEA inquired about the location and the size of the nuclear reactor, the Myanmar government told the agency that details had yet to be decided and they were holding talks with Russia, the sources said. The IAEA has told Myanmar to notify the agency of details of the nuclear facility once they are firmed up, the sources said. ''We want to continue this program and sought the advice and assistance of the IAEA in September 2000...The IAEA sent a delegation to Myanmar in June 2001 and gave us the necessary advice in their report,'' Khin Maung Win said. 2002 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945. ***************************************************************** 6 Lithuania should choose energy future - Halonen LITHUANIA: March 8, 2002 VILNIUS - Finnish President Tarja Halonen said this week Lithuania - under pressure from the European Union to close its Soviet-built nuclear plant - should have the right to choose whether it will keep using atomic power. She also said estimates of the safety of Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear plant - which the EU says is dangerous because it shares the same design as Ukraine's ill-fated Chernobyl - should be made objectively. Ignalina is currently Lithuania's biggest obstacle to entering the EU. Brussels wants the plant shut for good in 2009 but the Baltic state fears the enormous decommissioning costs and losing its main source of electricity. "Finland has been very strong in her opinion that there must be the same demands for the member countries and the candidate countries concerning energy supply and its security," Halonen told a news conference in Lithuania's capital. Finland, an EU member, is mulling the possibility of building new nuclear reactors to help meet energy demands, bucking a general shift away from nuclear power. Halonen made her comments on Ignalina after meeting Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus, who recently said Lithuania could not close Ignalina by Brussels' deadline of 2009 without substantial EU funding. Adamkus has said Lithuania should explore the possibility of building new reactors after Ignalina is closed, singling out Finland's efforts to expand its nuclear resources. Halonen said it was up to Lithuania to decide its own energy strategy. "The question is whether the Ignalina nuclear power plant has reached the sufficient safety level. The latest safety reports do not clearly identify further safety measures to be introduced," she said. International donors, largely from EU countries, have pledged more than 200 million euros ($173.8 million) to help Lithuania close the first of two units by 2005. Talks are currently focused on shutting down the second reactor. The EU has also proposed 70 million euros per year in funding for the Ignalina shutdown between the years 2004 and 2006. But Lithuanian officials say this is the tip of the iceberg and costs will continue to mount in the coming decades. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 7 Agency Rips W'chester Indian Point Nuke Plant New York Daily News Online Saturday, March 09, 2002 By GREG WILSON Daily News Staff Writer A federal agency branded the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Westchester the worst-run in the nation, further energizing critics who want it shut down. The plant was the only one of 103 in the nation that ranked near the bottom in each of five categories in a two-year-old rating system used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The annual review completed by the commission Jan. 31 found "overall performance was acceptable" but prompted agency officials to schedule a meeting Thursday to discuss concerns with plant officials. "Since April of 2000, they probably are the worst performing plant in the nation," said commission spokesman Neil Sheehan. The report is the latest blow to the beleaguered plant, one of two in Buchanan, Westchester County, 40 miles north of Manhattan. Environmentalists have long complained about its effect on the Hudson River, and since Sept. 11, many have called for both plants to be shut down. They say that with 20 million people living within 50 miles of Indian Point, it is an attractive target for terrorists. Problems such as shutdowns caused by mechanical failures and weak performances on mandatory tests by control room operators contributed to the commission's lousy assessment. Larry Gottlieb, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Operations, the New Orleans-based company that bought Indian Point 2 from Con Edison in September and its sister plant, Indian Point 3, from the New York Power Authority in November 2000, said nothing in the review is surprising. He noted that Indian Point 3 was one of 73 plants given the highest rating and said its troubled sister plant is improving. ***************************************************************** 8 Specter to discuss security at Shippingport nuclear plant - 2002-03-08 - Pittsburgh Business Times 16:26 EST Friday Following a tour of the Beaver Valley Power Station, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter said he will hold a media briefing on Monday about security processes at the nuclear power plant in Shippingport. In the wake of Sept. 11, officials have become more sensitive to the need for increased security at the nation's nuclear power facilities. Monday is the six-month anniversary of the terrorist attacks. Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, will be joined for the tour and briefing by: U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan; Beaver County Commission chairman Dan Donatella; Beaver County Emergency Management Agency director Russell Chiodo; Beaver County Homeland Security coordinator Tim Staub; and Shippingport Mayor Mike Clancy, among others. Copyright 2002 American City Business Journals ***************************************************************** 9 Cornell U.'s decision to close reactor unswayed by lobbying efforts U-WIRE.com/ By Jason Leff 03/08/2002 (U-WIRE) ITHACA, N.Y. -- With the proposed June 30 closing date of the Ward Reactor looming on the horizon, the National Association of Cancer Patients (NACP) on Thursday intensified pressure on Cornell University officials to reverse their resolution to shut down the reactor. They called for the University to "consider the human lives that will be affected" by their decision. In an open letter addressed to President Hunter R. Rawlings III, Nicki Hobson, executive director of the NACP, affirmed the reactor's capacity to produce life-saving medical isotopes. "On behalf of the millions of Americans currently battling cancer and those who will be diagnosed in the future, I am writing to urge you to keep the Cornell research reactor operating," Hobson said. Medical isotopes are utilized to treat and diagnose fatal cancers such as blood cancer, breast cancer, and bone cancer. "It is a national resource that is capable of producing many medical isotopes that are essential to the early diagnosis and treatment of cancer," she added. Hobson's request is the latest in a series of objections to the controversial decision to shut down the TRIGA nuclear fission reactor, which was approved unanimously by the Board of Trustees last summer. The Faculty Senate rejected the plan to decommission in full nearly a year ago, and undergraduates opposed the decision, staging a rally in front of Day Hall in October. The Ward Center, which is located on the Engineering Quad, has housed the fission reactor for the last 40 years. Cornell's reactor is one of only 26 operating university research reactors in the country. It is currently utilized to conduct research in areas including geological sciences, dendochronology, theoretical and applied mechanics. University officials remained adamant that the decision to close the Ward Center for Nuclear Studies and suspend reactor operation will not be reviewed. Robert Richardson, vice provost of research, said Thursday that the matter was "closed" and that decommissioning would commence according to schedule. Richardson reiterated that space considerations and the high cost of maintaining the lab are the key issues that prompted the decision to decommission. "The space available at the University is a major problem," Richardson said. "The maintenance of the lab is expensive and the space is very valuable." Currently, the plans for future of the Ward site remain unclear. In December, the University submitted a proposal to the Army Research Office to house the Institute for Solider Nanotechnologies, which was slated to occupy the area now utilized by the Ward Center. Last month, the proposal, which would have brought the University $50 million in federal grants, was rejected. In an interview with the Sun, Provost Biddy (Carolyn A.) Martin said that the fate of the area remains undecided. "A lot will depend on what ideas the faculty develop and on what plans the new Dean of Engineering has for the college," Martin said. Representatives from the NACP suggested that the cost of maintaining the reactor could easily be defrayed by the lucrative sale of medical isotopes to prospective patients. Hobson indicated in her letter to Rawlings that the marketing of these isotopes would "significantly affect the economics of operating the reactor." "The sale of isotopes could eventually pay for the price of the reactor," said Marlene Oliver, the Northwest chair of the NACP, who has been closely monitoring the situation at the Ward Center over the last few months. Oliver, who is also a member of the National Cancer Institute, traveled to Washington, D.C. last month in an effort to lobby members of Congress, members of the current administration and several prominent labor leaders to challenge the University's ruling. Oliver's trip was funded by labor groups "who were tired of seeing their colleagues and friends die of cancer," she said. "If the reactor is shut down, it is gone forever, and that would be a travesty for cancer patients," Oliver said. "Cornell has the capacity to produce these isotopes in quantities that are sufficient to treat patients." According to Oliver, more than 90 percent of the medical isotopes used in the United States are imported. Isotopes are less costly to administer to patients than chemotherapy and radiation, and result in fewer deleterious side effects, she added. Although it was originally unclear whether the Ward facility had the capacity and strength to produce medical isotopes, a simulation run by Pacific Northwest Labs earlier this year confirmed that the reactor was equipped to produce Leutetium-177, which is used to treat cancer, along with a variety of other isotopes, according to Deinert. Deinert believes that it was vital for an outside group to perform the study in order to avoid issues of bias. "We got back surprisingly good results," he said. "It became clear at this time that our reactor could contribute to producing medical isotopes in large enough quantities and in high enough intensities to be of serious interest." Still, University administrators believe that it is not in Cornell's best interest to maintain the reactor's functionality. John Silcox, vice provost of physical sciences and engineering echoed Richardson's concern for the academic agenda of the engineering college. "If there is a need for isotopes, ultimately, someone else will step in and supply them," he said. "Our concern is for our academic programs." ***************************************************************** 10 NRC to relaunch US nuclear plant status report USA: March 8, 2002 NEW YORK - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to revive its daily plant status report by the end of the month, a commission official said. "The target date for the plant status report is March 31," said Victor Drecks, spokesman for the NRC. The NRC pulled the report, which chronicles the operating status of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants, about a month after the Sept 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon to limit public access to information on the plants. Nuclear power stations account for about a fifth of all electricity generated in the U.S. Knowing which plants are shut for maintenance or repairs is prized information in the electricity market since outages have a direct impact on the supply of megawatts available to meet demand, which in turn affects wholesale power prices. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 11 Food Irradiation Threatens Public Health, National Security Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 06:09:28 -0600 (CST) Environment News Service Opinion: Food Irradiation Threatens Public Health, National Security By Samuel Epstein, M.D. CHICAGO, Illinois, March 8, 2002 (ENS) - Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's last minute provisions in the Senate farm bill allowing irradiated beef to be labelled "pasteurized," instead of the Food and Drug Administration's small print "treated by irradiation" label, is a surprising denial of consumers' fundamental right-to-know. Consumers are wary of irradiated food, and with good reason even if they don't understand the dangers involved. Irradiated meat is a very different product from cooked meat. Irrespective of whether radiated by radioactive cobalt pellets or rods, X-ray machines or electron beams, the current permissible radiation dosage is about 200 million times greater than a chest X-ray. As well documented since the 1960s, these massive doses of ionizing radiation produce profound chemical changes in meat. These include elevated levels of the carcinogenic chemical benzene, and also the production of unique new chemicals, known as radiolytic products, some of which have been implicated as carcinogenic. Additionally, irradiated food has been shown to induce genetic damage in a wide range of studies, including tests on malnourished children by India's National Institute of Nutrition. Of particular concern in this regard, are a group of readily detectable unique chemicals known as cyclobutanones which have recently been shown to cause chromosomal damage in intestinal cells of rats and humans. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have ignored the strong evidence on the cancer and genetic risks of irradiated food. Instead, they have relied on a group of five studies, selected from a total of over 400 studies prior to 1980, on which their current claims of safety are based. The FDA has persisted in these claims even though its own expert Irradiated Food Committee warned that the tests are grossly flawed and inadequate. Furthermore, as admitted by USDA's Agricultural Research Service, irradiation results in major losses of vitamins, particularly A, C, E and the B complex. These losses are substantially increased by cooking, resulting in empty calorie food, a concern of major importance for the malnourished. Radiation has also been used to clean up food unfit for human consumption, such as spoiled fish, by killing odorous contaminating bacteria. While the USDA is actively supporting meat and poultry radiation, it has been moving to deregulate and privatize the industry by promoting self-policing programs. Irradiation is also aggressively promoted by the Department of Energy's Byproducts Utilization Program to reduce disposal costs of spent military and civilian nuclear fuel by providing a commercial market for nuclear wastes. Food irradiation plants pose grave dangers to national security. They are relatively small, unregulated, and unlikely to be secure. As such, they are highly vulnerable to sabotage. Of particular current concern are terrorist attacks to steal radioactive cobalt pellets. These could be mixed with conventional explosives to produce so-called "dirty bombs," whose effects could be devastating. These plants pose additional dangers to local communities by generating high levels of ozone, a very toxic atmospheric pollutant when it is close to ground level instead of high in the stratosphere where it protects the Earth from ultraviolet radiation. Not surprisingly, the focus of the radiation and agribusiness industries has been directed to the lucrative clean up of contaminated food, rather than preventing contamination at its source. However, bacterial food poisoning, particularly with E.coli O157, which can be dangerous and lethal to young children, can be largely prevented by long overdue improved sanitation, apart from thorough cooking of meat. Sanitation in cattle feedlots, including reducing overcrowding, drinking water disinfection and fly control, would drastically reduce cattle infection rates. Moreover, O157 infection rates could be virtually eliminated by feeding hay seven days prior to slaughter, which the industry is unwilling to do because of higher costs. Sanitation would also prevent drinking water contamination from feedlot run off, incriminated in recent outbreaks of O157 poisoning; this would remain a continuing threat even if all meat were irradiated. Pre-slaughter and post-evisceration sanitation at meat packing plants are also highly effective for reducing carcass contamination rates. Practical techniques are available for rapid individual or pooled carcasses for fecal and bacterial contamination. The expense of producing sanitary meat would be trivial compared to the high costs of irradiation, which would be passed on to consumers, apart from assuring its wholesomeness and safety, besides preventing nuclear accidents and terrorism. Rather than sanitizing the label in response to special interests, Congress should focus on sanitation, not irradiation of the nation's food supply. For further information on food irradiation, see the recently published article "Preventing Pathogenic Food Poisoning: Sanitation, Not Irradiation," endorsed by over 20 leading international experts, "International Journal of Health Services," volume 31(1):187-192, 2001. {Dr. Samuel Epstein is Professor Emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition} ***************************************************************** 12 Beryllium results awaited at NLV site Las Vegas SUN March 08, 2002 LAS VEGAS SUN Department of Energy officials say they expect to know by early next week whether a local National Nuclear Security Administration building is free of beryllium dust in the wake of a worker being diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease. "We do not believe the building (off Losee Road north of Lake Mead Boulevard) was the source, but the important thing now is to make sure employees in the building have a safe working environment," said Darwin Morgan of the DOE, which oversees the site. "We expect to get the test results back by Monday, Tuesday at the latest." The building, which is continuing operations during testing, is an office complex used by about 125 contract workers. However, prior to 1994 it was a machine shop, where springs and switches, made from copper that contained 2 percent beryllium, were produced, Morgan said. Inhalation of dust from beryllium metal can cause an incurable but treatable lung disease characterized by a scarring of lung tissue. Morgan declined to release details about the worker, saying only that the person has been a contract employee for about 10 years and also has worked at the Nevada Test Site, where similar tests for beryllium will be conducted. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 Yucca: Disposing of Nuclear Wastes March 9, 2002 The Bush administration is moving forward with plans to bury highly radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants and bomb-making facilities at Yucca Mountain, a remote desert site in Nevada. The move is being justified as a way to make the material less vulnerable to terrorists and to help domestic and military nuclear programs. But there is only one truly persuasive reason to push the process forward now. It is time to determine, once and for all, whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable disposal site, or whether the nation will need to look elsewhere. Military wastes and used fuel rods from nuclear power plants have been piling up ever since the dawn of the nuclear age half a century ago. The "spent" fuel rods are currently stored at reactor sites around the nation, either in cooling pools or in dry casks on land. That could continue for many more years, until there is literally no more room for on-site storage. But the long-range goal, in this country and abroad, has been permanent storage underground, in geological formations that will help keep the wastes isolated without the need for continuous oversight from governments that will vanish long before the wastes have lost their potency hundreds of thousands of years from now. The federal government has focused exclusively since 1987 on Yucca Mountain, a volcanic ridge that lies on federal land adjacent to a nuclear test site. Countless scientific tests have been performed, a test tunnel has been drilled, and the program has been reviewed constantly by expert panels. Now the Bush administration has told Congress it wants to prepare an application to build the repository. The state of Nevada, which strongly opposes the project, has 60 days to formally register its disagreement. That disapproval will toss the decision back to Congress, which can authorize the process to move forward only through an affirmative vote in both houses. If it comes to that, there are good reasons for Congress to push forward now, if only to move the issue of Yucca Mountain toward a resolution. Congressional approval would not mean that a repository will definitely be built. It would simply mean that the Energy Department could try to persuade the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the wastes could be sequestered safely for at least 10,000 years, the minimum required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Even if the repository is approved and built by the target date of 2010, any burial of radioactive wastes there would not be final. Under current plans, the repository would be kept open and the rods retrievable for 50 to 300 years, allowing for extensive monitoring before the repository is permanently sealed. That is not long enough to be sure the repository is sound for the millennia, but should problems develop over that period — or should a far better disposal technology emerge — future generations could retrieve the rods and start over. Opponents of the repository have noted, correctly, that there are still hundreds of unresolved questions. Experts are still not certain how fast water will migrate through the rock, what temperature is best for the storage tunnels, how well the storage casks will withstand corrosion, and how much protection would be provided by the geology of the site as opposed to the engineered barriers. These are important issues that must be addressed with extreme care in the licensing proceeding. But the expert groups that have raised them have nevertheless found no issue yet that looks as if it would rule out Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the chief guardian of the public's health, has ruled that enough information will be available to support a licensing application. The reason to proceed now is that it will force all parties to come up with final answers to a problem that has been allowed to fester too long. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 14 NRC gives Utah tribe reprieve on money from nuclear utilities Las Vegas SUN March 08, 2002 SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Overturning one of its subordinate boards, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided Goshute tribal leaders do not have to immediately account for money from backers of a nuclear-waste storage facility proposed for the tribe's Skull Valley reservation. The panel on Thursday stayed the order that the tribe had to provide financial information. That order had been made last month by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which the commission oversees. Commissioners will decide in April whether to withdraw the order permanently. "Intrusion into the internal affairs of a sovereign entity is likely to be damaging to tribal institutions," Albuquerque attorney Tim Vollman said in a brief in behalf of Goshute leaders. "The spectacle of tribal officers being forced to open their books to outside scrutiny will jeopardize the authority of all future tribal officials." The licensing board asked for the data in response to some Goshute members who say tribal leaders are cutting them off from the project's benefits because of their opposition to the project. Goshute leaders signed an agreement five years ago with a consortium of utilities to seek a license for the $3.1 billion facility to temporarily store spent nuclear-plant fuel on 125 acres of tribal land. The deal's value to the tribe has been kept secret, even on the reservation. In its ruling last month, the board said it was upholding environmental justice laws that make it illegal to saddle disadvantaged communities with objectionable projects. Opponents of the ruling accused the board of traipsing arrogantly into a sovereign government's internal feud. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members argued that the licensing board should ignore allegations that Bear has used the project money to play favorites with supporters, and the Goshute band should be treated as one group, instead of singling out subgroups on the reservation. Not doing so, the staff wrote, "establishes a novel and unworkable precedent that would convert Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing boards (and the commission) into courts of sociological inquiry." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Open competitive bids may speed cleanup of West Valley site, task force told Buffalo News - 3/7/2002 ASHFORD - Opening competitive bids in 2004 for cleanup operations in the West Valley Demonstration Project will narrow the scope of work and lower costs, the West Valley Citizen Task Force was told at a Tuesday night meeting. Ralph Holland, a procurement specialist from the federal Department of Energy's Ohio field office, said the agency plans to negotiate a two-year contract extension with West Valley Nuclear Services. This is expected to be the last time the contract is extended without competitive bidding. Since 1982, the contract has been renewed every five years. The proposed two-year extension, to begin in October and run through December 2004, would pave the way for public bidding in 2004 to identify a contractor to complete site work that could include a range of activities - from dismantling and packaging of contaminated equipment for later disposal to incremental decommissioning of materials for in-place storage, or shipment of nuclear wastes and cleanup. The public may raise issues about the extension, or state reasons why competitive bids should be allowed, through the third week in March under a comment period on the proposed contract extension, John Chamberlain of West Valley Nuclear Services said Wednesday. At present, the company is working toward September completion of vitrification operations, or solidification of high-level liquid wastes into glass for long-term storage; and the project's work force is being slowly reduced to 550 workers by 2003. All waste-shipping preparations are on hold as site work focuses on a two-year plan to finish up key tasks under the DOE's accelerated schedule targeting a 2013 project completion date. The contract extension will provide time for completion by 2004 of a high-tech, remote-handled waste facility where contaminated equipment and storage vessels will be dismantled and the parts and waste byproducts packaged for storage or shipment off-site. The scope of work for the future competitive bid contract is expected to include activities at this remote-handled waste facility once it is running. But any work plan leading to the bids will be largely affected by which closing option is chosen from among five presented in an environmental-impact study. Another factor is the outcome of stalled negotiations between the DOE and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, representing the site's owner, New York State, Chamberlain said. The two agencies' long-standing disagreement over who will pay for as much as $200 million in high-level waste-disposal fees and who is the responsible party for long-term oversight of the former commercial nuclear fuels reprocessing facility prompted Task Force members to ask the Western New York congressional delegation for help in ending the standoff. A Task Force subcommittee set a tentative March 19 meeting date to discuss options for future economic development at the site. The next full Task Force meeting will begin at 7 p.m. April 9 in the Ashford Office Complex. Both meetings are open to the public. Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 16 Goshute: Leaders don't have to account for funds [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Saturday, March 09, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SALT LAKE CITY -- Overturning one of its subordinate boards, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided Goshute tribal leaders do not have to immediately account for money from backers of a nuclear-waste storage facility proposed for the tribe's Skull Valley reservation. The panel on Thursday stayed the order that the tribe had to provide financial information. That order had been made last month by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which the commission oversees. Commissioners will decide in April whether to withdraw the order permanently. "Intrusion into the internal affairs of a sovereign entity is likely to be damaging to tribal institutions," Albuquerque, N.M., attorney Tim Vollman said in a brief on behalf of Goshute leaders. The licensing board asked for the data in response to some Goshute members who say tribal leaders are cutting them off from the project's benefits because of their opposition to the project. Goshute leaders signed an agreement five years ago with a consortium of utilities to seek a license for the $3.1 billion facility to temporarily store spent nuclear-plant fuel on 125 acres of tribal land. The deal's value to the tribe has been kept secret, even on the reservation. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-09-Sat-2002/news/18267661.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-09-Sat-2002/news/18267661.html] ***************************************************************** 17 Local utility bills pay / into nuclear disposal Leaderpub.com Sunday, March 10, 2002 By JOHN EBY / Dowagiac Daily News CASSOPOLIS -- Wrangling over whether or not nuclear waste can be stored at Nevada's Yucca Mountain might seem too far removed to concern Cass County. Except as customers of electric utilities which generate nuclear energy, such as Consumers Energy or American Electric Power (AEP), a portion of local bills went to help pay for finding a final resting place for spent fuel rods. "You've already paid for it, but have not seen anything for it," Mark Savage, public relations director for Consumers Energy, advised the Cass County Board of Commissioners Thursday afternoon. Savage said county boards statewide are being urged to join with the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) in passing individual resolutions "and in turn have those resolutions sent to Sens. (Carl) Levin and (Debbie) Stabenow," D-Mich., "so we can show support for that legislation." He made available a sample resolution to County Administrator Terry Proctor for the board to consider at its next meeting, if it chooses. Savage explained that MAC a few weeks ago adopted a "strong" resolution in favor of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the final repository for nuclear fuel. "As a nuclear power plant which stores fuel on its site" at Covert in Van Buren County, Savage said, "as do 103 other plants across the country, Yucca Mountain has been designated by Congress as the repository to send fuel to once it's been used." The federal government, however, "over the years has not honored its end of the deal. They have not taken that fuel, nor have they made available the spot at Yucca Mountain for us to take the fuel." "Currently," he continued, "there is a recommendation from President Bush to the state of Nevada that that site start constructing and opening so fuel can be taken from the nuclear power plants to Yucca Mountain for permanent storage." Nevada has 60 days to either reject or accept the president's recommendation. Savage said, "It is expected that the state of Nevada will reject that recommendation. If that occurs, it comes back to Congress, which has 90 legislative days with which to override Nevada's rejection or to accept that rejection. At that point, all activity stops at Yucca Mountain." ***************************************************************** 18 U.S. CONCERNED OVER CHINESE NUKE AID Middle East Newsline - Area News - Updated Daily WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has expressed concern that China is providing aid for its allies to develop nuclear weapons. U.S. officials said Beijing's efforts have focused on Pakistan. "Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has also been a concern, especially Chinese assistance to Pakistan in developing nuclear weapons," Admiral Dennis Blair, the commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific said. "There are international conventions to cover proliferation, but enforcement varies." Blair, in a Feb. 21 address to the 2002 Pacific Symposium at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, said U.S. efforts to stop nonproliferation and encourage cooperation between China and its U.S.-supported neighbors have been limited. The commander said the United States requires a vigorous intelligence effort to monitor weapons of mass destruction. Blair's assertion concerning China was a rare disclosure regarding Beijing's exports of nuclear technology and components. U.S. officials said China has relayed assistance through Pakistan and North Korea in the field of nuclear and ballistic missile technology. NOTE: The above is not the full item. [editor@menewsline.com] for further details. ***************************************************************** 19 Pentagon Lists Nuclear Targets Las Vegas SUN March 09, 2002 WASHINGTON- The Pentagon has informed Congress that it is devising contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against a number of countries that pose threats to the United States. The nuclear posture review is a statement of strategy, and neither represents a change in policy on using nuclear weapons nor makes their use more likely, a senior U.S. official said Saturday. It also reflects that "there are threats out there" and there long have been contingencies for dealing with those threats, he said. The classified report is not a plan for action, but one of policy, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Congressional sources said the report went to the Armed Services, Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, as has been the practice for the past several years. The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that contingency plans are to be prepared for at least seven nations and that the report calls for building new smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations. The report said the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria, according to the newspaper. The Times reported that the review said the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nuclear attack in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." The nuclear posture review typically names countries, the U.S. official told The Associated Press. But the official would not confirm which countries are on the current list and whether any have been added or dropped from previous years. In Russia, Dmitry Rogozin, who heads parliament's foreign affairs committee and has close ties to the Kremlin, told NTV television that his country "should understand that a significant part of the United States' nuclear forces are of course aimed at objects in the Russian Federation, and we should draw our own strategic conclusions from this." The identification of Syria and Libya as potential targets could complicate the trip Vice President Dick Cheney was to begin Sunday to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. His main mission is to try to strengthen support among Arab leaders for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism. Most are vehemently opposed to attacks on any Arab countries, including those the United States long has accused of fostering terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior administration officials have give public assurances there are no plans on President Bush's desk for attacking Iraq or any other nation. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms March 9, 2002 Military: Administration, in a secret report, calls for a strategy against at least seven nations: China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. By PAUL RICHTER, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." A partial copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His column on the contents appears in Sunday's editions. Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some predicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments of the target countries. "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs. They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations. "We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world." A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified. Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan. Bush administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy. U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons. The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said. The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy." Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern. Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course. Officials have often spoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out. Officials argue that large nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "self-deterring." They contend the Pentagon needs "full spectrum deterrence"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them. The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades. Analysts said the report's reference to "surprising military developments" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal. The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms. But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role. "This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 21 The Axis of Incitement Asia Times: March 9, 2002 atimes.com The Koreas WASHINGTON - White House speechwriter David Frum, who coined the incendiary "axis of evil" moniker used by President George W Bush, is leaving Bush's employ for the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). It seems the perfect fit. The phrase incited a diplomatic storm over Bush's next moves in his anti-terrorist campaign. Likewise, the AEI has long been a source of provocation, particularly for intelligence professionals at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The staunchly unilateralist AEI, and its foreign-policy honcho, Richard Perle, have never been so powerful. Much to the frustration of Secretary of State Colin Powell and Washington's European and Arab allies, the Bush administration has embraced virtually all of the AEI's policy positions on the Middle East, including the right-wing Likud Party's opposition to the Oslo peace process for Israel and Palestine. The "axis of evil" - and the policy consequences of that designation, including the option of pre-emptive military attacks against Iraq, Iran and North Korea - represents a major triumph for the AEI, which for years has denounced as appeasement US and European efforts to engage any of those three countries. The AEI and especially Perle, who holds a unique position as both chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and as an independent commentator, have emerged as the keystone of an "axis of incitement" - a small but potent network of like-minded, ultra-hawkish officials, analysts, and opinion-makers. Unlike the "axis of evil", members of the "axis of incitement" share a passionate belief in the inherent goodness and redemptive mission of the United States; the moral cowardice of "liberals" and "European elites"; the existential necessity of supporting Israel in the shadow of the Holocaust and in the face of the "implacable hatred," as Frum has written, of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims; and the primacy of military power. Their reach within the administration extends far. At the Pentagon, they include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose relationship with Perle goes back 30 years, and Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, whose pro-Likud sentiments led him to denounce the 1978 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt as an Israeli sellout. They include Vice President Dick Cheney's powerful and outspoken chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and several senior members of the National Security Council staff. In Powell's State Department, the same network succeeded in imposing the AEI's then-senior vice president, John Bolton, as undersecretary for arms control and international security. He has used this top post systematically to destroy much of the existing global arms-control architecture. Outside the administration, the axis includes like-minded policy groups with overlapping boards of directors, such as the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC); influential media outlets including the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and the Rupert Murdoch-financed Weekly Standard; and nationally syndicated columnists including Charles Krauthammer, A M Rosenthal, and Michael Kelly. At the AEI, the most prominent players post-September 11, besides Perle, are Michael Ledeen and former CIA Mideast operative Reuel Marc Gerecht. They have used the Journal's and Standard's opinion pages to agitate for including Iran with Iraq in Washington's policy of "regime removal". "Iran is ready to blow sky-high," Ledeen enthused in November, citing recent newspaper reports of pro-US demonstrations. "The Iranian people need only a bright spark of courage from the United States to ignite the flames of democratic revolution." "On to Iran!" was the title of a recent Gerecht column in the Standard. On North Korea, the AEI's Nicholas Eberstadt and another former CIA official, James Lilly, have been among the strongest voices here against US engagement of Pyongyang since then-president Bill Clinton signed an accord to freeze its nuclear program in 1994. Ledeen, who later played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair, was a major proponent of the theory - first advanced by journalist Claire Sterling and heavily promoted by the Wall Street Journal and Rosenthal - that the Kremlin was behind the 1981 attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, a notion for which the CIA could find no evidence. More recently and in an ironic parallel, Perle, backed by the Journal, strenuously argued the case - advanced by another AEI associate, Laurie Mylroie - that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing by Islamist militants of New York's World Trade Center, for which the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also could find no evidence. Mylroie's argument was part of an all-out offensive to tie Saddam Hussein to terrorism and the September 11 attacks. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes," Perle told reporters on the day of the attack. "I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." By the end of the week, Perle and Wolfowitz had convened a two-day meeting of the Defense Policy Board to discuss ousting Saddam and to send former CIA chief James Woolsey, another active member of the neo-conservative network, to Europe to gather evidence of a Baghdad connection to September 11. Over the following months, Perle and his comrades cited as proof of that tie reported meetings in Prague between Iraqi agents and one of the leaders of the September 11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and new Iraqi defectors allegedly willing to testify about a secret compound in which non-Iraqi Arabs were trained to hijack commercial aircraft with knives and their bare hands. Meanwhile, the CIA and the FBI concluded that Saddam had essentially halted terrorist operations against Western targets in the early 1990s. By late December, Perle apparently realized he could not win the argument and changed gears. In a New York Times column, he gave much more prominence to the notion that, like Osama bin Laden, "Saddam hates the United States with a vengeance" and that his determination to obtain weapons of mass destruction was enough to justify pre-emptive action to remove him before "it is too late". One month later, Bush endorsed precisely that notion, arguing that the development of weapons of mass destruction alone by hostile regimes - the "axis of evil" - was on a par with the dangers posed by international terrorism. "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer," he said. Krauthammer called it "an astonishingly bold address". Meanwhile, a minor controversy persists over the reason for Frum's departure from the White House. There have been allegations that it was the result of an e-mail apparently distributed by his wife, Danielle Crittenden, boasting about Frum's role in the historic January 29 speech. "Dear all," said the e-mail, "I realize this is very 'Washington' of me to mention, but my husband is responsible for the 'axis of evil' segment of Tuesday's State of the Union address. It's not often a phrase one writes gains national notice, unless you're in advertising of course ['The pause that refreshes'] so I'll hope you'll indulge my wifely pride in seeing this one repeated in headlines everywhere!! [signed] D." Frum has denied that his wife's e-mail had anything to do with his departure, saying he submitted his resignation notice before Bush delivered his State of the Union address. But the matter has provoked some glee in Frum's native Canada, where he is widely reviled for his ultra-conservative views and for supposedly scoring a successful journalism career on the back of his highly respected mother, the late Canadian Broadcasting Corp commentator and interviewer Barbara Frum. "Even fellow conservatives can't stand him," Ellen Vanstone wrote last weekend in Toronto's Globe and Mail. "Progressive Conservative columnist Dalton Camp once attacked Frum as an 'idealogue who has previously declared himself as opposed to government welfare, public health care, all farm subsidies, student loans and government support of the arts and humanities - an avowed non-partisan [who] is, nonetheless, a devout supporter of the special interests he has served daily as the voice of an ultimate right-wing fantasy - a world of commerce living in uninterrupted splendor, with neither government nor taxes to disturb its uncommon weal'." (Asia Times Online/Inter Press Service) ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Room 6301, The Center, 99 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong ***************************************************************** 22 Apocalypse soon? Las Vegas City Life By Heidi Walters On Feb. 27, the minute hand on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock," a symbol of pending nuclear danger, ticked two minutes closer to midnight. The bimonthly Bulletin, published by the nonprofit Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, was founded in 1945 by some of the original scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago. It is not a "science" magazine, says Stephen I. Schwartz, a Bulletin publisher, but a magazine of global security, news and analysis. "Their mission was to educate the media, the public and other scientists about the dangers of nuclear weapons, and hopefully to prevent the use of nuclear weapons again," Schwartz says. "And that remains our mission today." The Doomsday Clock was designed in 1947 by Martyl Langsdorf, the wife of one of the Manhattan Project physicists, as cover art for a Bulletin issue. It became an icon, and has been jittering toward and away from "midnight" - think apocalypse, think zero hour - for 55 years now. "We move the hands taking into account both negative and positive developments," a Bulletin statement says. For instance: ¥ 1947 - 11:53 p.m., the clock debuted; ¥ 1949 - 11:57 p.m., when the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb; ¥ 1953 - 11:58 p.m., amid U.S. and Soviet Union thermonuclear device tests; ¥ 1960 - 11:53 p.m., as public awareness grew about the irrationality of nuclear weapons; ¥ 1963 - 11:48 p.m., with the signing of the U.S.-Soviet Partial Test Ban Treaty; ¥ 1968 - 11:53 p.m. again: "France and China acquire nuclear weapons; wars rage in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Vietnam; world military spending increases while development funds shrink," explains the Bulletin. By 1984, at the height of the arms race, it was three minutes to midnight again. By 1991 - Cold War over - it was 17 minutes to midnight, when the U.S. and Soviet Union finally signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Alas, come 2002 and the clock has moved from nine to seven minutes to midnight - right back where it was at the beginning of the last Cold War. The Bulletin folks say there are 31,000 nuclear weapons still nurtured by eight known nuclear powers, most in the United States and Russia and 16,000 of which are aimed at targets. "Little progress is made on global nuclear disarmament," the Bulletin says. "The United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Terrorists seek to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons." Schwartz says another factor that prompted them to adjust the clock is the Bush administration's apparent interest in resuming full-scale nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. "Currently, if we [the United States] want to conduct a nuclear test, it would take two to three years [to prepare do so]." Schwartz says. "They would like to shorten the amount of time to 12 months or less. We don't see any reason why nuclear testing would [ever] have to resume, unless you want to create new kinds of nuclear weapons. It's an unnecessary, provocative move, and will only hurt the United States in its efforts to curtail nuclear weapons proliferation. It completely contradicts the messages we send to India, Pakistan, China and elsewhere about nuclear weapons proliferation. Not that that's new, for the United States to send contradictory messages." Nuclear weapons tests. Treaties. Doomsday. It is all so Cold War. Some people might find it difficult to extract substance from the symbolic clock's machinations. Perhaps they even find "doomsday" antiquated, theoretical. But others know better. Yoshitaka Kawamoto, director of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, was 13 years old and in school when the atomic bomb hit his city. He recalls doomsday: "All I can remember was a pale lightening flash for two or three seconds. Then, I collapsed. ...It was awful, awful. The smoke was coming in ... sandy dust was flying around ... I was trapped under the debris and I was in terrible pain ... ... then I heard about ten of my surviving classmates singing our school song ... I could hear sobs. Someone was calling his mother. ... I think I joined the chorus. We thought that someone would come and help us out. ... That's why we were singing ... The sky over Hiroshima was dark. Something like a tornado or a big fire ball was storming throughout the city. ... [He freed himself and tried to help a classmate get out] ... I held him up in my arms. It is hard to tell, his skull was cracked open, his flesh was dangling out from his head. He had only one eye left, and it was looking right at me. ... I could hear him crying out, saying, 'Mother, Mother.' [Unable to free his friend, he left and made his way to the river] ... I had to push the bodies aside to drink the muddy water. ...I looked up. I saw the cloud, the mushroom cloud growing in the sky. It was very bright. It had so much heat inside. It caught the light and it showed every color of the rainbow. ...it is strange, but I could say that it was beautiful. Looking at the cloud, I thought I would never be able to see my mother again, I wouldn't be able to see my younger brother again. And then, I lost consciousness. ..." -Heidi Walters walters@lvpress.com Copyright 2002 Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 23 U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms [Los Angeles Times - latimes.com] March 9, 2002 [*] Military: Administration, in a secret report, calls for a strategy against at least seven nations: China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. By PAUL RICHTER, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." A partial copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His column on the contents appears in Sunday's editions. Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some predicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments of the target countries. "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs. They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations. "We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world." A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified. Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan. Bush administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy. U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons. The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said. The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy." Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern. Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course. Officials have often spoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out. Officials argue that large nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "self-deterring." They contend the Pentagon needs "full spectrum deterrence"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them. The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades. Analysts said the report's reference to "surprising military developments" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal. The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms. But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role. "This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives [http://www.latimes.com/archives] . For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights [http://www.lats.com/rights/] . Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 24 Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable A secret policy review of the nation’s nuclear policy puts forth chilling new contingencies for nuclear war. By WILLIAM M. ARKIN WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria. In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military developments" of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. Like all such documents since the dawning of the Atomic Age more than a half-century ago, this NPR offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president might wish to use nuclear weapons--planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable, on the other. Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms. In these and other ways, the still-secret document offers insights into the evolving views of nuclear strategists in Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Defense Department. While downgrading the threat from Russia and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons, Defense Department strategists promote tactical and so-called "adaptive" nuclear capabilities to deal with contingencies where large nuclear arsenals are not demanded. They seek a host of new weapons and support systems, including conventional military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with nuclear warfare. The end product is a now-familiar post-Afghanistan model--with nuclear capability added. It combines precision weapons, long-range strikes, and special and covert operations. But the NPR's call for development of new nuclear weapons that reduce "collateral damage" myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications--short-term and long--of crossing the nuclear threshold. Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they "could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack," or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or "in the event of surprising military developments." Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of "immediate, potential or unexpected" contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as "countries that could be involved" in all three kinds of threat. "All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs." China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives," is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons. Other listed scenarios for nuclear conflict are a North Korean attack on South Korea and an Iraqi assault on Israel or its neighbors. The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about nuclear policy is the extent to which the Bush administration's strategic planners were shaken by last September's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Though Congress directed the new administration "to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear forces" before the events of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies. Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges of foreign policy and military affairs. Nuclear weapons were not just the option of last resort, they were the option reserved for times when national survival hung in the balance--a doomsday confrontation with the Soviet Union, for instance. Now, nuclear strategy seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration's faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone. It no longer takes a superpower to pose a dire threat to Americans. "The terrorists who struck us on Sept. 11th were clearly not deterred by doing so from the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal," Rumsfeld told an audience at the National Defense University in late January. Similarly, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said in a recent interview, "We would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population .... The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody ... has just been disproven by Sept. 11." Moreover, while insisting they would go nuclear only if other options seemed inadequate, officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could play a role in the kinds of challenges the United States faces with Al Qaeda. Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical "warheads that reduce collateral damage," as well as weapons that could be used against smaller, more circumscribed targets--"possible modifications to existing weapons to provide additional yield flexibility," in the jargon-rich language of the review. It also proposes to train U.S. Special Forces operators to play the same intelligence gathering and targeting roles for nuclear weapons that they now play for conventional weapons strikes in Afghanistan. And cyber-warfare and other nonnuclear military capabilities would be integrated into nuclear-strike forces to make them more all-encompassing. As for Russia, once the primary reason for having a U.S. nuclear strategy, the review says that while Moscow's nuclear programs remain cause for concern, "ideological sources of conflict" have been eliminated, rendering a nuclear contingency involving Russia "plausible" but "not expected." "In the event that U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future," the review says, "the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture." When completion of the NPR was publicly announced in January, Pentagon briefers deflected questions about most of the specifics, saying the information was classified. Officials did stress that, consistent with a Bush campaign pledge, the plan called for reducing the current 6,000 long-range nuclear weapons to one-third that number over the next decade. Rumsfeld, who approved the review late last year, said the administration was seeking "a new approach to strategic deterrence," to include missile defenses and improvements in nonnuclear capabilities. Also, Russia would no longer be officially defined as "an enemy." Beyond that, almost no details were revealed. The classified text, however, is shot through with a worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase "New Triad," which it describes as comprising the "offensive strike leg," (our nuclear and conventional forces) plus "active and passive defenses,"(our anti-missile systems and other defenses) and "a responsive defense infrastructure" (our ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing). Previously, the nuclear "triad" was the bombers, long-range land-based missiles and submarine-launched missiles that formed the three legs of America's strategic arsenal. The review emphasizes the integration of "new nonnuclear strategic capabilities" into nuclear-war plans. "New capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply-buried targets (HDBT), to find and attack mobile and re-locatable targets, to defeat chemical and biological agents, and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage," the review says. It calls for "a new strike system" using four converted Trident submarines, an unmanned combat air vehicle and a new air-launched cruise missile as potential new weapons. Beyond new nuclear weapons, the review proposes establishing what it calls an "agent defeat" program, which defense officials say includes a "boutique" approach to finding new ways of destroying deadly chemical or biological warfare agents, as well as penetrating enemy facilities that are otherwise difficult to attack. This includes, according to the document, "thermal, chemical or radiological neutralization of chemical/biological materials in production or storage facilities." Bush administration officials stress that the development and integration of nonnuclear capabilities into the nuclear force is what permits reductions in traditional long-range weaponry. But the blueprint laid down in the review would expand the breadth and flexibility of U.S. nuclear capabilities. In addition to the new weapons systems, the review calls for incorporation of "nuclear capability" into many of the conventional systems now under development. An extended-range conventional cruise missile in the works for the U.S. Air Force "would have to be modified to carry nuclear warheads if necessary." Similarly, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be modified to carry nuclear weapons "at an affordable price." The review calls for research to begin next month on fitting an existing nuclear warhead into a new 5,000-pound "earth penetrating" munition. Given the advances in electronics and information technologies in the past decade, it is not surprising that the NPR also stresses improved satellites and intelligence, communications, and more robust high-bandwidth decision-making systems. Particularly noticeable is the directive to improve U.S. capabilities in the field of "information operations," or cyber-warfare. The intelligence community "lacks adequate data on most adversary computer local area networks and other command and control systems," the review observes. It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad." In recent months, when Bush administration officials talked about the implications of Sept. 11 for long-term military policy, they have often focused on "homeland defense" and the need for an anti-missile shield. In truth, what has evolved since last year's terror attacks is an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for nuclear wars. _ _ _ William M. Arkin is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a regular contributor to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could help against a foe like Al Qaeda. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 25 Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable [http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-homedelivery.ssipage] By WILLIAM M. ARKIN WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria. In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military developments" of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. Like all such documents since the dawning of the Atomic Age more than a half-century ago, this NPR offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president might wish to use nuclear weapons--planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable, on the other. Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms. In these and other ways, the still-secret document offers insights into the evolving views of nuclear strategists in Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Defense Department. While downgrading the threat from Russia and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons, Defense Department strategists promote tactical and so-called "adaptive" nuclear capabilities to deal with contingencies where large nuclear arsenals are not demanded. They seek a host of new weapons and support systems, including conventional military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with nuclear warfare. The end product is a now-familiar post-Afghanistan model--with nuclear capability added. It combines precision weapons, long-range strikes, and special and covert operations. But the NPR's call for development of new nuclear weapons that reduce "collateral damage" myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications--short-term and long--of crossing the nuclear threshold. Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they "could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack," or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or "in the event of surprising military developments." Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of "immediate, potential or unexpected" contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as "countries that could be involved" in all three kinds of threat. "All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs." China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives," is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons. Other listed scenarios for nuclear conflict are a North Korean attack on South Korea and an Iraqi assault on Israel or its neighbors. The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about nuclear policy is the extent to which the Bush administration's strategic planners were shaken by last September's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Though Congress directed the new administration "to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear forces" before the events of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies. Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges of foreign policy and military affairs. Nuclear weapons were not just the option of last resort, they were the option reserved for times when national survival hung in the balance--a doomsday confrontation with the Soviet Union, for instance. Now, nuclear strategy seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration's faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone. It no longer takes a superpower to pose a dire threat to Americans. "The terrorists who struck us on Sept. 11th were clearly not deterred by doing so from the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal," Rumsfeld told an audience at the National Defense University in late January. Similarly, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said in a recent interview, "We would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population .... The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody ... has just been disproven by Sept. 11." Moreover, while insisting they would go nuclear only if other options seemed inadequate, officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could play a role in the kinds of challenges the United States faces with Al Qaeda. Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical "warheads that reduce collateral damage," as well as weapons that could be used against smaller, more circumscribed targets--"possible modifications to existing weapons to provide additional yield flexibility," in the jargon-rich language of the review. It also proposes to train U.S. Special Forces operators to play the same intelligence gathering and targeting roles for nuclear weapons that they now play for conventional weapons strikes in Afghanistan. And cyber-warfare and other nonnuclear military capabilities would be integrated into nuclear-strike forces to make them more all-encompassing. As for Russia, once the primary reason for having a U.S. nuclear strategy, the review says that while Moscow's nuclear programs remain cause for concern, "ideological sources of conflict" have been eliminated, rendering a nuclear contingency involving Russia "plausible" but "not expected." "In the event that U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future," the review says, "the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture." When completion of the NPR was publicly announced in January, Pentagon briefers deflected questions about most of the specifics, saying the information was classified. Officials did stress that, consistent with a Bush campaign pledge, the plan called for reducing the current 6,000 long-range nuclear weapons to one-third that number over the next decade. Rumsfeld, who approved the review late last year, said the administration was seeking "a new approach to strategic deterrence," to include missile defenses and improvements in nonnuclear capabilities. Also, Russia would no longer be officially defined as "an enemy." Beyond that, almost no details were revealed. The classified text, however, is shot through with a worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase "New Triad," which it describes as comprising the "offensive strike leg," (our nuclear and conventional forces) plus "active and passive defenses,"(our anti-missile systems and other defenses) and "a responsive defense infrastructure" (our ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing). Previously, the nuclear "triad" was the bombers, long-range land-based missiles and submarine-launched missiles that formed the three legs of America's strategic arsenal. The review emphasizes the integration of "new nonnuclear strategic capabilities" into nuclear-war plans. "New capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply-buried targets (HDBT), to find and attack mobile and re-locatable targets, to defeat chemical and biological agents, and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage," the review says. It calls for "a new strike system" using four converted Trident submarines, an unmanned combat air vehicle and a new air-launched cruise missile as potential new weapons. Beyond new nuclear weapons, the review proposes establishing what it calls an "agent defeat" program, which defense officials say includes a "boutique" approach to finding new ways of destroying deadly chemical or biological warfare agents, as well as penetrating enemy facilities that are otherwise difficult to attack. This includes, according to the document, "thermal, chemical or radiological neutralization of chemical/biological materials in production or storage facilities." Bush administration officials stress that the development and integration of nonnuclear capabilities into the nuclear force is what permits reductions in traditional long-range weaponry. But the blueprint laid down in the review would expand the breadth and flexibility of U.S. nuclear capabilities. In addition to the new weapons systems, the review calls for incorporation of "nuclear capability" into many of the conventional systems now under development. An extended-range conventional cruise missile in the works for the U.S. Air Force "would have to be modified to carry nuclear warheads if necessary." Similarly, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be modified to carry nuclear weapons "at an affordable price." The review calls for research to begin next month on fitting an existing nuclear warhead into a new 5,000-pound "earth penetrating" munition. Given the advances in electronics and information technologies in the past decade, it is not surprising that the NPR also stresses improved satellites and intelligence, communications, and more robust high-bandwidth decision-making systems. Particularly noticeable is the directive to improve U.S. capabilities in the field of "information operations," or cyber-warfare. The intelligence community "lacks adequate data on most adversary computer local area networks and other command and control systems," the review observes. It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad." In recent months, when Bush administration officials talked about the implications of Sept. 11 for long-term military policy, they have often focused on "homeland defense" and the need for an anti-missile shield. In truth, what has evolved since last year's terror attacks is an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for nuclear wars. _ _ _ William M. Arkin is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a regular contributor to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could help against a foe like Al Qaeda. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at [http://www.latimes.com/archives] . For information about reprinting this article, go to [http://www.lats.com/rights/] . Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 26 U.S.: The lone ranger - smh.com.au - News Review Saturday, March 9, 2002 September 11 destroyed not just the World Trade Centre but the way the United States saw the world. Six months on, writes Paul McGeough, a bitter and angry Washington wants a new order and will go it alone to get it. This is a new and scary world. A scoop in Time magazine this week revealed the post-September 11 security nightmare of a US intelligence alert that terrorists were smuggling a 10 kiloton Russian-made nuclear device into Manhattan. It didn't happen - but a bomb that size could kill 100,000. And in The New Yorker, a State Department official told Seymour Hersch: "The last thing we want is to hit Baghdad and have al-Qaeda hit Chicago. We'd look real bad. When we go to Iraq, we'll do it right." Note the "when", not "if". Today's United States is so pumped up on its own military and economic power - not to mention its seething anger at what happened on September 11 - that it is becoming fearless and unnervingly certain as it leads the world to a place that looks like the darker days of the Cold War. The Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, articulates the problem: "A calculated, malignant, devastating evil has arisen in our world. Civilisation cannot afford to ignore the wrongs that have been done." And Vice-President Dick Cheney articulates the solution: "The United States, and only the United States, can see this effort through to victory." And on the road to victory anything can be justified. There is a clamour to give back the CIA's authority to assassinate, and shock troops are being dispatched around the globe as places that were humanitarian cot cases (ie, not of great concern to Washington) become countries of strategic interest (ie, good places from which to start or end wars). A shadow US government has been set up in undisclosed bunkers away from the capital, in the event of a more damaging second terrorist attack on Washington. Civil rights are being crimped; the President tried to argue that prisoners in the Afghan war should not be covered by the Geneva Convention; and White House spinmeister Ari Fleischer cautioned the nation that in times like these "people have to watch what they say, watch what they do". On campus, it is becoming dangerous to say what you think - an intimidating "blame and shame" list of more than 100 academics and students who questioned aspects of the war against terrorism is being circulated. An army of news reporters wanting to cover the Afghanistan war in all its unvarnished detail keeps knocking at the Pentagon's door. But only the infotainment crews from Hollywood, led by Jerry "Top Gun" Bruckheimer, are allowed in. And the Pentagon was only mildly embarrassed by the revelation that the duty list for its new Office of Strategic Influence would include spreading false stories in the foreign press - so now, it outsources the dirty work. But if a multibillion-dollar PR contract to convince the Arab world that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was sexually impotent failed in the wake of the Gulf crisis, what would it take to convince the so-called Arab street that Osama bin Laden is a pedophile or a terrorist? The country's absurd system of farm subsidies - about $A20 billion a year which The Washington Post describes as "the mother of all pork" - has been put beyond question in public debate with a presidential decree that the farmers' cheques are about national security. Ditto this week's dramatic steel tariff decision by the President who says he's a champion of free trade. The key objectives of the war against terrorism have not been met - as best we can tell bin Laden is still alive and, though they have scattered, so too are much of his al-Qaeda leadership and the trained operatives they are assumed to have in place around the globe. But this is not stopping the White House from moving right along to the next target - Saddam. It wants him overthrown and the President reportedly has fixed April 15 as the date on which he wants to see on his desk a plan for how to do it. And, rather bizarrely, at a time when many in Europe believe that Washington's temporary withdrawal from the political and diplomatic process in the Middle East has fuelled the latest round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, exiled Iraqi opposition figures reportedly are doing the rounds of Washington, claiming that France and Russia will support a US attack on Iraq when they are offered access to the rich oil fields of southern Iraq - but only as "junior partners" to the Americans. Of course. The stakes never were this high when they played poker in Texas. Most of the rest of the world doesn't want another war with Iraq. So Bush can go it alone or, more likely, drag the rest of the world into a new conflict - possibly as a response to a cornered Saddam shooting a weapon of mass destruction into Israel. The increasing likelihood of an attack on Iraq provoked barely concealed diplomatic outrage around the world, but a European diplomat tried to hose down the issue in an interview with The Guardian. Taking a line that might have begun with "Dear boy", he continued: "Iraq policy is in process at the moment. What matters is that we agree on the end product and there is every sign that we will." This, an Administration source declared, was "horse shit". He explained: "Relations now are worse than anyone can ever remember. It has become very fashionable in the middle reaches of [the US] Government to beat up on the Europeans as being useless whiners. That's especially true in the Pentagon, but it's true in most of the State Department, too." All of which gives great credence to a claim reported in the The New York Times that the President is fuming about what he calls "weak-kneed European elites". This is worrying stuff, but it is the history in the making of civilisation's most powerful empire, and the Bush camp is supremely confident. Europe was traumatised when Ronald Reagan leaned over the masonry barrier dividing Berlin and ordered Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". But the wall indeed came down. Last year, much of the world trembled in fear that a US-led attack on Afghanistan might spark a Muslim uprising from the Magreb to the Philippines - it didn't. So Washington becomes even more arrogant. Bush has told the nations of the world that they are with him or against him and, frankly, he doesn't care. And it is this attitude that causes so much offence and disbelief in the capitals of Europe and elsewhere - because it precludes debate, it allows for no compromise. According to Newsweek: "[This] is nothing less than a reassertion of American power in the world - by a greater willingness to use force, with or without the support of allies, even at the cost of American casualties. Some of Bush's top advisers believe that after Vietnam, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of multilateralism and anti-interventionism." But the Europeans want to argue a case that political and economic help to the moderates in Iran will work over time, that economic and diplomatic involvement will do more than beating a war drum at North Korea, and that, for all Saddam's wrongdoing, the CIA has not been able to link him to the attacks on New York and Washington. On September 11, the day commentator Michael Ignatieff likens to the tremor of dread felt in the ancient world when Rome first was sacked, the world and the US were united by sympathy, fear and an early sense of purpose. Now, and especially since Bush's "axis of evil" speech, there are rancour and hurt as it sinks in with the rest of the world that the US is multilateral only when it suits its unilateral agenda. The French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, accused the US of having no particular interest in partnerships and Chris Patten, the EU's foreign affairs commissioner, claimed that the US was in "unilateralist overdrive". But even Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State whom Europe believed to be the brake on White House excess, warned that Europe had to respect the "principles leadership" of the US - even if it disagreed with it. It now is becoming clear that what the US set out to do in Afghanistan - and accomplished - was to go to war alone. Since September 11 it has increased defence spending by $A2 billion a week and its total defence budget now is bigger than the next 20 nations in the world, so it didn't need and didn't want to get bogged down by mealy-mouthed debates at the UN or the humanitarian trip-wires that could be set up around a NATO coffee urn. This is the age of American unilateralism. Offers of help poured in to Washington in September, but they were accepted only according to a carefully executed script that gave a sense of world coalitions at work, but which would not get in the way of the US view of how it should conduct the war. So the UN was sidelined and NATO was acknowledged, but not welcomed in. NATO pretty well is irrelevant in Washington. On September 11 it dropped everything and said, "An attack on one is an attack on all. What can we do?" But when its liaison officers arrived at CentCom (Central Command), the Florida bunker from which the military end of the war on terrorism is prosecuted, they were denied access. Ignatieff writes in The New York Review of Books: "[The US now] is unilateral when it wants to be, multilateral when it must be, and it uses its power to enforce a new international division of labour in which America does the bombing and the fighting, the French, British and Germans serve as police in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide humanitarian aid. "A new international order is emerging, but it is being crafted to suit American imperial objectives. The empire signs on to those pieces of the transnational legal order that suit its purpose (the World Trade Organisation, for example), while ignoring or even sabotaging those parts (the proposed International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM treaty) that do not." In background briefings, US diplomats reckon that Ignatieff has got it right. But a French diplomat exploded to the Financial Times: "This kind of complementarity cannot continue in the long term. The Europeans would be very, very uncomfortable with this role. It would mean giving the US carte blanche for its military operations. Frankly, the US neither respects nor appreciates what the Europeans are doing." NATO chief Lord Robertson was a little more earthy, arguing that trans-Atlantic solidarity could not last if "the Americans do the cutting edge while the Europeans are stuck at the bleeding edge, if the Americans fight from the sky and the Europeans fight in the mud". [pmcgeough@smh.com.au] [http://www.f2.com.au/core/agreement.html] Copyright © 2002. All ***************************************************************** 27 China, Iran said balking at test ban pact cooperation USA: March 8, 2002 WASHINGTON - China and Iran are balking at full cooperation with a U.N. organization monitoring the international nuclear test ban treaty, raising fears that this could further undermine the embattled pact. The two countries have stopped providing complete or timely data to the monitoring group in recent months, propelled by pique over U.S. policies and the hefty costs of the operation, U.S. officials and diplomatic sources said. Adding to the mix, a new human resources report by an independent consultant has sharply criticized the Vienna-based monitoring organization's management and personnel practices. One diplomatic source said he feared the test ban regime was starting to "unravel" from within as well as from without. The United States, the leading nuclear power, dealt a stinging blow to the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, when the Senate refused to ratify it in 2000. Since then, President George W. Bush has reiterated his firm opposition to the treaty, although his administration has pledged to continue paying most, but not all, of the $18 million annual U.S. share of the CTBT organization costs. The U.N. administrative office has operated in Vienna for five years, gathering data and establishing an elaborate system of 337 sensors around the world designed to measure and verify the test ban if the treaty ever enters into force. China, Iran and several other countries have expressed dismay at being asked to commit millions of dollars to the monitoring operation when it was unclear when - or if - the treaty might actually take effect. The operation is costing a total of $85 million-$90 million annually with no substantial decline in sight, officials said. The CTBT, banning all nuclear blasts in the atmosphere, in space and underground, has been signed by 165 states. Of those 89 have ratified it. 44 STATES KEY TO APPROVAL But it has not taken effect because it must be ratified by 44 states specifically deemed nuclear arms-capable, including the United States, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. Only 31 of those have ratified it. China has four monitoring stations on its territory but has yet to install the communications facilities to transmit data to the international collection center in Vienna, U.S. officials said. There are other seismic stations in China in a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, but Beijing has stopped transmitting data from these stations in real time directly to Vienna, instead sending the information via computer diskettes in a diplomatic pouch, they said. A U.S. official said "there may be political aspects to the Chinese dragging their feet," namely a recent U.S. decision to only pay costs associated with the monitoring system, not other functions of the Vienna-based CTBT organization. A monitoring station in Iran became operational last year but Tehran recently stopped sending data to Vienna after a few months, a U.S. official and diplomatic source said. This suggests Iran may be joining China in an effort to get back at Washington for withholding partial funding from the CTBT organization and also for Bush's recent description of Iran as an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea, the sources said. "China, Iran and others feel the United States shouldn't be getting a free ride" by picking and choosing its degree of cooperation with the CTBT regime, a U.S. official said. If other countries also began to withhold cooperation and funding, "then the whole thing could unravel," he said. Meanwhile, advocates of the test ban operation worry a consultant's report critical of the CTBT organization's management and personnel practices could provide further ammunition for critics, especially if changes are not made. The report, obtained by Reuters, found a "consistent message of fear and mistrust" in the organization's 260-member secretariat and reported that some employees feel political concerns are more important than technical requirements. It also warned the organization faces a severe brain drain. A spokeswoman for the CTBT organization, Daniela Rozgonova, said the human resources report and the monitoring operations were "two distinct matters" and the management was addressing recommendations for change contained in the report. She told Reuters the organization was working with China to establish a framework for providing data and was also working with Iran where a "legal question" seems to be holding up data transmission. Story by Carol Giacomo REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 28 DOE defends plan to give more money to Hanford cleanup This story was published Fri, Mar 8, 2002 By Les Blumenthal Herald Washington, D.C., bureau WASHINGTON -- While Department of Energy officials defended a new plan Thursday that adds $433 million to Hanford's budget request and speeds cleanup by 35 years, an Idaho congressman warned the proposal still faces close scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Keith Klein, manager of DOE's Richland operations office, said that under the plan the department hoped to shave the long-term costs of cleaning up Hanford by about half, from a current estimate of $89 billion to between $40 billion and $50 billion. "We are getting real about how we will do it," Klein said at an annual Capitol Hill briefing on the Hanford cleanup for lawmakers, congressional staff and reporters. The department's decision to inject $433 million into the Hanford program, raising its request for next year from $1.46 billion to $1.893 billion, would be enough to satisfy Washington state that DOE will meet its legal obligations in fiscal 2003. But in exchange for the additional money, the state has agreed to renegotiate the Tri-Party Agreement, which governs the cleanup. There are no guarantees, for now, that either DOE or Congress will fully fund an accelerated cleanup. But Klein was optimistic the proposal could lead to more stable funding for Hanford in the future. "As we get more details, more out-year things will solidify, and we won't go through the annual (budget) pain," Klein said. "We are still trying to flesh things out." The department initially had sought to cut Hanford's cleanup funding by $262 million at a time when the reservation's budget needed to increase about $200 million to keep pace with the deadlines in the Tri-Party Agreement between DOE, the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In its budget proposal for next year, DOE had set aside $800 million in a special account to be doled out to sites that showed an aggressive approach to cutting costs and accelerating their cleanups. The additional $433 million for Hanford would come out of that fund. But an Idaho lawmaker, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, told Klein and Jessie Roberson, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, that he was none too happy that Hanford would be getting more than half of next year's special fund. Twice he asked Roberson whether the decision to give Hanford so much would hurt other sites. Simpson's comments presumably included the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in his state. "I don't think so," Roberson said. The department has said it may seek to increase the $800 million in the special fund if other sites come up with innovative revisions to their cleanup plans. Simpson persisted, saying he feared the department was using the special fund to force states to overhaul their cleanup agreements with DOE. "This is the hammer we have all worried about," Simpson said. "It is not," Roberson insisted, adding the agreement with Washington state will allow the department to accelerate innovative programs already under way at Hanford. But Simpson said he wasn't sure what the department had in mind. "Some of us have problems with the budget," he said. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 29 Senate OKs Tougher Pipeline Safety Las Vegas SUN March 08, 2002 WASHINGTON- The Senate approved tougher pipeline safety provisions Friday and reached agreement on measures that would sharply increase the use of ethanol in gasoline, while phasing out an additive blamed for water pollution. The pipeline safety measure, approved by a 94-0 vote, was inserted into a sweeping energy bill being debated by the Senate. Similar pipeline measures cleared the Senate in each of the past two years, but never made it through the House. Separately, senators announced agreement on a measure that would triple the amount of ethanol produced for gasoline to 5 billion gallons and ban MTBE, the gas additive blamed for fouling waterways in many states. The agreement would phase out MTBE over four years and require at least 5 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be used by refiners by 2012. It also would end the federal mandate that that gasoline contain a certain amount of oxygenate in areas with clean air problems. The agreement had been worked out over several weeks in negotiations among farm interests, the oil industry, environmentalists and MTBE manufacturers. Most of the provisions are already in the bill, but the compromise assured they would not be stripped from the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., called it "a fine balance of often disparate and competing interests" that will provide refiners with greater flexibility in federal gasoline regulations while continuing to protect air quality. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the ethanol requirements may cause gasoline shortages in California as the state replaces MTBE. "This could have a very detrimental impact on California, leaving the state open to gasoline price spikes and shortages," said Feinstein in a statement. Ethanol industry spokesmen said under the mandate, California refiners could choose to use ethanol or purchase credits from other refiners in other parts or the country. Senate approval of the pipeline measures were spurred by concern over several major pipeline accidents including a fiery one in 1999 in Bellingham, Wash., where three young people were killed, and a pipeline explosion in 2000 in New Mexico that killed 12 campers. The amendment calls for better training of federal and state pipeline inspectors, and expansion of pipeline monitoring and reporting by industry. Also, it would authorize more research into ways to make safer the nation's more than 1.6 million miles natural gas and other fuel pipelines run by 3,000 operators. In response to security concerns, raised by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Senate added provisions to bar the release of some sensitive pipeline data that in the past had been readily available. "Sensitive information must not be released into the wrong hands," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the measures' lead sponsors. He noted the Senate in 2000 and again last year passed similar pipeline safety legislation, but each time the House failed to act. Meanwhile, there were signs that Republican support for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will erode if the controversy threatens Senate passage of the broader energy legislation, say some lawmakers. While supporters of such drilling may be able to muster a narrow majority, they have been unable to get close to the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by Democrats who have vowed to protect the refuge. Along with a largely Democratic proposal to require automakers to significantly improve fuel economy, drilling in ANWR, as the refuge is known, is by far the most contentious issue facing senators as they try to craft legislation to direct the nation's energy policy. Both issues are expected to come to a head late next week while the Senate for now focuses on less divisive parts of the bill. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has led the pro-drilling forces, signaled his frustration Thursday when he vowed to launch his own filibuster against the energy bill if opponents prevent him from offering an amendment to open the refuge to oil companies. "We can talk and talk and talk," warned Murkowski, promising to use parliamentary procedures to tie up the entire legislation if necessary. Such an impasse could force Daschle to withdraw the bill, senators acknowledge. "If he (Murkowski) wants to stop an energy bill for the nation because he can't get ANWR, so be it," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Kerry is among Democrats who promise to filibuster any drilling proposal. President Bush favors drilling in ANWR, arguing that it is necessary to meet rising U.S. energy demands and that it can be carried out without harming the refuge's delicate ecosystem. But a growing number of Republicans acknowledge that ANWR's oil may be too big a price to pay if it means abandoning altogether a bill that has other valuable, hard-fought provisions. In addition to the ethanol-MTBE provisions, which has widespread support from powerful interest groups, and the pipeline safety measures, the bill also would provide incentives to spur construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska and assures the nuclear industry continues to have a cap on liability from a major nuclear accident. These all are measures that have broad support and would fall victims to the impasse over the Arctic refuge. Asked Thursday if an energy bill without ANWR drilling might be acceptable, Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., replied: "There are many areas that are important in this bill. ... It's not just about drilling there, but you'll have to look at the whole picture." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 (Bush) Poisoning the Superfund March 9, 2002 Superfund, the 20-year-old federal program to clean up toxic waste sites, was founded on a principle that resonates with every parent: The company that caused the pollution should clean it up. At most abandoned factories and mines nationwide, that's what happens; corporations pay to make the land safe again for use as parks, schools or homes. If the Bush administration abandons that policy, as it says it will, the prospect for cleaning up a third of federal Superfund sites will become quite remote. The Superfund issue only adds to President Bush's alarming environmental record. In just over a year, the president has rolled back scores of federal rules, significantly slowing progress in cleaning up the nation's air and water and in protecting pristine federal lands. A top enforcement official at the EPA resigned last week, venting frustration with cutbacks, slowdowns, loopholes and lax enforcement. In practice, of course, Superfund has always been more complicated than the program's slogan, "The polluter pays." At some sites many firms had a hand in generating waste, making determination of each party's share of the cleanup difficult. Polluters of other sites may no longer be in business. That's why Congress created a trust fund as part of Superfund. Special taxes levied on chemical and oil companies, among other businesses, made up the lion's share of this fund, which pays to clean up these so-called orphan sites. Not surprisingly, business never liked this tax, and when it expired in 1995 Congress blocked its reauthorization. Some general tax revenue has gone into this trust fund; now, without new corporate tax revenue, ordinary taxpayers are paying for half the cost of cleanup. Even so, the trust fund is likely to shrink to $28 million next year--a pittance compared with the billions needed. Now, Bush has decided not to even ask Congress to revive the corporate trust fund tax, declaring instead that he will shift Superfund trust fund costs entirely to individual taxpayers, who of course had no hand in creating the pollution. The lack of money is already forcing officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to dramatically cut back the number of sites they can clean up. As fund revenues dwindle in future years, more cutbacks are certain and the already large backlog of sites will swell. Since Superfund began, 1,551 sites have been put on the national priority list. Cleanup has been completed at 257 sites, and at 552 most of the work is finished. Yet nearly 500 new sites could be added over the next decade, according to a congressional study. Without funds no work will be done on them. The Bush administration complains, as industry does, that the Superfund program is poorly managed. The answer, however, is to solve administrative problems, not starve the program and ignore growing toxic waste problems. The president's Superfund directive hands his powerful corporate campaign contributors another gift, on top of the administration's failure to press lawsuits and its delay in enforcement actions: the possibility that, like spoiled children, they will be able to simply walk away from the messes they've made. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 31 California Not the Master of Disaster It's Reputed to Be March 9, 2002 THE STATE California Not the Master of Disaster It's Reputed to Be Study: Despite its quakes and wildfires, the state does not rank in the top dozen in per capita dollar losses. By KENNETH REICH, TIMES STAFF WRITER Although California is widely known as a disaster-prone state, a new study published by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that in per capita dollar losses from all disasters, the state does not rank in the top dozen. A book released this week, "American Hazardscapes," deals with natural and technological disasters, ranging from earthquakes to nuclear plant accidents. Its authors conclude that from 1975 to 1998 the Golden State, overall, ranked somewhere in the middle. California leads, as expected, in such categories as earthquakes and wildfires, but it falls well behind in most others--hurricanes, tornadoes, hailstorms, heat waves, cold waves and toxic releases. When population is taken into account, North Dakota ranks first in disaster losses, with more than $10,000 per resident over the 23-year period. California averaged less than $1,800 per person. The floods and general bad weather in the North Central states also put South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa in the top dozen, and the hurricanes and floods put the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida in the top 12. Hawaii also was in the top 12. In damages per square mile of territory, however, California did nudge into the top 10 states. The book, edited by Susan Cutter, director of the Hazards Research Laboratory at the University of South Carolina, finds that direct losses in all American disasters in the years 1988 to 1998 averaged $54 billion a year. If all indirect as well as direct economic losses are taken into account, the total reaches $160 billion a year. Average annual loss of life was about 350. "California immediately comes to mind in both fictional and nonfictional portrayals of a disaster prone-area," the authors note. And because it has the largest population in the country, damage figures here are among the highest. But the picture changes on a per capita basis, and more lives have traditionally been lost in hurricanes and small events. Cutter said the thrust of the book is toward reducing vulnerability through safer construction, land-use controls to avoid dangerous areas and safer handling of hazardous materials. The authors also advocate limiting federal subsidies when disasters do strike. California, however, may be going the other way. Since the Northridge quake, the amount of earthquake insurance, in coverage for losses and the number of those insured, has fallen so sharply that a disastrous quake would probably result in a greater demand for federal relief. Only about 15% of the state's homeowners are now covered for earthquakes, compared with 30% at the time of the Northridge quake. Cutter said she believes that not until there is a catastrophe that overwhelms the government's capacity or desire to provide relief will there be real progress toward the kinds of action her study advocates. Nonetheless, she added, it might take "an earthquake in Los Angeles or San Francisco, or a hurricane in New Orleans" to really change public attitudes. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************