*****************************************************************
12/11/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.321
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [southnews] CND asks court to tie Iraq attack to new UN
2 The Storm That Threatens Is Not What Kenneth Pollack Thinks 
3 US warns of nuclear response
4 US: Reid decries ruling against revealing energy plan details
5 North Korea Complicates Mideast Situation 
6   Disclosing the UN spin game
7 US-Pyongyang relations: The big picture 
8 IAEA's nuclear oversight should be reinforced.
9 Bush Vows 'Overwhelming Force' 
10  Media Advisory 2002/45 - News Update on Iraq Inspections
11  Media Advisory 2002/44 - UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on 
12 US: U.S. Expert Says Only War Will Stop Iraqi Nuclear Threat 
13 US: Hagel: Bush should not overemphasize nuclear force 
14 BE's future in the balance
15 Fresh blow for British Energy bondholders
16 Defiant Koreas 
17 Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US 
18 What might a US nuclear strike in Iraq look like? | 
19 No deal seen in EU energy tax plan deadlock
20 MotherJones.com Iraq Declaration battle
21 Nuclear is here to stay, says minister
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
22 US: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Point Beach Nuclear Plant
23 US: Public, workers push Davis-Besse restart 
24 US: Flaw in reactor not seen in check
25 US: Crystal River 3 FONSI
26 US: Officials call for federalized security at nuclear plants
27 US: Indian Point still a concern 
28 US: NRC may cite TXU's Texas nuke following water leak*
29 US: TXU's Texas Comanche Peak nuke seen back shortly*
30 Final Report Concerning Leak Tests on the Primary Containment 
31 Japan's TEPCO says may close all reactors by April*
32 TEPCO punishes 9 workers over reactor data falsification
33 US: NRC may cite TXU's Texas nuke following water leak
34 Japan's TEPCO says may close all reactors by April
35 US: Nuke lapses alarm lawmakers 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
36 Opposition exposes lucrative radioactive wheat export scam 
37 US: Officials seek source of flier that has nuke workers are worried
38 US: Are nuclear plants safe from attack?
39 French nuclear site says radioactive leak posed no danger to 
40 Uranium business more widely spread 
41 Romania: Opposition exposes lucrative radioactive wheat export scam
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
42 US:                         FR Doc 02-31201 
43 Ministers announce decision on technetium-99
44 German nuke waste headed for Britain
45 Sellafield waste discharge bid*
46 *Sellafield must run for 50 years more, says BNFL *
47 USEC To Locate Centrifuge Nuclear Fuel Test Facility in Ohio
48 Brazil opens uranium enrichment plant
49 US: Shiprock Fair Board willing to go to court to fight removal
50 UK: Radioactive Discharges: Technetium-99
51 US: Train Wrecks 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
52 We'll use nuclear arms, US warns - 
53 Pasko awarded international journalist prize
54 K-19 Submarine Tragedy Caused by Lack of Knowledge 
55 US: Nun is charged after protest at nuclear missile silo
56 Pakistan leading nuclear power in the world: Dr Butt
57 Reporters Without Borders awards Pasko
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
58 PNNL gets 1,000th patent
59 Vit plant ready to go above ground
60 Hanford Advisory Board wants more radioactive waste information
61 Glassification plant needs 5 melters, board says
62 FFTF backers react to Energy NW chief's opinion
63 Proteome topic of PNNL meeting this week
64 Fluor plan beats DOE goals
65 River cleanup contract delayed
66 Livermore Lab Creates New Division
67 Plutonium processing too slow, group says
68 Report Proposes Solutions for LANL* *
69 EPA, panel keeps close eye on DOE waste plan 
70 Potential 'severe' problem at waste cell 
71 ORNL's Allgood will recommend nation's textile tracer technology 
72 Lawrence Livermore announces new homeland security division 
73 Lab workers' confidentiality could be compromised -- critics 
74 New bombshells at Los Alamos lab*
75 Hanford: Umatilla Chemical Depot News (new web and e-mail service)
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
76 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.50 | 4 - 10 December 2002   
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [southnews] CND asks court to tie Iraq attack to new UN
 
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:52:25 -0600 (CST)

 

CND asks court to tie attack to new UN resolution

David Pallister
Tuesday December 10, 2002
The Guardian

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament yesterday began an unprecedented
action in the high court which seeks a judicial declaration that it would
be unlawful for Britain to go to war with Iraq without a new, explicit UN
resolution.

The preliminary hearing for permission to go ahead with the action is the
first time a government has been challenged in the courts over the
possibility of a declaration of war.

Rabinder Singh QC, for CND, said that UN security council resolution 1441
of November 8 set out Saddam Hussein's disarmament obligations, but did not
authorise the use of armed force if it was breached.

The application named the prime minister as well as the foreign secretary
Jack Straw and the defence secretary Geoff Hoon as defendants.

Before Lord Justice Simon Brown, sitting with Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Mr
Justice Richards, Mr Singh urged the court to reject the government's claim
that it had no power to hear the challenge, that CND lacked standing to
bring the case, and that the application was "premature".

Mr Singh said: "There is every reason why the court should grant a
declaration as to the meaning of resolution 1441 now. If there is a war
against Iraq without a fresh resolution and it subsequently turns out that
in law there should not have been one, it will literally be too late."

He rejected the government's position that CND was trying to "dictate the
conduct of foreign policy". All it was seeking was a legal interpretation
of international law.

Two of the judges ruled last week that the exceptional nature of the case
justified their making an order that, if CND loses, it would have to find a
maximum of #25,000 in costs.

Outside court, the veteran former Labour MP Tony Benn said: "This has to be
done because a world without international law would be back to the jungle.
We simply can't allow that to happen. If there is a victory in this one it
would really change the course of British politics."

Mr Singh argued that there was a "general principle of international law"
prohibiting force unless it was in self-defence or specifically authorised
by the security council. Neither of those exceptions to the principle
applied. Yet Mr Straw and Mr Hoon had both made statements which suggested
that Britain would act without a new UN mandate.

In its defence, the government will argue that it has deliberately refused
to define its legal position because of the "highly sensitive issues
concerning the international relations of the UK".

The case continues.

           Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 2 The Storm That Threatens Is Not What Kenneth Pollack Thinks 
 
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:42:10 -0600 (CST)

 
The Storm That Threatens Is Not What Kenneth Pollack Thinks
 Published on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 by CommonDreams.org

by Richard W. Behan

A review of
THE THREATENING STORM: THE CASE FOR INVADING IRAQ
by
Kenneth M. Pollack

Now, the face that I see in my mirror
More and more is a stranger to me.
More and more I can see there's a danger
In becoming what I never thought I'd be.
--from a John Denver song

With broomstick rifles and saucepan helmets, American boys growing up during
World War II imitated, in their back yards, the battlefield fighting. I was
one of those boys, and we told each other with great pride and patriotism,
"America has never started a war and we've never lost one."
Twenty five years after that we lost our first war, and now we're about to
start our first, cheered on by President Bush and by Kenneth Pollack's new
book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq
Mr. Pollack's habitat is wholly inside the Beltway. He is a product and a
denizen of what Kevin Phillips called, in the title of a book, The Arrogant
Capital. Governance in Washington DC has become a self-perpetuating
permanent structure of self-serving lifetime professionals, elected and
otherwise, and it is dominated by corporate campaign money and corporate
lobbying. It has suffered a near-total disconnect from the American people
at large, as a result.
Mr. Pollack's book serves the Arrogant Capital well. The Gulf War in 1991,
as Senator Robert Dole said, was about o-i-l. Clearly the pending invasion
is, too. Direct American control of Iraqi oil reserves-second in magnitude
only to Saudi Arabia's-will bring pleasure and profit to our
Petro-Administration and its client corporations. No informed, thinking
citizen will deny this, but Mr. Pollack avoids it, speaking only to Saddam's
threat to our physical security.
Saddam Hussein is a psychopathic tinpot with no significant air power or
navy, a decimated army, questionable inventories of chemical and biological
weapons with no capability for intercontinental delivery, and five years
away from his first nuclear device. By what conceivable means can he
realistically threaten America, the most heavily armed nation on earth? This
is left utterly unexplained in Mr. Pollack's book.
The book's case for invading Iraq is no better than President Bush's, who
hasn't explained, either, but Pollack's attempt is detailed and
sophisticated. He demonizes Saddam in poetry (two stanzas) and prose (424
pages, and 44 more of footnotes), and shows that 3 presidents were so
persuaded. Both Bush I and Clinton favored "regime change," but they lacked
popular support for an invasion. 9/11 changed all that, Pollack argues.
(Awkwardly: he admits there is no linkage between Saddam and 9/11.) Bush II
now has the people with him, the polling indicates (because of successful
propagandizing?), and hence faces a choice:
1. Rebuild "containment." With President Bush frantic to discredit it, this
option is underway. It had not begun when Pollack wrote, but he had reasons
to reject it, and recently called the current inspections a "trap."
2. "Deterrence." Drop the sanctions, pull back the troops, and count on
Saddam's fear of the U.S. (This would abandon the Kurds and the Shi'ites.)
3. "Covert action." Assassination. (Saddam's security system is too
effective to make this possible.)
4. The "Afghan Approach." With massive air strikes, encourage a factional
revolt. (There is no effective counterforce in Iraq.)
5. Invasion. The "least best," but the only alternative, really.
Pollack's options are tactical alternatives to attain the strategic
objective designed in the Arrogant Capital: U.S. corporate imperialism will
triumph-by malevolent violence if necessary. We need desperately to
formulate other, peaceful, humane strategic objectives for our nation, but
such rigorous discussion has been deflected. Instead the invasion of Iraq,
wrapped in a fraudulent veil of physical security, has been sold to a decent
and trusting public by the Bush Administration. An impolite term for this is
propaganda, and Pollack's book contributes to the effort.
He works hard at it. Pollack compares Iraq to Germany in 1938. Hitler was
building the most fearsome war machine in history, and appeasement only made
more costly his eventual defeat. Pollack sees Saddam as today's Hitler.
It is not Saddam Hussein, however, who now commands the world's mightiest
military. George W. Bush does. And the threatening storm is not Saddam,
either. It is America becoming what we never thought we'd be: a self-serving
tyrant on a global scale, willing to unleash its colossus of armed might to
advance its parochial, commercial interests. America is becoming on the
world stage what Saddam has been in the Middle East.
The subtitle of Mr. Pollack's book is a monstrous insult to the ideals of
American people, and to our history. There is NO case to be made for
invading Iraq, or anyone else. We don't start wars, and American people are
justifiably proud of that. Only a government disconnected from its people
could propose doing so now-and only a heavily propagandized citizen could
find this book appealing.

This article is not copyrighted, so permission to reproduce it is
unnecessary. Richard W. Behan's current book is Plundered Promise:
Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island Press,
2001). For a description of the book, a synopsis, and further information,
go to http://www.rockisland.com/~rwbehan/. Behan is currently working on a
more broadly rendered critique, Derelict Democracy: A Primer On the
Corporate Seizure of America's Agenda. He can be reached by email at
rwbehan@rockisland.com.
*****************************************************************
 3 US warns of nuclear response

BBC NEWS | Americas | 

Wednesday, 11 December, 2002, 

[George W Bush/missiles graphic]                                        
The White House says no options have been ruled out 

Washington has said it is prepared to use nuclear weapons if 
necessary to respond to any attack with weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) against itself or its allies. 

 "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves 
the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through 
resort to all our options," a White House strategy document 
released on Tuesday said. 

[Saddam Hussein] The new document has been interpreted as a 
warning to Iraq
 		 		 			  
It is believed to be the first update on America's WMD policy 
since 1993. 

 BBC Washington correspondent Ian Pannell says that while the new 
document only restates existing policy, it has been widely 
interpreted as a direct warning to Iraq. 

US officials said only that the passage was meant to put emphasis 
on the role of deterrence against such an attack. 

'Essential part of defence' 

 Copies of the six-page strategy document were released to the 
media ahead of its official unveiling. 

Called the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, the document is to be delivered to Congress on 
Wednesday. 

 It says the threat of overwhelming force is an essential part of 
defence. 

 It also includes a commitment to boost programmes aimed at 
containing the damage from any chemical, biological, radiological 
or nuclear attack. 

The document also says that some states support terrorists and 
already have weapons of mass murder; it contends that they seek 
even more "as tools of coercion and intimidation". 

"For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily 
useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's 
advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding 
to aggression against our friends." 

 Iraqi denial 

In 1991, President George Bush Senior warned Baghdad that it 
would face the severest consequences if it attacked US forces 
with chemical or biological weapons. 

 Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own Kurdish 
population and is believed to have also used them in its war with 
Iran. 

 President George W Bush has repeatedly vowed to strip Baghdad of 
any weapons of mass destruction by force if Iraqi leader Saddam 
Hussein does not bow to a UN disarmament ultimatum. 

 UN inspectors are currently in Iraq to seek out any illegal arms 
held by the regime. 

 Iraq denies possessing banned weapons but has been accused by 
America of lying. 

� MMII | News Sources | Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 4 Reid decries ruling against revealing energy plan details

Las Vegas SUN: 

December 11, 2002 
 
 SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

 WASHINGTON -- A federal court ruling Monday that denied the 
General Accounting Office the ability to sue Vice President Dick 
Cheney for energy policy documents could have a chilling effect 
on Congress' ability to get information from government 
departments, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

 "It sets a terribly bad precedent," Reid said Tuesday. "It is an 
invitation for subsequent administrations, not just the Bush 
administration, to keep things secret."

 Reid was among the group of Democratic senators who first 
requested information about meetings Cheney held with corporate 
executives and lobbyists as the vice president assembled a 
national energy plan. The plan, released in spring 2001, called 
for more oil and gas drilling on public lands and included eased 
regulations and tax breaks for the nuclear industry, as well as 
plans for more conservation and renewable energy development.

 Reid, a longtime foe of the nuclear industry over the proposed 
nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, led the call for the GAO to 
sue Cheney after the White House refused access to energy meeting 
documents. A group of Democratic lawmakers wanted to know who 
Cheney and his aides met with and how they decided whom to invite 
to the secret meetings.

 But U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed by President Bush, 
dismissed the GAO suit Monday, saying it was unprecedented in 
what it was asking the White House to divulge.

 The judge ruled that the GAO didn't have the authority to file 
suit because an official body of Congress -- a committee or a 
house -- didn't request the information.

 Still, Reid decried the decision.

 "I feel so strongly about opening government," Reid said. 
"People get upset locally when three county commissioners meet in 
private on something like zoning. Here you had the vice president 
meeting with the largest oil executives and we really don't know 
who they were and what they talked about. I think that is awful."

 Reid in October asked the General Accounting Office to 
investigate whether President Bush was using taxpayer money to 
pay for his campaign travel.

 Bush tirelessly campaigned coast-to-coast for congressional 
Republicans in the final weeks before Election Day. White House 
officials say they use taxpayer money to cover the official 
business travel of the president and that Republican political 
groups pay for the campaign travel. 

Las Vegas SUN main page

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 5 North Korea Complicates Mideast Situation 

Welcome to News-Journal!
 
 By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer 

 WASHINGTON (AP)--The interception of an apparent North Korean 
missile shipment in the Arabian Sea threw yet another troublesome 
element into the delicate military and diplomatic drive against 
terrorism and the spread of dangerous weapons. 

 The Spanish military stopped the ship, sailing without a flag 
designating its country of origin but with what appeared to be a 
North Korean crew, during interdiction operations off the coast 
of Yemen as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. 

 U.S. authorities who had been monitoring the ship quickly 
boarded the ship after it was halted about 600 miles off the Horn 
of Africa. 

 The ship contained about a dozen short- to medium-range 
missiles, similar to the Scud missiles used by Iraq in the 
Persian Gulf War, as well as missile parts, U.S. officials said. 

 U.S. naval forces in the Indian Ocean took charge the ship on 
Wednesday, Spanish Defense Minister Federico Trillo said in 
Madrid. Trillo declined to speculate on the planned destination 
of the freighter or on the buyer of the weapons. He said only 
that the ship was headed for a port in the Middle East. 

 North Korea was officially silent about the interception but 
said it had the right to develop weapons to defend itself. 

 ``It is necessary to heighten vigilance against the U.S. 
strategy for world supremacy and 'anti-terrorism war,''' the 
North's official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in an editorial. 
``All countries are called upon to build self-reliant military 
power by their own efforts.'' 

 The missiles, the officials said, were at least initially headed 
for Yemen, a nominal ally in the global war on terrorism despite 
strained relations at best with Washington. Yemen is Osama bin 
Laden's ancestral homeland, was the site of the bombing of a U.S. 
warship and has vast lawless areas where al-Qaida members and 
other terrorists are believed to hide out. 

 North Korea shocked U.S. officials by admitting in October that 
it had a secret program to enrich uranium to make nuclear 
weapons. The Bush administration has vowed to try to solve the 
problem through diplomacy, though Bush already had named North 
Korea as part of a three-nation ``axis of evil'' and 
administration officials have worried that the reclusive 
Communist dictatorship has become a ``missiles-R-us'' seller to 
countries such as Iran and Libya. 

 The Bush administration met the discovery with a measured 
reaction, declining to characterize either how much concern it 
raised among U.S. officials or the range of options for a 
response. A White House spokesman for national security issues 
said the United States would enlist the help of U.S. allies in 
the region to fashion its next move--a decidedly diplomatic, and 
possibly slow, approach. 

 ``This is an issue of concern,'' said spokesman Sean McCormack. 
``We are working with other governments to figure out the next 
step.'' 

 McCormack said the immediate tasks were to deal with the crew 
and to secure the ship. 

 The ship carrying the missiles was stopped by two vessels from 
the Spanish navy participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, the 
U.S.-led global anti-terrorism coalition, said Alberto Martinez 
Arias, a spokesman for Spain's Defense Ministry in Madrid. 

 Crews from the Spanish ships Navarra and Patino stopped the 
unflagged ship Sosan east of the island of Socotora and called 
U.S. authorities for assistance, Martinez said. The Spanish navy 
stopped and boarded the ship after its crew refused to identify 
themselves. 

 The North Korean captain of the Sosan initially told Spanish 
officials the ship was carrying cement. The missiles were 
discovered shortly thereafter, Martinez said. 

 The ship was being held in the area while the search continued 
and as U.S. experts made sure any explosive materials were 
neutralized, U.S. officials said. It was not clear where the ship 
was registered, a senior administration official said. 

 Without providing specifics, the senior administration official 
said the United States had evidence beyond the identity of the 
crew to identify the missiles as originating in North Korea. 

 Officials said the shipment did not appear to be headed for 
Iraq. However, the senior administration official, offering 
details on condition of anonymity, said that although the ship 
was bound for Yemen, it was unclear whether it--and the missiles 
on board _ had another destination beyond that. 

 Yemen's port of Aden was the site of the October 2000 terrorist 
attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors. 

 Yemeni officials contacted late Tuesday said they had no 
information concerning the ship, its contents or its boarding by 
international forces. 

 The boarding occurred as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld 
was traveling in the area. He made stops in Eritrea and Ethiopia 
on Tuesday and was to visit U.S. troops in the Gulf of Aden port 
of Djibouti on Wednesday. 

 It was unclear precisely what missiles were aboard the seized 
vessel. North Korea has built and exported at least two missiles 
in the Scud class: the Scud B and the Scud D, or No Dong. 

 Scud B missiles were produced in large numbers by the former 
Soviet Union and ended up in Iraq and North Korea, among other 
nations. The missiles are very inaccurate, often break up in 
flight and have a range of less than 200 miles. 

 The No Dong missile produced by North Korea is advanced compared 
with the Scud B. It has a range of up to 930 miles and can carry 
a conventional, chemical or nuclear warhead. Iran and Pakistan 
have modified versions of the No Dong, and Pakistan's are fitted 
to carry nuclear warheads. 

 U.S. officials have said North Korea has sold missile technology 
to Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Iran, 
Syria, Egypt and Libya. All but Egypt, a U.S. ally, are on the 
American list of countries that sponsor terrorism. 

 Shipments by sea to any of those countries could pass through 
the Gulf of Aden. 

AP-NY-12-11-02 0847EST Copyright 2002, The Associated Press. The 
*****************************************************************
 6   Disclosing the UN spin game
 
Asia Times
 
By David Isenberg 

The job of framing the spin surrounding Iraq�s just-delivered 
"weapons of mass destruction" declaration pursuant to UN Security 
Council Resolution 1441 is, well, spinning out of control. 

Even before the declaration was delivered to UN headquarters in 
New York, government officials both in the United States and 
Iraq, as well as pundits spanning the globe, were frantically 
scrambling to put their views out. 

In a sense, all the posturing almost makes one sympathetic to 
Iraq and Saddam Hussein. From the viewpoint of deterring war it 
is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Prior to 
the delivery of the declaration, the US had made it clear that if 
Iraq declared it had none of the prohibited missile systems or 
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the US would regard that 
as a lie and consider it sufficient cause for invasion. On the 
other hand, if Iraq did declare that it had such weapons, then it 
would be in contravention of past UN Security Council 
resolutions, not to mention acknowledging something Iraq has gone 
to great pains to deny, and that would also be considered 
sufficient cause for war, at least to the Bush administration. 

As Judith Kipper, a senior Middle East specialist at the Center 
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, noted in a 
report in the Christian Science Monitor, "Clearly the [Bush] 
administration doesn't want any good news from Baghdad ... the 
president and vice president have already set up very low 
expectations - in fact, expectations of noncompliance." 

Consider just a few remarks made in recent days:

 Speaking on Fox News, US Senator Joe Lieberman said, "I think 
you'd have to say that what they gave the UN yesterday was 
probably a 12,000-page, hundred-pound lie." 

Similarly, Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and outgoing 
chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, told CBS, "We 
are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that 
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a 
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of 
mass destruction." 

David Kay, former chief UN weapons inspector, speaking on Meet 
The Press, said, "I think that's the important bottom line out of 
12,000 pages - no weapons of mass destruction, no programs to 
develop them in the last four years, nothing left over from their 
previous program. I think that just doesn't meet the laugh test." 

Last Thursday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, 
"President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. 
[British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of 
mass destruction. [US Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld has 
said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq says they 
don't. You can choose who you want to believe." 

That same day he also rejected Iraq's claims that it had no 
nuclear weapons, citing testimony of past weapons inspectors and 
intelligence experts. But he offered no new evidence to support 
the administration's declarations that the Iraqi government had 
just moved its weapons of mass destruction out of sight. 

Predictably, on the anti-war side, former president Jimmy Carter, 
arriving in Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, said that 
there was no reason for a US war on Iraq if Baghdad complied with 
United Nations weapons demands. 

Meanwhile, UN officials in New York have been assembling reports 
filled with secret Iraqi weapons data information withheld from 
previous UN reports - for comparison with the new declaration, 
according to a report in the Sunday Boston Globe. The information 
will be unveiled in coming weeks to question or disprove Saddam's 
report. 

That is a critical issue, as Security Council Resolution 1441 
states that "false statements or omissions" in Iraq's declaration 
would constitute a "material breach" - diplomatic jargon for a 
justification for war - if the problems were accompanied by a 
lack of Iraqi cooperation to address them.

 Reversing an earlier decision, on Sunday the president of the UN 
Security Council, Alfonso Valdivieso of Colombia, agreed to give 
the US and the four other permanent council members - Britain, 
France, Russia and China - full copies of the declaration. While 
the US actually received it and is making copies for other 
members, it may make it more difficult for the US to frame the 
declaration as false, as the other states can be depended on to 
examine it as closely as the US. 

The Los Angeles Times reported last Friday that the Bush 
administration had compiled a team of analysts who would 
carefully examine the declaration. While it might take several 
weeks to fully translate and examine the information, US 
officials hope to find any important omissions and falsehoods 
more quickly than the UN might. 

Much of the media reporting would be comical if it didn't deal 
with such a deadly issue. For example, in a twist on the old saw 
that size matters, much of the media are harping on the size of 
the Iraqi declaration, inferring that its approximately 
seven-volume, 12,000-page submission is nothing more than an 
attempt to burden the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and 
Inspection Mission (UNMOVIC) with reams of irrelevant misleading 
data. Such inferences overlook the fact that virtually all UN 
arms control-related paperwork is voluminous in size. For 
example, the annual confidence building measure declaration made 
to the UN by states that are party to the Biological Weapons 
Convention on permitted biodefense activities can run to a 
thousand pages or more. 

The actual declaration contained, according to CNN, 11,807 pages 
of information; 1,334 on biological weapons, 1,823 on chemical 
weapons, 6,887 on missiles, and 12 CD-ROMs containing 529 
megabytes of information (believed to contain information Iraq 
has supplied to the United Nations before). 

According to Iraqi General Amir Saadim, who serves as a senior 
science adviser to Saddam Hussein, the nuclear section starts 
with an 80-page introduction that outlines the development of 
Iraq's nuclear program, organizations and finances. Then a 
363-page chapter details technologies used by Iraqi scientists, 
including "electromagnetic isotope separation" and "uranium 
enrichment by gaseous diffusion". Finally, there is a 333-page 
chapter on actual nuclear weapon development. 

Considering the millions of pages known to exist in UNMOVIC�s 
databases, a 12,000-page declaration is pretty ho-hum. 

(�2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please 

  Dec 12, 2002   

*****************************************************************
 7 US-Pyongyang relations: The big picture 
 
Asia Times
 
width=400> [http://www.kimsoft.com/]   

By Jaewoo Choo 

SEOUL - In recent times in South Korea, conservatives have been 
revising their interpretations of the ways the United States and 
North Korea have been approaching each other since Pyongyang's 
admission to an enriched-uranium program in October. 

In addition to that confession, the leader of North Korea, Kim 
Jong-il, at a summit meeting with Japanese Prime Minister 
Junichiro Koizumi in the same month, also admitted to the 
abduction of Japanese in the 1970s and '80s. While Kim's actions 
are perceived by conservative South Korean observers of North 
Korean affairs as "confession diplomacy" or "disclosure 
diplomacy", his motives and intentions behind such strategy are 
yet to be revealed. To an extent, however, they predict that the 
once-infamous strategy of "brinkmanship diplomacy" is fading out 
as North Korea strives hard to open itself much more to the 
world. 

Interestingly enough, the conservatives now also make note of the 
recent changes in US attitude toward the North as a shift in its 
grand national-security strategy, from what might be termed a 
"win, then win again" strategy in the '90s to "win-wait-win". The 
new strategy will, it is claimed, enable the United States to 
defend the homeland while simultaneously implementing its 
overseas peace mission in certain areas, but not in a multiple 
engagement of military actions. Such an intention is now clearly 
reflected in US President George W Bush's signing of the Homeland 
Security Act as well as the National Defense Authorization Act in 
recent times. However, if the US deems it absolutely necessary to 
conduct multiple, simultaneous wars on different continents, it 
will expect its allies to play much bigger roles in such 
missions, as Bush and his advisors have emphasized during their 
recent trips to European Union nations. In this respect, there is 
a growing consensus among South Koreans that the United States' 
demands, especially regarding the impending invasion of Iraq, are 
a test to its allies' loyalty. 

The fundamental cause of the change in US strategic thinking, the 
theory goes, was the revelation of its vulnerability to terrorist 
attacks. September 11, 2001, clearly indicated that a change in 
US military strategy was imperative as what was once unthinkable 
became a reality. The US homeland was shown to be defenseless 
against terrorism. While it thought "win-win" - moving from one 
victory directly to another, or even carrying out simultaneous, 
unilateral campaigns - to be a feasible and effective strategy 
for protecting its national interests at the global level, the US 
was much more aggressive in its approach toward North Korea. It 
made sense because the strategy was adopted with the collapse of 
the former Soviet Union in the early '90s. At the time, the 
United States was the lone and uncontested superpower. That new 
situation allowed US military planners to believe that it could 
conduct two simultaneous wars in two different territories 
because it had the best forward deployment capability in the 
world - of course with a little help from allies such as Japan 
and Australia. But when it experienced its homeland's 
vulnerability against terrorism, it found itself with an absolute 
need to adjust its once highly confident military thinking. It 
now could afford to engage itself only in one-on-one warfare. 

Such an adjustment is now gradually surfacing in the United 
States' approach to the problem of North Korea's nuclear-weapons 
program, conservative South Koreans claim. According to their 
analysis, Bush's statement on November 15 that invading North 
Korea was not an option has many more implications beyond the 
unwillingness to make war. They believe that such policy will not 
last long, for two reasons. One reason is the fact that Bush 
omitted to state for how long his policy would remain in effect. 
Another reason is the recent US efforts to handle North Korea 
through working-level diplomacy. Bush's statement came out on the 
same day the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization 
(KEDO), an international consortium overseeing the construction 
of two light-water reactors and supplies of fuel to the North, 
officially declared it would phase out humanitarian fuel-oil 
deliveries to North Korea. In his statement, Bush also highly 
praised KEDO's decision, as both parties felt the urgency to take 
action against North Korea's confession to a uranium-enrichment 
program. In the eyes of conservative South Koreans, this is "oil 
diplomacy", and is expected to bring devastating consequences to 
the North in somewhat similar ways it did to the world during the 
first and second oil shocks in the 1970s and '80s. 

Since Bush's words and actions are in great contrast, deep down 
in their hearts South Koreans were bewildered by his seemingly 
abrupt proclamation of no intention to invade North Korea, whose 
leader he loathes too much to refrain from going public about his 
feelings. What were the motivating factors behind Bush's 
reiteration of his position on Pyongyang, which he had already 
made in February during his state visit to South Korea? What's 
holding him back from punishing a nation that is currently led by 
a man he hates so much? His words are in quite a contrast 
considering how much he also detests Saddam Hussein. The timing 
of his remarks was somewhat awkward, too, as it came out in the 
midst of North Korea's planning of opening the country to the 
outside. Nonetheless, his reiteration reminded many of the famous 
phrase of his father, political mentor and presidential 
predecessor, George Bush Sr: "Read my lips." 

Yet the hissing coming from the younger Bush's lips does not 
sound like the late John Lennon's words, "Give peace a chance." 
Many in general, and conservatives in particular, began to view 
Bush's rhetoric as a delaying tactic. Their argument was based on 
their observation of the fact that the US-North Korean 
relationship at the working level has not been moving except like 
a dog's wagging tail. The United States would one day issue a 
positive statement on the North Korean situation, but would come 
out with negative words the next day, making the headlines on the 
front pages of the South Korean daily newspapers. Such US 
actions, of course, increase South Koreans' confusion on the 
problem of the North, especially with a presidential election 
this month. One thing for sure, however, is that because of the 
current US pendulum-like approach to North Korea, no major crisis 
was foreseen before the election - not like in 1997, for example, 
when North Korean forces were reported to have deployed to the 
38th parallel at the alleged request of the South's then ruling 
Grand National Party to secure advantages over the opposition 
candidate, who was Kim Dae-jung at the time. 

Here are some of the developments that are claimed to 
substantiate the United States' statements about North Korea have 
been delay tactics. Beginning on November 15, when KEDO's 
statement on phasing out oil delivery was released, Bush 
expressed his support of the decision, and yet simultaneously 
reiterated his no-invasion stance on North Korea. In addition, he 
did not comment on the EU's decision on the previous day to 
provide North Korea with 1.5 million euros' worth of humanitarian 
food aid, while publicly demanding an immediate halt of any 
further oil shipments. On the 17th, two days later, as if to 
abide by his pledge, neither Bush nor his government commented on 
North Korea's violation of the Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the 
West Sea of Korea, the first of its kind since June 29, when a 
deadly naval skirmish resulted in the sinking of a South Korean 
patrol boat and the death of a few South Korean naval officers. 
Historically, North Korea's crossing of the NLL has usually 
occurred in protest against the United States, especially when 
the relationship was edgy. The recent case can be attributed to 
the announcement of phasing out the fuel-oil shipments. 

Three days later, on November 20, US Secretary of State Colin 
Powell presented another carrot to Pyongyang when he expressed 
the United States' recognition of North Korea as a sovereign 
state. Such acknowledgement by a high-ranking US governmental 
officer has seldom been witnessed in the past, as reflected in 
the contrasting words by assistant secretary of state for East 
Asia and Pacific affairs James Kelly a day later: As a member of 
the United Nations, the US recognizes North Korea's government. 
After these remarks, however, the domestic political front in the 
US Congress was skewing in another direction. It was said to be 
preparing in bipartisan fashion a preliminary draft for much 
heavier sanctions on North Korea for not abiding by the 1994 
Geneva Agreement. On the last day of November, the US government 
announced it would freeze any further actions or contacts with 
Pyongyang. We all know how long it takes for legislation to pass 
in the US political system and what kind of procedures it will 
entail to gain legal and rational grounds. This is probably why 
the United States and Bush will need much more time to hold off 
on its actions against North Korea, if any were to be undertaken. 
What is ironic is that, once in a rush to normalize relationship 
with Pyongyang, Koizumi has now officially nominated "patience" 
and "wait" as the key tactics in his government's approach. 

To secure this "wait" stage in the "win-wait-win" strategy, it is 
safe to assume that the United States is left with no other 
choice but to engage in another tough and demanding tug-of-war 
with North Korea on the nuclear issue. Whether the scenario would 
resemble that of 1993 when North Korea threatened to turn the 
South into a "sea of fire" remains to be seen. In the process, 
however, both the US and North Korea will do their utmost to 
conceal their true intentions and purposes behind their 
strategies. It will be a devastating blow to South Korea's new 
government when it assumes the leadership early next year. One 
factor causing more confusion will arise from the North's 
independent movement in its own pursuit of special economic zones 
(SEZs). On November 26, it designated Mount Geumgang as a tourism 
SEZ. Three days later, it was officially announced that Gaesung, 
a city southwest of Pyongyang, would be a special industrial 
complex. It took North Korea only two weeks to fulfill its 
promise of announcing two SEZs by the end of November, a period 
in which so many turns were taken in its relations with the 
United States. Maybe in recognition of the aforementioned change 
in the United States' national grand strategy, Pyongyang may feel 
unaffected on its pursuit of SEZs. In addition, once they are 
realized and investment attracted, the special zones may become 
an additional buffer against the United States' equation of 
military action against it, complementing China's role and 
raising the specter of tourists from the South as hostages. 

Jaewoo Choo, PhD, is a research fellow with the Trade Research 
Institute, Seoul. The opinions expressed in this article are his 
own. 

(�2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please 
contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and 

Dec 12, 2002   
  Copyright Asia Times Online, 6306 The Center, Queen�s Road,
*****************************************************************
 8 IAEA's nuclear oversight should be reinforced.

asahi.com : ENGLISH
 
  Asahi Shimbun     www.asahi.com [http://www.asahi.com/]    
    
EDITORIAL/A tougher watchdog
 
 An international conference on strengthening the nuclear 
nonproliferation regime was held Monday and Tuesday in Tokyo 
under the auspices of the Japanese government and supported by 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
 
 IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, who attended the 
conference, hopes to strengthen international trust in the 
organization in its role of reinforcing the Treaty on the 
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its nuclear inspection 
program.
 
 IAEA is often referred to as the nuclear watchdog, because it 
watches over nuclear power plants and facilities in nations that 
have declared they do not have nuclear weapons, conducting 
periodic inspections to confirm that they are not secretly 
developing nuclear arms.
 
 But the IAEA inspection program is far from perfect. Even after 
years of inspections in Iraq, for example, the IAEA failed to 
detect the country's clandestine nuclear weapons program until it 
was discovered in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. The IAEA 
inspections lost credibility again when the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea (North Korea), which has barred IAEA 
inspectors, acknowledged it has been secretly working on nuclear 
arms.
 
 The IAEA is now conducting thorough weapons inspections in Iraq. 
But the inspectors there are conducting a search for weapons of 
mass destruction under a special mandate of the United Nations 
Security Council, based on a post-Persian Gulf War resolution. 
This is an exception.
 
 The biggest disadvantage of traditional inspections is that arms 
experts can only check facilities listed in declarations of 
nuclear materials and programs reported by nations that agree to 
IAEA inspections. That leaves the possibility that nuclear 
weapons are being developed at undeclared facilities, just as 
Iraq had done and is suspected of doing now.
 
 The shortcomings of inspection by consent have prompted 
criticism of the present approach as meaningless. This increases 
the risk of wider international support for pre-emptive 
destruction of suspected nuclear facilities as the only way to 
prevent nuclear proliferation. In response, the IAEA adopted the 
Additional Protocol on comprehensive inspection safeguards in 
1997 to close the loopholes.
 
 This amplification entitles IAEA to broader access to 
information and sites in signatory countries. Inspectors can 
collect soil, water and air samples anywhere and seek out secret 
facilities. IAEA experts can enter suspicious sites within 24 
hours of notification.
 
 This added authority, permitting inspection of undeclared 
materials and facilities as well as listed ones, is a powerful 
tool in preventing the spread of nuclear arms. But even with 
toughened measures, just 28 of 137 nations in the IAEA have 
signed the protocol. Many nations say the extra paperwork and 
technical burdens of tougher inspections are just not worth it.
 
 The Tokyo conference was intended to promote understanding of 
the importance of stronger safeguards so more countries will sign 
on. But this simple nudge is not likely to gain many signatories. 
Japan, which has a national no-nuclear weapons policy, should 
propose drastic reinforcement of the inspection program.
 
 One way would be to use aid from Japan as an incentive to 
increase economic and technological support for nations that sign 
the agreement and withhold such assistance for countries that 
refuse.
 
 The problem is that Iraq and Iran, which are suspected of having 
nuclear arms programs, are unwilling to give such added authority 
to the IAEA, as is North Korea, which has admitted its nuclear 
weapons development. It thus seems unlikely the prospect of more 
aid alone would convince these nations to reconsider.
 
 Even so, Japan should press others to join. The only effective 
strategy is to have more nations embrace the additional IAEA 
protocol, creating an international norm and pressing the 
holdouts into compliance.
 
 --The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 10(IHT/Asahi: December 11,2002)
 
(12/11)
   
  [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
 9 Bush Vows 'Overwhelming Force' 
 
  CBS News | 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 2002

 (AP / CBS)

"We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the 
United States, our forces and our friends and allies." From the 
president's National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass 
Destruction

Bush Administration strategy to counter weapons of mass 
destruction threat in all it's dimensions, including their use 
and further proliferation.                                                                                      

(CBS) In a message to Congress that it hoped Saddam Hussein would 
also hear, the Bush administration Wednesday said it would use 
"overwhelming force," including nuclear weapons, if chemical or 
biological weapons are used against America or its forces. 

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer called it a declaration "of 
how seriously the United States would take it in the event that 
weapons of mass destruction were used." 

"It's a reiteration of a statement that has been made previously, 
but this time it ties it all together to make clear that the 
United States will indeed respond," Fleischer said. 

The threat was contained in a White House document, called the 
"National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," to be 
delivered to Congress on Wednesday. 

The six-page statement said the United States "reserves the right 
to respond with overwhelming force � including through resort to 
all of our options � to the use of WMD (weapons of mass 
destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and 
friends and allies." 

That passage intends to threaten U.S. nuclear retaliation as a 
deterrent to hostile governments, said senior administration 
officials who briefed journalists about the document Tuesday. 

According to CBS News Senior White House Correspondent John 
Roberts, the policy announced yesterday rests on three pillars: 


+ counter-proliferation, or the use of deterrence to prevent the 
use of weapons of mass destruction 


+ nonproliferation to prevent the spread of weapons, through 
treaties 


+ "consequence management," or the willingness of the United 
States to respond to the employment of weapons of mass 
destruction with "overwhelming force" 

The policy is consistent with the doctrine of "preemptory self 
defense" that the administration has recently adopted in explicit 
form. This permits the use of force to prevent, rather than 
simply respond to, an attack. 

The officials emphasized that the strategy, developed jointly by 
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and homeland security 
adviser Tom Ridge, is an overall statement of the Bush 
administration's overarching principles. 

However, the commitment to possible nuclear retaliation is not 
new. 

In a defense department report on American strategy two years 
agao, the Pentagon stated that, "The U.S. nuclear posture also 
contributes substantially to the ability to deter aggression 
against the United States, its forces abroad, and its allies and 
friends." 

"Although the prominence of nuclear weapons in the nation�s 
defense has diminished since the end of the Cold War, nuclear 
weapons remain important as one of a range of responses available 
to deal with threats or use of NBC weapons against U.S. 
interests," the report read. 

The timing of the policy's release, however, coincides with other 
muscle-flexing by the President Bush designed to show Iraqi 
President Saddam Hussein that the United States is serious about 
seeing him disarmed. 

The White House, reports CBS News White House Correspondent Mark 
Knoller, feels this public proclamation of U.S. doctrine might 
dissuade nations and groups from using weapons of mass 
destruction. In the first Gulf War, the first President Bush 
apparently issued such a warning to Saddam, and some believe that 
the president's admonition discouraged Saddam from using 
biological or chemical weapons against invading U.S. troops. 

The White House document gathers into one comprehensive whole 
several doctrines for prevention, deterrence and defense that Mr. 
Bush has enunciated since taking office, including a commitment 
to boost programs aimed at containing the damage of any chemical, 
biological, radiological or nuclear attack. 

The strategy said some unspecified states that support terrorists 
already have weapons of mass destruction and seek even more "as 
tools of coercion and intimidation." 

"For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily 
useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's 
advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding 
to aggression against our friends," the document said. 

"We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the 
United States, our forces and our friends and allies" from 
weapons of mass destruction, it continued. 

In rare agreement with the White House, former Vice President Al 
Gore embraced his rival's strategy. "As presented, Al Gore feels 
this is in keeping with America's long-held strategy of using our 
own weapons of mass destruction principally to dissuade any 
aggressor from using their WMD arsenal against us," said 
spokesman Alejandro Cabrera.     

�MMII CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may 
*****************************************************************
 10  Media Advisory 2002/45 - News Update on Iraq Inspections
 
[www.iaea.org]   

[-] Media Advisory 2002/45 (11 December 2002)   
    
Present Schedule

  + 27 January 2003: Date for IAEA and UN Iraq Inspectorates to
present status report to the Security Council as required under
Resolution 1441. 
  + 19 December 2002: IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei
and UNMOVIC Executive Director Hans Blix are scheduled to
provide a preliminary assessment to the UN Security Council on
the Iraq declaration received 8 December 2002. 
  + 10 December 2002: More inspectors arrive in Iraq, bringing
the total on the teams to 70 inspectors (43 UNMOVIC and 27
IAEA). 
  + 8 December 2002: Deadline set by the Security Council for
receipt of Iraq's declaration of its weapons of mass
destruction. The Iraq declaration of its nuclear programme is
received by the IAEA at its Headquarters in Vienna. The
declaration consists of about 2100 pages in English and 300
pages in Arabic. The IAEA stated that it expects to be able to
provide a preliminary analysis of the document to the Security
Council within the next ten days, with a fuller assessment to be
provided when it reports to the Council at the end of January. 
  + 7 December 2002: Iraq submitted its declaration to chief
IAEA and UN inspectors in Baghdad. 
  + 27 November 2002: IAEA and UN inspectors began inspections
under Security Council Resolution 1441. 
  + 20-25 November 2002: In preparation for the resumption of
inspections, IAEA technicians travel to Baghdad with specialized
equipment for nuclear inspections. IAEA and UNMOVIC weapons
inspectors travel to Baghdad shortly thereafter. 
  + 18 November 2002: IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei and UNMOVIC
Chief Hans Blix and their teams flew on a UN chartered plane to
Baghdad to begin preparations for the launch of inspections
under UN resolution 1441. Logistics officers immediately began
to reopen the IAEA-UNMOVIC office and installedcomputers,
arrange secure communications, establish transportation, etc. 
  + 17 November 2002: Dr. ElBaradei and Dr. Blix traveledl from
Vienna to Larnaca, Cyprus. A team of eight senior officials and
logistics officers accompanied Dr. ElBaradei. Dr. Blix was
joined by about 13 on the UN team. 

The Team

The IAEA Iraq Action Team presently consists of about three dozen 
inspectors and supporting staff. The countries of origin of the 
team members, at present, are: France, USA, South Africa, the UK, 
Egypt, Australia, India, Russia, Ireland, Austria, China, Canada, 
and the Netherlands.
 
Press Contacts
 
Inspectors and other members of the IAEA Iraq Action Team are not 
available to the press. Press briefings by IAEA Director General 
ElBaradei or other senior IAEA officials will be announced in 
advance. All press inquiries should be directed to the IAEA 
Division of Public Information Director and Spokesperson, Mr. 
Mark Gwozdecky -- Tel. [43-1] 2600-21270 or (43-664-154-6989) -- 
or to Ms. Melissa Fleming, Alternate Spokesperson -- Tel. [43-1] 
2600-21275 or [43] 664-325-7376 (mobile). The Division's Fax 
number is [43-1] 2600-29610. The email for the press office is 
info@iaea.org [info@iaea.org] . 
 
The latest available information on IAEA Iraq missions will be 
posted on the IAEA WorldAtom web site at www.iaea.org/worldatom 
[http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/] .
 
Key to Success
 
In an address to the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation 
Conference in Washington on 14 November, Dr. ElBaradei said, "The 
success of inspections in Iraq will in my view depend on five 
interrelated prerequisites:"
 
  1. immediate and unfettered access to any location or site in 
Iraq, and full use of all the authority granted to us by the 
Security Council - including the additional authority provided 
for in the new resolution;
 
  2. ready access to all sources of information - including 
timely intelligence information; 

  3. unified and unequivocal support from the Security Council, 
with the affirmed resolve to act promptly in case of 
non-compliance - this, in my view, is the best support that 
inspectors could have and the best deterrence against 
non-compliance; 

  4. active co-operation from Iraq, with a sustained 
demonstration of its stated willingness to be transparent and to 
enable inspectors to fulfil their mission without any conditions 
attached; and 

  5. the preservation of the integrity and impartiality of the 
inspection process, free from outside interference, to ensure 
that conclusions are accepted as objective and credible by all 
parties. Efforts by national governments to infiltrate the 
inspection process are ultimately counter-productive, because 
they lead to the destruction of the very fabric of the process, 
let alone its credibility.
 
"I would hope and trust that, empowered with the appropriate 
authority and provided with the necessary information, inspectors 
should be able to verify effectively the disarmament of Iraq. In 
my view, the use of force should clearly be the last resort and 
not the first option. But regardless of how events unfold in the 
foreseeable future, inspections will be the key, in the long 
haul, to ensuring that clandestine efforts to develop nuclear 
weapons - in Iraq or elsewhere - are detected and thwarted. There 
is no certainty, for example, that a new regime in Iraq, 
democratic or otherwise, would automatically renounce 
unconventional weapons, if such renunciation were perceived to be 
inconsistent with its threat perception. It is essential, 
therefore, that we make every effort to see to it that inspection 
- which is central to the entire nuclear arms control effort - 
succeeds both in Iraq and everywhere else. This requires that we 
continue to learn from our past experience, that we refine the 
system, and above all that we continue to work together towards 
that goal".
*****************************************************************
 11  Media Advisory 2002/44 - UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on 
Inspection Activities in Iraq, 10 December 2002
 
[www.iaea.org]   

News Update on Iraq Inspections
 UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq,
10 December 2002
                    
Previous media advisories: 9 December, 9 December, 8 December, 7 
December, 7 December, 6 December, 4 December, 3 December, 2 
December, 20 November, 18 November and 15 November. For full 
coverage, see the pages on IAEA and Iraq 
[http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.html] .
   
 10 December 2002 -- An UNMOVIC Biological team carried out 
inspection at two sites, National Project for Controlling 
Brucellosis and Tuberculosis (NPCBT); and Saddam Center for 
Biotechnology (SCB). The NPCBT was declared and monitored before 
1998. The site inspection was a re-baseline inspection based on 
the Iraqi declaration of 1 October 2002. The site has limited 
equipment for small batch production of animal vaccine and 
diagnostics. The SCB is a newly declared site and a detailed 
baseline inspection was completed. The team confirmed the 
location of a third site in Baghdad related to communicable 
diseases, which was newly declared. The team accomplished the 
inspection objectives smoothly.
 
The IAEA inspected a large number of sites today.
 
At Tuwaitha, a team continued to take a physical inventory of 
nuclear materials from Iraq's past nuclear programme. This work 
should be completed by the end of Thursday.
 
A team investigated an outlying site of the Al Qa Qaa explosives 
plant. (The main Al Qa Qaa complex was inspected on Monday.) The 
outlying site, called Sumood-4, is near the city of Mussayib and 
was associated with a past program. Sumood-4 is co-located with 
the Sadda Cement Factory. The cement plant was also inspected for 
dual-use capabilities. The same team inspected the Al Furat State 
Company for Chemical Industries in Mussayib. The Al Furat plant 
is a large chemical production site that produces large 
quantities of industrial chemicals, as well as some food items.
 
Inspections were made at a complex of sites belonging to the Al 
Karama facility. The individual sites inspected comprised of Ibn 
al Haytham, the associated stores of the Military 
Industrialisation Committee (MIC), the Al Fatah Company and the 
Al Sumood factory. The primary aim of the inspections was to 
carry out a review of current activities of the site as well as 
the activities since 1998, and also to ascertain the disposition 
and use of various machine tools and items of equipment that were 
previously known to the IAEA.
 
One other team has departed Baghdad for the Qaim Phosphate 
Complex near the town of Al-Qaim on the western border of Iraq. 
Qaim was previously associated with Iraq's production of uranium 
from ores found in the area. The team is tasked with verifying 
the status of destroyed equipment at this site and an inspection 
to determine that no uranium extraction activities have been 
resumed.
 
Hiro Ueki Spokesman for UNMOVIC and the IAEA in Baghdad
   
*****************************************************************
 12 U.S. Expert Says Only War Will Stop Iraqi Nuclear Threat 

News from the Washington File 

[International Information Programs] 

[Washington File] 

11 December 2002 

(Interview with Kenneth Pollack of Brookings Institution) (6980) 
Dr. Kenneth Pollack, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution 
in Washington, D.C., and director of its Sabin Center for Middle 
East Policy, says his research has led him to conclude, "very 
reluctantly," that the United States has little choice but to go 
to war with Iraq in the next few years "to ensure that Saddam 
Hussein is not allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon and to 
threaten the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the entire world 
with the threat of nuclear devastation." 

In a recent interview with the Washington File, Pollack said 
there is now a consensus among U.S., British, French, German and 
Israeli intelligence agencies that Iraq has everything it needs 
to build nuclear weapons, and while estimates vary as to when 
this will happen, "they all fall within the range of somewhere 
between four and six years." 

War with Iraq may not be imminent, in his assessment, "but it 
can't be put off for very long, maybe two or three years at 
most." 

Pollack said one of the principal reasons for concluding that war 
is inevitable is the failure of the 1990s multinational program 
designed to contain Iraq, a program that consisted of sanctions, 
no-fly zones and weapons inspections. 

"It failed because the Iraqis got very good at defeating the 
system and because international support for containment, which 
was the sine qua non of its success, evaporated, and I don't 
think that there's any likelihood that containment can be rebuilt 
in the future," he said. The main Iraqi threat to the United 
States, in Pollack's view, is its nuclear potential, not its 
purported ties to al Qaeda terrorists. He said he disagrees with 
the Bush administration on this point. "While Iraq is 
unquestionably a state sponsor of terrorism, I do not believe 
that they are deeply tied to the al Qaeda network. In the past, 
Iraq's ties to al Qaeda were always very tenuous, and while the 
administration does say that they have new evidence, I have not 
seen it and I remain unconvinced that the Iraqis have made new 
overtures to al Qaeda," he said. 

Asked why Iraq is being treated differently from countries with 
known nuclear capabilities, such as North Korea, Pollack replied 
that the response to Iraq is based on President Saddam Hussein's 
past behavior. 

"While the North Koreans are unquestionably aggressive and 
expansionist," he said, "they have not attacked anyone in 52 
years. By contrast, the Iraqis have attacked five of their 
neighbors in the last 22 years and threatened three others. ... 
In addition, Iraq has employed weapons of mass destruction 
against its own people and against its neighbors. It has violated 
virtually every international agreement it has ever signed and 16 
U.N. resolutions against it."

Pollack noted that the international community has tried -- but 
failed -- to disarm Saddam Hussein by convincing him to 
relinquish his weapons of mass destruction voluntarily. Hussein's 
refusal, he said, has cost Iraq "somewhere between 150 to 180 
billion [thousand million] dollars in lost oil revenues. It has 
destroyed Iraq's economy. 

It has destroyed Iraq's conventional armed forces, and it has 
impoverished the Iraqi people." In the interview with the 
Washington File, the Brookings scholar also answered questions 
about the legal basis for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Arab 
countries' views of possible military action, and what a 
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq might look like. [The Brookings 
Institution is an independent, nonpartisan research organization 
focusing on economics, foreign policy, and governance.] 

Following is the transcript of the interview with Kenneth 
Pollack: (begin transcript) 

WASHINGTON FILE INTERVIEW WITH DR. KENNETH POLLACK, SENIOR 
FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

WASHINGTON FILE: Dr. Kenneth Pollack is a senior fellow at the 
Brookings Institute here in Washington, D.C. and Director of the 
Sabin Center for Middle East Policy. He has an area of expertise 
that includes Iran, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, as 
well as Middle East militaries. His most recent book is The 
Threatening Storm; earlier this year he wrote Arabs at War: 

Military Effectiveness. 

He's contributed to many scholarly journals as well. Prior to 
joining Brookings, Dr. Pollack was director for Persian Gulf 
Affairs for the National Security Council, as well as the 
Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National 
Security Council. He was a senior research director at our 
National Defense University, and he has also worked with the CIA 
and the Council on Foreign Relations. 

DR. POLLACK: Let me start by saying that I do not represent the 
Bush administration. I used to work for the Clinton 
administration, although I also did work under the first Bush 
administration at the Central Intelligence Agency. My views are 
my own. 

With regard to the question of Iraq, I have concluded, and I will 
say very reluctantly, that I believe that the United States has 
little choice but to go to war with Iraq at some point in the 
near future. It may not have to be this winter, but it can't be 
put off for very long, maybe two or three years at most. The 
reason that I feel that the United States is going to have to 
take this course of action is because of Iraq's nuclear weapons 
program. There is now a consensus among Western intelligence 
agencies -- the United States, the British, the French, the 
German, the Israelis -- that the Iraqis have everything that they 
need to build nuclear weapons and it is simply a matter of time. 
And while estimates vary, they all fall within the range of 
somewhere between four and six years, if left to their own 
devices, that the Iraqis will have a nuclear weapon. And what we 
found out about Saddam Hussein's thinking after the Gulf War is 
extremely dangerous because Saddam apparently believes that once 
he's acquired a nuclear weapon, that it is the United States that 
will be deterred; that we will be so terrified of getting into a 
nuclear exchange with him that he will be free to resume his 
pattern of aggression. It was, of course, this pattern of 
aggression that led the United Nations in 1991 to decide to go to 
war with Saddam Hussein to prevent him from further attacking 
other countries in the region, and it is what led the United 
Nations to establish the program of containment which followed 
the Gulf War. 

One of the principle reasons that I think the United States has 
little other choice than to go to war is because the program of 
containment failed. During the 1990s we tried very hard to make 
multinational containment of Iraq succeed. Unfortunately, it 
failed. It failed because the Iraqis got very good at defeating 
the system and because international support for containment, 
which was the sine qua non of its success, evaporated, and I 
don't think that there's any likelihood that containment can be 
rebuilt in the future. In addition, over the course of the 1990s, 
the United States did try many other ways to deal with the 
problem of Saddam Hussein, including trying covert action to 
overthrow him, to mount a popular revolt to aid the Iraqi 
opposition, many other methods as well, and all of these have 
failed. And at this point in time with Iraq getting perilously 
close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and having tried all the 
alternatives and seeing them fail, I think the United States has 
little choice but to go to war with Iraq at some point in the 
next few years to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not allowed to 
acquire a nuclear weapon and to threaten the Persian Gulf, the 
Middle East and the entire world with the threat of nuclear 
devastation. 

WASHINGTON FILE: Why does the U.S. government think that war is 
the answer; how can the U.S. government promote war as the answer 
in Iraq while insisting that negotiations be the answer 
elsewhere? 

DR. POLLACK: War should always be the last resort. The problem is 
-- and I think the Bush administration right now is in agreement 
-- is that we both believe that we've come to the last resort in 
Iraq. 

As I mentioned earlier from my own perspective, the United States 
has tried for 11 years to find other ways to deal with the 
problem of Saddam Hussein. Let's remember, in 1991 there was a 
consensus around the world, expressed through the Security 
Council, that Saddam Hussein was such a dangerous leader; he was 
such a threat to world peace and stability that he could not be 
allowed to reconstitute Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
programs. That is why the United Nations put in place the program 
of containment, which consisted of sanctions, no-fly zones, the 
inspection regime, and a whole variety of other methods that were 
designed to keep Saddam from reconstituting those weapons of mass 
destruction. But, unfortunately, that program has failed. 

Containment is dead, and there is little to check Iraq from 
pursuing its weapons of mass destruction. It clearly has rebuilt 
many of its programs. And, as I said, it is simply a matter of 
time before Iraq acquires a nuclear weapon. And it is because of 
this threat and the fact that the threat still exists -- the same 
threat that we faced in 1991, although in this case even more 
dangerous because Iraq is much closer to acquiring a nuclear 
weapon -- because this threat still exists and because we have 
tried every other approach to dealing with the problem of Saddam 
Hussein, and all of the others have failed to deal with that 
problem, that I think that we are forced to go to war with 
Saddam. And we will be forced to go to war with Saddam to prevent 
him from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

And I think the Bush administration adds on another point, which 
is that they believe that Saddam Hussein is also deeply involved 
in support not only for terrorism in general, but for support for 
the al Qaeda terrorist network, which, of course, is the network 
that perpetrated the September 11th attacks on the United States. 
And their belief is that because Iraq does provide considerable 
assistance to al Qaeda, it is necessary to eliminate Saddam 
Hussein's regime to be sure that you can win the war on 
terrorism. 

I will say that I do not agree with this point. While Iraq is 
unquestionably a state sponsor of terrorism, I do not believe 
that they are deeply tied to the al Qaeda network. In the past, 
Iraq's ties to al Qaeda were always very tenuous, and while the 
administration does say that they have new evidence, I have not 
seen it and I remain unconvinced that the Iraqis have made new 
overtures to al Qaeda and the Iraqis are now in bed in some 
meaningful sense with each other. I think that the main threat 
that the United States faces is the nuclear one. The 
administration believes it is the nuclear one plus the terrorism 
threat. 

WASHINGTON FILE: North Korea is developing and already possesses 
nuclear weapons. Israel is assumed to have them as well. The U.S. 
does not appear to be getting ready to attack either of those. 
Can you explain why they are being treated differently from Iraq? 

DR. POLLACK: Absolutely. And, of course, this gets to the other 
part of the last question. The biggest problem with Iraq is not 
just that it is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, but the 
pattern of Iraqi behavior over the last 34 years and what we know 
about Saddam's intentions once he acquires nuclear weapons. This 
makes Iraq unique. 

There are many countries in the world that currently possess 
nuclear weapons. I particularly am not concerned about many of 
them. I am not concerned about Great Britain's possession of 
nuclear weapons. I am not particularly concerned about France's 
possession of nuclear weapons. There are other countries whose 
possession I think is far more problematic. Pakistan, for 
instance, not because I think that Pakistan is necessarily going 
to go off and attack India, but more because Pakistan is an 
unstable state and we can't be certain that additional strains in 
the future might not cause it to come apart at the seams, and 
then who knows where those weapons of mass destruction might 
fall. 

The same thing with North Korea. I am deeply concerned about 
North Korea because it is an aggressive country, because it has 
shown an unstable pattern of behavior in the past. However, what 
is striking about North Korea, what distinguishes it from Iraq, 
are several different features. First, while the North Koreans 
are unquestionably aggressive and expansionist, they have not 
attacked anyone in 52 years. By contrast, the Iraqis have 
attacked five of their neighbors in the last 22 years and 
threatened three others. North Korea is surrounded by very 
powerful countries -- South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. Iraq 
is surrounded by very weak countries, all of which, with the 
exception of Turkey and possibly Iran, are not strong enough to 
stand up to Iraq. In addition, Iraq has employed weapons of mass 
destruction against its own people and against its neighbors. It 
has violated virtually every international agreement it has ever 
signed and 16 U.N. resolutions against it, many of which were 
enacted under Article 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes them 
binding on all members, and, therefore, this, too, is a unique 
feature. 

It is all these unique elements of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's 
decision-making pattern, his record of aggression, also his 
pattern of miscalculation. This is also a critical element, that 
Saddam Hussein is a serial miscalculator. Whereas the North 
Koreans are aggressive, they've also demonstrated prudence in 
their foreign policy. They have not attacked South Korea because 
they fully understand the threat there. Saddam Hussein has 
repeatedly embarked on wild foreign policy adventures that could 
and should have led to the destruction of his own regime, but did 
visit enormous destruction on his own country and on his 
neighbors. Time and again he has done it, making wild 
miscalculations about the odds of success. It is all of these 
features that make Iraq uniquely dangerous. There is every 
expectation that negotiations have a chance of succeeding with 
North Korea. I think that Saddam Hussein's track record and what 
we know about his thinking about nuclear weapons, everything 
we've seen from Iraq suggests that there is little hope that 
negotiations will succeed with Iraq. 

And we should remember for 11 years the United Nations has tried 
negotiations with Iraq. For 11 years the United Nations has tried 
to disarm Saddam Hussein by convincing him to voluntarily give up 
his weapons of mass destruction and during that time, we have 
tried everything from diplomacy to limited use of force and none 
of it has succeeded. 

Saddam Hussein has kept his weapons of mass destruction, has 
insisted on keeping his weapons of mass destruction, despite the 
fact that it has cost Iraq somewhere between 150 to 180 billion 
dollars in lost oil revenues. It has destroyed Iraq's economy. It 
has destroyed Iraq's conventional armed forces, and it has 
impoverished the Iraqi people. And despite all of that, Saddam 
has steadfastly refused to surrender his weapons of mass 
destruction. Britain, on the one hand, and, say, the French and 
the Russians, on the other, it is not that we disagree on whether 
or not the Iraqis are hiding weapons of mass destruction. It is 
only that we disagree on how best to handle Iraq and how to 
convince Iraq to give up those weapons of mass destruction. 

WASHINGTON FILE: How would you respond to the charge that 
attacking Iraq is merely a diversion from public attention on the 
failed war, if you believe that we have not succeeded on the war 
on terrorism? 

DR. POLLACK: I do not speak for the Bush administration, so I 
cannot tell you exactly why every member of the Bush 
administration may want to invade Iraq. No one on the outside can 
really know why anyone makes this kind of decision. What I can 
tell you is that I think that there is good strategic rationale 
for going to war with Iraq, regardless of any other reasons. If 
the Bush administration does believe that this is necessary for 
some sort of domestic political reason, I think that would be a 
shame. I think that would be a wrong reason to go to war. 

But just because someone goes to war for a reason that you don't 
share doesn't mean that the war isn't justified. And what I've 
tried to spell out is that I think that there is a very valid 
justification, both a strategic justification and a legal 
justification, for going to war with Iraq at some point in the 
next few years to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear 
weapons and to force Iraq to live up to its various obligations 
to the international community. 

WASHINGTON FILE: A war with Iraq would divert resources from the 
war on terrorism, would it not? 

DR. POLLACK: This is something that I am concerned about. A war 
with Iraq does have the potential to draw away resources from the 
war on terrorism. In fact, my own sense is that it already is 
doing so in intelligence assets, translators. Other important 
assets, special forces, are being taken away from the war on 
terrorism and being diverted to Iraq. That said, the United 
States is a very large, very powerful country. We have tremendous 
capabilities and it is true that the United States can take on 
multiple responsibilities at the same time. The question is 
simply a matter of how much of a diversion of assets will it 
prove to be and will it be significant? Will it be meaningful? 
Will it really hurt the U.S. efforts on the war on terrorism in 
going after Iraq? 

Unfortunately, as a private citizen, as someone who is no longer 
in the U.S. government and no longer has access to the classified 
information, that's something that's difficult for me to 
ascertain. 

Unfortunately, because I don't have classified information, I 
have to rely on the government of the United States to do the 
right thing. And because we do live in a democracy here in the 
United States, we must trust our leadership. The president is the 
president of the United States. He was elected in a legal 
fashion. He is the legitimate leader of the United States of 
America, and I think that we, as Americans -- all that we can do 
is simply say to the president we want to make sure that before 
we do go into Iraq that it isn't going to be a meaningful drain 
of our resources and that it won't increase the risk in a 
significant way of terrorist attacks here in the United States. 

And I think that if the president can look the American people in 
the eye and say that it won't, that we have to trust him because 
we elected him, because he is the legitimate leader of this 
country. 

WASHINGTON FILE: Some people charge that the real reason that the 
U.S. may attack Iraq is actually for oil. After all, it is well 
known that the Bushes have ties to the oil sector. How would you 
respond to a statement like that? 

DR. POLLACK: Again, I can't speak for the U.S. government and I 
couldn't tell you with any degree of surety exactly why every 
member of the U.S. government who supports a war on Iraq does 
support it. 

What I can tell you is that there is a very sound, strategic 
rationale for going to war with Iraq. It is derived from a threat 
that Saddam Hussein poses to the region, to the world, to the 
United States from his determination to acquire nuclear weapons, 
his determination to turn Iraq into a new superpower, to 
dominate, if not control the Persian Gulf and its vital oil 
resources. 

Whether or not there are people in the Bush administration who 
somehow think that they're going to be able to swing sweetheart 
deals with oil companies, I actually think it is quite unlikely. 
In particular, I am heartened by the fact that the Bush 
administration is increasingly speaking of the need for a U.N. 
effort to reconstruct Iraq. I think if the United States allows 
the United Nations to handle the reconstruction of Iraq and 
allows them to handle the sales of Iraqi oil to ensure that the 
money from those oil sales goes to feed the Iraqi people and not 
anyone else, I think that would be the surest guarantee that the 
United States is not simply manipulating Iraqi oil for its own 
benefit. I think that would do the most to reassure the entire 
world and to ensure the Iraqi people too that the United States 
wants to use Iraq's oil resources to enrich the lives of the 
average Iraqi and no one else. 

WASHINGTON FILE: Why does the U.S. insist on enforcing the 16 
resolutions you mentioned concerning Iraq, but it hasn't really 
enforced the U.N. resolutions regarding Israel's occupation on 
Palestinian territories? 

DR. POLLACK: It's a very important question. There are two 
important distinctions, the first and most important of which is 
that many -- most, in fact, of the resolutions on Iraq were 
enacted under Article 7 of the U.N. Charter. That makes them 
binding on all members. It means that Iraq must comply. None of 
the resolutions enacted on the Arab-Israeli dispute were enacted 
under Article 7. That means that they are qualitatively different 
from those enacted against Iraq. The second point to make is that 
with regard to the Israel resolutions, there are two sides to 
that dispute. There are two sides at fault. Israel is not the 
only party at fault in the Arab-Israeli dispute. 

There is enough fault to go around. Arabs are equally to blame 
for all of the problems over the last 52 years that have plagued 
the Middle East. So it is not simply a matter of forcing the 
Israelis to comply with their parts of the resolutions. Those 
resolutions speak to both parties; to the wrongs that both 
Israelis and Arabs have committed against each other, and 
therefore even if these were enacted under Article 7 it would be 
up to the Arabs as well as the Israelis to comply, and I think 
that Israel and its backers make a very good case that the Arabs, 
too, have failed to live up to any of their obligations under the 
resolutions as well. Resolution 242, which is the key resolution, 
demands land for peace and while it is true that the Israelis 
have not given up the land, it is also true that the Arabs have 
not made peace. 

WASHINGTON FILE: Can you explain in more detail what basis exists 
for international law for preemptive regime change attack on a 
sovereign state recognized by the U.N. as a sovereign state? 

DR. POLLACK: Well, there are two issues here. First, there's the 
specific case of Iraq, and then there's the more general 
question. 

With regard to the more general question, there is the precedent 
of anticipatory self-defense. This is a concept which some 
international lawyers accept and others dispute. That said, it is 
also a concept which many governments have used in the past to 
justify their actions. 

The Swedish government used anticipatory self-defense to prevent 
Russian submarines from moving into their territorial waters in 
the 1980s and declared that they would strike those submarines if 
they found them in their territorial waters, and they justified 
that based on anticipatory self-defense. The British government, 
the Israeli government, the United States government, any number 
of other governments that employ anticipatory self-defense to 
justify their own actions. 

In the case of Iraq, however, there's qualitatively different set 
of issues out there because of the existence of the U.N. 
resolutions on Iraq, which, as I just said, were enacted mostly 
under Article 7 of the U.N. Charter and therefore binding on all 
members, including Iraq. In the case of Iraq, Iraq was demanded 
by the United Nations to undertake a whole range of different 
activities, all of which it has singularly failed to accomplish. 
Under Resolution 678, which grants all member states of the U.N. 
the authority to use all necessary means to bring Iraq into 
compliance with those various resolutions, the use of force is 
well established under international law. It is well established 
that the United States, Great Britain or any other U.N. member 
states can use force against Iraq to bring it into compliance, to 
force it to comply with the various U.N. resolutions that have 
been enacted against it since 1990. That puts Iraq in a very 
different category in terms of international law. 

WASHINGTON FILE: What do the Arab states want? What are they 
thinking? Do they want this war with Iraq? Do they not want it? 

DR. POLLACK: Well, there's a wide range of views within the Arab 
world. The Gulf states, the GCC states, those that are closest to 
Iraq, those who neighbor Iraq want very much to have Saddam 
Hussein gone, and while in public they are reticent, in private 
they are very supportive of a U.S. military operation against 
Iraq. In fact, I'll put it differently. They are very supportive 
of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. They do have three conditions for the 
invasion. One, it must be a full-scale invasion because the Gulf 
states are very nervous of additional U.S. limited military 
operations against Iraq, which they believe simply angers Saddam 
Hussein, provoke him without getting rid of him. What they 
consistently say to us is, if you're going to use force against 
Iraq, do the job right, mount a full-scale invasion and get rid 
of Saddam Hussein because they want him gone. Second, they wanted 
the United States to go to the U.N. and get an imprimatur from 
the United Nations, which the United States has effectively done. 
As far as the GCC states are concerned, we've effectively checked 
that box. The third thing is they would like to see the United 
States make a greater effort to begin negotiations between the 
Israelis and the Palestinians to bring down the level of violence 
between the Israelis and Palestinians. The administration is 
handling that by laying out what it calls a road map of how we 
get from where we are to a two-state solution, a Palestine and an 
Israel both living within secured and defensible borders. And so 
far the Gulf states have said that they think the road map is 
interesting, but what they want to see is whether or not the 
United States is really committed to pushing the road map 
forward. 

Other Arab states have different views. On the one hand, for 
example, the Jordanians are caught between. On the one hand, King 
Abdullah is very supportive of the United States; wants a very 
good relationship with the United States and is determined not to 
repeat what he believes was the mistake his father made in 1991 
of trying to sit on the fence. On the other hand, King Abdullah 
has real problems. 

His country is economically dependent on Iraq. It is largely 
Palestinian, and many of his Palestinian population supports 
Saddam Hussein, which makes it hard for him. As a result, I think 
the Jordanians would very much like to see Saddam Hussein gone, 
but they are also very concerned about the potential fallout of a 
war with Iraq in Jordan. Other Arab countries oppose or support a 
war with Iraq depending on their own particular circumstances, 
depending on to a large extent how the United States handles the 
war. 

WASHINGTON FILE: There are a number of opposition groups in Iraq. 
Can you speak to where they stand now and where they might stand 
after an invasion of Iraq? 

DR. POLLACK: There are huge numbers of opposition groups both 
inside and outside of Iraq. Some of them are very large and very 
important. 

The main Kurdish parties being the most important example. Right 
now, they can field somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 light 
infantry, and they are in control of about one-sixth of Iraq's 
territory, that area of northern Iraq that is under their 
control. There are other Iraqi opposition groups which are much 
smaller and have much less influence than the Kurds do. In fact, 
every other opposition group has much less influence than the 
Kurds. The one other big example out there are the Shi'ite group, 
the main Shi'ite group, the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic 
Revolution in Iraq, which is based largely in Iran. 

I think that in the course of a U.S. regime change effort, a U.S. 
invasion of Iraq, all these opposition groups are going to have 
different opportunities to play different roles. First, once 
Saddam Hussein is gone, I think that every Iraqi, whether they 
are inside Iraq or outside Iraq, will have an opportunity to 
participate in the reconstruction of their country. What's 
unclear at this moment is how the Bush administration and its 
international allies intend to rebuild Iraq and how they might 
use different Iraqi opposition groups in that process of 
reconstruction. There is a great deal of talk about forming a 
transitional government or an interim government or even a 
government in exile using one or more of the different Iraqi 
opposition groups. This is still in the realm of conjecture, in 
the realm of ideas. It is not yet U.S. policy. 

I will say for my own part that I think it would be a mistake for 
the United States to empower any particular Iraqi opposition 
group before the invasion or even to do so immediately 
afterwards. Instead, I think the United States should lead an 
international effort to reconstruct Iraq as a pluralist system, 
if not a full-blown democracy, under which every Iraqi would have 
an equal opportunity to participate in his or her government and 
that we would not privilege any particular group inside or 
outside the country a priori and give them a greater stake in the 
government, a greater ability to control or influence the 
government. Instead, we should be looking to enable all of the 
Iraqi people to participate regardless of what their political 
affiliations may be, regardless of whether they were part of the 
opposition or not. 

WASHINGTON FILE: How would you respond to the suggestion that the 
U.S. attacks Islamic countries and that that's really at the crux 
of what's going on with Iraq? 

DR. POLLACK: I would argue that the evidence indicates exactly 
the opposite. If you look at the course of U.S. interventions 
throughout the 1990s, more often than not the U.S. was 
intervening to protect Muslims. The United States intervened in 
Somalia to protect the people of Somalia, many of whom are 
Muslims. The United States intervened in Bosnia to protect the 
Bosnian Muslims against the Christian Serbs. The United States 
intervened in Kosovo to protect the Muslim Kosovar from the 
Christian Serbs. The United States intervened in Kuwait to 
protect the Muslim Kuwaitis from the Iraqis, and it also true, of 
course, that the Iraqis are Muslim. But the fact of the matter is 
most of the U.S. interventions over the last 12 years have been 
to protect Muslims either against another Muslim country or 
against a Christian country like Serbia. 

WASHINGTON FILE: When there's talk of a U.S. attack on Iraq it's 
always assumed that the U.S. will win. It was also assumed that 
the U.S. would win when we went into Vietnam. Isn't that a 
dangerous assumption? 

DR. POLLACK: As a student of military history, I'm always very 
wary of making predictions, and I'm always extremely nervous 
whenever someone suggests that any particular war is going to be 
easy. I've seen in my study of history any number of countries 
that went into a war supremely confident that they could win, and 
win with only a small percentage of their forces, only to find 
that this wasn't the case. As a result, when we're talking about 
a future war in Iraq, I try to be cautious. I try to bear in mind 
the lessons of history. That said, all of the evidence that we do 
have indicates that this is a war that the United States should 
be able to win and should be able to win quite handily. We have 
past experience fighting Iraqis. We fought them in 1991, and 
everything that we know -- and we have excellent intelligence on 
this -- is that the Iraqi army is much weaker than it was in 1991 
and the U.S. military is much stronger than it once was. 

In addition, all of the other factors out there -- Iraq's 
political support, its economic situation, the fact that it is 
going to have few, probably no allies in the world -- all this 
also argues to the likelihood that the United States will be able 
to win in Iraq and probably be able to do so with minimum 
casualties, both on our side and in terms of Iraqi civilians. 

That said, I think that it really does depend on how committed 
the United States is to this operation. If the United States only 
uses a small force to try to attack Iraq, then we will risk 
getting ourselves into a quagmire, getting bogged down, losing 
large numbers of our own troops and killing large numbers of 
Iraqi civilians. On the other hand, I think that it would bring a 
large force, 200,000 or more troops. I think that a victory is 
highly likely and that it is also highly likely that we will be 
able to do so with minimal casualties, both in terms of our own 
losses and Iraqi civilian losses. And I am heartened by the fact 
that the recent leaks that we are seeing in the American 
newspaper, which all seem to be planted by the Bush 
administration itself, indicate that the Bush administration is 
committed to using a very large invasion force -- 200,000 or more 
troops because they recognize that the difference between 200,000 
troops and 50,000 troops could be the difference between a 
relatively quick and relatively painless victory or a very 
painful victory or possibly even a defeat. 

WASHINGTON FILE: What about reports that the U.S. provided Iraq 
with satellite intelligence in the 1980s so it could use its 
chemical weapons against Iran? And there have also been reports 
that the U.S. shipped strains of anthrax to Iraq. If we did that, 
then do we have the right to attack them? 

DR. POLLACK: The United States provided large amounts of 
intelligence to the Iraqi government during the 1980s to help the 
Iraqi government in its war with Iran. While we didn't provide 
specific intelligence about how Iraq should use its chemical 
weapons, we knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. We provided 
them the intelligence that they needed to win their battles, and 
I think there's no question that the Iraqis did use American 
intelligence to help them in using their chemical weapons. It is 
also true that the United States is responsible for shipping the 
Iraqis the strain of anthrax it has. All of this took place 
during the 1980s when the Reagan administration, I think 
incorrectly, engaged a policy of supporting the Iraqis against 
the Iranian government. That's not to suggest that the United 
States shouldn't have provided some support to the Iraqi 
government, but I think that the Reagan administration took it 
way too far and was much too callous in looking the other way and 
ignoring Iraqi misbehavior, in particular, their efforts to build 
advanced chemical and biological warfare capabilities. I think 
that it was a tremendous mistake to have allowed the Iraqis to 
procure any strains of anthrax or any other biological warfare 
agents. I think that was a terrible mistake. 

That said, I don't believe that it's the case that this should 
somehow disqualify the United States from taking action against 
Iraq. I think the United States has learned from its mistakes. I 
think that in the Gulf War we demonstrated that we had learned 
that it was a terrible mistake in the 1980s to have supported 
Saddam Hussein's government, that it was a terrible mistake to 
have allowed Iraq to acquire these terrible capabilities, and 
that in the 1990-1991 Gulf War the United States took action to 
rectify that. Today, there's a very clear threat from Iraq, and I 
don't believe that it's the case that past mistakes should 
somehow disqualify future actions. Unfortunately, for better or 
worse, the United States is the only country in the world with 
the power to stop Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, 
to prevent him from constituting another dire threat to the 
security of the Persian Gulf, of the larger Middle East, and, in 
fact, of the entire world. And for that reason, I think that it 
is incumbent upon the United States to lead an international 
effort to stop Saddam Hussein from posing that kind of a threat. 
And I think that while our past history should certainly inform 
our decisions, I don't think that for any reason it should be a 
block to new action. 

WASHINGTON FILE: If weapon inspectors either find weapons or find 
that the Iraqis are being obstructive, do we need to go to the 
U.N. for a second resolution? Do we have to wait for that before 
there's an attack? 

DR. POLLACK: No. The U.N. resolution was very clearly written. It 
says that if the Iraqis are found to be obstructing the 
inspection process, or holding back, or not declaring all of 
their prohibited programs, that this constitutes a material 
breach of the cease-fire resolution, Resolution 687, which ended 
the Gulf War. And it calls on member states to discuss this in 
the Security Council., but it very specifically says that it is 
not necessary for the United Nations to pass a second resolution 
against Iraq. Again, this was done intentionally. And remember, 
it was a 15-0 vote in the United Nations. 

All of the Security Council members agreed that it was not 
necessary for any member state to go and get a new resolution 
from the United Nations authorizing military force against Iraq. 
All that was required was that the issue be discussed in the 
Security Council. That is a very important difference. 

WASHINGTON FILE: What are the things you would like to see done 
in the international community or by the American government to 
prepare for the war? 


DR. POLLACK: While I do believe that it will be necessary for the 
United States to lead an international coalition against Iraq to 
remove Saddam from power because I believe that that is the only 
way that we're going to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear 
weapons at some point in the near future, I also recognize that a 
war against Iraq will be quite costly and potentially very risky. 
And I think that there are a lot of things that the United States 
should do before we go to war to ensure that we minimize both the 
potential costs and risks of such a war. I would like to see the 
United States taking a much more active role in the peace process 
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I'd like to see the 
United States begin negotiations between the two parties, 
convince the two sides to begin to make concessions to each other 
to bring down the level of violence. I think that would be 
enormously helpful, both before we invade Iraq and just as a good 
in and of itself. I'd like to see the United States pursue the 
war on terrorism further. I'd like the United States to be in a 
position that when we go into Iraq we are not so concerned about 
al Qaeda that there is a real risk that the al Qaeda terrorist 
network will be able to take advantage of our adventures in Iraq 
to conduct new terrorist attacks here in the United States. 

I'd like to see the United States build as large an international 
coalition of support for a war with Iraq and a subsequent 
reconstruction of Iraq as we possibly can. I think the more 
countries that the United States has on board for this kind of an 
effort; the better off we will be, both in terms of our 
political, our military and our economic efforts. And I think 
what is important is for the United States to reach out to all 
our allies in the world to seek their counsel for going to war, 
to take on board their concerns, to try to address all of the 
different issues that are troubling them about a war before we go 
ahead and make the actual move to military operations. Beyond 
that, I would like to see the United States further build support 
within this country. I'd like to see the U.S. government 
continuing to work with the American people, to explain to the 
American people why this is such an important operation. 

And finally, I'd like to see the United States take actions to 
ensure that other countries around the region -- Jordan, 
Pakistan, potentially some of the Gulf states -- are better 
insulated from potential fallout from an operation against Iraq. 
It is certainly the case that in declaring war and going to war 
with Iraq, the United States and its allies could create problems 
for some of these other states. As I mentioned, Jordan has its 
own problems. It is a fragile country and I'd like to see the 
United States take action to make sure that Jordan is insulated 
as best we can from the potential ramifications of a war with 
Iraq, to make sure that the risk of real instability in Jordan or 
Pakistan or any of these other countries is greatly minimized. 

(end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International 
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: 
http://usinfo.state.gov) 

*****************************************************************
 13 Hagel: Bush should not overemphasize nuclear force 

12/11/02 - theindependent.com News
 
121102 news 1 1 The Grand Island Independent
OMAHA --> Published Wednesday, December 11, 2002 
 
 By Joe Ruff The Associated Press 

 OMAHA -- President Bush should not overemphasize U.S. 
willingness to use nuclear force if it anticipates a chemical or 
biological attack because other countries might be prompted to 
respond in a similar fashion, U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said 
Wednesday.

 Bush submitted a defense strategy to Congress on Wednesday that 
knits together U.S. response to the threat of attacks by chemical 
or biological weapons. Part of that strategy includes pre-emptive 
nuclear strikes.

 There is nothing new in that, Hagel said, but repeating it too 
often could prompt other nations to believe they could respond 
with nuclear weapons if they perceive similar threats from 
another country.

 "It is very dangerous to be talking too much about these kinds 
of responses that the United States would take or actions in 
anticipation of another nation's actions," Hagel said.

 "It sets in motion a series of uncontrollable actions that could 
be taken by China, by Russia, by Israel, Pakistan, India, North 
Korea, nations that do possess nuclear weapons," Hagel said.

 It does not take a great leap of imagination, for example, to 
see India exploring a first-strike with nuclear force in order to 
eliminate a number of Pakistani nuclear facilities, Hagel said.

 Overemphasizing U.S. willingness to use nuclear weapons also 
badly damages the country's efforts at nonproliferation, Hagel 
said.

 "It essentially nullifies the last 50 years," Hagel said.

 Hagel, who returned this week from a seven-day tour of northern 
Iraq and other countries in the Middle East, said the United 
States needs to take into account other nations' perceptions as 
it decides what to do with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq 
might hold and pursues a safer world.

 People in some nations, particularly Arab and Muslim countries, 
resent the United States or question its motives, and countering 
that will be difficult, Hagel said.

 "It is going to take an astounding sense of diplomacy, and 
understanding and reaching out and enhancing of relationships," 
Hagel said.

 Hagel spoke to the Rotary club after the Chinese ambassador to 
the United States, Yang Jiechi, could not address the meeting 
because poor weather delayed his flight from Washington.

 Home [http://www.theindependent.com/] 
 
This site published by The Grand Island Independent, Nebraska USA
        
� 2002 The Grand Island Independent
*****************************************************************
 14 BE's future in the balance

Scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com/>

  *Wednesday, 11th December 2002* 

/IAIN DEY BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT/

ENERGY minister Brian Wilson warned MPs last night that 
struggling nuclear generator British Energy could still be forced 
into administration.

Despite last month?s extension of the East Kilbride-based group?s 
�650 million government loan, Wilson told the trade and industry 
select committee the company?s future is still hanging in the 
balance.

He said: "Administration remains an option. This is not all done 
and dusted."

A senior government official who led the negotiations with BE 
said none of the company?s creditors had yet agreed to the 
radical rescue package proposed by the government. But he 
insisted there were "promising signs" from some of them.

The deal would see existing bonds traded for �700 million of new 
bonds along with new shares. It would also wipe out the value of 
existing shares in the company, which have already lost 97 per 
cent of their value this year, closing yesterday at 6.53p.

The rescue package also makes the taxpayer liable for the 
multi-billion pound nuclear clean-up costs which will be incurred 
by the company in the future.

Wilson, who will produce a government paper on energy policy in 
the New Year, denied the company?s problems reflected badly on 
the viability of nuclear power as a whole.

He added: "I think we need a successful nuclear generator."

Chairman of the trade and industry committee, Martin O?Neill, the 
Labour MP for Ochil, said: "What we?re trying to go over is the 
background to British Energy?s demise and assess the reasons why 
it happened - the changes to the electricity trading arrangements 
and such like.

"But we?re keen to find out exactly what the tax-payers 
liabilities are in this proposals."

He added: "We?d also like to know if the government has a plan B 
for British Energy. we don?t want to see the government taken to 
the cleaners."

MPs across the house have expressed concerns about the role of 
state-owned British Nuclear Fuels in the restructuring programme, 
he said.

An informal meeting of MPs with nuclear power plants in their 
constituencies was held in Westminster last week, he added.

He continued: "A lot of the options for British Energy will be 
contained in the new energy white paper. But we still don?t know 
exactly when we can expect to see that, which is another 
concern."

*Related Articles: British Energy 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=546>*

<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1382862002&tid=546>
Bleak midwinter as BE's losses hit �337m (13-Dec-02) 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1382862002&tid=546>
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1380622002&tid=546>
British Energy powers down to �337m losses (12-Dec-02) 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1380622002&tid=546>
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1343662002&tid=546> 
BE bondholders demand better deal (03-Dec-02) 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1343662002&tid=546>
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1340182002&tid=546> 
BNFL lines up �1bn windfall (02-Dec-02) 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1340182002&tid=546>
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1336562002&tid=546>
British Energy just too hot to handle? (01-Dec-02) 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=1336562002&tid=546>
More More Articles 
<http://www.business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=546>

*Website*
<http://www.british-energy.com/> British Energy
<http://www.british-energy.com/>


 �2002 scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com> | contact
*****************************************************************
 15 Fresh blow for British Energy bondholders

Independent.co.uk <http://www.independent.co.uk>

By Michael Harrison

12 December 2002

Bondholders in British Energy, the beleaguered nuclear 
electricity generator, are facing even bigger losses on their 
investment after it emerged that a �490m loan used by the company 
to buy a coal-fired power station is not ring-fenced.

Creditor banks, led by Barclays, who put up the money for British 
Energy to acquire the Eggborough station in Yorkshire from 
PowerGen will now be entitled to a share of the remaining assets 
in the company.

This is likely to dilute even further the amount that 
shareholders and bondholders can salvage from the wreckage of 
British Energy. The restructuring plan announced late last month 
by the Government would leave shareholders with just 5 to 10 per 
cent of their original investment while bondholders were being 
asked to take a two-thirds cut in their investments. Now, the 
amount that bondholders in particular will keep will be even 
smaller.

This is likely to deal a further blow to the prospects of getting 
agreement from bondholders for the restructuring by the deadline 
set by the Government of next February. If the bondholders have 
not agreed to a standstill on repayments and if British Energy 
has not completed the sale of its Bruce nuclear power business in 
Canada then the Government has warned it will withdraw a �650m 
loan facility, pushing the company into insolvency.

British Energy owes �1.26bn to creditors, of which its banks are 
due �490m, bondholders �408m and counterparties in the 
electricity market �365m.

The company had stated in its accounts that the �490m in loans 
used to fund the �615m purchase of Eggborough was "non-recourse 
debt", meaning that the lenders did not have any right to other 
assets within the group. This turns out not to be the case.

Before it collapsed in September, British Energy had already 
written down the value of Eggborough by a half. The 2,000 
megawatt station is now reckoned to be worth between just �75m 
and �100m.

British Energy reports half-year results today but it is not 
expected to give any update on the progress of the restructuring 
talks with bondholders and the Government or the pay-off that its 
ousted chairman Robin Jeffrey stands to get.

<http://www.independent.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 16 Defiant Koreas 

| csmonitor.com
 
[http://www.csmonitor.com/]   
    
 As much as his focus is on Iraq, President Bush can't ignore the 
troubles building up for the US in Korea - both North and South.                                  
                        
South Koreans are seething with anti-US resentment just before a 
presidential election Dec. 19. And North Korea was caught this 
week sending Scud missiles to Yemen.
 
Solving both problems will require forthright action. The most 
immediate need is for Mr. Bush to apologize more fully and 
personally for the June 13 killing of two South Korean girls by 
two US soldiers. The soldiers were acquitted by a US military 
court, which so enraged the South that presidential candidates 
are competing to see who can be the toughest on the US.
 
That forced the US to promise yesterday it will reevaluate the 
agreement on legal treatment of its 37,000 soldiers defending the 
South. Many more South Koreans now wonder if they need US defense 
at all.
 
The North still poses a threat, however, and to more than just 
the South. Unlike Iraq, it probably already has a crude nuclear 
bomb, and can both shoot and export missiles. And unlike Iraq, 
Bush prefers diplomacy over confrontation with the North.
 
The main US lever over the North is its only ally, Beijing. While 
Bush told China recently to restrain North Korea, he obviously 
hasn't applied enough pressure to China. Perhaps it's time for 
China to let North Korean refugees freely cross into China, 
forcing the North's weakened regime to collapse. Then the South 
won't need US soldiers anymore.
    
  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright � 2002 The Christian Science
*****************************************************************
 17 Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US 

 csmonitor.com
 
[http://www.csmonitor.com/]   
    
 By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor 

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6
trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than
$5,700 per person. 

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting
economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle
East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the
Israel lobby.
 		     	 	
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the 
total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, 
violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the 
bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
 
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late 
last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in 
additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing 
with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more 
than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's 
recession-bound economy.
 
Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the 
Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. 
The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest 
until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end 
up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
 
Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill 
that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in 
with the cost of a war with Iraq.
 
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already 
due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million 
in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a 
year for years.
 
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, 
Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. 
In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 
billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with 
Israel.
 
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those 
outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," 
argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East 
policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent 
conference at the University of Maine.
 
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would 
probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured 
democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if 
Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since 
some costs, if not hidden, are little known.
 
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and 
other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.
 
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt 
to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. 
President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the 
Arab oil embargo against the US.
 
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The 
US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, 
Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 
billion.
 
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US 
set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, 
conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
 
Other US help includes:
 
" US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or 
bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though 
private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United 
States economy, says Stauffer.
 
" The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans 
to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's 
note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.
 
" The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter 
and Arrow missile projects.
 
" Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military 
equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several 
billion dollars" over recent years.
 
" Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in 
military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to 
buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require 
the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy 
Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on 
every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.
 
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a 
major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's 
manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the 
buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by 
US taxpayers.
 
" US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle 
East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, 
Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy 
American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 
jobs.
 
" Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 
fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 
billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.
 
Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this 
research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic 
officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled 
anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.
 
Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly 
reported the amount of housing loans guaranteed by the US.
    

  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright � 2002 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 What might a US nuclear strike in Iraq look like? | 

csmonitor.com
 
[http://www.csmonitor.com/]   
    
 By Matthew Clark 

Editor's note: Welcome to Today's News Question, your
opportunity to get the answers to the questions that matter to
you. You ask the questions, we'll find authoritative answers.
Send your questions to newsquestion@csmonitor.com. And please
include your full name, city, and state. 

This familiar question takes on greater relevance after the
US Wednesday chose to remind the world that it is ready to use
nuclear weapons if necessary to retaliate against any nation
using weapons of mass destruction.		 	 	 	

Clearly aimed at Iraq, this reminder was part of a joint report 
from US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and US 
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge called the "National 
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction."
 
Most analysts believe that the US will not use nuclear weapons 
against Iraq.
 
"From a military standpoint, [a nuclear attack] doesn't 
accomplish any more than conventional weapons would," said Tim 
Brown, a senior analyst at Globalsecurity.org. "It would be seen 
as complete overkill."
 
But, in the unlikely event of a nuclear attack, Brown believes 
the US would be probably first use the B-61 Mod-7. A gravity 
bomb, the B-61 Mod-7 would most likely be dropped from naval 
aircraft taking off from one of the US aircraft carriers in the 
Persian Gulf. The bombs would be aimed at key Iraqi communication 
centers and heavily-concentrated troop deployments.
 
Also, the rocket-assisted B-61 Mod-11 has been tested and is 
ready for use against underground facilities, such as weapons 
caches and Saddam Hussein's command bunker. It can penetrate a 
few hundred feet and creates deeper underground shock waves than 
the conventional "bunker busters" used in the Gulf War.
 
" Send your questions to newsquestion@csmonitor.com 
[newsquestion@csmonitor.com] . Please include your full name, 
city, and state.
    
  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright � 2002 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 No deal seen in EU energy tax plan deadlock

    Planet Ark : 

EU: December 12, 2002
 					   						
BRUSSELS - EU finance ministers will try to reconcile Germany 
with France yesterday to break years of deadlock on planned 
harmonised rules on energy taxation, but diplomats said this week 
chances of a deal looked slim.                                                

The ministers will discuss the issue at an emergency meeting in 
Brussels which was set up to push for a deal on a complex EU bill 
for the cross-border taxation of savings.

The meeting will also aim to reach a deal on harmonising rules on 
the taxation of energy products, which have so far been dealt 
with by each country at the national level.

EU officials said Germany was likely to veto a request from 
France and Italy to extend by two years tax-breaks for diesel 
used by hauliers, thus making the energy tax deal collapse.

"We are not at all hopeful. Germany and France are at loggerheads 
because Germany is refusing to extend the tax breaks requested by 
France," an EU source told Reuters.

The EU has debated for years the merits and drawbacks of setting 
minimum tax levels for electricity and gas, but has never agreed 
on the matter which requires unanimity among the bloc's 15 member 
states.

Currently the EU only has minimum energy tax levels on mineral 
oils. The new rules would impose tax floors for a range of other 
energy products.

Environmentalists see energy tax as an essential policy to spur 
companies and individuals to use energy frugally and reduce the 
pollution caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The source told Reuters that French President Jacques Chirac had 
sent a letter to his German counterpart Chancellor Gerhard 
Schroeder to explain the French position and ask for support.

Cash-strapped Germany is opposed to any tax-breaks for hauliers 
being extended to France and Italy as it fears it may face 
domestic pressure to do the same, diplomats said.

The draft under discussion would set a minimum tax rate of 0.50 
euros per megawatt of electricity for businesses and one euro per 
megawatt for householders.

For coal and natural gas, the proposed minimum rates are 0.15 
euros per gigajoule for firms and 0.30 for private consumers.

Many energy intensive industries would be able to get a full 
exemption in order to protect their international 
competitiveness.

The meeting could be the last chance for the tax proposals which 
have languished on the negotiating table since the mid-1990s. 
Denmark, one of the EU's most environmentally-aware countries, 
has made the issue something of a priority.

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE                                                    
*****************************************************************
 20 MotherJones.com Iraq Declaration battle

[Mother Jones Daily] December 11, 2002     
			 						 			 		 	 	 	 	 	Evidence, Anyone? 	 			
The diplomatic tussle over who should get access to Iraq's arms 
dossier is finished, and Washington wound up on top: in a 
reversal of prior agreements, the US and the Security Council's 
four other permanent members have received uncensored copies of 
the 12,000-page declaration. 

 Two copies of the mammoth report were delivered to the UN, and 
within hours, the copy destined for the Security Council had left 
the building in US hands. The explanation given: Washington could 
"photocopy thousands of pages in secure surroundings 
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021210/ap_on 
_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_inspectors_13] ." 

 As The Independent's Kim Sengupta reports, the Security 
Council's decision to give Washington and the other permanent 
members the complete dossier, the result of concerted US pressure 
[http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=360 
241] , "will be seen as another example of the United States 
getting its way." 

 "Washington and London are believed to have been concerned that 
the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) editing 
might hamper their own analysts from comparing the declaration 
against alleged intelligence material held on Iraq's mass 
destruction programme by the two countries." 

 Dubai-based Gulf News certainly sees the situation that way 
[http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=70709] . 
While the Security Council's decision may be explained as a 
reflection of the UN balance of power, the paper's editors 
suspect that Washington lobbied to get a full version of the 
report for only one reason: 

 "It is likely that both the U.S. and Britain were itching to get 
their hands on the documents, to be able to prove their lack of 
credibility in comparison to the information that has been so 
painstakingly crafted by western intelligence. 

 While it is true that the five permanent members all have 
nuclear capability, and all have expert knowledge of weapons of 
mass destruction - some having used such deterrents - the claim 
that their inspection will stop any leakage of sensitive 
information is merely a ploy. For it is obvious that both Britain 
and America want to speed up the process of evaluation of the 
documents. Already the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection 
Commission, Unmovic, were saying that it will take 'several 
weeks' before a full and proper analysis of the dossier would be 
forthcoming. Such a claim would have disheartened the American 
president and the British prime minister, who are both keen to 
'get things moving'. Or, put another way, to discredit the 
dossier and start an invasion campaign against Iraq." 

 Washington or London could easily discredit the dossier by 
releasing solid evidence contradicting the claims made in it. But 
officials in both capitals have recently backed away from earlier 
claims about such intelligence. In fact, as the London Guardian 
reports that officials in both capitals are privately admitting 
they have no concrete intelligence 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,857147,00.html] that 
would "prove conclusively that Iraq has weapons of mass 
destruction." 

 "The US and Britain will insist the onus is on Iraq to prove 
that it has no weapons of mass destruction, as it claims, rather 
than for them to prove that it does. Whitehall sources yesterday 
stood by their claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction 
and that this was 'based not on what we say but on what we 
know'." 

 That's not good enough 
[http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-ed.iraq10dec10,0,2782388 
.story?coll=bal%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines] , the Baltmore Sun argues. 
While the Bush administration might like to avoid the 
responsibility of providing proof, the gravity of the situation 
demands otherwise, the Sun's editors assert. 

 "If the Iraqi weapons declaration is incomplete or false in 
significant ways, Washington -- taking care to protect U.S. 
intelligence sources or technologies -- must outline in as much 
detail as possible the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. 
Without such evidence, an invasion of Iraq may succeed militarily 
but it cannot fully achieve its larger political ends. Such a 
financially costly, politically risky and militarily dangerous 
war deserves no less than the clearest possible provision of 
proof." 

 With the White Hosue facing such "irresistible pressure to 
release the incriminating evidence it says it has against Iraq," 
some sort of proof will likely be leaked, Ray McGovern predicts. 
But he has a warning: "caveat emptor 
[http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/4703544.htm] 
." 

 "The honest-broker intelligence role played in past crises by 
the CIA has been appropriated by the Department of Defense. 

 Rumsfeld has consolidated his control over imagery intelligence 
and defector debriefings. He is likely to have a free hand in 
selecting, shaping and presenting the intelligence -- unless CIA 
Director George Tenet asserts his statutory prerogative as chief 
foreign intelligence advisor to the president. The country will 
be well served if Tenet has the courage to do his job and 'tell 
it like it is.'" 


 	 	 	Who Sold to Saddam? 			

 Washington and London should have at least one reasonably 
credible source of information about Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction -- the long list of technology and materials, sold to 
Baghdad by both countries, that is needed to develop nuclear, 
chemical and biological arms. 

 As Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot report in the Sunday 
Herald, the information is already in the hands of some US 
Senators [http://www.sundayherald.com/27572] : 

 "Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and 
urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal 
that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald 
Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX 
nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up 
until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and 
pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, 
which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which 
causes gas gangrene. 

 Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the 
Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, 
an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the 
Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve 
gas." 

 Is anyone in the White House lamenting such short-sighted 
decisions? Probably not, Robert Scheer writes on Working for 
Change. After all, the Bush administration seems blissfully 
ignorant 
[http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14212&CFID=40 
57511&CFTOKEN=14601832 ] when it comes to the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, Scheer argues. 

 "Perhaps our president, who was pointedly uninterested in global 
affairs before Sept. 11, does not know that in the matter of 
introducing weapons of mass destruction, it is we, and not some 
overseas 'evildoers,' who opened the door to this most heinous 
and ultimately suicidal perversion. 

 How could one blame George W. if he is among the vast majority 
of Americans who blissfully and conveniently forget that we are 
the only ones to ever actually use a nuclear weapon. Yes, this is 
all just history, and therefore of no interest to the 
chauvinistic babblers who dominate the national dialogue on U.S. 
airwaves. But it may explain why even those who love freedom and 
democracy as much as we do are frightened not only of Saddam 
Hussein, but increasingly of us. 


 	 	 	 Guided by Fear 			

 Most Americans are, in fact, not frightened by Saddam Hussein, a 
visiting Fergal Keane writes in The Independent. But he writes 
that most of the Americans he's spoken with "truly believe that 
Saddam and al- Qa'ida are part of the same project 
[http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/fergal_kean 
e/story.jsp?story=359250] ." 

 "In San Francisco they will come onto the streets if President 
Bush decides to attack Iraq. There will be thousands of 
demonstrators, but I doubt that they will count for much while a 
frightened national majority remains in favour of war. This 
doesn't make dissent a meaningless gesture: It simply means that 
fear, the single biggest consequence of 11 September, is the key 
to understanding the new America." 

 What, Jay Bookman ponders in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 
are Americans so frightened of? And will anything make them feel 
safer? [http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/bookman] 

 "In some ways, it may be a matter of perception. We seek the 
unattainable, which is perfect security. We Americans have also 
developed a tendency to magnify even slight threats into 
something far more dire. In fact, it's dismaying to see the 
American people, once proud and brave, become so frightened by 
their own government's rhetoric. 

 For example, we have somehow been deluded into believing that 
Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to our national safety. He 
does not. Iraq used to be a third-rate power that was reduced by 
the Gulf War to a fifth-rate power; it has no navy and no air 
force with which to reach beyond its borders. The threat is so 
far-fetched that in one speech, President Bush was reduced to 
warning that the Iraqis could attack us via unmanned aerial 
vehicles, which is only slightly more likely than an attack by a 
spaceship from Mars." 

 Attacking Iraq "does nothing to protect us from terror," Bookman 
argues. But, faced by the fluid and unpredictable threat of 
terrorism, Iraq is an easy-to-grasp target for a scared nation -- 
and an easy-to-sell policy for the Bush team. 

 "It's interesting to note that to project U.S. military power 
into every nook and cranny of the world, the Pentagon got a 12 
percent increase in the 2003 budget, and will reportedly get 
another significant increase next year in addition to a $10 
billion 'slush fund' it will be free to spend any way it chooses. 

 Yet the Bush administration is withholding $1.5 billion 
appropriated to local and state law enforcement and other first 
responders to beef up anti-terrorism efforts; it has underfunded 
true homeland-protection efforts such as port security and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and it refuses to get 
serious about solving the Middle East crisis. 

 It's like buying a cannon to defend yourself against killer 
bees. When it inevitably fails, when you get stung and hurt bad, 
you don't go out and buy more cannons. 

 But if cannons is all you know, maybe you do." 


 	 	 	 There Is a Peace Movement 			

 Quietly, with centralized organizing and even less media 
attention, a peace movement continues to grow in America. While 
the Oct. 26 protests in Washington and San Francisco served as 
the movement's coming-out party, the real action is taking place 
in smaller gatherings across the country 
[http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20021210/4687051s.htm] , 
Deborah Sharp reports in USA Today. 

 "Unlike their noisier, college-campus brethren from the 1960s, 
these modern-day peaceniks crafted a stealth counterculture. They 
used church basements and suburban kitchens, senior citizen 
centers and Internet chat rooms. Web sites helped connect the 
like-minded, who seem far more likely to send a flurry of e-mails 
than to torch an American flag." 

 One of the cornerstones of that emerging movement, Jim Wallis 
writes in The Boston Globe is the "strong majority of Christian 
leaders opposing a war against Iraq 
[http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/343/oped/Is_Bush_deaf_to_churc 
h_doubts_on_Iraq_war_+.shtml] ." While faith communities have 
always been active in peace initiatives, Wallis suggests that the 
current church opposition "is significant, both in its breadth 
and its early clarity." 

 "Opposition to war with Iraq has come from a wide spectrum of 
the churches - Roman Catholic, Protestant denominations, 
Evangelical, Pentecostal, black churches, Orthodox. All of the 
statements, letters, and resolutions from church leaders and 
bodies take the threat posed by Saddam Hussein seriously, but 
they refuse war as the best response. 

 Importantly, these church leaders are not making their decision 
based on whether or not they approve of President George W. Bush 
- some do and some don't. Rather, they are doing so on the basis 
of Christian theology and moral teaching. 

 The tradition of Christian non-violence and pacifism, of course, 
rules out all war as a way to resolve conflicts. Most remarkable, 
however, in this instance, is that the majority of American 
church leaders who have spoken against prospective military 
action are not pacifists. They are opposing war because they 
believe it does not meet the standards of a 'just war.'" 

 So, where is the television and print coverage 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,8572 
71,00.html] of this growing movement? Duncan Campbell of the 
London Guardian asks that very question, and comes up with a 
damning answer: 

 "The war is now covered almost as a given with whole segments 
devoted to scaring everyone to death with talk of smallpox or 
anthrax and retired military and diplomatic gents speculating 
endlessly at third or fourth hand. 

 It took Jerry Springer, of all people, to say the unsayable -- 
that most ordinary Americans are very keen on tackling Osama bin 
Laden and al Qaida, but have no great interest in extending the 
war to Iraq. All a war would achieve, he said, would be to create 
a whole new generation of people who hated Americans and it was 
thus patriotic to oppose the war." 

 Will anything get the media to pay attention to anti-war voices? 
Celebrity power, maybe? We'll see. As the BBC reports,

more than 100 celebs have signed an anti-war letter 
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2561133.stm] destined 
for President Bush. [.] 
      
� 2002 The Foundation for National Progress
*****************************************************************
 21 Nuclear is here to stay, says minister

  [Guardian Unlimited] 
    	 
David Gow
Wednesday December 11, 2002
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
The government is planning significant changes to Britain's power 
market in order to accommodate a new role for nuclear - and 
renewable - energy, Brian 

Wilson, the energy minister, indicated yesterday. 

Mr Wilson told MPs that the case of stricken nuclear operator 
British Energy showed that the market alone could not deliver the 
energy policy the country needed. 

His comments were the broadest hint yet that the government's 
forthcoming white paper on energy will propose changes to the new 
electricity trading arrangements (Neta) that have helped drive 
wholesale prices down 40% and led to a spate of insolvencies. 

The white paper, due in the new year, is likely to set out 
substantial roles for nuclear and renewable energy in 
guaranteeing security of supply as well as enabling the UK to 
meet its environmental obligations. 

Grilled by the commons trade and industry committee on the 
government's �650m bail-out of BE, Mr Wilson said: "It would be 
intellectually dishonest to pretend that the market can be relied 
upon to sort out problems of overcapacity and energy mix..." 

His remarks are likely to rekindle a clash with industry 
regulator Ofgem, Neta's architect, which believes the market is 
not at fault and blames spendthrift generators for overcapacity 
and low prices. 

Mr Wilson, who stressed the importance of nuclear energy, said it 
would be "a cop-out" to blame Neta for BE's problems and said the 
company had made a series of strategic errors. 

But, he said: "There has to be some way of ensuring that BE can 
get the prices for their product which can make them viable and 
this is the only guarantor against this [near-insolvency] 
happening again." 

Mr Wilson, the government's most pro-nuclear minister, said BE's 
problems had not shown atomic power to be "hopelessly, 
endemically uneconomic". He added: "If it's construed as a 
national policy it should not be released into a fully 
liberalised market - and that's true of renewables." 
	
Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] 
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British 
Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] 
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] HSE nuclear 
glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic 
energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological 
Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] Friends of the Earth 
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc 
lear/index.html] World Nuclear Association 
[http://www.uilondon.org/] World Nuclear Transport Institute 
[http://www.wnti.co.uk] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC Approves Power Uprate for Point Beach Nuclear Plant

  NRC: News Release - 2002-143 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov   

  No. 02-143     December 11, 2002   
  
NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by 
Nuclear Management Company to increase the generating capacity of 
the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant by 1.4 percent. 

 The power uprate at the plant, in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, will 
increase the generating capacity of the Units 1 and 2 reactors 
from 511 megawatts electric to 518 each. The licensee intends to 
implement the power uprate within 90 days.

 The NRC's safety evaluation of the requested power uprate for 
the plant focused on several areas, including nuclear steam 
supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical 
systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences, 
operations, and other technical specification changes. The NRC 
staff determined that the licensee could safely increase the 
power output of the reactor primarily through increased feedwater 
flow measurement accuracy.

Last revised Wednesday, December 11, 2002       
*****************************************************************
 23 Public, workers push Davis-Besse restart 

 � The Plain Dealer

 Public, workers push Davis-Besse restart 
 
12/11/02 John Funk and John Mangels Plain Dealer Reporters 
 
 Port Clinton- In an orchestrated show of support for the 
Davis-Besse nuclear plant, Ottawa County business and elected 
officials - and dozens of citizens and plant employees - 
yesterday urged federal regulators to recognize the progress the 
troubled facility has made and allow it to restart soon. 
 
   But members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel
overseeing the idled plant's rehabilitation said much work
remains to be done and that it is up to Davis-Besse management
to prove it can safely operate the reactor. 

   "We don't have the keys to the plant - Lew Myers has the 
keys," said NRC oversight chairman Jack Grobe, referring to the 
FirstEnergy Corp. nuclear division executive who is leading the 
$400 million repair and rehabilitation effort at Davis-Besse. A 
rust hole that pierced the reactor's thick steel lid threatened a 
major nuclear accident there. 
 
   "We're eight or nine months along, and we've seen steady 
progress over the last several months," Grobe said. "But restart 
is not going to be next month." 
 
   The turnout of more than 120 citizens and Davis-Besse workers 
last night for the monthly NRC meeting at Camp Perry, a military 
complex east of Davis-Besse on Lake Erie, was due in part to the 
work of Ottawa County Development Director Darrell Opfer. 
 
   Opfer stressed that Davis-Besse officials played no part in 
the show of public support. The plant's management did encourage 
employees to attend the meeting, according to one worker. Opfer 
reminded Grobe and his NRC colleagues that the power plant is the 
county's largest employer and that the taxes it pays keep local 
government afloat. 
 
   And Ottawa County Administrator Jere Witt, a member of the 
FirstEnergy restart oversight group, also urged a timely restart, 
saying the company is going "above and beyond" minimum federal 
standards. 
 
   FirstEnergy's top executives have told financial analysts they 
believe the 925-megawatt reactor can be restarted by March. 
 
   But William Dean, the NRC panel's vice chair, said the ongoing 
inspections, testing and repair work at Davis-Besse will last at 
least through March, and that the NRC will have to verify the 
adequacy of the work. Grobe said the plant has reached a 
milestone of sorts, where its resolution of problems has begun to 
outpace its discovery of them. However, "the licensee's [restart] 
schedule is not our business," he said. 
 
   A major concern of the oversight committee is whether 
Davis-Besse's management has remade itself and sufficiently 
changed the attitudes of plant personnel to be able to operate 
safely over the long run. 
 
   "It wasn't a hardware issue that caused the [reactor lid] to 
corrode over four to six years," Grobe said. "The indicators were 
clear. It was the safety culture of the plant that caused that to 
happen." 
 
   An audience member raised a similar concern, asking how the 
NRC could be sure that FirstEnergy would properly assess recently 
discovered rust stains on the bottom of the reactor, which may 
indicate that there are leaks there as well as on the lid. 
 
   Bob Schrauder, FirstEnergy's director of support services, 
asked if he could respond. "I'll make sure we do," Schrauder 
said, promising to share all information with the public and the 
NRC. 
 
   His answer drew sustained applause. 
 
� 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. 
*****************************************************************
 24 Flaw in reactor not seen in check

 Star Telegram | 12/11/2002 | 

  [startelegram.com - The startelegram home page]       
    
 By Neil Strassman Star-Telegram Staff Writer

GLEN ROSE - Routine inspections at the Comanche Peak nuclear 
power plant failed to detect a damaged steam generator tube that 
later ruptured, forcing a shutdown in September, according to a 
federal report released Tuesday.
 
The flaw in the tube was "clearly identifiable and missed" about 
18 months ago by workers for TXU Energy, the plant's owner and 
operator, according to the preliminary findings of a special 
inspection team of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
The error, termed an "apparent violation" in the report, did not 
pose a safety or public health risk, NRC officials said. They 
praised the company for taking "appropriate and conservative" 
action in response to the leak.
 
"Consistent with putting safety first, we shut the plant down," 
C. Lance Terry, TXU's principal nuclear officer, said at a 
meeting near the power plant about 50 miles southwest of Fort 
Worth.
 
Terry said the small leak was well below NRC guidelines and TXU's 
more conservative guidelines.
 
The NRC is still evaluating the risk associated with the error, 
said Roger Hannah, NRC spokesman.
 
"In all likelihood, there wouldn't be a civil penalty but there 
could be additional oversight or inspections," Hannah said.
 
The steam generator tubes carry superheated, radioactive water 
from the reactor's core to heat nonradioactive water, creating 
steam to run turbines to produce electricity.
 
There are 4,578 tubes in each of the reactor's four steam 
generators.
 
The September incident was the first time a tube has leaked at 
either of Comanche Peak's two reactors.
 
But the Unit I reactor that went on line in 1990 has had its 
share of problems with cracked and corroded steam tubes that have 
been repaired or plugged, company officials said.
 
There were no tube problems in the reactor's first five years of 
operation. But since 1995, about 700 damaged tubes have been 
identified and plugged -- taken out of service -- before they 
leaked, said James Kelley, TXU's nuclear engineering vice 
president.
 
Leaking and cracked tubes have been long-standing problems at 
plants that were built with Westinghouse-engineered pressurized 
water reactors. The Westinghouse system has been installed in 
both commercial nuclear power plants in Texas, Comanche Peak and 
the South Texas Project.
 
The thin tubes -- made of a stainless steel alloy called Inconel 
600 and designed to last 40 years -- are scheduled to be 
inspected every 18 months, when the reactor is refueled.
 
In some cases, they have cracked and leaked within 10 years of 
installation, according to NRC records.
 
The most recent inspection of Unit 1, in October, found more than 
660 damaged tubes, nearly equal to the total number of damaged 
tubes found in the past 12 years.
 
The tubes were repaired with sleeves instead of being taken out 
of service, which would have caused the plant to lose efficiency, 
Kelley said.
 
Terry told the NRC that he is confident that Unit 1 can operate 
for another 18 months, but nuclear industry critics warn that the 
tube problem needs greater attention.
 
"If a tube breaks and ruptures, it could cause a domino effect, 
breaking additional tubes," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear 
engineer who works with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 
"It wouldn't take more than 10 broken tubes to let more water 
flow out than you can put back in, jeopardizing the ability to 
cool the reactor core," he said.
 
Steam-tube problems and the cost of replacing entire systems 
contributed to the early retirement of nuclear power plants in 
Oregon, Maine and Illinois, said Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy 
analyst with Greenpeace.
 
At least 19 steam-generating systems have been replaced at 
nuclear plants for $100 million to $200 million per plant, 
records show.
 
The South Texas Project replaced its steam generators in the past 
two years.
 
"It [Inconel 600] is one of the great failures in terms of 
selecting a material for nuclear power plants," Riccio said.
 
The tube problem has led to at least 14 lawsuits against 
Westinghouse, all of which have been settled out of court with 
most court documents sealed.
 
Kelley said TXU has not made a decision on whether to replace 
Unit 1's four steam generators, which would cost about $150 
million. Delivery of new steam generators could take about six 
years, he said.
 
Dwight Chamberlain, the NRC's regional director of reactor 
safety, said the agency is analyzing the Comanche Peak problem to 
see if it can learn something about the detection of flaws.
 
The inspection team expects to issue a final report in about a 
month, NRC officials said.
 
After the September leak, Unit 1 was shut down for 50 days to 
repair the tubes and for refueling.
 
The unit has been started and stopped twice since Nov. 15, once 
for a potential valve problem and the second time because of a 
leaky weld at a control rod.
 
Unit 1 remains out of service but is expected to be put back in 
service in a few days, company officials said.
 
Neil Strassman, (817) 390-7657 strass@star-telegram.com 
[strass@star-telegram.com]   
*****************************************************************
 25 Crystal River 3 FONSI

FR Doc 02-31215 

[Federal Register: December 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 238)] 
[Notices] [Page 76198-76199] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de02-58] 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
[Docket No. 50-302] 

Florida Power Corporation; Crystal River Unit 3; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) part 55, section 55.59(c) for Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-72, issued to Florida Power Corporation 
(the licensee), for operation of Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3), 
located in Citrus County, Florida. Therefore, as required by 10 
CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and 
finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment 
Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would constitute a one-time exemption to 
allow the licensed operator requalification examinations for CR-3 
to be rescheduled. The requested exemption would extend the 
completion date for the examinations from December 31, 2002, to 
February 28, 2003. 

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated November 18, 2002. [[Page 76199]] 
The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would extend the current CR-3 requalification 
program from December 31, 2002, to February 28, 2003. The 
proposed action is needed to allow for minimal interruption of 
the licensed personnel operating the plant during a potential 
labor action. Specifically, should such a labor action occur, the 
licensee has stated that CR-3 will be operated by personnel with 
current NRC licenses not affected by the labor action. The 
licensee deems it prudent to allow the licensed personnel 
operating the plant to remain fully available to stand watch on 
operating crews and not be distracted by completing the licensed 
operator requalification program by December 31, 2002. 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 

The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts 
associated with the extension of the operator requalification 
examinations from December 31, 2002, to February 28, 2002. 

The proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being 
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and 
there is no significant increase in occupational or public 
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action. 

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It 
does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' 
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change 
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. 
Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in the Final Environmental 
Statement for CR-3. Agencies and Persons Consulted 

On November 22, 2002, the staff consulted with the Florida State 
official, William Passetti of the Florida Department of Health 
Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact 
of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. 
Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on 
the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated November 18, 2002. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov 
[pdr@nrc.gov] . 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of December 2002. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Allen G. Howe, Chief, 
Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 
02-31215 Filed 12-10-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P 
*****************************************************************
 26 Officials call for federalized security at nuclear plants

THE JOURNAL NEWS: A Gannett Suburban webpaper
 
 By ROGER WITHERSPOON 
THE JOURNAL NEWS 
(Original publication: December 11, 2002)

 Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the 
Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange county executives 
yesterday called for the federalization of security at the 
nation's nuclear power plants to ensure they can be protected 
against a terrorist assault. 

 The officials all said they had reservations about the ability 
of security guards at Indian Point and other nuclear plants to 
effectively protect the plants, and the facilities should have 
the same level of protection as the nation's airports. 

 But officials at Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian 
Point in Buchanan, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
insisted that the plant is adequately protected and that any 
shortcomings in the security force have been corrected. 

 The concern of the elected officials was triggered by the 
disclosure of an Entergy report that found that most of the 59 
guards at Indian Point 2 did not believe they could defend the 
plant against a modern terrorist threat. The company analysis was 
conducted in November and December, and completed in January 
2002. 

 "We know that terrorists have turned our airplanes into 
missiles, and we can't take a chance on their turning our nuclear 
power plants into nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "We need 
federal personnel to provide security at the power plants." 

 Schumer said that the present situation is not good enough. 

 "The government has done a good job at protecting the airports, 
and we should try that approach at the nuclear power plants," he 
said. 

 That sentiment was echoed by county executives Robert Bondi of 
Putnam, Edward Diana of Orange and Scott Vanderhoef of Rockland, 
who met with Westchester's Andrew Spano yesterday to discuss the 
implications of the report and their concerns about security at 
the plant site. 

 "If the federal government thinks that it is important to have 
federally trained security at airports," said Spano, "then how 
much more important is it to have them at nuclear facilities? 

 "I think nuclear plants might be better protected if they were 
in the hands of professional law enforcement personnel." 

 Spano, a member of the board of directors of the County 
Executives of America, said he will ask that organization to 
formally call for a federal takeover of nuclear power plant 
security at the group's meeting in Washington, D.C., today. 

 Bondi said "the federal government is capable of providing 
protection for these facilities, and it will go a long way to 
making the population feel safer." 

 Vanderhoef said he was particularly dismayed to find that 
Entergy was studying problems in its security force at the same 
time that the company was assuring the public that security was 
more than adequate to repel any terrorist threat to Indian Point. 

 "The fact that Entergy officials were not being forthcoming is 
disturbing," he said. "The natural question arises of what else 
don't we know?" 

 But NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said "we looked at the issues and 
we found that, overall, the plant security remained satisfactory. 
If we thought anything was cause for great concern, we would take 
action. The reality is the security program in place would do 
what it is designed to do." 

 Entergy spokesman Larry Gottlieb said there is no need for a 
federal security force at nuclear plants. 

 "We would prefer if they worked on enacting legislation which 
gave more power to a company like Entergy in terms of the types 
of weapons security officers were allowed to carry," he said. 
"People should be praising Entergy because we were willing to 
commission that report, look at the allegations, and use it to 
improve our operation. I think that is an admirable thing." 

 Send e-mail to  Roger Witherspoon [rwithers@thejournalnews.com] 
   
  Copyright 2002 The Journal News, a Gannett Co
Service [http://www.thejournalnews.com/include/terms.html]
*****************************************************************
 27 Indian Point still a concern 

[http://www.recordonline.com/sitemap.html] 

December 11, 2002 

The Homeland Security Department needs to review conflicting 
claims on the nuclear power plant. 

There's no denying the significant contributions of the 
Indian Point nuclear power plant to the economy of the 
mid-Hudson and the quality of life of the state in general. The 
plant, on the Hudson River in Buchanan, generates tens of 
millions of dollars in disposable income through its employees. 
And it provides 11 percent of the power to the state grid, from 
which the mid-Hudson draws its electricity. 

For those reasons, closing it down, as has been urged by 
different citizens groups and politicians over the years, would 
have major negative impacts, unless there was a comprehensive 
plan in place to replace the energy and high-paying jobs lost by 
a plant closing. 

On the other hand, while there has always been an elevated 
level of anxiety in many citizens about the safety of nuclear 
power plants, concerns about the security of the Indian Point 
operation have been voiced with increasing frequency and urgency 
since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. 

And safety and security issues, if they are credible, can 
trump any economic issues. If a nuclear power plant is not run 
in a safe manner, if its evacuation plan is faulty, if security 
is suspect, it doesn't matter how much power or money it 
generates. Either the flaws must be fixed or the plant must be 
shut down. 

At Indian Point, the jury remains out. Recent safety glitches 
have been corrected and the number of guards have been increased 
since Sept. 11, but questions remain about those areas as well 
as the feasibility of an evacuation plan that encompasses an 
increasingly more populous area. 

A report being awaited with great anticipation is one ordered 
by Gov. George Pataki. He named a task force to review Indian 
Point safety procedures and to assess the evacuation plan. That 
report is due soon and Pataki has said he would push the federal 
government to close the plant, if the report recommends that. 

Meanwhile, serious charges have been made about security at 
the plant, the latest by a security guard who has worked at 
Indian Point for six years. 

The guard, Foster Zeh, says security training of guards at 
the plant is phony and that any intruders determined to 
penetrate the plant � which could describe terrorists � could 
easily overwhelm its security force. 

Zeh, who says he assists with weapons and security training, 
says there aren't enough guards, their training is geared to the 
lowest acceptable level because so many can't pass it, guards 
are working long shifts, which causes fatigue, many guards are 
out of shape and the cursory weapons training they receive is 
useless as far as trying to combat armed terrorists. 

To which Entergy, which owns Indian Point, says: 

- Zeh doesn't know what he's talking about. 

- He's a disgruntled employee whose credibility should be 
questioned because he has been suspended over a "performance" 
issue. 

- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagrees, having 
recently passed Indian Point on security. 

Entergy's views on Zeh are the usual ones voiced about 
whistle-blowers, but they could well be accurate. Right now, 
though, they are in the he-says/they-say category. And Zeh has 
the benefit of Entergy itself supporting his doubts about 
security. An internal company report issued in January and made 
public recently by Riverkeeper, an environmental watchdog group, 
says only 19 percent of the 160 guards stated "they could 
adequately defend the plant." That's hardly encouraging. And a 
number of guards say Zeh knows what he is talking about. 

The new Homeland Security Department has been given the 
responsibility for ensuring the security of nuclear power plants 
against terrorist attacks. One of its high-priority issues 
should be to review all the conflicting claims about security 
and safety at Indian Point and not to take any assessment at 
face value simply because of who made it. 

By virtue of its location in the densely populated suburbs of 
New York City, Indian Point is at once vital as a source of 
energy and attractive as a potential target for terrorists. 

The ideal solution would be to make it as safe and secure as 
possible within reasonable expectations, as that applies to 
nuclear power plants. 

Record Online is proudly brought to you by the Times 

Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the 

Catskills. 

40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 
Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, 

N.Y., area. 

Editor Robert Gaydos at rgaydos@th-record.com 
[rgaydos@th-record.com] or call 346-3202. 
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC may cite TXU's Texas nuke following water leak*

<http://about.reuters.com>

/ Wed December 11, 2002 12:33 PM ET /

NEW YORK, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission will decide within 30 days whether to cite a TXU Corp. 
TXU.N 
</financeQuoteLookup.jhtml?ticker=TXU.N&qtype=sym&infotype=info&qcat=news>
unit for an apparent safety violation at a Texas nuclear power 
unit, the agency and TXU said Wednesday.

The apparent violation involves a leaking steam generator tube at 
the 1,150 megawatt Comanche Peak 1 plant in Glen Rose, Texas.

The unit is currently shut for electrical work following a 
refueling and repair outage to fix the leak, and is expected to 
return to service within a few days.

On Tuesday, the NRC presented their preliminary results of a 
special inspection done after the leak, NRC public affairs 
officer Roger Hannah told Reuters.

"We came to the conclusion that in three instances there were 
indications during previous testing that were missed by the 
analyst looking at this particular problem. In one case, the one 
that lead to the leak, there was an apparent violation," Hannah 
said, adding that in the other two cases, there were no 
violations.

"We're still doing the risk analysis and we won't know for sure 
what our actions will be as an agency until we complete that risk 
analysis," he added.

"The bottom line is, from a safety standpoint, (TXU) took 
conservative action and shut the plant down when they saw this 
small leak. There was no detectable radiation released in the 
environment," Hannah said.

The NRC also said it had not classified its preliminary finding 
into one of its four-color codes for safety violations.

The findings range in severity from green to white, yellow or red 
for the most serious violations.

In a pressurized water reactor, like the Comanche Peak unit, 
steam generators are used to heat water into steam which is then 
used to turn turbine-generators and make electricity.

The steam generators contain thousands of tubes which circulate 
heated water from the reactor vessel. The water from the reactor 
contains some radioactivity and a leak or rupture in a tube 
allows leakage from the reactor, or primary side, to the 
turbine-generator, or secondary side, of the plant.

The unit was taken out of service for its scheduled autumn 
refueling a few days early to fix the tube leak.

TXU Energy spokesman David Beshear said in response to the 
findings the company has already retrained their analysts to look 
for this particular kind of problem.

"The (levels) were well below the computer model threshold and 
the human threshold, but yes, we think the analyst should have 
caught the problem also," Beshear said.

The reactor vessel heads at the plant have also been inspected 
and no problems were found, Beshear said previously, adding there 
was no plans to replace the heads.

Recently, reactor vessel heads at pressurized water reactors have 
come under scrutiny after severe corrosion was discovered earlier 
this year at FirstEnergy's FE.N 
</financeQuoteLookup.jhtml?ticker=FE.N&qtype=sym&infotype=info&qcat=news>
Davis Besse nuclear power plant in Ohio.

The Comanche Peak station also consists of the adjacent 1,150 MW 
Unit 2, which continued to run at full power on Wednesday, the 
NRC said in its reactor status report.

Reuters The Company <http://about.reuters.com> Products & 
*****************************************************************
 29 TXU's Texas Comanche Peak nuke seen back shortly*

<http://about.reuters.com>

/ Wed December 11, 2002 10:38 AM ET /

NEW YORK, Dec 11 (Reuters) - TXU Energy's 1,150 megawatt Comanche 
Peak 1 nuclear unit in Texas is expected to return to service in 
a few days from a recent outage, the company said Wednesday.

"Things are moving more quickly. It should be back in a few 
days," company spokesman David Beshear said.

The unit, located in Glen Rose, Texas, has been shut since Dec. 3 
for electrical work.

The unit was ramping up following a September refueling and 
maintenance outage when it was taken off line for the current 
repairs.

The Comanche Peak nuclear station also contains the adjacent 
1,150 MW Unit 2, which continued to run at full power on 
Wednesday, according to a report from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. TXU Energy is a unit of TXU Corp. TXU.N 
.
Reuters The Company <http://about.reuters.com> Products & Services
*****************************************************************
 30 Final Report Concerning Leak Tests on the Primary Containment 
Vessel at Fukushima Daiichi Station

JapanCorp: Press Release </?page_num=1>

Tokyo, Japan, Dec. 11, 2002 - (JCN Newswire) - Tokyo Electric 
Power Co. (TEPCO) today submitted the final report concerning the 
problem of leak tests on the primary containment vessel at 
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit-1 to the Minister of 
Economy, Trade and Industry.

As soon as the suspicion had arisen that air was being injected 
into the primary containment vessel, TEPCO asked an outside team 
consisting of five independent expert lawyers to investigate the 
situation. The investigation lasted about two months and after 
its completion the team reported to TEPCO on its findings. 
TEPCO's report demonstrates its recognition of the findings of 
the investigation team, and describes the measures it will take 
in the future.

The conclusions of the investigation team are the same as those 
in the interim report issued on October 25:

1. It was confirmed that dishonest acts had taken place, 
including injecting air into the primary containment vessel in 
order to lower the leak rate while TEPCO's workers were involved 
in the 15th and 16th periodic inspections at Fukushima Daiichi 
Station's Unit-1.

2. Apart from the above-mentioned acts at Fukushima Daiichi 
Station's Unit-1 no dishonest practice was found in any other 
leak tests conducted in the past at any nuclear power plants.

TEPCO would like to express its sincere apologies, both to those 
in the vicinity of its nuclear power stations and to all members 
of society, for conducting dishonest practices during the 
government's regular nuclear safety inspections.

We, TEPCO, will make strenuous efforts to prevent reoccurrence of 
such errors and to regain public confidence in our company and in 
nuclear power. We will do this by creating "a system that will 
never allow workers to engage in dishonest practice" and "a 
climate in which workers will never engage in dishonest practice"


About Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated (The) was established 
in 1951 and is Japan's largest electric power supplier. The 
company is based in the Tokyo metropolitan area and surrounding 
prefectures, operates one hundred and fifty seven hydroelectric 
power plants, twenty nine thermal power plants and three nuclear 
power plants and supplies electricity to about 23.2 million 
households and 2.8 million commercial and industrial customers. 
One of the world's largest electric utilities, TEPCO has a 
generating capacity of 57,800 MW, produced by fossil fuel (56%), 
nuclear (30%), and hydroelectric (14%) power sources. Seeking 
diversity in the face of a reduced monopoly status caused by 
deregulation, TEPCO is moving into communications. It owns a 
major stake in Tokyo Telecommunication Network (TTNet, local and 
long-distance phone service). TEPCO is in a telecommunications 
joint venture with nine other Japanese electric companies. For 
further information, please visit the Tokyo Electric Power Co., 
Inc. home page at: www.tepco.co.jp/index-e.html 
<http://www.tepco.co.jp/index-e.html>

Contact:

Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.
Naoki Kobayashi
k.naoki@tepco.co.jp
+81-3-4216-1111

/Copyright � 2002 JCN Newswire. All rights reserved. A division of Japan
*****************************************************************
 31 Japan's TEPCO says may close all reactors by April*

<http://about.reuters.com>

/ Wed December 11, 2002 06:43 AM ET /

TOKYO, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Japan's largest power utility, Tokyo 
Electric Power Co Inc (TEPCO) 9501.T 
</financeQuoteLookup.jhtml?ticker=9501.T&qtype=sym&infotype=info&qcat=news>
, said on Wednesday that all the nuclear reactors it operates 
could be shut down temporarily by the middle of April.

"A final decision has not been made, but if we are to talk of 
possibilities, then there is a chance that all 17 of our nuclear 
reactors might be closed by mid-April next year," a company 
spokesman said.

In September, TEPCO began shutting down reactors for safety 
checks ahead of its normal checks after revelations of lapses in 
previous inspections.

The Tokyo-based power utility has already closed nine of its 
nuclear reactors, or about half of its nuclear generation 
capacity, and has drafted a programme for closing another four 
reactors next January and February.

The spokesman said that TEPCO was considering closing the 
remaining four in March and April, but a final decision was 
pending. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) 
ordered TEPCO to schedule early checks on its reactors after the 
utility admitted in October that staff had manipulated the air 
pressure of a container in the reactor at a plant in Fukushima 
Prefecture, northern Japan, during safety tests.

METI, which viewed the breach as a serious safety violation, last 
month ordered a one-year suspension of the 460-megawatt No.1 
reactor at the Fukushima No.1 plant.

TEPCO officials said the company has secured enough power supply 
to make up for the shortfall from the shutdowns, at least to 
cover winter demand, by running idled thermal power plants.

Of more serious concern, however, is whether it will have enough 
to meet summer demand.

On Wednesday, TEPCO released a report on the results of an 
investigation, led by a team of outside lawyers, into the 
manipulation that took place at the Fukushima plant.

The report said employees had manipulated two tests conducted in 
1991 and 1992.

TEPCO said it had dealt out punitive measures against nine of the 
employees involved in the data falsification who were still with 
the company.

<http://about.reuters.com
*****************************************************************
 32 TEPCO punishes 9 workers over reactor data falsification

<http://www.japantoday.com>*  

Thursday, December 12, 2002 at 09:30 JST

TOKYO ? Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) dismissed one employee 
and punished eight others Wednesday over data falsification of a 
crucial safety feature at one of its nuclear reactor facilities.

Hitachi Ltd, which undertook inspections that led to the 
falsification, said the same day it will reduce the pay of its 
president and three others, as well as one at an affiliated firm.

The dismissal is the first since the revelation last summer of a 
series of cover-ups and data falsification the country's largest 
utility company committed in the 1980s and 1990s.

The nine TEPCO employees were held responsible for being involved 
in manipulating checks on the air-tightness of the No. 1 reactor 
at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in 1991 and 1992. Such 
an act violates the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law.

"I would like to apologize deeply to the public for causing 
trouble," TEPCO President Tsunehisa Katsumata said at a press 
conference.

He said, however, that the company will not punish any directors 
because its president and chairman quit in September to take 
responsibility for the series of scandals involving its nuclear 
reactors and facilities.

The reactor container plays an important role in preventing 
radioactive materials from leaking in the event of a nuclear 
accident.

TEPCO tests the air-tightness of a reactor container during a 
regular inspection conducted every year by injecting nitrogen 
into the facility and checking the air pressure there.

According to a TEPCO report released Wednesday, five TEPCO 
employees, including the dismissed one, decided during a 1991 
check to inject compressed air into the container after failing 
to maintain a certain air-pressure reading.

They ordered Hitachi workers to inject the air to give acceptable 
pressure readings inside the unit, the report said.

During a 1992 check, engineers found a valve from which air was 
leaking, the report said, adding that six TEPCO employees ordered 
Hitachi workers to seal off a pipe around the valve.

The air pressure did not stabilize, prompting those involved to 
inject air into the container to give acceptable pressure 
readings inside the unit, it said.

TEPCO said in the report that the employees were motivated by 
their desire to avoid repeating the same checks.

The Nuclear and Industrial Agency slapped a one-year suspension 
on the reactor's operation Oct. 25. TEPCO said last Thursday that 
a recent check has shown the reactor container now has the 
required air pressure. (Kyodo News)
*****************************************************************
 33 NRC may cite TXU's Texas nuke following water leak

Forbes.com: 

NEW YORK, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission will decide within 30 days whether to cite a TXU Corp. 
(nyse: TXU - news - people) unit for an apparent safety violation 
at a Texas nuclear power unit, the agency and TXU said Wednesday.

 The apparent violation involves a leaking steam generator tube 
at the 1,150 megawatt Comanche Peak 1 plant in Glen Rose, Texas.

 The unit is currently shut for electrical work following a 
refueling and repair outage to fix the leak, and is expected to 
return to service within a few days.

 On Tuesday, the NRC presented their preliminary results of a 
special inspection done after the leak, NRC public affairs 
officer Roger Hannah told Reuters.

 "We came to the conclusion that in three instances there were 
indications during previous testing that were missed by the 
analyst looking at this particular problem. In one case, the one 
that lead to the leak, there was an apparent violation," Hannah 
said, adding that in the other two cases, there were no 
violations.

 "We're still doing the risk analysis and we won't know for sure 
what our actions will be as an agency until we complete that risk 
analysis," he added.

 "The bottom line is, from a safety standpoint, (TXU) took 
conservative action and shut the plant down when they saw this 
small leak. There was no detectable radiation released in the 
environment," Hannah said.

 The NRC also said it had not classified its preliminary finding 
into one of its four-color codes for safety violations.

 The findings range in severity from green to white, yellow or 
red for the most serious violations.

 In a pressurized water reactor, like the Comanche Peak unit, 
steam generators are used to heat water into steam which is then 
used to turn turbine-generators and make electricity.

 The steam generators contain thousands of tubes which circulate 
heated water from the reactor vessel. The water from the reactor 
contains some radioactivity and a leak or rupture in a tube 
allows leakage from the reactor, or primary side, to the 
turbine-generator, or secondary side, of the plant.

 The unit was taken out of service for its scheduled autumn 
refueling a few days early to fix the tube leak.

 TXU Energy spokesman David Beshear said in response to the 
findings the company has already retrained their analysts to look 
for this particular kind of problem.

 "The (levels) were well below the computer model threshold and 
the human threshold, but yes, we think the analyst should have 
caught the problem also," Beshear said.

 The reactor vessel heads at the plant have also been inspected 
and no problems were found, Beshear said previously, adding there 
was no plans to replace the heads.

 Recently, reactor vessel heads at pressurized water reactors 
have come under scrutiny after severe corrosion was discovered 
earlier this year at FirstEnergy's (nyse: FE - news - people) 
Davis Besse nuclear power plant in Ohio.

 The Comanche Peak station also consists of the adjacent 1,150 MW 
Unit 2, which continued to run at full power on Wednesday, the 
NRC said in its reactor status report. 

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
*****************************************************************
 34 Japan's TEPCO says may close all reactors by April

TOKYO, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Japan's largest power utility, Tokyo 
Electric Power Co Inc (TEPCO) <9501.T>, said on Wednesday that 
all the nuclear reactors it operates could be shut down 
temporarily by the middle of April.

 "A final decision has not been made, but if we are to talk of 
possibilities, then there is a chance that all 17 of our nuclear 
reactors might be closed by mid-April next year," a company 
spokesman said.

 In September, TEPCO began shutting down reactors for safety 
checks ahead of its normal checks after revelations of lapses in 
previous inspections.

 The Tokyo-based power utility has already closed nine of its 
nuclear reactors, or about half of its nuclear generation 
capacity, and has drafted a programme for closing another four 
reactors next January and February.

 The spokesman said that TEPCO was considering closing the 
remaining four in March and April, but a final decision was 
pending. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) 
ordered TEPCO to schedule early checks on its reactors after the 
utility admitted in October that staff had manipulated the air 
pressure of a container in the reactor at a plant in Fukushima 
Prefecture, northern Japan, during safety tests.

 METI, which viewed the breach as a serious safety violation, 
last month ordered a one-year suspension of the 460-megawatt No.1 
reactor at the Fukushima No.1 plant.

 TEPCO officials said the company has secured enough power supply 
to make up for the shortfall from the shutdowns, at least to 
cover winter demand, by running idled thermal power plants.

 Of more serious concern, however, is whether it will have enough 
to meet summer demand.

 On Wednesday, TEPCO released a report on the results of an 
investigation, led by a team of outside lawyers, into the 
manipulation that took place at the Fukushima plant.

 The report said employees had manipulated two tests conducted in 
1991 and 1992.

 TEPCO said it had dealt out punitive measures against nine of 
the employees involved in the data falsification who were still 
with the company. 

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
*****************************************************************
 35 Nuke lapses alarm lawmakers 

[http://www.recordonline.com/index.html] 

December 11, 2002 

Schumer, others seek federal guards at Indian Point 

By Wayne A. Hall Times Herald-Record waynehall@th-record.com 
[waynehall@th-record.com] 

Buchanan � Alarmed by charges of security lapses at the 
Indian Point nuclear power plant revealed in yesterday's Times 
Herald-Record, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Sue W. Kelly and 
Hudson Valley county executives demanded a federal probe of the 
plant as well as federalization of the guards. 

"Security at Indian Point has more holes than Swiss cheese," 
said the senior senator. 

In a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard 
Meserve, Schumer urged the agency to "launch an immediate 
investigation into the ability of security personnel at Indian 
Point to defend the facility from a terrorist attack." 

In addition to the information revealed in the Record by 
Indian Point security officer Foster Zeh, Schumer pointed to 
Entergy's own in-house security report, released over the 
weekend, as alarming enough to require an investigation. 

The charges raised by Zeh and other guards include: 

-- Attacks by fake aggressors are staged so completely that 
"attackers" and "defenders" meet at pre-determined spots within 
the plant. 

-- Short-handed staffing fatigues guards, who face shifts of 
14 to 16 hours a day, six days a week. 

-- Inadequate training - both in firearms and physical 
fitness - leaves guards ill-equipped to handle possible 
intruders. 

-- The 160-officer security force shares 60 bulletproof vests.

-- Security radios need upgrading because the transmissions 
are sometimes picked up by tow trucks. 

Zeh, suspended Nov. 25 with pay, was placed on indefinite 
paid administrative leave yesterday. There was no explanation, 
he said, of why he was being disciplined. 

Also yesterday, Orange County Executive Edward Diana joined 
county chiefs in Westchester, Putnam and Rockland counties in 
seeking the federalization of the plants security. 

"We believe very strongly that the federal government [Office 
of Homeland Security] should take over security at Indian Point 
and other nuclear plants," said Diana. 

Kelly, meanwhile, fired off a letter to Homeland Security 
Director Tom Ridge, she said, requesting that he conduct a "full 
and complete investigation" into the charges the security guards 
have raised. 

Entergy media director Larry Gottlieb yesterday said the 
company has improved security overall, including hiring an 
additional 30 guards to augment the current 160-plus force. 
Gottlieb said that the plants remain safe, secure and vital. 

"Entergy of course is going to say they fixed everything, but 
I want outside confirmation," Schumer said. "Look, the fact that 
Entergy's own [Jan. 25] internal security report shows slippage, 
and the fact that the NRC hasn't staged a mock attack since 1994 
shows it's business as usual, and you can't do that in the 
post-9/11 world." 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission "is 
considering resuming force-on-force" testing but added that "it 
doesn't make sense to interfere" with the current Indian Point 
training right now. The NRC gave the plant passing security 
marks in August and said yesterday another review is due in 
January. 

Gottlieb said the spate of details being made public about 
Indian Point's defenses was worrying the public. 

"I got calls from individuals who want to know why 
[information's] being give to al-Qaida operatives who might 
attack the plant," he said. 

Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday that she plans to 
re-introduce a Senate bill calling for federal security 
coordinators to be assigned to plants such as Indian Point. 

"We know that terrorists turned airplanes into missiles," 
Clinton said. "We don't want them to turn power plants into 
nuclear weapons." 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Record Online is proudly brought to you by the Times 

Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the 

Catskills. 

40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 
Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, 

N.Y., area. 
*****************************************************************
 36 Opposition exposes lucrative radioactive wheat export scam 
 
Sunday Herald
 
Romanian officials claim ignorance of cheap 
Chernobyl-contaminated produce labelled safe and sold to the 
Middle East, finds Gabriel Ronay 
 
 Radioactive wheat grown in Ukrainian fields poisoned by the 
Chernobyl nuclear disaster are being repackaged as 
'Romanian-grown grain' and exported by Bucharest merchants to 
Arab countries in a lucrative multimillion pound scam. 

Radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in 
the now defunct Soviet Union on April 26, 1986, contaminated wide 
swathes of Europe and caused serious damage to crops and 
livestock as far west as the Scottish Highlands and Islands. For 
years afterwards, hill farmers could not sell their lambs and 
milk from cows that had fed on tainted grass. 

It is still casting a deadly shadow over the Ukraine, the former 
breadbasket of the region. The radioactive contamination of the 
soil, one of the long-lasting effects of the explosion of the 
fourth reactor, is crippling independent Ukraine . 

Because of evident contamination of Ukrainian wheat, and also of 
wheat and cereals grown in the neighbouring Republic of Moldova, 
Arab countries of the near and Middle East have now banned the 
import of grain from the two countries for fear of radioactive 
contamination of their people. Enter the new venture capitalists 
of Romania eager to make a quick buck. 

Valeriu Gheorghe, a Romanian opposition Liberal Party deputy, 
last week unmasked the profiteers in parliament, pointing a 
finger not only at Romania's Mammon worshippers, who allegedly 
buy up the condemned wheat of the Ukraine and Moldova, but also 
at certain government officials. 

He also revealed the modus operendi of the scam. He told 
parliament: 'Romania is a prime importer of Ukrainian and 
Moldovan grain and the two countries also use Romania for the 
transit of their wheat shipments to their traditional Arab 
markets. In the course of the transit, Ukrainian and Moldovan 
wheat gets relabelled 'Romanian wheat' and is then exported to 
foreign markets. 

In other words, radioactive wheat bought at bargain prices is 
being sold at full market price by Romanian entrepreneurs to 
unsuspecting foreign consumers as Bucharest officials avert their 
eyes. 

Although the public-spirited deputy did not touch on the moral 
dimensions of the trade in condemned wheat, he posed the 
question: 'Is there now, because of it, any possibility that 
consumers are eating radioactive bread?' And he justified his 
question by quoting from a formal statement issued by the 
Association of Romanian Cereal Wholesalers confirming that: 'In 
the financial years 2001 and 2002, Romania imported considerable 
quantities of radioactive wheat from the Ukraine and the Republic 
of Moldova.'

Whether out of concern for the health of consumers, Arab or 
Romanian, or for fear of the collapse of the credibility of 
Romanian-grown wheat on the world markets, the deputy demanded to 
know from the agriculture minister what action, if any, he has 
taken to stop the illegal commerce in Ukrainian and Moldovan 
cereals and whether, in view of the Arab ban, any checks on 
radioactivity have been put in place at Romania's frontier entry 
points? 



In his reply, agriculture minister llie Sarbu tried to cover up 
the issue by denying that any Ukrainian wheat purchases have been 
authorised by his ministry. But he admitted that up to October 27 
of this year, Romania had imported 19,079 tonnes of wheat from 
Moldova and reeled off a raft of other import statistics to 
support his whiter-than-white position. Minister Sarbu's reply 
would have been a triumph in obfuscation even in the days of 
Romania's Stalinist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. 

Unfortunately for him, Ion Scurteli, the chairman of the 
Association of Romanian Cereal Wholesalers' reinforced deputy 
Veleriu Gheorghe's revelations and gave the lie to the 
agriculture minister's statement. In an interview with the 
Bucharest daily Ziua, he demolished Sarbu's plea of official 
ignorance of this nefarious trade: 'In the past two years, 
certain Arab countries have recorded that wheat imports from the 
Black Sea basin were radioactive. In this period, the Romanian 
agriculture ministry received a series of requests from Arab 
countries for wheat exports, with one of the key conditions being 
the exclusion of radioactive grain. 

'The association has received letters from Arab countries 
specifying the quality of cereals, especially of wheat. Wheat 
from the Ukraine and Moldova is expressly banned from the Arab 
markets because of fear of radioactive contamination. These 
exclusions were also spelled out in official letters to the 
Romanian ministry of agriculture, the ministry of foreign affairs 
and the local Romanian embassies.'

 Scurteli added that in spite of these formal requests, no 
Geiger-counter checks have been used on wheat imports from the 
Ukraine and Moldova at Romania's frontiers. 'We cannot stop the 
import of wheat from the Ukraine,' he admitted. 'But at least we 
could protect ourselves with proper checks against the import of 
radioactive cereals. This way, we could protect the health of our 
people and defend the good reputation of our wheat abroad.' In 
view of the shocking revelations of Gheorghe and the candid 
statement of the chief of the Romanian Cereal Wholesalers' 
Association official Bucharest's plea of ignorance of the 
commerce in radioactive wheat is untenable. 

But Romanian officials are not alone in putting profit before the 
health of consumers. The bankrupt regime of President Kuchma of 
the Ukraine must have sold its contaminated wheat in underhand 
deals knowing full well it was not fit for human consumption. 

[http://www.thesundayherald.com] - reports �2002 smg sunday 
newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights
*****************************************************************
 37 Officials seek source of flier that has nuke workers are worried

Las Vegas SUN: 

December 11, 2002 
 
Jobs are threatened across country

 By Benjamin Grove < [grove@lasvegassun.com] > LAS VEGAS SUN

 WASHINGTON -- Officials for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration are trying to calm the jangled nerves of workers 
in the agency's Nevada offices after an anonymous flier said 
their jobs were in danger.

 The one-page flier warned that the NNSA planned massive job cuts 
for the agency's 239 Nevada workers.

 "Six out of 10 people currently working in Nevada will not be 
here at the end of the fiscal year 2004," said the flier, which 
most believe was written by an insider. "Meanwhile Headquarters 
has kept on hiring ... Albuquerque sits fat and happy ... and 
Oakland (an administrative office in California with no mission 
work) comes out smelling like a Potomac Cherry Blossom."

 The flier generated anxiety among workers as it circulated 
Tuesday in the NNSA's Nevada Operations offices, spokesman Darwin 
Morgan said.

 "There are employees who are concerned about their future," 
Morgan said. Morgan did not know the source of the flier.

 But an NNSA spokesman in Washington said that any talk of job 
cuts was "pure speculation."

 The NNSA since February has been planning a massive 
reorganization of the agency, but details are not set for release 
until next week, spokesman Bryan Wilkes said. Final decisions had 
not been made, Wilkes said.

 "Nobody knows what's going to happen," he said.

 Part of the reorganization includes removing a layer of 
management, agency officials told Congress earlier this year.

 The NNSA is a division of the Energy Department and is primarily 
responsible for the safety and reliability of the nation's aging 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The Nevada operations office manages 
the Nevada Test Site, formerly a proving ground for the nation's 
nuclear weapons. The Test Site's mission now includes low-level 
radioactive waste storage, counter-terrorism training, 
subcritical nuclear weapons tests and research.

 The NNSA has two other major operations offices, in Albuquerque 
and Oakland, and nine regional offices nationwide.

 The NNSA's acting administrator Linton Brooks said he intends to 
trim the agency's workforce by 20 percent. But Brooks wants to 
accomplish that through attrition and early retirement incentives 
-- not by firing workers, Wilkes said.

 "He said he intends to go out of his way to treat people 
fairly," Wilkes said.

 The flier encouraged workers to seek help from Nevada lawmakers. 
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he already spoke with Brooks last 
week to request that there be no job cuts in Nevada. NNSA's most 
valuable jobs are in Nevada, Ensign said.

 "I told him that I support what you are trying to do with the 
restructuring, but we made made the pitch, 'Why should it be in 
Nevada?' " Ensign said.

 Brooks did not say whether he planned to cut jobs in Nevada, 
Ensign said.

 Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is trying to verify the flier's 
validity, she said.

 "Obviously, receiving a flier like this right before the 
holidays is very demoralizing," Berkley said. "We're going to do 
everything we can to see that no one loses their job."

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Are nuclear plants safe from attack?
 
  [MSNBC.com]       

  Millions spent since Sept. 11 to beef up security [Image: San 
Onofre nuclear plant] The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 
which provides power to more than 15 million people in Southern 
California, has been the target of terror threats.
     
  By Jane Wells CNBC  
     
  SAN CLEMENTE, Calif., Dec. 11 �  Nuclear power plants provide 
one fifth of the electricity in the U.S. And running a plant has 
always carried risks. It can be dangerous work on the inside � 
and on the outside, especially in the new era of terrorist 
threats.  

THE NUCLEAR POWER industry has has often been embroiled in 
controversy, and that has always made these plants targets. Long 
before 9-11, security officers went through paramilitary 
training, carried semi-automatic weapons, and employees were 
subjected to background checks and daily screenings. As for 
construction, reactors were built to withstand attacks from 
Mother Nature like earthquakes. Reactor walls have even been 
tested to withstand the impact of an F-4 jet: one 1980s test 
destroyed the jet, not the wall.

        But it wasn�t an F-4 that smashed into the Pentagon or 
the World Trade Center � it was a jumbo jet. And the terrorists 
threats these days don�t necessarily involve environmentalists � 
but suicide bombers. Now comes word that two months after 9-11, 
only one out of five security officers at New York�s Indian Point 
nuclear power plant felt they could protect the facility from 
such a terror attack, and say they were discouraged from speaking 
out. So this security � and image � sensitive industry has had to 
step up to do more.       
      
           �There�s nothing in the research so far nothing to 
suggest these commercial airliners would be able to penetrate the 
containment building,� said Floyd.

        �The walls on that building are four feet to seven foot 
thick, steel-reinforced rebar that�s thicker than my wrist,� said 
Golden.

        The walls are not quite as thick around the radioactive 
waste buildings. But those buildings have much smaller profiles 
than a reactor; they�d be difficult for an airplane to hit. 

       Yet even if the plant could survive one airplane, what 
about a sustained attack?

        �If somebody came over to our shores with battleships and 
started firing Tomahawk missiles or nuclear weapons or anything 
else,� said Golden, �at some point it become now the end of the 
private security force and into the federal government�s need to 
deal with it.�

        And in San Onofre�s case, it�s lucky. It�s landlord and 
next-door neighbor is Camp Pendleton, one of the largest marine 
bases in the world.

        But what about an attack from the inside a nuclear plant? 
Dr. Najmedin Meshkati, a professor of engineering at the 
University of Southern California, has been studying and 
consulting on plant safety for 20 years.

        �There are some Achilles heels within the plants that 
they could be aggravated by outside the plant,� he said.. �The 
combination of these two seemingly independent events could make 
the plants very vulnerable.�

        Meshkati says he won�t be specific about the Achilles 
heels for security reasons. 

       But past training exercises by government agents at plants 
across the country have proven security can be compromised. Cyber 
terrorism is an issue that continues to be studied; technicians 
at San Onofre train for possible hacker attacks in a mock-up of 
the plant�s control room.

        �(Cyberterrorists) would take the plant off the line by 
interrupting the power to the switch yard at the plants,� said 
Floyd.

        In other words, they could potentially cause a shutdown, 
but not a leak. 

       The industry believes it can continue to be profitable and 
make its facilities safer, to make them both hard and hardened: 
hard to sabotage and hardened against attack. So that when 
terrorists consider potential targets, they�ll look somewhere 
else.
               
    �2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of
*****************************************************************
 39 French nuclear site says radioactive leak posed no danger to 
environment 
                                
  Tue Dec 10, 5:11 PM ET       

 PARIS - A French nuclear site released slightly radioactive 
fluid into the Rhone River, but officials said Tuesday that the 
leak posed no danger to the environment. 

 COGEMA, the state-run nuclear fuels processor, said officials 
discovered the problem Monday at its center in Marcoule, southern 
France. The site, once was used to reprocess nuclear waste, now 
produces tritium, a radioactive hydrogen, for France's defense 
program. 

 Officials discovered a malfunctioning in the system that handles 
radioactive discharge. They immediately stopped the flow and 
began repairs. 

 "This event had no consequence on the environment, because of 
the very weak level of radioactivity of the discharge," COGEMA 
said in a statement on its Web site. 

 On an international scale of nuclear incidents, the leak was 
classified at level one out of seven, the group said. 
                                
 Copyright � 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 40 Uranium business more widely spread 

IPP MEDIA Guardian Page 9 

Thursday, December 12, 2002 . 

Guardian Reporter 

Business in radioactive materials is apparently more widespread 
than the 

police and the National Radiation Commission (NRC) made public 
a few weeks ago. There are also more people engaged in the 
business than it was officially revealed a few weeks, it has 
reliably been learnt. 

Police in Dar es Salaam have arrested four people who have been 
found in illegal possession of a container loaded with uranium, 
one of the most dangerous radioactive materials. 

In routine investigations, police in Dar es Salaam have managed 
to crack and arrest a gang of TAZAMA Pipeline Limited employees 
who are allegedly engaged in the business. The alleged gang 
consists of a driver, George Munyuka Nelbat (32), Security 
Supervisor Xaviery Bagula Kikoga (52), security guard Atilio 
Vangusali Mwitala (51) and another security guard Iddi Nuru 
Mposindawa (29). 

The team was nabbed while allegedly looking for prospective 
buyers who would be ready to pay 700,000/- for the container 
holding the lethal gas. 

The Regional Police Commander (RPC) Assistant Commissioner of 
Police (ACP) Alfred Tibaigana said Wednesday that the alleged 
gang was arrested on December 5 this year after police were 
tipped that some people were looking for a buyer of the uranium. 

The police laid a trap in which some officials posed as 
prospective buyers of the radioactive material. 

The alleged gang members unknowingly fell into the trap and led 
the police to Kigamboni where the container with the material on 
sale was hidden. After showing their merchandise, police 
arrested them and impounded the container. 

According to ACP Tibaigana, the container has since been 
transported to Arusha where NRC experts were working on it to 
scientifically determine the contents. 

Commander Tibaigana could not hide his amazement that some 
people felt comfortable dealing in such dangerous business of 
unmarketable material, as it has been banned worldwide. 

�I would like to take this opportunity to warn Tanzanians not 
to waste their time in this kind of business. In the first 
place, the merchandise has no market anywhere...as it has been 
banned. Secondly, there is no way they can succeed, because this 
is prohibited business,� he declared. 

The RPC has also warned the public to be wary of mysterious 
containers and notify the police once they notice them anywhere. 

Stressing the need for people to report the presence of such 
containers, Tibaigana explained that although they were sealed, 
the gas leaked slowly from the containers and anyone who comes 
across it might be harmed. 

ACP Tibaigana said police were yet to establish the source of 
the impounded container though he said that it has no connection 
with TAZAMA. 

�We think that these people were lured by some people from a 
ship and bought this container believing that they would earn 
big money from it,� he said. 

This police revelation of uranium container in Dar es Salaam 
comes several weeks after an earlier incident when they burst 
the illegal business and arrested several people in connected 
with it. 

Five people, including a Congolese, were arrested in three 
different incidents between October and last month this year in 
connection with possession of uranium loaded containers. 

The Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI), Commissioner of 
Police (CP) Adadi Rajab, told reporters that the arrested people 
were wrongly advised that they could make good money out of the 
business. 
*****************************************************************
 41 Romania: Opposition exposes lucrative radioactive wheat export scam

Romanian officials claim ignorance of cheap 
Chernobyl-contaminated produce labelled safe and sold to the 
Middle East, finds Gabriel Ronay

Radioactive wheat grown in Ukrainian fields poisoned by the 
Chernobyl nuclear disaster are being repackaged as 
'Romanian-grown grain' and exported by Bucharest merchants to 
Arab countries in a lucrative multimillion pound scam.

Radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in 
the now defunct Soviet Union on April 26, 1986, contaminated wide 
swathes of Europe and caused serious damage to crops and 
livestock as far west as the Scottish Highlands and Islands. For 
years afterwards, hill farmers could not sell their lambs and 
milk from cows that had fed on tainted grass.

It is still casting a deadly shadow over the Ukraine, the former 
breadbasket of the region. The radioactive contamination of the 
soil, one of the long-lasting effects of the explosion of the 
fourth reactor, is crippling independent Ukraine .

Because of evident contamination of Ukrainian wheat, and also of 
wheat and cereals grown in the neighbouring Republic of Moldova, 
Arab countries of the near and Middle East have now banned the 
import of grain from the two countries for fear of radioactive 
contamination of their people. Enter the new venture capitalists 
of Romania eager to make a quick buck.

Valeriu Gheorghe, a Romanian opposition Liberal Party deputy, 
last week unmasked the profiteers in parliament, pointing a 
finger not only at Romania's Mammon worshippers, who allegedly 
buy up the condemned wheat of the Ukraine and Moldova, but also 
at certain government officials.

He also revealed the modus operendi of the scam. He told 
parliament: 'Romania is a prime importer of Ukrainian and 
Moldovan grain and the two countries also use Romania for the 
transit of their wheat shipments to their traditional Arab 
markets. In the course of the transit, Ukrainian and Moldovan 
wheat gets relabelled 'Romanian wheat' and is then exported to 
foreign markets.

In other words, radioactive wheat bought at bargain prices is 
being sold at full market price by Romanian entrepreneurs to 
unsuspecting foreign consumers as Bucharest officials avert their 
eyes.

Although the public-spirited deputy did not touch on the moral 
dimensions of the trade in condemned wheat, he posed the 
question: 'Is there now, because of it, any possibility that 
consumers are eating radioactive bread?' And he justified his 
question by quoting from a formal statement issued by the 
Association of Romanian Cereal Wholesalers confirming that: 'In 
the financial years 2001 and 2002, Romania imported considerable 
quantities of radioactive wheat from the Ukraine and the Republic 
of Moldova.'

Whether out of concern for the health of consumers, Arab or 
Romanian, or for fear of the collapse of the credibility of 
Romanian-grown wheat on the world markets, the deputy demanded to 
know from the agriculture minister what action, if any, he has 
taken to stop the illegal commerce in Ukrainian and Moldovan 
cereals and whether, in view of the Arab ban, any checks on 
radioactivity have been put in place at Romania's frontier entry 
points?

In his reply, agriculture minister llie Sarbu tried to cover up 
the issue by denying that any Ukrainian wheat purchases have been 
authorised by his ministry. But he admitted that up to October 27 
of this year, Romania had imported 19,079 tonnes of wheat from 
Moldova and reeled off a raft of other import statistics to 
support his whiter-than-white position. Minister Sarbu's reply 
would have been a triumph in obfuscation even in the days of 
Romania's Stalinist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

Unfortunately for him, Ion Scurteli, the chairman of the 
Association of Romanian Cereal Wholesalers' reinforced deputy 
Veleriu Gheorghe's revelations and gave the lie to the 
agriculture minister's statement. In an interview with the 
Bucharest daily Ziua, he demolished Sarbu's plea of official 
ignorance of this nefarious trade: 'In the past two years, 
certain Arab countries have recorded that wheat imports from the 
Black Sea basin were radioactive. In this period, the Romanian 
agriculture ministry received a series of requests from Arab 
countries for wheat exports, with one of the key conditions being 
the exclusion of radioactive grain.

'The association has received letters from Arab countries 
specifying the quality of cereals, especially of wheat. Wheat 
from the Ukraine and Moldova is expressly banned from the Arab 
markets because of fear of radioactive contamination. These 
exclusions were also spelled out in official letters to the 
Romanian ministry of agriculture, the ministry of foreign affairs 
and the local Romanian embassies.'

Scurteli added that in spite of these formal requests, no 
Geiger-counter checks have been used on wheat imports from the 
Ukraine and Moldova at Romania's frontiers. 'We cannot stop the 
import of wheat from the Ukraine,' he admitted. 'But at least we 
could protect ourselves with proper checks against the import of 
radioactive cereals. This way, we could protect the health of our 
people and defend the good reputation of our wheat abroad.' In 
view of the shocking revelations of Gheorghe and the candid 
statement of the chief of the Romanian Cereal Wholesalers' 
Association official Bucharest's plea of ignorance of the 
commerce in radioactive wheat is untenable.

But Romanian officials are not alone in putting profit before the 
health of consumers. The bankrupt regime of President Kuchma of 
the Ukraine must have sold its contaminated wheat in underhand 
deals knowing full well it was not fit for human consumption.

/What do you think? Have your say in the forum 
<http://www.thesundayherald.com>/

<http://www.sundayherald.com/features_news.shtml>

�2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. contact
*****************************************************************
 42                         FR Doc 02-31201 

[Federal Register: December 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 238)] 
[Notices] [Page 76169-76170] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de02-28]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and 
Thorium Processing Sites AGENCY: Office of Environmental 
Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of the 
acceptance of claims and the availability of funds for 
reimbursement in fiscal year (FY) 2003.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the Department of Energy (DOE) 
acceptance of claims in FY 2003 for reimbursement under Title X
of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The President's FY 2003 budget
request 
includes $1 million for reimbursement of certain costs of
remedial 
action at eligible active uranium and thorium processing sites
pursuant 
to Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. DOE anticipates on
making 
prorated payments on approved claims received in FY 2002 and
prior 
years' unpaid approved claim amounts by April 30, 2003, subject
to the 
availability of FY 2003 appropriations.
DATES: The closing date for the submission of claims in FY 2003
is May 
1, 2003. These claims will be processed for payment by April 30,
2004, 
based on the availability of funds from congressional
appropriations.
ADDRESSES: Claims should be forwarded by certified or registered
mail, 
return receipt requested, to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Albuquerque 
Operations Office, Environmental
[[Page 76170]]
Restoration Division, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400,
or by 
express mail to the U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque
Operations 
Office, Environmental Restoration Division, H and Pennsylvania
Streets, 
Albuquerque, NM 87116. All claims should be addressed to the
attention 
of Mr. Gilbert Maldonado. Two copies of the claim should be
included 
with each submission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Maldonado at (505)
845-4035 of 
the U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, 
Environmental Restoration Division.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE published a final rule under 10
CFR part 
765 in the Federal Register on May 23, 1994, (59 FR 26714) to
carry out 
the requirements of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(sections 
1001-1004 of Pub. L. 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.) and to
establish 
the procedures for eligible licensees to submit claims for 
reimbursement. Title X requires DOE to reimburse eligible
uranium and 
thorium licensees for certain costs of decontamination, 
decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action incurred
by 
licensees at active uranium and thorium processing sites to
remediate 
byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the
United 
States Government. To be reimbursable, costs of remedial action
must be 
for work which is necessary to comply with applicable
requirements of 
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42
U.S.C. 7901 
et seq.) or, where appropriate, with requirements established by
a 
State pursuant to a discontinuance agreement under section 274
of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for
reimbursement 
must be supported by reasonable documentation as determined by
DOE in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 765. Funds for reimbursement will be 
provided from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund established at the United States Department
of the 
Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 
U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or obligation of funds shall be subject
to the 
requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).
    Authority: Section 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 106
Stat. 
2776 (42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.).
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 3rd day of December 2002.
David E. Mathes,
Team Leader, Albuquerque/Nevada Team, Small Sites Closure
Office, 
Office of Site Closure.
[FR Doc. 02-31201 Filed 12-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 43 Ministers announce decision on technetium-99
 
  Defra, UK: News releases 2002: 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR
 	Out of hours: 020 7270 8960 	   	 	

  
509/02 
11 December 2002   
  
MINISTERS ANNOUNCE DECISION ON TECHNETIUM-99

Levels of discharge of Technetium-99 (Tc-99) into the Irish Sea 
will be reduced to 10 TBq/year by 2006 as part of a package of 
measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, 
Margaret Beckett today. The package also includes research into 
technology which could allow the level to be reduced more 
quickly.

 
Mrs Beckett said:

 
"We have today published the joint decision which the Secretary 
of State for Health and I have made in response to the 
Environment Agency's Proposed Decision on the Future Regulation 
of Technetium-99 Discharges from British Nuclear Fuels plc's 
Sellafield Site into the Irish Sea.

 
"While there is no evidence that Tc-99, even at the current 
level, poses any credible threat to human health or that of 
marine organisms, we are aware that its presence has been a 
source of concern to a number of our international partners. 

 
"In the response that we have published today, we have not asked 
the Environment Agency to change the proposals that it has made, 
but we have gone further.

 
" I am consulting on my proposal to direct the Environment Agency 
to consider whether it would be possible to impose a moratorium 
on the discharge of Tc-99 from the Sellafield site whilst TPP 
research is being carried out. As part of their consideration, I 
would expect the Agency to review the storage options for Medium 
Active Concentrate (MAC) beyond 2006, particularly considering 
work which has been done by BNFL on the practicalities of 
refurbishing the storage tanks and building. If a moratorium were 
to be introduced and, in the worst case scenario the research 
shows that TPP abatement cannot be made to work, the remaining 
Tc-99 contained in the MAC storage tanks would need to be 
discharged into the Irish sea quickly, depending on the judgement 
of NII inspectors about the integrity of those tanks.
 

 
The Environment Agency has proposed:

 
  + To introduce 'MAC Diversion' as soon as it is practicable, 
which is expected to be early next year. By this process, newly 
produced MAC will be diverted into a different waste stream and 
converted into glass blocks suitable for long term storage. 


  + Research the treatment of stored MAC with 
tetraphenylphosphonium bromide (TPP). This should cause Tc-99 to 
solidify and allow it to be mixed with cement and stored in steel 
drums. The technology behind the use of TPP is not as proven as 
that for MAC-Diversion. Research is required to ensure that TPP 
itself would not pose an unacceptable risk to the marine 
environment, that workers are not subjected to unacceptable risks 
and that the presence of TPP in stored waste does not facilitate 
leaching of Tc-99 or other more radiotoxic chemicals. 

 
Finally, the Secretaries of State have considered the question of 
the justification of the two types of practice that generate 
Tc-99 (the reprocessing of spent Magnox and of oxide fuels) as is 
required under Directive 96/29/Euratom. They have concluded that 
it would be more appropriate to consider the need for a review 
under Article 6(2) of the Directive at a later stage.
 
Notes for editors

 
1. Tc-99 is very mobile in the marine environment and has been 
detected at low levels off the coast of Scandinavia and further 
afield. The dominant source of Tc-99 discharges from Sellafield 
is the reprocessing of spent Magnox reactor fuel. 

 
2. In 1999, the discharge limit for Tc-99 was reduced from 200 
TBq/year to 90 TBq/year - a 55% reduction.

 
3. Tc-99 does not accumulate in fish, although it does in 
lobsters. Even at the current limits of discharge, those who eat 
a lot of seafood will receive only about 3% of the international 
radiation exposure limit. The level of exposure decreases as the 
distance from Sellafield increases. 

 
4. The Environment Agency published its proposals for the future 
regulation of Tc-99 in September 2001. The details of today's 
decision are set out in a published document, copies of which 
have been placed in the libraries of both Houses. It is also 
available on the Defra website at: 
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/discharge/sellafield/t 
echnetium.htm

 
5. It is not possible to continue to store MAC in the tanks and 
building in which it is currently housed beyond 2006. The 
building and tanks were constructed during the 1950s/60s, were 
not built to modern standards and have already exceeded their 
expected lifetimes. The HSE keep the storage facility under 
continual review and their advice is that while the facility is 
currently safe for use, that may not be the case beyond 2006. 
Therefore, we cannot currently plan for MAC to still be in those 
tanks beyond that date. 

 
6. The justification of practices involving exposure to ionising 
radiation is a requirement of Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down 
the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of 
workers and the general public against the dangers arising from 
ionising radiation. Article 6(2) of the Directive provides that 
existing classes or types of practice may be reviewed as to 
justification whenever new or important evidence about their 
efficacy or consequences is acquired.
 
http://www.defra.gov.uk
*****************************************************************
 44 German nuke waste headed for Britain

THE TIMES OF INDIA <default>

INDIATIMES <http://www.indiatimes.com>

AFP[ WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002 04:36:52 PM ]

HANOVER, Germany: Shipments of radioactive waste left a number of 
German nuclear plants overnight headed for reprocessing at the 
Sellafield plant in northern England, police said on Wednesday.

The cargos, from the Stade, Kruemmel and Unterweser plants in the 
north and Essenbach in the south, are to be brought together at a 
secret location in Germany before heading to Britain together.

Nuclear waste shipments have met with sometimes violent protests 
in the past in Germany, which is gradually phasing out atomic 
power, but police said no incidents had so far been reported.

Ireland has tried to block the opening of a MOX (mixed plutonium 
and uranium oxide) retreatment plant at the Sellafield complex.

Dublin says the 1950s-era plant, on the northwestern coast of 
England, pollutes the Irish Sea.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States there 
have also been fears that the plant may be a target for a 
terrorist attack. 

Copyright � 2002 Times Internet Limited. 
*****************************************************************
 45 Sellafield waste discharge bid*

WEDNESDAY 11/12/2002 13:52:54         

The British government is likely to halt controversial 
radioactive waste discharge from the Sellafield nuclear power 
plant temporarily as early as April next year, it was announced 
today.  

A new but currently problematic processing treatment could cause 
all discharge into the sea to be virtually eliminated within the 
next four years, Environment Minister Michael Meacher said.

Mr Meacher made the announcement as the British government 
pledged to reduce the current output of the waste product 
technetium-99 into the Irish Sea by at least 80% by 2006.

While the UK has insisted even the current emission level of 
90TBq a year is perfectly safe, Ireland and Scandinavian 
countries bordering the North Sea have raised concerns.

Today Mr Meacher responded by saying levels would be cut to 10TBq 
a year by 2006 and if a new processing technique was perfected, 
that could be reduced to almost zero.

In the current treatment process, other more harmful radioactive 
waste elements are removed while Tc-99 is left behind and 
discharged into the sea.

Under one alternative, the Tc-99 element could be redirected and 
treated in isolation, turning it into glass blocks that are safe 
for storage.

Another possibility is treating Tc-99 with a chemical called TPP 
that causes it to solidify, allowing it to be removed from the 
other more dangerous waste components. However it is not known 
whether this can be done safely.

``If TPP works that resolves the situation: There will be no 
further discharges to sea,`` Mr Meacher said.

``But I cannot guarantee that at this stage.``

In the meantime Mr Meacher said there would be a period of 
discussion and investigation by the Environment Agency and the 
British government, which would hopefully result in a moratorium 
on all discharge by mid next year.

``It`s a reasonable assumption that around the middle of next 
year it might be possible to have a moratorium,`` he said.

The west-coast plant is owned by British Nuclear Fuels plc.

UTV Corporate </corpinfo>
  Copyright � 2002 UTV Internet and the UTV plc Group. All rights 
*****************************************************************
 46 *Sellafield must run for 50 years more, says BNFL *

online.ie home </>

</news/irish_examiner>  

 /The Irish Examiner 11 Dec 2002/

*By Fionn�n Sheahan, Political Reporter*

THE Sellafield nuclear processing plant will have to stay up and 
running for at least another 50 years, British Nuclear Fuels 
safety chief said in Dublin last night. Arguing against the calls 
to shut down Sellafield, BNFL Sellafield head of environment, 
health, safety and quality John Clarke said it was simply not an 
option.

While some activities could be stopped that would have 
consequences that might be more undesirable than having those 
activities continue," he said.

Speaking at the Fianna F�il Dublin Forum debate on the future of 
Sellafield last night, Mr Clarke said the management of the 
historic legacy of wastes at the site will require ongoing 
intervention for probably another 50 years.

"Putting it bluntly, it would not be safe to shut down 
Sellafield," he said.

The history of the British military and civil nuclear programme 
has left waste material and redundant plants that need to be 
treated, Mr Clarke said.

"Right now, there are more than 22 decommissioning projects in 
progress at Sellafield. The most high profile of these are the 
decommissioning of the old Windscale Piles, the site of the 
Windscale Fire in 1957, and the celebrated golfball prototype 
Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor," he said.

The condemnation directed at BNFL by politicians, campaigners and 
the media for not revealing the security measures at Sellafield 
are not reasonable, Mr Clarke said.

The effectiveness of the security arrangements would immediately 
be compromised if the details were published, he said.

"Governments determine security policies and the rules on their 
disclosure, not the operators or owners of installations, whether 
these are airports, chemical plants or civil nuclear sites such 
as Sellafield," he said.

Pointing out that it was British government policy not to divulge 
details of security arrangements, he said Irish government policy 
on disclosure of increased security measures at Irish airports is 
similar.

Defending BNFL's record on transport, Mr Clarke said the company 
had made 4.5 million miles of transport of radioactive cargoes by 
sea in the past 30 years without a single incident resulting in 
the release of radioactivity.

"Safety is not about the absence of risk, nor is it about the 
removal of risk. Rather it is about the management of risk to 
reduce it to an acceptable level," he said.

Describing some of the declarations on Sellafield as alarmist and 
untruths, Mr Clarke said BNFL was trying to provide facts and 
balance


The Examiner Logo <http://www.examiner.ie/>

About Us <http://www.online.ie

*****************************************************************
 47 USEC To Locate Centrifuge Nuclear Fuel Test Facility in Ohio

Nuclear Energy Institute <default.asp>

Dec. 10, 2002?USEC Inc. announced last week that it will locate a 
centrifuge uranium enrichment test facility at its Portsmouth 
plant in Piketon, Ohio. The facility will demonstrate 
enhancements to the U.S. Department of Energy?s centrifuge 
technology for enriching uranium for nuclear fuel, USEC said.

?Cost and schedule are the key factors in our decision to site 
the lead cascade at the Portsmouth plant,? said USEC President 
and Chief Executive Officer William H. Timbers. Siting the lead 
cascade at the Portsmouth facility will make use of existing 
buildings, reducing costs and saving time. USEC will make a 
decision on siting the commercial enrichment plant in 2004.

Enrichment is the process through which mined and milled uranium 
ore is transformed into a fuel-grade material in which the 
fissionable U-235 isotope constitutes 3 to 5 percent of the 
uranium in the fabricated fuel pellets. In the lead cascade 
process, a series of centrifuges are connected in a ?cascade? to 
achieve the desired enrichment level.

USEC will submit a license application for the test facility to 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) early next year. It 
is expected to begin operation in 2005 and employ approximately 
50 people.

Earlier this year, Louisiana Enrichment Services (LES) announced 
plans to deploy advanced gas centrifuge enrichment technology at 
a $1.1 billion plant to be built in Hartsville, Tenn.  The 
proposed LES facility would employ existing technology used by 
Urenco, a British/Dutch/German group. LES expects to submit a 
license application to the NRC next month.

The USEC and LES ventures should help provide the U.S. nuclear 
energy industry with a competitive, reliable, cost-effective fuel 
market.
 
Copyright � 2002 Nuclear Energy Institute.
*****************************************************************
 48 Brazil opens uranium enrichment plant

Forbes.com: 

Utilities-Gas/Electricity
[http://ask.elibrary.com/search.asp?refid=fdc_story&query=Utiliti
es-Gas%2FElectricity&srcbooks=checked&srcmags=checked&srcmaps=che
cked&srcnews=checked&srcpics=checked&srctvrad=checked]      

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Brazil on Wednesday 
opened a new uranium enrichment plant that allows the country 
with the world's sixth-largest reserves of the metal to produce 
fuel for its nuclear power plant or for export.

 The Brazilian Nuclear Institute, which represents the nuclear 
energy lobby, said in a statement the facility would make Latin 
America's largest nation the world's eighth country possessing 
the enrichment technology.

 "The enrichment used to be done abroad, but with this plant, 
some 95 percent of all the process will be domestic from next 
year," added a spokeswoman for the institute. She did not provide 
the exact date when the output would start next year.

 The plant in the town of Resende in Rio de Janeiro state cost 
some $140 million and should save the country about $13 million a 
year.

 Brazil has two nuclear power reactors, which account for about 6 
percent of all power consumed in the country, and the Institute 
is lobbying to complete the construction of a third reactor. In 
comparison, France's 58 nuclear power plants produce twice as 
much power as the whole of Brazil.

 The reactors of the Angra nuclear power complex are located on 
the wooded shore of a picturesque bay between Rio de Janeiro and 
Sao Paulo. Environmentalists allege the reactors are not safe 
enough and condemn the expansion plans.

 Some government officials and federal power holding Eletrobras 
<ELET6.SA>, whose Eletronuclear unit is responsible for Angra, 
say nuclear energy is safe, cheap and should be used more, 
especially with the new technology now in place. 

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
*****************************************************************
 49 Shiprock Fair Board willing to go to court to fight removal

Farmington Daily Times

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 12:47:50 AM MST                                          
By Jim Snyder/Staff writer
 			
 SHIPROCK Radioactivity and legal wrangling could tie up plans 
for a new fair ground, Shiprock Fair Board officials said.

 Charley P. Joe, vice president of both the fair board and the 
Shiprock Chapter House, said Tuesday the proposed site of the new 
fair ground located near the northeast junction of U.S. 666 and 
Navajo Route 36 was radioactive.

 "When they mined uranium in the Red Valley area, the junction 
was a staging ground for ore. Din College found out there's a hot 
spot there," Joe said. 

 "The area needs to be cleaned out. Only then can we proceed with 
the fair grounds."

 Information about the reported radioactivity comes on the heels 
of a July 14 Shiprock Chapter resolution calling for the removal 
of the Shiprock Fair Board.

 A fair board member said Tuesday any attempt by the chapter to 
remove any of the fair board's four officers could end up in 
court. 

 "There's a possibility of going through court," Joe said.

 Asked whether it would be a Navajo or state court, Joe said, 
"We're incorporated with the state of New Mexico."

 Shiprock Chapter President Duane "Chili" Yazzie said Tuesday a 
new fair ground is at least five or 10 years away from being 
built because of costs.

 "In terms of building a new fair ground, new facility, it would 
take pretty good finances, something we don't have," Yazzie said. 
"A nice indoor coliseum would be great. It could be used all year 
round for different activities."

 He estimated the new fair grounds would cost at least $5 
million.

 "It would be real hard to get it out of the Navajo Nation," 
Yazzie said. "The project would compete for more urgent, human 
needs. It would not be a very high priority. When the Shiprock 
Chapter gets (local governance) certified we would be in a 
position to issue bonds."

 Joe added a financial report of the 79th Annual Shiprock 
Northern Navajo Nation Fair, which ran Oct. 3-6, was ready, but 
had not been made public because the Shiprock Chapter never asked 
for a copy. He did not have a copy available Tuesday.

 The fair board collected $235,463 in the 2001 fair, according to 
their financial report. They had $192,290 in fair expenses 
leaving a balance of $43,173. Additional unspecified expenses 
between October 2001 and March ate up $41,444, leaving a balance 
last April of $1,728.

 Will the fair board stay or go? 

 The fair board is incorporated as a nonprofit organization with 
the New Mexico State Corporation Commission and not the Navajo 
Nation, despite the fact the fair is a Navajo Nation event and 
occurs on the reservation.

 Further complicating the matter is the Shiprock Chapter passed a 
resolution nearly a decade ago granting the fair board complete 
autonomy from the chapter.

 Yazzie said last July, however, the new resolution would 
automatically supersede any past resolution. He added the issue 
of the fair board being incorporated with the state was moot 
because of Navajo sovereignty.

 "Are we going to stand for a state-sanctioned entity to exhort 
authority here on the reservation? No way," Yazzie said at the 
time.

 Joe added Tuesday the board had not been given due process 
before the chapter resolution was passed calling for their 
removal. The other board members are President Frank Yabeny, 
Secretary Sylvia Manuelito and Treasurer Chevonne Jennings.

 The resolution was passed with 50 in favor, 2 opposed and 1 
abstention. It stated that Yabeny and Manuelito had exceeded 
their term limits. Yabeny's term was up in 1999, while 
Manuelito's term ended in 2000. Both are still on the board.

 The chapter had also sought to obtain all fair records, 
equipment and property. The resolution also stated the financial 
status of the fair needed to be examined and a possible audit 
ordered.

 After the resolution was passed last summer, chapter members 
voted to put it on hold in order to allow the fair board to 
present their views at an Aug. 11 chapter information meeting. 

 "In the interest of due process, we felt it was incumbent upon 
us to provide that opportunity," Shiprock Chapter President Duane 
"Chili" Yazzie said last July.

 In September, Yazzie said the board shouldn't be immediately 
removed because there was no time to get a new fair board elected 
and operational before the fair. He added the chapter would wait 
until the fair was over before taking any action.

 Yazzie said Tuesday nothing would happen until after the new 
Navajo administration and council are settled in, sometime after 
the new year begins.

 Jim Snyder: jims@daily-times.com [jims@daily-times.com] 

� 1999-2002 MediaNews Group, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 50 UK: Radioactive Discharges: Technetium-99

Defra | Environmental Protection
 
    
[Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Logo]  
    
Decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and 
Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Health
 
Re. the Environment Agency's Proposed Decision on the Future 
Regulation of Technetium-99 Discharges from British Nuclear Fuels 
plc's Sellafield Site into the Irish Sea
 
Introduction 

  1. This document sets out the decision of the Secretary of 
State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the 
Secretary of State for Health ("the Ministers") concerning the 
Environment Agency's proposed decision for the future regulation 
of technetium-99 ("Tc-99") discharges from British Nuclear Fuels 
Plc's ("BNFL") Sellafield site into the Irish Sea. Technetium-99 
at Sellafield 

  1. Tc-99 is formed by the fission of uranium and plutonium
when uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power stations; it does
not occur in nature. Tc-99 has a half-life (i.e. the time taken
for half of its activity to radioactively decay) of 213,000
years. The annual arisings of Tc-99 from the reprocessing of
spent Magnox fuel in the Magnox reprocessing plant and the
reprocessing of spent oxide fuel in the Thermal Oxide
Reprocessing Plant ("THORP") that are currently destined for
discharge to sea are around 30 - 40 TBq 1 and less than 1 TBq
respectively. Tc-99 arisings from Magnox reprocessing has,
therefore, been the focus of the Environment Agency's
consideration and proposed decision. 

  2. Magnox reprocessing does not lead to Tc-99 being released
from spent fuel in isolation. It is produced as one constituent
of a concentrated liquid mixture, along with other, more
radiotoxic radionuclides, collectively known as medium active
concentrate ("MAC"). Newly produced MAC is stored on site, in
tanks, for 3 to 5 years to allow short-lived radionuclides to
decay and reduce or lose their radiotoxicity. Prior to 1981, MAC
was discharged directly to sea following this period of "decay
storage". All such discharges were monitored and made within the
terms and conditions of the then applicable discharge
authorization. 

  3. However, between 1981 and 1994, all MAC was held in storage
pending the construction of a new abatement plant, the Enhanced
Actinide Removal Plant ("EARP"), which was designed to remove
the most radiotoxic components of the MAC mixture. EARP was not
designed to remove Tc-99 which, as now, was considered to
present only a small, non-significant radiological risk. Tc-99,
therefore, is not removed by EARP, but passes through it and is
discharged to sea. 

  4. The tanks in which MAC is stored, the B211 tanks, date back
to the 1950s/60s. These tanks are kept under continuous
assessment by the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") and whilst
they are currently considered to be safe for their present
purpose, the HSE has expressed concerns about their long-term
use. Current assessments carried out by the HSE predict that the
continued use of the tanks may not be acceptable beyond 2006. 

  5. To accommodate the EARP coming into service in 1994, the
discharge limit for Tc-99 was increased from the 10 TBq/year
that had applied during the period that MAC was held in store,
to 200 TBq/year. 

  6. In 1996, BNFL applied for changes to be made to its gaseous
and liquid discharge authorizations, including a reduction of
the Tc-99 discharge limit from 200 TBq/year to 150 TBq/year.
Following a review and period of public consultation, the
Environment Agency published its proposed decision in October
1998 proposing that the Tc-99 discharge limit be reduced to 90
TBq/year, but with the longer-term aim of reducing the discharge
limit to 10 TBq/year by the introduction of new technology. 

  7. In November 1999, the then relevant Ministers (the
Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
issued a decision stating that they did not intend to use their
powers of direction under section 23 of the Radioactive
Substances Act 1993 ("RSA 93") to intervene in the Agency's
proposed decision. 

  8. The Ministers also announced that they had asked the
Environment Agency to carry out a full-scale review of all
radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. Ministers asked
the Agency to consider the discharge of Tc-99 from the site on a
"fast-track" basis and report back 6 months in advance of the
main Sellafield review. 

Radioactive Substances Act 1993 - Powers and Process 

  1. Section 13 of the RSA 93 requires the disposal of
radioactive waste on or from any premises to be authorized.
Section 16 provides that, in England and Wales, the power to
grant any such authorizations is exercisable by the Environment
Agency. Section 17 gives the Agency the power to vary or revoke
any such authorizations. 

  2. Section 23 of the RSA 93 gives the relevant Ministers (in
this case, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Health) the power
to give directions to the Agency. A direction may require the
Agency to do any of the following: refuse an application; grant
an application, attaching such limitations and conditions (if
any) as the Ministers think fit; vary an authorization; or
revoke an authorization. The Ministers' powers of direction
apply in respect of both applications for new authorizations and
variations of existing authorizations. 

  3. Section 24 gives the relevant Ministers the power to
require the Agency to refer any application to them so that the
Ministers can determine the application themselves. In effect,
this is a power to "call in" applications. Where an application
has been called in by the Ministers, they have the power to
cause a local inquiry to be held. The power to call in an
application and hold a local inquiry is only exercisable in
relation to applications for new authorizations, not in respect
of variations of existing authorizations. 

  4. As the decision in the present case concerns variations of
an existing authorization, Ministers' consideration of the
Environment Agency's proposed decision on Tc-99 has, therefore,
been carried out in the light of their powers of direction under
s.23 of the RSA 93. 

The Environment Agency's Proposed Decision 

  1. To assist its consideration of the discharges of Tc-99 from
the Sellafield site, the Agency prepared an Explanatory Document
in which it set out the relevant background information and
analysis of the circumstances surrounding Tc-99 discharges. The
Agency also identified in its Explanatory Document the options
which it considered to be the most representative of the range
of possibilities for future discharge limits of Tc-99. The
Agency then undertook a 3-month period of consultation from
November 2000 to March 2001. Statutory consultees, relevant
local authorities, public bodies and the wider public were
invited to comment on the Explanatory Document. 

  2. The four options identified by the Agency in its
Explanatory Document as the most representative of the range of
possibilities for future discharge limits were: 

    + Reducing the Tc-99 discharge limit to 10 TBq/year in 2001
(Option A); 

    + Reducing the Tc-99 discharge limit to 60 TBq/year in 2001
and setting a limit of 10 TBq/year in 2001 to be effective from
2006 (Option B); 

    + Retention of the current limit of 90 TBq/year and setting
a limit of 10 TBq/year in 2001 to be effective from 2006 (Option
C); and 

    + Retention of the current limit of 90 TBq/year (Option D). 

  3. The numerous responses received by the Agency to its public
consultation raised a wide range of issues. The Agency
considered the options it had identified in the light of the
issues raised in consultation and sought advice from Government
Departments and public bodies where they were the responsible
body or where they had particular expertise. 

  4. The Environment Agency then reached its conclusions,
published its proposed decision and submitted this to the
Ministers on 20 September 2001 so as to enable them to consider
whether they wished to exercise their powers of direction under
s 23 of the RSA 93. 

Justification
 
  1. The justification of practices involving exposure to
ionising radiation is a requirement of Directive 96/29/Euratom
of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the
protection of the health of workers and the general public
against the dangers arising from ionising radiation ("the 1996
Directive") 2. 

  2. Article 6(1) of the 1996 Directive requires Member States
to ensure that all new classes or types of practice resulting in
exposure to ionising radiation are justified in advance of being
first adopted or first approved by their economic, social or
other benefits in relation to the health detriment they may
cause. 

  3. Article 6(2) of the Directive provides that existing
classes or types of practice may be reviewed as to justification
whenever new and important evidence about their efficacy or
consequences is acquired. 

  4. The Government decided, following adoption of the 1996
Directive, that decisions in respect of justification should be
taken by the appropriate Secretary of State rather than by the
regulators. Accordingly, in October 2000, the Minister for the
Environment wrote to the Chairman of the Agency informing him
that, in future, justification decisions would be a matter for
the appropriate Secretary of State rather than the Agency. 

  5. The Ministers note that a small proportion of the
discharges of Tc-99 from the Sellafield site come from the
reprocessing of spent oxide fuel in THORP and the remainder from
the reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel in the Magnox reprocessing
plant. 

  6. In the decision issued in 1993 by the then relevant
Ministers in respect of discharges from THORP and other
radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site 3, the Ministers
concluded as follows: 

 "As to Article 6(a) of Directive 80/836/Euratom [now
replaced by Article 6(1) of the 1996 Directive], which was
referred to, the Ministers consider that even if that Article
were to be read as requiring the justification for the
reprocessing and other activities proposed to be carried on by
BNFL at Sellafield, such justification has already been
established, not least in the processes leading up to the grant
of planning permission for the plant. The requirements of the
Article have therefore been fulfilled." 4
 

 "The Ministers are satisfied that they would have reached
the same decision if, contrary to their view, the wider issues
fell to be taken into account. As stated above, they have
considered those issues as if they were legally relevant and
have weighed the various risks and benefits, in particular those
arising out of the operation of THORP. In their judgement there
is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation
of THORP. They are satisfied that the activities giving rise to
the discharges permitted by the authorisations are justified." 5
 
  7. In R v Secretary of State for the Environment and others,
ex parte Greenpeace Ltd and another 6, the High Court held that,
although the Ministers had erred in law in deciding that the
requirements of justification were not relevant to their
decision, the Ministers had in fact carried out a careful
process of weighing the benefits against the detriments in
reaching the conclusion that the balance came down on the side
of justification. 

  8. The reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel and the reprocessing
of spent oxide fuel are existing classes or types of practice
and as such are covered by Article 6(2) of the 1996 Directive.
Article 6(2) of the 1996 Directive provides that an existing
class or type of practice may be reviewed as to justification
whenever new and important evidence about its efficacy or
consequences is acquired. 

  9. With regard to the reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel, the
Ministers have considered the information available to them in
respect of this type of practice as a result of the Agency's
work on the Tc-99 authorization. They have concluded that it
would be inappropriate to come to a decision on whether it is
necessary to review the practice as to justification on the
basis of information relating to only one small aspect of the
practice (ie the discharge of Tc-99). The Ministers are
currently, as a separate exercise, considering the Environment
Agency's proposed decision on the remainder of radioactive
discharges from the Sellafield site 7 (referred to as the
"Sellafield main review" in paragraph 9 above). The Agency's
proposed decision for that review considers the discharges of
the other, more radiotoxic radionuclides that result from the
reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel. The Ministers have concluded
that it would be more appropriate to consider the need for a
review of the practice of reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel in
the context of the larger, more holistic, review, whilst also
taking into account the information that has become available in
the context of the review of Tc-99 discharges. 

  10. With regard to the reprocessing of spent oxide fuel,
Ministers note that the Government first set out the position
with respect to the continued operation of THORP in the White
Paper on Managing Nuclear Energy which was published in July
2002 8 and that position was reflected in the UK Strategy for
Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 9. If and when any proposals
for new contracts are received, the Government will review the
range of issues involved in increasing the current volume of
fuel to be reprocessed through THORP. One of those issues would
be the appropriateness of carrying out a review of the practice
of reprocessing spent oxide fuel. 

Representations made directly to Ministers
 
  1. In coming to their conclusions, the Ministers have
considered all of the representations made directly to them and
the issues and analysis set out in the Agency's proposed
decision. 

  2. The Ministers have received 30 representations in total,
received both before and after the publication of the Agency's
proposed decision. These have come from overseas Governments
(Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Sweden),
individual politicians, several organisations (particularly
those representing fisheries industries in Scandinavia),
academics and a private individual. 

  3. The following issues and concerns have been raised: 

(a) Concern about the concentrations of Tc-99 found in the
coastal waters of Nordic Countries, with Norway being the
country quoted most often. Also concern about Tc-99
contamination of the Irish Sea.
 

(b) Concern about the levels of Tc-99 found in lobsters,
seaweed and other marine biota, including the hazard to marine
life and the economic effects on those who depend for their
livelihoods on harvesting fish, shellfish or seaweed from the
sea. Concerns about the effects on the Norwegian fishing
industry were quoted most often.
 

 (c) Concern that Tc-99 was now in the food chain of the
coastal population of Norway.
 

(d) Concern that the Agency's proposals would not lead to a
reduction of Tc-99 discharges to 10 TBq/year before 2006.
 

(e) The suggestion that the UK may not meet its OSPAR
commitments.
 

(f) The suggestion that Tc-99 should be converted into
solid form and stored on land rather than discharged into the
sea.
 

(g) The suggestion that the risks from current discharges
of Tc-99 are greater than the theoretical risks that could occur
if Tc-99 should leak from an underground depository at some
future stage if Tc-99 was to be treated with TPP and stored in
such a depository.
 

(h) Requests that research on TPP abatement technology be
carried out more quickly.
 

(i) Requests for a moratorium on discharges of Tc-99 until
TPP abatement technology can be developed.
 

(j) Concern that the Agency's proposed decision is biased,
excessively restrictive, disproportionate, based on political
prejudice, not scientific and not supported by the facts.
Concern that, if the Agency's proposed decision is implemented,
it will set a precedent that could seriously damage the UK
economy with no benefit to the environment.
 

(k) Concern that the Agency in its proposed decision has
not properly taken into account worker dose as compared to
public dose.
 

(l) The suggestion that absorption of Tc-99 onto iron
sulphide is a better approach to the long term storage of Tc-99
in solid form, rather than the use of TPP.
 

(m) The Ministers have received two requests to use their
powers of direction under s.23 of the RSA 93. In one case, they
have been requested to direct the Agency to change its proposed
decision in favour of an immediate reduction of the Tc-99
discharge limit to 10 TBq/year. This was because of concerns
about the levels of Tc-99 being found in the marine environment.
In the other case, the Ministers have been requested to direct
the Agency to change its proposed decision in favour of
continuing discharge limit of 90 TBq/year. This was because of
concerns about the costs involved in introducing the lower
limit, and the belief that these costs have not been justified
in terms of the environmental benefits they would bring, and
that there would be increased risks to workers at the Sellafield
site.
 
The Ministers' Considerations and Conclusions Regarding
Representations Made to Them
 
Issues (a) to (d)
 
  1. The Ministers note that, as has been explained earlier in
this document, actual levels of discharge of Tc-99 have varied
markedly over the past 23 years due to MAC being held in tanks
on the Sellafield site for 13 years awaiting the introduction of
the EARP, which removed the most radiotoxic constituents of MAC,
but not Tc-99. 180 TBq of Tc-99 were discharged in 1978, and 190
TBq were discharged in 1995 (the two highest discharges during
the period 1978 - 2000), but discharges were less than 10
TBq/year during the period 1981 - 1993. 

  2. The proposals in the Environment Agency's proposed decision
would result in discharges of Tc-99 of less than 90 TBq/year
(the current discharge limit) until introduction of the new
limit of 10 TBq/year during 2006, when they would reduce to
their 1981 - 1993 levels. The Agency's proposed decision holds
out the prospect of reducing the discharge limit to 10 TBq/year
sooner than 2006 if technical problems to do with TPP abatement
technology can be overcome. The Ministers also note that the
Agency's proposed decision includes requirements for a programme
of research to be carried out to resolve the problems associated
with TPP abatement technology. 

  3. The Ministers further note that the Agency, in line with
the most modern thinking, has specifically taken into account
potential effects of radiation dose on aquatic flora and fauna.
The outcome of the evaluation is that, at current discharge
levels, radiation doses to a range of flora and fauna in close
proximity to the Sellafield site, including those such as
lobster that are known to concentrate technetium, are low and
substantially below the levels at which harm is expected to
occur to plant or animal populations. Effects on flora and fauna
further from Sellafield can reasonably be expected to be less
than those close to the site of discharge. 

  4. UK law incorporates the widely accepted principle of
radiological protection that no member of the public shall
receive a radiation dose 10 from man-made sources of radiation
(other than from medical exposure) of more than 1,000
microSieverts per year - the so-called "public dose limit" 11.
This equates to less than half of the average annual radiation
dose to the UK population from naturally occurring sources of
radiation. 

  5. Assessments carried out by both the Environment Agency and
the Food Standards Agency indicate that, at the current
discharge limit, the annual dose from Tc-99 to the group of
people most exposed to liquid discharges from the Sellafield
site (i.e. local seafood consumers) is of the order of 20 - 30
microSieverts per year. The Agency's assessment confirmed that
dose decreased with increasing distance from Sellafield. 90% of
the annual dose from Tc-99 to those living near Sellafield would
be removed by reducing the discharge limit to 10 TBq/year in
2006 as the Agency propose. The radiation dose from Tc-99
discharges to the most exposed group of people is, therefore,
already very small, and even this small dose would be virtually
eradicated after 2006 by implementation of the Agency's
proposals. 

 6. The radiation dose from Tc-99 discharges can also be
considered for various populations and time periods to produce
calculations of the "collective dose". Again, the Environment
Agency, guided by the National Radiological Protection Board,
has concluded that the impact of Tc-99, in terms of collective
dose, is small. The calculations show that the difference
between reducing the discharge limit for Tc-99 to 10 TBq/year
immediately and introducing this limit in 2006 would be
negligible. Considering a world population of 6 billion people,
6.5 man Sievert of collective dose would be saved by the
immediate implementation of the lower discharge level, rather
than delaying to 2006. Immediate implementation would, over a
500 year period, equate to 0.6 statistical deaths being saved
rather than 0.2 statistical deaths saved by implementation in
2006. 

  7. The very low radiation doses to both the most affected
group and to wider populations over longer timescales are
important. They show that, on the basis of current knowledge,
discharges of Tc-99 at the current discharge limit, or at the
limit that the Environment Agency propose should be introduced
in 2006, will result in radiation doses that are a very small
fraction of the dose limits used to protect human health. They
are also a very small fraction of the radiation dose that an
inhabitant of Europe would receive, on average, from natural
sources. 

  8. The current levels of Tc-99 found in lobsters (which, in
contrast to fish species, accumulate Tc-99) result in a
radiation dose to high rate consumers of seafood of about 3% of
the internationally recognized dose limit of 1,0000
microSieverts per year. This dose will reduce as discharges from
the site fall. Recent reduction in Tc-99 discharges means that
reduction in this dose is already taking place, but the history
of past discharges means that the rate of reduction in
concentrations in lobster, and hence dose, will be slower than
reductions in discharge. 

  9. The Ministers are aware of a report published in September
2000 12 by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (the
country closest to the Sellafield site) which concludes that:
"...radiation doses to Irish people resulting from Sellafield
discharges are now very low and do not pose a significant health
risk to the public". The report also states that: "...the levels
of radioactive contamination which prevail at present do not
warrant any modification of the habits of people in Ireland,
either in respect to the consumption of seafood or any other use
of the amenities of the marine environment." The report does,
however, also make clear that, from an Irish viewpoint, the
discharges from Sellafield remain "highly objectionable". 

  10. The risk to human health, resulting from the discharge of
Tc-99 and the consumption of seafood is very small and reduces
with distance from the Sellafield site. The Ministers understand
the concerns of neighbouring countries to maintain confidence in
the quality of fish and other marine organisms, especially when
such resources are of major economic importance to them. The
Ministers conclude, however, that despite some public
perceptions to the contrary, the evidence does not support the
view that Tc-99 discharges, at the current discharge limit or
lower, pose any credible threat to human health or the safety or
quality of marine organisms, including fish, that are harvested
and sold for human consumption. 

Issue (e)
 
  1. A number of those who made representations have queried
whether the Agency's proposed decision is consistent with the
UK's commitments under the Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic ("the OSPAR
Convention"). 

  2. The UK, along with the other OSPAR Contracting Parties,
adopted a Strategy with Regard to Radioactive Substances at the
Ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission held in 1998 in
Sintra, Portugal. The objective of the OSPAR Strategy is to
ensure progressive and substantial reduction of radioactive
discharges with the ultimate aim that additional concentrations
of radioactive substances in the marine environment above
historic levels, resulting from such discharges shall be close
to zero by the year 2020. In the Sintra Ministerial Statement,
Ministers pointed out that particular attention should be paid
to the safety of workers in nuclear installations. 

  3. At the 1998 Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, a number of
the OSPAR Contracting Parties expressed concern over the recent
increases in discharges of Tc-99 from the Sellafield site. UK
Ministers indicated at that Meeting that those concerns would be
addressed in the forthcoming decisions concerning the discharge
authorisations for the Sellafield site. 

  4. The Ministers note that the discharge of Tc-99 from the
Sellafield site has been reviewed by the Environment Agency, at
the request of Ministers, as a matter of priority. In 1999, the
discharge limit was reduced from 200 TBq/year to 90 TBq/year
(i.e. a 55% reduction) and a fast-track review of Tc-99 was
initiated. The Ministers also note that BNFL announced in 2000
that the reprocessing of all Magnox fuel will cease in about
2012, which would, itself, lead to a virtual elimination of
Tc-99 discharges well before 2020. The Ministers further note
that the Environment Agency's proposed decision will have the
effect of bringing forward the reduction of Tc-99 discharges to
10 TBq/year by 2006 or sooner. 

  5. Therefore, Ministers take the view that the Agency's
proposed decision is not incompatible with the UK's commitments
within the context of the OSPAR Convention and Strategy. 

Issues (f) to (i)
 
  1. Whilst there are obvious attractions for those concerned
about discharges of Tc-99 into the marine environment in
suggesting that it would be preferable to store it as solid
waste on land, there are technical problems to be overcome if
such solid waste is not to pose an unacceptable risk to workers
now or to future generations. The Environment Agency has
considered the various forms of abatement that might be possible
and that are likely to be practicable and they have concluded
(in their proposed decision) that TPP abatement technology and
MAC Diversion hold the most promise. 

  2. TPP abatement technology, however, has particular problems
related to it that need to be resolved before it could be used
with the necessary level of confidence. The Agency, in its
proposed decision, has set out what work needs to be done to
resolve those problems, and has set a timetable for that work to
be done. 

  3. A moratorium on Tc-99 discharges to allow time for
abatement technology to be developed also has attractions, but,
as the Environment Agency has explained, the HSE has serious
safety concerns about the longer term use of the MAC storage
tanks and these concerns would need to be resolved before this
approach could be contemplated. 

  4. The Ministers therefore conclude that the Environment
Agency's proposals, set out within its Decision Document, for
TPP abatement and MAC Diversion hold out the best prospect of
converting Tc-99 from MAC into solid waste suitable for
long-term storage. The development work necessary to convert
these proposals into a reality has been identified, and the
Agency has set a timetable for it to be carried out. The
possibility of a moratorium on Tc-99 discharges, to allow time
for the development of abatement technology, is one that should
be given further consideration, but only if HSE's concerns about
the continued safe storage of MAC can be resolved. The
Ministers' thoughts on the possibility of a moratorium are set
out in paragraphs 62 to 70 below. 

Issue (j)
 
  1. A characteristic of the way the Environment Agency has
carried out its review of technetium-99, has been its
transparent approach. The Explanatory Document it produced for
public consultation contained a wealth of technical detail and
insights into the Agency's thinking. Its proposed decision
document has also been admirably detailed and thorough. 
  2. The Ministers recognise that the Agency has had to deal
with a difficult and complex review and consider that it has
done so in way which is objective and which has balanced the
conflicting pressures so as to produce a fair and reasonable
outcome. The Ministers, therefore, reject the allegations of
those who feel that the Agency has behaved in a biased,
politically-prejudiced or unscientific manner. 

Issue (k)
 
  1. When carrying out its review and drafting its proposed
decision, the Agency has worked in close co-operation with the
HSE, which is the regulator with primary responsibility for
ensuring the safety of workers. The Ministers note that neither
MAC Diversion nor TPP abatement technology can be put into
operation until their safety has been demonstrated
satisfactorily to the HSE. The Environment Agency's approach
would appear to be entirely consistent with the Sintra
Ministerial Statement (see paragraph 42) that particular
attention should be paid to the safety of workers in nuclear
installations. The Ministers take the view that the Environment
Agency has taken all reasonable care to ensure the proper
protection of workers, as well as that of members of the public
and of the environment. 

Issue (l)
 
  1. The Ministers are aware that there are a range of abatement
techniques that could, theoretically, be used to reduce Tc-99
discharges. They expect BNFL and the Environment Agency to keep
themselves informed of such techniques and to give serious
consideration as to whether these techniques could be useful in
practice. However, the Ministers are also aware that significant
work has already been carried out over a number of years by BNFL
on MAC Diversion and, particularly, on TPP abatement technology.
The Ministers would not wish to see further delay in
implementing a practical method of abatement while a new method
is developed, unless it was unavoidable. 

  2. The Ministers would, therefore, wish for the development
work on MAC Diversion and TPP abatement technology to be
completed as soon as possible. Assuming that this proves to be
successful, then one, or preferably both, of these techniques
should be applied with minimal delay, in order to reduce Tc-99
discharges. 
Issue (m)
 
  1. For reasons previously stated, the Ministers take the view
that the Environment Agency has carried out a thorough review of
these complex issues, and that it has done so in an open and
transparent way. The Agency's conclusions are ones with which
the Ministers concur and the Ministers will not be using their
powers of direction under s.23 of the RSA 93 to require the
Agency to take a course different to the one that it proposed in
its Decision Document. However, the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes to use her powers
under s.40(1) of the Environment Act 1995 to direct the Agency
to report on the possibility of imposing a moratorium on the
discharge of Tc-99 pending the introduction of TPP abatement
technology.13 

The Ministers' Conclusions
 
Justification
 
  1. The reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel and the reprocessing
of spent oxide fuel are existing classes or types of practice
and as such are covered by Article 6(2) of the 1996 Directive. 

  2. With regard to the reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel, the
Ministers have considered the information available to them in
respect of this type of practice as a result of the Agency's
work on the Tc-99 authorization. They have concluded that it
would be inappropriate to come to a decision on whether it is
necessary to review the practice as to justification on the
basis of information relating to only one small aspect of the
practice (ie the discharge of Tc-99). The Ministers are
currently, as part of a separate exercise, considering the
Environment Agency's proposed decision on the remainder of
radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The Agency's
proposed decision for that review considers the discharges of
the other more radiotoxic radionuclides that result from the
reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel. 

  3. The Ministers have concluded that it would be more
appropriate to consider the need for a review of the practice of
reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel in the context of the larger
more holistic review, whilst also taking into account the
information that has become available in the context of the
review of Tc-99 discharges. 

  4. With regard to the reprocessing of spent oxide fuel,
Ministers note that the Government first set out the position
with respect to the continued operation of THORP in the White
Paper on Managing Nuclear Energy which was published in July
2002 and that position was reflected in the UK Strategy for
Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020. If and when any proposals for
new contracts are received, the Government will review the range
of issues involved in increasing the current volume of fuel to
be reprocessed through THORP. One of those issues would be the
appropriateness of carrying out a review of the practice of
reprocessing spent oxide fuel. 

Section 23 of the RSA 93
 
  1. The Ministers have carefully considered the issues and
analysis set out in the Agency's proposed decision and the
representations that have been made directly to the Ministers. 

  2. The Ministers have concluded, in the light of the available
evidence, that it is not necessary or appropriate at this time
for them to exercise their powers of direction under s.23 of the
RSA 93. However, the Ministers note that they retain the power
to direct the Agency to vary or revoke an authorisation granted
under the RSA 93 at any time. A decision not to exercise such
powers at this point does not in any way preclude their use at
any future time, if the circumstances were to require it. 

Section 40(1) of the EA 95
 
  1. The Ministers welcome the fact that the Environment
Agency's proposed decision would, subject to technical
feasibility and HSE agreement, enable the discharge limit for
Tc-99 to be reduced. They note that the introduction of MAC
Diversion in March 2003 would allow the discharge limit to be
reduced to 10 TBq/year in 2006, but that any reduction before
that time would be dependent upon successful development of TPP
abatement technology. This technology has a number of technical
problems associated with it, which the Agency expects BNFL to
address through a programme of research. The Ministers are aware
that it may take some time for all of the necessary research to
be completed and the new technology implemented. 

  2. The Ministers are also aware of, and fully understand,
HSE's concerns about the age and condition of the building and
the tanks within which MAC is currently stored. Although
Ministers would not wish the situation to arise where MAC was
continued to be stored in that building or those tanks beyond
the point where it was safe to do so, they are aware of the
advantage of being able to store MAC safely pending the
introduction of abatement technology. Such storage would allow a
moratorium on Tc-99 discharges arising from MAC to be introduced
as soon as MAC Diversion came into operation, thereby allowing a
discharge limit of less than 90 TBq/year for Tc-99 to be
introduced earlier than 2006. 

  3. The Ministers note that, although they take the view that
it would not be appropriate at this time to exercise their
powers under s.23 of the RSA 93 to direct the Agency with regard
to its proposed decision, they consider that further work should
be carried out by the Agency in respect of the various options
for the storage of MAC pending the introduction of TPP abatement
technology. 

  4. The Ministers note that, under s.40(1) of the Environment
Act 1995, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs has the power to give the Agency directions of a general
or specific character with respect to the carrying out of any of
its functions, which include the Agency's functions under the
RSA 93. By virtue of s.40(6), the power to direct is exercisable
only after the Secretary of State has consulted the Agency. 

  5. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs proposes to use her powers under s.40(1) of the
Environment Act 1995 to direct the Agency to invite
representations, consider and report back in writing to the
Ministers on whether it would be possible to impose a moratorium
on the discharge of Tc-99 pending the introduction of TPP
abatement technology, and is consulting the Agency, in
accordance with the requirement in s.40(6), on the draft
direction attached to this Decision Letter (see paragraph 70
below). 

  6. In considering the possibility of such a moratorium, the
Secretary of State would wish the Agency to consider the
possible options for the storage of MAC, in particular:- 

(a) the possibility of refurbishment of B211 with a view to
extending the use of that building;
 
(b) the possibility of storing MAC in other buildings, such
as B212 and B213, if the tanks in those buildings are not
already irreversibly committed; and
 
(c) the possibility of further concentrating MAC so as to
reduce the volume that would need to be stored.
 
  7. The Agency's consideration of storage options should
include the options referred to above but should not be limited
to these if other practicable options can be identified. 

  8. The Secretary of State proposes that the Agency should
report to the Ministers within 3 months of the date of the
coming into force of the direction. 

  9. The Agency and other interested parties are invited to
comment on the Secretary of State's proposed direction within 4
weeks of the date of this decision letter, after which time the
Secretary of State will consider whether to give her proposed
direction. 

  10. A copy of the proposed direction is attached to this
decision letter. 

11 December 20002
 Department of Health
 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
 
DRAFT 

The Technetium-99 (Future Regulation of Discharges from
Sellafield) Direction 2002 

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred
on her by section 40(1) of the Environment Act 1995, hereby
gives the following direction to the Environment Agency with
respect to the carrying out of its functions under section 17 of
the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
 
Citation and commencement 

1. This Direction may be cited as the Technetium-99 (Future
Regulation of Discharges from Sellafield) Direction 2002 and
shall come into force on [insert date].
 
Interpretation 

2. In this Direction:
 
 "the Agency" means the Environment Agency;
 
 "the Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
 
 "the Secretaries of State" means the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of
State for Health;
 
 unless otherwise specified, terms used in this Direction
shall have the same meaning as in the Decision of the Secretary
of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the
Secretary of State for Health in respect of the Environment
Agency's Proposed Decision on the Future Regulation of
Technetium-99 Discharges from British Nuclear Fuels Plc's
Sellafield site into the Irish Sea, dated [insert date of
decision]
 
Report to be prepared by the Agency 

3. The Agency shall invite representations from interested
parties and consider whether it would be possible to impose a
moratorium on the discharge of technetium-99 from the Sellafield
site pending the introduction of TPP abatement technology.
 
4. In considering the possibility of such a moratorium, the
Agency shall consider the possible options for the storage of
MAC, in particular:-
 
 (a) the possibility of refurbishment of B211 with a view
to extending the use of that building;
 
(b) the possibility of storing MAC in other buildings, such
as B212 and B213, if the tanks in those buildings are not
already irreversibly committed; and
 
(c) the possibility of further concentrating MAC so as to
reduce the volume that would need to be stored.
 
5. The Agency's consideration of storage options should
include the options referred to in the paragraph above but
should not be limited to these if other practicable options can
be identified.
 
6. The Agency shall within 3 months of the coming into
force of this Direction report in writing to the Secretaries of
State on whether it would be possible to impose a moratorium on
the discharge of technetium-99 from the Sellafield site pending
the introduction of TPP abatement technology, and, if
appropriate, propose the necessary variations to the relevant
authorisations.
 
 [Insert signing provisions]
 

1 Terabequerel - a measure of the amount of a radionuclide.
It describes the rate at which radioactive transformations
occur. 1Bq = 1 radioactive transformation per second. 1 TBq =
1012 (ie one million million) radioactive transformations per
second.
 
2 OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p.1
 
3 Decision by the Secretary of State for Environment and
the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of an
Application from British Nuclear Fuels for Authorisation to
Discharge Radioactive Wastes from the Sellafield Site, December
1993.
 
4 At paragraph 152 of the Decision
 
5 At paragraph 161 of the Decision
 
6 [1994] 4 All ER 352 at 376d
 
7 Proposed decision for the future regulation of disposals
of radioactive waste from British Nuclear Fuels plc Sellafield.
Environment Agency, August 2002 
 
8 at paragraph 5.19
 
9 at paragraph 7.3.20
 
10 Radiation dose is measured in Sieverts or, more usually,
fractions of a Sievert. A microSievert is 10-6 (one millionth)
of a Sievert.
 
11 The Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards)
(England and Wales) Direction 2000, paragraph 2(1)(b)
 
12 Radioactivity Monitoring of the Irish Marine Environment
1998 and 1999, RPII - 00/1, Radiological Protection Institute of
Ireland, at page 18.
 
13 See paragraphs 59-68 below.
 
Page published 11 December 2002; last modified 11 December, 2002
      
webmaster [webmaster@defra.gsi.gov.uk]     Department for 
Environment Food and Rural Affairs   
*****************************************************************
 51 Train Wrecks 

The Salt Lake Tribune -- 

December 11, 2002 

A rail yard might look like an impenetrable maze of 
switches, curves and junctions. But that is nothing compared to 
the political and bureaucratic confusion that surrounds the 
operation and regulation of today's railroads. 

Folks in Salt Lake City's Poplar Grove and Glendale 
neighborhoods, though, have understandably run out of patience 
with the literal and figurative train wrecks that trouble their 
community, and the political finger-pointing that has done 
little to solve the problem. 

Saturday's derailment on the 900 South line of the Union 
Pacific Railroad was another reminder that the long and noisy 
freight trains are a major pain in the caboose for the 
residential neighborhood. Now-dashed dreams that the line might 
be abandoned just make the rattling walls and piercing whistles 
that much harder to take. 

Saturday's accident was minor. No injuries. No hazardous 
material spills. But the number of trains that run down that 
line every day, and the witch's brew of dangerous chemicals they 
carry, make every derailment a potential disaster. 

Mayor Rocky Anderson has been talking to the Union Pacific 
about improving the situation with a deal to keep the trains 
quieter, slower and free of any high-level nuclear waste. But 
even a deal to keep the trains moving no faster than 30 mph is 
scant comfort, given word that the train involved in Saturday's 
mishap was only going about half that fast. 

The mayor owes the residents of the neighborhood all the 
help he can give them. But the way railroads in this country are 
regulated -- or not regulated -- leaves him with precious few 
options. 

Railroads, by the Constitution and by common sense, are a 
federal matter. If abandoning a section of track in the middle 
of Utah makes it harder to ship anything from Texas to 
California, it can't be left only to Utah to make that decision. 

But ensuring the flow of interstate commerce doesn't mean 
kowtowing to the railroads, their mergers and their lobbyists. 
Railroads must be compelled to be better neighbors. Railroads 
and regulators have much to answer for in Salt Lake City, 
including tracks that can't handle a 15-mph train and 46-car 
trains entrusted to only two crew members. 

Ongoing bickering about whether this mayor or the previous 
one is to blame for the increased traffic on 900 South is 
pointless. Railroads are a federal matter, subject to federal 
regulation. 

If that regulation isn't stiff enough -- and there is more 
than sufficient reason to believe that it isn't -- then it is 
time to bring the matter to the attention of Utah's freshly 
empowered congressional delegation, and see whose tracks they 
follow. 

Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 52 We'll use nuclear arms, US warns - 

smh.com.au
 
By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington and
agencies
 December 12 2002
 
The Bush Administration has dramatically raised tensions in the 
Iraq crisis by stating that it would respond with nuclear weapons 
against any country that used weapons of mass destruction against 
the US or its allies.
 
 The nuclear threat is contained in a newly-declassified document 
called the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, the release of which follows repeated warnings from 
President George Bush to Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his generals 
not to use chemical or biological weapons against the US. "The 
United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the 
right to respond with overwhelming force - including through 
resort to all our options - to the use of WMD against the United 
States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document 
says.
 
However, a classified version of the strategy, reported in The 
Washington Post, goes even further: it breaks with 50 years of 
American counter-proliferation efforts by authorising pre-emptive 
strikes on states and terrorist groups that are close to 
acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or the long-range missiles 
capable of delivering them. The policy aims to prevent the 
transfer of weapons components, or to destroy them before they 
can be assembled. 
 
 In a top-secret appendix, the directive names Iran, Syria, North 
Korea and Libya among the countries of central focus in the new 
American approach.

 
 Administration officials said that did not imply that Mr Bush 
intended to use military force, covert or overt, in any of those 
countries. He was determined, they said, to stop transfers of 
weapons components in or out of their borders. 

 The strategy was released as Spanish special forces, with US 
intelligence support, stopped a North Korean ship bound for Yemen 
with Scud missiles. 
 
 The six-page strategy released by the White House was a 
declassified extract of a top-secret directive signed by Mr Bush 
in May. 
 
It does not repudiate "traditional measures" of diplomacy, 
multinational arms-control agreements and export controls. 
 
But, in its classified form, the directive is premised on a view 
that "traditional non-proliferation has failed, and now we're 
going into active interdiction", according to one participant who 
spoke without authority from the White House. 
 
The US threat to use nuclear weapons in the case of a biological 
or chemical attack is not new policy. George Bush senior, the 
president's father, made similar threats to Saddam before the 
1991 Gulf War. The new strategy paper, however, is designed to 
establish a single policy across all arms of the US government on 
weapons of mass destruction, covering both containment of attacks 
and coping with them.
 
The timing of the new White House statement also underscores the 
tense mood in Washington as the Administration attempts to 
discredit Iraq's report to the United Nations Security Council on 
the destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. 
The US has insisted that the report, delivered last weekend and 
being examined by UN experts, will be found to be false. 
 
Copyright  � 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 53 Pasko awarded international journalist prize
 
The Pasko Case

 Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the 
Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by 
the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the 
nuclear saf 

The imprisoned journalist and environmentalist Grigory Pasko, who 
currently is serving a four-year espionage sentence, was today 
awarded the 2002 Reporters Without Borders/Fondation de France 
Prize. 

Jon Gauslaa, 2002-12-10 20:42

The prize worth 7.600 Euros was remitted to Pasko's wife, Galina 
Morozova, in Paris on the occasion of the 34th anniversary of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The price is awarded 
annually to a journalist who has shown devotion to freedom of 
information through their professional work or principled stand. 

 A wake-up call to journalists By awarding the prize to 
journalists who symbolise press freedom in their countries, 
Reporters Without Borders (RWB) and the Fondation de France (FdF) 
intend to underline the importance of press freedom throughout 
the world. The organisations consider this a particularly 
significant issue in a world where 110 journalists currently is 
imprisoned just for doing their job, trying to keep the public 
informed.
 
In the grounds for awarding Pasko with the Prize, the RWB and the 
FdF states that the real motivation behind his conviction is that 
he wrote �about the pollution caused by the Russian military's 
nuclear submarines, and [released] images of the Russian fleet 
dumping radioactive liquids into the Sea of Japan.� Pasko�s 
incarceration is characterised as a �wake-up call for all 
journalists.� 

 International jury

 Among the other nominees for the 2002 prize were Gao Qinrong 
from China, who currently is serving a 13-year sentence for 
having written about a failed irrigation project and Bernardo 
Ar�valo Padr�n from Cuba, who was jailed for six years in 
November 1997 for calling President Fidel Castro and 
Vice-President Carlos Lage �liars�. 

 Pasko was picked as the prize winner by an international jury 
consisting of 30 persons from 24 countries, including Argentina, 
Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Burma, Cuba, France, Germany, 
Italy, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. 
Pasko is the first Russian to win this price but former year's 
prize winners includes journalists from Bosnia-Herzegovina, 
China, Rwanda, Nigeria, Turkey, Cuba, Syria, Burma, Spain and 
Iran. 

 Prize winner released Pasko is currently languishing in a prison 
camp in Ussuriysk, 100 km north-west of Vladivostok in the 
Russian Far East, waiting for a possible hearing of the legality 
of his conviction in the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court, 
as well as a parole hearing. Both hearings will apparently take 
place before the end of the year. 

 In that respect, the fate of the winner of the RWB/FdF prize for 
2001, Reza Alijani from Iran may give him hope. Mr. Alijani was 
freed from prison in December last year, only a few weeks after 
being awarded the Reporters without Borders / Fondation de France 
Prize� 

 ***** Grigory Pasko who worked as an investigative reporter for 
the newspaper of the Russian Pacific Fleet was arrested on 
November 20, 1997, and charged with treason through espionage. He 
was acquitted of these charges by the Pacific Fleet Court in 
Vladivostok on July 20, 1999, but sentenced to a three-year 
imprisonment for 'abuse of his official position' although he was 
not charged with that crime, and released on a general amnesty. 

 After both sides had appealed, the Supreme Court cancelled the 
verdict in November 2000 and sent the case back for a new trial 
at the Pacific Fleet Court. The re-trial started on July 11, 
2001, and ended on December 25, with Pasko being convicted to 
four years. The verdict was again appealed by both sides. On June 
25, 2002, the Military Supreme Court confirmed Pasko's four-year 
sentence. Pasko was transferred to a labour camp in the Russian 
Far East on September 10, 2002. 

  Publisher:  [bellona@bellona.no] , President: 
[frederic@bellona.no] Information:  [info@bellona.no] , Technical 
contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 
Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, 
Norway
*****************************************************************
 54 K-19 Submarine Tragedy Caused by Lack of Knowledge 

Pravda.RU:Top Stories:More in detail       

17:05 2002-12-11
 
The Soviet Union fixed its nuclear reactors at the price of human 
lives 

The presentation of the American blockbuster �K-19. The 
Widowmaker� is over. The movie starring Harrison Ford has been 
shown in cinemas across Russia. It seems that almost all Russian 
and Soviet submariners accept the certain rough edges of its 
plot. The word �almost� is an important in this sentence. The 
controversy continues. 

The Russian website Shipbuilding.Ru handed over a unique article 
to PRAVDA.Ru for publication yesterday. The article was 
accompanied with the following letter: �You can place this 
article on your site. The story was written by Alexander 
Pokrovsky. He is the author of two novels �Shoot� and �Shoot 2.� 
After the premier of the movie K-19, we asked him to write an 
article about this submarine. Here is what he presented us with.� 

Russian submariners nicknamed this submarine �Hiroshima.� We 
would like to add here that Alexander Pokrovsky is a former chief 
of the nuclear submarine chemical service. 

�I was asked to tell the story of the K-19 submarine. My story is 
not going to be boring. In my work, I used personal notes of Mr. 
Zateyev, the first commander of K-19. 

�The K-19 is referred to the first generation of nuclear 
cruisers. They started being used in 1961. A nuclear submarine of 
that time could stay at sea for only 30 days due to technical 
reasons. As a matter of fact, submarines could travel for only 
ten to fifteen days due to poor steam-generation units. Those 
units would always leak. The reactors� lids were not good either. 
The second generation of nuclear submarines were equipped with 
better steam-generators and better reactors. They were made of 
special carbonaceous steel, which finally put an end to all those 
leaks. 

Numerous breakdowns made those first generation reactors 
stronger, so to speak. Practice made it possible for a first 
generation nuclear sub to travel for 30, 40, 45 days. It became 
possible later. Back in those years, radiation was a mystery. 
Both submariners and even academicians knew little about it. 
Academician Alexandrov, for instance, did not wish to put a 
safety costume on, when he arrived to examine K-19 after the 
breakdown. He did not want to take a radiation monitor along: 
�Take this bullshit away,� he said to the chemists who were on 
radiation guard near the submarine. The K-19 was polluted with a 
high level of radiation. There was a lot of radioactive dirt on 
the captain�s keys; the monitor�s scale was not enough to measure 
the radiation level. 

�Academician Alexandrov did not watch his language when he talked 
about radiation and the affect that it has on people. You can 
imagine what the submariners thought about it, taking into 
consideration the fact that radiation is not visible and its 
impact on the human body might show later. Submariners sometimes 
used distant sites of their first generation submarines for 
smoking, because there was no special smoking room on those subs. 
Some of them even slept there at times, since it was too stuffy 
in cabins. A reactor compartment always had fresh air in, because 
it was ionized with radiation. It often happened that an officer, 
who preferred to sleep in a reactor compartment, would lose his 
eyesight, but it would happen only later. We were taught that 
there could be two attitudes to radiation: either fear, or total 
ignorance. 

�There were many stories told about the K-19 submarine. The 
description of the breakdown that happened on board the sub was 
different than what captain Zateyev wrote in his notes. Despite 
my great respect of this person, I have to say that all 
commanders of those years were not really good with reactor 
equipment. There were dialogues like this: �What kind of neutrons 
are there in our reactor?� � �Slow ones!� � �Start using fast 
ones now!� This is not a joke. Such commands were common for the 
1960s. People did not know a lot about the subject at that time. 
Practice was obtained gradually, from victims and breakdowns. 

�The K-19 had the following compartments: the first one � the 
torpedo compartment, the second one was the storage battery, the 
third one was the central post, the fourth was the missile 
compartment, the fifth was the diesel compartment, the sixth was 
the reactor compartment, the seventh was the turbine compartment, 
the eighth was the electrotechnological compartment, the ninth 
was the compartment of emergency equipment, and the tenth was the 
dwelling compartment. 

�The breakdown happened in the reactor compartment on the 16th 
day at sea. It was reported to the commander that the pressure in 
the reactor dropped to zero. The trouble was caused with a leak 
of a pulse pipe in the reactor compartment. The pulse pipe was 
connected to a pressure gauge in the pump compartment. The 
pressure gauge indicated the pressure in the first circuit, where 
the pulse pipe was. 

�People started panicking. Everyone was running around without an 
idea of what to do. It did not occur to anyone that the pumps 
still worked, that the temperature in the first circuit did not 
change drastically. It was decided to pump water through the 
cooling system of the electric engine. The submariners were sure 
that there was no pressure at all in the first circuit. They 
thought it wrong. An explosion happened. Water turned into steam 
immediately, and the blast wave damaged a part of the deck-cabin. 
The people who were exposed to steam were also exposed to 
radiation. In addition, the steam burnt their skin. 

�This was the way the breakdown was described during numerous 
analyses. Academician Alexandrov saved the crew of the submarine 
from the criminal persecution. Soviet officials wanted to find 
the guilty people and to punish them. That was their major goal. 


�People say that there was a leak of uranium, which was then 
accumulated on the bottom of the reactor. I am drawn to believe 
this version. There was no water in the reactor, and the 
temperature was too high. Pumping water might result in an 
explosion that would damage the reactor�s lid. 

�The details of the breakdown are not relevant at the moment, I 
think. The navy amended its nuclear reactors at the price of 
human lives. A submarine is a very complicated mechanism, and 
people�s deaths helped to find out how it works. The K-19�s 
troubles were not over after that breakdown. Its reactor was 
removed and then substituted with another one. The submarine was 
repaired and it went to sea again. Later, it ran into a NATO 
submarine (without any victims). There was also a large fire on 
board the K-19. The fire destroyed two compartments (the eighth 
and the ninth), and 28 people died. After the fire was 
extinguished, the submarine surfaced, and it was pulled to the 
base. When at the base, there were ten living people found in the 
tenth compartment of the submarine. They were waiting to be 
rescued for many days and nights. This is all I know about the 
long-suffering K-19 submarine of the Northern Navy.� 


Alexander Pokrovsky Especially for PRAVDA.Ru 

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov 

Related links: PRAVDA.Ru K - 19 , prototype of Hollywood 
thriller, to be cut up PRAVDA.Ru Laura J. Fullen: These very 
special Russian men PRAVDA.Ru Crew Of Soviet Nuclear Submarine K 
- 19 Saves World From Nuclear Catastrophe Washington Post : China 
to Buy 8 More Russian Submarines San Francisco Chronicle : 
Impoverished Russian sailors stealing submarine parts BBC : 
Russian submarine in serious danger 

Read the original in Russian: 
[http://accidents.pravda.ru/accidents/2002/10/72/203/4185_submari
ne.html] 

  Copyright �1999 by " [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When
*****************************************************************
 55 Nun is charged after protest at nuclear missile silo
 	 	 	 	 	 
  [seattlepi.com]     
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Wednesday, December 11, 2002
 
By VANESSA HO SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A Bremerton nun arrested in a non-violent protest at a nuclear 
missile facility in Colorado faces federal charges that carry a 
maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. 
 
On Oct. 6, Jackie Hudson, 68, was arrested with two other 
Dominican nuns after they cut a security chain to enter a nuclear 
missile silo facility in northern Colorado, according to members 
of Hudson's activist group, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent 
Action, based in Poulsbo. 
 
The nuns pounded on deployment tracks and a missile cover with 
hammers. They made crosses on the tracks and the silo lid with 
their own blood, which they poured from plastic baby bottles, and 
they prayed and sang until they were arrested. They were charged 
with injuring federal property and interfering with national 
defense.
 
Trial is scheduled for March.
 
A judge granted their release from jail on personal recognizance, 
but the nuns chose to remain incarcerated by refusing to pledge 
that they wouldn't participate in future demonstrations. 
 
The women, who include two Baltimore nuns, ages 55 and 66, are 
being held in a county jail in Colorado. Activists have staged 
two rallies there, and letters of support have come in from 
around the world. 
 
"The United States is threatening to attack a country because of 
weapons, and the U.S. has thousands of weapons of mass 
destruction. It was their attempt to make the U.S. look at itself 
internally," said Bill Sulzman, a former priest and disarmament 
activist in Colorado. 
 
The nuns had wanted to call attention to the stockpile of 49 
nuclear-armed missiles in Weld County, Colo., that have been 
refitted with larger warheads, activists said. 
 
A former band teacher from Michigan, Hudson moved to Bremerton in 
the early '90s to work with Ground Zero after choosing nuclear 
disarmament as her Catholic mission. Since then, she has been 
arrested in protests in Michigan, Seattle and Colorado. 
 
P-I reporter Vanessa Ho can be reached at 206-448-8003 or 
vanessaho@seattlepi.com
 
  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
[newmedia@seattlepi.com] �1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 
*****************************************************************
 56 Pakistan leading nuclear power in the world: Dr Butt

Pakistan Link Headlines
 
    FAISALABAD: PAEC Chairman Parvez Butt has said that Pakistan 
is leader in nuclear power in the world. Negotiations with China 
for new Chashma power plant are in progress. Five more medical 
centres will be established in the country. PAEC has saved Rs 55 
billion regarding cotton.
                             								
                                                                                   
 He was talking to media men who visited PAECs saline land 
cultivation Model Project at Peka Anna 50 km away from Faisalabad 
nearing Gojra.
                             								
                                                                                   
He said, out of twenty million hectares of countrys lands, 
salinity and water logging inflict seven million hectares. This 
malice has massively reduced our agriculture output potential 
forcing the local population to migrate for livelihood he 
disclosed.
                             								
                                                                                   
     He said that the traditional methods employed for 
elimination of salinity and water logging involve pumping out 
gigantic mass of underground water followed by sweet water 
treatment which apart from being unaffordable expensive take many 
years to yield results.
                             								
                                                                                   
   In view of the urgency of redressal of poverty and for 
creation of jobs, Butt said that PAEC has, through application of 
nuclear techniques, evolved & identified crops, trees, and shrubs 
which are salt tolerant, accept the brackish water and can be 
grown in saline lands as such and have economic worth, as well.
                             								
                                                                                   
   Pakistan has transferred the same to many IAEA member 
countries under the aegies of International Atomic Energy Agency. 
In view of the demonstrated utility of these techniques, Govt of 
Pakistan has sanctioned Rs. 178 million for the project under 
which 25,000 acres of saline lands in all four provinces are 
being brought into cultivation, he disclosed.
                             								
                                                                                   
 While replying to a question he said since these projects 
promise direct, basic and substantial benefits to the economy of 
the country, therefore, we are encouraged to approach the 
multinational funding agencies, who based upon the success of 
these efforts, have pledged in billions for this mega enterprise 
in the coming few years and added that such investments will have 
multifarious benefits in the form of aesthetic improvement of 
these wastelands, job creations, stopping the population 
migration to unbearably burdened urban centers and reduction of 
poverty through enhancement of agriculture related output.
                             								
                                                                                   
  Persistent sowing of these salt tolerant crops result in 
reclamation of saline lands into normal land over the years and 
that will be the stage where PAECs research based high yield 
crops will magnify the benefits of these land reclamation 
efforts, Mr. Butt informed.
                             								
                                                                                   
 Chairman PAEC said this project has a potential of Rs. 200 
billion in the future as according to some estimates the economy 
of Pakistan suffers this loss annually on account of decrease in 
farm production on soils effected by salinity.
                             								
                                                                                   
   After the Pacca Anna Model Project visit Dr. M. Mohsin Iqbal, 
Director, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB) 
briefed about research activities being carried out in various 
sectors of agriculture developments by the scientists of NIAB. 
Dr. Kasuser Abdullah Malik, Member (Biosciences) and Dr. Anwar 
Member Defence also accompanied with the Chairman PAEC during 
this visit. Mrs. Pervaiz Butt and Dr. M. Anwar planted eucalyptus 
plants there. Before this they also visited Pinnum at Faisalabad.
                             								
                                                                                                                                                                   
*****************************************************************
 57 Reporters Without Borders awards Pasko

Vladivostok News :: 
        
  
VLADIVOSTOK NEWS ONLINE :: VN.VLADNEWS.RU
[http://vn.vladnews.ru]   
    
December 10, 2002
 
The Vladivostok News 

Reporters Without Borders, a media advocacy group, on Tuesday 
awarded its annual prize to Vladivostok journalist Grigory Pasko 
who is jailed for high treason. 

The 7,600-euro (dollar) Foundation de France prize was presented 
to Pasko's wife Galina Morozova at a Paris ceremony marking the 
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

A military court in Vladivostok sentenced Pasko to four years in 
prison last year for attending a meeting of naval commanders and 
making notes there. The court said he intended to pass the notes 
to Japanese media with whom he worked. 

Pasko and his supporters have called his case retaliation for his 
reporting on alleged abuses of the Russian Pacific Fleet, which 
included dumping radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan. 

His footage of the dumping, which he filmed as a Russian military 
correspondent, was shown on the NHK Japanese television network 
and raised vigorous international protests. Reporters Without 
Borders said Pasko was jailed "for having denounced an act of 
pollution." 

Reporters Without Borders is a Paris-based international 
organization that defends imprisoned journalists and press 
freedom worldwide and the right to inform the public. The 
Fondation de France prize has been awarded every year since 1992. 

Reports indicate that Pasko lives the hard life of a typical 
Russian prisoner. His wife is only allowed to visit him once 
every three months, she told Reporters Without Borders. The 
Russian PEN Club's President, Alexander Tkachenko, managed to pay 
the journalist a visit at the end of October 2002 and reported 
that Pasko was not in very good health. 

His day typically begins at 6:30 a.m., just as it does for the 
123 other inmates with whom he is forced to share three holes in 
the ground and three cold water taps - their only bathroom 
facilities, RWB said. Every morning at the crack of dawn this 
prisoner is forced - despite suffering back pain - to perform 
physical exercises for an hour in the typically cold and humid 
climate of the Russian Far East. Then, from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 
p.m., six days a week, he produces doors in a woodworking shop. 

Pasko is one of the 110 journalists currently in prison around 
the world "just for wanting to do their job," Reporters Without 
Borders said. 

There were four other journalists nominated for the 2002 prize. 
One of them, Gao Qinrong, worked at the Chinese official news 
agency Xinhua before he was sentenced in April 1999 to 13 years 
in prison for having investigated and written about a failed 
irrigation project in the Yuncheng region of Shanxi province. 
Another, Bernardo Arevalo Padron, founder of the Cuban 
independent news agency Linea Sur Press, was jailed for six years 
in November 1997 for "insulting" President Fidel Castro and 
Vice-President Carlos Lage by calling them "liars" for not 
keeping promises of democracy. 


Write us a letter [ engl@vladnews.ru]   

  
Editor Anatoly Medetsky [engl@vladnews.ru] 

Reporter
Anna Malpas<br><br>
 [malpas@vladnews.ru] Translator
Alyona Sokolova [sokolova@vladnews.ru] 

Web administrator
Svetlana Gurieva [gurieva@vladnews.ru] 

Copyright � 2002 "Vladivostok Novosti"
13 Narodny Prospect Vladivostok, 690014 Russia
Phone: 7 (4232) 415-590, Fax: 7 (4232) 415-615 
Published by Vladivostok Novosti, Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 58 PNNL gets 1,000th patent
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 4, 2002
 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer 

Frustrated by the sound quality of his high-fidelity system, 
Richland researcher Jim Russell sat down on a Saturday afternoon 
in 1965 to dream up a better technology.
 
In a quiet house -- his wife had taken the children shopping for 
shoes -- he mulled over the work scientists elsewhere were 
developing to digitally reproduce sound.
 
The punch cards and magnetic tape they were proposing were slow 
and bulky. But in his mind, he saw a system using a microscopic 
lens and light source system to allow a computer to record data 
shrunk to tiny spots and play it back.
 
What he had was the foundation for today's compact disc.
 
For Battelle, it meant three patents in optical-digital recording 
toward the 1,000 patents now granted for technologies developed 
at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The patents range from 
a robotic hand to holographic technology for surveying the 
Alaskan pipeline.
 
"I don't think you've seen anything yet," said Cheryl Cejka, 
manager of the technology commercialization department at the 
lab, which Battelle operates for the Department of Energy. "We're 
really excited about the technology being developed."
 
Among developments with the potential to become part of daily 
life is the one responsible for the 1,000th-patent milestone the 
lab reached recently.
 
Currently, the electronic display screens in cell phones, 
handheld computers, watches and computer monitors usually are 
made of glass. That protects sensitive display devices from 
harmful water and oxygen.
 
But a team of Richland scientists has come up with a way to apply 
a coating to plastic that allows it to protect display devices, 
while offering a thin, lightweight and rugged screen. The plastic 
remains so flexible that screens could be rolled up or sewn into 
clothing.
 
The technology has caught the attention of Mitsubishi Corp., 
which has invested $15 million in a small company created to 
commercialize the product.
 
Such business potential is one of the requirements for investing 
in a patent.
 
"Technological success and business success are two different 
things," Cejka said. "However, we are looking for both. We don't 
pursue patents just because someone has a neat idea. Without a 
business case, we won't invest in patent protection."
 
Filing and pursuing the legal work for each patent costs $10,000 
to $15,000 and can be justified only by the potential to secure a 
return on that investment.
 
But predicting which technology has business potential is not 
always easy.
 
No commercial partners were interested in licensing Russell's 
technology when it was patented. The first venture capitalist 
that pursued its advanced development was unsuccessful, even 
though now it's used for computer discs, music discs and DVD 
movies.
 
Eventually, the patents did yield $4 million to $5 million for 
Battelle, said Bill Farris, manager of the intellectual property 
development and licensing group at the lab. Russell, responsible 
for 22 patented technologies at the lab, since has moved to the 
Seattle area, and his optical-digital recording patents have 
expired.
 
But the lab has other big money-makers.
 
Some are for a technique to measure on-the-job exposure to 
radiation developed by inventor Steve Miller. Used in dosimeters, 
the technology has resulted in more than $1 million in revenues.
 
Patents that cover a technique that makes mass spectrometers used 
for analyzing samples more precise has earned more than $1.3 
million.
 
"If you walk into most research laboratories with a mass 
spectrometer, Battelle technology is within the device," Farris 
said.
 
Some patents among the 1,000 were for technologies developed 
directly for DOE, like a method for time-controlled release of 
chemicals to prevent roots from growing and disturbing 
underground tanks of nuclear waste. But the technology was 
adapted for more conventional uses, such as preventing root 
growth into sewer gaskets or under sidewalks.
 
In other cases, businesses came to the lab looking for its 
expertise for unusual problems.
 
That's how two researchers in 1993 came to develop a portable 
device to test basketball hoops to see how they would hold up to 
power dunks.
 
To prevent backboards from being shattered during slam dunks, 
rims were being developed in the early 1990s that bent down. But 
that raised concerns in college basketball about whether the 
basketball hoops were similar enough from court to court to 
ensure fair play.
 
The Richland lab accepted a contract to develop a testing system.
 
"We came up with a Cadillac solution," Farris said. But it turned 
out to be more high-tech than college basketball wanted. The 
governing body went with more of a Pinto solution, he said.
 
Other unexpected patents for the DOE lab have included ones for a 
flexible eyeglass hinge that works without a pin or screw and 
automated pruning technology for maintaining vineyards.
 
In recent years, the number of patents has grown more quickly.
 
"Our research volume didn't change, but Battelle's emphasis on 
commercialization and the investments it has made in 
commercialization have translated into these increases," Farris 
said.
 
About 20 percent of the 1,000 patents have been granted since 
fiscal year 2000. In the last fiscal year, Battelle was awarded 
29 U.S. patents and 50 foreign patents for technologies developed 
at the lab.
 
"Our primary purpose is to conduct research and development for 
our clients," Farris said. "Our patents are a positive byproduct 
of that work." 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 59 Vit plant ready to go above ground
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 4, 2002
 By John Stang Herald staff writer 

Two huge 21-foot-deep holes in central Hanford filled with a 
jungle of steel rebar are ants' nests of activity as hundreds of 
construction workers build the lower levels of two plants 
designed to encase radioactive wastes in glass.
 
Soon, those workers will emerge from the holes to begin erecting 
the upper floors of the $5.6 billion complex that is powering the 
Tri-Cities' latest economic boom.
 
Project contractor Bechtel Hanford had been waiting for approval 
from the Department of Energy to begin building the radioactive 
waste glassification complex above the ground's surface. That 
green light was recently switched on, allowing Bechtel to tackle 
that work when it is ready.
 
That means that by January or February, hiring for the 
vitrification project is expected to increase, with Bechtel 
reaching peak employment of about 4,300 in 18 to 24 months.
 
Currently, the project employs about 2,000 engineers, scientists 
and white-collar workers, plus about 850 construction workers.
 
Construction hiring had recently stalled, accompanied by about 
100 layoffs because engineering could not keep up with the ground 
work. But that process will begin reversing, and white-collar 
workers will be laid off as engineering and design work is 
finished.
 
The two holes where work is under way will hold the subterranean 
levels of the two melter plants that will begin the process of 
turning millions of gallons of radioactive wastes now stored in 
177 aging underground tanks into glass logs, which will later be 
buried.
 
Another large building next door will hold a pretreatment 
building that will separate the wastes into high-level and 
low-level wastes before sending them to the appropriate melting 
plant.
 
Bechtel is supposed to start turning the first wastes into glass 
by 2007.
 
The two glassification plants are designed so the melters -- 
which will mix and melt glass and wastes together -- will be on 
the ground floors to make maintenance easy. The 21-foot-deep 
basements provide room to place containers beneath the melters to 
receive the molten wastes.
 
The complex is massive, with the footprint of all three buildings 
covering more than 7 acres.
 
The pretreatment building will cover 116,640 square feet and be 
119 feet tall. The low-level treatment plant will cover 79,200 
square feet and be 58 feet above ground, while the high-level 
plant will cover 121,000 square feet and be 65 feet above ground.
 
Concrete basement walls are now in place at the low-level waste 
plant. But temperature problems last summer caused that 
building's concrete to be poured at separate times, so the walls 
are not as solidly connected as they should be.
 
Next week, Bechtel plans to drill about 3,000 holes in the 
low-level building's concrete and insert rebar to properly 
connect the wall segments, said Joe Dougherty, Bechtel's site 
manager.
 
The pretreatment building doesn't need a basement, and so far it 
consists of only a foundation.
 
The three buildings are being built in parallel, with Bechtel 
shifting workers from spot to spot to keep momentum going.
 
"It's like Chinese checkers," Dougherty said.
 
"Three-dimensional Chinese checkers," added Ken Hollenbach, 
Bechtel project superintendent.
 
The game is even more complicated because not all decisions about 
the complex have been made.
 
The biggest is that Bechtel and DOE expect to sign a revised 
construction and testing contract by January that will lock the 
complex's design into installing two high-level waste melters and 
two low-level waste melters.
 
But the state wants at least three low-level melters installed to 
handle some additional wastes. That's because two high-level and 
two low-level melters can glassify only 19 million gallons of 
wastes by the 2028 legal deadline to glassify all 53 million 
gallons.
 
If the number of melters goes up, DOE and Bechtel will have to 
renegotiate the revised contract, as well as figure out if the 
additional equipment will fit into the buildings. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 60 Hanford Advisory Board wants more radioactive waste information
 
This story was published Fri, Dec 6, 2002
 
By John Stang
 
Herald staff writer
 
PORTLAND -- Not enough information has been made available for 
the public to intelligently comment on Hanford's plans to get 
radioactive wastes out of its tanks, Hanford Advisory Board 
members said Thursday.
 
The board plans to formally ask the Department of Energy today 
that more information become available before the federal agency 
ends a public comment period on the matter.
 
Thursday's discussion was prompted by DOE providing the board 
with a draft of the notice of intent that the department plans to 
enter into the Federal Register.
 
The matter traces back a few weeks ago when DOE announced its 
plans to close 26 to 40 of Hanford's 177 underground waste tanks 
by 2006. Such as move requires an environmental impact study 
followed by a formal DOE decision that includes a definition of 
what "closing" tanks mean.
 
Closure will cover what wastes could be left in a tank and how it 
would be sealed up.
 
DOE's timetable calls for that study to be completed and the 
decision be made by April 2004.
 
This process begins with a notice of intent filed in the Federal 
Register, which can be reached through the Internet. DOE had 
intended to begin a 45-day public comment period Dec. 16.
 
Meanwhile, DOE also expanded the scope of the upcoming 
environmental impact beyond the closure issues to include whether 
wastes should be glassified, not glassified, treated by both 
approaches and where the treated wastes should be disposed.
 
The study also will address whether some wastes can be 
reclassified to be disposed by some way other than 
glassification.
 
DOE officials said the agency expanded the study's scope after 
listening to the Hanford board in recent meetings and consulting 
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state.
 
A major unknown is whether DOE will make formal decisions in 
April 2004 on all or just some of the topics covered in the 
expanded environmental study, said DOE official Greg Jones.
 
HAB members said the draft notice of intent does not provide 
information on the pros and cons of glassifying some wastes or 
all the wastes, why some alternative waste treatment methods 
could be better, why is Hanford ready to close tanks, should some 
wastes be reclassified to be disposed by some way other than 
glassification and other questions.
 
"Where are the data? Where are the facts?" said HAB member Betty 
Tabbutt, representing Washington's League of Women Voters.
 
Jones said the agency provided the draft notice of intent to the 
board to get feedback before it enters the document in the 
Federal Register.
 
There will be public comment meetings on the study in Richland, 
Seattle, Spokane, Portland and Hood River.
 
The dates have not been set.
 
The Hanford board hopes to get the public comment period extended 
into February or March.
 
DOE hopes to have a draft study report ready for more public 
comment by September 2003. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 61 Glassification plant needs 5 melters, board says
 
This story was published Fri, Dec 6, 2002
 By John Stang Herald staff writer 

PORTLAND -- Hanford's proposed radioactive waste glassification 
complex needs at least five melters, not the four now planned, 
the Hanford Advisory Board decided Thursday.
 
The board, which represents the entire Hanford political 
spectrum, will send a memo on that stance today to the Department 
of Energy, the state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 
The action comes as DOE is preparing to sign a revised contract 
with Bechtel National to install two high-level radioactive waste 
melters and two low-level radioactive waste melters in the 
massive glassification complex.
 
The melters will mix wastes with molten glass to create glass 
"logs" for later burial.
 
Until recently, DOE and Bechtel had planned to install and 
operate one high-level and three low-level melters for about $5.6 
billion through 2011.
 
Then it was found that new designs for low-level melters would 
enable two new-style melters to treat as much waste as three of 
the old melters.
 
But the so-called "two-and-two" setup can glassify only 19 
million gallons of the wastes from Hanford's underground storage 
tanks by 2028, which is the legal deadline to glassify all 53 
million gallons of the wastes.
 
That means Hanford will need other, still-undetermined, ways to 
treat the remaining 34 million gallons of wastes by the deadline.
 
State officials responded by pushing two high-level melters and 
three low-level melters.
 
Hanford officials have said the five melters could glassify 32 
million gallons of wastes by 2028, leaving 21 million gallons. 
There are no estimates yet on what the cost would be.
 
HAB members were unhappy Thursday that DOE is basing its tank 
cleanup plan on the hope that new technologies can found in time 
to neutralize roughly two-thirds of the wastes by 2028.
 
"To sacrifice what we know will work for what we hope will work 
is not a good plan," said HAB member Doug Huston, of Oregon's 
Department of Energy.
 
HAB members argued it will be cheaper in the long run to install 
the third low-level melter as soon as possible because it will be 
more expensive later.
 
HAB member Gerald Pollet, of Heart of America Northwest, also 
said there is no guarantee any future technologies will be 
cheaper.
 
The Tri-Party Agreement, the legal pact governing Hanford's 
cleanup, calls for the first melter to be working by 2007, and 
the glassification complex to be working at full speed by 2011. 
 
Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 62 FFTF backers react to Energy NW chief's opinion
 
This story was published Mon, Dec 9, 2002
 By Chris Mulick and Wendy Culverwell Herald staff writers 

They don't say so in fairy tales, but the good guy doesn't always 
win.
 
Vic Parrish, head of Energy Northwest, believes it's time 
Tri-Citians swallowed the bitter truth and concede the battle for 
the Fast Flux Test Facility, however noble, is lost.
 
"I am filled with deep sorrow," Parrish wrote in Sunday's Herald. 
"FFTF is an incomparable machine. Its people are some of the 
best. Together, they could produce a dazzling array of isotopes 
that not only would save lives, but also would provide a platform 
for even greater leaps toward improving the human condition."
 
But, he concludes, the fight is lost.
 
"The inescapable conclusion is this: FFTF will be dismantled, 
regardless of what we in the Mid-Columbia do. Administrations of 
two separate presidents -- Republican and Democrat -- have said 
FFTF should be closed."
 
In saying so, Parrish, the chief executive officer of a public 
power consortium that operates the region's only operating 
nuclear power plant, became the first high-profile community 
member to say it's time to move on.
 
Sunday found few people ready to join the retreat, although it is 
stirring considerable debate among FFTF supporters.
 
Bill Martin, president of the Tri-City Industrial Development 
Council, noted his agency is a long-standing supporter of FFTF. 
This year, it has provided $14,000 to fuel the restart effort and 
has provided similar resources in recent years.
 
That said, the TRIDEC board conditioned future support on getting 
answers from Citizens for Medical Isotopes, the group championing 
the restart effort. Martin said the board asked for a business 
plan and for answers to questions about licensing and liability 
-- issues similar to those raised by Parrish himself.
 
But that's where TRIDEC and Parrish part ways.
 
"We asked the same questions, but we haven't reached the same 
conclusion that Vic has," Martin said.
 
The TRIDEC executive committee will take up the subject when it 
meets this week for what should have been a quick holiday 
gathering.
 
Claude Oliver, Benton County commissioner and president of 
Citizens for Medical Isotopes, remained undaunted by what some 
view as the beginning of the end.
 
To the contrary -- he believes support is building and the 
facility can be saved if Washington's political leaders will step 
forward and lend their support. Aside from the medical 
implications of FFTF, he said the Tri-Cities needs FFTF to 
sustain the economy when federal spending on the $5.6 billion 
Hanford waste glassification plant is finished.
 
"If you think you're going to ride the cleanup wagon forever, 
that isn't going to happen," he said, noting a medical isotope 
community is projected to create 3,000 jobs in eight years and to 
double that figure in the 10 years after.
 
"If Mr. Parrish had spent time with me on the front lines for the 
last few months, he would see a whole new world not opening up. 
It is not a time for retreat," he said.
 
The citizens group has spent much of its time looking for a 
commercial partner to run the facility. Potential candidates will 
visit the Tri-Cities for a series of meetings this weekend, he 
said.
 
In an interview, Parrish said he agonized over whether to go 
public with his belief that the FFTF fight has long been lost and 
that continuing on would jeopardize other local priorities in 
Washington, D.C. Those priorities include Hanford cleanup funding 
and other endeavors that could bring jobs to the area.
 
"I think it's diluting our focus," he said.
 
Further, moving on would heal the wounds from repeated rejection 
of the facility, Parrish said. "Every time DOE turned it down, 
there's been a huge emotional toll," he said.
 
Parrish, who as a board member of TRIDEC has helped seek other 
missions for the reactor, said other community leaders share his 
view and he hopes they also will step forward.
 
"I've had a lot of people come up to me and say, 'This is 
something that should be let go,' " he said.
 
Parrish said he finally decided to go public with his views 
partly because of efforts at Energy Northwest to emphasize a set 
of company "core values."
 
Among those values, he said, is that employees should not be 
afraid to voice opinions, even when they may be unpopular. "My 
conscience was nagging at me," Parrish said.
 
He added that the situation is not all that different from Energy 
Northwest's reconsideration of whether to finish Plant No. 1, one 
of four nuclear plants the consortium started building but never 
finished in the 1970s and 1980s.
 
A study last year determined the facility could never be 
affordably completed, and Energy Northwest has since gone back to 
pursuing plans for restoring the plant's site near the operating 
Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant.
 
Parrish, 56, came to Energy Northwest in 1992 and became CEO in 
1996. His decision to go public with his views on FFTF had 
nothing to do with Energy Northwest, he said.
 
"I feel a fair amount of responsibility as one of the leaders in 
the community," he said.
 
"It's a noble fight, but there's a time when you know you're not 
going to get across that beachhead," Parrish said. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 63 Proteome topic of PNNL meeting this week
 
This story was published Mon, Dec 9, 2002
 
By the Herald staff
 
With the decoding of the human genome completed, Richland 
scientists are working to decode the proteome -- the proteins 
that make our bodies function properly and make us who we are.
 
The proteome will be the topic of the next Community Science and 
Technology Seminar sponsored by Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory and Columbia Basin College.
 
PNNL scientist Mary Lipton will present an introduction of the 
proteome, its potential effect on our lives and an update on 
research at the Richland lab at 7 p.m. Wednesday. Her talk will 
be in the theater on the Pasco CBC campus.
 
The genome code is the blueprint of all the possible proteins 
expressed in a living organism. The proteome is the subset of 
those proteins that actually are made and change within a cell 
when it responds to its environment or disease.
 
"Proteins determine how the work gets done," Lipton said. "They 
carry out the genetic instructions that make us who we are."
 
By better understanding under what conditions cells rely on 
different proteins, scientists expect to know more about why 
illness occurs and how medicines can be used to treat it.
 
The knowledge also may help restore the environment.
 
Richland scientists have obtained the most complete protein 
identification of any organism to date with the study of a 
radiation-resistant microbe. Although radiation damages its DNA 
as it does in other organisms, this microbe is better able to 
repair its DNA. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 64 Fluor plan beats DOE goals
 
This story was published Tue, Dec 10, 2002
 By John Stang Herald staff writer 

It would take $623 million to completely shut down the Fast Flux 
test Facility by a proposed 2013 target date.
 
That proposal -- the latest by Fluor Hanford -- would close the 
FFTF 11 years ahead of the Department of Energy's current 
timetable and for half the cost DOE had predicted.
 
Fluor's proposal calls for $60 million annually starting in the 
2004 fiscal year to decommission the test reactor. The proposal 
was sent to DOE on Oct. 28. The Herald received a copy from DOE 
on Monday, following a Freedom of Information Act request.
 
Fluor's plan assumes the FFTF would receive $36.1 million in 
fiscal 2003, which began Oct. 1, and $60 million annually each 
subsequent year.
 
"Insufficient funding will result in project delay and increased 
total project costs," the plan said.
 
In September, Fluor submitted a proposal that would close the 
FFTF by 2009 for a total cost of $543 million. DOE rejected that 
proposal because it had costs escalating up to $141.9 million in 
2005 before starting to drop. An FFTF budget of more than $100 
million a year has been considered unlikely.
 
The Oct. 28 plan is Fluor's second proposal. Information was not 
available Monday on DOE's reaction to the new plan.
 
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations ordered the FFTF to be 
closed because not enough missions could be found to economically 
justify restarting it.
 
DOE was prepared to start draining liquid sodium from the 
reactor's cooling system four weeks ago, but Benton County filed 
an injunction in federal court to halt the work so the county 
could continue hunting for a private company interested in buying 
the reactor to produce medical isotopes.
 
DOE agreed to delay beginning the sodium draining until March 12.
 
Fluor's latest plan assumes that draining sodium from the 
secondary cooling system, along with washing and removing spent 
nuclear fuel, will begin in 2003. Numerous other activities were 
juggled or delayed to meet the new plan's budget limit of $60 
million a year.
 
Fluor's latest plan also has significantly less budget cushion 
for unexpected problems than September's.
 
The plan predicts Fluor will employ about 260 people at the FFTF 
in fiscal 2003. That is expected to creep up to slightly fewer 
than 300 people in fiscal 2005. The work force is then scheduled 
to gradually drop to about 160 in fiscal 2009, then fluctuate 
until hitting about 140 in fiscal 2013. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 65 River cleanup contract delayed
 
This story was published Tue, Dec 10, 2002
 By John Stang Herald staff writer 

Awarding a cleanup contract for the Columbia River through 
Hanford has been delayed until early 2003.
 
The Department of Energy announced Monday that it still is 
negotiating with bidders and allowing them to revise their 
proposals. DOE declined to release additional information about 
the bids.
 
This is the second time DOE has delayed awarding this contract. 
It received bids from at least three corporate teams in May and 
was supposed to name the new river corridor team Aug. 26. That 
decision was delayed to November, and now to early 2003.
 
The river corridor contract is a key piece of DOE's master plan 
to accelerate cleanup at Hanford, and it will replace Bechtel 
Hanford's current environmental management contract.
 
Right now, Bechtel is in charge of removing contaminated soil 
from Hanford's Columbia River shore area, plus sealing off the 
old plutonium reactors while demolishing their outer buildings. 
Bechtel transferred its ground water cleanup duties to Fluor 
Hanford last summer in anticipation of the new river corridor 
contract being awarded.
 
The new contract will cover the contaminated soil removal and 
sealing the reactors, with the addition of cleanup and demolition 
of much of the 300 Area.
 
All this work is supposed to be done by a proposed deadline of 
2012. The overall project has been tentatively expected to be 
split in two consecutive phases, and the upcoming contract is to 
handle the first phase.
 
Past DOE estimates said the new contract is expected to cost $150 
million to $210 million annually. Bechtel Hanford's work in 
fiscal 2002, which ended Oct. 1, was budgeted at $149 million.
 
Originally, Bechtel Hanford's contract was to expire in June. 
That expiration date was extended to Sept. 30, then to Dec. 31. 
Bechtel Hanford's contract will be extended again until 90 days 
after the new contractor is named, said DOE spokeswoman Colleen 
Clark.
 
While DOE has declined to name the bidders, the Herald has 
independently confirmed the existence of at least three bidding 
teams. CH2M Hill and Bechtel National, which is the corporate 
parent of Bechtel Hanford, are on one team. Fluor Corp. and 
Washington Group International are on a second team. And Foster 
Wheeler Environmental Co. is on a third team. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 66 Livermore Lab Creates New Division
\
Las Vegas SUN: 

December 10, 2002 

 By MICHELLE LOCKE ASSOCIATED PRESS 
 

 LIVERMORE, Calif.- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has 
created a new division dedicated to homeland security, lab 
officials announced Tuesday. 

 Founded in the Cold War, Livermore has traditionally focused on 
the threat of nuclear war. Director Michael Anastasio said its 
location - close to San Francisco and Silicon Valley - also makes 
it a good site for fighting the threat of domestic terrorism. 

 "This is a rich and fertile area in science and technology and 
also it's a rich and fertile source of targets for potential 
terrorism," he said. 

 Parney Albright, senior director of research and development for 
the White House's Office of Homeland Security, praised the new 
division. 

 The Livermore division, which has a budget of about $50 million 
for the first year, will be under control of the lab, but will 
work closely with the newly created Department of Homeland 
Security. 

 "This is a big step in the direction that we've been asking all 
the labs to head toward ... marshaling a cadre of people and 
activities focused on homeland security," he said. 

 The lab also rolled out for public inspection two computerized 
anti-terrorism tools. 

 One allows users to create a database of buildings, stadiums or 
other centers that could be targets. The system also has an 
inventory of more than 1,000 toxic substances with details on how 
the substances affect people as well as treatment and cleanup 
information. 

 The other computer tool demonstrated Tuesday allows agencies to 
"build" a setting, such as an airport, downtown area, sports 
stadium, and put in as much detail as they want, including how 
many windows a building has. They then program in a simulated 
emergency, such as an earthquake or chemical spill, see how 
buildings or people are affected and formulate emergency plans 
based on those simulations. 

 The simulation system was used to help plan security for the 
Winter Olympics in Utah. 

 --- On the Net: Livemore: http://www.llnl.gov 
[http://www.llnl.gov] -- 
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 67 Plutonium processing too slow, group says

  The State | 12/11/2002 | 

  [thestate.com - The thestate home page]       
    
 It could take 700 years to get rid of all substance at SRS,
according to anti-nuclear institute

 By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer

A federal law intended to keep South Carolina from becoming the 
nation's plutonium dump isn't tough enough to accomplish its 
goal, an anti-nuclear group says.
 
It could take more than 700 years to get rid of all plutonium at 
the Savannah River Site because production schedules in the law 
are too modest, according to the Nuclear Control Institute.
 
The institute interprets the new law, signed Dec. 2 by President 
Bush, to say that only 1 ton of mixed oxide fuel must be produced 
annually.
 
That's significant because mixed oxide fuel contains only 4 
percent to 5 percent plutonium. So processing 34 tons of 
plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, could take centuries at 
production schedules that low, the Washington, D.C., group says.
 
Joe Davis, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, has not 
been available since last week to respond to the league's 
contentions. But U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham's office dismissed 
those conclusions.
 
The law, pushed by Graham, R-S.C., says the government would have 
to pay fines of $1 million per day, or up to $100 million per 
year, for failing to meet production schedules.
 
The law says the government must produce a minimum of 3 metric 
tons of mixed oxide fuel by 2017. It sets a target date of 2019 
for completion of plutonium processing, although the law is not 
clear on whether meeting the date is required.
 
Graham, elected to the U.S. Senate last month, backed the 
legislation in an attempt to mollify concerns in South Carolina 
about government shipments of plutonium to SRS. Plutonium is a 
poisonous radioactive metal used to make nuclear weapons. Gov. 
Jim Hodges has sued in an attempt to block shipments of the 
material to SRS.
 
The U.S. Department of Energy is sending the deadly material to 
the Savannah River Site from other nuclear weapons sites across 
the country. Energy Department officials say they will build a 
mixed-oxide fuel facility to process all the material into fuel 
for commercial nuclear reactors. The plutonium-blended fuel would 
be sent to Duke Energy Corp. reactors near Charlotte.
 
Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said the federal government intends 
to build the mixed-oxide fuel plant at SRS, making it likely the 
government would pursue aggressive production schedules. The 
nearly $4 billion facility received partial funding in this past 
year's federal budget. It would be ready for use by 2008, 
according to plans.
 
"A lot of people would be asking questions about this 
multibillion dollar program and why it's not running," Bishop 
said.
 
The Nuclear Control Institute, which opposes nuclear weapons 
buildups, said in a release last week that, "South Carolina got 
taken for a ride" with the new law. It would be easy for the 
government to meet minimum production levels, avoid fines and 
leave large amounts of plutonium at SRS indefinitely, the group 
says.
 
Institute officials said they figured it could take 700 years to 
process all plutonium based on the following formula: 34 metric 
tons of plutonium equals 34,000 kilograms. A ton of mixed oxide 
fuel contains 44 kilograms of plutonium. So, dividing the total 
amount of plutonium -- 34,000 kilograms -- by the amount used 
each year -- 44 kilograms -- equals 772, or 772 years, according 
to the NCI.
 
State leaders, led by outgoing Democratic Gov. Hodges, have 
expressed concern that the government will simply use SRS as a 
long-term storage site for plutonium, rather than build the 
facilities, process the plutonium and send the material out of 
state.
 
Hodges sued the federal government this year to stop the 
shipments. The case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Governor's office spokesman Morton Brilliant said the Nuclear 
Control Institute's assessment of the plutonium law is on target. 
It offers no guarantee South Carolina won't be left with the 
plutonium forever, he said.
 
"That's what we've been saying all along," Brilliant said. "Our 
best hope lies with the courts."
   
*****************************************************************
 68 Report Proposes Solutions for LANL* *

<http://www.sfnewmexican.com>

December 10, 2002


By JEFF TOLLEFSON | The New Mexican 12/11/2002

* T he University of California on Tuesday released a series of 
recommendations for addressing problems with fraud, theft and 
property management at Los Alamos National Laboratory. *

Several of the recommendations made by the university, which 
manages the lab on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, are 
fairly simple, calling for enforcement of existing laboratory 
rules. Others call for new policies and procedures for day-to-day 
activities, such as maintaining an inventory of new equipment, 
reporting missing goods and investigating questionable purchases 
by employees with laboratory procurement cards.

In addition to problems with the procurement program, the report 
calls on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector 
General to investigate allegations that lab management fired two 
of its investigators in retaliation for uncovering such problems.

The Inspector General launched an investigation late last month 
into allegations that lab management "is attempting to cover up 
security breaches and hide illegal activities from the public, 
the Department of Energy, federal law-enforcement agencies and 
political oversight groups."

"Prompt action on these recommendations, together with efforts 
already under way at the initiative of (Los Alamos lab) Director 
John Browne, represent an important step in assuring confidence 
in the business practices at Los Alamos," UC President Richard 
Atkinson said in a prepared statement. Atkinson said he remains 
concerned about questions of fraud and property management but 
expects these issues will be addressed "in a timely manner."

The report was produced by a committee consisting of three UC 
officials and one representative of the Los Alamos' sister 
institution, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, after a 
visit to the laboratory late last month.

In particular, the document recommends the lab complete its 
internal investigations into allegations that at least three 
employees made fraudulent purchases with their procurement cards. 
In a response from Browne to Atkinson detailing progress on each 
of the university's recommendations, Browne said the lab has 
fired two of three employees who have been on investigative 
leave.

Los Alamos spokesman Jim Danneskiold said the lab cannot release 
the names of the two fired employees or that of a third employee 
who remains on paid investigative leave.

The FBI last month served search warrants for the properties of 
Peter Bussolini, a team leader in Facility Management at the 
laboratory, and Scott Alexander, "who acts as purchaser for the 
unit." The duo allegedly used the purchase cards to make at least 
$50,000 in private purchases in 2001 and 2002, according to 
search warrants filed in federal court. Federal officials have 
not commented on the case.

In his letter to Atkinson, Browne also reported that the 
Inspector General's office has agreed to investigate allegations 
the lab retaliated against two investigators who were working 
with the FBI on its fraud investigations. Glen Walp, who headed 
the lab's Office of Security Inquiries, and Steven Doran, one of 
Walp's investigators, have said they were fired for doing their 
job too well.

Both had extensive experience in law enforcement before coming to 
the lab earlier this year. Despite excellent job reviews, lab 
officials reported that both Doran and Walp were fired because 
management within the lab "lost confidence" in them. Walp was 
also the author of a much-publicized internal memo regarding the 
recent loss of more than 250 computers and other lab property 
worth nearly $3 million. Distribution of that and other documents 
by anonymous whistleblowers at the laboratory spurred a flurry of 
media reports and accusations by watchdog groups that the 
nuclear-weapons laboratory is trying to cover up problems that 
could compromise national security.

Although watchdogs indicate there's no way to say exactly what 
kind of information was on those computers, lab officials 
maintain that national security has not been breached. "We 
reviewed our records back to 1999 and confirmed that there have 
been no reports of such security violations," Browne wrote to 
Atkinson this week.

Citing information obtained from a laboratory-appointed External 
Review Team, the university's report indicates almost $3.8 
million in procurement-card purchases have yet to be reconciled. 
An additional $790,000 in questionable costs remain unresolved, 
as do $317,000 in "disputed" items, according to the report, 
which recommends the university conduct its own audit of the 
procurement-card program.

Twenty-six percent of the laboratory's 790 employees who had 
procurement-card statements prior to recent changes in the 
program are more than a month late in properly filing their 
purchase statements. Moreover, 36 percent of supervisors are more 
than a month late in approving their employees' purchases, while 
some purchases dating back 22 months have yet to be approved, 
according to the report.

The document is also critical of the laboratory for not having a 
systematic process for entering new equipment worth less than 
$5,000 into the lab's inventory. At the other end of the 
spectrum, the laboratory's Security Division "takes no formal 
action" when property within the inventory is reported missing, 
the document said.

In his response, Los Alamos Director Browne said changes already 
implemented at the laboratory have addressed most of the 
university's concerns.

*****************************************************************
 69 EPA, panel keeps close eye on DOE waste plan 
 
 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

11:54 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002

 EPA, panel keeps close eye on DOE waste plan 

 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff 

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is urging local 
Department of Energy officials to continue moving forward with a 
comprehensive waste treatment plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation.

 And a citizens' panel registered concerns and questions about 
that plan at a Tuesday meeting.

 The Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee's Citizens' 
Advisory Panel met at 5:15 p.m. at the former Wildcat Den.

 The LOC advises DOE on reservation environmental and historic 
preservation issues.

 The panel has drafted a letter to the state outlining concerns 
with the Comprehensive Waste Disposition Plan being drafted by 
Bechtel Jacobs for the DOE.

 Bechtel Jacobs is DOE's cleanup contractor.

 Concerns ranged from whether "rubblizing" buildings at the K-25 
site and using the rubble as fill would destabilize the site for 
future heavy industrial development; to the feasibility of 
expanding the waste disposal facility (see related story) on Bear 
Creek Road.

 Pat Halsey of DOE reminded citizens' panel members that the DOE 
waste disposition plan is meant to be "a living document" and 
that citizen input will be incorporated.

 "The public should be assured their comments will be taken 
seriously," said Halsey.

 EPA Federal Facilities Branch Chief Jon Johnston said in a phone 
interview Tuesday that both the state and the EPA are urging the 
DOE to move forward on the waste disposition plan. He also noted 
that citizen input was an integral part of the waste disposal 
cell's "success" to date, and the coming proposed expansion to 
the facility should be no different as regards public input.

 The waste disposal facility is said to be an integral part of 
DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation accelerated cleanup plan and 
therefore, Johnston noted, it should be integral to the 
disposition plan.

 "Personally I see that (the waste facility) as a big success -- 
it came into being of a desire of the local citizenry to manage 
cleanup and to reduce the footprint in Oak Ridge," said Johnston.

 "It's not any secret the expansion of the cell is being 
discussed as a complement to the accelerated cleanup plan, and 
DOE is trying to make its case that expansion would be 
appropriate.

 "What we're trying to do right now -- what TDEC and EPA are 
urging the DOE to do and what DOE is now doing -- is a 
comprehensive waste handling plan that would look at all the 
waste on the reservation and help to decide what should go into 
the cell and what should be shipped elsewhere."

 The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation has a 
DOE oversight office in Oak Ridge.

 "What is the right thing to do? Expand, not expand? That's what 
we're trying to determine," said Johnston. "But the cell itself 
is very important to accelerated cleanup."

 Bechtel Jacobs officials gave a presentation to the citizens' 
panel on plans to incrementally add to the waste disposal 
facility until capacity is reached, and then to expand as 
necessary.

 Joe Williams, Bechtel Jacobs waste disposal facility manager for 
construction and expansion, said the cleanup contractor is trying 
to figure the best way "to get as much waste into that site as 
possible."

R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or 
danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] .

All Contents �Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 70 Potential 'severe' problem at waste cell 
 
 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

11:54 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002

 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff 

 The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation has 
formally notified the U.S. Department of Energy of non-compliance 
of its waste disposal facility on Bear Creek Road.

 The letter, dated Dec. 3, states that recent field inspections 
of the waste cell by TDEC's DOE Oversight Division indicate "a 
potentially severe environmental and operational problem" at the 
Environmental Management Waste Management Facility.

 John Michael Japp, DOE program manager, said Tuesday that he is 
in "dialogue" with regulators and that DOE is "trying to craft a 
response." Japp said that "fairly unique rainfall created unique 
challenges" at the site.

 The state's Randy C. Young wrote in the notice of non-compliance 
that TDEC is aware "that recent rainfall events have made 
management of these problems difficult.

 "However, it is also recognized by this office that in order for 
the facility to operate without violations of environmental 
statutes, the facility must be able to handle such situations 
that are a threat to the environment."

 The letter indicates that discharges are emitting from a waste 
cell at the facility and that DOE and its cleanup contractors do 
not know the source of that discharge.

 The waste facility was designed to accept up to 1.7 million 
cubic yards of waste from the Oak Ridge Reservation. Current 
plans are under way for build-out and future expansion of the 
facility to accommodate up to 2.6 million cubic yards.

 Young also noted that "serious questions" have been asked 
concerning ground-water levels within the footprint of the waste 
disposal facility, and that "past answers" have been "based 
largely on modeling that may have relied on inadequate data.

 "It now appears, after a period of significant rainfall and 
recharge of the ground-water table, that some past assumptions 
may be incorrect," wrote Young.

 "DOE must � re-evaluate past assumptions � and provide assurance 
to this office that continued operation and expansion of this 
facility can and will be in full accord with applicable 
(regulations)."

 Problems cited by the state at the waste disposal cell include 
impoundment of water that has come into contact with waste within 
the operating waste cell and then spilled over into the berms of 
a future cell; a significant discharge of water from the berm of 
a cell; and "acknowledged uncertainties by DOE and their 
contractors as to the actual source of the water discharged" from 
a cell area.

R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or 
danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] .

All Contents �Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 71 ORNL's Allgood will recommend nation's textile tracer technology 
 
    The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

11:55 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002

 by Paul Nowell Associated Press 

 BELMONT, N.C. -- The Bush administration wants new technology to 
trace illegal textile imports in place within 18 months, 
government officials told industry leaders Tuesday.

 Gathering in a textile-producing county that has been racked by 
plant closings and layoffs, industry leaders were briefed at the 
North Carolina Center for Applied Textile Technology on the 
administration's efforts.

 Glenn Allgood, an investigator with the Energy Department's Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, will research various proposals and 
make a recommendation Jan. 8 about which technology would best 
trace textile imports.

 "The clock is already ticking for me," Allgood said, explaining 
that he was already reviewing six different proposals. They 
include innovations ranging from superminiaturized 
nanotechnology, to markers using DNA, to watermarks, which are 
used in the design of paper money.

 Textile executives and industry representatives also met with 
Jim Leonard, a deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Commerce 
Department who specializes in textiles and apparel.

 "We are serious about this," Leonard said. "I'm very excited and 
I think it has great potential."

 Allgood stressed that the federal government was not in the best 
position to develop the process to thwart illegal imports.

 "This is your project," he told the business owners. "My job is 
to identify the best technology for you."

 Leonard, who spent more than 30 years with Greensboro-based 
textile giant Burlington Industries, said the effort began after 
Commerce Secretary Don Evans received a phone call in July from 
Elizabeth Dole, who was seeking election to the U.S. Senate.

 Dole, who subsequently defeated Democrat Erskine Bowles to 
succeed retiring Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., told Evans she had 
heard about the tracers and wondered if they could be used to 
stem the tide of illegal imports.

 "I don't get a lot of calls from the secretary," Leonard said 
after the meeting. "He called me on this. I think that shows his 
commitment to this industry."

 The challenge is to find the best process to verify whether 
components of foreign-made goods were made in America or another 
country.

 The finding would determine whether the goods would be allowed 
into the U.S. from areas such as the Caribbean Basin or the 
Andean region of South America as part of increasing import 
quotas, or whether they would constitute illegal transshipments.

 Leonard said making such a determination can be an arduous task.

 "It's something that's difficult to get at, hard to prove, and 
hard to measure, he said, saying that shipments from the 
Caribbean Basin under current U.S. apparel import preference 
programs totaled $5 billion last year and were expected to 
increase.

 "That's a lot of fabric," Leonard said, "and a lot of incentive 
to cheat."

 A similar project to develop textile tracers has been launched 
by the Department of Agriculture's Cotton Quality Research 
station at Clemson University. The energy department subsequently 
announced its own its effort to develop a textile "marker system" 
at the Oak Ridge Facility in Tennessee.

 Leonard stressed that time was of the essence in coming up with 
a process that will be affordable and acceptable to the industry.

 "If it works but costs $1 for every yard of fabric, it won't be 
very useful," he said.

 Jim Conner, a consultant to the American Yarn Spinners 
Association, said many executives who work for companies in his 
organization are enthusiastic about the proposal.

 "We want to see it move forward," he said after the meeting. 
"Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. textiles industry is not 
dead. We just have a different customer base. That's why we want 
this to come around even faster."

 Jim Lemons, president of the Center for Applied Textile 
Technology, said the project could develop into an industry 
niche.

 "I think there is the potential for job creation here," he told 
Leonard and Allgood.


All Contents �Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 72 Lawrence Livermore announces new homeland security division 
 
     The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

11:55 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002

 Lawrence Livermore announces new homeland security division 

The Associated Press 

 LIVERMORE, Calif. (AP) -- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
has created a new division dedicated to homeland security, lab 
officials announced Tuesday.

 Founded in the Cold War, Livermore has traditionally focused on 
the threat of nuclear war. Director Michael Anastasio said its 
location -- close to San Francisco and Silicon Valley -- also 
makes it a good site for fighting the threat of domestic 
terrorism.

 Parney Albright, senior director of research and development for 
the White House's Office of Homeland Security, praised the new 
division.

 The Livermore division, which has a budget of about $50 million 
for the first year, will be under control of the lab, but will 
work closely with the newly created Department of Homeland 
Security.

 The lab also rolled out for public inspection two computerized 
anti-terrorism tools.

 One allows users to create a database of buildings, stadiums or 
other centers that could be targets. The system also has an 
inventory of more than 1,000 toxic substances with details on how 
the substances affect people as well as treatment and cleanup 
information.

 The other computer tool demonstrated Tuesday allows agencies to 
"build" a setting, such as an airport, downtown area, sports 
stadium, and put in as much detail as they want, including how 
many windows a building has. They then program in a simulated 
emergency, such as an earthquake or chemical spill, see how 
buildings or people are affected and formulate emergency plans 
based on those simulations.

 The simulation system was used to help plan security for the 
Winter Olympics in Utah.

 [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents �Copyright The Oak 
Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 73 Lab workers' confidentiality could be compromised -- critics 
 
The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

11:55 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002

 
The Associated Press 

 LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) -- A memo from the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory telling employees to give the lab copies of documents 
they provide to federal investigators compromises the 
confidentiality of employees, critics said.

 The message from the lab's associate director, Richard Marquez, 
was in a memo Thursday that ordered employees at the nuclear 
weapons lab to cooperate with investigators.

 The Department of Energy and the FBI are looking into 
allegations of theft and fraud at Los Alamos, including millions 
of dollars in missing equipment and abuse of lab credit cards.

 The memo instructed workers to forward any documents they 
provide to investigators to the lab's Audits and Assessments 
Office. But critics say the order prompts fears of retaliation by 
lab management.

 "How duplicitous to say, 'Feel free to say whatever you want. We 
just want to know everything you said,"' said Danielle Brian, 
executive director of Project on Government Oversight, a 
Washington-based watchdog group.

 Lab spokesman Jim Danneskiold said the audit division maintains 
a list of materials provided to the Inspector General to ensure 
the lab can assist investigators.

 Two lab employees who were investigating fraud charges and other 
problems within the lab were fired last month.

 Lab officials said they had lost confidence in the pair.

All Contents �Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 74 New bombshells at Los Alamos lab*

A Service of The Seattle Times Company

Nation & World: Wednesday, December 11, 2002

*By J.R. Moehringer*
/Los Angeles Times/

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. ? A "culture of theft" at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year and 
endangers national security, said two investigators recently 
fired by the laboratory.

Glenn Walp and Steven Doran, former police officers, said they 
were recruited by Los Alamos officials earlier this year to 
investigate corruption at the lab, which houses the nation's 
*nuclear* secrets and monitors the quality of the *nuclear* 
arsenal.

But after finding far more corruption than Los Alamos officials 
suspected ? including hundreds of missing items that could prove 
valuable to terrorists or rogue nations ? the investigators were 
dismissed Nov. 25 and escorted from the lab by armed guards.

The firings have become another embarrassment for the troubled 
laboratory and sparked an outcry in Congress.

Laboratory officials said the investigators were fired because 
their aggressive tactics and combative attitude alienated 
workers. But the investigators said they were fired because their 
bosses cared less about safeguarding one of the nation's most 
important scientific and military sites than about protecting the 
image of the University of California, which runs Los Alamos for 
the Energy Department.

Los Alamos officials acknowledged the FBI and the Energy 
Department are looking into several leads turned up by the fired 
investigators. Walp and Doran said those leads include lapses in 
security, such as one worker who tried to buy a $30,000 
customized Ford Mustang with lab money and one who used her lab 
credit card to get $2,500 in cash at a casino.

University of California officials said they will urge the Energy 
Department to widen its inquiry into Los Alamos to include the 
firings.

"Through the years there has been ingrained within the laboratory 
this culture of theft," said Walp, 61, former head of the 
Pennsylvania State Police who was hired to lead the internal 
security force at Los Alamos in January.

"The problem isn't with scientists. They're just there doing 
their jobs. It's the middle people."

Soon after arriving at the laboratory, Walp wrote a report that 
estimated $3 million in equipment had been stolen since 1999. 
Among the missing items were more than 260 computers, some from 
the most sensitive areas of the laboratory, where *nuclear* 
weapons are designed.

The report, Walp said, only annoyed his bosses, who often told 
him his first loyalty was to the University of California, not 
the U.S. taxpayer.

Los Alamos spokesman Jim Danneskiold dismissed that the facility 
is rife with corruption. "There is no culture of theft here," he 
said. "People do not walk out of here with property."

He said roughly 0.1 percent of the lab's $1 billion inventory 
disappears each year, far below the percentage large retail 
stores deem acceptable. Many items that appear stolen, he said, 
are stored in some forgotten Quonset hut or World War II-era 
shed. Los Alamos has more than 2,000 buildings on its 
40-square-mile site, he said, and things get mislaid. However, he 
said, "There is no evidence that there is any classified 
information on computers reported as missing."

He added that Doran and Walp were fired because "they had lost 
the confidence of different officials they had to work with," 
Danneskiold said.

Doran, 39, scoffed at the suggestion missing items were 
"mislaid."

"One of the missing items was a 2-ton magnet," he said. "How do 
you lose a 2-ton magnet?"

The most shocking case of theft, Walp and Doran said, involved 
two workers with access to all top-secret areas. The workers 
reportedly went on a spree, using lab purchase orders to acquire 
hundreds of items, including spy gear.

"It's unbelievable," said Doran, a former Marine and former 
police chief in Idaho City, Idaho. "They bought camping 
equipment, backpacks, lock picks, beacons, radio equipment, 
high-speed digital cameras, $9,000 worth of the best knives money 
can buy, tractors, lawn mowers, wood chippers ... high-pressure 
washers, air-conditioning units."

Also, the two workers reportedly stole cryogenic freezers, which 
Doran said could be useful to anyone developing biological 
weapons.

The two suspected workers have been placed on paid leave, Los 
Alamos officials said, while the FBI investigates.

Doran called it unfair that workers suspected of felonies remain 
on paid leave, while he and Walp were fired.

Also, Doran said, he and Walp received outstanding performance 
reviews just before being fired. Walp even got a $5,000 bonus.

A spokesman for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce said 
the firings have prompted concern among lawmakers, who likely 
will hold hearings soon and send a team of investigators to Los 
Alamos.



Copyright � 2002 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
 75 Hanford: Umatilla Chemical Depot News (new web and e-mail service)

Hanford News - A Tri-City Herald Online publication
 
Latest Hanford headlines:
 
  + Dec. 10, 2002: Fluor plan beats DOE goals 
  + Dec. 10, 2002: River cleanup contract delayed 
  + Dec. 9, 2002: FFTF backers react to Energy NW chief's
opinion 
  + Dec. 9, 2002: Proteome topic of PNNL meeting this week 
  + Dec. 6, 2002: Hanford Advisory Board wants more radioactive
waste information 
  + Dec. 6, 2002: Glassification plant needs 5 melters, board
says 
  + Dec. 4, 2002: Vit plant ready to go above ground 
  + Dec. 4, 2002: PNNL gets 1,000th patent 
  + Dec. 3, 2002: Cleanup deadlines moved up 
  + Dec. 2, 2002: Isotope program at PNNL picking up steam
 
 
The Tri-City Herald has launched a Web site dedicated to news 
about the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Northeastern Oregon. It 
includes all Tri-City Herald stories about the depot going back 
to January 1999. It also offers a free e-mail service alerting 
users to new stories about the depot.
 
  + To visit the site, go to http://www.umatilladepotnews.com
[http://www.umatilladepotnews.com/] 

  + To sign up for the free e-mail alert service, go to
http://lists.nandomedia.com/mailman/listinfo/umatilladepotnews
[http://lists.nandomedia.com/mailman/listinfo/umatilladepotnews]
  
*****************************************************************
 76 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.50 | 4 - 10 December 2002   

News Briefings are a weekly news update, prepared by the WNA, on 
all aspects of the nuclear energy industry.

A weekly summary of international news relevant to the nuclear 
energy industry. 

[NB02.50-1] Belgium: The lower house of the Belgian parliament 
has voted 80 to 49 in favour of a government policy to phase out 
the use of nuclear energy in the country by 2025. The bill orders 
the shutdown of the country's seven reactors after 40 years of 
operation and bans the construction of new ones. The first 
reactor shutdowns under the phase-out policy are set to occur in 
2015. The phase-out law includes a provision to keep reactors 
operational 'in case of an emergency'. The measure is expected to 
be approved by the Senate within a few weeks. Belgium relies on 
nuclear energy for 60% of its electricity production. The 
government will invest in solar, wind and other renewable energy 
resources, as well as build more gas plants, to compensate for 
the lost generating capacity. (BBC News Online, 6 December; 
NucNet News, 380/02, 6 December; Ux Weekly, 9 December, p3; see 
also News Briefing 02.47-5) 

[NB02.50-2] US: USEC has selected its Portsmouth, Ohio, site as 
the location for its lead cascade centrifuge uranium enrichment 
test facility. Its Paducah, Kentucky, site had also been under 
consideration. USEC president and CEO William Timbers said that 
'cost and schedule' remained key factors in determining the final 
location of the new facility. The use of existing buildings at 
the Portsmouth site will 'reduce costs and save time'. USEC plans 
to submit a licence application for the new facility to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in early 2003, with 
operations at the facility starting in 2005. (FreshFUEL, 9 
December, p4; NucNet News, 382/02, 6 December; see also News 
Briefing 02.45-5) 

[NB02.50-3] France: There is no alternative for the time being to 
nuclear power as the country's primary means of electricity 
production, a report published by the French Economy Ministry has 
concluded. The report rules out replacing nuclear power with 
fossil fuels because the use of fossil fuels to fully replace 
nuclear power 'would not allow France to meet its international 
commitments' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy 
resources are not seen as viable in more than a supporting role, 
although their use is expected to increase. (Ux Weekly, 9 
December, p3; see also News Briefing 01.48-2) 

[NB02.50-4] Taiwan could be nuclear-free by 2061 at the earliest, 
Ouyang Min-Shen, chairman of Taiwan's Atomic Energy Council (AEC) 
told the science and technology committee of the country's 
legislature. He said that this was the earliest date that the 
fourth nuclear power plant (Lungmen), currently under 
construction, could be decommissioned. The new 'Environmental 
Basic Law' - passed by parliament in November - requires the 
government to turn Taiwan into 'a homeland free of nuclear 
energy, and give priority to environmental protection in 
formulating policies for economic, social and technological 
development'. Mr Ouyang said that policies aimed at bringing 
forward the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, as well as 
for the promotion of energy conservation, were under review. 
(NucNet News, 376/02, 4 December; see also News Briefing 
02.30-15) 

[NB02.50-5] US: FirstEnergy now expects its idled Davis-Besse 
nuclear power reactor to restart in April 2003. The company 
previously said it may restart the unit in February. Davis-Besse 
has been offline since February 2002. The total cost to 
FirstEnergy of having the reactor offline is expected to reach 
some US$375 million, including the cost of purchasing replacement 
electricity. (Ux Weekly, 9 December, p2; see also News Briefing 
02.41-6) 

[NB02.50-6] US: Florida Power Corp can uprate its Crystal River-3 
nuclear power reactor by 0.9%, from 895 MWe to 903 MWe, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has said. The company plans 
to implement the power increase immediately. Meanwhile, Entergy 
is not expected to file an application with the NRC for a 20-year 
licence extension at its Vermont Yankee plant until 2004 or 2005. 
However, the company plans to apply for permission in early 2003 
to uprate the plant's single 540 MWe unit by 20%. If approved, 
the uprate would be implemented in two stages. (Ux Weekly, 9 
December, p3; see also News Briefing 02.32-7) 

[NB02.50-7] South Africa: Eskom Enterprises announced that it 
successfully tested and started up a key part of its Pebble Bed 
Modular Reactor (PBMR) project. The main objective of the test 
was to prove that the micro-turbine model could be sustained and 
controlled. Eskom Enterprises hopes the successful demonstration 
will draw in potential investors to fund development. (Ux Weekly, 
9 December, p4; see also News Briefing 02.31-15) 

[NB02.50-8] Germany: The Federal Ministry of Environment & 
Nuclear Safety (BMU) has told state regulators it wants a 
comprehensive review of the technical status of decay heat 
removal system heat exchangers at all German reactors, in 
response to what officials are calling a cover-up of quality 
assurance deficiencies in equipment supplied by an unnamed 
Framatome ANP subcontractor for Unterweser. BMU said 
investigations have shown that welding irregularities found in 
equipment at the PWR were caused by manufacturing defects. 
(Nucleonics Week, 5 December, p1) 

[NB02.50-9] Russia: BNFL Environmental Services of the UK has 
signed a contract with the European Commission (EC) to assist 
with modifications at the Leningrad nuclear power plant. The 
project management unit (PMU) contract will last for 30 months 
and will focus on large-scale modifications at two of the four 
RBMK-1000 reactors. The programme of work, focusing on safety 
improvement, includes changes to the reactor control and 
protection system and modification to control rod systems. BNFL 
Environmental Services has already begun providing consultancy on 
the management and operation of units 3 and 4, and it plans to 
monitor the effective use of the EC budget for future hardware 
improvements. (BNFL, 3 December; see also News Briefing 02.32-12) 

[NB02.50-10] Bulgaria expects a European Commission (EC) peer 
review of the Kozloduy-3 and -4 nuclear power reactors to be 
conducted within the first half of 2003. A spokesman for the 
ministry of energy said that preparations were currently being 
made for the arrival of a peer review at the units. The EC gave 
the go-ahead for the peer review in November. (NucNet News, 
383/02, 9 December; see also News Briefing 02.48-1) 

[NB02.50-11] Ukraine: The State Committee of Nuclear Regulations 
is considering setting up a special fund in 2003 to finance the 
closure of old nuclear power reactors. If the fund starts 
operating, Rovno-1 and -2, and South Ukraine units 1 to 3, would 
be the first to shut down. The estimated cost of the closures is 
US$2 billion. (Ux Weekly, 9 December, p4) 

[NB02.50-12] US: Xcel Energy is hoping to convince the Minnesota 
legislature to change regulations that limit the amount of spent 
fuel that can be stored at two nuclear power plants. The company 
will be forced to close the Prairie Island plant in 2007 when all 
17 storage casks permitted at the site are full, Xcel said. The 
Monticello plant is also threatened with closure in 2010 if it 
does not get permission to increase its spent fuel storage space. 
In addition, Xcel must decide no later than 2005 whether to seek 
licence renewal for Monticello, and without licence renewal, the 
plant will have to close in 2011. (SpentFUEL, 9 December, p3; Ux 
Weekly, 9 December, p2; see also News Briefing 00.34-1) 

[NB02.50-13] US: The state of Nevada has filed initial brief in a 
lawsuit challenging various aspects associated with the 
Department of Energy's (DOE's) selection of Yucca Mountain as the 
site of the country's spent nuclear fuel repository. The state's 
filing asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit to reject DOE's site selection guidelines, the final 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for Yucca Mountain, the 
energy secretary's recommendation of the site to the president, 
and the president's selection of the site for repository 
development. DOE is expected to file a response to the Nevada 
brief in mid-February 2003. (Nuclear Energy Overview, 9 December, 
p1; SpentFUEL, 9 December, p1; see also News Briefing 02.08-2) 

[NB02.50-14] UK: Plans to form an alliance of companies 
specializing in intermediate-level waste (ILW) to provide a 
'secure and modern' facility to store ILW at the Dounreay site 
have been announced by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). 
The alliance will be established in 2003. The facility will store 
ILW from the decommissioning of Dounreay, which is expected to be 
complete between 2026 and 2042. Dounreay's restoration is 
expected to produce almost 10 000 cubic metres of ILW conditioned 
in drums of cement. Construction of the storage facility is hoped 
to start in 2005, with completion in 2008. (NucNet News, 377/02, 
4 December; Nucleonics Week, 5 December, p7; see also News 
Briefing 01.36-13) 

[NB02.50-15] The treaty between Argentina and Australia regarding 
the storage of spent fuel from Australia's replacement Lucas 
Heights research reactor has stalled in the Argentine parliament. 
The treaty has been delayed one year, and the chances of the 
once-promising treaty passing are growing slimmer. (SpentFUEL, 9 
December, p4; see also News Briefing 02.45-11) 

[NB02.50-16] UK: A new 'employer-led' task group, designed to 
attract people into the nuclear industry, will be established in 
2003, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) announced. The 
group will aim to 'encourage recruitment through the promotion of 
engineering and physical science, and nuclear and radiological 
technology in particular; examine the education and training 
provided to ensure that the workforce has the right skills needed 
by the sector; look at the ability of education and training 
establishments to provide the right courses in terms of resources 
and quality'. (NucNet News, 381/02, 6 December; see also News 
Briefing 01.42-17) 

[NB02.50-17] US: The Areva group of France has created a US 
subsidiary - Areva Enterprises Inc (AEI) - to promote the company 
in North America. AEI has officially opened an office in Rosslyn, 
Virginia, just outside of Washington, DC. (Nuclear Market Review, 
6 December, p3; Nucleonics Week, 5 December, p8; see also News 
Briefing 01.37-2) 


[NB02.50-18] People news: NAC International has appointed Peter 
Walier as its president and chief executive officer (CEO) as of 2 
December. Jim Levine has served as interim president and CEO 
since the departure of Ed Davis last summer. (SpentFUEL, 9 
December, p3) Meanwhile, Cameco has appointed Terry Rogers as 
senior vice-president and chief operating officer (COO), 
effective 1 February 2003. He will assume responsibility for all 
Canadian and international uranium mining and processing 
operations. (Cameco, 9 December) Previous News Briefing NB02.49 

All news and views are those of the publications cited, whose 
staffs have undertaken the research to enable this compilation 
for WNA members. We refer readers to those publications for 
fuller details.   

    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************