***************************************************************** 11/09/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.290 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US Seeks Diplomacy on Nuclear Issue 2 In quotes: World leaders hail Iraq resolution 3 Analysis: Iraq's tough choices 4 Cautious Arab response to UN move 5 Blix: Inspector set for mission 6 Iraq says US plans 'foiled' 7 Weapons inspectors face dangerous task 8 Cabinet splits over Blair hard line on Iraq 9 The Iraq resolution: what next? 10 EDITORIAL: *Saddam Hussain is in trouble 11 Time is up for British Energy loan 12 US: Bush approves Iraq war plan; large force seen 13 Netanyahu strongly endorses UN deadline for Iraq 14 Iraq Considers Its Verdict on U.N. Resolution 15 Iraq Faces U.N. Ultimatum to Disarm 16 Israeli Editorial: A stunning display of leadership 17 More nuclear power stations 'will need £1bn subsidy' NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: NRC: Indian Point Plant Wall Faulty 19 US: Millstone soil is not laden with trouble - Opinion 20 Finland Fears Terrorist Attacks on Russian Nuclear Power Stations NUCLEAR SAFETY 21 US: Tests 'probably' harmed no lives? 22 US: Vietnam Veterans Sue Over Tests 23 Central Asia faces radiation threat* 24 US: Ex-Lockheed uranium workers subpoenaed 25 US: Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 US: Envirocare Polls Voters' Thoughts 27 US: Nevada's nuclear option: take waste to the mountains 28 US: Waste not, want not* 29 US: Blue Planet: The rocks begin to speak* 30 Orchid Islanders to split Taipower compensation* 31 UK fails nuclear waste test 32 US: Yankee seeks OK for storage 33 US: Nebraska: Nelson Defends Waste Site Action 34 US: Germans protest against nuclear waste convoy. 35 County to Discuss Rezoning for Uranium Plant 36 US: Utah: Initiative Process Debated 37 German Nuclear Dump Faces Protest NUCLEAR WEAPONS 38 Two Koreas End Economic Talks 39 Blair's response to UN okay on Iraq 40 Inspectors Return to Iraq Nov. 18 41 Headline: US plans for mini-nuke trigger fallout fears -- Detail Sto 42 US: Bush approves Iraq war plan; large force seen 43 US: U.N. Vote Emboldens Bush 44 High noon? All Eyes on Iraq US DEPT. OF ENERGY 45 Reactor at Hanford gets reprieve 46 USEC faces security fine at Paducah plant 47 Report signals layoffs at SRS 48 Three companies receive fines at INEEL OTHER NUCLEAR 49 Geologists dissect massive quake 50 Experiment Brings Scientists Closer to Nuclear Fusion* 51 Grant helps Penn State nuclear engineering program grow ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 US Seeks Diplomacy on Nuclear Issue Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea Updated Nov.8,2002 18:00 KST by Ju Yong-jung (midway@chosun.com) WASHINGTON DC - US President George W. Bush said Friday that Washington is using a diplomatic strategy allying with other Asian and European countries to pressure North Korea in to curtailing its nuclear weapons development program. In a press conference, President Busy said, "With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy, initially," and the US is working "with countries in the neighborhood to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interest that they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium." It is the first time Bush suggested that the diplomatic approach was an initial response, and Pyongyang's future course of action on its weapons program would affect, and determine Washington's further moves. In an interview with the Associated Press on the 1994 Agreed Framework, where Washington and Pyongyang agreed on the freezing of nuclear development for construction of light-water reactor, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "However you choose to characterize the status of the Agreed Framework, it has been violated, and seriously violated." Secretary Powell added "until that violation has been corrected, it's difficult to see a way forward." In addition, Powell said that Washington is looking at every possible option, and to verify the nuclear program, the IAEA inspectors should be able to "go, look, see, touch and examine." ***************************************************************** 2 In quotes: World leaders hail Iraq resolution BBC NEWS | Americas | Friday, 8 November, 2002, [Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush after the UN vote] Bush issued a stark warning to Iraq Leaders from around the world have welcomed the approval by the UN Security Council of a new resolution on Iraq. Following are extracts of what they said. US President George W Bush "The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test - a final test. "The regime must allow immediate and unrestricted access to every site, every document, and every person identified by inspectors. Iraq can be certain that the old game of cheat-and-retreat tolerated at other times will no longer be tolerated. "If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein. "The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative." UK Prime Minister Tony Blair "I may find this [Saddam Hussein's] regime abhorrent - any normal person would - but the survival of it is in his hands. "Conflict is not inevitable, but disarmament is... everyone now accepts that if there is a default by Saddam the international community must act to enforce its will. " French President Jacques Chirac "The message of the international community is clear - it has united to tell Iraq that it is now time to co-operate fully with the United Nations. "The unanimous vote by the Security Council... offers Iraq a chance to disarm in peace. That was the meaning of France's initiative since the start." UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan "Iraq has a new opportunity to comply with all these relevant resolutions of the Security Council. "I urge the Iraqi leadership for sake of its own people... to seize this opportunity and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people." European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana "The views of the European Union are fully reflected in this text, particularly the key objective of the EU, namely vigorously to address the disarmament of Iraq and to do so within the framework of the UN Security Council. "Today's message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility." Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov "The resolution has made a real threat of war go away and opens the way for further work in the interests of a political- diplomatic settlement of the situation around Iraq." "In Moscow we believe that co-operation between Baghdad and the UN for fulfilling resolution 1441 and all other earlier adopted Security Council resolutions on Iraq will open up the prospect of a comprehensive settlement of the Iraqi question, including lifting sanctions and strengthening peace and stability in the Persian Gulf zone." Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan "The approval of the resolution at this moment is conducive to the political solution to the Iraq issue and will help maintain the authority of the Security Council. It will also help UN inspectors return to Iraq and carry out their mission smoothly." Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "Israel supports the UN Security Council resolution on the Iraqi issue, and values the determination of President Bush in leading the process." © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 3 Analysis: Iraq's tough choices BBC NEWS | Middle East | Friday, 8 November, 2002, 18:10 [George W Bush] Bush will react to any breach of the resolution By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent Security Council resolution 1441 is the golden bridge across which Saddam Hussein can pass to avoid war. If he doesn't cross it, he is stranded. And will be attacked. And he will have to march across it smartly. The most significant words from President Bush after the unanimous vote by the Council (and he didn't even wait until the Russians had spoken in the Council) were that "any act of delay or defiance" by Iraq would be regarded as a material breach and a "signal" that it would not co-operate. In other words, the United States is not going to get bogged down on what constitutes a breach. "Any" is the key word. Any act will be enough. Unilateral action? It is a tall order and the pessimists (the realists they call themselves) predict that Iraq will find it impossible to comply. [Iraqi scud missiles] The UN is determined to disarm Saddam Pessimism is often the most useful guide to the course of events. In this case, it is still true that war in inevitable unless Saddam Hussein backs down. Washington reserves the right to make its own decision on when and whether to go to war. It is committed under the resolution only to take part in a meeting of the Security Council to "consider" the position if there is non-compliance. It is not committed to waiting for any second resolution specifically authorising military action. Unanimity threatened George Bush senior waited for such authorisation in 1991. George Bush junior will not. He would hope to get it if Iraq is defiant but he will not require it. [George Bush Senior] Bush Senior sought UN authorisation to use force against Iraq The procedure therefore carries the seeds of conflict within the Security Council. If the US and the United Kingdom decided that a breach has taken place (assuming they take the same view) and France and Russia do not agree, there could be a breakdown of the present unanimity with inevitable international recriminations. The US and UK could charge off to war leaving the Council behind. This resolution, the result of weeks of detailed diplomacy coming down to individual words, could simply be putting off the evil day. The hard part The unity seen in the Gulf War of 1991 may not be on display in a Gulf War of 2002/3. No wonder the president remarked: "Now comes the hard part". Already the Russians have said that the wording of the resolution is "not ideal" and that Iraq might need more than 30 days to make the declaration of its weapons programmes. So already there are signs of squabbling. On the other hand, a path to peace has been mapped out. It is a difficult one but the resolution, as the Russian UN Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said, "deflects the direct threat of war". © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 4 Cautious Arab response to UN move BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saturday, 9 November, 2002, [Iraqis walk outside Baghdads Umm al-Maarek mosque on Friday] Arab states are concerned at the US approach on Iraq The Arab world has given a cautious response to the new United Nations Security Council resolution on disarming Iraq. Arab League spokesman Hisham Yussef simply said the regional group "respects Security Council resolutions" and that the repercussions of the vote on the new resolution would be discussed at Arab League talks in Cairo over the weekend. [Syrias deputy UN Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad at the Security Council meeting] Even Syria voted in favour of the new resolution, which passed unanimously Under the resolution - voted through unanimously on Friday - weapons inspectors will be sent back into Iraq and there will be "serious consequences" if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein fails to comply with UN requirements. The Arab world had previously voiced its concern at the aggressive US approach towards Iraq. But the BBC's correspondent in Cairo says Arab governments are likely to press Iraq to comply with the new resolution. While the Arabs still mistrust America's intentions, they know that without Iraqi compliance there is no hope of averting an American-led war, our correspondent says. Backing the US Egypt, a key US ally in the region, has pledged to keep lobbying Iraq to comply with the Security Council. "President Hosni Mubarak has urged the Iraqi Government since the start of the crisis to respect the UN resolutions," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said after a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Iraq is likely to hear similar advice from other Arab governments, according to the BBC's Cairo correspondent, Heba Saleh. But the daily al-Jumhuriyah took a more sceptical view of the UN move. "Unfortunately, America has succeeded, as expected and as it planned, in winning the support of those opposed [to an Iraq resolution]," read an editorial on Saturday. "Now everyone is repeating that the ball is in Iraq's court. Therefore, if it wants safety it must implement the 'impossible' clauses. Otherwise, it is annihilation and extermination of its children, elderly, women and youths," the paper said. The only Arab representative on the UN Security Council, Syria, backed the new UN resolution, although it looked likely to abstain until the last minute. [Inspectors go to work in Baghdad in November 1998] The new resolution includes the resumption of weapons inspections Syria strongly opposes any attack on Iraq and has improved relations with its neighbour over the past five years. It expressed reservations on the draft resolution and urged to delay the vote, which the council refused. But in the end Syria capitulated under pressure from the both the Americans and the French. US Secretary of State Colin Powell sent a message on Friday to Foreign Minister Farouk el-Sharaa, in which he urged Syria to vote in favour of the resolution, saying a unanimous vote would serve to avoid a future military confrontation. According to the al-Thawrah newspaper, "Syria has concluded that voting for the resolution moves the region away from the premeditated intentions of a military strike on Iraq which would only benefit Israel and the enemies of the Arab nation". Iraq, however, will be furious that Syria voted in favour of what Baghdad has called a resolution for war. A BBC correspondent in Damascus says the move could put an end to the smuggling of cheap Iraqi oil through Syria. Jordan's dilemma Other Arab countries are also anxious about regional stability in the wake of the new UN resolution. Jordan has been calling for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but is already bracing itself for unrest if a war erupts. During the Gulf war in 1991, Jordan did not participate in the coalition against Iraq, and massive pro-Iraq demonstrations rocked the country. This time around, Jordan cannot afford to upset the US, and BBC correspondent Kim Ghattas says it is unlikely the kingdom will show any support for Iraq. But movements such as the Islamic Action Front have said the US is trying to dominate the Middle East and have called on Muslims in Jordan to fight US interests if there is a war. On Saturday, the daily al-Dustur voiced Jordanian fears. "We hope the new resolution is implemented in order to spare Iraq and its people, as well as the region and its peoples, the danger of a catastrophic war which, if it breaks out, God forbid, would destroy all." it wrote. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 5 Blix: Inspector set for mission BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saturday, 9 November, 2002, 00:32 [Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix] Dr Blix said there were hundreds of sites to be checked The head of the inspectors being sent to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction has said there will be no tolerance of any hindering of their work. Dr Hans Blix told the BBC that he planned to start the search for illegal production of weapons of mass production almost as soon as he arrived in Iraq on 18 November. We will report objectively what we see and if there are any violations or any interference with our work, but it's not we who decide whether there is a war Hans Blix He will head an advance team of about 30 people which will grow to as many as 200 officials from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They have been given new powers under the UN resolution to demand access to any site and any person in Iraq which they think could help them establish what weapons are being made where. Dr Blix told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "The principle is no-notice inspections. "So we will get out from our headquarters in the morning and we will tell them we will go in this direction and only when you get to the target will they normally be told this is the target." List of targets He said they would go to sites such as presidential palaces which had been off-limits to inspectors under earlier agreements. There were 700 sites identified by previous inspection missions, others detailed in documents such as the British Government's dossier released in September and still more which he wanted to keep secret. [Hans Blix sits behind Kofi Annan in the UN Security Council ] Dr Blix listened to the Security Council meetings with Kofi Annan Dr Blix told Newsnight that the list of targets to be visited would lengthen once Iraq declares all of its plants, programmes and materials which could be used for weapons production. That declaration is demanded within 30 days should Iraq agree to be bound by the resolution as Dr Blix believes it will. The resolution calls on inspectors to report back to the Security Council within 60 days but Dr Blix said he would follow the instructions to reveal difficulties earlier if they occurred. Delaying tactics On previous missions, Iraqi officials often tried to hinder inspectors by saying they did not have keys to sites, Dr Blix said, though he added he would not necessarily report every hitch. This time there is no such readiness to show tolerance, there is no readiness to accept any cat-and-mouse play Hans Blix "If you're out on the road and if there is one flat tyre and a delay of 10 minutes or a half an hour that's one thing," he said. "But if you have four flat tyres that may be a different thing - you have to exercise some common sense in this work." Nevertheless, he said inspectors would not be cowed by the possibility of war should they reveal problems. "We will report objectively what we see and if there are any violations or any interference with our work, but it's not we who decide whether there is a war," he said. 'No spies' He acknowledged that there had been American spies placed on inspection teams before but said he was determined that his teams would remain fully independent. "I also said explicitly that if I find anyone with two hats, I will toss them out. I think everybody is aware of that." And while he hoped the Iraqis would take the opportunity "to come out of the dark tunnel", Dr Blix said there was a new determination, far greater than when inspections first started in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. "This time there is no such readiness to show tolerance, there is no readiness to accept any cat-and-mouse play." © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 6 Iraq says US plans 'foiled' BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saturday, 9 November, 2002, [Ambassadors from Syria, the UK and the US vote for the resolution] The vote followed eight weeks of negotiation Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri has praised the United Nations Security Council for "thwarting" American attempts to use it as a cover to attack Iraq. Mr Sabri was referring to the new UN resolution on Iraq which calls on Baghdad to give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction, but does not specify the automatic use of force if Iraq fails to comply. Next steps 7 days: Iraq must confirm whether it will "comply fully" with the resolution 30 days: Iraq must reveal all programmes, plants and materials which could be used for weapons production 45 days: Inspectors must be allowed to resume their checks Thereafter, inspectors have 60 days to report back to the Security Council but may report violations earlier The minister said the authorities were studying the UN resolution and "Iraq's position will be announced later". The resolution, passed unanimously by all 15 members of the Security Council on Thursday, gives Iraq seven days to accept unlimited access for inspectors to suspected weapons sites, including President Saddam Hussein's palaces. Official Iraqi media have attacked Syria - the Security Council's only Arab member - for giving its approval to what they called an "unnecessary" document. A newspaper owned by Uday - elder son of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein - compared Damascus to Brutus for having stabbed Iraq in the back. But on Saturday, Syria defended its decision to support the resolution "convinced that a vote in favour of the Security Council resolution would avoid a military attack on Iraq," state radio reported. Russia - which is also opposed to US military intervention in Iraq - said the resolution had "averted a real war threat and opened the way for further political-diplomatic efforts to settle the Iraqi situation". 'American aggression' The Iraqi foreign minister gave his statement - the first official reaction since the vote - in Cairo, after meeting his Egyptian counterpart ahead of this weekend's Arab League meeting. [Dr Hans Blix] Blix: "No cat-and-mouse play" Mr Sabri said the resolution showed that the international community did not share the "unlimited appetite of the evil American administration for aggression, killing and destruction". "America's aggressive goal of using the Security Council as a cover for an aggression on Iraq was thwarted by the international community," he said. However, the BBC Caroline Hawley, reporting from Baghdad, says the fact that the government is considering the resolution is the clearest indication yet that Saddam Hussein is preparing to accept the UN ultimatum. Main points of resolution Iraq has breached UN resolutions Tough inspection regime to be set up Baghdad given deadlines to comply Inspectors to have immediate access to all suspected sites, including palaces Inspectors to report immediately any Iraqi breaches Iraq to face "serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations The chief UN inspector has said his team will go to Iraq on 18 November to resume their work. Dr Blix told the BBC that there was a new determination, far greater than when inspections first started in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. "This time there is no such readiness to show tolerance, there is no readiness to accept any cat-and-mouse play," he said Although there is no requirement for a second resolution to authorise force, further action by the Security Council can be triggered if the weapons inspectors complain that their work is being obstructed. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 7 Weapons inspectors face dangerous task Times Online November 09, 2002 By Richard Beeston and Michael Theodoulou AN ADVANCE party of United Nations weapons inspectors is preparing to return to Iraq in nine days’ time to resume the search for President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Four years after they withdrew from Baghdad on the eve of a US-led bombing campaign, more than 200 scientists and military experts from 48 countries are completing plans for a mission that could lead to a new war. “Every one of those inspectors feels a heavy weight of responsibility,” a UN official said. “It is not for us to decide between war or peace, but we will determine whether Iraq is living up to its international obligations.” The advance party will be led by Hans Blix, head of the UN’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). His team will be responsible for searching for chemical, biological and ballistic weapons. He will be joined by Muhammad el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors will search for nuclear weapons. Dr Blix said after the Security Council vote: “We are very pleased that the resolution was adopted by unanimity, that strengthens our mandate.” He expected to be in Baghdad by November 18. Under the resolution the inspectors have 45 days to re- establish themselves before beginning their work. By that time they should have laboratory technicians, helicopter pilots, experts in biology, chemistry and physics and veteran inspectors used to dealing with Iraq’s sophisticated tactics of concealment. They have 60 days to conduct the search of Iraq and report back to the UN Security Council, which must decide whether Iraq is co-operating or is in “material breach” of its obligations. Dr Blix, speaking last night on BBC Two’s Newsnight programme, said that the inspectors had been given targets by British Intelligence. “There are lots of places mentioned to us by your Prime Minister and Intelligence,” he said. The inspectors also had between six and seven hundred targets identified in past inspections. “The principle is to be a no notice inspection,” he said. “We will get out of our headquarters in the morning, and then we’ll tell them: ‘We’re going in this direction.’ Only when we get to the target will they be told ‘this is the target’.” Asked whether the inspection was coercive, Dr Blix said: “It’s coercive in the sense Iraq might not have gone along with inspections at all unless they had felt the threat . . . However, it’s not coercive in the sense inspectors will force them to do something on the spot. We are unarmed, we are not an army.” On the subject of non- compliance Dr Blix said: “We have to exercise some common sense. If you are out on the road and you have one flat tyre and it delays you, that’s one thing, but you if you have four flat tyres that may be a different thing.” The threat of force to topple Saddam makes the inspectors’ job a potentially dangerous one. They could be held hostage in the event of hostilities breaking out. “Inspectors have never felt in any physical danger before,” a UN source said. “This time the stakes are obviously much higher.” The only relief for the UN teams working in Iraq will be the popular holiday island of Cyprus, which will be the staging post for weapons inspectors flying in and out. The southern coastal town of Larnaca, where a small field office is being set up, is 620 miles from Baghdad. It will serve as a processing centre for inspectors from around the world. + The United States is sending more troops to the Horn of Africa to step up its hunt for al-Qaeda operatives. A Pentagon spokesman said that the USS Mount Whitney would set sail for waters off Djibouti as early as next week with about 1,000 troops to join the force of about 800 troops already in the region. Copyright 2002 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html] Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 8 Cabinet splits over Blair hard line on Iraq Sunday Herald PM's terror warning: don't be complacent, be vigilant By James Cusick, Westminster Editor TONY Blair's hope that the new United Nations resolution on Iraq would be enough to control anti-war rebellion in Labour ranks proved ill-founded last night when a Cabinet minister and a former Cabinet minister reminded the Prime Minister that any unilateral action against Iraq would not be tolerated. Clare Short, the international development secretary, said last night that it must be left up to the United Nations to decide whether military action would be taken against Iraq if it failed to disarm. Her message will be reinforced this morning by the former culture secretary, Chris Smith, when he too warns that the United States -- and by implication Britain -- 'must go back to the UN before attacking Iraq'. With Blair preparing for his Mansion House address tomorrow -- which will focus on the continuing terrorist threat inside the UK and warn of the dangers of public complacency and the need for vigilance -- Smith's and Short's words will come as a clear warning that he cannot follow George Bush and expect his party to follow automatically. Following Short's call for 'international unity', Smith made his comments in an interview to be broadcast this morning on GMTV's Sunday Programme. He said he fears 'adverse consequences' if the US decides Saddam Hussein has broken the terms of the UN resolution and attacks Iraq without first seeking 'world agreement' on what action should follow. Smith and Short, alongside Robin Cook, are key figures expected to give a lead in any protest against unilateral US/UK action. Their comments, taken alongside similar statements from Syria and France, indicate that the new UN resolution agreed last week after two months of deliberation inside the Security Council is not regarded as a watertight and unconditional right to attack Iraq if it fails to deliver on the tough weapons inspections regime. The joint attack will will have opened new wounds Blair may have hoped had healed since the low key anti-war rebellion at the party conference in Blackpool last month. Short urged Saddam to co-operate with the weapons inspection team being led by Dr Hans Blix. She said that if Iraq did not comply, Blix would report back to the UN and it would be up to the Security Council to decide what to do next. But that is not how the US president sees things. Yesterday, in his weekly radio address, George Bush said any delay in admitting the inspectors would be regarded as a breach of UN obligations and that he was prepared to act immediately with 'serious consequences' -- a phrase widely meant to mean war. Bush said: 'The world has now come together to say that the outlaw regime in Iraq will not be permitted to build or possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And my administration will see to it that the world's judgement is enforced.' As Saddam continues to mull over his compliance with the terms of the UN resolution, Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said he would not feel obliged to secure fresh UN authorisation. He said the UK would give the Security Council every chance to produce a resolution that dealt with any problem that arises. But he added: 'If there is a funk or a fudge, then we are not going to allow Iraq to escape disarmament because the Security Council can't handle it.' With Saddam's past record on compliance pointing to conflict rather than peace, Blair's speech in London tomorrow holds added significance. He will deliver a stark and 'honest' message on the serious threat Britain still faces from terrorist attacks at home. He will highlight the tough security decisions faced after the September 11 attack in New York last year. Key to his address is the government's belief that, over the last 12 months, vigilance among the public has dropped off. Blair believes he can end complacency with an honest and open assessment of the terrorist threat that -- according to aides -- will 'bring the public into the confidence of the government'. He will say that the key problem the government faces is that 'terrorists want us to live in fear' and that they seek to disrupt normal life. He will argue that there has to be a balance struck that avoids draconian measures. ©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. contact ***************************************************************** 9 The Iraq resolution: what next? Daily Times /Najmuddin A Shaikh Will the reinstatement of the inspections, the destruction of WMD and delivery systems and the consequent humiliation of the Saddam regime, already much reviled for the suffering it has brought to the Iraqi people, lead to the regime change that the Bush Administration so fervently desires?/ The U.N. Security Council adopted, unanimously, the Anglo-American resolution on Friday exactly as I had predicted last week. Beyond the concessions it had already made to the French and Russians ? threatening Iraq with serious consequences in the event of non compliance but omitting reference to military actions and providing that such non-compliance was to be reported to and discussed by the Security Council rather than ?triggering? immediate action ? the resolution as adopted was the revised version presented to the Council on the November 6. The only change was the substitution of the word ?secure? for the word ?restore? in the operative paragraph regarding the Security Council?s consideration of any non-compliance by Iraq reported by the UN inspectors. This paragraph now reads ?Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security?. This change was presumably made as a concession to the French, who probably argued that, by the esoteric interpretations occasionally resorted to in ?diplomatese?, this would dilute somewhat the fact that non-compliance constituted a ?further material breach? by Iraq and could provide legal cover for action by individual UN member states without explicit UN approval. I will have more to say on this later. Most observers were surprised that Syria, the only Arab member of the Security Council, voted for the resolution rather than abstaining or absenting itself from the vote. There is no doubt that the Americans probably brought enormous pressure to bear on Syria but I believe that the decisive pressure probably came from the Arab League. The Arabs feared that Syria?s abstention would give Saddam the false hope of Arab support and encourage him to defy the Security Council thus inviting military retribution. In the words of the Syrian Baath Party?s official newspaper, the Al Thawra, ?Syria has concluded that voting for the resolution moves the region away from the premeditated intentions of a military strike on Iraq which would only benefit Israel and the enemies of the Arab nation.? Iraq now has seven days to accept the resolution and 30 days to provide an ?accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles... including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material?. There had been speculation that a longer time frame may be proposed to allow Iraq to compile this list, as the Russians had proposed, but the Americans have stuck to the original figure probably arguing that Iraq was, in any case required to submit such a list to the UN every six months in any case and should not therefore have any difficulty in updating and correcting the suspected omissions in a 30 day period. Some observers believe that the insistence on this short time frame is designed to ensure an Iraqi breach and to provide a pretext for a military attack. In my view the insistence on maintaining this short time frame was designed to drive home the point to the Iraqis that America was intent on maintaining an optimal military option in case of Iraqi non-compliance. According to American military planners all forces sent into Iraq would have to wear heavy protective clothing to guard against the use of chemical weapons that Iraq allegedly possesses. Such clothing would be suffocating in the blistering summer heat of the Iraqi desert and therefore operations would have to be concluded before March. The question is will Saddam accept the resolution? While I write this, on Saturday morning, there has been no official statement from the Iraqis. Apparently the resolution?s passage has not yet been reported on Iraqi television. On November 4, however Saddam reportedly told a visitor that, ?Iraq will look into whether it will deal with a resolution after it is issued by the Security Council.? Equally importantly the Al Thawra newspaper, the official organ of the Iraqi Baath party said in a commentary on November 8 that ?Ignoring the Security Council resolutions is not in Iraq?s interest,? even while adding that ?by the same token Iraq does not expect the Security Council to do anything less than take its own rights and interests into account?. Currently every Arab country, even while lamenting its onerous terms, is probably engaged in urging Iraq to accept the resolution and to avoid the military attack that could spell disaster for the region. It is likely, in my view, that there will be before November 15 ? the cut-off date ? a statement from the Iraqis accepting the resolution and perhaps suggesting that according to their understanding such compliance will lead to the lifting of economic sanctions. Hans Blix, the head of the UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission), is confident that Iraq will accept the resolution and is planning to lead the first team from his organisation to Iraq on November 18. The Security Council has mandated that the inspectors should resume their work within 45 days and submit their first report to the Council within 60 days thereafter. If during this period there is no interference with the UN inspectors it would be clear that the danger of a war has been fully averted. Can there be an agent provocateur who, despite Iraq?s best intentions and attempts at cooperation, may create a situation? Hans Blix says that he is aware that in the past there had been American spies among the UN inspectors. This time however the inspectors are all UN employees and Blix asserts that if he suspects any one of them of having a second function he will throw him out. Hans Blix is regarded as a man of impeccable integrity. Will there be an effort nonetheless to hold Iraq guilty of non-compliance and an excuse thus found to launch a military attack under US auspices? I think not. It has been repeatedly stated that there is no ?automaticity?. Any non-compliance will be subject to open debate in the Security Council. The Americans may maintain that they are not ?handcuffed? but they will have to establish that any non-compliance is an indicator of Iraq?s desire to frustrate the achievement of the UN resolution?s objectives. In my view Saddam has now come to accept that he can no longer play that sort of game. Non-compliance, if it occurs, will not be such as establishes malafide intent. What are the inspectors likely to discover?? The big question mark has always been the Presidential palaces ? which under an UN-Iraq agreement could only be inspected after notice and many of which were never in fact inspected. I have no doubt that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) will be found. But I doubt if the numbers will be large and it is certainly clear that no weapon delivery systems will be found that could reach targets beyond the region. After all the destruction and dismantling in the first inspection regime was quite extensive and since then despite clandestine oil sales (estimated at $3 billion in 2001), Iraq has not had the sort of financial resources needed to make large scale clandestine purchases of equipment or material needed to rebuild an extensive WMD programme. The more important element is going to be the pool of talented scientists that Iraq has managed to gather. The resolution gives the UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) the authority to take scientists along with their families out of the country for interrogation. It is my conjecture that a large number will be taken out not necessarily because of what they know about Iraq?s clandestine research activity but because their absence would undermine if not destroy Iraq?s capabilities for advanced biological, chemical, genetic and nuclear scientific research. I doubt if many will return. Will the reinstatement of the inspections, the destruction of WMD and delivery systems and the consequent humiliation of the Saddam regime, already much reviled for the suffering it has brought to the Iraqi people, lead to the regime change that the Bush Administration so fervently desires? I think not. Saddam is a survivor and has ensured that no concerted opposition has been allowed to develop. Despite the financial and other support provided by the United States and other western countries, the Iraqi opposition groups in exile have not been able to unite among themselves leave alone being able to accurately claim a base of support within Iraq. In Iraq itself there is no domestic figure or group around which a popular uprising against Saddam could coalesce. Saddam, however, is not only a survivor; he is also the supreme pragmatist. It was he after all who signed the Algiers Accord in 1975 surrendering the Shatt-al-Arab to Iran, in return for a cessation of Iran?s assistance to the Iraqi Kurds, a modicum of peace on the Iraq-Iran border and the consolidation of the then shaky Baath party hold on power in Iraq. He was a much wooed ally of the Americans, when he launched his war against Iran in 1980 even though he prided himself on being the foremost opponent in the Arab world of America?s unstinting support to Israel. He could well indicate a willingness to return to policies that would endear him again to the Americans. Additionally many of Iraq?s neighbours, allies of the United States, will want him to survive since his removal may bring in its wake the disintegration of Iraq and unpredictable consequences for the region. Given the current tension, it seems unlikely, but it may well be what comes about. The Bush Administration may have to use a long spoon but it may well have to sup with this ?devil?. /The writer is a former foreign secretary and has had a long and distinguished diplomatic career/ Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 10 EDITORIAL: *Saddam Hussain is in trouble Daily Times President George W Bush has got what he wanted. Last Friday, the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution (15-0) against Iraq giving it seven days in which to comply with stringent United Nations/United States conditions on weapons inspection, or else. Thus President Saddam Hussein is damned if he lets the inspectors in damned if he doesn?t. If he does have weapons of mass destruction as alleged by the UN, he can?t allow the UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) inspectors to trample all over Iraq because that would mean total surrender of Iraq?s sovereignty and much loss of personal face at home. But if he doesn?t go along, he risks a devastating war. From the time the US brought Iraq on its agenda as the first stop on the road to pre-emption and regime change, it has bargained from a maximalist position. It started by projecting war as inevitable; if it meant going alone, it said, the US was prepared to do that. At the same time it began to lobby with governments in Europe and the Middle East to create an anti-Iraq coalition. But when the consultative process revealed anti-US positions in potential allies, the US decided to balance its approach by challenging the United Nations to become effective if it wanted the issue resolved multilaterally even as it continued to project its resolve to wage war, alone if necessary. Thus it made clear that not going to war immediately was conditional on the UN slapping a most stringent inspection regime on Iraq. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) must give the inspectors a fresh mandate. This was Bush?s message in the September 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The US policy thus managed to shift emphasis from whether a pre-emptive war against Iraq is justified at all to how a war can be averted (and prevented) and what kind of resolution the UNSC can pass to meet the US conditions. One development that could possibly have wrested initiative from Washington was the October 2 Vienna agreement between Iraq and the UN for the inspectors? return to Iraq on the basis of existing UNSC resolutions. But the US was quick to reject that deal. In a subsequent meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, went back on the Vienna agreement, opening the way for the US to move ahead with its condition for a fresh mandate for the inspectors. Washington did face significant opposition from Russia and France. The French circulated a draft resolution favouring a two-step approach: allowing inspectors to do their work and leaving consideration of possible action against Iraq to a later stage. But the US insisted on a resolution that would sanction war automatically in the event of a breach by Iraq of the UNSC resolution. But while much of this diplomatic wrangling was happening overtly, the real activity was going on behind the scenes. Washington was sharing intelligence with allies and reassuring them that Iraq was unlikely to put up a major fight while the initial gains of the allied forces were bound to multiply. Reports suggest that while overtly governments were putting up resistance to US moves, privately they were telling Washington they would go along if the US could squeeze out a mandate from the UNSC. This is exactly what the US has now got. The success of its policy can be gauged from the fact that even Syria has gone along and not abstained from the vote. Paragraph four of the resolution says that ?failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the [Security] Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below?. The wording of paragraph 12 is vague. It says that upon receipt of such a report, the Council will assess the situation ?in order to secure international peace and security?. ?Securing international peace and security? could mean anything from putting further diplomatic pressure on Iraq or even sanctioning war through another resolution to actually going to war as an inevitable fallout of a breach by Iraq of the resolution. Thus the US has clearly indicated that the ?political season? on the issue is over. ?All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this opportunity to avoid war,? Bush said in his Friday speech from White House. His words mean only one thing: if Iraq is found to be in breach of the current resolution, it will face war. This, despite the fact that countries like Syria (and perhaps others, too) say they voted for the resolution ?after receiving assurances from key nations ?that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq? and ?reaffirms the central role of the Security Council??. Is this an endgame on Iraq? If Saddam Hussain refuses to play by the rules of the game as defined by the US/UN, he must start thinking of how to make his end an effective apotheosis. * Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 11 Time is up for British Energy loan Independent.co.uk By Clayton Hirst The Government has warned British Energy that it is not prepared to extend its £650m emergency loan beyond this month, significantly increasing the prospect of administration for the troubled nuclear generator. British Energy executives and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) officials are furiously thrashing out a plan to save the company from collapse, before the loan facility runs out on 29 November. It is understood that while progress is being made, a deal is unlikely to be struck before the deadline. Sources close to the talks said the Government had made it clear that it is not willing to roll over the loan for a second time. In September, the Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt gave British Energy another five weeks' breathing space when she extended the original loan given to the company and threw an extra £240m into the pot. But insiders have said that ministers don't want to write another open-ended cheque for British Energy. Therefore, if a deal is not agreed by 29 November, British Energy will be forced into administration. It is also understood that Gordon Brown has expressed reservations about the bailout. Whitehall sources said that the Chancellor has told Cabinet colleagues that a deal may not represent good value for tax- payers' money. Mr Brown is expected to provide further comment on British Energy when he issues his pre-Budget statement before the end of the month. In a further sign that the Government views administration as a real prospect, the DTI set up two teams to deal with British Energy. One group of officials are working on the rescue package, assuming that a deal can be completed before 29 November. The other team is working on what to do if the deadline is not met and the company goes into administration. A DTI spokeswoman claimed that "all options are open" and no final decision on whether to roll over the loan had been made. But a source close to the negotiations said: "If they can't make it by the end of the month, administration is a dead cert." It is thought that the DTI now views a merger between British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) as one possible solution. However, executives at BNFL, which reprocesses waste for British Energy, are not thought to be keen on the idea. In the longer term, the Government is considering plans to alter the electricity trading system, New Electricity Trading Arrangements, to pay energy companies even if they are not producing electricity. The low price of wholesale electricity was one of the reasons British Energy ran into difficulties. Under the new plans, likely to be introduced when Neta is extended to Scotland, generators will be paid when they have plants available on "standby" to supply electricity, in an arrangement called "capacity payments". The idea was mentioned in the responses written by the power companies to the Government's Energy White Paper. A Bill is expected in January. Whatever the solution, it is unlikely that British Energy executive chairman Robin Jeffrey will be running the company. It is understood that head-hunters Heidrick & Struggles have been appointed to find his replacement. UNITED NATIONS Israel expressed its full support for the UN Security Council resolution forcing Iraq to disarm its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs or "face serious consequences." In a statement Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also praised US President Geroge W. Bush for helping to win the tough measure's passage on Friday. "Israel supports the UN Security Council resolution on the Iraqi issue, and values the determination of President Bush in leading the process," Netanyahu said. Resolution 1441 passed unanimously Friday, by a vote of 15-0. Bush followed the vote with a statement from the White House Rose Garden in which he said Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein faced a "final test." "His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences," Bush said. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country co-sponsored the resolution with the US, also warned Saddam to comply with the UN or face war. "Cooperate fully, and despite the terrible injustices you have often perpetrated on others, we will be just with you," he said in London on Friday. "But defy the United Nations' will, and we will disarm you by force." Iraq is expected to respond within the next few days to the resolution, the official Iraqi News Agency said Saturday. In a one-sentence report, INA said that although the resolution is "bad and unjust," the Iraqi leadership "will study quietly this resolution and will issue the proper response in the next few days." The report quoted an unidentified "official source." The decision on the resolution is expected to be made by a joint meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council and the Regional Command of the ruling Baath party. Such meetings are chaired by President Saddam Hussein. The resolution's passage came after eight weeks of diplomatic maneuvering and often cantankerous debates between the US, which laid out its position in a September 12 speech by Bush in which he warned Iraq to disarm or face the prospect of war, and members states worried that the US was seeking approval for automatic military action and regime change in Iraq. Syria also supported the resolution in a surprise decision. Syrian deputy ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said after the vote that he endorsed the resolution because he received "reassurances that this resolution will not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq." A senior administration official attributed the vote from Iraq's neighbor to intensive lobbying and pressure by permanent members, including US officials, and Kofi Annan. According to the terms of the new resolution, Iraq has seven days, or until Friday, to announce whether it will comply in dismantling its weapons programs, and 30 days to issue an "accurate, full, and complete declaration" of programs to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and civilian materials that could have military uses. A team of weapons inspectors headed by the executive chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, and the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed el-Baradei, is slated to arrive in Baghdad on November 18 to resume inspections that were halted in 1998 when inspectors withdrew in advance of US and British air strikes. The inspectors have since been prevented from returning by the Iraqi government. By December 23, or 45 days after the resolution's passage, up to 100 weapons inspectors are scheduled to resume their work in Iraq, where, according to the resolution, they will be granted "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to all areas of the country, including the presidential sites that were previously off-limits to inspectors and are suspected to house weapons programs. The resolution also provides for immediate and unrestricted access to officials and personnel, including scientists, that the inspectors may wish to interview. New measures to protect these individuals are listed, including the conducting of interviews without the presence of Iraqi government observers, and the right to facilitate travel for those interviewed and their family members outside of Iraq. The inspectors' deadline for reporting their findings to the Security Council is set for February 21, 2003, at which point military action will be discussed by council members if Iraq is found to be in breach of the resolution. The resolution notes that Iraq is in "material breach" of disarmament obligations, and it states that the resolution is passed under Chapter VII, which provides for the use of force should Iraq fail to comply. "Any act of delay or defiance will be an additional breach of Iraq's international obligations, and a clear signal that the Iraqi regime has once again abandoned the path of voluntary compliance," said Bush on Friday. The resolution further states that Iraq is prohibited from "tak[ing] or threaten[ing] hostile acts" against UN personnel or member states that are "taking action to uphold any council resolution." In accordance with the cease-fire terms following the 1991 Gulf War, US and British forces patrol no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. US defense officials say that the patrols have come under Iraqi fire dozens of times in the past few months. "I urge the Iraqi leadership, for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world security and world order, to seize this opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people," said UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. "If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities." The resolution places much of the onus on Blix and Baradei to immediately report Iraqi violations. The council would then assess the violations and decide how to respond. Blix, a respected international law expert, says he wouldn't consider minor delays in access to sites or information to be serious breaches. Blix said the unanimous vote "strengthens our mandate very much" and announced that an advance team of inspectors will arrive in Baghdad on November 18. © 1995-2002, The Jerusalem Post - All rights reserved, ***************************************************************** 14 Iraq Considers Its Verdict on U.N. Resolution November 08, 2002 03:44 PM ET By Samia Nakhoul BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq withheld on Friday any immediate acceptance or rejection of a unanimously approved U.N. Security Council resolution giving Baghdad one last chance to disarm or face severe consequences. The resolution, co-sponsored by the United States and Britain and passed on Friday, demanded that President Saddam Hussein accept its terms within a week. The main Iraqi news bulletin at 8 p.m. made no mention of the U.N. vote. <#> At the United Nations, Iraq's envoy said the resolution included demands that would be hard for Iraq to meet, but he made clear Baghdad's definitive response was yet to come. "We will wait and see what the reaction is from Baghdad," Mohammed Aldouri said. In the streets of Baghdad, immediate and random reaction by some Iraqis was dismay and rage at the U.N. vote. "This is a prejudiced and unjust resolution. It is an evil resolution," said Mifleh Hassan, 65, a driver. "The United Nations is now a tool in the hands of America. If America tells the United Nations to go right, they go right; if they tell them to go left, they go left. They are America's puppets," he added. Many said the new vote was a license to the United States to wage war against Iraq under international cover. "This is a declaration of war against Iraq. In any case, the attack is coming with or without a resolution. It is an impossible resolution. Whether the Iraqi leadership accepts it or not, America will attack Iraq," said Yahya Ibrahim Khamis, a merchant, 48. "They want to attack Iraq because it is the only Arab country that defied America and said 'No' to America," he added. LOW-KEY RESPONSE Reflecting an apparent official low-key response to the U.N. vote, the Iraqi news bulletin started its broadcast with news and footage about clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces in the West Bank. That was followed by the departure of the Malaysian information minister who was visiting Baghdad. The third item was the arrival in Cairo of Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to take part in an Arab league meeting. International news focused on Germany, China, Iran and Japan but there was no word on the Security Council meeting. The resolution gives U.N. arms inspectors, who have been out of Iraq for four years, "immediate, unimpeded and unconditional" rights to search anywhere for weapons of mass destruction, including Saddam's presidential compounds. It still leaves Washington free to attack Iraq without a formal second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force. But it requires the Security Council to assess any serious violation that could lead to war. Many were shocked that even Syria, which had signaled it would not vote in favor, joined the other Council members for the 15-0 vote. They said all those who voted did it out of fear or interest rather than conviction. "This resolution is a failure. The United Nations in itself is a failure. The U.N. wants to implement any resolution against Iraq but does not implement any resolution in favor of Iraq," said Kassem Awad, a fruit vendor, 50, "It implements all resolutions in favor of Israel but ignores all resolutions in favor of Palestinians," he said. "What is the United Nations doing to Israel which is slaughtering Palestinians, demolishing their houses?" he said. The vote came after two months of arduous negotiations around the world among nations, especially France and Russia, who feared the resolution could automatically trigger war. The resolution threatens Iraq with "serious consequences" if it does not use "a final opportunity" to cooperate. It directs Iraq to accept the terms of the resolution in seven days, and within 30 days make an "accurate full and complete" declaration of nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons as well as related materials used in civilian industries. The U.N. arms inspectors have up to 45 days to begin work and another 60 days to report to the Council. They are obliged to report any obstructions by Iraq immediately. ***************************************************************** 15 Iraq Faces U.N. Ultimatum to Disarm Las Vegas SUN November 09, 2002 By EDITH M. LEDERER ASSOCIATED PRESS UNITED NATIONS- Iraq now faces its first test after a unanimous ultimatum from the United Nations to disarm or confront almost certain war: whether to accept or reject the tough new blueprint for weapons inspections. In the first indication of when it would respond, the official Iraqi News Agency on Saturday said Iraq's leaders were studying the "bad and unjust" resolution and are expected to respond in the "next few days." The agency quoted an unidentified official source. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to Arab states meeting in Cairo this weekend to "encourage and urge Iraq to comply" with the tough resolution which the United States wrote and pushed through the council on Friday with an unexpected 15-0 vote. Under its strict timeline, the clock started ticking immediately giving Iraq until Nov. 15 to accept the resolution which would send U.N. inspectors back to Baghdad after nearly four years with broad new powers to go anywhere at any time backed by the threat of force. President Bush said the resolution "presents the Iraqi regime with a final test" and warned that if Saddam Hussein fails to cooperate the United States will not hesitate to take military action to eliminate its suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. "The opportunity is there and the opportunity is final," said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, whose country cosponsored the resolution. The resolution has a built-in compliance schedule and U.S. officials believe they will get an early indication of Iraq's intentions. "We will all ... be watching extremely carefully for full compliance by the government of Iraq in meeting its obligations under this resolution," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said after the council vote. A U.S. official said if Iraq attaches any conditions to its acceptance, that would be "a signal." How forthright it is in its declaration of any illicit weapons programs would be another signal, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Iraq must make such a declaration in 30 days. The council's approval of the resolution was a diplomatic coup for the Bush administration, crowned by the surprise unanimous vote. That was the result of a last-minute reversal by Syria, which had staunchly opposed the plan during eight weeks of intense international lobbying spearheaded by Washington and London. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri disputed the idea that the passage of the resolution was a triumph for Washington. "America's aggressive goal of using the Security Council as a cover for an aggression on Iraq was thwarted by the international community," Sabri said in Cairo, referring to the revisions made to secure Russian, French and Chinese approval of the resolution. However, Iraq's Babil newspaper, owned by Saddam's son, said: "The American administration succeeded in making the United Nations its tool to influence policy." U.S. diplomats pushed for support until the final moments before the vote, providing Damascus, Moscow and others with critical assurances: The resolution wouldn't be used to launch war on Iraq, and the Bush administration would work through the United Nations to reach a peaceful settlement to 12 years of international conflict with a derelict Iraq. Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said Damascus voted "yes" after assurances from Washington and Paris "that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq." The resolution also reaffirmed "the central role of the Security Council" and Iraq's sovereignty, key issues for Syria, he said. France, Russia and China, later issued a joint interpretation of the resolution, stating that it excludes any automatic use of force and that the council would only discuss Iraqi violations reported by weapons inspectors. U.S. officials could not immediately comment on the joint statement but Negroponte said earlier that countries also had the right to report violations, and that any violation would "be considered and discussed within the council." And he emphasized that the resolution preserved Washington's right to strike if the council appeared lax in the face of any Iraqi violation. The Pentagon, which already has tens of thousands of troops in the region, prepared Friday for a fresh troop call-up. "This resolution doesn't constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq," Negroponte said. But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov declared: "What is most important is that the resolution deflects the direct threat of war" and opens the road to "a political diplomatic settlement." The resolution places much of the onus on U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to immediately report Iraqi violations. The council would then assess the violations and decide how to respond. The resolution leaves it up to inspectors to decide what constitutes a violation. Blix says he wouldn't consider minor delays in access to sites or information to be serious breaches. Blix said the unanimous vote "strengthens our mandate very much" and announced that an advance team of inspectors will arrive in Baghdad on Nov. 18. The resolution gives inspectors until Dec. 23 to begin work, though Blix has promised to start earlier. Iraq, which denies it has weapons of mass destruction, announced Sept. 16 that it would finally allow the unconditional return of inspectors barred since December 1998. The resolution gives the inspectors sweeping new powers to carry out surprise inspections anywhere in Iraq including Saddam's presidential sites, conduct private interviews with any Iraqi citizen, and seal off swaths of Iraqi territory during inspections. Blix's teams will concentrate on efforts to expose any biological or chemical weapons while the atomic energy agency searches for signs of a renewed nuclear program. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Israeli Editorial: A stunning display of leadership Nov. 9, 2002 It is a common lament that the world does not enjoy the caliber of leadership of past generations, such as that of Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln. It is too soon to place George W. Bush into this august company, but his party's election victory, followed immediately by unanimous approval of an incredible UN Security Council Resolution on Friday, were stunning displays of the effectiveness of real leadership. Leadership, roughly speaking, is the opposite of the politics of triangulation that has become so common we began to think there was nothing else. Triangulation is a process in which the politician looks at all the interests and forces that influence a decision and tries to find the "sweet spot" where he offends as few people as possible. Political genius has come to be defined as a "leader" who is expert at triangulation, which often gives the impression of success at advancing an agenda. Real leadership, however, should not be measured by political success, but by objective achievement or failure in the real world. Bill Clinton, for example, had his personal life not interfered, probably would have been seen as an extremely successful president, based on his reelection and general popularity. But it was under Clintonite triangulation that Saddam Hussein was allowed to escape from international inspections entirely, and the world absorbed the idea that, eventually, his and other rogue regimes would obtain nuclear weapons. Given what Bush inherited, his achievement at the UN was staggering: a unanimous vote (including Syria!) declaring Iraq to be in "material breach" of practically every UN resolution it agreed to implement at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Regardless of how nations like France and Russia choose to play it, Bush was given exactly what he wanted: either Saddam must disarm himself or the US will do so for him. Saddam may well attempt to play along, as he did when he "unconditionally" accepted UN inspections after Bush's earlier UN speech. But Bush has already explained why partial compliance won't work. Speaking just after the resolution's passage, Bush stated, "The world has learned from this experience an essential lesson: Inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq unless the Iraqi regime fully cooperates. Inspectors do not have the power to disarm an unwilling regime. They can only confirm that a government has decided to disarm itself." In other words, the moment Saddam starts the usual hide and cheat routine, the world will know that no inspection regime can disarm him, and therefore he must be removed from power. It is true that Bush would never have embarked on this entire enterprise had it not been for September 11. But even after September 11, it was not a given that he would succeed at convincing the American people, let alone the UN Security Council, that Saddam must go. Bush did not take the political landscape as a given; he changed it. That's leadership. Our landscape has developed some features that we tend to assume are immovable, and yet could be reshaped by a true leader. The first is the notion that we must internalize at least some of the world's double standard regarding our right to defend ourselves, including at times, the United States. In Yemen last week, the CIA used a missile fired from a drone to kill a top al-Qaida leader. In a display of editorial acrobatics, The Washington Post endorsed this tactic, while trying to distinguish it from the targeted killing of Palestinian terrorists that the US State Department is still on record as opposing. "Al-Qaida has no conventional cause, no homeland, no purely political leaders," the newspaper explains, "There is no territory at stake in its fight with the United States, and no possibility of negotiations or settlement." Why the existence of a "conventional cause" or the other items the newspaper lists should give terrorists immunity is difficult to comprehend, but even if such a distinction could be made, the terrorists Israel has targeted are obviously no less dedicated to Israel's total destruction than al-Qaida is to America's. Though US tolerance of Israeli defensive actions has improved greatly over time, the double standard still exists and is causing us harm daily. It is part of the landscape that determined leadership would change, rather than accommodate. Similarly, it is conventional wisdom that nothing short of changing the electoral system will permit a prime minister to confront all the entrenched interests that are plunging our economy deeper into recession, mainly at the expense of the weakest sectors of our society. This, too, is no unchallengeable divine or natural edict, but something that a determined leader could change despite seemingly insurmountable political constraints. Our next prime minister, whoever he is, should be watching George W. Bush and taking notes. © 1995-2002, The Jerusalem Post - All rights reserved, ***************************************************************** 17 More nuclear power stations 'will need £1bn subsidy' Ananova - Any new programme of nuclear power stations is likely to need public subsidies of more than £1 billion a year, a new report warns. The Socialist Environment and Resources Association says at the height of a nuclear building programme, up to £1.8 billion could be needed every year from taxes or hidden customer bills. The association which counts more than 100 MPs among its membership. It says the Government should accept phasing out nuclear power is the only sensible option. "This billion pound bombshell underlines that the nuclear option is a busted flush," said Bill Eyres, the association's chairman. The Government is being urged to speed up the deployment of renewable and energy efficient options. Story filed: 06:59 Saturday 9th November 2002 Copyright © 2002 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Indian Point Plant Wall Faulty By Associated Press November 8, 2002, 8:18 PM EST WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A wall at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant deteriorated to the point that smoke from a fire could have seeped into the control room, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday. Plant owner Entergy Corp. said it has fixed the wall. But the company still was cited for a violation categorized as "white" by the NRC -- one step above the lowest significance on its four-step, color-coded scale. The NRC said Entergy's inspection in July found that passages had opened up in the wall and smoke and gases could have penetrated the control room. Smoke could hamper the abilities of control room operators in the event of a serious problems, said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the company would not appeal NRC's finding. "This was a pre-existing condition, before we came into the plant, and we're the ones who found it and fixed it," he said. Sheehan said there is another, remote control room that can still operate the controls in case of an emergency. The Indian Point 2 plant sits on the Hudson River, 35 miles north of New York. Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 19 Millstone soil is not laden with trouble - Opinion - norwichbulletin.com Saturday, November 9, 2002 We can all breathe a bit easier now that the findings of the Star Foundation regarding the Millstone Nuclear Power Station have turned out wrong. Star performed chemical and radiological soil tests outside Millstone and said that it had found uranium and hydrazine there. It did find uranium. It did not find hydrazine. Star mailed the results of its tests to the state Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP then performed its own analyses. The DEP found that the uranium levels were exactly what could be expected to be found in nature: Levels that were nothing to worry about. The alleged hydrazine turned out to be a different chemical, dimethylhydrazine, one that Millstone said it had never used in any function or procedure. Dimethylhydrazine is used in photography, jet and rocket fuels, in plant growth and in organic synthesis. How it showed up in sediment near Millstone remains a mystery. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Georgia Institute of Technology also have performed soil tests at Millstone and detected nothing out of the ordinary. The Star Foundation, which enjoys the endorsement of celebrity Christie Brinkley, performed its testing thanks to a grant secured by the New York State Assembly. The foundation should perform its testing closer to home, where the Assembly can oversee those efforts. The foundation need not pay a return visit to Millstone. We don't need any more false alarms. Copyright © 2002 Norwich Bulletin. All Rights Reserved. 08/10/2001) ***************************************************************** 20 Finland Fears Terrorist Attacks on Russian Nuclear Power Stations | Rosbalt.COM Rosbalt, 09/11/2002, 15:11 HELSINKI, November 9. Western countries are no longer as concerned about Russia as they were during the Cold War. They are now preoccupied with other threats such as security at nuclear power stations, protecting the environment, international crime, the spread of infectious diseases, and growing inequality in standards of living both between citizens within individual countries and the populations of different countries. This picture was put forward by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari on Thursday at the Europe in 2010 lecture organised by the European Commission in Finland. According to Rosbalt's correspondent, Ahtisaari underlined that Finland must be prepared for potential threats from terrorists. Especially as Finland's security services have revealed that there are people in Finland suspected of having links with international terrorism. The former president referred to the recent hostage crisis in Moscow and expressed his concern over statements suggesting that nuclear power stations could also be targets for Chechen attacks. 'If terrorists attack a nuclear power station in Russia, the consequences might also be seen in Finland,' said Ahtisaari. In his opinion the main forces ensuring security in Europe are currently the EU, Russia and NATO, together with arms control and military crisis resolution processes. 06.11 Who Are the Chechens? Russia has been in conflict with the Chechen people since the time of Peter the Great. The current war looks likely to continue until Russia grasps the importance of national identity for Chechens. 29.10 Terrorism as Minority's Struggle against Majority (1) Judging by the history of world terrorism over the last decades, we can confidently say that terrorism has firmly established itself in the public system of modern states, and learnt to use its weaknesses and prejudices successfully. 22.10 Kuchma Is Not de Gaulle and Kiev Is Not Paris The internal opposition to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has been joined by a new voice of protest, as the United States becomes increasingly vocal in its criticism of Kuchma. 18.10 Has America Come to Kurds' Rescue? The prospect of US intervention in Iraq has brought the idea of an independent state of Kurdistan to the world's attention again. The proposed state would unite the Kurdish people of northern Iraq and south-east Turkey. 29.07 St. Petersburg Dam: Flood Defence or Ecological Mine? Scientists are divided over plans for a dam to improve St. Petersburg's flood defences. Some see the environmental consequences for the Neva Bay as relatively benign. Others believe they could be catastrophic. 24.07 Public Division in Ukraine Set to Continue Plans by the Ukrainian Government to recognise World War II nationalist fighters as defenders of Ukrainian independence threaten to split the country. 22.07 New Tax Legislation Will Not Help Russian Car Industry Harmonisation of import tax on foreign cars is unlikely to benefit the Russian car manufacturing industry, while it may encourage manufacture of foreign cars within the country. 16.07 Russia's Route to Visa-Free Corridors Blocked The talks concerning the problem of the Kaliningrad Region have almost completely stalled. The EU insists that borders are subject to international law, but Russia's diplomats seek to defend Russia's integrity and human rights. 09.07 Will Russia Wake up to Poland in Time? In order to take advantage of this potentially very useful economic and political partner, Russia needs to reform its legislation and show more interest in Poland. 03.07 How Russia Lost Estonia Could Russia have had any serious influence in Estonia or even have had Estonia for a reliable ally? The answer is undoubtedly yes, had Russia's attitude toward that country been different. 01.07 Russia Is Part of Europe and Will Get Ever Closer to EU The Chances and Risks of Open Society Russian-German forum of young leaders was held in St. Petersburg on June 28 and 29. Before it began, we asked Kai Schelhorn, one of its organisers, to answer some of our questions. 30.06 Urals' Steel Plus German Money Several rather feasible large-scale projects concerning foreign investments in Russia's industry have appeared lately, most of them initiated by Germans. 23.06 Georgia Is Becoming Transit Country Newly built sea terminals and railways are about to make Georgia an importand transit route for oil, cotton, passengers, etc. going from Central Asia to Caspian Ports and further to Turkey and Europe. 09.06 Modernisation Russian Style: Last Chance Russia desperately needs to modernise her economy. The destiny of Russia as a state depends on whether or not her leaders, society, and businessmen understand this. 06.06 LUKoil's Expansion into Kola Peninsula LUKoil says it intends to develop northern oil fields and, therefore, build an oil terminal in the Murmansk Region. The oil company believes that this will ease the export of Russia's oil to the US. 05.06 Electronic Russia Gets Thumbs Up in the West As Russia enters the electronic world, her neighbours are rejoicing, while some of her citizens remain sceptical. 04.06 Do Russians Want War? Rosbalt discussed war and peace in the modern world at a roundable. That it was held on the day following Victory Day was not incidental. It also happened to be the day after another fatal terrorist attack. 02.06 Yellow Card for White House The President of Russia wants the government to come up with a plan for the country's development along the most basic lines for the following 4 to 5 years. Unless there is a plan, there is no budget. 31.05 St. Petersburg's Hotel Business: We Do Need Tourists, But We Need Investors even More Currently, St. Petersburg can adequately accommodate annually no more that 1.5 million tourists. In the meantime, the World Organisation of Tourism reports about 30 million people annually who would like to visit the city. 29.05 Timber Gambit As follows from an interview with the Executive Director of the Finnish timber association, for our timber industry to have a future, Russia must modify its legislation to give investors the confidence that their property is protected. © 2000-2002 Rosbalt News Agency Press releases send to news1@rosbalt.ru Design &programming – © 2002 „Rosbalt.RU WEB studio Technical support mailer@rosbalt.ru © 2000-2002 Rosbalt News Agency ***************************************************************** 21 Tests 'probably' harmed no lives? I can't believe what I've read about our government testing chemical and biological agents on our own cities in the 1960s: "probably no lasting effect" and "a little sleepy town of 12,000." I don't care if it was a little town of one. That would have been one too many people to treat that way. I read the book "The Plutonium Files," by Eileen Welsome (1999), which reported testing for nuclear material early on. We didn't fully understand what we were working with at that time, but I thought we had learned our lesson. How can we be critical of Saddam Hussein for poisoning his own people when we say there was "probably" no lasting effect when we did the same thing? R.E. Haigneré Punta Gorda Last modified: November 09. 2002 12:00AM heraldtribune.com /Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 / © Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 Vietnam Veterans Sue Over Tests CONNECTICUT November 9, 2002 By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, Courant Staff Writer Vietnam Veterans of America, charging that potentially thousands of unknowing military veterans from the 1960s were exposed to a U.S. secret weapons testing program, is suing former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara and former employees of the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The class action on behalf of the veterans alleges that military and federal health officials attempted for decades to conceal and ignore veterans' health records. Those records show that the veterans' serious illnesses were likely caused by their exposures to chemical, biological, possibly radioactive and other hazardous agents, the suit says. Pentagon and VA officials have said repeatedly that they have done everything they could to help the veterans. "The Department of Defense is committed to providing the information needed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to offer the appropriate benefits and care to veterans," said James Turner, a Defense Department spokesman. "To that end, [the Department of Defense] is committed to full disclosure of medically relevant information associated with the Deseret Test Center's Project 112/SHAD tests. The tests were operational in nature, and some of the information remains operationally classified. We have reviewed the records to identify medically relevant information and have declassified this information and have provided it to the VA." The Defense Department is continuing to look for information in its files and its spokesmen have said many of the files were classified and could not be released, but officials are making every attempt to get veterans all the information they need. VA officials say they are working with the Pentagon to notify all potentially exposed veterans so they can make any necessary health claims. McNamera could not be reached for comment Friday. Had veterans known about the hazardous exposures, the suit says, they would have been able to obtain immediate federal health care and disability payments. This would have permitted veterans to pay their heavy expenses after they became sick from cancer and neurological, heart and other health problems, say veterans' advocates bringing the court action. Veterans and their advocates have been complaining to the Defense Department and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for seven years about a dearth of data that could help them determine how they got sick and whether some of them might have died prematurely from the exposures. The ocean-going tests, known as Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense, were ``to identify U.S. warships' vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents," said Pentagon officials. There were at least 109 tests on land and various locations including the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, from 1962 to 1973, conducted by the Deseret Test Center, headquartered at Fort Douglas, Utah. The court complaint by 21 of the veterans calls for monetary damages to veterans for the violation of their constitutional rights and court-ordered disclosure of information that will assist them in obtaining VA health care and benefits for the consequences of exposure to hazardous agents. It is not designed to seek individual VA compensation benefits. "America's veterans deserve proper health care for illnesses that may be due to exposure to harmful agents as a result of their military service," said VVA National President Thomas Corey. "Veterans deserve to be told the truth about their military service, [and they deserve] accountability from senior bureaucrats and other government officials. UTILITIES ctnow.com is Copyright © 2002 by The Hartford Courant ***************************************************************** 23 Central Asia faces radiation threat* United Press International By Marina Kozlova UPI Science News Published 11/8/2002 10:38 AM TASHKENT, Uzbekistan, Nov. 8 (UPI) -- Central Asia could be facing a major radioactive contamination risk, the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Eurasian Economic Community is warning. At a meeting last week in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital, officials of the EEC -- composed of representatives from Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan -- said the risk emanates from aging and poorly maintained uranium ore dumps in a region of seismic activity in Kyrgyzstan. In case of a major earthquake, as much as 50 percent of the radioactive waste at the dumps could escape into local rivers and spread to a wide area. The uranium dumps are located in Mayli-Say, in the western Osh province of Kyrgyzstan. The Mayli-Say River feeds the Syr Darya River, which flows some 1,300 miles northwest from the Tien Shan Mountains in Kyrgyzstan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to the Aral Sea. The Mayli-Say area is continually under threat of earthquakes and mudflows. There are 23 waste dumps and 13 mining dumps in the area of the former uranium plant at Mayli-Say. The plant was built 50 years ago. The development of the uranium deposit started in the 1940s when the Soviet Union began to create nuclear weapons. "The construction of the uranium ore dumps in Mayli-Say do not meet the standards of safe storing of uranium wastes," Melis Sadykov, the counselor of the Kyrgyz embassy in Uzbekistan, told United Press International. "These dumps are a global threat," Sadykov said, adding Kyrgyzstan is short of money to take the necessary actions to secure the waste dumps. Uzbek chemist Khusan Tursunov, who has studied the problem, said he is worried about the state of the uranium dumps in Mayli-Say. "Some uranium compounds dissolve in water, and it will be impossible to extract them from rivers," Tursunov said, adding that if the compounds enter the water supply, they could contaminate soil, plants, animals -- and human beings. Earlier this year, Anarkul Aytaliev, the head of the department that monitors and handles waste dumps for the Kyrgyz Ministry of Ecology and Emergency Situations, said the technical and ecological state of the dumps in the Mayli-Say area verges on catastrophe. Any external action will change the state of the waste dumps, he said. For example, the landslide "Koy-Tash," which is about 10 million cubic meters in volume, constitutes a threat to three waste dumps near the Mayli-Say river. If the landslide moves, a lake will be created in the river. The lake could wash out the waste dumps. The ecological catastrophe could encompass territory up to the Aral Sea, an inland sea between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Earlier in October, Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev said the uranium and second-rate ore waste in the area of Mayli-Say totaled about 2.2 million cubic meters. In his speech in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, Akayev said, "Sudden activation through such occurrences as a landslide, a flood and erosion on hillsides near waste dumps and the shortage of resources for repair, restoration and operation work have created a situation that is close to catastrophic." If the waste dumps are destroyed, radioactive waste will flow into the densely populated Fergana Valley and further into the Syr Darya river basin. Overall, about 4 million people -- 26,000 people in Kyrgyzstan, 2.4 million people in Uzbekistan, 700,000 people in Tajikistan and 900,000 people in Kazakhstan -- are at risk, Akayev said. He said about $15 million is needed to overhaul and rebuild the uranium waste dumps and mining dumps in the town of Mayli-Say. "Today Kyrgyzstan does not have the money to solve these problems on its own," Akayev said. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 24 Ex-Lockheed uranium workers subpoenaed Daily news from Louisville, Kentucky and Southern Indiana from courier-journal.com Saturday, November 9, 2002 Grand jury looking into whether laws broken in Paducah Associated Press PADUCAH, Ky. -- Lockheed Martin Corp. confirmed that some of its former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant employees have been subpoenaed to determine whether environmental laws were violated when the company operated the plant. The employees will appear before a federal grand jury meeting in Paducah. Tom Jurkowsky, a spokesman for Lockheed, said he didn't know the names of the former workers or the content of their subpoenas. ''We have not been informed if the company is the target of the investigation,'' Jurkowsky said. ''We are cooperating fully.'' Lockheed operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energy from 1982 until 1992, when the uranium enrichment operation was privatized and taken over by U.S. Enrichment Corp. The workers were then transferred from Lockheed to USEC. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said Thursday that she didn't know whether any of those subpoenaed are still working at the plant. The grand jury began meeting Wednesday, and one of those to testify was Harold Hargan of Pulaski County, Ill., who worked at the plant for almost 40 years. He retired in 1992. Hargan said he was asked about how workers handled trichlorethylene, a highly toxic chemical that was used to clean radioactive material and other chemicals from processing equipment. He said he testified that workers in the 1980s did not follow long-standing procedures, which resulted in TCE spills on the floor of the C-400 building that were washed into drains. Investigations have revealed that TCE from the building leaked into a drainage ditch, causing contamination not only from the TCE, but also from radioactive material that had been cleaned from the equipment. One of the major problems around the plant is groundwater contamination. Hargan said workers dipped the processing equipment into huge vats filled with TCE. He said that if the equipment was properly rigged, all the TCE would drain back into the vat after the equipment was removed. ''They didn't do it right, and TCE would run onto the floor,'' Hargan said. He estimates that at least 5,000 pounds of the chemical were washed into the building's drains over a 10-year period. In a Courier-Journal article two years ago, Hargan described how he developed bladder cancer in the 1990s along with lung disease -- the result, he believes, of working at the plant. The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating claims made in a whistleblower suit filed in June 1999 that the hundreds of millions of dollars in operating fees that Lockheed received were improperly earned because it was filing false environmental reports. ''Lockheed denies the allegations that it failed to operate the facility properly and will defend the civil action,'' Jurkowsky said. The suit asks that the operating fees be returned to the federal government. If successful, those who filed the suit -- three current and former workers and an environmental group -- would receive up to 25 percent of the proceeds. Home [http://www.courier-journal.com] · News ***************************************************************** 25 Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: Mason & Hanger settles with 5 Carson residents 11/09/02 Saturday, November 9, 2002 By Jim McBride jmcbride@amarillonet.com [jmcbride@amarillonet.com] Five Carson County residents and former Pantex contractor Mason &Hanger Silas-Mason Corp. have settled a federal lawsuit filed by landowners who claimed the company's waste practices contaminated their groundwater and devalued their property. Attorneys for Mason &Hanger and landowners confirmed Friday that they agreed on a confidential, out-of-court settlement this week. Brenda Finley, a DOE spokesman at Pantex, said the federal government will reimburse Mason &Hanger for settlement costs and other legal expenses from the suit. "Anything related to the litigation would be reimbursable as an allowable cost and, if there is a payment involved, that would also be included," Finley said. The lawsuit, filed last year in Amarillo's U.S. District Court by James and Geraldine Osborne, Dick Weston, and David and Lori Henderson claimed contaminants from Pantex sites trickled through the soils and contaminated the groundwater beneath the Pantex Plant. Mason &Hanger operated the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly plant for the DOE from 1956 until 2001. The lawsuit claimed Ogallala Aquifer water from beneath Pantex flows toward the plaintiffs' properties and that Mason &Hanger's conduct destroyed substantial portions of the Ogallala, reduced the value of the plaintiffs' properties and the value of their water rights. One couple named in the lawsuit, the Hendersons, also claimed financial institutions would not offer loans to buy their property because of groundwater contamination. Another landowner, Dick Weston, claimed he received only one offer to buy 325 acres of his farmland and that the offer was far below the property's fair market value. In a response to the suit, Mason &Hanger claimed in federal court documents that it did not have sufficient information to admit or deny many of the landowners' claims. Patricia Finn Braddock, a lawyer for the law firm of Fulbright &Jaworski, confirmed that Mason &Hanger settled this week with landowners after mediation talks but said she could not discuss details of the confidential agreement. "All I can really tell you is that we had a mediation and a settlement was reached," said Braddock, who represented Mason &Hanger. Andy Williams, an attorney with the Houston firm of Rhymes and Williams, also confirmed the parties settled. He said Amarillo attorney James Wood participated in settlement talks and that a DOE representative also attended mediation sessions. "The case settled, and I can't tell you the terms," Williams said Friday. Fepeated water samplings on the property of the Osbornes and the Hendersons have shown levels of metals and other hazardous chemicals in the groundwater, Williams said. Some levels of metals exceeded federal safe water drinking water standards, Williams said. Jeri Osborne, one of the landowners in the suit, said she could not discuss the settlement with Mason &Hanger. "They've got a gag on it," she said. In June, the DOE notified some Pantex neighbors that it was willing to buy about 6,200 acres of adjacent land for a security buffer zone. During a public meeting last year, several neighbors cited concerns about groundwater contamination and asked whether the federal government would buy their land. During meetings with landowners, DOE officials said the proposed land purchase was for security purposes only and was not linked to Pantex groundwater contamination. 1996-2002 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** 26 Envirocare Polls Voters' Thoughts The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, November 9, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS The company behind Tuesday's election defeat of Initiative 1 has launched an extensive probe of voter perceptions. While acknowledging Envirocare of Utah asked for the survey, company marketing vice president Julie Blake insists the telephone questionnaires are not intended to gauge public opinion about whether the company should pursue a state permit to accept "hotter" radioactive waste, called "B." "We are not trying to take the public's temperature on B," she said. "It's an Initiative 1 campaign summary." Initiative 1, formally called "The Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act," failed nearly 2-to-1 on Tuesday following a $3 million opposition campaign paid for by Envirocare. The measure would have barred higher levels of radioactive waste from coming to Utah and raised taxes on the "A-level" waste Envirocare already is permitted to accept at its Tooele County landfill. Despite Blake's characterization of the poll, some of the people receiving survey calls said the questions were intended to measure their opposition to B -- which includes nuclear power plant waste, but not spent fuel rods -- and sometimes to blunt it. " They [at Envirocare] are poised to take more political moves," said Anne Sward Hansen, an environmental activist who supported Initiative 1. She said the survey call she received from a company called Western Research the day after the election lasted 45 minutes. Western Research is based in Utah but has a Rexburg, Idaho, call center that evidently initiated many of the long interviews. Davis County resident Gina Crezee also received calls -- one the night before the election that seemed bent on changing her mind about Initiative 1. "It was so slanted," said Crezee. Like Sward Hansen, Crezee was asked to comment on her feelings about taxes on Envirocare, B waste and which campaign advertisement swayed her most. The caller also queried her about initiative supporters such as the Utah Education Association and Frank Pignanelli and initiative opponents, including Envirocare owner Khosrow Semnani and the Utah Farm Bureau. In that election eve call, the surveyor asked if she would still vote for the measure if she knew Gov. Mike Leavitt opposed it, as did a majority of legislators, U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen, and so on. She answered "yes" each time. The caller asked what she would think if Envirocare donated large sums of money to schools. Would she regard it as Envirocare being a community partner or "buying off the community?" Crezee also recalled being asked, "If more information was given to you, would you change your vote?" "I finally said you can ask me about any one of those and I would not change my vote," she recalled. "It was so slanted, how they asked the questions." Blake maintains the calls were merely campaign-related cleanup and that questions were designed to learn what resonated with voters and what turned them off. Questions came up about B waste, Blake said, because proponents of Initiative 1 mentioned it in their arguments in favor of the ballot measure. "The truth is, we will not push B until the public is comfortable with it." Two lawmakers already have said they will consider drafting legislation for next January to raise Utah's tax on radioactive waste so that it is in line with taxes assessed by other states. Lawmakers also may consider whether to outlaw higher level wastes, including B. Blake suggested that initiative proponents or an out-of-state waste company might also be conducting surveys intended to make it seem like Envirocare is interested in taking hotter wastes. "There's someone else out there doing a survey, and it's not us," she surmised. But Pignanelli said initiative proponents never possessed the resources to do polling -- before or after their initiative went down. "They see a bogeyman everywhere," he said. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 27 Nevada's nuclear option: take waste to the mountains Independent.co.uk Jason Nissé reports from the US on a controversial project that could save the global industry from ruin About 90 miles north of Las Vegas, deep in the Nevada desert, the US Department of Energy has spent $4bn (£2.5bn) digging a great big tunnel through a mountain. The department has the backing of George Bush to try to win approval from safety regulators and Congress to spend another $54bn building a whole lot more, until there is a 68-mile network of tunnels crisscrossing the site. When the tunnels are finished, in 2010, the DofE hopes to store 70,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in them, encased first in metallic oxide ceramics, then stainless steel strengthened with zirconium, then nuclear grade stainless steel, then a chromium nickel steel alloy and then concrete. It is expected that these "emplacements" will be left for about 80 to 100 years, and that they can be retrieved from the site at any time if people think there is a better way of dealing with the waste. Ultimately, the plan will be to close the tunnels and seal them. The tunnels and emplacements are part of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. It will be the most expensive single construction project in US history. And it might just save the world's nuclear industry from financial ruin. Sir Brian Flowers, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was the first to sound a warning about the waste problems facing nuclear power. He said that until the industry knew what it was going to do with its legacy ? how it was going to decommission old power stations, what it was going to do with its waste ? it could not be allowed to expand. Sir Brian said this in 1976. A quarter of a century later, the questions have not been answered. Alan Marples, nuclear expert at consultancy Arthur D Little, is even more blunt: "The financial problems at British Energy and BNFL are almost a sideshow. The big issue is nuclear waste." It's not just an issue for the US and UK; it's a mounting problem for every country with nuclear reactors. France, with Europe's largest nuclear programme, has started an evaluation that will decide whether it goes for a repository like Yucca, disposes of the waste in a deep hole from which it can never be retrieved, or separates it up and stores it in lots of smaller sites. It plans to decide on this by 2006. Finland and Sweden have already decided: they are building repositories. The UK, which has been pondering the problem since the late 1980s, has decided to have a consultation, with a planned deadline of 2007. "Let's hope it is not another consultation about a consultation," says a senior nuclear industry figure. In Britain, the industry appears split between two distinct camps. There is Nirex, the body set up in the 1980s to deal with the problem, which proposed building a repository next to BNFL's infamous Sellafield site in Cumbria only to have that £5bn plan torpedoed five years ago. And then there is BNFL, which has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in fuel reprocessing and favours storing the fuel above ground for 100 years while a better solution to the problem is found. BNFL's recent conversion to this way of thinking led it to reassess its nuclear waste liabilities earlier this year and write off nearly £2bn, a move that would have made the group insolvent if it were not state-owned. Dealing with the issue is complicated by all sorts of factors. There are the financial problems of British Energy, which could be even worse if its accountants took a strict view of the potential liabilities to do with decom- missioning its nuclear reactors. And then there is the £40bn cost of setting up the Liabilities Management Authority, the government body charged with cleaning up the radioactive mess created by BNFL, the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the Ministry of Defence's nuclear weapons programme over the past 50 years. The prospect of the LMA seems so daunting that Tony Blair is expected to postpone plans to put a Bill that would create it in next week's Queen's Speech. And then there is the pressure created by the US going ahead with Yucca. Congress first backed the building of a repository in 1983, and by 1987 Yucca had been chosen. Though the decision was made by the DofE on ecological grounds, even Mike Voegele, the project's chief science officer, admits it was politics that swung the decision in favour of Yucca. No one wants a nuclear project in their back garden, and the two other states on the shortlist, Texas and Washington, had more political muscle than Nevada. Since then, the DofE has been almost at war with the state, whose governor, Kenny Guinn, tried to veto the project, only to be overruled by Congress. Nev-ada has passed a law banning Yucca, taken out five lawsuits trying to stop the project, and even revoked its water rights. "Sites should have been chosen for geological reasons, not their remoteness," says Steve Frishman, who is co-ordinating the battle against Yucca for the state. Yucca is indeed remote ? only 40,000 people live anywhere near it ? but Dr Voegele says the tuff rock Yucca is made of, the fact the waste can be stored above the water table, and Nevada's low rainfall all make the location ideal. He admits there is an issue about getting the waste to Yucca, given that most of it is stored at the reactors, and most of them are in the east of the US. But with President Bush's backing, all Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham needs do is convince the Nuclear Safety Commission. The licence application is due to be considered on December 2004, a convenient one month after the next presidential elections. The Commission is supposed to be independent. However, politics tends to get in the way of dealing with the waste issue, and politicians find it hard to deal with issues stretching beyond the next election. But, as Arthur D Little's Mr Marples says: "Every day you delay, the waste decomposes a bit more, and so do the containers holding it, making the problem bigger and more expensive." By Dan Whipple UPI Environment News Published 11/8/2002 1:13 PM It must be tough to be a geologist. You basically study the behavior of rocks, which usually don't move around fast enough to provide many clues about their personality. It must doubly frustrating to be a geologist working on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. The technical work on that facility is being done "on a time scale of centuries," one expert said. "We continue to have extensive supporting research to provide as good as possible a technical basis for the societal decisions that need to be made to manage our legacy of high-level waste," said D. Warner North, who is a geologist himself, with the rather cumbersome title of chairman of the Committee on the Disposition of High Level Radioactive Waste Through Geologic Isolation. Since Congress decided earlier this year to override Nevada's veto of the Yucca Mountain site, North and his colleagues have optimistically concluded that the waste disposal process has moved from the political arena to the technical one. "Who are you going to trust?" he asks. "People or rocks?" Who, indeed? All around the country, nuclear power plants are running out of storage space for the spent fuel. In California, according to Department of Energy data, pool storage for the Humboldt Bay and Rancho Seco nuclear plants is full. Pool storage for the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants will be full in about 2005. California gets about 17 percent of all of its energy from nuclear power. Both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are expected to continue operating for 18 years after they run out of waste storage space. In New York, pool storage at Indian Point 1 is full. Indian Point 2 and 3 will be full by 2005, Fitzpatrick by 2004, Nine Mile Point and Ginna by 2009. Nuclear power provides 23 percent of New York state's power and three of its plants are expected to operate 10 or more years after their waste storage capacity is maxed out. This scenario is repeated with greater and lesser degrees of urgency in the remainder of the 39 states that have operating nuclear power plants. "We are not confronting a hypothetical problem," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham wrote President Bush last February. "We have a staggering amount of radioactive waste in this country -- nearly 100,000,000 gallons of high-level nuclear waste and more than 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel with more created every day." In his transmittal letter accompanying DOE's recommendation to use the Yucca Mountain site, Abraham said, "America's choice is not between, on the one hand, a disposal site with costs and risks held to a minimum, and, on the other, a magic disposal system with no costs or risks at all. Instead, the real choice is between a single secure site, deep under the ground at Yucca Mountain, or making do with what we have now or some variant of it -- 131 aging surface sites, scattered across 39 states." Every one of those sites was built on the assumption it would be temporary, the secretary's letter noted. "As time goes by, every one is closer to the limit of its safe life span. And every one is at least a potential security risk -- safe for today, but a question mark in decades to come." As Stan said to Ollie, "This is fine mess you've gotten us into." What to do? What to do? As North's title confirms, what the nation has decided to do is bury it. This in itself represents a significant technical decision. High-level waste is dangerous for a very long time. The government has set a 10,000-year safety standard the Yucca Mountain facility. That's longer than the entire history of human civilization or, if you prefer, twice as old as the Great Pyramid at Giza. Even this generous timetable is arbitrary. Many radioactive waste products remain dangerous for longer than that -- some for millions of years. Any burial of nuclear waste contains the flavor of arbitrariness. How do you guarantee our descendants 10 millennia from now won't have a gargantuan mess on their hands? A rejected alternative involved disposing of the stuff in the deep ocean, even though water shields this kind of radioactivity pretty well and some deep ocean basins have been geologically stable for many times the expected lifespan of the nuclear waste. Also, fewer people live nearby. The problem is, once you dump the stuff there, it by and large becomes impossible to retrieve. Likewise rejected were launching it into space toward the sun and transmutating it into less dangerous material -- both technologically and/or economically remote ideas. So, we're left with Nevada's rocks, and with rocks come geologists, geologists who are trying to predict how Yucca Mountain is going to behave over those aforementioned next 10,000 years. The waste will be buried 1,000 feet below the surface, in an area above the water table, but below the area where most of the surface water penetrates. DOE has calculated 95 percent of the 12.5 inches of rainfall the area receives annually either runs off, evaporates or is picked up by plant root systems. In addition, the waste will be protected by a titanium shield, the world's most expensive umbrella, to reduce water penetration even further. Water is the biggest and most obvious problem. It can corrode the containers, exposing the waste. It can carry radioactive particles to the surface as it migrates through the water table. DOE plans to deal with this prospect by operating a "hot" repository. When the waste containers are stored close together, they will spontaneously generate a lot of heat -- not enough to cause a meltdown, but when the repository is sealed, temperatures will rise beyond the boiling point of water. This should, in turn, evaporate any water that enters, sending it back up into the overhead rock as steam. Minerals in the steam should precipitate out, forming another impermeable layer above the waste facility. That's the hypothesis, at least. The possibility of earthquakes or volcanoes at the site is considered too remote to worry about -- although the local geologic record contains both occurrences. All of these technical considerations rely heavily on understanding rocks and predicting the forces that Earth can unleash upon them. But geologists are being asked to do things they are ill equipped to do. Their science is a historical science, not a predictive one. One of geology's charms is a lot of it is useless for most practical purposes -- the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. No matter what your scientific background, predicting the future is hazardous. Over 10,000 years, even rocks can be treacherously unreliable. Who are you going to trust? Rocks or people? Something even more basic somehow was not addressed in this debate: Why have we continued to produce this stuff when we've had no good place to put it? DOE has generated reams of fancy material on the theme, "Why Yucca Mountain?" One searches in vain for a single sentence containing the corollary: Why Diablo Canyon? Why Indian Point? Isn't it simply bad manners to continue producing poisons in our neighborhood, only to leave them lying out there on the curb for the neighborhood children to wade in? Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 30 Orchid Islanders to split Taipower compensation* */2002/11/9 The China Post staff/* Aborigines on the Orchid Island have decided to divide among themselves a NT$220 million fund that the Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) has allocated for compensation over nuclear wastes storage facilities on the remote islet. Each of more than 3,000 aboriginal residents on the island is expected to receive some NT$70,000 if Taipower agrees to the plan, the United Evening News quoted a committee of Orchid residents in charge of the fund as saying. But officials with the state-run power company has been quoted as saying that the money could not be directly divided among the residents, as the fund must be used in "welfare" projects, such as infrastructure development. Taipower allocated the sum two years ago in return for the aboriginal residents' agreement to extend a lease for land where the nuclear wastes storage facilities stand. While both sides are expected to negotiate a new contract at the end of this year, some residents have questioned the committee's move to divide the money at such a sensitive time. They said the move, celebrated by many impoverished aborigines as if they had won a lottery, threatens to undermine their determination to kick the Taipower facilities out of the island. "Are we backing off from our campaign against the wastes?" said a resident. Orchid Island chief Chou Kuei-kuang said the average monthly income of each household there is less than NT$12,000, and the compensation money would help improve their livelihood. Having promised to remove the storage facilities from the remote island, Taipower nevertheless has been unable to find new sites to store the low-radiation wastes from its three nuclear power plants on Taiwan. Front Page | Taiwan ***************************************************************** 31 UK fails nuclear waste test By Rob Edwards , Environment Editor BRITAIN will fail to meet new European targets for disposing of radioactive waste, the nuclear industry has admitted. Last week the EU Energy Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, proposed a directive that would require all member states to decide on waste burial sites by 2008. They would then have to bring them into operation for low-level waste by 2013, and for high-level waste by 2018. But the British government has only just embarked on an exhaustive consultation exercise, which is not due to finish until 2007. Even if that succeeds in identifying a site, it will probably take several years before it is given planning permission and then several more before it is actually built. Nirex, Britain's radioactive waste agency , says presently there is no way the country can keep up with the EU timetable. Nirex has estimated that there will be 200,000 cubic metres of medium-level waste from nuclear facilities to dispose of over the next 50 years. The agency had compiled a list of at least nine sites which were viewed as possible contenders. Despite being abandoned, this list has never been published. U nder Nirex's new policy of openness it would like to release the list but has been forbidden from doing so by the Department of Trade and Industry, who claim it would serve no purpose. Every country with nuclear reactors is facing difficulties in disposing of the waste they inevitably create. T he United States has recently given the green light to plans for a repository in the Nevada desert, though it has provoked fierce opposition. / ***************************************************************** 32 Yankee seeks OK for storage The Rutland Herald Online - November 8, 2002 By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau VERNON — Entergy Nuclear will ask for federal and state approval to begin storing high-level radioactive waste next to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. At a Friday afternoon press briefing, Jay Thayer, Vermont Yankee site vice president, said that the plant would also seek approval to increase power production by 20 percent. Vermont Yankee will run out of storage for spent fuel in 2007, Thayer told reporters. He said the federal waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada wouldn’t be ready until 2010. Thayer also said that Vermont Yankee now had improved marks for security, thanks to an infusion of $8 million, which was spent on everything from additional guards, new weaponry, new fences, guard towers, and other secret technology. Yankee’s poor “yellow” grade has now been upgraded to green, Thayer said, a reflection of the company’s renewed effort to make the plant safe from terrorist attacks. “We got too close to the line of defense,” Thayer said. Fred Marcussen, Yankee’s new director of security, who was hired after the failed Nuclear Regulatory Commission drill in August 2001, said the plant hadn’t given itself enough of a margin of safety to perform all the tasks. Thayer also said that the spent fuel pool, which many consider the plant’s most vulnerable spot to a terrorist attack, would survive an attack by a large airliner, even a 767. Unlike the World Trade Center, which was made of steel, Thayer said the spent fuel pool was made of walls of concrete, 3 to 4 feet thick. The airliner would pierce the building, he said, but a crash and resulting fire wouldn’t cause the pool to breach, nor would the water boil away, he said. He cited recent computer analyses by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. Thayer said that the on-site storage of the spent fuel would be in special containers, called dry casks. He said it was proven technology, and was already being used at dozens of nuclear power plants, that have all run out of storage space. To date, the administration of Gov. Howard Dean has opposed any on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel, saying that the threat from a flooding Connecticut River was too great. But Thayer said that while the nuclear reactor was on the banks of the Connecticut River, it wasn’t in the flood plain since the banks are very high. The river is about 50 to 60 feet below Vermont Yankee, he noted, and he said that the Yankee site did not flood during the famous floods of 1927 or 1936. “It won’t flood up here,” Thayer said later, during a tour of the plant’s security measures. John Sayles, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said the Dean administration had not changed its opposition to on-site dry cask storage. But Sayles noted that a new administration, that of Gov.-elect James Douglas, might have a different policy. “The governor’s historic position on dry cask storage hasn’t changed,” he said. Thayer said that early in 2003, Vermont Yankee would be applying for permission to increase power production at the plant. Vermont Yankee currently is licensed to produce 540 megawatts, which is one-third of Vermont’s energy needs. Even though the projected production increase would be 20 percent, he said the amount of required fuel wouldn’t increase 20 percent. A small amount of additional fuel would be needed, he said, but the impact on the spent fuel storage situation wouldn’t be great. The fuel isn’t placed into the storage containers until it has cooled sufficiently, about seven years, according to Don Leach, vice president of engineering. Once the fuel has been placed in the casks, it doesn’t need to be transferred to another container for the trip to Yucca Mountain. But exactly how much of Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel will be going to Yucca Mountain remains to be seen. As currently proposed, Yucca Mountain will not have room for all of the nation’s waste. Yankee spokesman Brian Cosgrove said that the design capacity will be reviewed after 2007, and he said it could be reconfigured to hold all the radioactive waste from the country’s reactors. Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., voted against Yucca Mountain last July because of the uncertainty that the Nevada site would be able to take all of Vermont’s waste. Originally, Cosgrove noted, there was supposed to be a nuclear waste site in the East, a twin to Yucca Mountain. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. [http://www.rutlandherald.com/copyright] ***************************************************************** 33 Nebraska: Nelson Defends Waste Site Action WOWT | State is appealing ruling Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson says the state was not politically motivated in its handling of a proposed low-level radioactive waste dump. The former governor addressed about 70 people at a meeting of the Downtown Kiwanis Club Friday in Omaha about a U.S. district court ruling that says Nelson acted with the intention of stopping any plan to build the dump in Boyd County. Judge Richard Kopf in Lincoln ordered the state to pay $151-million in damages. The state has appealed the ruling. Nelson was governor at the time the site was rejected. He says it was blocked because of wetlands in the area and because the developer was not considered financially stable. Nelson says he also wanted other states in the compact to be willing to share any liability if there were problems at the facility and he wanted community consent before it was built. The dump would have held waste from Nebraska, Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Copyright © 2002 Gray MidAmerica TV Interactive Media, LLC. ***************************************************************** 34 Germans protest against nuclear waste convoy. 10/11/2002. ABC News Online Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] Thousands have held a protest near a nuclear storage facility in the northern town of Gorleben, as part of protests against the return of nuclear waste to Germany. Organisers said some 5,000 people took part in the rally, while police said the number was 2,000. Twelve containers of nuclear waste, weighing 1,320 tonnes, is expected to arrive in Gorleben next week from the La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing centre in north-western France. The French state-run nuclear reprocessing company, COGEMA, has confirmed 12 containers of waste would leave La Hague for Germany between November 11 and 17. Protesters believe the shipment will arrive in Gorleben on Thursday. Anti-nuclear activists, accompanied by 100 tractors, are planning to block the road on Wednesday with concrete blocks, hay bales and logs. Germany, which has no waste treatment facilities of its own, resumed shipments of spent fuel rods to treatment centres abroad in March last year. They had been suspended in May 1998 due to a scandal over radiation leaks from shipment containers. But Heiner Bartling, Interior Minister for the German state of Lower Saxony, said the situation was calmer than during when previous convoys of nuclear waste had returned from France. "The situation this year is much more relaxed," he said. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 35 County to Discuss Rezoning for Uranium Plant NewsChannel 5.com News Meeting in Trousdale A major decision is expected tonight on the future of a proposed uranium enrichment plant. A company is set to build the plant in Hartsville. The Planning Commission will be meeting to discuss rezoning land in Trousdale County. Most of the area is currently zoned for agricultural use, but to build a uranium plant they'll have to take some special steps. Whatever the Commission decides Thursday night will determine whether or not the project moves forward. Louisiana Energy Services is asking the Trousdale Planning Commission to rezone the site from agriculture to industry. What seems like a simple request is not without controversy. "Initially we thought it was just a simple zoning change to industrial use, but now we are told there are a variety of possible uses that include atomic waste", said Will Callaway of the Tennessee Environmental Council. One key player who will be missing from Thursday's meeting is a State planner who resigned from the project earlier this week. Sources say the planner was concerned that the process was moving ahead too quickly, and that all safety concerns had not yet been addressed. Critics say there are unanswered questions about safety, while supporters say that the huge plant will give a boost to the local economy and that the technology is safe. © 2002 NewsChannel 5.com ***************************************************************** 36 Utah: Initiative Process Debated The Salt Lake Tribune -- Initiative Process Debated Saturday, November 9, 2002 BY REBECCA WALSH It's not enough that Utah voters unceremoniously trashed Initiative 1. Opponents of the initiative, which would have prohibited dumping certain kinds of radioactive waste in Utah and raised taxes on others, want to get rid of the populist law-making process entirely. "More and more, initiatives are becoming a tool of special interests to bypass the Legislature and get their issues passed," said attorney Mark Hindley, who represents Envirocare and opponents of Initiative 1. "More than half the states do not recognize initiatives." Last month, legislators asked the Constitutional Revision Commission to review the Utah Supreme Court decision that forced the initiative on the ballot to determine if the state Constitution should be amended. Four years ago, legislators added a rule to state initiative statutes requiring that petitions be signed by 10 percent of registered voters who voted in the past gubernatorial election in at least 20 of 29 counties. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that provision unconstitutional. Justices said the 20-county rule favoring rural areas violated the "one person, one vote" premise of the Utah and U.S. constitutions. "It doesn't seem fair to the rest of the state to let urban voters decide an issue that primarily impacts rural Utah," said House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West. "The court essentially neutered the Legislature," said Rep. Greg Curtis, R-Sandy. So Friday, supporters and adversaries of the citizen initiative to limit future dumping of radioactive waste in Utah argued their cases -- amend or not amend the Constitution -- before the commission. Initiative proponents say the expense and effort of launching an initiative inherently limits the grass-roots drafting of law. Opponents predict the initiative process will be abused. "Why is this a problem that merits a constitutional amendment?" asked attorney John Pierce, who represented initiative proponents John W. Gallivan and Frank Pignanelli in the Supreme Court case. "Is there any evidence that there's a problem at all? This seems like a solution in search of a problem." And Lisa Watts Baskin, who drafted Initiative 1, "all 13,000 words of it," urged commission members to exercise restraint and wait to see what happens during the 2004 election season. She notes some pivotal tenets of American democracy have started with initiatives: child labor laws, popular election of senators, the right for women to vote. "Let's see if it is a good thing. Give it a chance," she said. But Hindley disagrees. Unchanged, he argues, Utah's initiative process will be abused. Hindley insists initiative petition gatherers should be required to collect signatures throughout the state, initiatives should be limited to just one issue and the public should not be able to raise corporate taxes through initiatives. "The power to tax is the power to destroy," Hindley said. He calls Initiative 1 "corporate warfare." "Just wait. Other industries are not going to be immune to this." Already, lawmakers are drafting legislation to deal with the Supreme Court ruling. Price Democratic Sen. Mike Dmitrich and Orem GOP Sen. John Valentine plan to sponsor legislation changing the formula for petition-gathering to require initiative supporters to collect signatures from 10 percent of the voters in each of 29 Senate districts. Because Senate districts each have about 70,000 residents, the two senators figure that gets around the problems of weighting rural votes disproportionately. Faced with the option of repealing the line in Utah's Constitution that grants the public the right to make law through initiative or tinkering with the wording, commission members decided to wait to see if the 2003 Legislature takes action. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 37 German Nuclear Dump Faces Protest Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Saturday November 9, 2002 5:00 PM GORLEBEN, Germany (AP) - Several thousand anti-nuclear activists joined about 100 farmers on tractors Saturday to protest a forthcoming shipment of nuclear waste to a dump in northern Germany. The demonstrators, whistling and beating drums, gathered for a rally a few hundred yards from the dump at Gorleben, where the shipment of 12 containers of waste from a reprocessing plant at La Hague in France is expected to arrive in midweek after a trip across France and Germany that starts Monday. Police estimated that 2,200 people took part, while organizers put the figure at more than 4,000. Anti-nuclear activists argue that neither the waste containers nor the dump, at a disused salt mine, are safe. The latest shipment is the first since last November, when demonstrators repeatedly defied police to stage sit-down protests on the rails and the road along the shipment's route through Germany. As on previous occasions, authorities have banned demonstrations along the final stretch of the route to Gorleben during the shipment itself. Spent fuel from Germany's 19 nuclear power plants is sent to France and Britain for reprocessing under contracts that oblige Germany to take back the waste. Germany resumed waste shipments last year after a three-year break imposed by the previous government after radioactive leaks were discovered in some containers. Also last year, the government and power companies signed an agreement to phase out nuclear power within about 20 years. Anti-nuclear activists hope that protests against the shipments will push up the security bill and force a quicker shutdown. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 38 Two Koreas End Economic Talks Las Vegas SUN November 09, 2002 By PAUL SHIN ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea- South Korean President Kim Dae-jung urged North Korea Saturday to quickly address international concerns about its nuclear weapons program to bring a lasting peace to the divided peninsula. Kim made the call as a South Korean delegation headed home after two days of economic talks in North Korea during which the visitors warned that inter-Korean cooperation could suffer unless the nuclear issue is resolved promptly. "Despite ups and downs, North-South Korean relations so far have headed toward reconciliation and peace," Kim said in a speech at a national sports festival. "We're strongly opposed to the North's development of nuclear weapons and determined to resolve it through peaceful means." The five-member South Korean delegation, led by Vice Finance and Economy Minister Yoon Jin-sik, was to arrive in Seoul via China later Saturday. Local pool reports quoted an unidentified South Korean delegation member as saying that his country will use "all available inter-Korean dialogue channels" to continue to press North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. The delegate said in the reports, however, that South Korea will not make future economic cooperation conditional on the resolution of the North's nuclear issue. No foreign journalists were allowed to cover the talks. The meetings were supposed to review current joint projects and set future goals for economic cooperation but were overshadowed by recent revelations by North Korea that it was secretly developing nuclear weapons. North Korea first made that disclosure to visiting U.S. diplomats in early October. Washington has since been trying to muster international support for a campaign to pressure Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. South Korea used this week's forum, the third of its kind since 2000, to warn that it won't expand economic cooperation unless the North quickly resolves its nuclear issue. North Korea avoided answering the demand directly, saying only that it was "seriously contemplating" the issue, the pool reports said. South Korean delegates then rejected North Korean proposals for the two sides to expand cooperation in the fields of fishing and electricity, the reports said. The two sides concluded the talks with a joint statement that addressed technical matters related to ongoing or previously agreed projects, including a cross-border railway and an industrial park in the North's border city of Kaesung. The industrial park, the construction of which will begin in late December, is intended mainly for South Korean manufacturers keen to take advantage of cheap North Korean labor. The South Korean delegation was told that North Korea will next week formally designate the border city as a special economic zone where foreigners can do business with few restrictions, the reports said. The two countries also agreed to hold a fourth round of economic talks in South Korea in February. The Koreas were divided in 1945. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Blair's response to UN okay on Iraq Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Full text of Tony Blair's statement The full text of Tony Blair's statement in response to the unanimous passing of UN resolution 1441, ordering the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq under threat of military action Guardian Unlimited Friday November 8, 2002 I have said for many months that the issue of Iraq is best addressed at the UN. I am delighted that the security council has risen to the challenge, by unanimously adopting the US/UK resolution 1441. I pay tribute to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, our ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock, and to their teams for the central role that they have played in this achievement, through patient and skilful diplomacy. As the resolution spells out, Iraq has defied the UN - and therefore the whole international community - over the last eleven years. It has been and continues to be in material breach of a series of UN resolutions. With the adoption of this resolution, the security council has made clear beyond doubt that the UN will no longer tolerate this. In the words of the resolution, Iraq now has a 'final opportunity' to comply with its international, legal obligations by giving up once and for all its weapons of mass destruction - its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes and the means to deliver them. If it does not, then the consequences are clear. This resolution sets up a tough, new inspection regime. I have full confidence in Dr Blix and Dr El-Baradei and their teams, and full respect for their integrity and independence, as they embark on such a crucial and difficult task. The position of the international community is now unified and certain. The weapons inspectors must return to Iraq. They must carry out their work without any restriction, condition or inhibition on their effectiveness. The duty of Saddam Hussein is to co-operate fully and totally. That means giving access to all the sites and palaces. It means allowing key witnesses to be interviewed free from fear. It means a full declaration of the weapons that exist and their whereabouts. The obligation is to cooperate. It is not a game of hide and seek, where the inspectors try their best to find the weapons and Saddam does his best to conceal them. The duty of co-operation means not just access but information. Failure to be open and honest in helping the inspectors do their work is every bit as much a breach as failure to allow access to sites. The goal is disarmament of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If Saddam complies, that is the UN mandate fulfilled. I may find this regime abhorrent. Any normal person would. But the survival of it is in his hands. Conflict is not inevitable. Disarmament is. In the event of Saddam refusing to cooperate or being in breach, there will be a further UN discussion, as we always said there would be. To those who fear this resolution is just an automatic trigger point, without any further discussion, paragraph 12 of the resolution makes it clear that is not the case. But everyone now accepts that if there is a default by Saddam, the international community must act to enforce its will. Failure to do so would mean, having stated our clear demand, we lacked the will to enforce it. So, let us hope this issue can be resolved peacefully. From the outset I wanted this resolved through the UN with the international community acting together. Now that can happen. We have made our choice: disarmament through the UN, with force as a last resort. Saddam must now make his choice. My message to him is this: disarm or you face force. There must be no more games, no more deceit, no more prevarication, obstruction or defiance. Co-operate fully and despite the terrible injustice you have often inflicted on others, we will be just with you. But defy the UN's will and we will disarm you by force. Be under no doubt whatever of that. Finally, I have a message for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with you. We want you to be our friends and partners in welcoming Iraq back into the world community; an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours, its people prosperous and strong. You are an immensely talented people with a rich history and culture. You have much to give the region and the wider world. Whatever happens, the territorial integrity of Iraq will be absolute. Whatever happens, we will work with you for a fairer and better future for the Iraqi people. You have suffered from long years of war, government corruption and repression. I hope an Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction, a government unable to use them to oppress its people and its neighbours, is a symbol of change for you and hope for the future. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 40 Inspectors Return to Iraq Nov. 18 Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | From the Associated Press Friday November 8, 2002 8:30 PM UNITED NATIONS (AP) - An advance team of weapons inspectors will be in Baghdad in two weeks, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix announced Friday. ``We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday, Nov. 18th,'' Blix said shortly after the Security Council unanimously passed a tough new resolution that expands his powers. Blix said he was pleased with the full council support for the U.S.-drafted resolution. It ``strengthens our mandate very much,'' he said. Blix has said an advance team would be involved mostly with logistics and preparations for resuming full inspections, but that some surprise checks could be done. Under the new resolution, inspectors have 45 days from Friday to begin their work. Inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission as well as a nuclear team from the International Atomic Energy Agency are mandated to disarm Iraq of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. The inspectors must report any Iraqi infraction immediately to the council for its assessment. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 41 Headline: US plans for mini-nuke trigger fallout fears -- Detail Story* *English News* *Urdu News <../un/>* ** *Radio *PARIS,* Nov 6: US plans to build a bunker-busting mini-nuclear bomb have triggered alarm among scientists, who warn the weapons could spray radioactive fallout in a wide radius around the impact site. President George Bush's administration has earmarked 15 million dollars in the draft 2003 defence budget for research into a so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). The bomb could be used in pre-emptive strikes to destroy hardened underground targets such as as command bunkers or weapons of mass destruction squirrelled away by rogue stakes, according to leaked documents. The idea is that the RNEP would be dropped from high altitude and hit the ground with such speed that it would penetrate like a knife deep into the surface before detonating. Fallout would - theoretically - be negligible as the debris would be contained by the thick lid of earth, rock and concrete above. But, according to experts quoted by New Scientist, even the smallest warheads are likely to spew up thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive dust and debris. "Even for a 0.3-kiloton explosion, you would need a burial depth of about 70 metres in dry soil and about 40 metres in dry, hard rock to contain the blast," David Wright, a nuclear-weapons specialist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, told the British weekly. The likely design for the RNEP will be an existing nuclear bomb, the B61, whose explosive yield can be set from anything between 0.3 kilotons equivalent of TNT and 340 kilotons, New Scientist said. By comparison, the Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 12 kilotons. In any case, said Wright, a 0.3-kiloton bomb would not be powerful enough to destroy a hardened target buried more than 20 metres beneath the ground. Some Iraqi facilities are said to be buried to a depth of 60 metres under rock. To destroy those targets would therefore require a bigger warhead, in the hundreds of kilotons.-AFP Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. No part ***************************************************************** 42 Bush approves Iraq war plan; large force seen Reuters AlertNet - 09 Nov 2002 23:23 By Charles Aldinger WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has approved a war plan for Iraq to initially capture parts of the country for footholds to thrust in 200,000 or more troops, U.S. officials said on Saturday. The officials, who asked not to be identified, stressed the plan was flexible but that Bush had in recent weeks accepted Army Gen. Tommy Franks' advice that smaller numbers of troops could not capture and hold Iraq if invasion became necessary. They confirmed a New York Times report in its Sunday edition that any attack ordered by Bush and led by Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, would begin with "a rolling start" of smaller numbers of troops while B-1 and B-2 bombers led an air campaign against Saddam's palaces, air defenses and bases. "Those are the right words -- a rolling start," said one of the officials. "I doubt you would see this all come at once." The officials said any attack was unlikely until early next year unless Iraq refused to comply with Friday's unanimous U.N. resolution ordering Saddam to end any chemical, biological and nuclear programs and give arms inspectors unfettered access to his country. The officials refused to discuss precise details but said the air strikes would be spearheaded by the big bombers using 1,000-pound (1,600 kg) satellite-guided bombs to destroy Saddam's power base. That precision campaign would likely be shorter than the long campaign ahead of the 1991 Gulf War. ISOLATE LEADERSHIP, SPARE CIVILIANS While seeking to isolate Iraq's leadership in Baghdad and command centers around the country, air strikes would also try to spare civilian neighborhoods, electric power and water supplies to Iraq's population. At the same time, U.S. Special Operations troops and Army and Marine Corps divisions would avoid getting bogged down in street-fighting in cities. No orders have been given yet to begin moving large numbers of troops or to call up the more than 200,000 National Guard and Reserve troops needed to support any invasion and protect bases at home and abroad from possible "terrorist" reprisal. Some part-time military units have been put on alert, officials said. Franks himself will lead a battle command headquarters element of more than 600 Central Command troops to Qatar for an exercise later this month. "I don't think it's any secret that we hope for a collapse" of Saddam's regime and surrender of the military within weeks of any attack, said one official. "We've made it clear -- and will continue to do so -- that there is little profit for his military to stand up and fight." The Times, in a front-page story, quoted Pentagon and military sources as saying the war plan was built on lessons learned in Afghanistan, where the military first seized a major outpost south of Kandahar to begin its successful assault on al Qaeda and the Taliban. NO COMMENT FROM PENTAGON, WHITE HOUSE Pentagon and White House officials flatly refused to comment on the plan, although Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself has repeatedly stressed that the United States had no quarrel with the Iraqi people and would aim any attack at Saddam's core leadership. "We don't comment on operational planning," said a White House official. The U.N. resolution did not spell out any specific threat of military attack against Iraq and the U.S. plan currently includes only American and British troops, although the Bush administration hopes to have other allies if Iraq violates the U.N. order. Officials said unmanned spyplanes and Special Operations troops were likely to be an important element early in any campaign as the military moved to seek out chemical and biological stockpiles and destroy a small number of Iraqi Scud missiles left over from the Gulf War to prevent their launch against Israel or other Iraq neighbors. In addition to Army and Marine Corps ground troops, a major force of aircraft carriers along with Air Force wings would be used in the attack, according to the Times. Officials declined to say where dozens of additional warplanes sent to the region would be based, but they could be launched from Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. Heavy bombers would also be launched from Britain and a British air base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. ***************************************************************** 43 U.N. Vote Emboldens Bush The Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah's Statewide Newspaper Saturday, November 09, 2002 COMBINED NEWS SERVICES WASHINGTON -- It took eight weeks of arm twisting and some concessions, but President Bush got what he wanted -- a showdown with Saddam Hussein and the threat of war to strip Iraq of its weapons. With a U.N. Security Council resolution in his pocket and the American military moving into position around the Persian Gulf, Bush made clear Friday that he is in no mood to overlook stalling or sleight of hand: "Any Iraqi noncompliance is serious," he declared. Iraq must forfeit its weapons of mass destruction and all future designs on them, or face "serious consequences." That was how the Security Council put it. Bush, prevailing at last over balky allies, gave the threat a more superlative accent: "severest consequences." War. Bush took to the Rose Garden after a 15-0 Security Council "yea" vote that remained in doubt right up until the final minutes, when U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, approaching the Security Council chamber, took a cell phone call from the Syrians, the toughest to convince, saying they were on board. The administration had successfully navigated the treacherous road from Bush's Sept. 12 demand that the United Nations deliver him a resolution with real teeth. France, Russia and even Mexico had to be won over with wording changes like substituting "and" for "or," "secure" for "restore." The first test comes quickly: Iraq has seven days to acknowledge and accept the resolution. Within 30 days, it must provide weapons inspectors with a full accounting of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. U.N. weapons inspections are to be up and running within 45 days, and inspectors are to report to the council after 60 days of work. If Iraq does not comply with the weapons inspectors' demands, the Security Council will meet immediately and determine what action to take. Most council nations approved this two-stage approach, and the United States was persuaded to accept it in negotiations. The United States believes it already has sufficient authorization to attack Iraq. But Bush would risk high political costs if the United States attacked Iraq alone and sustained heavy casualties or got bogged down in efforts to restore stability in a land known for its ethnic and religious rivalries. Surveys show that most Americans would support a war against Iraq only with the support of allies. Friday's Security Council vote makes it more likely that the United States will get that support if Saddam thwarts inspectors again. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they planned to have advance inspections teams in Iraq on Nov. 18. The key now is patience while the weapons inspectors do their work. On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested a final showdown could be months away. Syria's surprise affirmative vote could bring other Arab nations along, said Richard Murphy, a former assistant secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia in the Reagan administration. "They will wring their hands still, but Syria's vote will help others in the Middle East" take an unpopular position behind the United States, Murphy said. Powell already has asked the Arab League, meeting this weekend, to produce some sign of support. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 44 High noon? All Eyes on Iraq Saddam Hussein continues to defy the international community's efforts to monitor Iraq's weapons. As a result, many believe a future military conflict with Iraq is inevitable. Learn more about the country, its military and regional relations in this multimedia Web feature. By LISA HOFFMAN November 8, 2002 Now begins what, in the end, may go down in history as Saddam's last stand. The unanimous U.N. Security Council vote Friday ordering Iraq to allow free and full inspections for weapons of mass destruction now casts the spotlight full on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Saddam, who has held Iraq in the firm grip of a police state for more than 20 years, now holds in his hands the fate of his regime as well. President Bush put that message starkly Friday, saying it is up to Saddam to decide whether he is disarmed voluntarily or by force of any makings of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons he may possess. "The outcome of the current crisis is already determined: the full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur," Bush said in a Rose Garden statement. "The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how." What follows is a look at the strict timetable the United Nations has set up for a resumption of inspections aborted in 1998 by a defiant Saddam, and at the possible trigger points for war that may be embedded in the process, should the strongman choose the same path now. - Within seven days from Friday. The United Nations has given Saddam a week to accept the conditions of inspection or reject them. Smart money is on him agreeing to the terms, albeit with anti-American protests about Iraq's sovereignty. In the past, Saddam's pattern has been to dodge and dance, then comply initially with such directives, only to defy them later on. The Iraqi government said Friday it would study the resolution before commenting on it. If nothing else, agreeing to go along with it would buy Saddam at least another month to hide whatever contraband he has or assemble a defense force. The 13-paragraph resolution does not specify what the United Nations would do if Saddam, reading the writing of his regime's future on the wall, decides instead to strike a martyr's stand from the start. But it is likely the White House would press to interpret that as a breach of the world body's order and thus justification for the "serious consequences" promised in the resolution. Although the resolution does not spell out what those consequences would be, the White House considers the phrase the rhetorical equivalent of military force. - Within 30 days. If Iraq agrees to the terms, by Dec. 6 it must provide "a full and complete declaration" of the stocks and locations of all its banned weapons, missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft that could be used to disperse deadly toxins, laboratories, components and raw agents - even those, such as anthrax, used for legitimate research. The United States will match what Iraq discloses with what has been gleaned from reconnaissance and other intelligence, as well as from Iraqi defectors with firsthand knowledge of Saddam's weapons, with what Iraq lists. Some critics say it will be tough for Iraq to comply in such a short time frame. Others suspect the United States will use minor omissions or delays as justification for war, or somehow engineer a confrontation. Iraq says it should not be punished unless the United Nations has solid evidence that Iraq deliberately left off information to obstruct the inspectors. But the Bush administration contends that Saddam knows well what he does and doesn't possess, and should have no trouble meeting the deadline. -Within 45 days. Assuming Iraq has adequately complied with that requirement, U.N. agents will have until Dec. 21 to begin their inspections. On Friday, U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission head Hans Blix said an advance team plans to arrive in Baghdad Nov. 18 to begin the logistical tasks of procuring quarters, vehicles and other equipment. Blix said about 80 inspectors ultimately would be assigned at any one time to the search, which could begin in earnest within two weeks of the advance party's arrival. On the team will be representatives from as many as 48 countries, who are experts in chemistry, biology and military weapons, as well as engineers and lawyers. They will be armed with a list of 700 sites that previously were identified by inspectors as suspect. - Within 60 days of the start of inspections. Blix's agency must report its findings to the Security Council by then. During the course of inspections, it will be up to Blix to determine if the Iraqis are properly complying. He has vowed not to tolerate any of the shenanigans the Iraqis have engaged in previously to foil inspectors. Iraqi minders have fired warning shots at inspectors to keep them away from document caches, left inspectors waiting for days at a time after promising them access to a site and, once, even held three hostages. Other times they have burned documents, punctured the tires of inspectors' vehicles and flat-out lied. If Blix believes the Iraqis are out of compliance, the United Nations has instructed him to so report "immediately" to the Security Council, which will then "consider" the charge and what should be done about it. Already, the Bush administration has proclaimed a "zero-tolerance" policy for anything but strict compliance. To underscore that message, the Pentagon is expected to ramp up its preparations for war in coming weeks. (Reach Lisa Hoffman at hoffmanl(at)shns.com) The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 Reactor at Hanford gets reprieve The Seattle Times: Local News: Saturday, November 09, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Linda Ashton The Associated Press YAKIMA — The U.S. Department of Energy yesterday agreed to a two-week delay in pulling the plug on an experimental reactor at Hanford nuclear reservation. U.S. District Judge Edward Shea in Richland approved the delay after Benton County filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to halt dismantling of the Fast Flux Test Facility. The lawsuit contends the Energy Department failed to adequately evaluate the social, environmental and economic effects of shutting down the reactor. On Monday, workers were scheduled to begin draining sodium from the cooling system — often considered the point of no return in a reactor shutdown. The two sides now have two weeks to come to an agreement on future delays until the merits of the case are heard, or return to court. "We cannot figure out why they want to tear it apart," said John Bolliger, a Pasco lawyer representing the county, after the hearing here. "It can serve a need in society that's not being served elsewhere." Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver, several local government agencies in the Tri-Cities and the cancer-fighter group Citizens for Medical Isotopes, of which Oliver is chairman, want the federal government to give them more time to find a private investor to use the reactor to make medical isotopes. Seattle Times Company [http://www.seattletimescompany.com/] ***************************************************************** 46 USEC faces security fine at Paducah plant AP Wire | 11/08/2002 | BEACON JOURNAL Associated Press PADUCAH, Ky. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has fined USEC Inc. $60,000 for failing to protect classified information at its Paducah uranium enrichment plant. NRC regional administrator Jim Dyer said in a letter to USEC that the company was being cited for two violations. USEC has until Dec. 5 to either contest or pay the fine. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said USEC officials discovered the violations earlier this year and reported them to the NRC. "We are reviewing the NRC's fine and will respond in 30 days," Stuckle said. USEC, based in Bethesda, Md., operates one uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Ky., after shutting down its sister plant last year in Piketon, Ohio. Stuckle said measures have been taken to improve employee training about handling classified information and to implement procedures to prevent future violations. NRC claims the company did not store classified information in a properly secured storage system at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant between Oct. 5, 2001, and Dec. 17, 2001. The agency also said six times last year and again in June classified information was transmitted on a telecommunications system that had not been approved for classified information. The plant enriches uranium for use in making fuel for nuclear power plants, and certain aspects of the uranium enrichment process remain classified and must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. While the classified information appears not have been compromised, the violations are significant because the information was not properly secured and could have resulted in individuals without security clearance obtaining the information, Dryer said. ***************************************************************** 47 Report signals layoffs at SRS Augusta Georgia: Metro: Web posted Saturday, November 9, 2002 1:54 a.m. EST By Eric Williamson [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau AIKEN - A Department of Energy internal report says an announcement about layoffs at Savannah River Site could be days away. The number of cuts could be "in the 250 range," according to the Nov. 1 report to Energy Department headquarters from Marvin L. Garcia, the department's Savannah River assistant manager for business and logistics. Mr. Garcia's report said the cuts would take effect sometime between January and March 2003. Despite the internal report, Energy Department officials refused to discuss any possible layoffs Friday. Jim Gaver, an Energy Department spokesman at SRS, said Friday he couldn't address an announcement's timing and would not presume to speak on behalf of contractor Westinghouse Savannah River Co., which is in charge of daily operations at the former nuclear weapons complex. Westinghouse would have to initiate the layoffs, he said. "I honestly don't know whether Westinghouse plans to communicate with DOE at the site next week," Mr. Gaver said. A Westinghouse representative had no comment either Friday about the timing of an upcoming announcement. The Energy Department's Washington headquarters would have to sign off on the reductions if they remain at Mr. Garcia's estimated number. The department has indicated in previous communications with Westinghouse that major restructuring would be necessary to correct inefficiencies. Westinghouse said in early October, when 48 people were dismissed, that more layoffs would follow. Cuts had been forecast since January, and early retirement and severance packages were made available. "Certainly these things continue to be discussed," Mr. Gaver said of the exact number of layoffs, pointing out Mr. Garcia's use of the word "range." "I think it's a very fluid situation." Mr. Garcia declined to comment about his report. Reach Eric Williamson at (803) 279-6895 or eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] . --From the Saturday, November 9, 2002 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our ***************************************************************** 48 Three companies receive fines at INEEL Idaho State Journal 11/07/02 By Emily Jones - Journal Writer Respond to this story [ejones@journalnet.com] IDAHO FALLS — Three agencies responsible for the INEEL were fined $32,688 for violations of the Hazardous Waste Management Act. The Department of Energy, Bechtel BWXT LLC and Argonne National Laboratory will each pay a portion of the fine. Bechtel spokesman John Walsh said the fine was one of the lowest in recent years. "In our mind that means we're doing a better job of regulating ourselves," he said. The violations were discovered during an audit by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Department of Water Resources in July 2001. The fine was announced Thursday by INEEL officials and the state. "These generally take a while to be resolved," Walsh said. Argonne will pay a total of $16,238, including $7,000 for altering inspection protocol in a storage area containing high-level waste without obtaining a permit modification. Other fines include $6,840 for failing to ensure all land disposal restriction requirements were addressed during laboratory waste treatment. They will also pay $2,398 for failing to adequately record inspections of waste stored in temporary accumulation areas. Permit modifications, training and corrective actions were completed Dec. 2001, according to a press release. The Department of Energy was fined $4,350 for an inadequate emergency contingency plan and for not having performed an adequate hazardous waste determination at the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility. DOE spokesman Tim Jackson said the department also moved waste from a 90-day storage facility at the Radiological Sciences and Environmental Sciences laboratory to an out of state waste facility. Bechtel paid a total of $12,100, including $1,750 for the inadequate emergency contingency plan. They also paid $5,000 for storing hazardous waste samples longer than allowed and $150 for storing hazardous waste longer than a year without justification. Additional fines included $2,600 for failure to perform a hazardous waste determination on HEPA filter housings and $2,600 for failing to perform a hazardous waste determination on supplies from old first aid kits. [http://www.mywebpal.com] . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Geologists dissect massive quake BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Saturday, 9 November, 2002, 13:56 [Alaska quake, Peter Haeussler, US Geological Survey] The USGS scientists have surveyed the length of the fault The biggest earthquake in the world this year produced a scar on the landscape more than 230 kilometres (145 miles) long. Sunday's magnitude 7.9 quake in central Alaska left cracks in the ground that run the length of the Denali fault system but caused minimal damage to property and, amazingly, few injuries and no deaths. The famous Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline also appeared to stand up very well to the shaking - just as its designers and engineers had predicted. The ground disturbance has now been surveyed by scientists from the US Geological Survey and their photographs provide a remarkable record of one of the largest tremors ever recorded in North America. Denali is a so-called strike-slip system, which means the two blocks of rock on either side of the fault grind horizontally past each other. In this case, the northern side moved from the west to the east. A maximum shift of nearly seven metres (22 feet) occurred across the Tok Highway, a road that goes from Tok to Glenallen and intersects with the Alaska Highway. Scientists now say that the main shock started at the western end of the rupture zone and then travelled eastward along the fault, where most of the seismic energy was released. All the data gathered on the quake will help improve models of how faults slip during earthquakes, and give researchers a better understanding of the earthquake hazards associated with large faults. [Alaska quake, Peter Haeussler, US Geological Survey] The scar is traced from a helicopter through the trees [Alaska quake, Peter Haeussler, US Geological Survey] The quake triggered huge rockslides and avalanches [Alaska quake, Peter Haeussler, US Geological Survey] There was some damage to the pipeline at this location [Alaska quake, Peter Haeussler, US Geological Survey] The Richardson Highway was offset here by 2.5 metres © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 50 Experiment Brings Scientists Closer to Nuclear Fusion* EarthVision Environmental News / COLLEGE PARK, MD, November 7, 2002 - Nuclear fusion is often thought of as the ideal clean energy system but one that is out of reach. However, researchers have successfully imploded fuel capsules by bombarding them with intense x-rays, showing that the process generates significant fusion and that the implosion method looks capable of generating large-scale energy production. According to the American Physical Society, researchers from Sandia National Laboratories will present their findings at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, which is being held from November 11-15, 2002 in Orlando, Florida. According to the Lab's abstract, the process works by bombarding two millimeter fuel capsules with intense x-rays from Sandia's Z-pinch machine. The x-rays, impacting from all directions, cause an implosion that reduces the capsule's size by a factor of ten. In one set of experiments, a high degree of symmetry has been achieved in the implosion process, indicating that the process might be scaled up to energy production levels. In another set of experiments using the Z-pinch, researchers observed significant production of neutrons, a sign of nuclear fusion. These successful experiments are an important step toward ignition, the level at which the fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining and excess energy can be drawn from the process for other applications the scientists say. Related Link: http://www.aps.org/meet/DPP02/baps/press/mehlhorn.pdf * ***************************************************************** 51 Grant helps Penn State nuclear engineering program grow MyInKy By DAN LEWERENZ Associated Press Writer November 9, 2002 STATE COLLEGE, Pa.- Jack Brenizer remembers the lean days in the nuclear industry, when one-third of university nuclear engineering programs were eliminated and more than half of the nation's on-campus research reactors closed their doors. Now, the nuclear engineering program chairman at Penn State University says his graduates are virtually guaranteed jobs, and his research reactor was chosen to share in a $1.97 million grant that could keep it at the cutting edge of campus nuclear research. Nuclear power is making a comeback _ at least at Penn State, where undergraduate enrollment in the program has doubled in the last three years. Nuclear engineers are in demand, and there's talk of building new nuclear power plants for the first time in decades. "This idea of building new reactors, to a student that's a very exciting prospect," Brenizer said. "And we're seeing a lot of students now who come in very excited about their prospects of being in on the renaissance of nuclear engineering." In a way, Penn State is an appropriate place for that renaissance to begin. The university's Breazeale Reactor Facility, part of the Radiation Science and Engineering Center, was the nation's first licensed nuclear reactor when it was brought on line in 1955 as part of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. The construction of nuclear power plants, the development of a nuclear Navy and the emergence of nuclear sciences in the 1950s, '60s and '70s fueled tremendous job growth in the industry. The federal government helped to build small reactors on 64 college campuses _ smaller versions of their power-generating cousins _ used mostly for training and research. "Our primary function is education," said Fred Sears, director of the Radiation Science and Engineering Center. "Here, students can learn how to conduct research using radiation. And by working at the facility, they learn the mechanics and the operation of a nuclear reactor." But by the 1980s, when no new nuclear power plants were being built, the demand for nuclear scientists and engineers began to fade. About 1,800 students were enrolled in undergraduate nuclear engineering programs in 1980. By the late 1990s, that number had fallen to less than 500. Over the same period the number of academic programs in nuclear engineering dropped by one third, from 57 to 38. And as student numbers shrank, so did support for expensive reactor facilities. "Obviously, when you have less than 500 at maybe 30 institutions around the country, university administrators start to see they're dedicating all these resources to very few students," said John Gutteridge, director of university programs for the U.S. Department of Energy. "A lot of these schools decided to cut their programs or close their reactors." At first, it was the smaller programs and reactors that were being shut down, Gutteridge said. But when Cornell University voted in May 2001 to close its reactor and officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan talked about doing the same, DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee drew up a plan to keep existing reactors alive through a system of grants. Penn State joined with Purdue University and the universities of Illinois and Wisconsin, receiving $1.97 million in the first year of a five-year grant. Three other regional programs were funded, a New England program led by MIT, a Southwest program led by Texas A University, and a West Coast program led by Oregon State University and the University of California at Davis. With 65 juniors and seniors in nuclear engineering _ more than double the number from just three years ago _ Penn State hopes to enhance its classroom and laboratory facilities with the grant. Other top priorities include enlarging and enhancing the Neutron Beam Laboratory, used for detailed structural analysis of materials, and buying new equipment for the Gamma Irradiation Laboratory, one of the facility's key education outreach centers. Gutteridge said universities participating in the program would use their grants in different ways. Wisconsin planned to develop a distance-learning course that could be delivered over the Internet; the University of New Mexico, a partner in the Southwest group, will use most of its money for undergraduate scholarships. "We're a very small program, so being able to provide some money for three or four students per year is significant for us," said Bob Busch, director of the Nuclear Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico. "There's a demand out there for nuclear engineers." [http://www.myinky.com ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************