***************************************************************** 12/16/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.325 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Clinton 'had plans to attack N. Korea reactor' 2 U.S. politicians weigh in on the North* 3 U.S., North misread each other* 4 [EDITORIALS]North tangled in own rope* 5 Under suspicion, Iran hits out at Israeli nuke program* 6 Iran has no potential for nuclear weapons: Russian expert 7 US: NRC: Dow Chemical decon application 8 N. Korea Urges Nonaggression Treaty 9 Arms Inspectors Search Iraq Nuke Complex 10 Kim Reiterates Peaceful Solution 11 British Energy's sale of Bruce called imminent 12 US: Colleges returning to nuclear sciences 13 US: Domenici Says it Will Take Time to Craft Energy Plan * * NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 Bertell: Avoidable Tragedy post-Chernobyl A Critical Analysis 15 British Energy's sale of Bruce called imminent* 16 Russia to Press on With Iran Nuclear Program* / 17 US: NRC: Calvert Cliffs Fonsi 18 Two Years Ago Ukraine Stopped Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant 19 Kharrazi says nuclear plants for generating electricity 20 US: Training critical at nuclear plant* NUCLEAR SAFETY 21 Removal of Nuclear Fuel from Kursk Submarine Put on Hold NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 22 Russia, Iran to sign deal on return of spent nuclear fuel 23 US: DOT: International N-waste conference 24 NRC: Crownpoint Uranium Project renewal NUCLEAR WEAPONS 25 [southnews] No signs of WMD in Iraq: IAEA chief 26 US: [toeslist] U.S. WOULD CONSIDER NUCLEAR RETALIATION 27 No signs of nuclear, chemical weapons in Iraq: IAEA chief - 28 US: Pacifist celebs need a new approach US DEPT. OF ENERGY 29 Perchlorate Runoff Flows To Water Supply of Millions 30 K-25 'digging' a 1960s' trend 31 Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham Announces 5-Year Contract OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Clinton 'had plans to attack N. Korea reactor' Monday, December 16, 2002 Posted: 1340 GMT Clinton said North Korea might be tempted to sell nuclear weapons to anyone willing to pay *ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands --* *Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he had plans in the early 1990s to attack and destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities after the secretive communist state was found to be producing weapons-grade plutonium.* At the time, he said, North Korea had plans to produce between six and eight nuclear weapons per year. "We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program," Clinton told a security forum in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam Sunday. "We were in a very intense situation," he said. His statement came days after North Korea announced that it planned to restart its nuclear reactor after Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, announced he was halting supplies of fuel oil to the country. The United States had been providing North Korea with the oil under the terms of a 1994 agreement, ending the first crisis over the North's suspected weapons program. Under the deal, known as the Agreed Framework, the North had agreed to mothball its reactor and abandon efforts to construct nuclear weapons, pending the construction of two advanced reactors that do not produce weapons-grade material. However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal. Highest bidder Last week Pyongyang said it planned to restart its nuclear reactor to cover the energy shortfall created by the cutting of fuel supplies. Commenting on the North Korean announcement, Clinton said the move made it imperative that Pyongyang be persuaded or forced to halt its weapons program. "Make no mistake about it, it has to be ended," Clinton said. "You do not want North Korea making bombs and selling them to the highest bidder because they cannot feed themselves through the winter," he added. However, he said it was more likely North Korea would use the nuclear issue to bargain for more aid rather than put weapons on the market. The former president's comments came as ranking U.S. Republican and Democrat senators warned that the worsening standoff with North Korea could become dangerous and should not be ignored simply because of tensions with Iraq. Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, called for stronger diplomatic efforts to overcome a recent breakdown in agreements aimed at freezing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. "I think we're in danger as a result of the Bush administration policy towards North Korea of turning a situation which is difficult into one which is quite dangerous," Lieberman said on ABC's This Week. "We cannot have a nuclear North Korea. That is a danger." 'Very dangerous' North Korea's Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear facility is set to be reactivated, Pyongyang says North Korea's Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear facility is set to be reactivated, Pyongyang says "North Korea is very dangerous, and we cannot miscalculate, because the effects upon South Korea and the neighborhood are great," Lugar said. "And they are developing ... missilery that could reach us," he added. "I think we have to recognize that." Both senators urged renewed negotiations with Pyongyang, and said Washington should not threaten it with military action, which Lieberman said would be "unwise." "I think we're at a point now where each side ... seems to be trying to be more macho than the other," he said. "And when you do that, you can end up in a war that you didn't really mean to get into." Both agreed that postponing action on North Korea and focusing on Iraq was not a good idea. "We really have to be in negotiations; we have to be talking," Lugar said. "I think the idea that we can handle one thing at a time is clearly not the case." "I don't think we can wait," Lieberman said. "As much as I support what we're doing in Iraq, I don't think we can say, 'North Korea, forget about it until we're done with this.'" The Associated Press & Reuters ***************************************************************** 2 U.S. politicians weigh in on the North* *by Ser Myo-ja * December 17, 2002 American politicians, with one eye cocked on the 2004 presidential campaign, are beginning to react to North Korea's recent announcement that it would restart its mothballed nuclear reactor programs. But the new interest in North Korea is not limited to the Democrats; the incoming Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reportedly plans to visit North Korea. The North, meanwhile, has continued its campaign to threaten dire consequences if the United States does not agree to talk about a nonaggression pact. "I think we're in danger as a result of the Bush administration policy toward North Korea of turning a situation which is difficult into one which is quite dangerous," Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat and a likely presidential contender in 2004, told the American ABC network. "I don't think we can wait." Mr. Lieberman was the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2000. Republican Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican and the new chairman of the foreign affairs committee, told CNN, "We really have to be in negotiations; we have to be talking. I think the idea that we can handle one thing at a time is clearly not the case." Mr. Lugar reportedly requested and received an invitation to visit North Korea, a source involved in U.S.-North Korea affairs said yesterday. "Mr. Lugar told the North Korean mission at United Nations last month of his wish to visit Pyeongyang, and its UN ambassador sent him an invitation early this month," he said. "North Korea undeniably wants to resolve the nuclear issue and its complicated relations with Washington through dialogue," said Suh Dong-man of Sangji University, a noted North Korea scholar. "If he goes, it will definitely help in easing tensions." North Korea continued its bellicose rhetoric yesterday. Pyeongyang's official news outlet, KCNA, said war is approaching. "The enemy is pressing us to disarm and we have no choice but to make a live-or-die decision," KCNA said. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North would not accept food aid with political strings attached, a reference to U.S. charges that food aid is being diverted to the military. Separately, CNN and the Associated Press reported that former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a security forum Sunday in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, that Pyeongyang must be forced or persuaded to end its nuclear weapons program. "You do not want North Korea making bombs and selling them to the highest bidder because they cannot feed themselves through the winter," he said, but added that he thought North Korea was more likely to use the nuclear issue to bargain for aid rather than raise cash by selling arms. The Bush administration has repeatedly said it will not negotiate until the North honors earlier commitments to end its nuclear programs. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 U.S., North misread each other* *Ha Young-sun* December 17, 2002 North Korea has said it will reopen its nuclear facilities in Yeongbyeon. In early October, the North told a U.S. envoy that it had continued its nuclear weapons program in the hope of drawing the United States back to the negotiating table for a second nuclear agreement to replace the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. Declining the invitation, the Bush administration said dialogue can come only after North Korea has provided proof that it is dismantling its nuclear program. Pyeongyang offered a second gesture of willingness to engage by proposing a nonaggression pact. The United States responded by halting crude oil shipments to the North. As its third card, North Korea has pulled out the reactivation of the Yeongbyeon nuclear facilities. In order to read the significance of this card, we must analyze the announcement from North Korea. Pyeongyang has carefully withdrawn its first card with the following words. "As for the 'admission to a nuclear development program,' it was an arbitrary expression by the special envoy of the U.S. president who came here in early October, and we do not feel the need to comment upon it." This is a clear change from the statement made in early November by the same spokesman to reject the U.S. proposal of "proof-then-talk." "If there weren't such hostilities between North Korea and the United States, why would our country, in such times of economic hardship, spend so much money to reinforce our defense abilities and make special weapons?" North Korea has apparently decided that it needs a more threatening card to play to engage the United States, which responded "dismantle first, dialogue next" to its first card, the admission of a nuclear program. Such a demand by the United States is, to borrow the North Koreans' expression, asking North Korea to bare and disarm itself so that it can devour it. Now North Korea is trying to lure the United States into the negotiation of a second Geneva Agreement by using a desperate, risky tactic. North Koreans believe, as a newspaper there said, that "the nuclear crisis in present-day Korea is substantially no different from the nuclear crisis in the 1990s in that it is the product of an exhaustive policy of hostility against North Korea." North Korea tried to make a fundamental declaration of its position, such as its withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to pressure the United States into adopting a "carrot" policy. North Korea may have decided that the United States will not try to deal with two countries of the "axis of evil," Iraq and North Korea, at the same time and that it has a certain amount of time and breathing space for brinkmanship diplomacy with the United States. The seriousness of the situation, however, is that North Korea sees the Bush administration's North Korea policies as an extension of the "hostile policies against North Korea" that it had read in the 1990s situation. If the United States' North Korea policies in the past had been formed in the framework of an East Asian order managed by the United States, a world security order led by the United States and a non-proliferation policy, the Bush administration's policies toward North Korea are in the framework of a potential second-stage war against terrorism based on the post-Sept. 11 world view. The more North Korea leans on its understanding of the 1990s and pursues the same policy that it did a decade ago, the more the United States will stiffen its position on "dismantle first, dialogue next" and lean toward the possibility of mobilizing diplomatic, economic and political countermeasures. There is a real danger here that both sides will misread the other. North Korea is a country based on unique leadership, a military-first policy and a self-supporting economic system. Therefore, it can misread American initiatives. A specific example is that any political war against the North under one-man rule would be taken more seriously than a military attack by Pyeongyang. Should any misperceptions rise on the part of the United States in the process of dealing with North Korea's third bid for negotiations, it would mean not a second Geneva Agreement but a second nuclear crisis. The only way to overcome such a difficulty is for North Korea to take off its nuclear garments and set out on a new course of asking for support guaranteed by the international community in its attempt to get security and prosperity for its system. * The writer is a professor of international relations at Seoul National University. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 [EDITORIALS]North tangled in own rope* December 17, 2002 North Korea has defended its decision to reactivate mothballed nuclear facilities by saying that its nuclear reactor will generate electricity, denying suspicion of weapons programs. If the North's argument is true, why is its blood ally, China, and friend, Russia, opposing the North's decision? Needless to say, they are concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons development. Let us take a good look at the North's fabricated argument that it had never admitted having continued its nuclear program, criticizing the United States for its accusations. North Korea in October was cornered by U.S. envoy, James Kelly, who said Pyeongyang was operating a uranium enrichment program. Pyeongyang, at first, denied the charge, but later admitted that Kelly's assertion was true. North Korea's first vice-minister of foreign affairs explained the North's stance for nearly an hour. Among the U.S. delegation were three U.S. officials who are fluent in Korean, including two Korean-Americans. Mr. Kang's words were translated. It was not a situation in which the United States depended on a single interpretation. At that time, North Korea defended its actions. Now it is in a state of denial. Accordingly, Pyeongyang should prove it is not developing nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner and allow inspections. North Korea secretly violated the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework and got caught. Then, it said it was reactivating its frozen nuclear program, arguing that the reactor is a power generator. The North also tried to take advantage of anti-Americanism in the South. Why does the North want to develop nuclear weapons? Pyeongyang's nuclear development is meant to target South Korea and bargain with the United States. And yet, the North insists that its actions are intended to protect the South in an attempt to resolve the nuclear issue by negotiating only with the United States. "Because we have built an impenetrable defense, peace was guaranteed on the peninsula and South Koreans live comfortable lives," North Korean propaganda says. No South Korean will buy that argument. North Korea must give up nuclear weapons development; that is the only way to comfort the South. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Under suspicion, Iran hits out at Israeli nuke program*