***************************************************************** 03/14/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.66 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Bush Flatly Refuses to Hand Over Energy Papers 2 Three Swedish parties reach agreement on nuclear power 3 Russian nuclear contract with Iran on track, further ones 4 Russian region investing in nuclear power station 5 US: Nuke industry donated $30 million to lawmakers NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 US: NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Co. March 18 to Discuss Duan 7 US: Nuclear plant security takeover considered 8 US: Limerick Power Plant Tightens Procedures After Bags of Waste 9 US: Crystal River Nuclear plant celebrates 25th year 10 South Korean nuclear reactor shut down after coolant leak NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 Le Monde diplomatique DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS 12 US: Debating nuclear safety 13 SA: MUK Don Held Over Uranium 14 US: People living near nuclear plants could get pills to fend off ra NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 15 UK: Letters: Dangers of (Waste) incineration 16 US: REID AND ENSIGN ENLIST FORMER REAGAN CHIEF OF STAFF IN FIGHT AGA 17 US: Letters: Yucca debate 18 US: Editorial: Nevada's Yucca view gets big lift 19 US: Feds Demand Goshutes Open Financial Books on N-Waste Deal 20 US: Yucca Mountain: A History of Nuclear Politics NUCLEAR WEAPONS 21 Iraq's nuclear bomb ability still a mystery 22 No intention to enter into nuclear race: Musharraf 23 US: Bush Press Conference: War on Terrorism 24 US: Bush tells foes to beware nuclear response 25 Russia: Bomb Makers' Trade Union 26 US: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: US developing nuclear arms 27 Russia: Supreme Court Postpones Sutyagin case 28 U.S. nuclear plan sends shivers around Mideast 29 Turkey: As I told you 30 Japan: World cautious on US nuke plan 31 US: War on Terrorism 32 US: Bush Focuses on Cutting Nuclear Arms 33 US: America withdraws from ABM treaty 34 UN Official 'Alarmed' Over Reports of New US Nuclear Posture 35 DPRK Ready to Take Countermeasure Against U.S. Nuclear Attack 36 US: Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent 37 US: Insane nuclear capabilities 38 US: War Is Now the Cover Story for Making More Terror US DEPT. OF ENERGY 39 Group targets Hanford contracting 40 It could happen (building power plants at DOE Facs) 41 IAAP cleanup documents available 42 Oak Ridge Nuclear Plant May Receive $4-Billion Worth of Improvements 43 Ridge DOE manager out 44 Orbach Sworn-in as Director of Energy Department’s Office of Science 45 SNS: This is the Big One 46 Manhattan Project past can play role in Oak Ridge's future success OTHER NUCLEAR 47 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.11 | 6 - 12 March 2002 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Bush Flatly Refuses to Hand Over Energy Papers t r u t h o u t - ISSUES - http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-enron-bush-gao.html By REUTERS March 13, 2002 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A defiant President Bush flatly refused on Wednesday to divulge details of internal energy task force meetings to congressional investigators, calling the information privileged and the request a threat to executive authority. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, sued the administration in February for records of the task force's meetings. Democratic lawmakers allege Enron Corp. and other energy companies played a disproportionately large role in the task force's deliberations, whereas environmentalists were largely shut out. The task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, produced a policy favoring more oil and gas grilling as well as a revival of nuclear power. Cheney's office has acknowledged that representatives of Enron, Bush's biggest financial backer in the 2000 campaign, were among industry experts the task force consulted. But Bush insisted that releasing the documents would damage the executive branch's ability to obtain candid outside advice, signaling he was ready for courtroom combat. ``When the GAO demands documents from us, we're not going to give them to them,'' Bush told a White House news conference. ''These were privileged conversations.'' ``I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch,'' he added. Enron declared the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history in December, destroying thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investor equity, and prompting 10 congressional committees, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to launch investigations. An internal inquiry ordered by Enron's board alleged senior managers used off-the-books partnerships to hide losses, fool investors and enrich themselves. During the 45-minute press conference, the president did not mention by name Enron or its long-time auditor, the accounting firm Andersen. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) : t r u t h o u t 2002 ***************************************************************** 2 Three Swedish parties reach agreement on nuclear power BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 14, 2002 Text of report by Swedish radio Ekot web site on 14 March The Social Democrats, the Party of the Left and the Centre Party have now reached agreement on the principles for how the remainder of Swedish nuclear power should be phased out, Ekot [Swedish radio news] has learned. Following the German model, power companies must enter into agreements with the government in which they decide in advance how much electricity the reactors must supply before they are decommissioned. Such agreements on voluntarily decommissioning nuclear power will save the power companies from political uncertainty and the state will avoid paying compensation when a reactor finally has to be closed down. Source: Sveriges Radio Ekot web site, Stockholm, in Swedish 14 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 3 Russian nuclear contract with Iran on track, further ones possible - minister BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 14, 2002 Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Moscow, 14 March: The commitments to build a nuclear power plant in Iran will be fully met, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Aleksandr Rumyantsev has said. Under the contract, the first reactor in Bushehr will go on line in 2004. "There are no disagreements with Iran over project implementation," Rumyantsev told journalists on Thursday [14 March]. All works are proceeding according to schedule, he added. Russia and Iran may continue to cooperate in nuclear power generation in the future, Rumyantsev said. It is possible that Russia will take part in the construction of another one or two Bushehr reactors. This issue is currently being negotiated, Rumyantsev added. In his view, the US apprehensions regarding the Russian-Iranian cooperation in this sphere are unfounded. Washington believes that it may contribute to the proliferation of technologies that might be used for military purposes. "The construction of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr conforms with all international obligations of both Russia and Iran," Rumyantsev said. The contract value of this project is slightly over 1bn dollars, Rumyantsev said. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1131 gmt 14 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 4 Russian region investing in nuclear power station BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 14, 2002 Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax Moscow, 14 March: R700m will be invested in the construction of a fast-neutron unit (BN-800) of the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant in Sverdlovsk Region this year, Sverdlovsk governor Eduard Rossel said at a Thursday [14 March] press conference at the Interfax main office. "The construction of the new unit, a BN-800, with a cost of 1.2bn dollars, began last year," Rossel said. It will take 9-10 years to build the unit. The fast-neutron units of the Beloyarsk plant are "unique", Rossel said. "There are similar units in France and Japan, but they are idle, as they cannot start them up," Rossel stressed. There is a plan for the construction of a fast-neutron unit with a capacity of 1,000 MW. The Beloyarsk plant has three units, one of which (BN-600) is functioning and two of which are out of operation, the Rosenergoatom concern reports. A plan to build a power line between the Beloyarsk plant and the Malyshev emerald mine, which may also produce up to 20,000 t of magnesium in future, has been drafted, Rossel said. "The power line will supply electricity directly from the nuclear power plant," he noted. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 1207 gmt 14 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 5 Nuke industry donated $30 million to lawmakers Las Vegas SUN Today: March 14, 2002 at 11:10:25 PST By Benjamin Grove Nuclear industry companies gave nearly $30 million to congressional lawmakers in the last decade, according to a new public interest group report. Washington-based Common Cause, which sponsored the report, decried the $28.6 million in soft-money donations made by the Nuclear Energy Institute's 260 member corporations and their executives in the last 10 years. That money is significant because Congress is expected to vote this year on the Yucca Mountain project, which the nuclear industry has urged lawmakers to support, Common Cause officials said. The Yucca project, opposed by Nevada officials, proposes to make the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas a burial ground for the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste. "How can anyone in Nevada, or anywhere in the nation, be expected to believe that Yucca Mountain is being driven by the public interest, and not the special interest, with so much money changing hands?" asked Common Cause's Andy Draheim. Sixty-three percent of NEI's soft-money contributions went to Republicans, according to the report. NEI's political action committee donated an additional $643,202 and spent $10.8 million on lobbying, the report said. NEI is the top lobby and trade group in Washington representing nuclear power plant operators and other nuclear-related companies. Nuclear energy industry officials argue that for 20 years Congress and federal agencies have been driving the nuclear waste project -- not industry money. About $7 billion has been spent on the project. Most of the money comes from a special tax paid by ratepayers nationwide who use nuclear-generated electricity. "The Nuclear Waste Policy Act paid for Yucca Mountain" not NEI campaign money, NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said. He also said that Yucca Mountain is a relatively low priority for some of NEI's members, such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and accounting firm Deloitte &Touche LLP, making it hard to argue that their campaign donations were made to buy votes on the Yucca project. Singer added, "The last time I checked this was a democracy. We do (give soft money), but so do a lot of other groups. The system operates this way." Common Cause tracks campaign money and has been a strong advocate of the McCain-Feingold bill in Congress that would limit soft-money contributions -- unrestricted cash donations made to national political parties and often used to pay for advertising. The House passed the bill and the Senate is debating it. "We have an outstanding opportunity now to ban the scandalous and corrupting soft money system," Common Cause Nevada Chairman Jim Hulse said. Representatives of Common Cause, Citizen Alert, National Environmental Trust, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and the Sierra Club held a press conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday to discuss the report, using it not only to criticize Yucca Mountain but to also support campaign finance reform. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Co. March 18 to Discuss Duane Arnold Energy Center Performance NRC: Press Release Region III - 2002 - 4 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-004 March 14, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Company in Palo, Iowa, on Monday, March 18, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The facility is located in Palo. The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. in the Palo Community Center, 1006 First Street, Palo. Before the meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer any questions from members of the public. The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year. A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Nuclear Management Company addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/duan_2001q4.pdf Current performance information for Clinton is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DUAN/duan_chart.html ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear plant security takeover considered This story was published Wed, Mar 13, 2002 By Rob Hotakainen Herald Washington, D.C., Bureau WASHINGTON -- Fearing that the nation's 103 nuclear reactors could be at risk for terrorist attacks, Congress is studying a federal takeover of security. "We must ensure that a nuclear reactor on our soil is never turned against Americans as a weapon of terror," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., assistant majority leader. After Congress voted to federalize airport security last year, the nuclear industry worried it could be next in line. Its representatives are on Capitol Hill, carrying a simple message: There's nothing to fix. "Federalization does not help us," said Mark Findlay, security director for the Hudson-based Nuclear Management Co., which protects six reactors in the Midwest. Under a Senate bill, Congress would order creation of a federal nuclear security force whose members would be required to meet strict standards. Among other things, they'd have to pass background checks, meet training requirements and be subjected to proficiency reviews. The bill would require security evaluations at nuclear plants every two years, including "mock-terrorist attacks," in which simulated air, water and land assaults would be conducted by a mock team within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A companion bill has been introduced in the House. Until Sept. 11, the nuclear power industry was content to keep a low profile, but Findlay said the industry is adopting a more public strategy. He is now in Washington, D.C., meeting with congressional staffers and conducting media interviews. While Reid said nuclear reactors are "poorly protected," Findlay questioned whether the senator has ever toured one. "I would challenge you or anyone to find a more secure facility anywhere in the world," Findlay said. Reid has lined up three co-sponsors for the Nuclear Security Act. One is Sen. Jim Jeffords, a Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC. "We are living in a changed world, one that requires us to look at the darkest scenarios and plan accordingly," Jeffords said. The other two co-sponsors are Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., both members of the environmental committee. "Tragically, it took the horrific events of September 11th and a string of ensuing security breaches for our nation to federalize security at our nation's airports," Clinton said. "It should not take another tragedy before we take action to increase security at our nation's nuclear power plants." Findlay said it's wrong to compare security at nuclear plants with airports. He said nuclear plants use state-of-the-art equipment, noting 70 percent of the security personnel have prior experience with the military, law enforcement or industrial security. He would not say how many people provide security, calling it "a secret number," but he said all security personnel pass mental and psychological tests, background screening and FBI checks. Workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, he said. "We're not competing with the minimum-wage jobs out there," Findlay said. "I think there's no comparison with the (airport) screeners, so why federalize them?" Findlay said the NRC already provides strong oversight, adding that a federal takeover would result in "the regulator becoming the employer." If that happened, he said, "I would think there'd be an ethical kind of issue." Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 8 Limerick Power Plant Tightens Procedures After Bags of Waste Found at Pottstown Landfill PR Newswire ( March 13, 2002 ) CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa., March 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Southeast Regional Director Joseph Feola today said Limerick nuclear power plant has tightened its waste-handling procedures after five bags of slightly radioactive waste was found earlier this week at the Pottstown Landfill in West Pottsgrove Township, Montgomery County. The waste presented no health hazard to workers or the public. The bags contained items such as plastic tape and gloves from the Limerick plant that are required to be disposed of in a low-level radioactive waste facility, but were mistakenly brought to the landfill. Monitoring by DEP staff indicated that the highest radiation level from any of the bags was 0.35 millirem per hour (mrem/hr), which is significantly less than the 10 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) a person would receive from one chest x-ray. "Although the level of radiation from these bags was not a health threat, we do not allow low-level radioactive waste at Pennsylvania landfills," Feola said. "As a result of this incident, the Limerick plant has tightened its waste-handling procedures to double-check all trash shipments going out of the plant. This will be accomplished by not allowing any unscheduled trash pick- ups at the plant, and by having plant radiation control staff check and sign- off on all trash trucks leaving the site. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has primary jurisdiction in this case, but we are working with them to determine how this waste could have been taken from the plant in its regular trash," Feola said. "Pottstown Landfill and Exelon Energy, which operates Limerick, are cooperating fully." A landfill employee noticed five yellow bags, the color used to identify low-level radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant, being dumped from a trash truck along with other garbage Monday afternoon. The employee immediately halted the dumping, inspected the bags and saw the caution symbol for radioactive material. Pottstown Landfill officials then performed a radiation survey, moved the bags to a separate area of the landfill, and contacted Exelon Energy, as well as DEP and NRC. "Radiation protection experts from DEP were on the scene to detect any radiation hazard from the bags and begin the investigation," Feola said. "When we resurveyed the area where the bags were found, it was determined that no hazard existed. The bags were placed inside another bag for greater protection and returned to the Limerick plant." One unit of the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant is currently shut down for re-fueling. The other is in operation. CONTACT: Ron Ruman of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, +1-717-787-1323. Copyright 1996-1999 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Crystal River Nuclear plant celebrates 25th year [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ] Florida Power will apply to have its license renewed for 20 years. By ALEX LEARY, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published March 14, 2002 CRYSTAL RIVER -- As workers ate barbecue and thick slices of cake celebrating the nuclear plant's 25th anniversary, Florida Power executives on Wednesday said they intend to seek a 20-year license renewal. "I think the future is bright for Crystal River," chief nuclear official C.S. "Scotty" Hinnant told several hundred employees gathered under a huge white tent. Hinnant pledged the "tools and training" to make the plant an industry leader and said there are plans to replace steam generators that have helped produce 115-billion kilowatt hours of electricity in the past quarter century. To put that figure in perspective, consider Crystal River. The city uses 76-million kilowatt hours each year, so the plant made enough electricity to keep lights running for 1,500 years at current levels, according to spokesman Mac Harris. The steam generators would be replaced in 2009, at a cost of at least $150-million. That would enable the plant to run well past 2016, when the current license expires. "We're in the business for a long time," Hinnant said. Florida Power, a subsidiary of Progress Energy, intends to file for license renewal in 2005, said site vice president Dale Young. The company has already informally notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intent. A few years ago, the crowd assembled under the tent would have been much larger. There are at least 200 fewer employees at the plant today than in summer 1998, when there were more than 800. The larger staff was due in part to a regulatory shutdown from late 1996 to early 1998 but cuts also came under the merger of Florida Power and Carolina Power &Light. "We will continue to look at more efficient ways to do business," Young said. But the major cuts seem to have passed, he added. Several employees were honored Wednesday for their service, including Doug Humphrey, who joined Florida Power in 1969, coming to Crystal River in October 1974. "I'll stay as long as they keep me," said Humphrey, 55. "This job is challenging and rewarding." St. Petersburg Times. ***************************************************************** 10 South Korean nuclear reactor shut down after coolant leak BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 14, 2002 Text of report in English by South Korean news agency Yonhap Seoul, 14 March: Coolant leak from a transformer caused the suspension of the Wolsung No 1 nuclear reactor in North Kyongsang Province, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) said Thursday [14 March]. Ministry officials said that they took the action after examining the power transformer, and concluded that it might have been affected by internal overheating. They added that under such circumstances they thought it prudent to cease operations immediately. The leak was first detected Wednesday afternoon. MOCIE said that the shut down will not affect the country's overall electricity supply since the 46.69m-kW reactor accounts for 1.24 per cent of the country's electricity. They said that it could take up to eight days to make repairs. Officials, on the other hand, said that if further breakdowns occurred in other plants, there might be some problems, especially since the power generation labour unions have walked off their jobs to protect the possible selling off of five generation companies to foreign investors. The government stressed that the mechanical malfunction had nothing to do with the nuclear reactor itself, so there was no need for concern about environmental pollution or health risks. The Wolsung No 1 uses a Canadian reactor and began commercial operation in April 1983. Source: Yonhap news agency, Seoul, in English 0938 gmt 14 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 11 Le Monde diplomatique DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:35:48 -0600 (CST) Le Monde diplomatique March 2002 DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS America's big dirty secret _______________________________________________________ The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. by ROBERT JAMES PARSONS * * Journalist, Geneva _______________________________________________________ "The immediate concern for medical professionals and employees of aid organisations remains the threat of extensive depleted uranium (DU) contamination in Afghanistan." This is one of the conclusions of a 130-page report, Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan? (1), by Dai Williams, an independent researcher and occupational psychologist. It is the result of more than a year of research into DU and its effects on those exposed to it. Using internet sites of both NGOs (2) and arms manufacturers, Williams has come up with information that he has cross-checked and compared with weapons that the Pentagon has reported indeed boasted about using during the war. What emerges is a startling and frightening vision of war, both in Afghanistan and in the future. Since 1997 the United States has been modifying and upgrading its missiles and guided (smart) bombs. Prototypes of these bombs were tested in the Kosovo mountains in 1999, but a far greater range has been tested in Afghanistan. The upgrade involves replacing a conventional warhead by a heavy, dense metal one (3). Calculating the volume and the weight of this mystery metal leads to two possible conclusions: it is either tungsten or depleted uranium. Tungsten poses problems. Its melting point (3,422 degreesC) makes it very hard to work; it is expensive; it is produced mostly by China; and it does not burn. DU is pyrophoric, burning on impact or if it is ignited, with a melting point of 1,132 degreesC; it is much easier to process; and as nuclear waste, it is available free to arms manufacturers. Further, using it in a range of weapons significantly reduces the US nuclear waste storage problem. This type of weapon can penetrate many metres of reinforced concrete or rock in seconds. It is equipped with a detonator controlled by a computer that measures the density of the material passed through and, when the warhead reaches the targeted void or a set depth, detonates the warhead, which then has an explosive and incendiary effect. The DU burns fiercely and rapidly, carbonising everything in the void, while the DU itself is transformed into a fine uranium oxide powder. Although only 30% of the DU of a 30mm penetrator round is oxidised, the DU charge of a missile oxidises 100%. Most of the dust particles produced measure less than 1.5 microns, small enough to be breathed in. For a few researchers in this area, the controversy over the use of DU weapons during the Kosovo war got side-tracked. Instead of asking what weapons might have been used against most of the targets (underground mountain bunkers) acknowledged by Nato, discussion focused on 30mm anti-tank penetrator rounds, which Nato had admitted using but which would have been ineffective against superhardened underground installations. However, as long as the questions focused on such anti-tank penetrators, they dealt with rounds whose maximum weight was five kilos for a 120mm round. The DU explosive charges in the guided bomb systems used in Afghanistan can weigh as much as one and a half metric tons (as in Raytheon's Bunker Buster GBU-28) (4). WHO CARES? In Geneva, where most of the aid agencies active in Afghanistan are based, Williams's report has caused varied reactions. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs have circulated it. But it does not seem to have worried agency and programme directors much. Only Medecins sans Frontieres and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) say they fear an environmental and health catastrophe. In March and April 2001, UNEP and the World Health Organisation (WHO) published reports on DU, reports that are frequently cited by those claiming DU is innocuous. The Pentagon emphasises that the organisations are independent and neutral. But the UNEP study is, at best, compromised. The WHO study is unreliable. The Kosovo assessment mission that provided the basis for the UNEP analysis was organised using maps supplied by Nato; Nato troops accompanied the researchers to protect them from unexploded munitions, including cluster bomb sub-munitions. These sub-munitions, as Williams discovered, were probably equipped with DU shaped-charges. Nato troops prevented researchers from any contact with DU sub-munitions, even from discovering their existence. During the 16 months before the UNEP mission, the Pentagon sent at least 10 study teams into the field and did major clean-up operations (5). Out of 8,112 anti-tank penetrator rounds fired on the sites studied, the UNEP team recovered only 11, although many more would not have been burned. And, 18 to 20 months after the firing, the amount of dust found directly on sites hit by these rounds was particularly small. The WHO undertook no proper epidemiological study, only an academic desk study. Under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the WHO confined itself to studying DU as a heavy-metal, chemical contaminant. In January 2001, alerted to the imminent publication by Le Monde diplomatique of an article attacking its inaction (6), the WHO held a press conference and announced a $2m fund eventually $20m for research into DU. According Dr Michael Repacholi of the WHO, the report on DU, under way since 1999 and supervised by the British geologist Barry Smith, would be expanded to include radiation contamination. The work would include analyses of urine of people exposed to DU, conducted to determine the exposure level. But the monograph, published 10 weeks later, was merely a survey of existing literature on the subject. Out of hundreds of thousands of monographs published since 1945, which ought to have been explored in depth, the report covered only monographs on chemical contamination, with a few noteworthy exceptions. The few articles about dealing with radiation contamination that had been consulted came from the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation, the Pentagon think- tank. It is unsurprising that the report was bland. The recommendations of the two reports were common sense, and repeated advice already given by the WHO and echoed regularly by the aid organisations working in Kosovo. This included marking off known target sites, collecting penetrator rounds wherever possible, keeping children away from contaminated sites, and the suggested monitoring of some wells later on. URANIUM PLUS The problem can be summed up as two key findings: * Radiation emitted by DU threatens the human body because, once DU dust has been inhaled, it becomes an internal radiation source; international radiation protection standards, the basis of expert claims that DU is harmless, deal only with external radiation sources; * Dirty DU the UNEP report, for all its failings, deserves credit for mentioning this. Uranium from reactors, recycled for use in munitions, contains additional highly toxic elements, such as plutonium, 1.6 kilogrammes of which could kill 8bn people. Rather than depleted uranium, it should be called uranium plus. In a French TV documentary on Canal - in January 2001 (7), a team of researchers presented the results of an investigation into a gaseous diffusion recycling plant in Paducah, Kentucky, US. According to the lawyer for 100,000 plaintiffs, who are past and present plant employees, they were contaminated because of flagrant non-compliance with basic safety standards; the entire plant is irrevocably contaminated, as is everything it produces. The documentary claimed that the DU in the missiles that were dropped on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq is likely to be a product of this plant. These weapons represent more than just a new approach to warfare. The US rearmament programme launched during Ronald Reagan's presidency was based on the premise that the victor in future conflicts would be the side that destroyed the enemy's command and communications centres. Such centres are increasingly located in superhardened bunkers deep underground. Hitting such sites with nuclear weapons would do the job well, but also produce radiation that even the Pentagon would have to acknowledge as fearsome, not to mention the bad public relations arising from mushroom-shaped clouds in a world aware of the dangers of nuclear war. DU warheads seem clean: they produce a fire modest in comparison with a nuclear detonation, though the incendiary effect can be just as destructive. The information that Williams has gathered (8) shows that after computer modelling in 1987, the US conducted the first real operational tests against Baghdad in 1991. The war in Kosovo provided further opportunity to test, on impressively hard targets, DU weapon prototypes as well as weapons already in production. Afghan-istan has seen an extension and amplification of such tests. But at the Pentagon there is little transparency about this. Williams cites several press articles (9) in December 2001 mentioning NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) teams in the field checking for possible contamination. Such contamination, according to the US government, would be attributed to the Taliban. But, last October, Afghan doctors, citing rapid deaths from internal ailments, were accusing the coalition of using chemical and radioactive weapons. The symptoms they reported (haemorrhaging, pulmonary constriction and vomiting) could have resulted from radiation contamination. On 5 December, when a friendly-fire bomb hit coalition soldiers, media representatives were all immediately removed from the scene and locked up in a hangar. According to the Pentagon, the bomb was a GBU-31, carrying a BLU-109 warhead. The Canal+ documentary shows an arms manufacturer's sales representative at an international fair in Dubai in 1999, just after the Kosovo war. He is presenting a BLU-109 warhead and describing its penetration capabilities against superhardened underground targets, explaining that this model had been tested in a recent war. Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence, on 16 January this year admitted that the US had found radiation in Afghanistan (10). But this, he reassured, was merely from DU warheads (supposedly belonging to al-Qaida); he did not explain how al-Qaida could have launched them without planes. Williams points out that, even if the coalition has used no DU weapons, those attributed to al-Qaida might turn out to be an even greater source of contamination, especially if they came from Russia, in which case the DU could be even dirtier than that from Paducah. Following its assessment mission in the Balkans, UNEP set up a post-conflict assessment unit. Its director, Henrik Slotte, has announced that it is ready to work in Afghanistan as soon as possible, given proper security, unimpeded access to hit sites, and financing. The WHO remains silent. When questions about the current state of the DU research fund were addressed to Jon Lidon, spokesman for the director general, Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO did not answer. Yet Williams urges that studies begin immediately, as victims of severe UD exposure may soon all be dead, yet with their deaths attributed to the rigours of winter. In Jefferson County, Indiana, the Pentagon has closed the 200-acre (80-hectare) proving ground where it used to test-fire DU rounds. The lowest estimate for cleaning up the site comes to $7.8bn, not including permanent storage of the earth to a depth of six metres and of all the vegetation. Considering the cost too high, the military finally decided to give the tract to the National Park Service for a nature preserve an offer that was promptly refused. Now there is talk of turning it into a National Sacrifice Zone and closing it forever. This gives an idea of the fate awaiting those regions of the planet where the US has used and will use depleted uranium. ____________________________________________________ (1) See website (2) The internet sites of Janes Defense Information, the Federation of American Scientists, the Centre of Defense Information. (3) See FAS Website (4) FAS and USA Today (5) Chronology of environmental sampling in the Balkans (6) See Deafening silence on depleted uranium, Le Monde diplomatique English edition, February 2001. (7) La Guerre radioactive secrete, by Martin Meissonnier, Roger Trilling, Guillaume d'Allessandro and Luc Hermann, first broadcast in February 2000; updated and rebroadcast in January 2001 under the title L'Uranium appauvri, nous avons retrouve l'usine contaminee by Roger Trilling and Luc Hermann. (8) The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Planning of Attacks on Iraqi Chemical and Biological Warfare Targets (9) For example "New Evidence is Adding to US Fears of Al-Qaida Dirty Bomb", International Herald Tribune, December 5, 2001; "Uranium Reportedly Found in Tunnel Complex", USA Today, December 24, 2001. (10) "US Says More Weapons Sites Found in Afghanistan", Reuters, January 16, 2002. Translated by the author ====================== *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the original source. *** ***************************************************************** 12 Debating nuclear safety Caller.com: National/world News Wednesday, Mar 13 By RYAN ALESSI The drill goes like this: a small group of former military types must sneak past armed guards, crawl over fences, infiltrate and then navigate the complicated maze of the nuclear power plant's bowels. Once inside, everything is a target. Any breach of a sensitive area could spark disaster. Until Sept. 11, these mock attacks - called Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations - were the Olympics of nuclear plant security, performed on each plant once every six to eight years. They gave the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission the perspective of terrorists and revealed weaknesses and mistakes. But since the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has put those evaluations on hold. The commission has poured its attention into assessing every nook and cranny of nuclear plant security. The ongoing "top-to-bottom" review could result in the most sweeping changes to the nation's nuclear security policies in decades. And while the commission has been tight-lipped about what it is considering, the review has sparked a very public debate among the nuclear power industry, public interest organizations and the federal government. Watchdog groups have asked the commission to impose stricter rules and regulations to protect nuclear plants. Congress has weighed in by discussing whether to put nuclear plant security guards on the federal payroll. And the industry is playing public relations defense. "I would challenge you to find any other industry that has a higher degree of security than the U.S. nuclear power industry," said Mark Findlay, a security consultant for Hudson, Wis.-based Nuclear Management Company, which operates four Midwestern power plants. Since Sept. 11, the 103 nuclear reactors at the 64 plants across the country have each added more security guards, built more barriers and pushed back the perimeter of "sensitive areas" to keep away potential truck bombs, all at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But groups like the Nuclear Control Institute, in Washington, argue that adding a few armed guards and concrete barriers cannot protect a nuclear reactor from an intense, coordinated attack. "They have kind of chipped around the edges of the problem and still are unable or refusing to take action to address the problem head-on," said Tom Clements, executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute. The Nuclear Control Institute has asked the regulatory commission to increase the frequency of evaluation drills and raise the standards for nuclear plants to guard against larger truck bombs and more terrorists. In addition, the institute and other groups have raised the issue of stationing troops and anti-aircraft guns at plants. Then this week, Congress began to consider whether nuclear security guards should go the way of airport security guards and fall under the direct supervision of the federal government. One plan being discussed on Capitol Hill would require guards to meet minimum federal standards and train under federal guidelines, while being reviewed regularly by the federal government, which is similar to the standards Congress placed on airport security guards last fall. "I will tell you, as a former Secret Service agent, I take great offense to that comparison with airport security guards," said Findlay. He says federalization is unnecessary because "there are light-years of difference" between the quality of people guarding airports and those at nuclear plants. About 70 percent of nuclear plant security guards have backgrounds in the military or law enforcement, he said. And all candidates for guard positions must undergo full background checks by the FBI. And then there's the matter of safeguard evaluation drills. Though many in Congress want the drills to remain supervised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the industry began lobbying before Sept. 11 to let it handle the planning and execution of the mock terrorist drills. But until the commission's top-to-bottom review is complete, there will be no mock terrorists trying to break in. And it's up to the status quo to keep the real terrorists out. (Reach Ryan Alessi at alessir(at)shns.com) [http://www.caller2.com/autoconv/archives.htm] [http://www.scripps.com] ©2002 Caller-Times Publishing Co. A [http://www.scripps.com] newspaper. ***************************************************************** 13 SA: MUK Don Held Over Uranium allAfrica.com: March 13, 2002 Davis Weddi And Alfred Wasike POLICE have arrested a Makerere University nuclear physicist and recovered about 50kg of suspected uranium from his laboratory at the government university. Experts from the CID anti-terrorism department arrested two other people suspected of trafficking in uranium. One suspect is still at large. Akisoferi Kisolo, the head of Makerere's Physics Department, was picked up on Monday while testing the mineral at the university laboratory, Police said. Uranium is a silvery-white radioactive chemical used in producing nuclear energy and making the deadly atomic bombs, among others. A CID source described the mineral as "very deadly. Even officials in the geology department fear to test it." The other suspects were Fred Kasubi, a primary school teacher in Jinja, and Bwayambadde, a Kisenyi businessman. The acting Assistant Commissioner of Police in-charge of crime, Edson Mbiringi, said yesterday that samples of the substance had been sent to the Government Chemist for testing. Kisolo, one of Uganda's few atomic physicists, also heads the National Radiation Protection Service, which regulates atomic energy, radiation and safety in Uganda. Security sources said Kisolo was "being used to test the uranium for international trafficking." The sources said Kasubi claimed he acquired the mineral from a wife of a deceased UPDF officer who had just returned from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. "He then approached Bwayambadde in Kisenyi. It is Bwayambadde who carried it to Prof Kisolo. They had also approached some foreigners to purchase their mineral," the source added. A university official said Kisolo's offence had to be legally defined. "Kisolo is Uganda's chief radiation safety officer. He probably has the right and the qualifications to protect Uganda against possible radiation," he said. Copyright © 2002 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). Click here to contact the copyright holder ***************************************************************** 14 People living near nuclear plants could get pills to fend off radiation Thursday March 14 07:11 AM EST By Ann Wlazelek It's white, it's small and it got little attention until after Sept. 11. It's a pill that can provide protection against radiation, and authorities are considering giving it free to people who live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant to swallow in the event of a terrorist attack. The pill is made of potassium iodide, or iodized salt. It won't protect you against high doses or all kinds of radiation, but it doesn't cost much or require a prescription. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is offering it to 34 states with nuclear power plants, including Pennsylvania, which has five. Among them are the Limerick plant in Montgomery County and the Susquehanna plant in Luzerne County. Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 UK: Letters: Dangers of (Waste) incineration Sir For the past number of months I have attended many meetings on the proposal to site the 100,000 tonne National Toxic Waste Incinerator in Cork Harbour. During this time, those of us who promote viable alternatives to the incineration option have been brow-beaten by the pro-incinerator lobby and accused of acting immaturely by not accepting, what they perceive, as our responsibility to accept the incineration of the nation's toxic waste on our doorstep. In this regard, the pro-incinerator lobby have clearly had their heads buried in the sand. Co Cork already has six of Ireland's eight toxic incinerators, five of which are located in Ringaskiddy. All of these incinerators emit dioxins, furans and thousands of products of incomplete combustion 95pc of which remain unidentified. Indeed, dioxin levels in soil in Ringaskiddy are five times the limit considered safe in Germany for agricultural use. This is before one considers the multitude of other emissions which fall daily on Cork harbour from various other sanctioned emission points and, of course, the unregulated and unquantified fugitive emissions emanating from every industry operating in the area. One of the major pharmaceutical industries operating in the lower harbour openly admits that for every kilogram of product produced at its plant, 40,000 kilograms of industrial effluent is discharged into the waters of Cork harbour. Total licensed industrial effluent discharged into the harbour is fast approaching 20m tonnes per year. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that when the last study on marine life in the region was conducted it showed that 67pc of all fish life was diseased. Furthermore, Ringaskiddy has extremely high levels of heavy metal contamination and plays unwilling host to an asbestos waste dump and a low-level radioactive storage site containing contaminated dust from the former Irish Ispat facility. It is further proposed that a 60,000 tonne hazardous waste treatment facility be located in close proximity to the incinerator site and, for good measure, a Medical Waste Treatment facility a half mile away. With so many clean and safe alternatives available, common sense dictates that, despite the urgings of the pro-incineration lobby, the communities of Cork harbour would be totally immature, irresponsible and downright crazy to accept any further polluting toxic industries into our neighbourhood. Una O'Sullivan Carrigaline, Co Cork © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 16 REID AND ENSIGN ENLIST FORMER REAGAN CHIEF OF STAFF IN FIGHT AGAINST YUCCA MOUNTAIN Sergeant at Arms Administrator 2 2 2002-03-12T23:56:00Z 2002-03-13T00:16:00Z 2002-03-13T00:16:00Z 1 235 1345 United States Senate 11 2 1651 9.2720 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     March 12, 2002 Washington, DC – Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign announced today that former Ronald Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein has joined with the Nevada delegation to fight against Yucca Mountain. The highly respected and well-connected Duberstein served as Reagan’s Chief of Staff from 1988 to 1989. Duberstein started his political career as an aide to New York Senator Jacob Javits in 1965.  After several years in the federal government, Duberstein joined the Reagan Administration in 1981 in the congressional liaison’s office.  In July of 1988, he was appointed as Reagan’s Chief of Staff.  Duberstein also was an advisor to Gen. Colin Powell when Powell was considering a run for President. “Kenneth Duberstein is an excellent choice to help us in the battle against Yucca Mountain. He’s a Washington insider, who’s earned the respect of Washington’s decision makers.  The fight against the storage of deadly nuclear waste has shifted to the U.S. Senate and he’s just the person we need in the trenches with us.  We have a great coalition in place to convince members of Congress that Yucca Mountain is a bad decision for Nevada and for our country,” Sen. John Ensign said. “Ken Duberstein has done a great job advocating for Nevada in the past and we have full confidence in his ability to do so in the future.  John and I now have an outstanding team in place to fight the misguided Yucca Mountain project,” Assistant Majority Leader Reid said.    ### ***************************************************************** 17 Letters: Yucca debate [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Thursday, March 14, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: Enough is enough. The citizens of Nevada deserve better than to be treated like third-grade pupils when being informed about the Yucca Mountain project. Even my third-grade daughter has been taught that name-calling is impolite and that you should not wrongfully denigrate others. It is part of growing into a mature adult. Instead of mature debate between adults, our Nevada state demagogues have chosen the tactic of burglar-bar salesmen. Namely, they scare people into agreeing with them when they cannot convince them any other way. Bob Loux is the Nevada hit man for this effort as head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. Like all finger pointers, he has chosen to reveal the distasteful traits in others he most portrays in his own actions. In his March 10 commentary ("We've only just begun to fight"), he accuses William Phillips of being a "paid consultant and lobbyist for the commercial nuclear power industry." I have been a colleague of Mr. Phillips' for more than 20 years. His scientific credentials are impeccable. He has never taken a dime from the nuclear industry, or anybody else to distribute his research on Yucca Mountain. Isn't Mr. Loux, however, a "paid consultant" as a state employee? His leash is held by the very political cabal out to spread disinformation to protect their careers. His misguided accusations stemmed from comments made in Mr. Phillips' Feb. 24 essay, "Time to negotiate." Yet Mr. Loux fails to produce any reference to his own scientific background. What is the educational basis for his proclaimed level of expertise in Yucca Mountain science? Please, Nevada citizens, look at all the facts. Question your politicians. Listen to credible scientists about science. Listen to lawyers about law. Get the facts yourself. Make an informed judgment. Then, finally, let your voices be heard for the good of our progeny. Don't throw away something good before you even know what you are giving up. If you do the research, you will see a completely different picture than that presented by those who are supposed to watch out for our best interests. The political health of our incumbent demagogues is simply not worth sacrificing Nevada's future. STEVEN CURTIS This story is located at: [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-14-Thu-2002/opinion/18291757.html] ***************************************************************** 18 Editorial: Nevada's Yucca view gets big lift Las Vegas SUN Today: March 14, 2002 at 8:44:15 PST Two former White House chiefs of staff will pack a powerful one-two punch for Nevada in the coming weeks. The state needs their clout as it lobbies the U.S. Senate in hopes of sustaining Gov. Kenny Guinn's inevitable veto of President Bush's recommendation of Yucca Mountain as the nation's burial site for high-level nuclear waste. John Podesta, a Democrat who served as Bill Clinton's chief of staff during his final two years as president, and Ken Duberstein, who oversaw the White House during the final year of the Reagan presidency, are on board as paid lobbyists to persuade senators that Nevada's position opposing the site is valid. A majority vote is needed in the Senate to sustain Guinn's veto, meaning 51 senators must line up with Nevada's point of view. This means Nevada's senators, Majority Whip Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, have a big job ahead. It's a coup for the senators to have enlisted the aid of two such well-placed Washington insiders as Podesta and Duberstein. Podesta, a Georgetown University Law Center graduate and currently a law professor there, has been around Washington for 25 years. His experience as a lawyer serving Senate committees, and later serving as counselor to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, will open doors as he makes the rounds on Nevada's behalf. He was named deputy White House chief of staff in 1997 and chief of staff in 1998. President Clinton gave Podesta credit for the success of many of his administration's environmental initiatives. This background will serve Nevada well as he stresses the environmental dangers of Yucca Mountain. Duberstein brings an equally impressive background to the job. With his many friends in Congress and the White House, including close friends Sen. John McCain and Secretary of State Colin Powell, he enjoys a reputation as being one of the most powe rful men in Washington. After the Reagan years he formed a lobbying firm and represents dozens of corporations before Senat! e committees. Nevada's political leaders, Republican and Democrat alike, remain firmly united in their opposition to Yucca Mountain. But in Nevada all they can do is preach to the choir. In Washington, with able assists from our senators, Duberstein and Podesta will be able to preach to the inner circles, where right now it counts the most. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Feds Demand Goshutes Open Financial Books on N-Waste Deal The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, March 14, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS Federal prosecutors seeking evidence for a grand jury probe are demanding that Skull Valley Goshute leaders turn over financial records on their deal for a $3.1 billion facility to store depleted nuclear fuel, including accounts of how project money has been spent. FBI agents handed the subpoenas to embattled tribal Chairman Leon Bear and disputed tribal Secretary Rex Allen on Sept. 12 as they left a Salt Lake City meeting. Investigators demanded documents "relating to Private Fuel Storage and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians," including "contracts, correspondence, checks and copies thereof, bank records, deposit slips, records of receipt and disbursement of funds," according to one of the subpoenas. Officials would not specify who is being investigated or what the crime might be. Said the FBI's Kevin R. Eaton: "We don't comment on pending investigations." But the subpoenas were issued three months after Bear critics Sammy Blackbear and Margene Bullcreek aired allegations of corruption and abuse of authority in statements to federal regulators. The tribe has been fractured into three camps by the nuclear waste deal, with Bear leading supporters, Bullcreek the opponents and Allen representing those who want stronger oversight of the nuclear facility. The Tribune confirmed this week the delivery of the subpoenas. Allen, who is in a dispute with Bear over whether he continues to be tribal secretary, said he turned over papers in his possession within 24 hours. Bear said he did not, although he administers tribal monies, including the $1.4 million Private Fuel Storage reportedly had paid the 127-member band as of February 2001. "They have got to realize the tribe is a sovereign nation, and they can't just come in and ask for documents," Bear said on Wednesday, adding that he needs the tribal council's permission to disclose the financial information. Bear, Allen and Allen's sister, Mary Apadaca, signed the 1997 lease that allows the utilities, called Private Fuel Storage, to apply for a federal permit to store power-plant waste on a 125-acre concrete pad on the reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The proposed facility, big enough to hold storage casks containing all the spent fuel produced nationwide in four decades of commercial nuclear power, is opposed by the state of Utah and some tribal members. Under fierce pressure to help utilities get rid of the waste now stored at more than 60 U.S. sites, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is scheduled to make a decision on the Goshute-Private Fuel Storage facility this fall. Last week, the commission blocked a request for financial information by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which reports to NRC. The licensing panel asked tribal leaders in February for an accounting of project money as part of an inquiry into allegations that the project's benefits have not been shared equally and that leaders have used it instead to reward their supporters and punish opponents. The NRC agreed with its staff and Bear's attorneys, who said the agencies had no business delving into tribal affairs. The agency is not expected to decide for at least a month whether to uphold the licensing board's order for the disclosure of financial information. Apadaca and Allen said they would welcome the scrutiny. Allen's questions about the handling of the Private Fuel Storage deal prompted Bear to oust him from his post as tribal council secretary last fall. Allen insists he is still secretary, while Bear recognizes another tribal member. "We want the NRC to review all that," said Allen of the Private Fuel Storage money and the charges of self-dealing. "We want the finances accounted for." Although Bear said tribal members have open access to the tribe's books, Allen said tribal members failed to get leaders to answer their questions. Tribal members passed a resolution last year demanding that Private Fuel Storage money be audited and that members receive equal benefits from the storage project. "Under the Indian Civil Rights Act, we should be paid equally -- not one family $7,000, one family getting $5,000, one family getting $2,000 and one family getting nothing," said Apadaca, who now uses the name Allen. "NRC should sit there and look at it." Allegations that Bear and his current administration have enriched themselves and their supporters with Private Fuel Storage money have been rampant at least since last winter. Scott Northard, a Private Fuel Storage project manager, sparked an uproar at a meeting with tribal members on Feb. 3 last year when he said it was not possible to scrap the waste facility contract, as one Goshute proposed, according to several participants. The consortium had already paid $1.4 million for the lease, Northard reportedly said. "It became very contentious," said Fred Payne, a veteran consultant who negotiates mining contracts for tribes. Later, Payne talked with the members over lunch and he recalled, "They kept trying to get me to help them find out what happened to the money." The money question also is a factor in a leadership dispute in federal court. Bear has rejected an Aug. 25 vote that ousted his administration, and has refused to recognize the Sept. 22 election of Blackbear, Marlinda Moon and Miranda Wash, all of whom pushed for the licensing board's help in examining the corruption and mismanagement allegations. jfahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 20 Yucca Mountain: A History of Nuclear Politics Congresswoman Shelley Berkley - Legislation: Editorials By Rep. Shelley Berkley March 13, 2002 On Feb. 15, President Bush approved Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the site for the nation's only high-level nuclear waste repository. This approval, which will be vetoed by the state of Nevada, comes at a time when a number of nonpartisan and unbiased organizations have expressed scientific concerns with the President's decision. Additionally, Nevada does not produce nuclear power, and we therefore feel strongly that we should not be made the nuclear garbage dump for the rest of the country - especially while safe alternatives exist. While the original 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act set the stage for a gross incursion into states' rights, it did, at least, begin with an ostensibly scientific approach. The government would search all over the nation, looking for geological formations that were capable of containing the radioactivity of high-level nuclear waste for at least 250,000 years. Since then, politics has had more to say than science about the siting of a high-level nuclear waste repository. In 1987 the so-called "Screw Nevada" bill made the most political of decisions by designating Yucca Mountain as the only candidate site, without the benefit of any completed scientific study. This began the erosion of any scientific credibility behind the decision. (This, in fact, may be the first "scientific study" in our history to benefit from both a legislatively and politically pre-ordained outcome.) The 1987 bill did, however, provide for a science-based Technical Review Board (NWTRB), to review the findings of the Department of Energy (DOE). However, two weeks before the board was able to release its findings, the Secretary of Energy proceeded with his recommendation to build the site. In its disregarded analysis of the study, the NWTRB report called the science "weak to moderate," and noted "gaps in data and basic understanding. ..." The number and extent of scientific uncertainties surrounding the proposed repository have also been highlighted by the General Accounting Office (GAO). In a recent report to Congress, the GAO noted nearly 300 scientific questions yet to be answered by the DOE, and observed that any approval by the DOE or the President would be premature until those scientific concerns have been addressed. Furthermore, the geology of Yucca Mountain is inadequate for a repository. The repository was supposed to be capable of containing the radiation entirely through natural geologic features. As it has become clear that Yucca Mountain could not offer that protection, the rules have been changed, and the standard lowered from 100 percent geologic protection to less than 1 percent. In fact, the site suffers from volcanic activity, seismic activity and groundwater problems that could contaminate huge tracts of the Southwest. The President's decision is not only based on poor science, but founded on faulty logic. Perhaps the most disingenuous facet of the Administration's rationale is that Yucca Mountain is needed for national security. A central repository would actually increase the risk of terrorism by guaranteeing that hundreds of nuclear targets will be traveling on America's roads and rails every day for at least the next 30 years. Also, even if a central repository is created, nuclear waste will never be entirely removed from on-site locations; for, as plants continue to generate waste, they must also continue to store that waste until a long-term solution has been found. Nuclear waste is a serious problem that requires serious, long-term answers. I have introduced legislation, entitled "The 21st Century Science for Nuclear Waste Disposal Act" (H.R. 2072), to direct funding into scientific studies to find long-term solutions to this problem. In the interim, there are safe alternatives to the status quo. The PECO (Philadelphia Electric Company) agreement provided a model by which the utilities build storage facilities and, in return, reduce their payments to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. DOE becomes titleholder, owner and operator of the waste and facilities. This is an attractive solution because it lets utilities remove spent fuel from their reactors, as well as costs and liabilities from their books. Also, immobile storage casks are easier to protect than waste shipments on the country's roads and rails and, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are safe in on-site dry cask storage for at least the next 100 years. Yucca Mountain is a politician's solution to a problem that requires real science and will have consequences lasting hundreds of thousands of years. A problem of this magnitude deserves solutions founded on the recommendations of scientists, and not subject to the clumsy intrigues and estimations of shortsighted politicians. We should be empowering our nation's scientific community to find real solutions to these serious problems, and giving them the resources and political freedom they need to discover the safest, most effective ways of solving our nuclear dilemma. ***************************************************************** 21 Iraq's nuclear bomb ability still a mystery Times Online March 14, 2002 By Michael Evans, Defence Editor THE status of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme remains a mystery to Western Intelligence agencies, despite the prediction in a Cabinet Office briefing paper that President Saddam Hussein is five years from developing the bomb. The document, which is not yet completed, draws on covert material supplied by MI6 and GCHQ, the Government’s signals intelligence centre in Cheltenham. The aim of the document is to show that there is enough evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq to justify military action against Baghdad. No one involved in seeking evidence of Saddam’s bomb has any doubt that the Iraqi dictator is as determined as ever to acquire all the necessary ingredients. What is not known is whether Baghdad succeeded in secretly buying weapons-grade uranium on the black market in the 1990s, keeping it concealed from outside inspection teams. President Bush said last night that the United States would “deal” with Saddam. “I am deeply concerned about Iraq. And so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq. “This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons; a man who won’t let inspectors into the country; a man who’s obviously got something to hide. And he is a problem. And we’re going to deal with him. But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.” The assessment of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 1998, before its inspectors were forced to leave Baghdad, was that there were no indications that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring weapons-usable material. Nor were there indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its own methods. The only confirmed material left in Iraq, after the agency had removed all known stocks of highly enriched uranium and plutonium in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 687, consisted of 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium. This material was locked in a storage site at a research centre at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, and has been checked once a year by an IAEA team under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iraq is a signatory. The last check was carried out in January and none of the material had been tampered with, a spokesman for the IAEA confirmed yesterday. However, the agency is quick to point out that it has no jurisdiction anywhere else in Iraq. The IAEA never found a blueprint for a nuclear bomb, although its inspectors were convinced one existed. + Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, tried to allay Russian concerns yesterday over a Pentagon document that lists Moscow as a potential nuclear target. At a news conference with Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s Defence Minister, Mr Rumsfeld praised the state of the relationship between Moscow and Washington and Russia’s role in the War on Terror. Copyright 2002 [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html] Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 22 No intention to enter into nuclear race: Musharraf Updated on 2002-03-14 11:21:35 TOKYO, March 14 (PNS): President General Pervez Musharraf said Wednesday Pakistan has no intention of entering into a nuclear race with India even though it was aware of New Delhi's regional and international aspirations in these fields. "We are forced to maintain a deterrence capacity against the massive Indian nuclear arsenal," he said while addressing the international media at Japan National Press Club here. President Musharraf was given standing ovation when he arrived to address the media in the Press Club. The President said we honor Japan's views and concerns about nuclear issues. "We are not for nuclear escalation. We only want to maintain deterrence." He said Pakistan did not initiate the race but it was forced by India to maintain deterrence to thwart any threat emanating from the neighboring country. "We are not entering into any race with India on the nuclear side. We know India has certain regional and international aspirations of its own and developing in the nuclear and missile fields in that direction. We only want the deterrence capability to preserve our honor and dignity." The President said he also understands Japan's concern about signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) but said, "it is very contentious issue for the people of Pakistan." "We are aware of your concerns and it is also a matter of great concern for Pakistan. We would look into it but Pakistan needs time. Ratification of CTBT is not waiting the signature from Pakistan alone. Time can be afforded to Pakistan," he said. Talking about tension between India and Pakistan, President Musharraf said the relations between the two countries have never remained good. He said at the moment both the forces are eyeball to eyeball on borders and it is a dangerous situation. "Pakistan wants peace and stability in South Asia on the basis of sovereign equality, honor and dignity. We will guard our honor and dignity jealously," he said. The President termed Indian reaction to deploy forces on Pakistani borders as immature, knee-jerk, very impulsive and unfortunate. End. ***************************************************************** 23 Bush Press Conference: War on Terrorism FOXNews.com FNC Wednesday, March 13, 2002 WASHINGTON — Text of President Bush's remarks at a White House news conference on Charles Pickering's nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the war on terror: BUSH: Good afternoon. Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the nomination of Charles Pickering to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Pickering is a respected and well-qualified nominee who was unanimously confirmed 12 years ago to the district bench. His nomination deserves a full vote -- a vote in the full Senate. I strongly urge his confirmation. While tomorrow's vote is about one man, a much larger principle is also at stake. Under our Constitution, the president has the right and responsibility to nominate qualified judges and the legislative branch has the responsibility to vote on them in a fair and timely manner. This process determines the quality of justice in America, and it demands that both the president and Senate act with care and integrity, with wisdom and deep respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately, we are seeing a disturbing pattern, where too often judicial confirmations are being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our democracy. We now face a situation in which a handful of United States senators on one committee have made it clear that they will block nominees, even highly qualified, well-respected nominees, who do not share the senators' view of the bench, of the federal courts. They seek to undermine the nominations of candidates who agree with my philosophy that judges should interpret the law, not try to make law from the bench. And because these senators fear the outcome of a fair vote in the full Senate, they're using tactics of delay. As a result, America's facing a vacancy crisis in the federal judiciary. Working with both Republicans and Democrats, I have nominated 92 highly qualified, highly respected individuals to serve as federal judges. These are men and women who will respect and follow the law. Yet, the Senate has confirmed only 40 of these 92 nominees and only seven of the 29 nominees to the circuit courts, the courts of last resort in a vast majority of cases. This is unacceptable. It is a bad record for the Senate. The Senate has an obligation to provide fair hearings and prompt votes to al nominees, no matter who controls the Senate or who controls the White House. By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a few senators are standing in the way of justice. And this is wrong, and the American people deserve better. I will now be glad to answer a few questions ... QUESTION: The Pentagon's calling for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons that could be used against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and Syria. Can you explain why the United States is considering this new policy and how it might figure into the war on terrorism? BUSH: I presume you're referring to the nuclear review that was recently in the press. Well, first of all the nuclear review is not new. It's gone on from previous administrations. Secondly, the reason we have a nuclear arsenal that I hope is modern, upgraded, and can work, is to deter any attack on America. The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence. Secondly, ours is an administration that's committed to reducing the amount of warheads. And we're in consultations now with the Russians on ... this matter. We both agreed to reduce our warheads ... 1,700 to 2,200. I talked with Sergei Ivanov yesterday, the minister of defense from Russia on this very subject. I think one of the interesting points that we need to develop and fully explore is how best to verify what's taking place to make sure that there's confidence in both countries. But I'm committed to reducing the amount of nuclear weaponry and reducing the amount of nuclear warheads. I think it's the right policy for America, and I know we can continue to do so and still keep a deterrence. QUESTION: ... might go after a country like Libya or Syria? BUSH: ... First of all, we've got all our options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends. Steve. QUESTION: Do you agree with Kofi Annan that Israel must end the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands? And how is the Israeli offensive going to complicate General Zinni's mission? BUSH: Well, first of all, it is important to create conditions for peace in the Middle East. It's important for both sides to work hard to create the conditions of a potential settlement. Now, our government has provided a security plan that has been agreed to by both the Israelis and the Palestinians called the Tenet Plan. And George Mitchell did good work providing a pathway for a political settlement, once conditions warrant it. Frankly, it's not helpful what the Israelis have recently done in order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to defend themselves and to fight terror, but the recent actions aren't helpful. And so Zinni's job is to go over there and to work to get conditions such that we can get into Tenet. And he's got a lot of work to do. But if I didn't think he could make progress, I wouldn't have asked him to go. During the announcement of the Zinni mission I said there was--we had a lot of phone conversations with people in the Middle East which lead us to believe that there is a chance to create -- to get into Tenet, or to at least create the conditions to get into Tenet. And I've taken that chance. And it's the right course of action at this point ... QUESTION: Mr. President, let me look at what happened Monday with the INS visa approvals with Atta and al-Shehhi. Can I ask the requisite three-part question. Let me ask you, first of all, how high did the hair on the back of your neck rise when you heard about that? And how could the American people have any faith in the credibility of the INS and its anti-terrorist efforts? And what can you do, both immediately and for the long term, to ensure nothing like that ever happens again? BUSH: Well, it got my attention this morning when I read about that. I was stunned and not happy. Let me put it another way: I was plenty hot. And I made that clear to people in my administration. I don't know if the attorney general has acted yet today or not, I haven't seen the wire story, but -- he has. He got the message. And so should the INS. Look, the INS needs to be reformed. And it's one of the reasons why I called for the separation of the paperwork side of the INS from the enforcement side. And obviously the paperwork side needs a lot of work. It's inexcusable. And so we've got to reform the INS, and we've got to push hard to do so. This is an interesting wakeup call for those who run the INS. And we are modernizing our system, John. And it needs to be modernized, so we know who's coming in and who's going out and why they're here. QUESTION: What it say, sir, about the credibility of the INS in its anti-terrorist... BUSH: Well, it says they've got a lot of work to do. It says that the information system is antiquated. And, you know, having said that, they got the message, and hopefully they'll reform as quickly as possible. But yes, it got my attention in a negative way. Yes? QUESTION: Mr. President, there's a growing crisis in the Catholic church right now involving pedophilia; and the crisis is exploding in Boston under the watch of Cardinal Law, who you know. Do you think the Archdiocese there is acting swiftly enough to deal with the issue of pedophilia among the ranks priest? BUSH: Well, I know many in the hierarchy of the Catholic church. I know them to be men of integrity and decency. They're honorable people. I was just with Cardinal Egan today. And I'm confident the church will clean up its business and do the right thing. As to the timing, I haven't, frankly -- I'm not exactly aware of how fast or how not fast they're moving. I just can tell you I trust the leadership of the church. QUESTION: Do you think Cardinal Law should resign? BUSH: That's up to the church. I know Cardinal Law to be a man of integrity. I respect him a lot. Yes? QUESTION: Sir, Vice President Cheney is on the road now trying to build support for a possible action against Iraq. If you don't get that and down the road you decide you want to take action, would you take action against Iraq unilaterally? BUSH: One of the things I've said to our friends is that we will consult, that we will share our views of how to make the world more safe. In regards to Iraq, we're doing just that. Every world leader that comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation which is not conforming to agreements that it made in the past. A nation which has gassed her people in the past, a nation which has weapons of mass destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them. And so what the vice president is doing, is he's reminding people about this danger and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table. But one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction. They've agreed not to have those weapons. They ought to conform to their agreement, comply with their agreement. Yes, John? QUESTION: You seem to be saying, yes, you would consult with the allies and others including in the Mideast, but if you have to, you'd go ahead and take action yourself. BUSH: Well, you're answering the question for me. If I can remember the exact words, I'll say it exactly the way I said it before. I -- we're going to consult. I am deeply concerned about Iraq, and so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq. This is a nation run by a man who is willingly to kill his own people by using chemical weapons. A man who won't let inspectors into the country. A man who's obviously got something to hide. And he is a problem, and we're going to deal with him. And -- but the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're doing. Everybody here in the front row -- John? QUESTION: Mr. President, on the question of Iraq, how does the increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians affect what Vice President Cheney is trying to do, affect the case you're trying to make with our Arab allies for a regime change or just unconditional inspections? BUSH: Well, I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region, more so now than ever in the past. And so -- but we're concerned about the Middle East, John, because it's affecting the lives of the Palestinians and our friends the Israelis. I mean, it's a terrible period of time, when a lot of people are losing their lives, needlessly losing life. And terrorists are holding a peace -- a potential peace process hostage. And so while I understand the linkage for us, the policy is -- stands on its own. The need for us to be involved in the Middle East is to help save lives. And we're going to stay involved in the Middle East and at the same time continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations, and continue to wage a war on terror, which is exactly what we're doing. I want to reiterate what I said the other day. Our policy is to deny sanctuary to terrorists any place in the world. And we will be very actively in doing that (sic). QUESTION: But on the question of the Palestinians, Sharon has said that he shares your concern for those not involved in terror. Do you still think that's the case? BUSH: I do. But unlike our war against Al Qaeda, there is a series of agreements in place that will lead to peace. And therefore we're going to work hard to see if we can't, as I say, get into Tenet and eventually Mitchell. I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharon is concerned about the loss of innocent life. I certainly am. It breaks my heart; I know it breaks the heart of a lot of people around the world to see young children lose their life as a result of violence -- young children on both sides of this issue. This is an issue that's consuming a lot of the time of my administration. And we have an obligation to continue to work for peace in the region, and we will. We will. The two are not mutually exclusive. QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Usama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive (OFF-MIKE). Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make... BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not. We hadn't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-Kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. QUESTION: ...threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? BUSH: Well, as I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute. And if we find a training camp we'll take care of it -- either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things that's part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money. And we got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that. I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. Michael? I'm working my way back there, slowly but surely. Michael? QUESTION: Mr. President, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked Gov. Ridge to testify about the administration's domestic -- homeland security efforts. Why has the White House said that Governor Ridge will not testify? BUSH: Well, he's not -- he doesn't have to testify. He's a part of my staff. And that's part of the prerogative of the executive branch of government, and we hold that very dear. QUESTION: Mr. President, that's another area along with the war and the development of the energy policy... BUSH: This wasn't a trick question, Mike, you're trying to get me to say that and then kind of have a quick follow-up? Go ahead. QUESTION: No, sir. But that's an area where Congress has said members of both parties have told us they're not getting enough information from the White House. BUSH: Oh, Mike, Mike. We consult with Congress all the time. I've had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the House and the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and Democrats right back here in the Oval Office and have a good, honest discussion about plans, objectives, what's taking place, what's not taking place. We have members of our Cabinet briefing. Condoleezza Rice is in touch with the members of the Congress. We are in touch with -- we understand the role of the Congress. We must justify budgets to Congress. And so, I don't buy that, frankly. Yes Mike. This is the third. Two follow-ups is a record. Keep trying. QUESTION: Given that you've not convinced everyone in your own party of that, to what degree are you trying to recalibrate the power between Congress and the presidency? BUSH: Mike, I'm just doing my job. We'll let all the kind of the legal historians figure all that out, you know. First of all, I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the executive branch. I have a duty to protect the executive branch from legislative encroachment. I mean, for example, when the GAO demands documents from us, we're not going to give them to them. I mean, it's just, you know -- these were privileged conversations. These were conversations when people come into our offices and brief us. And can you imagine having to give up every single transcript of what has advised me or the vice president? Our advice wouldn't be good and honest and open. And so I viewed that as an encroachment on the power of the executive branch. I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch. On the other hand, there's plenty of consultation, Mike. I don't know what single Republican you're referring to. But, you know, if you'd give me the name afterwards, I'd be glad to have him over for another consultation, if you know what I mean. (LAUGHTER) David? Yes, I'm sorry. QUESTION: Mr. President, when you endorsed the Saudi plan on the Middle East, or the Saudi vision, it called, of course, for full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states. You've seen some backing away from that now by some other Arab countries -- in fact, by the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine endorsing a plan that calls for anything other than full normalization, anything less than full normalization... BUSH: Well, I think the thing -- in order for there to be a plan that is acceptable to all parties it must recognize the right of Israel to exist. And that's what I thought was very encouraging from the Saudi declaration, it was the first such declaration, if I'm not mistaken -- David, you probably know that better than me -- but that the crown prince said there ought to be an independent state, but that recognizes Israel. That's how I interpret it, Israel's right to exist. And I think that's a very important declaration. That's why we seized on that. I have said the same thing myself, but it obviously didn't have nearly the same weight as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia saying that. QUESTION: ... becoming a little deeper than that. BUSH: Well, first of all, there's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. After all, there are some skeptics who think that nations in that part of the world don't want Israel to exist. The first and most important qualification, it seems like to me for there to be peace, is for people in the region to recognize Israel's right to exist, and therefore policies ought to follow along those lines. I can't think of anything more deep than that right, that ultimate and final security. And when the Crown Prince indicated that was on his mind, we embraced that, strongly embraced that. Go ahead. QUESTION: I was about to say, just a moment ago you said that many of your allies were joining you in the war on terrorism. You do have a number of countries right now that seem to be right in the middle: Indonesia, Somalia, places that you've been worried about, but that have not asked for our training, our help. Would you consider going into a country that did not seek your aid? BUSH: Well, that's one of those pretty cleverly worded hypotheticals. Let me put it to you this way, David: We will take actions necessary to protect American people. And I'm going to leave it at that. That's a good question, however. Yes? QUESTION: Mr. President, back to nuclear issues, the Russian defense minister expressed the hope today that agreements on the new strategy work could be signed by the time of your visit next May in Moscow. Is it realistic? And second, are you ready to sign documents in a treaty form? And have you made progress on the issue of destroying versus storing nuclear warheads? BUSH: Well, I share the minister's optimism that we can get something done by May. I'd like to sign a document in Russia when I'm there. I think it'd be a good thing. And therefore we've got to make sure that those who are interested in making sure that the Cold War relationship continues on are kind of pushed in the background. In other words, we've got to work hard to establish a new relationship. I also agree with President Putin that there needs to be a document that outlives both of us. And what form that comes in, we will discuss. There is a -- I think David asked me this question, as a matter of fact, back in Slovenia, if I'm not mistaken, about storage versus destruction. We'll be glad to talk to the Russians about that. I think the most important thing, though, is verification; is to make sure that whatever decision is made, that there is open verification so as to develop a level of trust. There is a constraint as well. I mean, the destruction of nuclear warheads requires a lot of work and a lot of detailed work. And that in itself is going to take time, and that's got to be a part of the equation as well. But no, those are all issues we're discussing. Had a very good discussion with Sergei Ivanov yesterday. I'm confident that President Putin is interested in making a deal, coming up with a good arrangement that will codify a new relationship. The more Russia -- the more we work with Russia, the better the world will be. And we've got a good, close relationship with them. Got a few sticking points. We've got an issue on chickens, for example, that some of you have followed. We've made it pretty darn clear to them that I think we probably got to get this chicken issue resolved and get those chickens moving from the United States into the Russian market. (LAUGHTER) We laugh, but nevertheless it is a problem, that we must honor agreements. I believe we're going to have great relations with Russia, and we're going to work hard to achieve them, yes. Yes, go ahead. You're next, Angle. QUESTION: Can I ask about the debt limit, sir? BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: And specifically about the Treasury secretary's plan to borrow cash from the federal retirement funds. Can you justify that to the American people, sir? BUSH: I'm not going to comment on the secretary of Treasury's plan. I'll tell you what I think ought to happen. I think Congress ought to pass a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling, and I'll sign it. I think it's important. I hope we can get that kind of spirit out of Congress. There is -- if they do that, it will solve the problem. We don't need to be playing, you know, politics with the debt ceiling, particularly now that we're at war. And we're working with the Congress on that. I've had some pretty good discussions with the leadership about the need to get a clean bill coming, and I hope they do. I hope they listen. I hope they respond. QUESTION: Mr. President, there are those who will say that borrowing from the federal retirement fund is also a form of playing politics... BUSH: Well look, if the Congress passes the bill, we're fine. And that's -- we got to get that done. That's their responsibility to get the debt ceiling raised. I hope they do it quickly and soon. And we're going to work with them to get it done. Jim? QUESTION: Mr. President, what do you make of the dust-up over the nuclear review, and have you made any decisions about its recommendations? In particular, what is your view about building smaller nuclear weapons, which some people believe would make them more likely to be used? BUSH: Well, first of all, I view our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent; as a way to say to people that would harm America, that -- don't do it. That's a deterrent. That there is a consequence. And the president must have all options available to make that deterrent have meaning. And that's how I view the review. QUESTION: But what is your thinking, sir, on smaller nuclear weapons, which some analysts believe would be a major departure and would make them more likely... BUSH: My interest is -- Jim, my interest is to reduce the threat of a nuclear war, is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. I think we've got plenty of warheads to keep the peace. I'm interested in -- and that's why I told President Putin and told the country, if need be, we'll just reduce unilaterally to a level commiserate with keeping a deterrence and keeping the peace. And so, you know, I'm interested in having an arsenal at my disposal or at the military's disposal that will keep the peace. We're a peaceful nation, and you know we're moving along just right and kind of having a, you know, time, and all of a sudden we get attacked. And now we're at war, but we're at war to keep the peace. And it's very important for people in America to understand that at least my attitude on this is that we're not out to seek revenge. Sure we're after justice. But I also view this as a really good opportunity to create a lasting peace. And so, therefore, the more firm we are and the more determined we are to take care of Al Qaeda and deal with terrorism in all its forms, particularly at a global reach, that we have a very good chance of solving some difficult problems, including the Middle East or the subcontinent. And -- but it's going to require a resolve and firmness from the United States of America. One of the things I've learned in my discussions and, at least, listening to the echo chamber out there in the world is that if the United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when it comes to the war on terror. And we're just not going to let them do that. And that's why you hear me spend a lot of time talking to the American people -- at least I hope I'm talking to them through you -- about why this is going to take a long period of time, and why I'm so determined to remain firm in my resolve. And anyway... Yes sir, you asked the softest. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Can I ask you about the public service initiative... BUSH: The what now? QUESTION: The public service initiative of yours... BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: ... as it relates to the war, which you've just said again that could go on for quite a while. As we all know, 18-year-old men in this country when they turn 18, they're required to register with the draft which is now dormant but could be activated again. At this time, and we're looking at sort of an unlimited situation with this war, should the country expect the same of women in this country? BUSH: You mean as far as the draft? Well, the country shouldn't expect there to be a draft. I know they're registering, but the volunteer army is working. Particularly when Congress passes my budget, it's going to make it more likely to work. There's been a couple of -- there's been a pay raise, and then we're going to have another pay raise. And the mission is clear, the training is good, the equipment is going to be robust. Congress needs to pass this budget. I don't worry about a -- and people shouldn't worry about a draft. Now, we do have women in the military, and I'm proud of their service. And they're welcome in the military. They make a great addition to the military. Pardon me? QUESTION: That the military will be stretched to ... as some people have feared. BUSH: Ed, I don't think so. I think we're in pretty good shape right now. There's no question we have obligations around the world, which we will keep. Did you go to Korea with us? Yes. There's a major obligation there of 37,000 troops. It's an obligation that's an important obligation, one that I know is important, and we will keep that obligation. But we've got ample manpower to meet our needs, plus we've got a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their own manpower to the war. And as I mentioned the other day in my speech there on the South Lawn, there's -- 17 nations are involved in this first theater in Afghanistan. And we have Canadians and Danish and Germans and Australians -- probably going to leave somebody out -- Brits, special forces troops on the ground -- boots on the ground, as they say -- willing to risk their lives in a dangerous part of -- in a dangerous phase of this war. And men going cave to cave looking for killers. These people don't like to surrender. They don't surrender. But we've been able to count on foreign troops to help us. And so Ed, I think we're in good shape. I really do. And if not, I'll address the nation, but I don't see any need to right now. (CROSSTALK) Monday. QUESTION: Can you take one on Mexico? BUSH: Si. QUESTION: You are going to my country next week. BUSH: Es la verdad. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Besides what President Fox presented to you last year, you haven't acted in favor of the Mexican proposal by the president of Mexico. You haven't presented anything to Congress. BUSH: Excuse me for a second. What proposal are you talking about? QUESTION: The one that President Fox... BUSH: In specific. I don't mean to interrupt you... QUESTION: The regularization of Mexican... BUSH: Oh, the immigration issue. QUESTION: Yes. The immigration issue. BUSH: Yes, well, OK. QUESTION: So when are you going to present any concrete steps in that direction for Mexicans? BUSH: Well first of all, we are working closely with Mexico. We've had many of our administration officials down there. Tom Ridge just came back. He had a very good dialogue with President Fox. John Ashcroft has been very much involved with the Mexican government. We have had a wide-ranging discussion as to how make the border work better, how to make the border more secure for both countries. We've had a really good dialogue. Some of what needs to be done didn't require a law. I'm glad you brought that up. We just got 245 passed in the House of Representatives. Hopefully that'll come out of the Senate quickly. That's a step toward -- that's a good reform, it's one that I support. I also cautioned President Fox at the time that there will be no blanket amnesty in America. I don't think the will of the American people is for blanket amnesty. I think he understands that. And so, therefore, the thing we've got to do is figure out how to make sure willing employers are able to match up with willing employees. And so we'll work. We're making progress; 245 is good progress. Yes? QUESTION: Mr. President, do you believe there's an American pilot from the Gulf War still alive in Iraq? And if so, how might that complicate any action... (CROSSTALK) BUSH: Well, let me just say this to you. I know that the man has got MIA status. And it reminds me once again about the nature of Saddam Hussein if, in fact, he's alive. And therefore, you know, it's just another part of my thinking about him. I guess lack of respect is a good way to define it. QUESTION: Would it complicate any action you might consider taking against Iraq in the war... BUSH: Well, that's what we're trying -- this is the old hypothetical again. Let me just put it this way: It doesn't change my opinion about him. Matter of fact, it reinforces the fact that anybody who would be so cold and heartless as to hold an American flyer for all this period of time without notification to his family -- just wouldn't put it past me -- wouldn't put it past him, given the fact that he gassed his own people. QUESTION: Mr. President... BUSH: Yes, ma'am? QUESTION: OK, thank you. BUSH: OK. QUESTION: Do you officially recognize the Zimbabwe elections? And what are your thoughts about Mugabe? And also, on Pickering, what are your thoughts... BUSH: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's all over the lot. Wait a minute, all over the lot. (LAUGHTER) You talk about somebody taking the liberty... QUESTION: When I get a chance with you, I have to take it. BUSH: I can see that. Go ahead, take it. QUESTION: OK. BUSH: Is this a six-part question? QUESTION: No, it's only three. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: We start writing them down. The first one is Zimbabwe. Go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) and Pickering, what are your thoughts about many of your nominees who are opposed have issues with racial bias, including Pickering. BUSH: Yes, OK. That's two. You're going to limit it to two? Thank you very much. That's a good break. First on Pickering. Pickering has got a very strong record on civil rights. Just ask the people he lives with. I had the honor of meeting the Attorney General of Mississippi Moore, Attorney General Moore. Fine Democrat, elected statewide in the state of Mississippi. A man who I suspect is a man who got elected because he cares deeply about the civil rights of his citizens came up and sat in the Oval Office and said, "Judge Pickering has had a fine record on civil rights and should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate." I hope the senators hear that. I hope they listen to Moore, or Al Gore's brother-in-law, or the former governor of Mississippi, Winters. Zimbabwe. We do not recognize the outcome of the election, because we think it's flawed. And we are dealing with our friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election. Well, we're dealing with our friends right now to figure out how to deal with it. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: The House is voting on class-action reform this evening. Given the current political atmosphere, do you want to enact new legal reforms into law this year? And if so, which ones are you going to... BUSH: Well look, here's the thing. I am for reducing the number of lawsuits in our society. I think everybody ought to have their day in court, but I think a society that is so litigious-oriented is one that is bad for jobs, bad for the creation of jobs. And if any reform -- I will support reforms which reduce lawsuits and at the same time provide -- give people the opportunity to take their case to court. Stretch? Super Stretch, Little Stretch, Regular Stretch. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Last week you announced an ambitious set of changes to make it easier for the government to crack down on corporate wrongdoing, yet Republicans in Congress and your own SEC chairman says essentially a lot more money than you proposed will be needed to do the job effectively. BUSH: Yes. You're talking about when I called on the SEC to enact laws to make sure that corporate CEOs take responsibility for their books, make sure that when somebody says they've got X amount in liabilities that X equals X and not X equals Y, or something less than X? Yes, I strongly believe that, and the SEC needs to get after it. And I don't use the excuse of not enough money in the budget, frankly. I need to know the numbers. But we need action and we need reasonable action without causing a plethora of lawsuits. Hutch? QUESTION: I wanted to ask about the second phase of the war. As a member of the Vietnam generation, are you worried, as you send these military advisers all over the world, particularly to chaotic places, that they may get involved in direct conflict and the situation could escalate, and are you prepared to do that? BUSH: Interesting question. Hutch, let me tell you something. I believe this war is more akin to World War II than it is to Vietnam. This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom of our country. Secondly, I understand there's going to be loss of life. And that people are going to -- and the reason I bring that up is because for a while, at least for a period, it seemed to be that, you know, the definition of success in war was nobody lost their life. Nobody grieves harder than I do when we lose a life. I feel responsible for sending the troops into harm's way. It breaks my heart when I see a mom sitting on the front row of a speech and she's weeping, openly weeping, for the loss of her son. I'm not very good about concealing my emotions. But I strongly believe we're doing the right thing. And Hutch, the idea of denying sanctuary is vital to protect America. And we're going to be, obviously, judicious and wise about how we deploy troops. I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam war. There was too much concern in the White House about political standing. And I've got great confidence in General Tommy Franks and great confidence in how this war is being conducted. And I rely on Tommy, just like the secretary of defense relies upon Tommy and his judgment, whether or not we ought to deploy and how we ought to deploy. Tommy knows the lessons of Vietnam just as well as I do. Both of us -- he graduated from high school in '63, and you and I graduated in '64. We're of the same vintage. We paid attention to what was going on. And so -- I think it's '64, wasn't it? QUESTION: No, sir. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: Oh. You're not that old. You're not that old. I'll give you an interesting fact. I don't know if you all know this or not, speaking about Tommy. But Tommy Franks went to Midland Lee High School, class of '63. Laura Bush went to Midland Lee High School, class of '64. That's an interesting thing for the social columns. (LAUGHTER) For those of you who allow for your news gathering to slip into social items or social gossip, which sometimes happens -- it doesn't happen that much. (CROSSTALK) No. Elizabeth? QUESTION: Mr. President, who do you hold responsible for the failure at the INS this week? I see the attorney general said he was going to hold individuals responsible... (CROSSTALK) Hold individuals responsible. BUSH: Well, let's see what the inspector general comes back with. But obviously, you know, I named a good man to run it, Ziglar, and he's held accountable. His responsibility is to reform the INS, let's give him time to do so. He hasn't been there that long, but he now has got, you know, another wake-up call. The first wake-up call was from me, this agency needs to be reformed. And secondly, he got another one, with this embarrassing disclosure today that, as I mentioned, got the president's attention this morning. I could barely get my coffee down when I opened up my local newspaper. Well, a newspaper. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Mr. President, back on the Middle East, can you tell us what was behind the timing of pursuing a U.N. resolution... BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: ... at this point regarding a future Palestinian state? BUSH: Well, there was a -- sometimes these resolutions just get a life of their own. And sometimes we have to veto them, and sometimes we can help the message. And this time we felt like we were able to make the message a clear message that we agreed with. If it was a message that tried to isolate or condemn our friend, I'd have vetoed it. In this case, it was a universal message that could lead to a more peaceful world, and so we supported it. As matter of fact, we helped engineer it. We were a part of the process. And as to the timing, I don't know that. All I know is that things start showing up on my desk. QUESTION: When did it start showing up on your radar screen, sir? BUSH: Well, yes, desk or radar screen. It's the same thing. About 24 hours ago. And I heard from the secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice that there was a little movement afoot there at the Security Council. And so we made a decision, a conscious decision, to try to send a statement that it was a hopeful statement. It turned out to be a good statement, by the way. It was one of those statements that was embraced by all the parties except for one, who couldn't bring themselves to vote for it -- Syria. You know, again, we are working hard to create the conditions for a security arrangement that will then enable the Mitchell process to kick in. I know you all are tired of hearing me say that. But unlike other parts of the world, in this part of the world Tenet and Mitchell have been agreed to by both parties, which means there is a hopeful process if we can get people into the process. And so our mission is to do that, and that's why Zinni is over there. Listen, I want to thank you very much. I've enjoyed this press conference, I hope you have as well. Thank you. Fox News Network, LLC 2002. All rights reserved. All market data ***************************************************************** 24 Bush tells foes to beware nuclear response Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Oliver Burkeman in New York, and agencies Thursday March 14, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] President Bush upped the ante in America's "war on terrorism" yesterday, when he refused to rule out the possibility of launching nuclear strikes in the event of an attack on the country. He said the US government would keep "all options on the table" - including those floated in a controversial Pentagon report released last weekend which proposed lowering the threshold for using so-called "mini-nukes" against hostile nations, whether or not they possessed nuclear weapons themselves. "The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence," the president told a news conference at the White House. "We've got all the options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends." Although he stuck to the administration's official line that a decision to take military action against Iraq has not yet been made, Mr Bush ratcheted up the pressure against Saddam Hussein, telling reporters: "We are going to deal with him." "I am deeply concerned about Iraq. This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons, a man who won't let inspectors into the country, a man who's obviously got something to hide," he said. "But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that is exactly what we are doing." The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, completed in January but made public days ago, named seven nations - Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea - as potential threats, causing panic among some leaders and forcing the US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to reassure Russia that it was not in danger of becoming a target of an American nuclear attack. Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, speaking before the president's comments, called the plans "evil". "Now you may judge who is talking about war and who is talking about peace," he said during a visit to Athens. In a further note of conciliation towards Moscow, however, Mr Bush used the same news conference to express his hope that Russia and America might reach agreement on deep cuts in both countries' nuclear arsenals by the time he visits President Vladimir Putin in May. Mr Bush said he hoped to sign, together with Mr Putin, "a document that outlives both of us" to set out big cuts in US and Russian nuclear weapons. He also said that his administration was willing to discuss Russian concerns about US plans to store, rather than destroy, thousands of the nuclear warheads that are destined to be removed from the active force. The White House has stressed its belief that because Russia is no longer an adversary of the US, there should be no need to codify arms reductions. Mr Putin, however, has pushed for a formal agreement, possibly in the form of a bilateral treaty. At the news conference, Mr Bush appeared less concerned than ever about the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden - a stance intended to bolster his administration's ongoing efforts to shift the focus of the American campaign away from its initial aims. He called the terrorist leader "marginalised" and insisted that "I just don't spend that much time" wondering where he is. "Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all," he said. "Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me that people don't understand the scope of the mission." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 25 Bomb Makers' Trade Union www.moscowtimes.ru Thursday, Mar. 14, 2002. Page 9 By Pavel Felgenhauer The recent disclosure of a secret Pentagon report naming Russia as a prime target of possible U.S. nuclear attack -- together with China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya -- caused a lot of noise in the West but not much of a stir in Russia. Two weeks ago the press, the public and the political elite in Moscow went ballistic over an alleged U.S.-led plot to deprive Russian athletes of gold medals at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Then the planned deployment of U.S. military instructors in Georgia caused uproar in Moscow. So why didn't Moscow get enraged when finally it seemed to have serious reason to? Most likely, Russian intelligence agents got a copy of the Pentagon-produced Nuclear Posture Review much earlier than its publication in the Los Angeles Times so the Kremlin had time to evaluate the document. It's also possible that many in Moscow actually liked what they found in the text. That the Pentagon is still targeting Russia more than 10 years after the end of the Cold War is indeed not big news for the Russian military. Russia is the only country in the world that could obliterate the United States at any time in a volley of thousands of warheads. Today, such an attack seems almost impossible, but still it could happen. In 1994, Moscow and Washington signed an agreement to target their warheads away from each other. But the military in both countries always suggest in private that this "detargeting" is superficial. It's understood that both sides preserve and update lists of primary targets on the other's territory. In fact, target lists are on computer disks in nuclear command centers in Russia and the United States that work 24 hours a day. The targets and launch orders can be instantly wired into on-board computers of land-based ballistic missiles at the push of a button. The true novelty of the Nuclear Posture Review is that it indicates the United States is preparing to deploy a new generation of small and minute nuclear weapons with low explosive yields -- nuclear bunker-busters and surgical warheads -- that "reduce collateral damage." It's also proposed that old Cold War-era warheads be modified so that their explosive yield can be changed. The idea is that by pressing a button or two, the explosive yield of a warhead could be decreased from, say, 500 kilotons of TNT to 5 or even 0.5 kilotons. Such a warhead could be used to destroy a terrorist target in Central Asia or the Middle East. Russian military sources suggest that "surgical" low-yield nukes have been researched and developed by U.S. bomb-makers for many years, but now these plans have been given higher priority by the emergence of new threats. Small nukes could be used in local conflicts or antiterrorist operations to destroy enemies hiding in deep caves and bunkers. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have been extensively using conventional incendiary bombs to hit underground targets, but nukes are clearly more effective. The deployment and possible use by the U.S. military of new battlefield nukes may drastically lower the nuclear threshold and trigger numerous local and regional nuclear wars in coming decades. One might think that Russia would strongly oppose such plans, since most of the potential targets are not far from its own borders. But in fact the Russian nuclear bomb makers have been for many years lobbying the Kremlin to deploy their own "surgical" battlefield nukes. In April 1999, the Security Council approved a concept for developing and using non-strategic low- and flexible-yield battlefield weapons. Nuclear Power Ministry plans speak, using exactly the same language as their U.S. counterparts, of making new low-yield bunker-busters and of surgical strikes by bombs with an explosive yield of "just" tens or hundreds of tons of TNT. Now the Nuclear Posture Review will give Russian bomb makers additional arguments to press ahead with testing and deployment. If the United States resumes real nuclear tests to make the new weapons, Russia will soon follow. Informed sources say the Novaya Zemlya testing range in the Arctic is ready to resume testing whenever the authorities give the go-ahead. If the United States actually uses its new surgical nukes in its war on terrorism, Russia may do the same in Chechnya or somewhere nearby. It seems bomb makers on both sides of the Atlantic are members of one trade union and are closely coordinating their moves. It's also clear they do not care much about the potential fallout. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. [http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 26 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: US developing nuclear arms Financial Times; Mar 14, 2002 By CHRISTINE KUCIA From Ms Christine Kucia. Sir, While Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, may assert that the US has no plans to develop new nuclear weapons ("US signals tougher N-strike response", March 11), the research is certainly under way in the US nuclear weapons laboratories. General John A. Gordon, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, notified the US Congress in February that the Bush administration had sanctioned a three-year study into developing a low-yield nuclear weapon that could be used to defeat a hardened, buried target. According to Gen Gordon, the development work "would proceed beyond the 'paper' stage", indicating that simulations and testing components may take place. The plans to develop new nuclear weapons go hand in hand with the proposed reductions in the overall US nuclear arsenal. Accolades surrounding the reductions in the overall arsenal masked the proposals for new weapons development and an enormous change in policy: nuclear weapons are no longer kept as a last resort but are potentially usable in combat. While the US government is promising to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, it is increasing the likelihood of their use. None of us should be surprised if other countries choose to do the same. Christine Kucia, Analyst, British American Security Information Council, Washington, DC 20005, US Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-2002 ***************************************************************** 27 Postpones Sutyagin case This section covers issues related to the rights of individuals and green groups to work with environmental problems in Russia. The violation of this right is becoming a regular practice in modern Russia. Here you will also find all the news related to the Nikitin case and his final victory in the Supreme Court on April 17, 2000. Russian Supreme Court: Postpones Sutyagin case The Russian Supreme Court has postponed its consideration of the appeal of researcher Igor Sutyagin, who has been kept in custody for more than two years on bogus espionage charges based on secret decrees. Jon Gauslaa, 2002-03-13 11:42 Researcher Igor Sutyagin at the USA and Canada department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was arrested by the FSB in the Russian town of Kaluga on October 27, 1999. He has been kept in pre-trial detention ever since, on charges of treason through espionage. The trial against him started more than one year ago, and the prosecutor could not convince the Kaluga City Court about the rightfulness of the charges. However, rather than acquitting Sutyagin it sent the case back to the FSB for additional investigation on December 27, 2001. His defence appealed the decision, demanding Sutyagin's immediate release and that the case should be closed due to the lack of content of crime in his actions. The hearing of the appeal was scheduled for March 13, 2002, but in a surprise move, the Russian General Prosecutor asked for a postponement of the hearing so that it could take part in the case and evaluate it more closely. The Supreme Court was most willing to comply with this request, and postponed the hearing until March 20, 2002. Below follows some background information on the case. More information is avvailable at http://www.case52.org. Case based on secret decree According to the charges Sutyagin, who has no security clearance and thus, has no access to state secrets, collected, kept and transferred abroad information pertaining to state secrets by preparing a number of reports, mostly for publishing in the Russian press, on nuclear arms, missile defence and arms-control issues. The fact that the disputed information was available in open sources has neither bothered the FSB-investigators nor the prosecutor, who have based their allegation that the case involves state secrets on the infamous decree 055:96 of the Ministry of Defence. The case against Sutyagin was brought before the Kaluga City Court in the winter of 2000/2001, but due to several postponements the trial continued until December 27, 2001. Substantial law-violation by investigation While the defence pleaded for a full acquittal the prosecutor insisted that Sutyagin's activity had inserted gross damage to the security of the Russian Federation. Thus, 14 years of forced labour would be a sentence that would fit his 'crime'. On December 27, 2001, the Kaluga Court ruled that the investigating body, the FSB, substantially had violated the Russian Criminal Procedure Code and deprived Mr. Sutyagin of his constitutional right to defend himself. In particular the Court pointed out that the indictment did not specify what were the secrets that Sutyagin allegedly had disclosed, and that the charges were based on Decree No. 55 of the Ministry of Defence, which was secret and not registered and therefore could not be used for prosecution. The latter had a few months before been established by a ruling of the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court, after evaluation a complaint filed by the former submarine officer turned environmentalist, Aleksandr Nikitin. In short, the Court found that there was no evidence against Sutyagin, and that the case lacks both a factual and a legal foundation. In any country ruled by law, such findings would have led to an acquittal. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and if it can't fulfil its burden, the Court has to acquit the accused. Russia is however, a different place. Case sent back to square one Rather than acquitting Sutyagin because of the lack of evidence, the Kaluga Court gave the prosecution a chance to re-fabricate its case, by sending it back to the FSB for additional investigation. In the first trial in the spy case against Aleksandr Nikitin in October 1998, the St. Petersburg City Court came up with an almost similar decision, and on almost similar grounds. Still, there are considerable differences between the effect of the two decisions. In October 1998 Nikitin, who 14 months later went on to be acquitted by the St. Petersburg Court, was not allowed to leave St. Petersburg without the permission of the FSB, but yet a relatively free man. Sutyagin on the other hand, has already been imprisoned for almost 30 months, faces several more months in prison under appalling conditions. Contradicts Constitutional Court Besides, in April 1999 the Russian Constitutional Court cancelled the major parts of article 232 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, which was the legal basis for sending cases to additional investigation. The reason for the decision was that sending cases to additional investigation when there was not produced any significant evidence against the accused, would violate the presumption of innocence in Article 49 of the Russian Constitution, as well as several other Constitutional provisions. The Constitutional Court could however not touch part 2 of article 232 because the plaintiff of the said case had not challenged it. Article 232 part 2 says that cases shall be sent to additional investigation if they involve "substantial violations" of the criminal procedure code by the investigative bodies. Although the grounds of the Constitutional Court's judgment indicates that it also considers article 232 part 2, as unconstitutional, the provision was formally kept in force. And this was the loophole the Kaluga Court used in order to send the case back to additional investigation rather than determining it. The Russian Spy Mania It is too early to predict what the involvement from the General Prosecutor and the Supreme Court's postponement of the case means. Those who have followed the legal development in Russia closely throughout the last few years have however few reasons for mindless optimism. In April 2000, the General Prosecutor made a similar move in the appeal-case against the then recently acquitted Aleksandr Nikitin, with the intention to prolong the case for months and even years. Then the Russian Supreme Court stood firm against the prosecution's attempt, and managed to come up with a ruling in accordance with the rule of law. Only time will show if the same will happen in Sutyagin's case. However, not even a full acquittal can repair the gross violations of his rights that he already has suffered. The Sutyagin case fits well into the "spy mania", which has plagued Russia recently, and that also includes the cases against Grigory Pasko, Valentin Moiseev, Aleksandr Danilov and others. Both the International Helsinki Federation and the EU-parliament has engaged themselves in Sutyagin's case. On November 12, 2001, the Washington Post said the following in its editorial ("Injustice in Russia"): "If [Sutyagin's case] sounds like a bad parody of Kafka, that's precisely the intention: The FSB wants Russians to know that it has the ability to jail anyone who somehow displeases the authorities, regardless of evidence or the law." These are harsh words, but on March 20, 2002, we might get an indictation regarding Russia's supreme legal authority's possibilities to control the activities and abilities of the FSB. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge 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 ***************************************************************** 28 ANALYSIS-U.S. nuclear plan sends shivers around Mideast Zawya.com By Alistair Lyon, Middle East Diplomatic Correspondent LONDON, March 13 (Reuters) - A secret Pentagon review of nuclear options has alarmed Middle Eastern "rogue" states listed as potential U.S. targets and could even encourage them to acquire weapons of mass destruction, analysts said on Wednesday. The U.S. Defence Department's nuclear posture review, reported in U.S. media, talks of developing new kinds of nuclear weapons and sets out contingency plans for using them on Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with China, North Korea and Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has sought to portray the review as routine planning, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice stressed its message of deterrence. The U.S. administration was sending a "very strong signal" to anyone tempted to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. "The only way to deter such a use is to be clear it would be met with a devastating response," she said. William Hopkinson, a security expert at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, said that while the review might never become U.S. policy, its contents could handicap American efforts to win support for a possible war on Iraq. "It will immensely complicate (U.S. Vice President Dick) Cheney's visit to the Middle East," he said. Cheney was in Egypt on Wednesday on the second leg of an 11-nation Middle East tour to discuss the U.S.-led war on terror and possible military action against Iraq. Most Arab leaders were expected to tell him their priority was ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Regional reaction to the nuclear review has ranged from stunned silence to anger that Washington might jettison a pledge by the big powers not to use nuclear arms against states that have foresworn them, unless they have nuclear-armed allies. ISRAEL ODD MAN OUT Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria have all signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not. "The United States believes that by threatening those countries, they will withdraw their logical demands," said Iran's influential former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. "The widespread presence of American and allied troops around the world shows their policy is one of intimidation." U.S. President George W. Bush has accused Iran, Iraq and North Korea of forming an "axis of evil", saying they are seeking weapons of mass destruction and might share them with terrorists to threaten the United States or its allies. Iraq's Saddam, widely tipped as the next target in Bush's "war on terrorism", said this week Iraqis would not be scared by "futile threats" from the United States. Salim al-Kubaisi, head of the Iraqi parliament's Foreign and Arab Relations Committee, told Reuters the U.S. plan was a flagrant violation of international conventions. "The United Nations should, first of all, condemn such an American move and then it should take action to prevent the United States from using such weapons," he said. Saddam refrained from using biological or chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War after U.S. President George Bush warned Baghdad that this would trigger "the strongest possible response" -- a possible reference to nuclear reprisals. Abdel Monem Said, director of Cairo's al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, said the review was part of efforts to force "rogue" states to bow to U.S. wishes. "It's part of psychological pressure the U.S. wants to put on some states like Iraq to get them to do things like accept U.N. weapons inspectors," he said. "The United States wants to keep them on high alert, to keep them guessing." There has been no public response to the Pentagon review from Syria or Libya, both trying to avoid becoming targets in the anti-terror campaign that shot to the top of Washington's priorities after the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities. INCENTIVE TO PROLIFERATE Hazem Saghiyeh, a columnist for the London-based pan-Arab al-Hayat newspaper, said the review, said to recommend building smaller, more accurate nuclear devices that could be used for example against caves or underground bunkers, had dangerously blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. He said the Pentagon document could spur the nuclear aspirations of U.S. foes in the Middle East. "Nuclear weapons are becoming smaller and cheaper and they are not the monopoly of the United States and the main nuclear powers. Access to them is much easier than before." Saghiyeh said the Pentagon review, in what he called its reliance on the law of the jungle, represented an ideological victory of sorts for the countries on the U.S. target list. "Instead of setting an example, (the United States) is accepting the example of rogue states," he argued. Hopkinson said the review's disclosures were sure to annoy Syria, which he said had been cooperating with the United States in the struggle against terrorism since September 11. Libya would also feel stung about its inclusion on the potential nuclear target list after its efforts to rehabilitate itself in world eyes by handing over the suspects in the 1988 bombing of a U.S. airliner over Lockerbie, in Scotland. "These countries will ask, 'why us?'," Hopkinson said. "They will compare and contrast with Israel, which is a nuclear power and also threatens Arabs in an outrageous way." He said the review would enrage Iran, which had collaborated in the U.S. campaign against Osama bin Laden's Taliban hosts, and would make life harder for reformist elements in Tehran. "Iran was mentioned idiotically in the 'axis of evil'," Hopkinson said. "If anything were to lead to an impulse for nuclear proliferation, it would be that. (Additional reporting by Cynthia Johnston in Cairo and Hassan Hafidh in Baghdad) ((Alistair Lyon +44 20 7542 7656, fax 7542 3496, alistair.lyon@reuters.com)) © Reuters Limited. Click for Restrictions. About zawya.com | Feedback | Submit PR | Home ***************************************************************** 29 Turkey: As I told you Turkish Daily News; Mar 14, 2002 Dear editor, Your comments about The U.S. attack plan for Iraq are late and old. I told you this months ago. Fact is, you need to understand that POWELL is bent on destroying the thorn that stopped him during the GULF WAR and Bush/Cheney are typical war mongers using the Afghan and Bin Laden, Sept. 11 etc. to legalise these actions. They need results to expand and legitimise reopening Nuclear testing and Starwars.......NONE OF WHICH WILL PROTECT TURKEY. Turkey should and must stand up and TELL BUSH: This time it is NO, NO and NO....but I suspect PM Ecevit has already given way as he did on sending Turkish Soldiers into Afghanistan. NO to the above and NO to Turkish command of the peace keeping force in Afghanistan. The U.S. and the Bush team are very good at placing OTHERS LIVES in the FRONT LINE. TURKEY should tell the U.S. that IT will handle Iraq and the U.S. should keep its nose out for once.......BUT DOES TURKEY HAVE THE GUTS. I know BLAIR does not. Sadly we don't have another Maggie, who will tell the U.S. to get out of it as in 1982. Best regards Derek R Packham. Copyright © Asia Intelligence Wire ***************************************************************** 30 Japan: World cautious on US nuke plan [News24 Home] 11/03/2002 12:19 - (SA) Tokyo - Governments around the world have reacted with caution to news that Washington is reviewing its policy for nuclear attacks on countries that threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. Some media and private groups, however, were worried on Monday that a more-hawkish stance by US President George W Bush's administration could destabilise the world. The US defence department has sent congress a classified report outlining the possible use of nuclear weapons against countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The "nuclear posture review" identified seven nations: China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and Syria. Japan, the only country to be hit by nuclear weapons, said it opposed the use of weapons of mass destruction, but was otherwise tight-lipped about the US report. Allies play down their reactions "We are not in a position to say anything about it because the document is classified," said a senior foreign ministry official, who asked not to be identified. Other US allies were similarly reserved. Australia's defence ministry on Monday played down the report as routine military planning, echoing comments a day earlier from the British foreign office and the Italian minister of defence. Catherine Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Australian defence minister Robert Hill, said the US stance was the latest in a series of broader strategic reviews, not a guide on nuclear targeting. "We note the US assurances and we will continue to engage closely with the US on nuclear issues," she said. Notably silent were North Korea and Russia, both named in the US report. A Chinese government spokesman said Beijing was aware of the report, but had no comment. Some media, however, lambasted the US report as a threat to the rest of the world. "The critical point of this Pentagon report is that, apart from hoping to develop new nuclear weapons, America also wants to expand the realm of their usage, increasing the uncertainty of world peace," said Hong Kong's Chinese-language daily, Ming Pao, in an editorial on Monday. On Sunday, much of the criticism emerged from the Middle East and Russia. "The order indicates that the US administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination," said Iran's conservative Tehran Times newspaper, which is close to the nation's hardliners. Accused of deliberate leak "America thinks that if a military threat looms large over the head of these seven countries, they will give up their logical demands," former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Dmitry Rogozin, a leading Russian lawmaker with close ties to the Kremlin, accused Washington of deliberately organising the leak of the report's contents to intimidate Russia at a time of increasing strain in US-Russian ties. Relations, which had improved dramatically after September 11, have been marred recently by trade disputes over a US decision to introduce new steel tariffs and a Russian ban on US. poultry imports. "They've brought out a big stick - a nuclear stick that is supposed to scare us and put us in our place," Rogozin said on NTV television on Sunday. Still, Libya's African affairs minister, Ali Abd al-Salam al-Turiki, told reporters in Cairo he found the report hard to believe. "I don't think this is true," he said on Sunday. "I don't think America is going to destroy the world." - Sapa-AP About News24 ***************************************************************** 31 War on Terrorism DallasNews.com U.S. has the resources for a prolonged war, president says Bush lists 'good lessons from Vietnam' in fighting terrorism 03/14/2002 By G. ROBERT HILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News WASHINGTON  President Bush, emphasizing a "long struggle" ahead in the war against terrorism, said Wednesday that the nation had plenty of military resources for the mission and its other commitments around the world. "People shouldn't worry about a draft," Mr. Bush said, declaring that the nation's volunteer forces were working well. "The mission's clear. The training is good. The equipment is going to be robust," the president said during his first solo news conference in nearly five months. "We've got ample manpower to meet our needs," he added, as well as "a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their own manpower to the war." If the situation changes, he said, "I'll address the nation. But I don't see any need to right now." Then, answering a question about whether he worried that U.S. forces would become tangled in a series of escalating international conflicts, Mr. Bush volunteered what he called some "good lessons from Vietnam." "First, there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war," he said, asserting "there was too much politics during the Vietnam War ... too much concern in the White House about political standing." The president, who served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, said he has "great confidence" in Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who is commanding the campaign in Afghanistan, and relies heavily on him. "Tommy knows the lessons of Vietnam just as well as I do," Mr. Bush said. The new, international war against terrorism is more like World War II than Vietnam, Mr. Bush said. "This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom of our country." Mr. Bush, who has repeatedly warned of sacrifices since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, again declared his resolve to pursue terrorists, wherever they might be. "I can assure you I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired because I know what is at stake," he said. "History has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom." Mr. Bush said he did not know whether Osama bin Laden, whom the administration blames for the Sept. 11 attacks, is dead or alive, but "terror was bigger than one person." He's been "marginalized," the president said. "His host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite, who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match." Looking ahead to other possible war fronts, Mr. Bush said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein remained a "problem, and we're going to deal with him." But now, in what he described as the "first stage," Mr. Bush said his administration was consulting with its allies and other nations in the Middle East. "All options are on the table," he said, urging Iraq to allow United Nations inspectors to again enter the country to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he believes the Iraqis are developing. "They've agreed not to have those weapons. They ought to conform to their agreement, comply with their agreement," Mr. Bush said. He also defended the Pentagon's review of the nation's nuclear weapons policy to consider a broad range of potential targets in Iraq, as well as Russia, China, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea. "The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is to serve as a deterrence," Mr. Bush said, and he intends to maintain a deterrence. "We want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends," he said. E-mail bhillman@dallasnews.com ©2002 Belo Interactive ***************************************************************** 32 Bush Focuses on Cutting Nuclear Arms Las Vegas SUN Today: March 14, 2002 at 5:00:16 PST WASHINGTON- President Bush is offering to turn his verbal agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on large cuts in nuclear arsenals into "a document that outlives both of us." Bush's choice of words seemed to indicate a new willingness to engage in detailed negotiations - although he steered clear of that term - on aspects of nuclear arms reductions important to the Russians. Administration officials previously have expressed reluctance to get into drawn-out negotiations, arguing that in the post-Cold War world there is no need for such formal arms constraints. Bush said he discussed the matter this week with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who also met Wednesday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Ivanov was scheduled to see Secretary of State Colin Powell and meet with CIA officials Thursday. At a White House news conference, Bush said Wednesday his administration also is willing to discuss with the Russians their concern about his administration's plans to store, rather than destroy, thousands of the nuclear warheads Bush intends to remove from the active force over the next decade. Bush said he hopes an arms agreement will be ready to sign when he visits Putin in Russia in May. Bush and his senior national security aides have said in the past that because Russia is no longer an adversary, there is no need to codify arms reductions. Putin, however, has pushed for a formal agreement. In response to reporters' questions, Bush said his chief concern in putting together a nuclear accord was ensuring that agreed reductions could be verified by both governments. "The most important thing, though, is verification - to make sure that whatever decision is made, that there is open verification so as to develop a level of trust," he said. On the issue of requiring the destruction, rather than long-term storage, of nuclear warheads removed from the active force, Bush said this would require "a lot of work," presumably by negotiators. "That in itself is going to take time, and that's got to be a part of the equation as well," he said. Bush said he was wary of "those who are interested in making sure that the Cold War relationship continues on." He did not elaborate, but said the U.S.-Russia relationship is important. "I also agree with President Putin that there needs to be a document that outlives both of us," Bush said. "What form that comes in, we will discuss." He added: "I'm confident that President Putin is interested in making a deal, coming up with a good arrangement that will codify a new relationship." Earlier Wednesday, Rumsfeld and Ivanov held a joint news conference at the Pentagon. Ivanov said Russia will not ignore "international terrorists" who have infiltrated neighboring Georgia. He said they are linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network and are "full of new plans for terrorist operations." Ivanov said these terrorists had trained in Afghanistan, "committed terrible crimes" in the Russian breakaway province of Chechnya, and are now in Georgia's remote Pankisi Gorge, only a dozen or so miles from Russia's border. "We cannot just sit and watch those activities indifferently," he said, adding that Moscow had provided the U.S. government a list of hundreds of names of such people with links to al-Qaida. At the Georgian government's invitation, the Pentagon is preparing to send perhaps 150 troops to the former Soviet republic to train its armed forces in counterterrorist operations. Some in the Russian parliament have sharply criticized the plan, but Ivanov gave no indication Wednesday that he opposed it. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 America withdraws from ABM treaty BBC News | AMERICAS | Thursday, 13 December, 2001, [Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, Secretary of State Colin Powell, President George W Bush] It was high-profile announcement from Bush US President George W Bush has officially announced that the US will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia. This step was not a surprise for us. However, we consider it a mistake Russian President Vladimir Putin "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks," Mr Bush announced following a meeting with his National Security Council. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the move was not unexpected but that he considered it a "mistake". Both Mr Bush and Mr Putin said that the decision would not undermine Russian national security. Russia warning "Defending the American people is my highest priority as commander in chief and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defences," Mr Bush said at the White House Rose Garden. He had informed Congressional leaders of his decision on Wednesday. Earlier on Thursday, the US ambassador in Moscow delivered a formal document informing the Russian Government of the decision and invoking Article 15 of the treaty, which gives Russia six months' notice before the treaty expires. "This step was not a surprise for us. However, we consider it a mistake," Mr Putin said in a national television broadcast. The Cold War is long gone. Today we leave behind one of its last vestiges. President George Bush "I fully believe that the decision taken by the president of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation," he said. Russia had previously warned that a US withdrawal would trigger a new nuclear arms race and weaken international security. But Moscow has softened its line in recent months. The Russian Prime Minister, Mikhail Kasyanov, said on Thursday that the decision was "a cause of annoyance" for Moscow, but that Washington was within its rights. President Bush also emphasised that Russia had no reason to fear. "The Cold War is long gone," Mr Bush said. "Today we leave behind one of its last vestiges. But this is not a day for looking back. This is a day for looking forward with hope of greater prosperity and peace." 'Agreement with Putin' The president said that before making his decision he had consulted his security advisers and had discussed the issues with "my friend President Vladimir Putin," over several meetings this year. [Map of missile defence shield plans] The missile shield is in planning stages But the withdrawal was criticised by Democrat leaders in the American Congress, who worry it could undermine arms control and antagonise Russia and China, despite Mr Bush's assurances. Mr Bush says that states like North Korea and Iran are ambitiously pursuing weapons of mass destruction and proposes a missile defence system to combat the threat. Mr Putin has been firmly opposed to the system, saying it would destroy the existing nuclear balance and create a new arms race. He has said it could eventually undermine the Russian nuclear deterrent. After President Bush's announcement, the French foreign ministry called for a new international arms agreemeent to replace the ABM. "Beyond the American-Russian bilateral relationship, the need to continue to ensure stability in this new global context remains a task for us all," the ministry statement said. "That supposes, in particular, rules and binding international measures, as much bilateral as multilateral." Sweden criticised the US decision to withdraw. A foreign ministry statement warned of possibly "serious consequences for the future of international disarmament". ***************************************************************** 34 UN Official 'Alarmed' Over Reports of New US Nuclear Posture Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, March 14, 2002 A senior United Nations official dealing with disarmament said Washington's nuclear posture could deal a serious blow to global non-proliferation efforts. Jayantha Dhanapala, the U.N. under-secretary-general for disarmament said this to U.N. Radio on Tuesday in reaction to press reports of a reassessment by the Pentagon of the United States stance on the development and possible use of nuclear weapons, according to the U.N. Department of Public Information. "This is a very serious step because it indicates that even if it is a plan, or a conceptual plan, there is some thinking going on in Washington about using nuclear weapons," Dhanapala said. The reported assessment, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, marked a departure from the past policy of having nuclear weapons "mainly for political purposes of deterring an attack," noted Dhanapala. He stressed that the use of a nuclear weapon would stand in violation of humanitarian law, a 1996 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, and the U.N. Security Council resolution 984 (1995). The use of a nuclear weapon also "flies in the face of the Nuclear Non-Prolifereation Treaty (NPT)," said the under-secretary- general, calling the contemplated change in U.S. policy "a very major stumbling block as we begin the process of preparing for the 2005 NPT Review Conference." The first preparatory meeting for that conference will take place next month. Asked about the implications of reviewed U.S. testing of nuclear weapons, Dhanapala said it would mark a "major setback" by encouraging other countries to discard their obligations under the Comprehensive-Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the NPT. "We are going to get an encouragement to nuclear proliferation, rather than reducing the number of countries that have nuclear weapons," he said. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 35 DPRK Ready to Take Countermeasure Against U.S. Nuclear Attack Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, March 14, 2002 The Bush administration reportedly designated the DPRK and six other countries as targets of the U.S. nuclear attack and decided to develop small tactical nuclear weapons to mount a "limited nuclear attack". In this regard a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement Wednesday. The statement said: The Bush group's plan for a nuclear attack is a daydream of the reckless persons who do not hesitate to stifle the DPRK even by use of nuclear weapons and, to this end, eliminate the whole Korean nation from the earth by imposing a nuclear disaster upon it. Under the present situation where nuclear lunatics have taken office in the White House, the DPRK is compelled to examine all the agreements with the U.S. In case the U.S. plan for a nuclear attack on the DPRK turns out to be true, the DPRK will have no option but to take a substantial countermeasure against it, not bound to any DPRK-U.S. agreement. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 36 Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent Newsday.com - By SANDRA SOBIERAJ Associated Press Writer March 13, 2002, 5:45 PM EST WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Wednesday his administration has "all options on the table" as the Pentagon reworks its nuclear weapons policy to deter any attack on America -- including from non-nuclear states such as Iraq and Iran. The U.S. nuclear arsenal is "a way to say to people who would harm America: 'Don't do it,'" Bush said. "We've got all options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends." In a 45-minute news conference, Bush spoke bluntly of Iraq's Saddam Hussein: "He is a problem and we're going to deal with him." However, even as U.S. troops scoured caves in Afghanistan for terrorists and Taliban fighters, Bush played down the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. Russia and other U.S. partners in the war against terrorism were alarmed when news leaks disclosed last weekend that the Pentagon was at work on a new policy that could lower the threshold for use of U.S. nuclear weapons and possibly target low-yield nuclear bombs against states such as China, Libya or Syria. When it comes to America's enemies, "We're not out to seek revenge" -- only justice, Bush said. The United States' nuclear weapons policy should also convey the nation's seriousness in the anti-terror war, Bush added. "If the United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when it comes to the war on terror and we're just not going to let them do that." By turns, Bush flashed anger and humor as he fielded questions on more than a dozen topics. He said he could "barely get my coffee down" when he read of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's belated dispatch of student visa approvals for two of the terrorists who slammed hijacked jets into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Bush said he learned through news reports that the visa notices were delivered to a Florida flight school on Monday, exactly six months after the attacks. "I was stunned and not happy. ... I was plenty hot." He called the episode a "wake-up call for people who run the INS," an agency he said "needs to be reformed." On the Middle East, where attacks and retaliation have increased, Bush offered his most direct criticism yet of crackdowns on Palestinians by Ariel Sharon's government. "Frankly, it is not helpful what the Israelis have recently done," Bush said. "I understand somebody trying to defend themselves ... but the recent actions are not helpful." He urged both Israelis and Palestinians to "work hard to create conditions for a potential settlement" when U.S. mediator Anthony Zinni returns to the region on Thursday. With Vice President Dick Cheney in the region this week trying to rally Arab support for a tougher stance against Iraq, Bush said, "One of the things I've said to our friends is that we will consult. ... In regard to Iraq, we're doing just that." On bin Laden, whose whereabouts are a nagging frustration to the White House, Bush said: "Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run -- if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me that people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terrorism is bigger than one person and he's a person who's now been marginalized." The president added, "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on it. ... I can assure you I am not going to blink." Bush, who travels to Moscow in May for another round of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said he would go along with Russian demands for a written agreement to codify expected arms reductions. Bush said he now agrees with Putin "that there needs to be a document that outlives both of us." In an opening statement, Bush scored the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, which is poised for a Thursday vote rejecting his nominee for the federal appeals court, conservative District Court Judge Charles Pickering. Partisan delays on his judicial nominees have created a "vacancy crisis" in the judicial branch, Bush said. "Too often judicial confirmations are being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our democracy," he said. The president defended his administration's refusal to give congressional investigators records of Cheney's energy task force consultations with energy company executives who contributed to the Bush campaign -- including embattled Enron officials. "I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the executive branch. We're not going to give them to 'em. These are privileged conversations," Bush said. On a day when he spent several hours with Irish and Irish-American leaders celebrating an early St. Patrick's holiday, Bush was asked about the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church. "I know many in the hierarchy in the Catholic Church. I know them to be men of decency. ... I'm confident the church will clean up its business," said Bush, who has assiduously courted Catholic support since becoming president. After decades of allegations in Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law recently gave prosecutors the names of at least 80 priests accused of sexually abusing children. Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 37 Insane nuclear capabilities Chicago Tribune | March 14, 2002 Teeny-weeny nukes not the answer to the problem Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in AustinTexas AUSTIN, Texas -- Thinking about nuclear weapons is sort of like looking directly at the sun: If you do it for more than a split second, you go blind. Or insane. Our government is now contemplating such a ne plus ultra idiocy that it's enough to make one yearn for the dear, departed days of MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD was such a sane policy. Dr. Strangelove, report for duty immediately, the Bush administration needs YOU! We are about to get a new nuclear weapons policy--cute nukes. Teeny-tiny nukes. I was betting the Pentagon would name them "precision nukes," but I have once again underestimated our military's ability to obfuscate with mind-numbing language. The cute nukes are "offensive strike systems." Now here's a sane sentence from the Pentagon's new Nuclear Posture Review: "Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation." That means we won't wipe out entire populations and start World War III if we stick to non-nukes. A point to be considered. But our busy military planners like to plan for all contingencies (except terrorists with box-cutters) and are proposing "a new generation of nuclear weapons"--just what we need. The cute nukes are to be "employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapons facilities)." The drawback to cute nukes is that they're more "useable" than the old-fashioned, clunky kind--it's so much more tempting to use just a tiny little nuke. But cute nukes do have the same charming property as the grown-up kind--they're made of lethal radioactive materials no one on God's green earth knows how to get rid of. When the Cold War ended, we really did think we could finally start "building down" the world's supply of these ungodly weapons. So who signed us up to build a whole new generation of them? Did we vote on this? Anybody recall Bush mentioning cute nukes while he was running for office? Since we have to pay for it, don't we get a say? Naturally, the rest of the world thinks we're nuts, and they're not even using diplomatic language to say so. A Russian legislator inquired if Americans "have somewhat lost touch with the reality in which they live." We could spend some time relishing the glorious black humor MAD produced, but let's take a few steps back here to look at the Big Picture. Here are the questions: What do we think we are doing? And what kind of country do we want to be? According to the State Department, the federal budget in 1949 for international aid and diplomacy (that is, efforts to settle conflicts peacefully) was $66.4 billion. In the 2002 budget, it is $23.8 billion (from Harper's Index). We spend less on foreign aid per capita than any other industrialized country. Japan spends $3.5 billion more in total than we do. Some world leader. We are also neglecting our own people and infrastructure. How pathetic is it that we're going to put another trillion dollars into the military while we cut back on child-care for women moving from welfare to work? We are, as we probably remind ourselves too often, the most powerful nation on Earth. - How do we want to use that power? - What do we stand for? Democracy, human rights and global prosperity? - Do we really think we can make the world a better place by building a new arsenal of nukes? - And how much money does that take away from building democracy, human rights and global prosperity? In the play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," at the end of the relentless tragedy, one says to the other, "There must have been a time, somewhere near the beginning, when we could have said no." As the beloved poet Robert Frost put it, "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I--I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." We have been down the more-traveled path of spending insane sums for unspeakable weapons many times before, and we know where it leads. The state of the world today is not much of a recommendation for it. Before we lurch off onto it again, let us at least stop and think, and ask questions and demand answers, and consider alternatives. Before the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, before we become a shape with lion body and the head of a man, with a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, before we become that rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born . . . let's stop. And think. Because this may be our only chance to say no. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 38 War Is Now the Cover Story for Making More Terror Newsday.com - Ellen Goodman Ellen Goodman is a syndicated columnist based at the Boston Globe. James Klurfeld is off March 14, 2002 THE MONTH began with a blast from the past: Richard Nixon talking on tape to Henry Kissinger. The president was goading the secretary of state to expand his wartime horizons: "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb ... Does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christ's sake." No one knows if Nixon was being provocative or serious. But the verbal nuclear exchange cut through all the Nixon-as-statesman gloss, reminding us just how dangerous the man was. Just how dangerous the times were. Now, right in time for the Ides of March, we have another nuclear alert to the danger of our own times. The danger of our own military-executive complex - and of a war without protest. The alert is embedded in the "nuclear posture review," the title of the classified document sent to Congress that sounds as benign as yoga. Our new "posture," it appears, is to stand tall, to think big and to think the unthinkable. The Bush administration has asked the military to design plans for mini-nukes, bunker-shattering nukes, nukes to be used in retaliation and also "in the event of surprising military developments." The posture, exposed by the Los Angeles Times, even comes equipped with a blacklist. Seven countries warrant contingency plans of their own, a potential hit list that ranges from China to Iran, from the new axis of evil to the old evil empire. In a megaton understatement, a nuclear arms expert called this report "dynamite." The Mirror, a British tabloid, blared, "Let's Nuke 'Em All" and London's Evening Standard said, "Bush Plays at Dr. Strangelove." But in America, the news hardly interrupted the six-month anniversary ceremonies or barely shook the people whose determined confidence in the president is still polling in the stratospheric 80th percentile. Indeed, even Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said, in the spirit of the new political correctness, "Frankly, I don't mind [if] some of these renegade nations ... think twice about the willingness of the United States to take action." It's now six months since the day when, as we say, everything changed. The day the towers fell and the Pentagon was attacked - the day the ranks closed against the enemy. There was only one thing to do, and the president did it. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, most of the old doves and old hawks looked like birds of a feather. Among 1,200 Harvard undergraduates polled, 75 percent trusted the military to do the right thing most or all of the time. At a December conference of Women Waging Peace, a certifiable peacenik said she couldn't oppose this war without offering an alternative. Any opponent had to answer the question "WWYD" - what would you do? - or be silent. Americans signed up for the duration, even those of us who know that violence is, by its very nature, uncontrollable. We didn't check our consciences at the recruiting table. But when Afghan civilians were killed by our bombs, well, it was inevitable, wasn't it? When we hit the wrong convoy, well, that was war and its snafus. When some of our allies in the war to liberate women turned to raping Taliban women, we sadly noted collateral damage. But war, with all its fear and anger, its desire for protection and longing for a good leader, can silence dissent and debate. That silence, in turn, can unleash new unchecked "postures" before the world. War is now the cover story for funding a missile defense system. War is the cover story for drilling in the Alaskan refuge. And war is now the cover story for a new nuclear scenario with a doomsday terror of its own. It's something of a miracle that we made it through the past half-century without a single nuclear weapon used by us or against us. During this time, Nixon be damned, the assumption was that we would only use our arsenal as a deterrence and retaliation against nuclear attack. But let's be clear. Mini-nukes, bunker-nukes, nukes to use would destroy the firebreak between nuclear and conventional weapons. They would send a message to other nations. As Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists says, "If the world's greatest military power with all its conventional weapons needs to use nuclear weapons, doesn't everyone else?" Nuclear war and nuclear winter become more likely if our country becomes a rogue superpower. The administration calls this a mere "contingency" plan. Colin Powell, the comforter in the Cabinet, reassures us: "We should not all get carried away." But this is, as they say in the emergency radio announcements, "a test." Is our fear so great we can do nothing but follow the leader? Is our definition of patriotism so narrow that it doesn't include dissent or dispute? What is the public's posture? Supine? At the risk of echoing that rogue president of my youth, this is the time to think big. And to say no. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Group targets Hanford contracting This story was published Wed, Mar 13, 2002 By Wendy Culverwell Herald staff writer Prime contractors at Hanford say they're exceeding their goals for using small businesses to clean up the nation's worst radioactive mess. But to hear from some of the Tri-Cities' leading businessmen, the Department of Energy has written contracts that push companies such as Bechtel National Inc. to internalize the work to avoid the expense of supporting small, local firms. Sid Morrison, a former congressman and state transportation director, is heading up the newly formed Tri-Cities Local Business Association. Dick French and Bob Ferguson, both former DOE officials who now lead private companies, are behind the effort, as are leaders from Informatics Corp., Lampson International, Meier Enterprises Inc., Morrison Construction Services, Nuvotec Inc., Thompson Mechanical Construction and Wastren Inc. The approach so far is conciliatory, and association members say they're not looking to feed at the public trough. In its first public act, the association dispatched letters Monday to the heads of DOE's prime Hanford contractors, including Bechtel, Fluor Hanford, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and CH2M Hill, calling on them to aggressively seek out Mid-Columbia companies to share in the billions of dollars worth of work at Hanford. "(T)he TCLBA encourages the Hanford site prime contractors to issue annual acquisition plans for services, which will allow the prime contractors and local companies to better plan and manage their work activities and personnel," wrote Morrison, who signed the letter. The letter also went to members of the Northwest congressional delegation, along with a request that delegation members write DOE asking it to intervene in the contracting process. Corporate leaders such as French and Lampson said the $4 billion contract awarded to Bechtel to develop the vitrification plant actually encourages the company to perform work itself rather than hire outside experts. Bill Lampson, president of the Kennewick industrial crane company that bears his name, said his company responded to a bid request to lease 15 cranes for two years to the construction site. In the end Bechtel rejected all bids and opted to purchase cranes itself. Still other corporate leaders say the push to internalize work means their employees are decamping to work for the higher wages paid by Hanford contractors. That jeopardizes the Mid-Columbia companies' long-term competitiveness. Doug Timmons said Technical Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Nuvotec, has lost most of its engineers working on its Hanford contract to Bechtel. Contractors such as Bechtel Hanford Inc., its sister, Bechtel National, and CH2M Hill counter that they already have awarded millions of dollars of work to small businesses. Bechtel National aimed to award 46 percent of its work to small businesses over the 10-year life of the project. Last fall it sponsored a small business forum to help potential suppliers learn more about doing business with a government contractor. As of the end of 2001 it had awarded 75 percent, or $63 million, to Mid-Columbia suppliers, the majority of it to businesses in Washington or Oregon. In 2001 Bechtel Hanford aimed to award 50 percent of the dollar value of its contracts to small and disadvantaged businesses. It awarded nearly 53 percent, or $15.3 million. And CH2M Hill beat its 2001 goal of awarding 32 percent of its work to small businesses by two percentage points. This year it is shooting for 34 percent, said Betty Euteneier, director of contracts and procurements. Too, CH2M Hill has a small-business outreach office that develops relationships with potential suppliers. "We believe we have one of the most aggressive small-business programs on the site," Euteneier said. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 40 It could happen (building power plants at DOE Facs) March 15, 2002Serving Gem County, Idaho since 1893 03/13/02 The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is one of three sites being considered by the Bush administration under a proposed $38 million study to build a new type of nuclear power plant by 2010, probably in cooperation with Exelon, one of the country's leading nuclear utilities. The other locations being considered are the Savannah River weapons complex near Aiken, SC, and the closed Portsmouth uranium processing plant near Piketon, Ohio. Nuclear utility officials say that a new power reactor in the US would probably be built at an existing nuclear power plant or a federal weapons site to avoid community opposition. In January, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig met to discuss building a new power reactor at INEEL with the head of Exelon. Exelon is working on a new, pebble-bed reactor that could be mass-produced in South Africa under a German license. The Department of Energy proposal, "Nuclear Power 2010,” would help Exelon and Dominiot Resources, another nuclear utility, study the federal sites, look into costs of a new plant, and explore ways to speed up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process. A new application would be the first for a US nuclear power plant since 1973. ©2001 MyWebPal.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 41 IAAP cleanup documents available The Hawk Eye Special: IAAP Thursday, March 14, 2002 [Unknown dangers at IAAP] By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye Documents relating to the Superfund cleanup of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant will now be available for public inspection at the Lee County Health Department, plant officials announced Tuesday. Other copies still will be available at Danville City Hall and the Burlington Public Library. Environmental projects manager Rodger Allison said copies of the documents are being moved to the Lee County Health Department, 2218 Avenue H in Fort Madison, because groundwater contaminated by explosives wastes that had leached from the plant has been found in Lee County, immediately south of the Skunk River. The area southeast of the plant is being assessed to determine the extent of the contaminated groundwater. The worst contamination in a plume extending from the plant is at levels 40 to 60 feet underground, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. The plume is not considered an immediate threat to public health. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 42 Oak Ridge Nuclear Plant May Receive $4-Billion Worth of Improvements March 14, 2002 Oak Ridge Plant Improvements An environmental impact study could lead to massive modernization at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. The improvements could cost as much as four billion dollars. The U.S. Energy Secretary endorsed continued warhead production at the Oak Ridge plant and the construction of two new buildings. One would provide storage for a cache of uranium. The other complex would process materials used for weapons. 03.13.02 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2002 WorldNow and WKRN. ***************************************************************** 43 Ridge DOE manager out Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:25 p.m. on Thursday, March 14, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Leah Dever is leaving her post as manager of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations office despite the fact that in the past, she and DOE have denied that would happen. DOE headquarters informed the news media late Wednesday afternoon that Dever and Ed Cumesty, deputy manager for the Oak Ridge Operations office, were being given new duties. However, the federal agency provided very few reasons for the management changes. Effective April 1, Dever will be detailed to the Office of Science within DOE headquarters to head its Office of Laboratory Operations and Environment, Safety and Health. She will be responsible for providing leadership and a central focal point for all the operations, infrastructure and construction management activities of the Office of Science. Rumors of Dever's departure from Oak Ridge have been swirling for well over a year, ever since she took a temporary assignment in February 2001 as acting chief operating officer in the Office of Science at DOE headquarters. When The Oak Ridger confronted Dever about those reports, most recently last month, she responded: "There's always rumors." Dever then denied that she would be leaving her Oak Ridge job any time soon. "I have no idea what you are talking about" was the response Joe Davis, a DOE headquarters' spokesman, gave in January when asked to confirm the rumor that Dever was leaving. Dever became the first woman manager of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office in July 1999 after she replaced Jim Hall. "I want to thank her publicly for all the help she has given the laboratory," said Bill Madia, director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, this morning. "She has been highly supportive of the lab. We couldn't have undertaken the modernization of the lab without her support." U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District, said he was grateful for the leadership Dever has provided to Oak Ridge. "She implemented a land-use process for the entire Oak Ridge Reservation that when completed will stand for years to come," the congressman said. "Leah also fostered a closer working relationship and better communication between DOE and the elected leadership of our counties and cities. "I look forward to the opportunity to thank her in person this afternoon in Oak Ridge and wish her the best as she goes back to headquarters with new responsibilities." Before coming to Oak Ridge, Dever served as manager of DOE's Ohio field office for almost three years. She also previously served as assistant manager for environmental management at the Nevada Test Site. Dever has more than 20 years of experience in environmental planning and engineering in both the private and federal government sectors. She began her federal career as an environmental scientist at DOE headquarters. Michael D. Holland, who previously served as manager of DOE's Brookhaven Area Office in New York, has been named interim manager for the Oak Ridge Operations office. Although DOE did not indicate the length for Holland's new job, Davis suggested this morning that the federal agency could be looking for a permanent replacement for Dever. Davis said there are no rules or regulations that prevent Holland from pursuing the Oak Ridge job on a permanent basis. Despite hearing talk that Dever's headquarters' assignment would be temporary, Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, said it wouldn't surprise her if Dever's departure is permanent. "We are sorry to see her go," said Gawarecki, whose group monitors DOE activities in Oak Ridge. "She's been very accessible Š a huge benefit. The timing is difficult." Gawarecki pointed that there's a lot of new blood coming into Oak Ridge -- not only an interim manager, but also an acting assistant manager for environmental management. In addition to the management changes, the Oak Ridge Operations office is trying to get approved for funding through a new accelerated cleanup program. "It concerns me that environmental management might suffer," Gawarecki said. As for Cumesty, he will lead a team charged with looking at opportunities to re-engineer processes within the Office of Science in order to clarify and streamline roles and responsibilities and lower the cost of providing services, among other things. He will be detailed to DOE headquarters in April to lead this effort. Madia this morning acknowledged that Cumesty was taking on a very important task. Cumesty, who joined the Oak Ridge staff in May 1995, previously served as the assistant manager for laboratories in Oak Ridge. His other DOE-related assignments have included serving as deputy manager of the federal agency's Chicago Operations Office. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or [pparson@oakridger.com] . [http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 44 Orbach Sworn-in as Director of Energy Department’s Office of Science energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: March 14, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of Energy announced today that Raymond Orbach has been sworn-in as the director of the department’s Office of Science. Orbach was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 4. “Ray’s over three decades experience as a practicing scientist and his demonstrated leadership skills as an administrator who led a major university campus will serve the department well,” Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. With an annual budget of $3.3 billion, the Office of Science is the principal funding agency of the nation’s research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy sciences. The office also manages research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science, all of which also support the missions of the department. The office is responsible for the management of 10 of the department’s laboratories and for constructing and operating large scientific user facilities. The director of the Office of Science also serves as the science advisor to the Secretary of Energy and is the vice chair of the department’s Research and Development Council. Orbach, a theoretical physicist, has been chancellor of the University of California, Riverside, since 1992. From 1982 to 1992, Orbach served as provost of the College of Letters and Science at the University of California, Los Angeles. He joined the University of California in 1963 and became a full professor in 1966. Orbach received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley. Media Contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-043 ***************************************************************** 45 SNS: This is the Big One Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:27 p.m. on Thursday, March 14, 2002 An artist's rendering shows how the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source is expected to look once completed. -- Photos Submitted by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source is the biggest U.S. science project under construction. Oak Ridge National Laboratory officials aren't exaggerating when they make that statement. Some 5,500 tons of rebar -- reinforcing steel rods -- will be used for project structures. Those structures call for approximately 80,000 cubic yards of concrete, equivalent to a 3-foot-wide sidewalk that would reach from Knoxville to Memphis (about 400 miles), or the amount of concrete needed to build the Tennessee Valley Authority's Fort Loudoun Dam. Six Department of Energy laboratories -- Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos and ORNL -- are collaborating on design and construction of the SNS. ORNL is managing the partnership and is integrating each of the labs' design contributions into the facility. After construction is complete in 2006, ORNL will be responsible for operating the facility. Once the SNS is operational, researchers from the United States and abroad -- an estimated 2,000 a year -- will come to the facility to study materials that will form the basis for new technologies and improvements in telecommunications, manufacturing, transportation and health, among other areas. The SNS will fire an ion beam down its linear accelerator tunnel toward a mercury target; a beam that, at 80 percent of the speed of light, could reach the moon in 1.5 seconds, according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory fact sheet. The resulting protons will bombard a mercury target, generating neutrons for use in research. The initial concrete pour for a portion of the target building's foundation was accomplished in just one very busy day. Concrete trucks, essentially all that were available in the region, delivered 78 loads to the construction site -- at a rate of one truck every three minutes. In addition to racking up its share of amazing facts, the SNS project is oozing with financial benefits. At least 15 SNS-related contracts were awarded in the last year with financial values ranging from $500,000 to $13 million. More of those deals are expected to be awarded this year, according to Thom Mason, the project's director. The SNS won't be the only science facility that will be built atop Chestnut Ridge. It will one day be joined by the Center for Nanophase Materials Science, which will be used to examine things on a small -- very small -- scale. Construction on the Linear Accelerator Tunnel, which will eventually be underground, is shown underway in January. In nanoscience, objects are measured in nanometers, 1 billionth of a meter. For comparison, the smallest features on current computer chips measure about 200 nanometers. And a human hair is 100,000 nanometers thick. In addition to those new facilities, there are several old sites that will be getting a facelift. One of those just happens to be ORNL, which is managed by UT-Battelle. At the federal research lab, close to a dozen new facilities will be constructed under UT-Battelle's modernization plan, with funding coming from the Department of Energy, $125 million; the state of Tennessee, $26 million; and through private sector investments, $54 million. "Simply put, we are rebuilding Oak Ridge National Laboratory," said Bill Madia, the facility's director. "This is a one-of-a-kind project." The new facilities will include state-of-the-art facilities for computational, biological and neutron sciences. More than half of the buildings at the lab were built during or immediately following World War II. Officials say only 23 percent of the occupied space at ORNL is adequate for the lab's current research missions. The modernization effort will also move ORNL staff from off-site locations -- the Y-12 National Security Complex and leased commercial spaces -- back to the lab. One of ORNL's facilities that will be coming home is the Mouse House, which is now officially known as the William L. and Liane B. Russell Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics. The soon-to-be-built facility was renamed in November 2001 for one of the most distinguished scientific couples to work at the federal facility: Liane Russell, 78, and William L. Russell, 91, the husband-and-wife team who helped found ORNL's Mammalian Genetics and Development Section in 1947. Liane Russell still works part-time for the laboratory. The 36,000-square-foot Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, which is scheduled for completion in 2003, represents the first new construction in ORNL's Life Sciences Division in more than 30 years. It will replace the current facility, which is more than 50 years old and is located at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The SNS will fire an ion beam down its linear accelerator tunnel, shown under construction at right, toward a mercury target; a beam that, at 80 percent of the speed of light, could reach the moon in 1.5 seconds. Plans for revitalizing the Y-12 National Security Complex are also shaping up and will include the construction of the following facilities: + Special materials complex -- It will be used for the production of unspecified "special materials." The preferred site for this facility is on 20 acres on the north side of Bear Creek Road, situated on the drainage divide of the East Fork Poplar Creek and Bear Creek watersheds. + Highly enriched uranium facility -- It will serve as a storage area for assembled weapons secondaries and other forms of highly enriched uranium. The preferred site for this facility would be in the West Portal parking lot, just north of Portal 16. Existing Y-12 facilities for storage of highly enriched uranium are in buildings that are 35 to 55 years old and require significant maintenance and funding to maintain operations and security protocol. The decision to modernize Y-12 has been panned by peace activists and praised by numerous elected officials, including Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist, U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District. BWXT Y-12 manages Y-12 for DOE. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 46 Manhattan Project past can play role in Oak Ridge's future success Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:06 p.m. on Thursday, March 14, 2002 by Mark Mostoller For The Oak Ridger "When I passed one of those guardhouses, I knew I was home." That's what Mick Wiest, a native Oak Ridger (Oak Ridge High School Class of 1970) and president of the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association (ORHPA), remembers about coming home from college. Three Manhattan Project guardhouses still stand at the entrances to the city on Bethel Valley Road, Scarboro Road, and the western end of Oak Ridge on the Turnpike at Oklahoma Avenue. In 1998, the Department of Energy was looking for even very small ways to cut costs, and considered demolishing them. Wiest and a few other people suggested that the cost of renovation be looked into first, and it turned out to be cheaper to preserve them than to tear them down. Two were indeed renovated (those on Scarboro Road and the west end), and are now used as small meeting and training facilities. The third (Bethel Valley) was transferred to the Chesapeake Corp., and has continued to decay in a kind of real estate purgatory where no one will step forward to take responsibility. Earlier in 1998, on April 13, DOE proposed to sell 3.5 acres of land adjoining the hospital to the Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge. Located on the plot were Charlotte and Cheyenne halls, the last two intact dormitories remaining from 93 built to house workers during the Manhattan Project. MMC planned to demolish the dormitories to expand its parking and facilities. Two weeks were allowed for other nonprofits to make competing bids for the property. Reservations about the proposed sale were voiced by the city's Environmental Quality Advisory Board, the Tennessee Historic Preservation Office, a local real estate developer, and a number of citizens. Strong support was provided by DOE and MMC spokesmen and the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce. One supporter of demolition was quoted in The Oak Ridger as calling the 50-year-old dormitories "temporary -- don't worry about temporary structures -- structures that tomorrow morning many of us could go down to any building supply place and get the same materials to replicate what's there." At the beginning of July, the sale was completed. In October, demolition began. The Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association was formed in September 1999 to work to preserve what remains from the historic days of the Manhattan Project. The experience with the guardhouses showed that institutions could respond positively when sensible proposals for preservation had time to be heard. The destruction of the last two dormitories showed that the public and the business community need to be educated about the value of Oak Ridge's unique heritage. ORHPA is emphatically not anti-business. It does believe that the history embodied in structures, artifacts and memories can help to revitalize the economy of the city through such things as heritage tourism. In its three years of existence, ORHPA has sponsored seminars, become a part of Mayfest, begun an Oral History project, compiled a list of historic structures, put up a Web page at www.orhpa.org, written letters and articles for The Oak Ridger, built a Freedom Train Christmas float, and become a recognized voice for historic preservation in Oak Ridge. By far its signature accomplishment, though, has been the preservation of the old Wildcat Den at 102 Robertsville Road. The building opened as the Midtown Community Center in February 1945. In March 1951, the Wildcat Den moved in, and remained active there nearly until the new Civic Center opened in 1970. Following periods of several years when the building was used for the Awareness House drug program and the ORHS Optional School, the Senior Center began operation there in May 1977. In 1982, the east wing was added. The Senior Center moved to Emory Valley Road in October 1999; and the building was closed. Through most of 2000 and early 2001, ORHPA conducted a petition drive (obtaining nearly 2,700 signatures) to "Save the Den," spoke to City Council at regular meetings and at a work session held in the building, consulted with structural engineers about the condition of the building, and developed a business plan for its use as directed by council. All of that hard work paid off on May 22, 2001, when City Council unanimously approved a resolution to sell the property for $1 to the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association. On Nov. 28, ORHPA received the deed to the property from the city of Oak Ridge. The building now serves as ORHPA headquarters, has one rent-paying tenant and is negotiating with another. It is available for community use -- weddings, meetings, reunions, what have you -- for modest fees. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 47 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.11 | 6 - 12 March 2002 A weekly summary of international news relevant to the nuclear energy industry. [NB02.11-1] The UK's nuclear power plant building programme should be revived in order to help the country meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King. He has also concluded that contributions from renewable energy sources should be boosted to provide 20% of the UK's electricity by 2020. Professor King said 'it seems clear to me that our dependence on fossil fuels would be unchanged unless there is new nuclear build at least to replace existing nuclear power stations'. Expressing concerns about the disposal and storage of radioactive waste, he said 'we have to deal with that whether or not we continue with nuclear power'. He called for more advanced research into treating and disposing of nuclear waste. (BBC News Online, 7 March; Daily Telegraph, 8 March, p10; NucNet News, 93/02, 7 March) [NB02.11-2] The US Senate has approved an amendment to draft energy policy legislation clearing the way for renewal of the country's nuclear liability insurance system - the Price-Anderson Act. The provision - approved by a 78-21 vote - provides a mechanism for the renewal of the act to be voted upon independently of the overall draft energy policy legislation, should that be necessary. See WNA information paper on 'Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.htm] ' for further details of the Price-Anderson Act. (NEI InfoWire, #02-09, 7 March; NucNet News, 95/02, 8 March; Nuclear Energy Overview, 11 March, p1; see also News Briefing 02.05-12) [NB02.11-3] The US Department of Energy (DOE) will establish 'public-private partnerships' under the next stage of its 'Nuclear Power 2010' initiative, energy secretary Spencer Abraham announced. The DOE will award up to US$3 million in fiscal year 2002 to nuclear generating companies or utilities to initiate demonstration of the early site permit (ESP) process for US sites. The partnerships are designed to share the cost of selecting US sites for new nuclear power plants as well as to help cover the cost of submitting formal applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As part of this latest phase, the DOE has requested proposals by 15 April from US utilities and generating companies to conduct a 30-month demonstration project for an ESP application. Under the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative - which aims to ensure that a new US nuclear power plant is built and brought online no later than 2010 - the DOE proposes to 'match' industry investments of as much as US$48.5 million over the next two years. (FreshFUEL, 11 March, p1; NucNet News, 92/02, 5 March; see also News Briefing 02.08-6) [NB02.11-4] US: Carolina Power & Light's Brunswick-1 has set a new world record for continuous operation of a light water reactor (LWR). The 767 MWe boiling water reactor (BWR) was taken offline for refuelling on 1 March, ending a continuous operation run of over 707 days. Three Mile Island-1 set the previous record of 668 days in 1999. (FreshFUEL, 11 March, p4; see also News Briefing 02.05-13) [NB02.11-5] Taiwan Power has been given approval by the cabinet to delay the commercial start-up of operations at Lungmen-1 from July 2005 to July 2006 and Lungmen-2 from July 2006 to July 2007. The change in start-up dates is said to be due to delays in construction rather than political concerns. (Ux Weekly, 11 March, p5; see also News Briefing 02.04-8) [NB02.11-6] Bulgaria's national energy policy, including the future of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, will be debated by parliament. Bulgaria faces pressure from the European Union (EU) to close the first four of Kozloduy's six reactors by 2006. However, the parliament will consider whether to keep units 3 and 4 open until 2010, the end of their current scheduled operating lifetimes. (NucNet News, 97/02, 11 March; see also News Briefing 02.06-5) [NB02.11-7] Lithuania: The total cost of shutting down the Ignalina nuclear power plant will be 3 billion euros (US$2.6 billion), according to a study conducted by the country's Economics Ministry. In addition to decommissioning expenses, the costs include disposal of spent fuel and other effects on the local community. The cost schedule was based on the assumption that unit 1 will be shut down in 2005 as planned, and unit 2 in 2009, as demanded by the European Union (EU). International donors have pledged 200 million euros (US$175 million) towards closing the plant, while the European Commission has promised an additional 70 million euros (US$61 million) annually from 2004 to 2006. (Nuclear Market Review, 8 March, p2; Ux Weekly, 11 March, p4; see also News Briefing 02.10-6) [NB02.11-8] Germany: Utility HEW dismissed allegations that management at the Brunsbuttel nuclear power plant was 'ordered' not to shut down the plant for inspection following an incident involving a non safety-critical cooling system. Unnamed officials were quoted in the German media as saying technicians were ordered to continue operating the plant after the incident on 14 December 2001. HEW maintains that output at the plant was immediately reduced to 50%, in full accordance with standard safety procedures, following the discovery of a 'steam leak' in a core spray cooling system pipe inside the reactor containment (but outside the pressure vessel). Full-power operation was only resumed after a detailed analysis of the available information. The incident has been given a provisional rating of level one on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). (NucNet News, 94/02, 7 March; NucNet News, 96/02, 8 March) [NB02.11-9] US: An international review team has concluded that the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) for the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository project is 'soundly based' and said it has been 'implemented in a competent manner'. While the team's assessment was positive overall, it made several recommendations for improvements it saw necessary in the DOE approach to assess the repository system's performance. The international review was conducted at the request of the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) and was jointly organised by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (Nuclear Fuel, 4 March, p10; see also News Briefing 02.08-2) [NB02.11-10] Russia: A bill allowing the import of spent nuclear fuel produced in foreign countries was passed by the parliament (Duma) at its third and final reading on 6 March. The bill establishes a commission that will decide whether or not spent fuel from foreign countries can be imported into Russia. Each year, the commission will report on the status of spent fuel imports. The Federation Council must still approve the bill. (Nuclear Market Review, 8 March, p2; Ux Weekly, 11 March, p5; see also News Briefing 02.09-20) [NB02.11-11] Belgium: A spent fuel repository would cost two-and-a-half times as much as a repository for reprocessing waste, according to estimates made by Belgium's radioactive waste agency Niras/Ondraf and published in a new report to the Belgian government. A repository for waste from a 'complete reprocessing' programme is estimated to cost 289-578 million euros, at 2000 value (US$253-507 million), while a repository for conditioned spent fuel would cost between 598 million and 1.494 billion euros (US$524 million to US$1.31 billion). The extra cost is attributed to the greater storage volume required for spent fuel elements. Operating costs are estimated to be similar in both cases. Closing costs are also expected to be higher for the spent fuel repository due to the higher excavation volume. (Nuclear Fuel, 4 March, p5) [NB02.11-12] The US government approved plans to return a shipment of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel from Japan to BNFL's Sellafield complex in the UK. Under a July 2000 agreement, BNFL agreed to take back eight unirradiated MOX assemblies from Kansai Electric Power Co following the disclosure that quality data related to the fuel's fabrication had been falsified. The fuel was to be used in Kansai's Takahama nuclear power plant. In line with a US-Japan bilateral agreement concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, US consent to transfer the shipment was required. BNFL chief executive Norman Askew said that 'returning this fuel to the UK will bring to an end a chapter in BNFL's operations from which many lessons have been learned'. (BNFL, 6 March; NucNet Business News, 18/02, 6 March; SpentFUEL, 11 March, p1; see also News Briefing 02.07-15) [NB02.11-13] Sweden: The national radiation protection authority (SSI) plans to take legal action against Studsvik following an incident involving an iridium-192 shipment to the US earlier in 2002. The SSI says Studsvik violated transport legislation, and it has therefore filed a complaint with the public attorney. (NucNet News, 99/02, 12 March; see also News Briefing 02.10-15) [NB02.11-14] Australia and the US have signed a bilateral agreement on climate change, raising the prospect of Australia's formal rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. The climate action partnership will put joint resources into researching emissions measurements and accounting, climate change science, land management and collaboration with developing countries. A spokesman for Environment Minister David Kemp said the agreement did not affect Australia's decision on whether or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but environmentalists see the deal as a clear indication that the two countries intend to pursue greenhouse gas reductions outside the legally binding international agreement. (The Australian, 1 March, p1; see also News Briefing 01.16-20) [NB02.11-15] UK: A small number of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium (DU) if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed in contaminated soil and water, the Royal Society has concluded. In an independent report, the society said it had found only limited health risk to almost all soldiers involved in conflicts where the weapons had been used. The society called for monitoring of water supplies, and epidemiological studies of exposed soldiers. The report can be downloaded from the Royal Society's website (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/). (Financial Times, 12 March, p7; BBC News Online, 12 March; see also News Briefing 01.21-17) Previous News Briefing NB02.10 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************