***************************************************************** 10/11/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.262 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 UK: Nuclear generator unlikely to avoid paying climate tax 2 US: Congress gives Bush go-ahead to attack Iraq 3 UK: Nuclear generator unlikely to avoid paying climate tax NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 Canada: Reactor mishap kept Bruce closed 5 We've been too complacent over Chernobyl 6 US: NRC cites Cook for safety violation 7 Canada: Reactor mishap kept Bruce closed 8 US: Nuclear Agency Takes Blame for Ohio Reactor Damage 9 US: NRC says inspectors missed Ohio nuke plant damage earlier NUCLEAR SAFETY 10 US: Attorneys general ask Congress for more nuclear power protection 11 UK: Cancer risk for radiation workers 12 US: Securing America: The Federal Government’s Response to Nuclear T NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 13 US: Judge stays ruling in nuke waste case 14 US: Agency creates management jobs for Yucca project 15 European Parliament pledges support for nuclear clean-up in 16 US: Utah: Former Foes Unite Against Nuclear Measure 17 Shipment of nuclear waste leaves for France with little protest 18 US: Negotiating with the federal government, a Nevada perspective NUCLEAR WEAPONS 19 Iraq: Russia's Terms 20 US: CONGRESS ROLLCALL ON WAR RESOLUTION 21 The Bunker Nightmare Goes Nuclear 22 US: Opinion: The only thing we have to fear is war itself 23 US: More tests revealed 24 US: In light of Iraq danger, Cuban Missile Crisis prompts a look 25 US: Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Force Against Iraq 26 Putin rebuffs Blair on Iraq weapons claims 27 Saddam acquiring technology for 'long-range supergun' 28 SA shoots down Iraqi arms deal claims 29 DA wants to know if SA is aiding Saddam 30 Iraqis brush off Bush's claims about factory 31 US: Former U.N. weapon's inspector says Congress 'giving in to war 32 US: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat 33 US: Inside the Ring -- 34 Exposed: Case Against Iraq a Fraud 35 US: Analysis: CIA assessment reveals divided opinions on Iraqi 36 US: Nuclear threat doesn't come from Iraq 37 Iraq Shows Suspected Nuclear Site 38 US: Bush: 'We refuse to live in fear' 39 US: US says UN has 'days, weeks, not months' on Iraq 40 US: Resolution Authorizing Force on Iraq 41 US: Cuba Missile Crisis Draws 'Lessons' US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 Agenda '02: Vit plant, economy, education 43 Texans debate nuclear fuel site 44 Army plant funds in bill 45 FFTF supporters continue to plead for facility 46 Duck and cover OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UK: Nuclear generator unlikely to avoid paying climate tax FT.com Friday Oct 11 2002. All times are London time. By Andrew Taylor and Jean Eaglesham British Energy's hopes of being exempted from the climate change levy as part of a government-led financial rescue are likely to be rejected, according to a letter sent to rival generators by Patricia Hewitt, trade and industry secretary. The minister this month gave the nuclear generator a £650m emergency loan facility to allow it more time to negotiate a long-term financial restructuring. The group has signalled it needs to achieve savings of at least £280m a year to stem UK power station losses and persuade investors to provide fresh funds. It had hoped to reduce costs through a combination of cuts in fuel reprocessing charges from the state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, exemption from the climate change levy and lower local authority rates. But Ms Hewitt, in a letter to combined heat and power generators, says: "The government has no plans to exempt British Energy, or other nuclear-generated electricity, from the climate change levy." British Energy has argued that as nuclear generation does not produce or contribute to greenhouse gases, its output should be excluded from the levy. This would represent a saving, in effect, of £80m-£100m a year. Renewable energy producers, such as wind farms and combined heat and power producers - which are more energy-efficient than conventional generators, which produce only electricity - have already been excluded from the levy. Ms Hewitt, in her letter to the Combined Heat and Power Association, says: "The climate change levy is not a carbon tax. It has been designed as a downstream energy tax to encourage all sectors of business and the public sector to improve energy efficiency. "Excluding electricity generated from nuclear would take a fifth of the UK's electricity out of the levy, reducing the incentive on business to use electricity efficiently and reducing the levy's beneficial effects on carbon emissions." The government yesterday stressed it had not made a final decision on the long-term rescue deal for the company. "The British Energy situation is a complex one and will take some time to resolve," Ms Hewitt told a Greenpeace conference yesterday. But she emphasised that the crisis at British Energy was "not in any way driving" the development of energy policies to be published in a white paper next year. Her reluctance to exclude companies from the levy was reinforced by her view that the tax was working. "I know it is unpopular with manufacturers, and I understand the difficulties they face, particularly in these tough economic conditions, but the climate change levy is a central part of our environmental tax reforms," she told the conference. Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 2 Congress gives Bush go-ahead to attack Iraq Independent.co.uk By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 11 October 2002 President George Bush's hand was strengthened considerably yesterday when Congress voted solidly to give him the broad authority he sought to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein. The Democratic-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 in the early hours today, wrapping up a week-long debate. The House of Representatives voted 296-133. for the resolution last night. Because the Senate approved the House-passed measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature. Mr Bush, who has claimed he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, has in recent days urged Congress to stand with him as he presses the UN Security Council to approve a new resolution demanding that Iraq abide by comprehensive inspections and disarmament or face the consequences. The bipartisan agreemen gives the President most of the powers he initially asked for, allowing him to act against Iraq even without the backing of the UN. In a concession to Democratic concerns, however, the resolution does commit the President to exhaust all diplomatic means first. The resolution states: "The President is authorised to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Earlier in the day, both houses had given an indication of their likely decision when they brushed aside efforts to weaken the war resolution. By a 66-31 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have ended the authorisation for Mr Bush after two years. Minutes later, the House also voted 355-72 against an amendment that would have committed the US to the UN inspections process but would not have authorised unilateral force. In Baghdad, Iraqi officials invited America to inspect its alleged weapons sites, but Washington immediately dismissed the offer. * A French inspector said yesterday that debris from what could be an attacking boat had been found in the French tanker holed and gutted by an explosion off Yemen on Sunday. After insisting for days that the explosion was an accident, the Yemeni government yesterday refused to rule out terrorism. ***************************************************************** 3 UK: Nuclear generator unlikely to avoid paying climate tax World [http://news.ft.com/world] / UK [http://news.ft.com/world/uk] By Andrew Taylor and Jean Eaglesham Published: October 11 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: October 11 2002 5:00 British Energy's hopes of being exempted from the climate change levy as part of a government-led financial rescue are likely to be rejected, according to a letter sent to rival generators by Patricia Hewitt, trade and industry secretary. The minister this month gave the nuclear generator a £650m emergency loan facility to allow it more time to negotiate a long-term financial restructuring. The group has signalled it needs to achieve savings of at least £280m a year to stem UK power station losses and persuade investors to provide fresh funds. It had hoped to reduce costs through a combination of cuts in fuel reprocessing charges from the state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, exemption from the climate change levy and lower local authority rates. But Ms Hewitt, in a letter to combined heat and power generators, says: "The government has no plans to exempt British Energy, or other nuclear-generated electricity, from the climate change levy." British Energy has argued that as nuclear generation does not produce or contribute to greenhouse gases, its output should be excluded from the levy. This would represent a saving, in effect, of £80m-£100m a year. Renewable energy producers, such as wind farms and combined heat and power producers - which are more energy-efficient than conventional generators, which produce only electricity - have already been excluded from the levy. Ms Hewitt, in her letter to the Combined Heat and Power Association, says: "The climate change levy is not a carbon tax. It has been designed as a downstream energy tax to encourage all sectors of business and the public sector to improve energy efficiency. "Excluding electricity generated from nuclear would take a fifth of the UK's electricity out of the levy, reducing the incentive on business to use electricity efficiently and reducing the levy's beneficial effects on carbon emissions." The government yesterday stressed it had not made a final decision on the long-term rescue deal for the company. "The British Energy situation is a complex one and will take some time to resolve," Ms Hewitt told a Greenpeace conference yesterday. But she emphasised that the crisis at British Energy was "not in any way driving" the development of energy policies to be published in a white paper next year. Her reluctance to exclude companies from the levy was reinforced by her view that the tax was working. "I know it is unpopular with manufacturers, and I understand the difficulties they face, particularly in these tough economic conditions, but the climate change levy is a central part of our environmental tax reforms," she told the conference. © Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2002. "FT" and "Financial Times" ***************************************************************** 4 Canada: Reactor mishap kept Bruce closed Thestar.com Unit shut month longer than planned By John Spears Business Reporter DICK LOEK/TORONTO STAR FILE POWER PROBLEMS: The mammoth Bruce nuclear plant is located on Lake Huron, near Kincardine. The June maintenance accident that damaged tubing in a reactor at the Bruce B nuclear generating station kept it out of service for just over a month longer than planned, the chief executive of Bruce Power said yesterday. But Duncan Hawthorne said the Bruce outage was not principally responsible for the high electricity prices that hit Ontario this summer during a time of record demand. He pointed to 34 occasions during the summer when major generating units were forced out of service. And he called for rule changes that would give the public more information about which generators are, or aren't, running in Ontario. The troubles at Bruce B's Unit 6 occurred June 11 when a maintenance device had been inserted into pressure tubes in the reactor core. The tubes, empty at the time, normally contain uranium fuel. The maintenance device accidentally burned a hole through the pressure tube and the calandria tube that encases it. Radioactive heavy water had to be drained from the core in order to replace the tubes. No radioactive leak occurred. Bruce Power issued a news release June 12 saying only that a pressure tube had been damaged and "the operational impact is not believed to be significant." The length of the outage only emerged later, in output reports from Bruce Power and material filed with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The safety commission filings showed for the first time that the calandria tube had also been damaged, and that radioactive heavy water had to be drained from the unit. Citing commercial confidentiality, both the commission and the Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO), which runs Ontario's electricity grid, declined to say how much extra down time the accident cost. Bruce Power is a partnership of British Energy PLC ? with an 82.4 per cent interest ? Cameco Corp. and the two unions whose members work at the site. It leases the facility from Ontario Power Generation. Yesterday, Hawthorne admitted for the first time that the damaged unit ? one of four in the Bruce B generating station ? was out of service for just over a month longer than planned as a result of the incident June 11. Instead of returning to service July 22 from its planned maintenance shutdown, which started March 2, the unit didn't get back to service until Aug. 25. Ontario had to import power to keep the lights on during much of the summer. But Hawthorne noted that high demand ? and high prices ? persisted through early September, when all four Bruce units were back at full power. And he said better-than-expected performance from the other three units offset the prolonged outage at Unit 6. Each of the four Bruce B units churns out about 800 megawatts of power; combined, they produce enough power to supply a city the size of Toronto. Yesterday's interview took place after The Star told the IMO it was about to make a Freedom Of Information application, and the IMO talked to Bruce Power. Hawthorne said he'd like to see confidentiality rules loosened. Ontario's rules are more restrictive than those in Britain, he said. And in Alberta, the province's power pool operates a Web site with up-to-the-minute information about which generators are working, and at what capacity. "I'm working to market rules," Hawthorne said. "I don't necessarily agree the information should be as confidential as it currently is, but that's the market rule." "I've got nothing to fear from a more transparent market and, quite frankly, quite a bit to gain," he said. "It's quite helpful to us if we can see the effect on the market of units going down and coming back. It sure helps our intelligence," Hawthorne said. "So I for one am a proponent of more visible reporting." Those price signals are useful guides for Bruce Power, or any other company, that might be interested in further investments in Ontario's power sector, he said. Getting more generators into Ontario is a hot topic, since Ontario was forced to rely heavily on imported power this summer. A report from the IMO's market surveillance panel has warned there could be brownouts or blackouts next summer if supplies don't increase. Hawthorne said he'd like to see more details about the 34 times during the summer when the IMO reported on its Web site that a generator of 250 megawatts or more had been forced from service. The IMO doesn't identify the generator, the cause or duration of the outage. "It looks like there's some interesting information to be had there that can factor into my view of market prices in the future." Hawthorne said he tried to keep key players informed of the Unit 6 outage and sent information packages to all three major Ontario political parties following the June 11 incident. He noted that Ontario's electricity market is a new one, and it's to be expected that some rules might need adjusting. Bruce Campbell, vice-president of the IMO, said the rules on confidentiality were established following extensive consultation with market participants and publication of draft rules. *Legal Notice:*- Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. ***************************************************************** 5 We've been too complacent over Chernobyl North Wales* Oct 10 2002 By Mark Hookham Daily Post Staff REACTOR Four at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant began to fail in the early hours of April 26, 1986. Seven seconds after the operators activated the 20-second shutdown system there was a power surge. The explosions that followed were so powerful they blew the 1,000-ton cover off the top of the reactor. The meltdown killed 31 people immediately and an estimated 600,000 workers were exposed to high dosages of radiation during the clean-up. Five million people were believed to have been exposed to radiation in Ukraine, Bela-rus and Russia. Over six days, a cloud containing radioactive particles travelled west across Europe. Former Government statistician John Urquhart claims the possible effects of radiation on newborn children can be seen in a band across Britain, from Grimsby to Liverpool. He said: "We've probably been too complacent about the health effects from Chernobyl on Western Europe. "This cloud started in southern Britain and slowly moved north before splitting over the North West. "Half the cloud went over the Irish Sea and half went into Scotland." Dr Chris Busby, a Government adviser on the effects of radiation, believes a large amount of radioactive material was washed into the Dee and Mersey estuaries. He said: "We found a high level of radioactive particles at Chester's weir shortly after Chernobyl. "Our research in 1997 showed childhood cancer rates in some parts of North Wales increased by 10 times the national average between 1984 and 1989." U n t i l Mr Urquhart's research, the affects of the meltdown were most visibly seen in the sheep farms of North Wales and Cumbria. Around 5,100 farms were affected by restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep in the immediate aftermath of the accident. Two years after the explosion a House of Commons Select Committee found that unsafe lamb from North Wales had entered the flood chain. The committee criticised the Government for the delay in giving farmers advice to bury contaminated sheep. Sheep farmer Ned Williams from Trawsfynwdd was widely regarded as the most radioactive man in Britain when it was found he had nine times the average level of caesium. It is thought he became contaminated after drinking milk from the area around his farm in Cwm Prysor. By 1990 experts found radiation levels in nearly all affected areas had fallen back to those detected before the explosion. But 386 British farms still have movement and slaughter restrictions placed on them - 350 of them in Snowdonia. Experts expect the restrictions to remain for at least the next 14 years. *Copyright and Trade Mark Notice* © owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2002 ***************************************************************** 6 NRC cites Cook for safety violation SouthBendTribune.com: October 10, 2002 AEP officials have made proper adjustments, commission reports By CHRISTINE COX Tribune Staff Writer BRIDGMAN -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has downgraded a safety violation at Cook Nuclear Power Plant from a situation of "substantial safety significance" to one of "low to moderate importance to safety," the NRC announced. Commission inspectors determined during an inspection conducted between August 2001 and May that a strainer on a water intake was improperly installed. The plant was powered down in late August to correct problems caused by silt and zebra mussels entering cooling-water intakes. Unit 1 was shut down Aug. 27 and Unit 2 on Aug. 30. When debris entered the system, which provides cooling for the emergency diesel generators and other plant safety equipment, the water flow to various heat exchangers was reduced, the NRC said in a written statement released Wednesday. The nuclear power plant draws about 1.5 million gallons of cooling water per minute from nearby Lake Michigan. The water is used by emergency-system condensers and generators. Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. owns the plant. The NRC also issued a Notice of Violation to American Electric Power for violation of the requirement that activities affecting quality must be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, and drawings. The NRC said it would increase its oversight of the utility because it was the utility's second low to moderate finding in the "Reactor Safety and Strategic Performance Area." During a preliminary investigation, the NRC gave the violation a rating of "yellow," which means the problem was "of substantial safety significance." In July, Cook officials met with the NRC to present results from engineering analyses and modeling hoping to prove the problem did not deserve a "yellow" rating because changes and repairs were made to remedy the situation. Cook spokesman Bill Schalk said Wednesday that the company had hoped for a "green" rating for a finding of minor significance. But the "white" rating of "low to moderate importance to safety" will do, he said. "We recognize that (the results) are open to interpretation," he said. "We don't plan to challenge the rating any further." Schalk stressed that "any situation that involves the safety system is important to us. ... We took prompt corrective action to see both of these (incidents) were rectified. ... We consider this to be closed." Staff writer Christine Cox: [ccox@sbtinfo.com] (269) 983-3927 [http://www.southbendtribune.com/copyright.html] ***************************************************************** 7 Canada: Reactor mishap kept Bruce closed Thestar.com/ Oct. 10, 2002. 09:14 AM Unit shut month longer than planned By John Spears Business Reporter The June maintenance accident that damaged tubing in a reactor at the Bruce B nuclear generating station kept it out of service for just over a month longer than planned, the chief executive of Bruce Power said yesterday. But Duncan Hawthorne said the Bruce outage was not principally responsible for the high electricity prices that hit Ontario this summer during a time of record demand. He pointed to 34 occasions during the summer when major generating units were forced out of service. And he called for rule changes that would give the public more information about which generators are, or aren't, running in Ontario. The troubles at Bruce B's Unit 6 occurred June 11 when a maintenance device had been inserted into pressure tubes in the reactor core. The tubes, empty at the time, normally contain uranium fuel. The maintenance device accidentally burned a hole through the pressure tube and the calandria tube that encases it. Radioactive heavy water had to be drained from the core in order to replace the tubes. No radioactive leak occurred. Bruce Power issued a news release June 12 saying only that a pressure tube had been damaged and "the operational impact is not believed to be significant." The length of the outage only emerged later, in output reports from Bruce Power and material filed with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The safety commission filings showed for the first time that the calandria tube had also been damaged, and that radioactive heavy water had to be drained from the unit. Citing commercial confidentiality, both the commission and the Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO), which runs Ontario's electricity grid, declined to say how much extra down time the accident cost. Bruce Power is a partnership of British Energy PLC — with an 82.4 per cent interest — Cameco Corp. and the two unions whose members work at the site. It leases the facility from Ontario Power Generation. Yesterday, Hawthorne admitted for the first time that the damaged unit — one of four in the Bruce B generating station — was out of service for just over a month longer than planned as a result of the incident June 11. Instead of returning to service July 22 from its planned maintenance shutdown, which started March 2, the unit didn't get back to service until Aug. 25. Ontario had to import power to keep the lights on during much of the summer. But Hawthorne noted that high demand — and high prices — persisted through early September, when all four Bruce units were back at full power. And he said better-than-expected performance from the other three units offset the prolonged outage at Unit 6. Each of the four Bruce B units churns out about 800 megawatts of power; combined, they produce enough power to supply a city the size of Toronto. Yesterday's interview took place after The Star told the IMO it was about to make a Freedom Of Information application, and the IMO talked to Bruce Power. Hawthorne said he'd like to see confidentiality rules loosened. Ontario's rules are more restrictive than those in Britain, he said. And in Alberta, the province's power pool operates a Web site with up-to-the-minute information about which generators are working, and at what capacity. "I'm working to market rules," Hawthorne said. "I don't necessarily agree the information should be as confidential as it currently is, but that's the market rule." "I've got nothing to fear from a more transparent market and, quite frankly, quite a bit to gain," he said. "It's quite helpful to us if we can see the effect on the market of units going down and coming back. It sure helps our intelligence," Hawthorne said. "So I for one am a proponent of more visible reporting." Those price signals are useful guides for Bruce Power, or any other company, that might be interested in further investments in Ontario's power sector, he said. Getting more generators into Ontario is a hot topic, since Ontario was forced to rely heavily on imported power this summer. A report from the IMO's market surveillance panel has warned there could be brownouts or blackouts next summer if supplies don't increase. Hawthorne said he'd like to see more details about the 34 times during the summer when the IMO reported on its Web site that a generator of 250 megawatts or more had been forced from service. The IMO doesn't identify the generator, the cause or duration of the outage. "It looks like there's some interesting information to be had there that can factor into my view of market prices in the future." Hawthorne said he tried to keep key players informed of the Unit 6 outage and sent information packages to all three major Ontario political parties following the June 11 incident. He noted that Ontario's electricity market is a new one, and it's to be expected that some rules might need adjusting. Bruce Campbell, vice-president of the IMO, said the rules on confidentiality were established following extensive consultation with market participants and publication of draft rules. Toronto Star Newspapers ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear Agency Takes Blame for Ohio Reactor Damage By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, October 10, 2002 (ENS) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that it is partially to blame for the events that allowed a boric acid leak to eat almost entirely through the lid of the reactor pressure vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. A report was published yesterday by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force, charged with investigating the agency's handling of events at the plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio about 25 miles east of Toledo. It reveals that a web of misinformation, poor regulatory oversight and operator negligence allowed a preventable problem to become a serious safety hazard. [plant] Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant (Photo courtesy Ottawa County Emergency Management [http://www.ottawacountyema.org] ) Of the three entities involved, the NRC, the plant operators and the nuclear industry, "no one connected the dots," said Ed Hackett, coauthor of the report. "When all the information was there, it should have been put together." Last spring plant operators at Davis-Besse discovered that boric acid from a leaking nozzle had created a hole six inches deep and nearly five inches wide in the reactor lid. A smaller hole was found a few weeks later. Borated water is used in pressurized water reactor plants as a reactivity control agent to aid in control of the nuclear reaction. The leak had also caused cracks in five of the 69 vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles. The plant's operators, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, reported the damage to the NRC, which sent inspectors to the plant on March 12, 2002. The leak and the subsequent damage, however, began as early as 1998. The report cites three primary reasons why the degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head and the plant's VHP nozzle leakage occurred for so long without detection or action. First, the agency, the plant's operators and the nuclear industry failed to adequately review, assess, and follow up on relevant operating experience. Second, plant operators failed to assure that plant safety issues would receive appropriate attention. Finally, the NRC failed to integrate known or available information into its assessments of the Davis-Besse plant's safety performance. For example, the NRC and the nuclear industry were aware of cracks in VHP nozzles in a similar plant in France in the early 1990s and in the Oconee plant in South Carolina in the spring of 2001. Rather than focusing on preventing leaks, the agency simply requested that plant operators inform the agency of how they planned to monitor cracking in VHP nozzles. [reactor] Besse reactor vessel head insulation showing the damage caused by boric acid (Photo courtesy NRC [http://www.nrc.gov] ) The NRC went along with industry's assessment that these cracks were not much of a safety risk and that corrosion could be easily spotted long before it caused a problem. Evidence of boric acid deposits was identified at the Davis-Besse plant as early as 1998, but was not taken seriously by either the NRC or the plant's operators. "There was a mindset among all three parties that boric acid deposits on the head weren't a big deal," Hackett said. "There was a belief that degradation of this type wasn't likely to happen, even though there had been a history of these things in U.S. and foreign plants showing that degradation could be quite rapid." The task force concluded that a great deal of blame ultimately lies with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, which the report cites as repeatedly failing "to assure that plant safety issues would receive appropriate attention." The Davis-Besse plant remains offline and its operators do not expect to restart the plant until next year. FirstEnergy has estimated the shutdown alone could cost it up to $400 million. In total the task force offers more than 50 recommendations, including stronger and more vigorous oversight of the nation's nuclear power plants. These recommendations are currently under review by senior agency officials, who will face an even tougher task in finding money to fund any changes. [hole] Hole in the reactor lid at Davis-Besse (Photo courtesy Ohio Citizen Action [http://www.ohiocitizen.org/] ) Industry watchdogs remain concerned that similar problems at other reactors remain undiscovered. There are 69 pressurized water reactor plants in the United States; the other 34 U.S. nuclear plants are powered by boiling water reactors. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), nuclear power plant operators have also found cracks in 49 of the 59 nozzles on the reactor vessel head at North Anna Unit 2 near Richmond, Virginia. The Washington, DC based nonprofit science policy group cites similar problems at plants in South Carolina, Missouri, Florida and Arkansas. "The North Anna and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants operated for months or even years with reactor vessel head cracks leaking cooling water," said David Lochbaum, UCS nuclear safety engineer. "Under NRC safety requirements, nuclear power plants are only permitted to operate for six hours with a cracked reactor vessel head. Owners risk catastrophic failure by operating any longer," Lochbaum warned. The reactor vessel crack issue also raises concerns over the pending renewal of operating licenses for many aging nuclear power plants. "These widespread leakage problems clearly demonstrate that the NRC is not requiring a thorough safety overhaul of aging nuclear power plants," said Lochbaum. "Tens of millions of dollars will be spent on these reactor vessel replacements. If the NRC doesn't enforce federal safety regulations like the six-hour rule, the price tag could include an avoidable accident." FirstEnergy Corp. is being urged to investigate whether converting the Davis-Besse nuclear plant to oil or coal would be feasible. Four members of Congress from northern Ohio have signed a letter to the company making the request, together with the consumer group Ohio Citizen Action, according to a report in the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" Wednesday. They are Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Cleveland, Sherrod Brown of Lorain, and Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, all Democrats. FirstEnergy spokesman Ralph DiNicola told the newspaper the utility is focused on repairing Davis-Besse and restarting it as a nuclear power plant early next year. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights ***************************************************************** 9 NRC says inspectors missed Ohio nuke plant damage earlier Las Vegas SUN: October 10, 2002 By JOHN SEEWER ASSOCIATED PRESS TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission failed to perform inspections that could have detected an acid leak that caused the most extensive corrosion ever found on a U.S. nuclear reactor, according to an agency internal review. The report Wednesday marks the first time it has formally acknowledged making mistakes that led to the damage at the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo. The agency also blames the plant's operator, FirstEnergy Corp. An NRC report issued last week said inspectors found violations of 10 federal regulations at the plant. Boric acid nearly ate through a 6-inch-thick steel reactor cap by the time the first of two leaks was discovered in March. The discovery, which the NRC has said should have been spotted several years earlier, led to a nationwide review of all 69 similar plants. The report released Wednesday said the NRC and the nuclear industry did not think boric acid deposits would cause significant corrosion. An NRC senior inspector became aware of the deposits in 2000 but never notified superiors or inspected the area more closely, the report said. Agency spokesman Jan Strasma said NRC managers will review the report's more than 50 recommendations. "Certainly there'll be changes made," he said. "This is a first step," said David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has advocated tighter safety rules for nuclear plants. "We need to see how successful the agency is at making these changes happen." Davis-Besse spokesman Richard Wilkins said Wednesday that the company is focusing on improving its inspections and standards. The plant remains shut down. Workers have replaced the damaged reactor head. The company wants to restart the plant early next year, but regulators have not indicated if they will allow that. "The report provides some valuable insights," said FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider. "We've said we made mistakes, missed opportunities. Most importantly, we're putting into place more procedures and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again." Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who was briefed by NRC Chairman Richard Meserve, called the findings "serious and troubling." He called for congressional hearings and a General Accounting Office investigation into the Davis-Besse matter. At least one other nuclear power plant has recently found the kind of leaks and cracks found at Davis-Besse. But the extent of leaking boric acid at the North Anna nuclear station, north of Richmond, Va., is small in comparison, according to an incident report filed this week with the NRC. Such leaks and cracks "clearly demonstrate that the NRC is not requiring a thorough safety overhaul of aging nuclear power plants," Lochbaum said. The NRC has "pretty reasonable assurance that there's not something on the order of another Davis-Besse situation out there," said Edwin Hackett, the assistant team leader of the NRC task force that reported Wednesday on the Davis-Besse corrosion. On the Net: http://www.nrc.gov [http://www.nrc.gov] http://www.ucsusa.org [http://www.ucsusa.org] http://www.firstenergycorp.com [http://www.firstenergycorp.com] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 Attorneys general ask Congress for more nuclear power protection newsobserver.com : nc24hour : ncnews [newsobserver.com, Raleigh, NC] Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:35AM EDT RALEIGH, N.C.(AP) - Attorneys general from 27 states, including North Carolina, are asking Congress to step up efforts to protect nuclear power plants from terror attacks. The attorneys submitted a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday urging creation of a task force and a more aggressive timetable to update plant security standards. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper thinks that federal and state officials have done a good job improving security at the plants, said J.B. Kelly, his general counsel. But Cooper supports efforts to centralize those efforts in a task force run by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Office of Homeland Security. The letter signed by Cooper and the others singles out risks posed by spent fuel pools at nuclear plants, where radioactive waste is stored. Those pools are a target of criticism by groups like NC WARN, which is critical of safety conditions at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County. Earlier this year, NC WARN asked Cooper to order owner Progress Energy to stop shipping spent waste to the Harris plant pools, saying the rail transports themselves pose a terrorist risk. But on Wednesday, Kelly said there is no evidence that Progress Energy violates any laws or regulations with its transports. The Attorney General's Office sees no reason to take action against them, although it will continue to seek out information regarding their safety. "We're not hearing anything from local law enforcement that they are concerned," Kelly said. "There is nothing that indicates that there is an imminent threat to anyone." Shearon Harris is believed to have the largest waste storage capacity of any nuclear power plant in the country and to be the only commercial plant that imports waste for storage. NC WARN this week submitted more information to Cooper's office. Stan Goff, a retired U.S. Army master sergeant with experience in security assessments, evaluated the vulnerability to attack of the Progress transports. While keeping some details confidential, Goff said he concluded that the trains, which travel about 200 miles from Eastern North Carolina to the Harris site, are highly vulnerable. The train tracks they travel on are embedded in a heavily forested corridor where it would be simple for attackers to hide themselves and explosives, said Goff, a former Army Special Operations member who now works for NC WARN as an organizer. Keith Poston, a Progress Energy spokesman, said it's highly unlikely that anyone could ever reach fuel locked inside 70-ton casks on the guarded shipments, which occur about 10 times a year on unannounced dates. © Copyright 2002, The News &Observer Publishing Company. All material found ***************************************************************** 11 UK: Cancer risk for radiation workers BBC NEWS | Health | Thursday, 10 October, 2002, 15:59 GMT 16:59 [Courtesy of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] The radiation comes from the black sands People who are exposed to even low levels of radiation at work may be at risk of cancer, scientists have suggested. They believe that current safety limits may be too high and that more research needs to be done to protect health workers, scientists and others who come into contact with radioactive materials. Scientists from Britain and Germany have found that prolonged exposure to relatively low doses of radiation can cause mutations in human DNA. Maybe it is happening to genes that have been linked to cancer Dr Peter Forster, McDonald Institute They have suggested that it may also affect genes that have been linked with leukaemia and other cancers. The scientists analysed the effects of radiation exposure on nearly 1,000 people living in southern India. Natural radiation These people live in Kerala, which has one of the highest natural background radiation in the world. The radiation is caused by monazite sands which contain the radioactive element, thorium. These sands are washed down from nearby mountains and accumulate on the sea shore. [Courtesy of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] The study examined people from Kerala, India The vast majority of people living in this area are fishermen and come into regular contact with the sands. The scientists examined the effects of the radiation on mitochondrial DNA - the tiny energy factories which power cells. They found that those exposed to radiation had higher levels of "point mutations" in their mitochondrial DNA. A "point mutation'' takes place when a single "base'' - the genetic code is made up of four bases - along a DNA strand gets changed. People who lived locally but were not exposed to the radioactive sands had significantly fewer mutations. The mutations affect non-coding DNA and do not have an impact on health. However, the scientists have suggested that encoding genes - those that can trigger disease - could also be affected. They added that the findings raise serious questions about the levels of radiation people can be exposed to at work. The people in the study were exposed to radiation which is 10 times greater than the worldwide average. However, those who are exposed to radiation at work are allowed to receive up to 50 times the normal level. Safety review Dr Peter Forster of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the McDonald Institute at the University of Cambridge, said these safety limits should be reviewed. "These findings may be cause for rethinking whether the maximum levels for radiation exposure at work should be brought down." Speaking to BBC News Online, he added: "This section of DNA will always be non-coding but we only looked at this bit. "Perhaps it is happening to other genes and maybe it is happening to genes that have been linked to cancer." The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 12 Securing America: The Federal Government’s Response to Nuclear Terrorism at Our Nation’s Ports and Borders. [http://www.house.gov/tauzin] Committee Hearing The House Committee on Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations October 17, 2002 09:00 AM 2322 Rayburn House Office Building Hearing Webcast: Pending The hearing will begin at approximately 09:00 AM. The link to the broadcast will become active 10 minutes prior to the start of the hearing. Refresh your browser for the latest information. Witness List & Prepared Testimony Witness List Not Yet Finalized ***************************************************************** 13 Judge stays ruling in nuke waste case Lincoln Journal Star U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf this week granted the state of Nebraska's motion to stay his $151million judgment against the state in the radioactive waste warehouse case. The stay, granted by Kopf Wednesday, will enable the state to appeal the judge's Sept. 30 ruling that Nebraska officials acted in bad faith in licensing a proposed low-level radioactive waste warehouse for Boyd County. Kopf awarded the damages to the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, the governing body for the five-state compact that wanted to build the waste dump. The stay will last until the state has completed its appeals. Nebraska officials have said they expect the case will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Agency creates management jobs for Yucca project Friday, October 11, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Energy Department officials say new posts reflect shift from research to building dump By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is installing new Yucca Mountain Project managers in Nevada and Washington, part of a program shift that includes a new name for its Las Vegas office. W. John Arthur III, a veteran DOE manager in New Mexico, will become chief of site development and licensing in early December in a newly created job, deputy director for repository development, the agency announced this week. Arthur will be based in Las Vegas and would become chief of Nevada-based operations that involve 100 federal workers and 1,500 contract workers in the city and at the proposed nuclear waste burial site, 100 miles to the northwest. The department said it is recruiting a counterpart who will become deputy director at Washington headquarters in charge of strategy and program development, another new post. The move bolsters top Yucca Mountain Project management below Margaret Chu, chief of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, government and industry officials said. The move comes at a time when the federal government is shifting its focus from decades of research to designing a repository and seeking licenses to build and operate it while defending against challenges from Nevada and environmental groups. "This is a sign the department is moving forward in the next phase of the project," said Rod McCullum, senior project manager for used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Nevada officials who are fighting the proposed repository took a dimmer view. Bob Loux, chief of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, questioned why the Energy Department was adding top positions at the same time it is complaining about possible budget cuts. "It begs the question when DOE does these things," Loux said. The personnel changes reflect a growing importance of Yucca Mountain within the Energy Department, said Allen Benson, a DOE spokesman in Las Vegas. "Now that we have a site designation, the organization now is being elevated," Benson said. "It reflects the significant action that is now going on." The sign on the door in Las Vegas will change soon, Benson said. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office will become the Office of Repository Development, he said. Arthur is manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Albuquerque Operations Office, which oversees two national laboratories and nuclear weapons production. The Security Administration is a branch of the Energy Department. The department declined to make Arthur available for comment. Russ Dyer, who has led the Las Vegas office as Yucca Mountain Project Manager, will become senior project adviser under Arthur in Las Vegas. In a 24-year government career, Arthur has managed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a repository for mixed nuclear waste. He managed the 1989 supplemental environmental impact statement for WIPP. In a statement, DOE said Arthur's experience includes nuclear materials transportation, nuclear facility construction and environmental management services. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 15 European Parliament pledges support for nuclear clean-up in north-west Russia Inter-Parliamentary Working Group In 1998 Bellona organized an Inter-Parliamentary Working Group (IPWG), which is a forum of Russian and Western parliamentarians. The main goal of the IPWG is to address issues of nuclear safety co-operation that require political attention. MURMANSK-OSLO - On a trip organised by Bellona and the Russian Duma, members of the European Parliament visited Kola's nuclear sites and pledged support to fill the gaps in the existing programmes. Igor Kudrik, 2002-10-10 19:00 While the Nobel Peace Prize favourites, senators Nunn and Lugar, fight in the US Congress for the very existence of the Co-operative Threat Reduction programme, we register an increased European interest in the issue. Last week, Bellona and a member of the Russian State Duma, Valentin Luntsevich, took a group of ten members of the European Parliament to Murmansk to study nuclear safety and security issues, which have been haunting the region since the late 1980s. A more active and structured participation from the European countries regarding nuclear safety in north-west Russia is becoming vital. Moreover, politicians may have to compromise on their misunderstandings, which up to now have obstructed the successful implementation of the existing programmes. The Kola region, of which Murmansk is the capital, in north-west Russia, hosts Russia's once mighty Northern Fleet, which operated two-thirds of the 250 nuclear powered submarines built in the Soviet Union. Today, the submarine fleet has fallen to 34 nuclear powered vessels. The remaining 115 submarines have been taken out of active service and are currently scattered along the coast line of the Kola Peninsula and in Arkhangelsk county, awaiting decommissioning. The Northern Fleet's dilapidated infrastructure for managing spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste has turned into ruins during the past decade. Inter-Parliamentary Group Working Group background In 1998 Bellona created an Inter-Parliamentary Working Group, IPWG, whose members visited Murmansk last week. This forum provided the possibility for politicians from Russia, Europe and the United States to focus on the issue of nuclear safety co-operation. Currently, the IPWG is co-chaired by Bart Staes, member of the European Parliament, and Sergey Mitrokhin, member of the Russian State Duma. To intensify the economic development of the Arctic, the Soviet Union built nine nuclear powered civilian vessels — eight icebreakers and one container ship. But with the industry's downsizing following the collapse of the Soviet Union, this nuclear fleet faced economic hardships, as well as enormous expenses to handle radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The management of the hazardous products of submarine and icebreakers' operation was not a top priority in the Soviet Union; Russia therefore inherited a whole package of problems it was unable to cope with on its own. USA steps in In the period following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991, championed through Congress by Senators Nunn and Lugar, has achieved significant results. The act, renamed the Co-operative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme in 1993, was designed to help the countries of the former Soviet Union destroy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure, and establish verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of those weapons. According to the US government's Defense Threat Reduction Agency website (http://www.dtra.mil/ctr/ctr_score.html [http://www.dtra.mil/ctr/ctr_score.html] ), as of July 7th 2002 5,970 nuclear warheads have been deactivated, 1,269 ballistic and long-range nuclear cruise missiles eliminated, 829 missile launchers destroyed, 97 long-range bombers eliminated and 24 ballistic missile submarines destroyed. To ensure the decommissioning of ballistic missile submarines, CTR has created the infrastructure for their elimination both at the shipyards in north-west Russia — Nerpa at the Kola Peninsula and Zvezdochka in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk county — and in the Russian Far East where the Pacific Fleet is based — Zvezda shipyard. Later CTR started to contract shipyard directly to carry out the decommissioning of submarines as well as to create the infrastructure for spent fuel management. This year a nuclear fuel unloading site was commissioned at Zvezdochka shipyard. The first submarine to be de-fuelled there is a Typhoon class (TK-202) — the world's biggest submarine and a cold war demolition machine. All in all, CTR is planning to completely dismantle 41 ballistic missile submarines by 2007. CTR has been a success first of all in terms of securing weapons of mass destruction and its carriers, but the programme also assisted in creating the needed infrastructure to dismantle submarines and to manage unloaded spent nuclear fuel, as well as to process liquid radioactive waste generated as a result of decommissioning. The water area of Nerpa shipyard: Diesel submarines are on the left side and Deltas are on the right side. Vincent Basler But any assistance that goes beyond the weapons' destruction has been never popular among Republicans in the US Congress. Starting in 1996, the US Congress added amendments to funding bills to limit CTR's authority in assisting with environmental restoration projects and has continued to include prohibitive language in defence authorisation bills. The debate around CTR culminated this October when Senator Lugar attempted to get approval of a permanent waiver from the Capital Hill. Under current legislation, the Pentagon must "certify" Russia as committed to non-proliferation, or else roughly one-third of CTR activities controlled by the US military shuts down. That certification process is run on a fiscal-year basis. The waiver for the 2002 fiscal year was signed by President Bush August 2002 and was valid only until October 1st. This was the day when the hard battle for CTR started. And all the old anti-CTR arguments emerged in that debate. "[The opposition] says Nunn-Lugar is foreign aid, they say the US military should not be involved, they think [Nunn-Lugar deals with] environmental issues, they think they are issues the Pentagon should not be involved with," said a US government official to Bellona Web earlier this week. According to non-proliferation experts, CTR is unlikely to receive a permanent waiver and its activities may become limited solely to weapons' destruction. In today's reality, though, it is very hard to separate environmental and non-proliferation programmes. Securing radioactive and nuclear material has become crucial not only for the environment, but also to a larger extent it has become vital in preventing "evil doers" getting hold of such materials. Fortunately, European countries have recently shown greater interest in providing their share of assistance, which is now starting to be of great importance. Nerpa shipyard exemplified Nerpa shipyard was one of the visit points for European Parliament members, their State Duma colleagues and Bellona last week. The shipyard has so far decommissioned nine submarines, including six ballistic missile submarines, or SSBNs. SSBNs were scrapped using of CTR supplied equipment and with CTR funds. But CTR's contract with Nerpa is due to expire, as CTR plans to transfer all future decommissioning operations to Severodvinsk where an extensive infrastructure for spent nuclear fuel management has been built. While Nerpa has American supplied equipment for cutting-up submarines, it is unlikely to use these equipment since the spare parts are expensive and the Russian state budget does not have enough funds to pay for the decommissioning of non-strategic submarines, largely referred to as multi-purpose submarines. Around 80 multi-purpose submarines are waiting to be decommissioned in the Northern Fleet, posing no strategic danger to the United States, but threatening the surrounding environment and containing tonnes of spent nuclear material in their reactors. The long debate over western assistance for decommissioning multi-purpose submarines has so far achieved no result from the USA, despite Senator Lugar's intensive lobbying of such an initiative. But the European countries may well step in and fill the gaps which CTR has been unable to fulfil so far. And Nerpa shipyard has the available infrastructure to deal with multi-purpose submarines. Bellona's position papers On the recent initiatives by G8 countries and the European Union to secure nuclear materials.  The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP)
» [http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/waste-mngment/ipwg/26350.html]  The G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction
» [http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/waste-mngment/ipwg/26340.html] In July this year, the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, or NDEP, a European initiative to channel funds to environmental problems in north-west Europe, arranged a pledging conference, where European Union countries, Norway and Russia contributed 110 million euro, including 62 million euro exclusively for nuclear safety issues in north-west Russia. In the draft projects list, the sites, which were not covered by CTR due to the restrictions imposed on the programme, but may well be secured with the European assistance. Among those sites is Andreeva Bay, an infamous dumping ground for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in the western part of the Kola Peninsula. The European delegation was able to visit the premises of Andreeva Bay during their visit last week. During the visit to Nerpa, Bart Staes, the head of the European delegation and member of the European Parliament, also announced that his group — Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance — filed an amendment to the EC's 2003 budget for 60 million euros for assistance in the nuclear sector, which contains a specific item about channelling the funds for radwaste management at the Kola Peninsula. Mr Staes mentioned specifically that the amendment was prompted by Bellona's work in the area of nuclear safety in Russia. G8 pledge — uniting the efforts The G8 "Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction [WMD]" issued by the world's eight leading industrial nations at the G8 Summit on 27 June 2002, is an initiative aimed at accounting, securing and clearing up Russia's vast nuclear legacy. The initiative is still in a rather vague state, but it can be seen as an attempt to unite all efforts aimed at securing Russia's nuclear legacy. This gives the chance to involve Europe and other countries more actively into the work that the United States has been doing for the past decade. The countries taking part in the initiative can fill the gaps, which arose due to the limitations in the existing programmes, such as CTR, and ensure that the artificial distinction between environmental issues and non-proliferation are wiped away. After all, any radiological device can become a weapon, thus securing those devices makes the world a safer place both from the environmental and security standpoints. Huge undertakings stem from small steps Bellona has created an Inter-Parliamentary Working Group, IPWG — whose members visited Murmansk last week — back in 1998. This forum provided politicians from Russia, Europe and the United States with the possibility to focus on issues in nuclear safety co-operation. Such issues still exist and require quick resolution. The signing of the agreement referred to as the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programmes in the Russian Federation, or MNEPR, is just one example. This agreement would free the funds pledged by the NDEP, for example. The harsh debate over CTR in the US Congress is another issue. In Bellona's opinion, the lawmakers from different countries should understand the importance of nuclear security issues and act swiftly in the areas where executive bodies fail to come to an agreement. The MNEPR agreement is a prime example. There is always room for compromise when a goal is clear, and unless this room is used words and pledges will just evaporate. And it is important those compromises should be agreed to move ahead with such undertakings as the G8 initiative. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 16 Utah: Former Foes Unite Against Nuclear Measure The Salt Lake Tribune -- Friday, October 11, 2002 BY DAWN HOUSE Former political foes Jan Graham, the Democratic ex-attorney general, and GOP House Speaker Marty Stephens united Thursday to oppose a citizen's initiative that calls for higher taxes for selected hazardous waste and a limit on what types Utah can accept. Graham charged that initiative supporters are misleading the public in promising that the measure would keep nuclear waste out of Utah. Envirocare, the only company that would be affected by the new law, accepts low-level radioactive waste and that would not change. But the initiative would ban a higher category of waste than is now being accepted. "People pushing the petition were paid $3.15 for every person they managed to sign up," Graham said. "The more they signed up, the more money they made, so they were making statements that were not true, like the initiative would ban nuclear waste. It does not ban nuclear waste." Initiative proponent Frank Pignanelli, former House minority leader, said Graham is making the point for his cause. The initiative would ban the higher levels of waste and would make moot law allowing the governor and Legislature to approve dumping it in Utah. Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control, the group behind the initiative, claims the tax would raise between $100 million and $200 million that would be diverted to education and services for the homeless. But opponents claim the money would not materialize because the taxes would drive Envirocare out of business. Graham's law firm, TeschGraham, has been retained by Utahns Against Unfair Taxes, the Envirocare-led organization formed to defeat the initiative, to challenge the law on constitutional grounds if the initiative passes. Graham says the suit would cite several constitutional violations, including the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because one company, Envirocare, would be singled out for selective taxes. "The sheer length and complexity of the law is incomprehensible," she said. "It took our lawyers several weeks to sort it out. It is 53 pages long and affects 15 sections of the Utah code. The proponents didn't intend for the voters to understand it." "That is just malicious," Pignanelli said of his fellow Democrat. "The law requires that when statutes are changed we must copy every section of the statute changed, then show how it is changed. That is why it takes so many changes. We would love to put it on one page if we could, but we have to follow the law." Stephens said two-thirds of the Legislature opposes the initiative: 21 of the state's 29 senators and 50 representatives of the 75-member House. "The opposition in the Legislature is bipartisan," he said, "and it includes the entire leadership of both the Senate and the House." Stephens said that lawmakers passed a measure during the last legislative session that raises taxes on low-level wastes. In fact, new revenues from taxes and fees this past fiscal year, which ended June 30, was nearly $1.7 million. Projections are that new revenues next fiscal year will total more than $3.35 million. "I object to the initiative supporters saying that the Legislature has failed to act," he said. "That is absolutely false." © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 17 Shipment of nuclear waste leaves for France with little protest Fri, Oct 11, 2002 BERLIN - One of the biggest shipments of nuclear waste in recent years left Germany Thursday, meeting little protest as it rolled west bound for a reprocessing plants in France and Britain. A train with 16 containers of waste from at least six German nuclear power stations crossed the border near Saarbruecken Thursday evening. Police reported no incidents involving small groups of anti-nuclear protesters at stations along the route. Demonstrators have held up such shipments in the past despite massive police operations, particularly when containers of reprocessed waste have been brought back to Germany for storage. The German government and power companies last year signed an agreement to phase out nuclear power within about 20 years. Activists hope protests will force a quicker shutdown. (swg) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 Negotiating with the federal government, a Nevada perspective Nevada Appeal October 10, 2002 By the Nevada Appeal editorial board From the start, the problem in negotiating with the federal government over nuclear-waste storage at Yucca Mountain has been trust. Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state's watchdog on the Yucca repository, reminded lawmakers of that obstacle this week. While state officials long have fought the dump, there always has been a faction that argued Nevada should be trying to cut the best deal possible. If the outcome is inevitable, they argue, why not make the best of it? It might not be a bad strategy, if Nevada had any leverage in the argument. But it doesn't. The only leverage it will have is if the state's hired guns can win some court battles, and that means fighting every step of the way. Loux turned to New Mexico and the much-despised Waste Isolation Pilot Plant project east of Carlsbad for his example of broken promises by the U.S. Department of Energy. "New Mexico's relationship with DOE on WIPP is one that is characterized by broken promises, repeated failures to live up to commitments, even court-stipulated agreements, and political gamesmanship," Loux said. But Nevada shouldn't need many reminders of broken promises. The Yucca project itself is the most recent example, as the rules and regulations have twisted with the wind and the whims of the DOE. The next-most relevant example may be at the Nevada Test Site, where the depths and breadth of the government's deception are still being discovered today. And the oldest example in the state is also a current example, as the Western Shoshones still are waiting for the federal government to live up to the treaty its representatives signed in 1863. We weren't around then (the Nevada Appeal didn't start publishing until 1865), but we suspect someone at the time said, "The tribe should negotiate the best deal possible." It didn't help then. It wouldn't help now. /Copyright Nevada Appeal. Materials contained within this site may ***************************************************************** 19 Iraq: Russia's Terms Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:08:49 -0500 (CDT) http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/10/38020.html Iraqi War: Price of the Problem British Prime Minister Anthony Blair came to Moscow to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia should support the US in the UN Security Council. As is known, three permanent members of the Security Council, France, China, and Russia, strongly object to the coming war against Iraq. If Russia finally gives up, the USA will be more successful in pressing France and China. But why should Russia agree to war with Saddam Hussein? Especially since Russia is greatly interested in the Iraqi oil business. This time, we will unlikely trust the insignificant promises of US top-officials that Russias interests will be protected by the US State Department. The State Department will probably try to protect Russian interests, but it is a question of whether or not American business bigwigs will do the same. However, the problem is really very delicate for Russia, as next years budget is based on the price of oil. The British Daily Telegraph commented on the present-day situation. The influential newspaper thinks that Russia is objecting to war against Iraq because of the consequences it may bring to the world oil market. It is no secret that Russias economy strongly depends on oil exports, and even more so on the price raw exports. In this respect, Russias interests are very close to OPECs, which is doing its best to prevent a drop in oil prices. At that, Russia and the USA declared their mutual interests and even created an energy treaty. The US propaganda machine has already worked on the first supplies of Russian oil to the US strategic reserve. However, this is just propaganda. In fact, the interests of the two newly declared energy partners are really very different. The USA needs more than low oil prices and control over the oil market. It is clear why US governmental officials speak a lot about the energy security of the country: America needs complete control over Iraqi oil. And when it gets it, America wont care at all what happens on the worlds oil market. The USA will get as much oil from Iraq as it wishes, and it wont care whether the prices are high or low. Russia, on the contrary, is extremely anxious about the forecasted drop in oil prices. If the price of oil drops, the Russian budget, which is already scheduled for the next year, will go to pieces. This means that Russia wont be able to meet its foreign debt payments, not to mention what consequences such a drop would bring to the domestic situation on the whole. It may resemble chaos after a strong earthquake. Russia oil magnate, President of the Yukos oil company Mikhail Khodorkovsky said in the State Duma today that, if a military operation begins against Iraq, oil prices will drop to 14-16 dollars per barrel at best, and from 12-14 dollars at worst. If the war doesnt last long and America achieves its objectives rather quickly, low oil prices will remain for an indefinitely long period. The oligarch is sure that this will have a disastrous effect on the budget and the Russian oil industry on the whole. Certainly, with the course of time, oil prices will return to 27 USD per barrel. However, this period, although not an extremely long one, will completely destroy the Russian economy. The Daily Telegraph says that drop in oil prices will mean the beginning of a financial catastrophe for Russia, where much financing is currently spent on economic reforms. The British newspaper wrote that on October 9, 2002, the Kremlin said it was ready to allow a military operation in Iraq, but asked for a rather high price at that. The American mass media report with reference to undisclosed diplomatic sources that Russia has already named the price of its consent to wage a war in the Persian Gulf. It is reported that Russian authorities would like to get the following for their support: contracts to the sum of tens of billions of dollars for the restoration of Iraqs economy; incorporation into the WTO; abolishment of the Jackson-Vanik amendment; wide access of Russian goods (not only oil and gas) to the American markets and USs indulgence to possible operations carried out by Russia in the network of anti-terrorism struggle (not only in Georgia). Until now, experts supposed that the USA would agree to Russian demands with some stipulations, but then wouldnt follow through. Right before his trip to Russia, Anthony Blair gave an interview to BBC, which broke this assurance. He said that Russia would undoubtedly ask for significant financial guarantees in exchange for its support . Russia evidently has interests of its own, but I doubt this is a question of price only, Anthony Blair said. This is a question of providing guarantees to the whole world. We should look after the interests of all countries, including Russia. However, the British politician isnt quite right with his statement, as Russias interests currently hinge on money only. That is why this is just a question of price and guarantees. In exchange for another collapse of its economy caused by the US-led small, triumphant war, Russia quite naturally wants to obtain governmental contractual work in the volumes necessary to prevent ultimate destruction of the Russian economy. This is the price Russia asks for. In other words, this is financial maintenance of Russia from Western developed countries in exchange for its support of the military campaign against Iraq. Unfortunately, this is too expensive. Even if the USA meets Russias every claim, this will have an effect after 2-3 years only, if it at all. However, the Russian economy may collapse at any moment as soon as the world oil prices drop. And the things which are supposed to stimulate stagnating American economy will turn out to be deadly for the Russian economy. Moreover, this will also cause danger to Vladimir Putins second term as president, to Russias further democratic development, and so on. There is no reasonable politician in the USA who can say that, when America gets Iraqi oil, it wont care what nationalist patriots and generals with nuclear missiles are doing in Russia. That is why, despite Blairs visit to Russia (or probably due to it), an unknown committee of solidarity with Iraqi people is going to organize a protest action against the war against Iraq in front of the US Consulate Office in St. Petersburg tomorrow. Dmitry Slobodanuk PRAVDA.Ru Translated by Maria Gousseva Read the original in Russian: http://pravda.ru/main/2002/10/10/48239.html Related links: PRAVDA.Ru Blair Enthusiastic About Russian Anti-Terror Contribution Blair shares he shares Bushs analysis of Iraq situation The Guardian (UK). : Blair to order invasion force this month Blair: Iraq Must Give U.N. Access Capital Times : Blairs dossier on Iraq is too thin PRAVDA.Ru US sends oil price through the roof PRAVDA.Ru Oil price as an instrument of globalization BBC : Oil price jumps after tanker attack Financial Times : Oil price firm as Iraq remains top of agenda Oil Prices Driven Up by Iraq War Anxiety ***************************************************************** 20 CONGRESS ROLLCALL ON WAR RESOLUTION Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 05:56:38 -0500 (CDT) Apologies to readers outside the U$A. Those who can do something should remember who, among the elected reps, voted for war. MichaelP ============== Senate Roll Call By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq. On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the resolution and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one independent. 29 DEMOCRATS YES Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J. 21 DEMOCRATS NO Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore. 48 REPUBLICANS YES Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Campbell, Colo.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Gramm, Texas; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Helms, N.C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, N.H.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Thomas, Wyo.; Thompson, Tenn.; Thurmond, S.C.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va. 1 REPUBLICANS NO . Chafee, R.I.; OTHERS NO Jeffords, Vt. ============== Roll Call Vote in House on Iraq Resolution By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The 296-133 roll call Thursday by which the House voted for a resolution to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. A "yes" vote is a vote to approve the resolution. Voting yes were 81 Democrats and 215 Republicans. Voting no were 126 Democrats, six Republicans and one independent. X denotes those not voting. There are three vacancies in the 435-member House. ALABAMA DEMS Cramer, Y; Hilliard, N. REPUBS Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Callahan, Y; Everett, Y; Riley, Y. ALASKA REPUBS Young, Y. ARIZONA DEMS Pastor, N. REPUBS Flake, Y; Hayworth, Y; Kolbe, Y; Shadegg, Y; Stump, X. ARKANSAS DEMS Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, N. REPUBS Boozman, Y. CALIFORNIA DEMS Baca, N; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, N; Condit, N; Davis, N; Dooley, Y; Eshoo, N; Farr, N; Filner, N; Harman, Y; Honda, N; Lantos, Y; Lee, N; Lofgren, N; Matsui, N; Millender-McDonald, N; George Miller, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, N; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Solis, N; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, N; Waters, N; Watson, N; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, N. REPUBS Bono, Y; Calvert, Y; Cox, Y; Cunningham, Y; Doolittle, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Horn, Y; Hunter, Y; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; McKeon, Y; Gary Miller, Y; Ose, Y; Pombo, Y; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y; Thomas, Y. COLORADO DEMS DeGette, N; Udall, N. REPUBS Hefley, Y; McInnis, Y; Schaffer, Y; Tancredo, Y. CONNECTICUT DEMS DeLauro, N; Larson, N; Maloney, N. REPUBS Johnson, Y; Shays, Y; Simmons, Y. DELAWARE REPUBS Castle, Y. FLORIDA DEMS Boyd, Y; Brown, N; Davis, Y; Deutsch, Y; Hastings, N; Meek, N; Thurman, Y; Wexler, Y. REPUBS Bilirakis, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Foley, Y; Goss, Y; Keller, Y; Mica, Y; Dan Miller, Y; Jeff Miller, Y; Putnam, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Shaw, Y; Stearns, Y; Weldon, Y; Young, Y. GEORGIA DEMS Bishop, Y; Lewis, N; McKinney, N. REPUBS Barr, Y; Chambliss, Y; Collins, Y; Deal, Y; Isakson, Y; Kingston, Y; Linder, Y; Norwood, Y. HAWAII DEMS Abercrombie, N. IDAHO REPUBS Otter, Y; Simpson, Y. ILLINOIS DEMS Blagojevich, Y; Costello, N; Davis, N; Evans, N; Gutierrez, N; Jackson, N; Lipinski, N; Phelps, Y; Rush, N; Schakowsky,N. REPUBS Biggert, Y; Crane, Y; Hastert, Y; Hyde, Y; Johnson, Y; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, Y; Shimkus, Y; Weller, Y. INDIANA DEMS Carson, N; Hill, Y; Roemer, Y; Visclosky, N. REPUBS Burton, Y; Buyer, Y; Hostettler, N; Kerns, Y; Pence, Y; Souder, Y. IOWA DEMS Boswell, Y. REPUBS Ganske, Y; Latham, Y; Leach, N; Nussle, Y. KANSAS DEMS Moore, Y. REPUBS Moran, Y; Ryun, Y; Tiahrt, Y. KENTUCKY DEMS Lucas, Y. REPUBS Fletcher, Y; Lewis, Y; Northup, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y. LOUISIANA DEMS Jefferson, Y; John, Y. REPUBS Baker, Y; Cooksey, Y; McCrery, Y; Tauzin, Y; Vitter, Y. MAINE DEMS Allen, N; Baldacci, N. MARYLAND DEMS Cardin, N; Cummings, N; Hoyer, Y; Wynn, Y. REPUBS Bartlett, Y; Ehrlich, Y; Gilchrest, Y; Morella, N. MASSACHUSETTS DEMS Capuano, N; Delahunt, N; Frank, N; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, N; Meehan, Y; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N. MICHIGAN DEMS Barcia, Y; Bonior, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, N; Kildee, N; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, N; Rivers, N; Stupak, N. REPUBS Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; Rogers, Y; Smith, Y; Upton, Y. MINNESOTA DEMS Luther, Y; McCollum, N; Oberstar, N; Peterson, Y; Sabo,N. REPUBS Gutknecht, Y; Kennedy, Y; Ramstad, Y. MISSISSIPPI DEMS Shows, Y; Taylor, Y; Thompson, N. REPUBS Pickering, Y; Wicker, Y. MISSOURI DEMS Clay, N; Gephardt, Y; McCarthy, N; Skelton, Y. REPUBS Akin, Y; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hulshof, Y. MONTANA REPUBS Rehberg, Y. NEBRASKA REPUBS Bereuter, Y; Osborne, Y; Terry, Y. NEVADA DEMS Berkley, Y. REPUBS Gibbons, Y. NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBS Bass, Y; Sununu, Y. NEW JERSEY DEMS Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Menendez, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y. REPUBS Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Roukema, X; Saxton, Y; Smith, Y. NEW MEXICO DEMS Udall, N. REPUBS Skeen, Y; Wilson, Y. NEW YORK DEMS Ackerman, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; LaFalce, N; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, N; Nadler, N; Owens, N; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N; Weiner, Y. REPUBS Boehlert, Y; Fossella, Y; Gilman, Y; Grucci, Y; Houghton, N; Kelly, Y; King, Y; McHugh, Y; Quinn, Y; Reynolds, Y; Sweeney, Y; Walsh, Y. NORTH CAROLINA DEMS Clayton, N; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, Y; Price, N; Watt, N. REPUBS Ballenger, Y; Burr, Y; Coble, Y; Hayes, Y; Jones, Y; Myrick, Y; Taylor, Y. NORTH DAKOTA DEMS Pomeroy, Y. OHIO DEMS Brown, N; Jones, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Sawyer, N; Strickland, N. REPUBS Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gillmor, Y; Hobson, Y; LaTourette, Y; Ney, Y; Oxley, Y; Portman, Y; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Tiberi, Y. OKLAHOMA DEMS Carson, Y. REPUBS Istook, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y; Watkins, Y; Watts, Y. OREGON DEMS Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, N; Wu, N. REPUBS Walden, Y. PENNSYLVANIA DEMS Borski, Y; Brady, N; Coyne, N; Doyle, N; Fattah, N; Hoeffel, Y; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Mascara, Y; Murtha, Y. REPUBS English, Y; Gekas, Y; Greenwood, Y; Hart, Y; Peterson, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Sherwood, Y; Shuster, Y; Toomey, Y; Weldon, Y. RHODE ISLAND DEMS Kennedy, Y; Langevin, N. SOUTH CAROLINA DEMS Clyburn, N; Spratt, Y. REPUBS Brown, Y; DeMint, Y; Graham, Y; Wilson, Y. SOUTH DAKOTA REPUBS Thune, Y. TENNESSEE DEMS Clement, Y; Ford, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y. REPUBS Bryant, Y; Duncan, N; Hilleary, Y; Jenkins, Y; Wamp, Y. TEXAS DEMS Bentsen, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Frost, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Y; Hall, Y; Hinojosa, N; Jackson-Lee, N; E.B. Johnson, N; Lampson, Y; Ortiz, X; Reyes, N; Rodriguez, N; Sandlin, Y; Stenholm, Y; Turner, Y. REPUBS Armey, Y; Barton, Y; Bonilla, Y; Brady, Y; Combest, Y; Culberson, Y; DeLay, Y; Granger, Y; Sam Johnson, Y; Paul, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y. UTAH DEMS Matheson, Y. REPUBS Cannon, Y; Hansen, Y. VERMONT Others -- Sanders, N. VIRGINIA DEMS Boucher, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N. REPUBS Cantor, Y; Jo Ann Davis, Y; Tom Davis, Y; Forbes, Y; Goode, Y; Goodlatte, Y; Schrock, Y; Wolf, Y. WASHINGTON DEMS Baird, N; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, N; McDermott, N; Smith, Y. REPUBS Dunn, Y; Hastings, Y; Nethercutt, Y. WEST VIRGINIA DEMS Mollohan, N; Rahall, N. REPUBS Capito, Y. WISCONSIN DEMS Baldwin, N; Barrett, N; Kind, Y; Kleczka, N; Obey, N. REPUBS Green, Y; Petri, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y. WYOMING REPUBS Cubin, Y. ***************************************************************** 21 The Bunker Nightmare Goes Nuclear Popular Science | On December 18, 1970, a 10-kiloton nuke was detonated 900 feet beneath Yucca Flat near the Nevada Test Site, spewing a cloud of radioactive dust 10,000 feet into the air. Eighty-six employees were exposed to radiation. http://ar.atwola.com/link/93131172/aol] The proliferation of deeply burrowed enemy bunkers could lead to new "mini-nukes" and even a change in U.S. first-strike policy. The technical and ethical barriers are huge. by Andrew Koch As the 1999 war in Yugoslavia Ended, doors to a bunker dug deep underneath Pristina Airfield opened, and nearly a dozen unharmed Serbian MiG-21 fighters emerged to retreat from the area. The United States had repeatedly tried to destroy this series of tunnels and caves with GBU-28s, 5,000-pound precision-guided "bunker busters" developed during the Gulf War. But the best those hulking bombs could do was seal off entryways by burrowing a few feet in before exploding from the impact. The MiGs, sheltered much farther down, were untouched. Three years later, battling al Qaeda fighters hunkered down in mountain catacombs in the Tora Bora hills of Afghanistan, the U.S. military had come a long way. By then, the Pentagon's arsenal included the BLU-118/B, a powerful penetrating bomb with a thermobaric explosive that releases a series of sustained shock waves instead of the single spike typical of standard weapons. The BLU-118 is perfect for attacking confined underground spaces like tunnels and caves. But like the GBU-28, the BLU-118 is virtually impotent against solid barriers. If the weapon hits rock, highly compressed dirt, or a blockade, it penetrates only about a half-dozen feet. The rock absorbs the thermobaric blows before they reach the underground redoubt. In Afghanistan, numerous al Qaeda warriors and their weapons survived the Tora Bora onslaught unscathed, then snuck out of the area during a break in the bombing. The Pentagon's limited success in taking out subterranean hideouts even with today's most powerful bunker busters has sent a shiver through the military. According to intelligence estimates, there are more than 10,000 underground havens in dozens of countries around the world. Many of them, in places like China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, are sheltering aircraft and basic weaponry. But about 1,000 of these caves, tunnels, and labyrinths are considered highly strategic because they're suspected of harboring weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, or control centers to protect key leaders during an attack. The Defense Department is certain, for instance, that Iraq is hiding chemical and biological weapons underneath its vast deserts and that North Korea has nuclear materials buried below its mountains. What's more, because of huge improvements in tunneling capabilities, thousands of additional deeply placed, unreachable bunkers are expected to be built in the next decade. Faced with the prospect of "asymmetric" warfare against rogue powers or terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction tucked in their basements, the Pentagon has begun to consider the previously unthinkable: developing specially designed nuclear weapons for attacking buried caves and tunnels. These weapons would ideally do their damage while creating only limited nuclear fallout aboveground. Such a move would represent the most significant rewriting of U.S. nuclear strategy in decades, because its intended purpose violates the two cornerstones of current policy: to use nuclear weapons only as a last resort and never to use them against nonnuclear nations. Although the design of a fresh generation of nuclear weapons is in the very early stages, opponents have been quick to express their dismay. Their chief concern is that because nuclear bunker busters are being portrayed by some in the Pentagon?inaccurately, critics believe?as less dangerous than the traditional atomic arsenal, their development could relax nuclear taboos. The result, opponents claim, might be a new arms race that repositions the world on a course toward nuclear Armageddon. "Nuclear earth-penetrating weapons lower the threshold for the use of nuclear arms," says David Wright, a researcher at MIT's security studies program. "If you're really serious about trying to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons, it's not a very good idea" (see interview ). But military planners insist the need for these weapons is so strong that it overwhelms any worries about the tactical repercussions, which, they say, are being overstated by critics anyway. As the number, depth, complexity, and perils of underground bunkers increase, the military argues, these new nuclear bombs are becoming indispensable. "Without having the ability to hold those targets at risk, we essentially provide sanctuary," says Assistant Secretary of Defense J.D. Crouch. Two options for the new atomic arsenal are under consideration. Both are based on the idea that a nuclear weapon directed at the earth would unleash powerful shock waves that, like an earthquake, would rip apart even solid rock, shredding their way toward the most deeply shielded enemy. One choice is to upgrade an existing atomic bomb, such as the B61-11, the Pentagon's sole nuclear bunker buster. Developed quietly in the mid-1990s, the B61-11 was never viewed as a viable weapon because it performed poorly during earth- penetration trials. The Clinton Administration showed little interest in it and instead expressed support for international agreements that outlawed further development, testing, and deployment of nuclear arms. But the Bush White House has taken virtually the opposite stance: Its 2003 budget requested $45 million for a three-year feasibility study to explore the technical challenges of modifying a nuclear weapon into a useable bunker buster. At the time of this writing, the House had approved the funding, but the Senate rejected it. The matter will be hashed out in conference. The other possible approach is more radical: to design an entirely new weapon called a mini-nuke, a bomb of 5 kilotons or less that can be driven like a spear into the ground. In some respects the mini-nuke is more desirable than a retrofitted larger weapon, proponents say, because they believe its low yield would release only a minuscule amount of radioactivity aboveground. While the idea has been around for several decades, the mini-nuke got a boost in the recently completed Nuclear Posture Review, the first Defense Department analysis of U.S. nuclear capabilities in 10 years. In it, the Pentagon said: "With a more effective earth penetrator, many buried targets could be attacked using a weapon with a much lower yield." The NPR's endorsement could be an important step toward convincing Congress to fund the design and development of the mini-nuke. Meanwhile, if the weapon-modification feasibility study gets Congressional backing, it will be conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a Department of Energy agency, at the nation's three major nuclear weapons labs?Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore. Much of the initial research will be focused on whether it is possible to turn the B61-11, which weighs only 1,200 pounds and in tests penetrated just 20 feet of rock and soil, into a gravity-driven, 5,000-pound bomb capable of cutting through as much as 80 feet of flat ground or mountainous terrain. The bomb would have to accomplish this feat without destroying the fragile electronics and other components responsible for delaying its more-than-300-kiloton nuclear explosion. It's a critical requirement because the farther below the surface the explosion occurs, the more effectively the force of the tremendous blast of heat and ensuing shock waves is transferred into the ground. A nuclear weapon that explodes after penetrating 20 feet will have roughly the same destructive power against a deeply buried bunker as one that has 10 times the yield but is detonated aboveground. A major challenge will be strengthening the weapon's casing and internal support structures to protect the warhead, says Paul Yarrington, a Sandia nuclear weapons scientist, because the warhead will not detonate if its explosives do not fire in perfect precision. To counteract the intense frontal and lateral impact that increases as the weapon buries deeper, engineers are considering developing out of specially hardened metals a new casing and a sharper, reinforced nose?the part of the bomb that absorbs the most shock and heat. And they're investigating embedding into the casing alloy structures shaped like a honeycomb, a design that is already used in some bombs and that offers greater strength per pound than traditional bent metal shapes. To accomplish such an extensive and crucial redesign, the engineers will have to accurately model, simulate, understand, and test the forces that act on the bomb while it is penetrating but before detonation. Of particular value, Yarrington says, will be supercomputer simulation programs developed over the past 30 years that produce three-dimensional models of how existing nuclear weapons operate. The simulations draw on data from more than 1,000 nuclear tests the United States conducted before a self-imposed moratorium on testing was instituted in 1992. These include exact measurements taken by high-speed flash X-ray cameras of what occurs during a nuclear explosion and feedback from other sensors such as seismic monitors. By combining this information with the expected conditions during a nuclear bunker buster attack, engineers can model the effects of G-forces on enhanced earth-penetrating weapons. * GETTING THE JOB DONE?BUT AT WHAT COST? Military leaders say ground-penetrating nukes are necessary to destroy enemy facilities that evade the reach of conventional weapons. Radioactive fallout would be minimal, they insist, but critics are unconvinced. Conventional bunker buster (left): A GBU-28 penetrates at best only about 60 feet into solid rock before exploding. With many suspected bunkers buried 200 or more feet below the surface, such a blast would be ineffectual. Ground-penetrating nuke (right): A similarly sized nuke would burrow only a few feet farther, but it would produce massive shock waves that military specialists say would be capable of destroying the buried complex. * Illustrations by John MacNeill The proliferation of deeply burrowed enemy bunkers could lead to new "mini-nukes" and even a change in U.S. first-strike policy. The technical and ethical barriers are huge. *by Andrew Koch* To augment design work in the virtual world, engineers can perform physical tests on various metals and alloys that may be used for the casing, components, and subassemblies. For example, projectiles fired from a cannon into rock and steel targets would mimic the shock a warhead absorbs on impact with the ground. Data collected during these tests can then be fed back into a supercomputer to further refine the model. And when a prototype for the new casing is completed, dummy warheads with an inert substitute for the nuclear core can be dropped from aircraft against a mock target. None of these experiments, of course, will involve actual nuclear explosions. The Bush Administration says it has no plans to try to overturn the congressionally mandated ban on such tests?which is what makes the development of a mini-nuke, the other possible approach to nuclear bunker busting, much more problematic. Repackaging an existing weapon can be accomplished with supercomputer design simulations, because existing data from prior research and development activities can be used as a foundation. But creating a low-yield earth-penetrating weapon, a fresh concept that has never been tried before, could require extensive fieldwork, including actual nuclear tests. Besides the testing moratorium, mini-nuke development is also blocked by the 1994 Defense Authorization Act, which outlaws R&D leading to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon, defined as less than 5 kilotons. Still, despite these impediments, the mini-nuke concept is gaining favor at the Pentagon. Military planners doubt that any president would risk the political backlash that could result from putting a big nuclear weapon like a retrofitted B61-11 into combat, but they're confident that a nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons?about one-quarter the size of the Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki and less than one-hundredth that of most weapons in the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal?would be more acceptable. That's because a 5-kiloton nuke would produce a limited amount of poisonous nuclear fallout capable of killing nearby civilians. According to the Nuclear Posture Review, this lower-yield nuke could achieve the same underground destruction as a modernized, high-yield bunker buster while producing one-twentieth to one-tenth the radioactive contamination aboveground. And because it would be more "usable," the military argument follows, a mini-nuke could be a "credible threat" that would prevent rogue nations and terrorists from developing underground hideouts and weapons of mass destruction, for fear of a U.S. nuclear strike. "Having only high-yield weapons in effect self-deters the United States," says Stephen Younger, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which develops technologies and strategies for countering weapons of mass destruction, and a former director for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos. "An adversary would think that we would not use one of our weapons because its destructive power was too great, whereas a lower-yield nuclear weapon would have greater deterrence value because politically it's more palatable," he argues. To sidestep the ban on nuclear testing, one idea being floated for the mini-nuke's payload is to use the primary core of an existing two-stage thermonuclear device. This part of the weapon creates a fission explosion of 5 to 10 kilotons or less, making it a perfect option for the mini-nuke. What's more, mini-nuke proponents believe that by recycling primary cores they could circumvent the 1994 legislative ban on mini-nuke research and development, because they could argue that they're not building a weapon from scratch. "I wouldn't call it a new weapon," says former NNSA Administrator John Gordon. "But some others might." Gordon was speaking about Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Subcommittee, who headed the fight in the Senate against funding the NNSA's feasibility study. Reed says that instead of building mini-nukes or other nuclear earth penetrators, the United States should encourage nonproliferation by example: "There is no requirement for a new nuclear weapon, and the Bush Administration's decision to consider pursuing one leads us down a very dangerous and precipitous path." The competing defense authorization bill in the House not only backs the study, but also rescinds the 1994 ban prohibiting mini-nuke R&D. No matter how the political disagreement is sorted out, mini-nuke critics take issue with the Pentagon's notion that it's technically feasible to create an atomic bomb that's large enough to destroy a bunker dug deep underground but that doesn't spew radiation into the atmosphere. "The dangerous idea is that you can do it with a clean bomb, and that is false," says Sidney Drell, a physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime advisor to the U.S. government on nuclear weapon issues. Drell argues that it would be impossible to destroy a target buried more than 200 feet deep with a 1-kiloton bomb, yet anything larger would pack a blast too strong to be contained underground. Drell cites data from a 1962 nuclear test called Sedan at the Nevada Test Site that involved a 104-kiloton explosion 635 feet below ground. Despite the depth of the weapon, 12 million tons of radioactive earth and debris were propelled into the atmosphere. The crater it left was 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep. "Sedan involved a weapon that was detonated at some depth with a relatively small yield, yet it produced a massive crater and spewed huge amounts of radioactivity," says Drell. "For bunker busters, reaching a depth of only 50 feet is still a challenge. So for the weapon to have a large enough yield to destroy a deeply buried target, imagine the damage that would result aboveground." Although the wreckage left behind by nuclear experiments like Sedan is hard to erase from memory, there has been a definite shift in perspective recently, encouraged by some at the Pentagon who are hoping to diminish the big picture fear of nuclear attacks and replace it with the notion that a U.S. first strike may actually be necessary in today's geopolitical environment. Illustrative of this new attitude are views that would have been considered political suicide not long ago, such as those of Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who calls for "untying our hands from the outdated laws that stifle research and development in nuclear bunker-busting technology." Only that change in policy, Weldon says, will allow the United States to "focus on preventing a chemical or biological attack, rather than responding to one." /Andrew Koch is the Washington bureau chief at/ Jane's Defence Weekly. Copyright © 2002 Popular Science. A Time4 Media The Bunker Nightmare Goes Nuclear Fallout of Another Kind Looking Back: Up close and (too) personal Watch bunker busters in action *Share your thoughts about new nukes* Copyright © 2002 Popular Science. A [http://www.time4.com] ***************************************************************** 22 Opinion: The only thing we have to fear is war itself The Seattle Times: Editorials & Friday, October 11, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific Ellen Goodman / Syndicated columnist BOSTON — The news crawled across the bottom of the screen as a surreal footnote to the president's speech on Iraq. President offers federal help for victims of sniper shooting ... Oliver North is 59 ... Audiences hunger for Hannibal as "Red Dragon" tops box office ... Sometime between the news of soccer players unionizing and the Nobel Prize for medicine, the president made his case against a "homicidal dictator." He warned the country that without action against Iraq, the United States would "resign itself to fear." "That is not the America I know," Bush said, lowering his voice, "That is not the America I serve." And then he added: "We refuse to live in fear." Were you surprised that he identified fear as the motive? This was not the first time in the last weeks that the president cited fear as the justification for pre-emptive war against Iraq. By now it seems that he has framed this rush to conflict, this forced political march, as a war to end all fear. When Americans asked, "why now?" the president answered, "There's a reason. We have experienced the horror of Sept. 11." He cited the al-Qaida terrorism of September 2001 as the reason for Iraqi war, October 2002. Indeed, that day expanded the horizons of our terrorized imagination. But when I listen to the rationale of fear, I wonder two things. Does this president believe that we can simply refuse to live in fear? Doesn't this commander in chief even suspect that war is equally — or perhaps more — fearful? The president and I are not far apart in age. Our grandparents lived through the disastrous war to end all wars. Our fathers served in World War II under Franklin Roosevelt, the man who listed the freedom from fear as one of four freedoms. We were freed, gratefully, from the fear of Nazism. But even that Good War, as it was dubbed, ended in a punctuation mark the shape of a mushroom cloud that hovered over our lives. Were Bush's childhood nightmares so different from the rest of his generation? How many times during the Cold War — the Cuban missile crisis, the Reagan "evil empire" era — did the minute hand on the nuclear clock move closer to midnight? How many frightening scenarios played out "On the Beach" and "The Day After"? On Monday, the president tried to make the case that Saddam Hussein is "unique." He skipped over Osama bin Laden and Iran and North Korea and all the other points in an evolving axis of evil. Do many of us believe that a war against Iraq would end all fear? Or that we can "refuse to live in fear"? I don't discount Saddam as a dangerous man. We saw it in Kuwait. We saw it in the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were — by the way — disarmed by earlier teams of U.N. inspectors. We know it from his attempts to build nuclear weapons. We are rightly wary of his intent and watchful of his timing. We are right to urge a sluggish U.N. to return to a feisty role as inspector. But why doesn't the president also talk about the other fear — of war? This administration makes the worst-case scenario for Saddam as an imminent danger — one that demands immediate action even if we go it alone. But it makes the best-case scenario for war — forecasting a victory, a regime change, democracy all around. In fact, the president who speculates freely about what Saddam would do if he were unchallenged says little about what this "homicidal dictator" would do if he were cornered. The administration worries about innocent American civilians. But is it entirely impermissible to wonder about Iraq's innocent civilians? And while there is breathless talk of "regime change," can we wonder about that next regime? In the midst of the talk of "fear and war," I have also been listening to people grappling with "justice and war." The "just war" conversation is not an ivory tower seminar among religious and academic folks who have never seen the barrel of a gun. It's a struggle to identify international moral standards. When is war right and when is it wrong? These standards have practical effects in the world. What troubles many who think about "just war" is the idea of a preemptive strike without convincing proof of an imminent threat. Last week, William Galston, a political theorist, asked rhetorically, "How can we announce a new doctrine of preemption as the centerpiece of our foreign policy while insisting that it applies to us alone?" What happens when fear becomes a guiding — or misguiding — principle of war for every country? That's the fear we can refuse to live with. Ellen Goodman's column appears Friday on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is [ellengoodman@globe.com] . ***************************************************************** 23 More tests revealed The Bulletin Clock BulletinWire | October 10, 2002 On October 9, the Defense Department disclosed information about 27 biological and chemical agent tests conducted from 1962-1973 that involved an estimated 5,500 military personnel. In a Pentagon briefing, William Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, stated that the operational tests were designed to ?test equipment, procedures, military tactics, et cetera, and to learn more about biological and chemical agents. The tests were not conducted to evaluate the effects of dangerous agents on people.? Despite this, about 55 of the participating veterans have filed health complaints related to the tests. Approximately half of the experiments used harmless simulants; in the other half, live agents like the deadly nerve agents sarin, soman, tabun, and VX were used. This is not the first revelation of secret military tests of biological or chemical agents. In 1994, Leonard Cole reported in the /Bulletin/ on the army?s chemical testing conducted in unsuspecting Minneapolis: ?In 1953, the army told municipal officials it was developing a smoke screen to protect against aerial attack. Instead, it was spraying zinc cadmium sulfide from rooftops and slow-moving trucks to see how far the agent would spread.? Clearing the Air in Minneapolis, by Leonard A. Cole, November/December 1994 Additional Resources Briefing on Cold War?Era Chemical and Biological Warfare Tests, Department of Defense BulletinWire | October 10, 2002 Improving nuclear security The weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel used at many Soviet-designed research reactors poses a security risk that could be reduced by converting to a non-weapons-usable fuel, according to a newly released joint study from the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council and Princeton University?s Program on Science and Global Security. ?Today, the fuel for these reactors poses a particularly acute proliferation threat because of its weapon utility and the economic deprivation and lax security that has developed at many of the research institutes that possess these reactors,? wrote authors Oleg Bukharin, Christopher Ficek, and Michael Roston. The U.S.-Russian Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program, started in 1994, is intended to accelerate the conversion of HEU-using reactors to lower-enriched fuel. But as Bukharin reported in the July/August /Bulletin/: ?Conversion has received little support from Russian nuclear institutes, and it is possible that some elements of the Russian nuclear establishment continue to view all nuclear operations as sensitive and are opposed to cooperation and information sharing with the United States.? Although progress has been slow, the study?s authors believe that with increased funding, cooperation, and political support, ?the program could become an effective tool in eliminating highly vulnerable HEU stockpiles in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.? Bulletin Resources Making fuel less tempting, by Oleg Bukharin, July/August 2002 Additional Resources RANSAC, Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council ***************************************************************** 24 In light of Iraq danger, Cuban Missile Crisis prompts a look back* U.S. came ?that close? to nuclear war Oct. 10 ? Senior veterans of the Cuban Missile Crisis are meeting to discuss the past and perhaps find lessons for the future. By Andrea Mitchell NBC NEWS Oct. 10 ? On the night the House has given its approval for President Bush to use military force against Iraq, it?s also the eve of a meeting in Havana, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. All the senior surviving veterans of that moment, when the world came closest to nuclear disaster, will meet with Cuba?s president Fidel Castro to discuss the past ? and perhaps find lessons for the future. UNLIKE IRAQ, Cuba is in America?s own backyard. Still the United States is only now discovering how little American intelligence knew about a nuclear threat just off its own coast. The Cuban shore is just 90 miles from Florida. Soviet ships snuck missiles onto the island 40 years ago. When U.S. spy planes finally discovered them, America was thrust into the most dangerous nuclear showdown of the cold war. ?We found two missile sites, two medium range ballistic missile sites, missiles that could go 2,200 miles,? says former CIA analyst Dino Brugioni. ?It could hit every base in the United States except the extreme northwest.? Brugioni prepared the briefing for President John F. Kennedy and his national security team. Like today, with the Iraq crisis, the White House took its case to the United Nations demanding the Soviets back down. THE Iraq FILES; In depth strategic information ?I?m prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that?s your decision,? U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson said in October 1962. And like today, there was vigorous debate over what to do. ?The hawks all wanted to bomb in a so-called surgical air strike,? says Kennedy adviser Theodore Sorensen. ?They all said this is your chance to go in and take Cuba away from Castro.? As alarmed as President Kennedy and his advisors were, they didn?t know the worst, that nuclear warheads for the missiles were already in Cuba, along with smaller tactical nuclear weapons, dispersed all over the island, ready to fire at American troops as they landed. As the crisis heightened, Fidel Castro even urged the Soviets to launch a nuclear strike against America first, preemptively. In a document recently discovered in communist files, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev told his inner circle, ?We were completely aghast. Castro clearly has no idea what thermonuclear war is.? Cuban officials at the time, like Carlos Alzugary, were prepared for the worst. ?I said we?re going to see a big flash, maybe strong heat, and then we?re going to be dead,? says Alzugary of the Cuban Foreign Service Institute. At the CIA, Dino Brugioni called his wife. ?And I said, ?If you get another call from me, put the kids in the car and start out for Missouri,? says Brugioni. ?We came that close to disaster, to nuclear war,? says Kennedy Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. But rejecting the invasion option, Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of Russian ships approaching Cuba, hoping the Soviets would back down. On the 13th day, Khrushchev backed away from the brink. ?The real story is that both Kennedy and Khrushchev got frightened out of their wits by how close we were, by accident or design, to a nuclear exchange,? says Thomas Blanton of the National Security Archive. Ignoring protests from Castro, the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba. But 40 years later, the U.S. is again left wondering, will another unpredictable adversary back down this time? ***************************************************************** 25 Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Force Against Iraq The New York Times October 11, 2002* *By ALISON MITCHELL and CARL HULSE* WASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11 - The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein. The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night. The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military ``against the continuing threat'' posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure. After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that ``the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally.'' He added, ``The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.'' While the votes in favor of the resolutions were large and bipartisan, they highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic party over how and when to use force. This was particularly true in the House. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, put his weight behind the force authorization, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than for it, splitting 126 to 81. Only 6 Republicans opposed it. The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that Iraq would imminently develop nuclear potential, fears that military action would take away from the war on terrorism, and sentiment against war among constituents. In the Senate, as the debate stretched on, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who called the vote ``probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.'' Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations ``more likely and, therefore, war less likely.'' Other Democrats, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, were determined to vote against the measure, saying there were still many questions about how a war would be waged, what its costs would be and how long it would last. ``We have very little understanding about the full implications in terms of an exit strategy,'' Mr. Kennedy told reporters. In the end, the Senate Democrats split, with 29 for and 21 against the measure. One Republican and one independent opposed it. Most Republicans stood behind the president, including Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy. Despite his differences with Mr. Bush on the issue, Mr. Armey closed the House debate with a plea for authorizing force. Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war. ``Mr. President,'' he said, ``we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, `Sleep soundly, my baby.''' He choked up and walked out of the House chamber. The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democratic dissidents who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments. Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, ``I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment.'' He alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 26 Putin rebuffs Blair on Iraq weapons claims Independent.co.uk 11 October 2002 Russian president Vladimir Putin told Tony Blair today that he doubted Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction. After several hours of talks between the two leaders at Mr Putin's country dacha in Zavidovo, north of Moscow, the Russian president told a news conference he had seen no "trustworthy data" to support the British and American claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. In what will be seen as a diplomatic rebuff for the Prime Minister, Mr Putin also made clear that he believed there was no need for a fresh United Nations resolution to tackle the issue ? although he did not rule out supporting one in the future. Asked what he thought of the British Government's dossier which claims Saddam does have such weapons and plans to use them, Mr Putin replied: "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received from our partners such information as yet. "This fact has also been supported by the information which has been despatched by the CIA to the US Congress. "We do have apprehensions that such weapons might exist on the territory of Iraq and this is precisely why we want to see to it that United Nations inspectors should travel there." Mr Blair sought to make the best of the clear disagreement telling reporters: "There may be different perspectives on how sure we can be about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction but there is one certain way to find out and that's to let the inspectors back in to do their job. This is the key point upon which we both agreed." The two leaders agreed they had discussed Russia's financial interests in Iraq but Mr Putin pointedly remarked he had not invited Mr Blair to an "oriental bazaar". Mr Putin said: "We did discuss the economic consequences of the solution to the Iraq question along different tracks and I was pleased to find out that the UK Prime Minister like myself also believed that the political diplomatic track has not been fully exhausted yet. "I would plead to you not to perceive our meeting here as a bargaining place. I have invited the Prime Minister and his spouse here to have these discussions on the whole set of issues. I have not invited them to an oriental bazaar." Mr Blair and his wife Cherie are flying back to London today after his latest mission to Moscow plainly failed to woo Mr Putin into public backing for his stance on Iraq. But British officials insisted that behind the scenes the two leaders had reached agreement on a broad range of issues. They had also discussed the Middle East conflict and tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. British officials later highlighted Mr Putin's remarks about the possibility of adopting a UN resolution in the future, saying it was the first time the Russian leader had held out such a prospect. They said Mr Putin himself had pointed out his remarks to Mr Blair as the two leaders chatted after the press conference. Despite Mr Putin's apparent criticism of the British dossier on Iraq Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "We stand by the dossier we put out 100 per cent." By Kim Sengupta and Rupert Cornwell 10 October 2002 Saddam Hussein has been acquiring the technology to build a long-range "supergun" capable of firing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, German prosecutors allege. The claim follows the charging of two Germans who allegedly bought cannon drilling equipment and shipped it to Iraq via Jordan four years ago. The investigation into the Mannheim-based firm Alriwo began last year. Hubert Jobski, from the prosecutor's office, said yesterday other arrests were expected, and the two men under arrest could each be sentenced to 15 years if found guilty. "We are convinced that from Mannheim the equipment went to Iraq," said Mr Jobski. "Others will be accused in the case, and we hope to wrap it up very soon." The prosecution says that one of the accused men, Alriwo employee Bernd Schompeter, bought equipment worth about £220,000 from another company called Burgsmueller in north Germany. Meanwhile, George Tenet, director of the CIA, contradicted President George Bush in Washington by stating that President Saddam was unlikely to attack the United States with either conventional or weapons of mass destruction in the near future. But he warned that the Iraqi leader might do so if an invasion by America became inevitable. In a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr Tenet released previously classified testimony in which a senior CIA official said the risk of an unprovoked attack by President Saddam was "low". If cornered, he "probably would become less constrained", either by using the weapons himself or giving it to a terrorist group to carry out an attack on the US "as his last chance of taking a large number of victims with him". The CIA and the White House sought to deny there had been a split, insisting that the Tenet letter was "consistent" with President Bush's views. In any case, the letter is unlikely to damage Mr Bush's chances of securing a massive endorsement by Congress of a resolution authorising him to use force against Iraq. A core of Democrats, led by Robert Byrd of West Virginia, are vowing to use every possible procedural tactic to stall the debate. This could mean final Senate ratification will not be until next week. Washington said that the gun attack in Kuwait on American marines on Tuesday was the work of al-Qa'ida. ***************************************************************** 28 SA shoots down Iraqi arms deal claims Mail&Guardian Online Saturday, October 12, 2002 <#> Johannesburg /10 October 2002 07:30/ South Africa, as a matter of policy, would not sell or provide military equipment or technologies used in developing weapons of mass destruction to any country deemed to be posing a proliferation risk, the SA Council for the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction said on Wednesday. The Council -- a statutory body advising the Trade and Industry ministry on regulating weapons of mass destruction -- was reacting to last week's allegations by two foreign publications that South Africa was selling equipment used to develop nuclear weapons to Iraq. The Council's chairman Abdul Minty said in a statement on Wednesday the body had, up to now, not approved any exports of controlled goods, including special aluminium tubes that could be used for uranium enrichment, to Iraq. Minty added that no enquiry about such aluminium tubes been received via the South African Embassy in Amman or from anyone else. "If any proof or evidence of such exports exist, the Council would appreciate such information for investigation," he said. The publications, Britain's /The Spectator/ and America's /Insight on the News/, ran articles alleging that South Africa was selling aluminium tubes for uranium centrifuges to Iraq, and that the First Secretary at the South African Embassy in Jordan was acting as the local sales representative to Iraqi procurement agents. But the allegations have since been dismissed by South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad as "nonsense" and aimed at discrediting former President Nelson Mandela for his public criticism of the two countries' plans to attack Iraq. Minty said that in February this year, the Council considered an export of Rift Valley Fever vaccines to a United Kingdom company for inclusion in test kits to be used by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation in Iraq. "This export took place on the basis of an approval from the UN Security Council." The Minister of Trade and Industry had since October 1994 published various notices in the Government Gazette regulating weapons of mass destruction and related goods, Minty said. The opposition Democratic Alliance had called on the government to make clear its stance on the issue as the allegations were serious. - Sapa All material copyright Mail&Guardian. Saturday, October 12, 2002 <#> Cape Town /08 October 2002 13:08/ The Democratic Alliance on Monday called on the government to answer allegations made last week that South Africa was selling equipment used to develop nuclear weapons to Iraq. The allegations have been made in two foreign journals -- Britain's /The Spectator/ and America's /Insight on the News/, DA representative James Selfe said. Both journals recently ran articles alleging that South Africa was selling aluminium tubes for uranium centrifuges to Iraq, and that the First Secretary at the South African Embassy in Jordan was acting as the local sales representative to Iraqi procurement agents. Selfe said he had written to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry and Minerals and Energy asking for clarity on the charges. "These are serious allegations. South Africa must in no way assist Iraq in its efforts to procure or develop nuclear weapons," Selfe said. The South African public also had a right to know whether its government was assisting Saddam Hussein in this way, he added. An article in /The Spectator/ of October 5 reads: "Mr Mandela's country has been busy selling aluminium tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges to Saddam. The first secretary of the South African embassy in Jordan is serving as the local sales rep to Iraqi procurement agents." This, the article went on to say, was "...bringing significantly closer the day when the entire Middle East, much of Africa and even Europe will be under the Saddamite nuclear umbrella and thus safe from Bush's aggression". Another journalist, Kenneth Timmerman, writing in /Insight on the News/ in September, said: "The Iraqi regime is turning increasingly to South Africa to procure nuclear materials and forbidden equipment needed for its weapons programs, INC sources tell /Insight/. A top Iraqi intelligence official, Nadhim Jabouri, has been dispatched to the Iraqi embassy in Johannesburg to handle contacts with South African nuclear engineers. He also is in touch with Armscor, the state armaments directorate (also known as Denel), which supplied Iraq with advanced 155 mm howitzers during the Iran-Iraq war." To speed up the issuing of travel documents, Iraqi procurement agents in Amman, Jordan, were operating through the first secretary of the South African embassy, Shoeman du Plessis, Timmerman alleged. "The willingness of the South African government to sell nuclear material and weapons to Iraq, and their fear of getting caught, could explain the virulent outburst by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who told /Newsweek/ recently that the US -- not Saddam Hussein -- presents a threat to world peace," the article said. - Sapa *****************************************************************