***************************************************************** 09/17/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.238 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Compromise sought on U.S. energy policy* 2 US: OP: Nuclear Plant Safety 3 UK: In an age of global terror, the nuclear industry is unsafe - at 4 Government sees British Energy administration as 'real prospect' 5 Nuclear hurdle for Scots 6 UK: Nuclear power group shares in new slide* 7 Japan: TEPCO draft report investigates falsifications 8 Summit fails to set concrete goals 9 British Energy 'in plea for extra time' 10 British Energy 'could go under' 11 Russia's Nuke Industry Wants to Clean Up PR Image 12 IAEA ready to send inspectors to Japan over nuclear scandal 13 FPL reportedly eyeing British firm 14 US: GE to buy Ion Track from Castle Harlan 15 US: USEC: Partner prospects possible NUCLEAR REACTORS 16 Safety Problems at Japanese Reactors NUCLEAR SAFETY 17 US: [BATN] Port worker radiation fear hampers cargo scanning 18 'Vessels are sitting ducks for a terrorist' 19 US: Groups Urge Senate Action on Nuclear Security* 20 US: Iodide pills given as radiation care -- 21 US: How much radiation is too much?* 22 US: Va. to dispense pills for radiation emergency NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 23 Threat across the water unites the Irish 24 LES: Area leaders feeling heat of uranium plant decision 25 Taiwan: Waste stores rile residents 26 Dark future for the fuel Sellafield hopes to reprocess 27 Back in Britain: the nuclear waste rejected by the rest of the 28 Ireland: Armed ship docks with Plutonium * 29 Ireland: The dangers of nuclear power* 30 Ireland: Public must 'wake up to Sellafield disaster threat' * 31 US: Utah: Support Initiative 1 (n-waste bill) 32 US: Fight Over N-Waste Measure Is Costliest in Utah's History 33 Kenya: Former Coast PC Held Over Uranium Haul 34 UK: Protests as nuclear cargo returns 35 Nuclear cargo reaches Sellafield 36 US: Contaminated facility cleanup finally begins 37 Confrontation at sea as nuclear ships near England - 38 Russian atomic official raises alarm about storage of spent 39 Greeneville actress takes on tough new role: Challenging NFS NUCLEAR WEAPONS 40 Bush's Secret 7 Nation Nuclear Hit List Draws World Outrage 41 The legal case for war against Iraq 42 Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert* 43 Brazil admits selling uranium to Iraq 44 UK Opinion: War on Iraq: the mood shifts 45 US: Abraham Urges 'Dirty Bomb' Action 46 Talks Progress With N. Korea, Japan 47 Iraq: Inspectors Will Find Truth 48 U.S. Presses U.N. Iraq Resolution 49 US: Official says NTS not ready for more testing 50 China denies supplying parts to Iraqi nuclear program 51 Saudis signal support for U.N.-endorsed action against Iraq - 52 U.N. agency says it could resume nuclear inspections in Iraq US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 Nevada Test Site not ready to resume nuclear blasts, report says 54 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT: Test site not ready to resume testing 55 US calls for 'dirty bombs' conference 56 Joint Statement Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsev 57 New glassification technology pitched 58 Recycling to ease cylinder buildup - 59 U.S. energy secretary says nuclear power plays important role in 60 Rocky Flats Cleanup (VOA Promo) 61 TN: Hazardous materials not tracked in state Not necessary or OTHER NUCLEAR 62 LIGO project fares well on 1st run ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Compromise sought on U.S. energy policy* *NEWS* * TUESDAY ? September 17, 2002 * Oil drilling in Alaska, fuel efficiency for cars are pitfalls Jeff Nesmith - Cox Washington Bureau Tuesday, September 17, 2002 Washington --- With America importing more than 10 million barrels of oil every day, Congress is trying to write a national energy policy that avoids two controversial measures --- one that would increase the domestic oil supply and another to cut consumption. A conference committee is plowing through 1,500-plus pages of House and Senate energy legislation, ranging from safety requirements for nuclear power plants to the amount of ethanol that would go into automobile gas tanks. As the senators and representatives search for provisions on which they can agree, two proposals on which almost no one expects agreement are allowing oil drillers into Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and increasing fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. A House-passed energy bill included language requested by President Bush to open the Alaska refuge. The Senate voted it down. Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), the leading advocate of drilling, as much as acknowledged last Thursday that the plan was dead. "It's unfortunate that ANWR was decided on politics, and not policy, in the Senate," he declared at the end of the conference committee's most recent meeting. "Were it given a fair and honest debate, I'm convinced we'd be in a different position today." On the issue of gas mileage standards for cars, neither the House nor the Senate has voted for an outright increase. The Senate energy bill would direct the transportation secretary to issue new standards over the next two years, and the House bill would require him to write rules reducing fuel consumed by pickups and sport-utility vehicles by 5 billion gallons by 2010. Dan Lashof, science director at the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center, said that the best either standard would achieve would be a savings of about as much oil as America consumes in six days --- and not until the end of this decade. Both Lashof and Murkowski cite U.S. dependence on foreign oil in support of their positions. America imported about 10.3 million barrels of oil per day during the first six months of this year. Both the mileage standards and the proposal to open the Alaska refuge were included in a list of "Tier I" issues described by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) when House and Senate conferees met for the first time in July. Those top issues also include climate change provisions passed by the Senate, differing approaches to pipeline safety reform, the ethanol mandates, energy production tax incentives and renewable energy requirements for electric power companies. These are among the most contentious issues the conference would face, Tauzin said. A second group, consisting of less contentious issues, was described by Tauzin as "Tier II" matters. They include a plan to promote the use of renewable energy by the government; provisions to encourage federal agencies to pursue energy efficiency; reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which protects nuclear power plant owners from lawsuits in case of accidents; funding clean coal research and dealing with Native American energy issues. So far, the conferees have agreed on only one Tier I issue --- pipeline safety --- and several Tier II matters, including reauthorizing the nuclear power plant indemnity law and encouraging efficiency and use of renewable energy by the government. The conferees' next meeting is Thursday. © 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 2 OP: Nuclear Plant Safety New York Times Opinion *September 17, 2002* Re "Surveyed Reactor Guards Feel Vulnerable" (news article, Sept. 12): All 103 of our nation's nuclear power plants meet exacting federal standards for security programs and for the 6,000 paramilitary officers who safeguard them. The plants are among the most secure facilities in our nation's infrastructure. Nuclear plants are the only industrial facilities with established security programs that are scrutinized by federal regulators. These programs, in place for more than 25 years, are the benchmark for other industrial sectors. You report that Richard A. Meserve, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, nuclear power plants "had significant security protections." That fact has been universally confirmed by the F.B.I., state homeland security officials and a host of governors and congressmen. SCOTT PETERSON Vice President Nuclear Energy Institute Washington, Sept. 13, 2002 ***************************************************************** 3 UK: In an age of global terror, the nuclear industry is unsafe - at any price Independent.co.uk 17 September 2002 Unless the Greenpeace ship /Rainbow Warrior/ and the other members of a small armada of vessels succeed in stopping them, the /Pacific Teal/ and /Pacific Pintail/ will safely dock this morning at Barrow-in-Furness. The eco-friendly naming of those ships belies their cargoes: five tons of nuclear fuel from Japan, en route to the British Nuclear Fuels facility at Sellafield. The fact that the material, originally from Sellafield, was rejected by the Japanese when it was discovered that safety records at BNFL had been falsified, should only heighten BNFL"s embarrassment. But no. The complacency and arrogance that has characterised the British nuclear establishment shines through: "We've been carrying out these kind of radioactive transports for 30 years in complete safety and security." That may be true, but it does not mean that those transports are desirable, or that they are a risk worth taking in an age of globalised terror. Indeed, it may not be too much to claim that the viability of the whole nuclear industry, never very great, has been virtually destroyed by the events of 11 September. We have heard few assurances that our nuclear installations are, or could be, protected against a Jumbo jet full of fuel crashing into them. How would British Energy, virtually bust as it is, pay for such safety measures? It is certainly relevant to note that so much of the current anxiety about Saddam Hussein's Iraq and other 'rogue states" stems from the ease with which they can obtain weapons-grade nuclear material, a situation that the British enthusiasm for international trade in radioactive material can only make worse. These are matters that must be given a proper airing in the Government's forthcoming white paper on energy policy. Given Downing Street's reputed enthusiasm for all things nuclear, however, that will probably prove to be a vain hope. But the immediate question remains the international trade in this particular material ? mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, or Mox. The central argument against the Mox reprocessing facility at Sellafield is that, even ignoring for a moment safety concerns, it is wildly uneconomic. Mox comes in the form of inch-long ceramic pellets that are slotted into stainless steel rods, which are loaded into a nuclear reactor. An alternative fuel, however, is uranium, which is now much cheaper than it was when the decision to build the Mox plant was taken. Moreover, the £150m that the Sellafield Mox plant is expected to earn over its life will not cover the £473m cost of building the plant, a state-of-the-art operation where lasers and computers control the making of Mox fuel rods from reprocessed nuclear fuel. Nor do the profits take into account the enormous costs of decommissioning the contaminated components of the Mox plant when its working life comes to an end within the next 20 years. The last consultation on the project, by the accountants Arthur D Little, concluded that "there is a robust economic case for proceeding with the Sellafield Mox plant" ? but only by leaving aside the costs of building the plant in its financial analysis. The truth, of course, is that the British nuclear programme is supported mainly because of its military importance and because it offers a superficially easy way to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Neither argument is remotely compelling if the effects of a serious accident or terrorist action are taken into account. Nuclear power is unsafe, at any price. ***************************************************************** 4 Government sees British Energy administration as 'real prospect' Independent.co.uk By Saeed Shah and Andrew Grice 16 September 2002 The Government believes it is increasingly likely that British Energy will go into administration as ministers grow frustrated by the lack of information flowing from the stricken nuclear generator. Last week, the Government sent its own team of accountants, from Deloitte & Touche, into the company to try to get a fuller financial picture and keep strict tabs on how the money that it has guaranteed is being spent. One Government source said yesterday: "Administration is now a real prospect. Ten days ago, it was not, but events since then have made it more likely. There would be big downsides, and we have to take account of them, but it is very much on the table." Two main options are under consideration by Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: administration or "rolling over" the Government's emergency £410m short-term cash aid for British Energy, which expires on 27 September. "We are still some way from a decision," the source said. The £410m loan was unsecured but, according to Fitch, the credit rating agency, the Government will only extend funds if the company can provide security. That would push existing bondholders, who are owed £400m, back in the queue for assets if the company collapses, Fitch said. Isaac Xenitides, at Fitch, said: "This has negative implications for any securitised debt, but the alternative for the bondholders is administration, which would be worse." Rival generators have already said they will object to a bail-out package that is not offered to other power station owners. The failure of British Energy would remove the over-capacity in power generation, they argue. Separately, it has emerged that British Energy faces the loss of its most lucrative business, its Bruce Power subsidiary in Canada, unless the Government can provide a separate guarantee that will allow the company to remain within the terms of its licence. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on Thursday warned British Energy that it must provide evidence that it could meet a requirement to have 264m Canadian dollars (£110m) available to continue to operate Bruce for six months if its reactors had to be shut down. British Energy will bring in a new City bank, to work with its advisers, Lazards, as it tries to put together its own rescue plan. It is conducting a "beauty parade" of companies, which are thought to include UBS Warburg. Whitehall officials yesterday dismissed as "nonsense" speculation that the Government could take a majority stake in British Energy, although they did admit that the state might end up with an equity holding in the company. However, this scenario is seen as a "transitional" stage to a long-term solution for the generator's problems. British taxpayers' money going into the company will need to be accorded some sort of value, sources said. "If you put money into a company, that gives you a stake, but ownership is not the end game," said one. Ministers are anxious to prevent parallels being drawn with their decision to take Railtrack back into public ownership. Officials also played down speculation of a merger between British Energy and state-owned British Nuclear Fuels. The Government plans to create a Liabilities and Management Agency to take over from BNFL the cost of decommissioning redundant nuclear power stations, and in theory the agency could also take on British Energy's liabilities. There are rumours that US bidders may emerge for British Energy, including Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, Florida Power & Light and Entergy. EDINBURGH EVENING NEWS ONLINE *Tuesday, 17th September 2002* THE future of Britain?s Trident nuclear submarines would become the major battleground in any negotiations for an independent Scotland, academics warned today. And they claimed that despite the SNP?s opposition to nuclear weapons, the most likely outcome would be that the subs would stay, with the defence bases at the Clyde being leased by Scotland to the government in London. The new study also argued an independent Scotland would not have the automatic right to be a member of the European Union. And acceptance of the European single currency would almost certainly be a condition of membership. The study by the Constitution Unit at University College London and published by Edinburgh University Press warns the Scottish economy would be highly dependent on oil prices, giving it little room for manoeuvre. The study on how a go-it-alone Scotland might come about suggests there should be two referendums on independence ? one before negotiations started, to agree the principle, and one afterwards, to approve the terms. But the authors warn: ?The issue of defence in general and of Trident in particular could make or break the negotiations. ?The SNP want Scotland to be nuclear free. International law requires that either Scotland or the rest of the UK becomes a non-nuclear weapon state. The most likely scenario is that Scotland disarms and the rest of the UK assumes the rank of nuclear weapon state as the successor to the UK. ?This would be easy enough were it not for the fact that the British nuclear force is located in Scotland.? ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 6 UK: Nuclear power group shares in new slide* * Ananova: * British Energy shares have slumped even further as speculation mounts that the company will fall into administration. So far shares have fallen more than 40%, down 7Όp to just 10Ύp, to value it at less than £100 million - a fraction of its former value. The slide follows a report in the Financial Times saying ministers thought the prospect of administration had increased significantly in the last week. It reports officials as saying it would cost the taxpayer less to put the firm into administration than to keep it limping along in the private sector with state support. Analysts says it's becoming increasingly likely the firm would be placed in administration. Jens Jantzen, analyst at Bear Stearns, says: "I think it looks more and more like administration (will be the outcome), but I don't know what the Government is going to do - it is much more a political case now than a business one. "My personal view is that there is no economic reason why this company should survive." Loss-making British Energy has been hit by a slump in electricity prices as well as plant problems. Earlier this month it warned the Government it could face insolvency unless it received immediate financial assistance. Story filed: 14:59 Tuesday 17th September 2002 Ananova ***************************************************************** 7 Japan: TEPCO draft report investigates falsifications Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun Tokyo Electric Power Co. has admitted that heads of the company gave tacit permission for the falsification of inspection records for its nuclear plants, which became habitual at the working level, according to a draft of an in-house investigation report compiled Sunday. The company also admits in the draft that several falsifications of inspection records for the three nuclear plants are socially unacceptable. The report, which will total more than 100 pages and include the company's reform plan, will be released Tuesday after some editing. The report stated that falsifications were systematically conducted, saying, "Wrongdoings were widespread in the plants and top management tacitly approved them." The draft report stated that 15 of the 29 falsification cases, which were revealed by General Electric Co., entrusted to check on the plants, were unforgivable as they were both socially unacceptable and ran counter to corporate ethics. However, it claimed that there had been no irregularities in the rest of the cases, saying, "The views (of GE and TEPCO) differed." The report will not detail who ordered the falsifications as the firm was unable to identify those responsible due to inconsistent testimonies, a company official said. It stated that reports for three reactors were especially devious. These included one at the No. 1 reactor of TEPCO's No. 1 Fukushima power plant, in which the company covered up the fact that the core structure of the reactor had been repaired and replaced after cracks were found, and one at the No. 3 reactor of its No. 2 Fukushima power plant, in which the company told the central government, "there was nothing out of the ordinary," despite finding new cracks during maintenance work on other cracks. The report pointed out that the firm had been placing top priority on finishing repair work, during which reactors must be temporally shut down, as soon as possible to maintain a stable energy supply. To prevent the recurrence of such a problem, assessment committees, which will include outside experts, will be established at the company's headquarters and at two nuclear plants in Fukushima and Niigata prefectures for keeping an eye on management systems, paying attention to the flow of information and staff training programs. The committee will advise the company on safety issues. In the in-house investigation, the company questioned about 100 employees. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 8 Summit fails to set concrete goals Daily Yomiuri On-Line Takeshi Kuroiwa / Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer Among the wide range of issues covered at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that ended in Johannesburg earlier this month, environmentalists saw the issue of renewable energy as the key to protecting the environment, and this issue occasioned the most heated discussion in the summit. The European Union, already one of the leaders in the renewable energy field, supported specific targets to increase the use of renewable energy by a set date, while other developed countries, such as Japan and the United States, opposed setting such specific targets, saying that they were unrealistic. Developing countries pointed out that extending access to energy to the poor is their first priority. The differences in opinion between rich countries and impoverished ones were reflected in a U.N. report released in August. According to the report, "Over 2.5 billion people in developing countries depend on (wood for fuel) or, when that is unaffordable, on crop residues and animal dung." Nongovernmental organizations, also key players at the summit, supported the target of increasing the global share of renewable energy to 15 percent of total primary energy supply by 2010, emphasizing the need for alternative energy sources for fossil fuels, whose burning is blamed for global warming. The WSSD was a postmortem of the first Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago that adopted Agenda 21, a blueprint for action for sustainable development. At the 1992 Earth Summit, world leaders had already agreed on the importance of increasing the use of renewable energy. Agenda 21 stated that reducing energy consumption could contribute to the alleviation of environmental stress, and therefore, it was strongly urged that governments, in cooperation with industry, intensify their efforts in "encouraging the environmentally sound use of new and renewable sources of energy." In other words, a direction for the use of renewable energy was set in Rio de Janeiro. However, last month's U.N. report stated that renewable energy sources make up only about 4.5 percent of total energy sources, up from 3.2 percent in 1971. Hydropower is the largest source, while wind and solar energy each provide only about 0.02 percent of the total. Thus, it was vital that more concrete steps, such as setting time-bound targets, be taken in Johannesburg. However, the final text of the action plan adopted at the end of the WSSD proposed to "Diversify energy supply by developing advanced, cleaner, more efficient, affordable and cost-effective energy technologies, including fossil fuel technologies and renewable energy technologies, hydro included." It also recommended, "with a sense of urgency, substantially increas(ing) the global share of renewable energy sources with the objective of increasing its contribution to total energy supply." The winners? The United States, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia and other countries who opposed the setting of specific targets. During a press briefing held after an agreement was reached on the provision of renewable energy, one U.S. government official said that "green" energy includes nuclear and fossil fuels, and the definition of "green" energy should be determined by each country based on its own circumstances. In response to the U.S. stance on the issue of renewable energy, one U.S. activist said, "(U.S. President George W.) Bush is owned by oil companies." Shortly after the agreement was reached, environmentalists protested the provision. "This deal is worse than no deal," said Kate Hampton of Friends of the Earth. The construction of large-scale hydropower plants has concerned environmentalists for their negative impact on the surrounding environment. Although some researchers of renewable energy point out the necessity of nuclear power to support the unstable output of wind and solar powers, the fear of nuclear accidents, with their potential to have a devastating impact on the environment, remains strong, especially in developed countries. Meanwhile, the WSSD did see some progress, such as announcements by the Russian and Canadian governments of their intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. Although the two governments did not specify when they would ratify the pact, the ratification of Russia alone would bring the level of carbon dioxide emissions created by ratifying countries to 55 percent of total emissions by developed countries. A minimum level of 55 percent is required to bring the pact into effect. During the summit, the Japanese government urged other developed countries that have not ratified the pact to do so as soon as possible. However, Remi Parmentier of Greenpeace pointed out the contradiction in Japan supporting the Kyoto Protocol while opposing time-bound targets for renewable energy, targets environmentalists see as an important step toward fighting global warming. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 9 British Energy 'in plea for extra time' BBC NEWS | Business | Monday, 16 September, 2002, 15:59 GMT 16:59 UK [Dungeness B Power Station] British Energy provides a fifth of the UK's power Embattled nuclear power firm British Energy is set to ask the government for more time to fight off bankruptcy, according to a press report. The company, which earlier this month negotiated a temporary loan facility designed to keep it going long enough to draw up a restructuring plan, is expected to ask for the 27 September deadline to be extended, the Financial Times reported. The firm is also set to choose a restructuring adviser from a shortlist comprising the investment banks ABN Amro, Merrill Lynch, UBS Warburg, and Schroder Salomon Smith Barney, the FT said. British Energy, which provides a fifth of the UK's power, has been hit by lower electricity prices since the wholesale power market was liberalised last year, and by a shutdown at one of its facilities. Bail out Other power firms have been able to offset the weak wholesale market by maintaining higher retail prices, but this strategy is not available to British Energy, which does not have a retail arm. The firm, which was privatised in 1996, is thought to need about £300m this year to pay off debts and cover losses. Possible solutions under discussion include exempting British Energy from the climate change levy, and cutting the fees that state-owned British Nuclear Fuels charges the firm for reprocessing nuclear fuel. At the weekend, it was reported that the government was considering taking a majority stake in the firm as a means of saving it from collapse. But moves to ease British Energy's financial burden have drawn strong criticism from its competitors. The affair, which comes less than a year after the Railtrack bail-out, has proved a further embarrassment for the government. In the City, British Energy shares ended down 3p at 18p, their lowest closing price for at least five years. British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/index.html] © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 10 British Energy 'could go under' BBC NEWS | Business | Monday, 16 September, 2002, 22:40 GMT 23:40 UK [Dungeness B Power Station] British Energy provides a fifth of the UK's power The government may be prepared to allow the embattled nuclear power firm, British Energy, to be put into administration, according to a press report. "The full extent of the company's debts, now emerging, has persuaded the government to contemplate allowing it to go under," according to the Financial Times. The threat of administration is now "very much an option", a senior government official told the newspaper on Monday night. The government's threat has come despite a warning from British Energy that allowing the firm to sink would be extremely costly for the state. This is because its power stations would have to be kept running while the government would reconsider its nuclear energy strategy. Cost efficiency Ministers have found that "it could cost the taxpayer less to put the company into administration than to keep the company limping along in the private sector with state support", the FT said. In addition, moves to ease British Energy's financial burden have drawn strong criticism from its competitors. So allowing the firm to sink could help the government avoid getting embroiled in an embarrassing rescue operation. The FT said ministers are "frustrated and angered" by British Energy's slow progress in drawing up a true financial picture. "This is not a complicated business," an official told the paper. "This week, we are still trying to get to the bottom of the [extent of British Energy's debts]." Serious crunch British Energy, which provides a fifth of the UK's power, has been hit by lower electricity prices since the wholesale power market was liberalised last year, and by a shutdown at one of its facilities. Other power firms have been able to offset the weak wholesale market by maintaining higher retail prices, but this strategy is not available to British Energy, which does not have a retail arm. The firm, which was privatised in 1996, is thought to need about £300m this year to pay off debts and cover losses. The affair, which comes less than a year after the Railtrack bail-out, has proved a further embarrassment for the government. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 11 Russia's Nuke Industry Wants to Clean Up PR Image Section about reprocessing and spent nuclear fuel imports and Russian nuclear industry in general. Jump to section [Site Map MOSCOW - It's no secret that the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy, Minatom, has been suffering from a bad world image for decades. Nikolai Shingarev, Minatom's Director for Information Policy, spoke at last week's "Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Management 2002: New Russian Initiatives" conference in Moscow. Charles Digges, 2002-09-16 19:06 The ministry has covered up or denied catastrophic accidents; the Urals reprocessing plant Mayak — which offered a rehearsal for the 1986 Chernobyl disaster by blowing up in 1957 — dumps nuclear waste in an open pit that used to be a lake; hundreds of rusting nuclear submarines, awaiting decommissioning, bob with the tide at dockside for months and years, still loaded with their nuclear fuel; the navy, often unable to pay for the electricity that keeps these subs afloat, faces an almost monthly nightmare that they will sink if the power is switched off; security at fissile materials storage sites has allowed dozens of kilograms of radioactive material to go missing without a trace; and whistleblowers like journalist Grigory Pasko and Bellona's Aleksandr Nikitin are persecuted and jailed for exposing Russia's nuclear waste disposal practices. To top it off, Minatom is financing what is says is a civilian nuclear program in Iran that US officials — and even one Russian scientist on the project — have said is a cover-up for a nuclear weapons program in that country. The public face of Minatom, characterized by cloak and dagger secrecy, was not earned without reason, and it was fitting that it took Chernobyl — the world's worst nuclear accident to date, which was denied by authorities for weeks — to shed a garish glow on a history of other disasters and near disasters that have plagued the industry, and the country at large, since Stalin's secret "Sredmash," the Soviet-era code word for Minatom, first began operation. A kinder, gentler Minatom? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Minatom has changed its name from its secret designation, and it is even possible to find out bits of information about its doings. The past decade has seen the installation of a press office, and in that press office there is often someone who will answer reporters' calls — though on some issues you may be asked to wait as long as 45 days for comment. Minatom also has a sharply designed web site (www.minatom.ru) that displays press centre announcements about once every four days and posts abstracts of articles about nuclear issues in Russia — though accessing any but the press office postings requires a Minatom-supplied password and a subscription that costs $1,000 a year — the atomic age meets credit card web-based commerce. Minatom's Director for Information Policy, Nikolai Shingarev, who spoke at last week's "Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Management 2002: New Russian Initiatives" conference in Moscow, said his ministry has a long way to go before winning the hearts of the public over what Minatom says are the low risks associated with atomic power in general, and the import to Russia for long-term storage and eventual reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel (SNF), in specific. He candidly displayed statistics, based on polls commissioned by his ministry, which showed the hard-core unpopularity of Minatom's SNF import plans with the Russian public. "We are opening our doors," said Shingarev citing the number of ways — including the paid website and planned informational pamphlets — that the public can avail itself of atomic information. "Because of that," Shingarev added in his presentation at the conference, "we hope the public will see that atomic energy is safe." Environmentalists say that Minatom only wants the public to know so much, and that the battle for public trust was lost long ago. Changing minds is no easy undertaking for a government ministry that has for the past five decades, and counting, been complicit in covering up and feeding some of the most egregious health, environmental and security threats the world has ever known. Ever since Minatom began operations in the late 1940s for the purposes of developing a Soviet nuclear arsenal, it has enjoyed almost unchecked powers. But recently Minatom has become so unmoored from the government it serves that many Duma and Kremlin officials have considered plans for splitting up the Ministry to diminish some of its muscle. In July, a blueprint for the split-up of the ministry — drafted by unknown authors whose anonymity has been closely guarded — was presented to President Vladimir Putin by lawmaker Grigory Yavlinsky, who heads the liberal Yabloko party. According to Yabloko Duma Deputy Sergei Mitrokhin, Putin was "worried" about the direction Minatom was taking. It is still unclear whether the break-up will occur. No action has yet been taken, but Mitrokhin has said that Putin recently convened a group of experts to discuss the possibility. Minatom admits SNF unpopular Though rumours of Minatom's dismantlement were not discussed at the conference, Shingarev, in his presentation, was open about the public's negative image of the ministry's SNF import and reprocessing plans. Citing a poll conducted for Minatom, he said some 90 percent of the country was opposed to the imports, which are now beginning to trickle in from Eastern European customers. It was a familiar figure: Two years ago, while the Duma was debating three bills that eventually legalized radioactive imports to Russia, a poll showed even then that 90 percent of the population was against the legislative package. It was later revealed that Duma approval had been largely bought with political favours, and in some cases even bribes, by the aggressively lobbying former Minatom chief Yevgeny Adamov. Simultaneously, a nation-wide petition drive to force the import question to a national referendum was scuttled by the Central Election Commission, or CEC. Environmentalists across the country collected over 2.5 million signatures — more than the required 2 million in 60 regions of the Russian Federation. But 600,000 of these signatures were disqualified by the CEC for such things as "incorrect" street abbreviations. And in May, a similar regional referendum attempt was thrown out by the Regional Court in Krasnoyarsk, which will receive the lion's share of foreign SNF for storage at the as-yet incomplete RT-2 storage facility in the closed nuclear city of Zheleznogorsk. The court passed the decision back to Moscow, saying the disposition of SNF was a federal issue. Does the public have a voice? Given such an accrual of events, the Russians — with their overwhelming opposition to SNF imports — have by now likely concluded that their opinion doesn't matter a toss to Minatom. Indeed, it may not. "I don't think it's the people's business to decide technical problems. Technical problems are decided in all countries in an established order. It's unreasonable to decide such things with a referendum," said Shingarev during the spent fuel conference in an interview with Bellona web. "Democracy, of course, is a good thing — the people must decide many questions, but not technological questions. Practice has shown that they are emotional and thus wrong," he said. Shingarev cited a case in Armenia where completing the construction of an atomic power station was voted down. But when severe power and heat shortages became apparent, construction was reinstated and the plant was opened. "You ask someone [on referendum] if he wants waste and he will say ‘no I don't want it,'" Shingarev added. "Or you ask him ‘do you want your children to work, or do you want a normal salary at the cost of imported fuel and improvements in the environment' and he'll say ‘yes, I want that.'" It is Shingarev's job to sugar-coat the seemingly technocratic approach espoused by his ministry, and his statement above provides a good example of that. He also said he hopes that Minatom's newly-stated policy of providing more public information will help the public see the "real" picture behind SNF imports and nuclear power in general. But often, he indicated, the atomic lobby is simply out-gunned in the media by the green faction. "Of course, it would be desirable if there were published more real information about what atomic energy is [...] because if you take any news agency getting daily information from Greenpeace or Ecodefence!, [these agencies] get information from Minatom, in the best circumstances, once a week, although we have a lot of news," he said. "[A policy of more frequently distributing news] is a policy we need to introduce and develop." Minatom's statements anger environmentalists Shingarev's words concerning the voting public's inability to comprehend technical issues ignited the ire of many local and international environmentalists and journalists. Foremost among their complaints was the near blockade of important information about the ministry's doings and the useless bones that are occasionally tossed to mollify them. "With that kind of approach [that assumes the masses are ignorant] you can't arrange any kind of referendum, because some person who says ‘I am a specialist, and I know better than other people' will always appear," Ecodefence! co-chairman Vladimir Slivyak told Bellona web. "If you espouse the kind of system Shingarev is espousing, it's not even up to the politicians to decide. You'll have a situation where the government isn't needed and the president isn't needed because [Minatom] knows best. Nobody has the right to decide anything but the experts at Minatom," he added wryly. Slivyak said that by skirting referendums in areas that would be affected by SNF imports, Minatom is attempting to staunch criticism and defend the carte blanche under which it operates. "That's certainly the case with any industry," said Slivyak. "But you have to recall that in a democratic country, industry exists for people, and not the other way around. If these people, I mean Minatom, serve the country, as they say they do, then they must listen to the people and their opinions, because Russia is not created to fulfil the wishes of Minatom." Last year, many of these people took a poll, and unlike the simple question of supporting or not supporting the import of SNF, there were more complicated questions dealing with reprocessing. Again, said Slivyak, the figures were near 10 percent for, 90 percent against. "The people are much smarter and more knowledgeable about the nuclear industry than Minatom gives them credit for," he said. Slivyak, who runs the environmental news web site www.antiatom.ru, added that he doubted that any "real" information, as was described by Shingarev, would be forthcoming from the ministry, especially at the ministry web site's prohibitive subscription costs. Bellona's Aleksandr Nikitin, who also runs St Petersburg's ECR ecological rights group, said that some technological questions are best left to the experts. Complicated fuel cycle issues would certainly not be put to a vote. But he said it was crucial not to confuse a genuine technical question with a technical question whose results "will effect the environment and the lives of millions." Nikitin agreed with Slivyak — though in stronger terms — saying: "This Shingarev, who is paid by Minatom to conduct its PR — we don't believe him any longer. The PR hot air at Minatom is dedicated to making money and to the manufacture of nuclear weapons and to the development of dangerous nuclear technology and to keeping secrets." "How else is one to interpret that access to the most important information on the Minatom web site costs $1000?" said Nikitin. "Yes there is a web site, but it is devoted, by its subscription fee, to keeping secrets." Financial mismanagement An American consultant to the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Russian national labs agreed in theory with Shingarev that not all questions can be decided by referendum, but he added that Minatom is doing nothing to inform the public of the benefits that SNF imports could reap. He said the best possible PR move for Minatom would be to spread around some of its money and take care of nuclear cities. "The public should be informed absolutely, which Minatom is not doing: To me, if they want good PR, they should quit keeping the money in Moscow," said the consultant. "People in America who live around nuclear facilities live very prosperously and they are very pro-nuclear because they are very well informed. There is a risk involved, but ‘hey look,' [say the people who live there,] ‘we have good jobs.' But this isn't happening here in Russia." . At present, the consultant said, the government, in the guise of Minatom, will scuttle referendum attempts because they don't want to give the people an opportunity to vote ‘no'. "They should send the money to Zheleznogorsk and Ozersk, and I tell you, any referendum would bring a resounding yes, because so many jobs would be created that would create prosperity," said the consultant. "But for now, those people [in Zheleznogorsk and Ozersk] are living in misery while Minatom chiefs in Moscow ride around in chauffeur driven foreign cars. What sort of PR is that?" "They work in the shadows," said Bellona's Nikitin. "We don't believe Minatom, which has brought this country so much misery — [Minatom] means atomic weapons, it means atomic tests, it means the arrest of innocent people who expose its doings, it means a history that has led to catastrophe after catastrophe, and so on and so on, and they reserve the right to say what is safe and what is not safe? It's ludicrous." Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 12 IAEA ready to send inspectors to Japan over nuclear scandal Tuesday September 17, 12:15 PM The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is ready to send experts to Japan to investigate the cover-up of faults at nuclear plants by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. (TEPCO). IAEA director general Mohamed El-Baradei told reporters he voiced his readiness to send inspectors when he met with Japanese science minister Koji Omi in Vienna on Monday, Jiji Press and Kyodo News agencies said. The IAEA is ready to send the mission if Japan invites one, because securing the transparency of nuclear safety is very important, El-Baradei said, suggesting on-going probes by the Japanese authorities might not be enough to provide reassurance. The two met on the sidelines of the annual IAEA General Conference. No immediate comments were available from the Japanese government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, nor TEPCO, the world's largest private power company. TEPCO falsified check-up records at nuclear plants for years to cover up cracks in the core structure of reactors and other damage. The scandal led to the resignation of top executives this month. It also damaged the credibility of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which had been under attack for its slow action after it got the first tip off about the cover-up in July 2000. ElBaradei told Omi that the TEPCO problem would be a good chance for Japan to secure transparency in nuclear matters and strongly urged him to report the results of the Japanese authorities' inspections to the IAEA, Jiji Press said. Copyright © 2002 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 13 FPL reportedly eyeing British firm PalmBeachPost.com: By Deborah Circelli, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 17, 2002 JUNO BEACH -- FPL Group Inc. reportedly is interested in buying financially troubled British Energy, a major generator of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. The Sunday Times in London reported last weekend that Juno Beach-based FPL Group (NYSE: FPL, $52.55), as well as Entergy Corp. of New Orleans (NYSE: ETR, $40.86) and billionaire investor Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. already has UK energy interests, were considering making bids for the utility. The Times did not attribute its information. FPL officials Monday declined to discuss the report. "If it is an acquisition that is being evaluated, that is not something the company discusses," said Rachel Scott, an FPL spokeswoman. Analysts, too, cast doubt on the story. "I don't think anyone would want to buy it until the government decides what it is going to do," said Iain Turner, an analyst with Deutsche Bank AG in London. "In its present case, it isn't viable." Another London paper, The Observer, reported Sunday that the British government is considering taking a majority stake in British Energy to keep it from going bankrupt. It lent the company 410 million pounds ($636 million) last week. British Energy (NYSE: BGY, $1.12) owns eight nuclear power plants and generates one-fifth of Britain's power supply. Falling prices for wholesale power have made serious dents in the company's finances. Officials with the company could not be reached Monday for comment. FPL, which owns four nuclear reactors -- two on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County and two near Homestead -- has been in a buying mood lately. In April, it announced plans to purchase an 88.2 percent interest in the 1,161-megawatt Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire for $836.6 million. Government approval is pending. But a failed deal in Indonesia has soured the company on investing overseas, analysts say. FPL Energy, a subsidiary of FPL Group, is part-owner of Karaha Bodas Co., formed in 1994 to build two geothermal power plants on Java. The project was canceled by the government, leading FPL, Caithness Energy LLC and other U.S. investors to resort to the courts to try to recoup $100 million spent on the project. Lew Hay, chairman and CEO of FPL Group, said in an interview this year that FPL "is not looking to do anything international at this point," except for the possibility of wind power. FPL Energy is the nation's largest producer of wind power. Analysts say they would be "very surprised" to see FPL look overseas, considering there are so many plants that could be bought in the U.S. "I could see reason to shoot holes in that rumor," said David Parker, senior utility analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. in Tampa. "They have plenty of opportunities in their own back yard." Last year, FPL tried to buy Entergy in a $15.8 billion deal that foundered on management issues. Entergy officials also declined Monday to discuss whether they were interested in British Energy. Marc Zabicki, an analyst at H&R Block Financial Advisors in Detroit, said FPL has the expertise and balance sheet to handle a deal for British Energy, but he doesn't see the advantages, considering the UK's problems with wholesale power. "But if I hear in the news tomorrow that FPL bought another nuclear facility in the United States, I wouldn't be surprised at all," Zabicki said. deborah_circelli@pbpost.com [deborah_circelli@pbpost.com] Copyright © 2002, The Palm Beach Post. All rights ***************************************************************** 14 GE to buy Ion Track from Castle Harlan Boston Globe Online: Print it! By Associated Press, 9/16/2002 16:29 PLAINVILLE, Conn. (Dow Jones/AP) A unit of General Electric Co. Monday said it agreed to acquire Ion Track Inc., a maker of detectors for bombs and drugs, from Castle Harlan Inc., a New York merchant bank. Ion Track's products are used at airports, government buildings, nuclear power plants and at major events, like the Olympic Games. Financial details weren't disclosed. GE's Industrial Systems unit said it expects to complete the purchase during the fourth quarter. ''Electronic security is a $20 billion industry with strong growth ahead of it for the future,'' said Lloyd Trotter, president and chief executive of GE Industrial Systems. Wilmington, Mass.-based Ion Track had planned to raise $100 million through an initial public offering. In the first quarter of this year, Ion Track boosted its earnings to $3 million from a $488,000 loss in the first quarter of last year, while revenue rose to $20.5 million from $5.1 million. ***************************************************************** 15 USEC: Partner prospects possible [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, September 17, 2002 Despite the idea of a pact between competitors, USEC is moving ahead with plans for its own plant. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Timbers Although there have been no such talks, USEC is open to finding partners, including a competing group, to finance a $1.5 billion gas centrifuge plant in Paducah or Piketon, Ohio, said USEC Chief Executive Officer Nick Timbers. USEC is racing with Louisiana Energy Services — a consortium led by Urenco, a European enrichment firm — to build a commercial gas centrifuge plant by the end of the decade at Hartsville, Tenn. Timbers declined to speculate if the shrinking enrichment market can support two plants, but said he supports "free and open thinking" among USEC, Urenco and the two other major enrichment suppliers worldwide. He spoke in an interview here Monday prior to a USEC board meeting today at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "I think it's fair to say that over the years I have spoken both to Urenco management and owners of Urenco about ideas of working together in the industry," he said. "I have always been open to a creative approach about how the industry can be reconfigured and work together." However, there has been no partnering discussion with LES, Timbers said, and USEC is moving ahead with plans for its own plant. "I'm not going to sit around and wait for the realignment of the industry stars," he said. "I'm more interested in taking those steps necessary for our long-term strength and vitality." USEC's commercial plant will require about 1,000 construction workers and 500 permanent jobs. Under a new agreement with the Department of Energy, construction will begin in Piketon in 2009 or Paducah in 2010. But funding remains questionable. USEC earnings dropped from $78.4 million in fiscal 2001 to $16.2 million last fiscal year, ending June 30. USEC is projecting $9 million to $12 million in net income this year, which reflects spending about $150 million during the next few years to prepare to build a test gas centrifuge plant in either Paducah or Piketon. Timbers said that by 2005, the 240-centrifuge demonstration plant will have begun testing the cost-efficiency of the process, which uses far less electricity than outdated, expensive technology used at the existing Paducah plant. "Then we'll have a much stronger base to raise capital on our own and perhaps join with others as partners on the program," he said. Timbers said the $1 billion to $1.5 billion needed to build a commercial plant may come in a variety of forms, including partnerships. Whether a partner is needed will depend on results of the test plant, market conditions and the financial status of USEC, he said. By 2005, USEC may well be a much more diversified firm than the enriched-uranium producer it is now, he said. Timbers said USEC already is doing environmental cleanup work for the Energy Department, mainly at a closed enrichment plant in Piketon. Timbers said USEC's contract with Russia is another factor in the future "clearer picture" about the need for one or two centrifuge plants. Through 2013, USEC is buying enriched uranium derived from former Soviet nuclear warheads. Timbers said mixing the lower-priced Russian material with the higher-cost material produced at Paducah helps keep the company competitive and preserves the plant. But Russia could eventually pull out of the deal, which would change USEC's financial picture considerably, he said. A year ago, USEC and the Paducah plant nuclear workers were at a stalemate in signing a new contract. The union — which had expressed worry that USEC would eventually become solely a broker of Russian uranium and close the plant — eventually signed a one-year extension that will be renegotiated soon. Timbers said USEC will never be solely a broker of Russian uranium because of specific commitments made by the company and Energy Department in June, and because of economic factors. He said the agreement "carefully balances" domestic production, centrifuge development and the Russian deal by requiring USEC to run the Paducah plant at certain production levels. "If we don't produce here at Paducah, if we only became a broker, the government's commitment to us as being the exclusive executive agent for the Russian deal would evaporate," he said. "The Energy Department's commitment to us on centrifuge technology would evaporate." Economically, USEC makes the Russian deal work by having complementary production at Paducah, he said. "We make and buy as a company," Timbers said. "It's OK from an economic standpoint if you just make it, but it's not OK if you just buy it." He said a future White House administration could nix the Russian deal, or Russia itself could pull out. Russia has delayed deliveries four times. "Do you realize the inventory we would have to maintain to protect ourselves based on that kind of scenario?" he said. "That's why from both a technical-agreement standpoint and a business standpoint, that claim that we're just going to be brokers doesn't hold any water." ***************************************************************** 16 Safety Problems at Japanese Reactors The New York Times *September 16, 2002* *By HOWARD W. FRENCH* TOKYO, Sept. 15 ? The reports of safety lapses, fraudulent repairs and cover-ups at Japan's largest nuclear power company began with a trickle but have resounded into an industry nightmare. The details, filled in over the last two weeks by one alarming report after another, show a potentially catastrophic pattern of cost-cutting along with 16 years of cover-ups of serious flaws, apparently in an effort to preserve public trust. The pattern includes the systematic falsification of inspection and repair records at 13 reactors at the company, Tokyo Electric, the world's largest private electrical utility. Compounding the public relations disaster, a reactor that the company operates in Fukushima Prefecture, in northern Japan, was closed temporarily last week because a chimney was emitting more than 100 times the usual level of radiation. In accordance with the ritualized apologies that Japanese business culture demands, the president of Tokyo Electric, Nobuya Minami, and four other senior officials resigned. But many Japanese are talking about a far larger casualty, the rock-solid consensus behind nuclear energy that has existed here for decades, and which has made Japan's industry the world's third-largest, behind the United States and France, and perhaps its most ambitious. Even senior members of the government have expressed their outrage over the scandal. "It is absolutely abominable that this incident caused the people's confidence to be largely lost in nuclear energy," said Takeo Hiranuma, the industry minister. Statements like his are almost unheard; for decades the government has been an almost unconditional backer of nuclear power. But a groundswell has been building against nuclear power here for at least three years. It began when cost-cutting and sloppy work led to a fission chain-reaction at a uranium-processing plant in Tokaimura, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo, in 1999. The anger gained momentum last year after investigators discovered that radioactive coolant water had been leaking, undetected, from cracks in the aging reactor vessel in Hamaoka for at least four months. The Tokaimura incident was Japan's worst nuclear-related accident. Two people were killed, thousands of people were exposed to at least moderate levels of radiation and the town center had to be temporarily evacuated during a cleanup. Company officials have said they were worried that if the public became aware of cracking at the reactors, people would be frightened. Today, it was learned that the government gave Tokyo Electric the name of the whistle-blower who reported the cracking to the company, in a further effort to keep things quiet. The Tokaimura accident shocked the nation, and critics of the nuclear industry now say the government's condemnations of safety lapses and fraud may be too little too late. Since Tokaimura, local communities have voted in referendums to block new plants, and in other cases mayors and governors have promised to do so. That has galvanized action against the nuclear power industry as never before. "At first, people had no other choice but to trust the government, because this is such important technology," Eisaku Sato, the governor of Fukushima Prefecture, where some of the troubled Tokyo Electric plants are located, said Wednesday. "Then this incident occurred, and the trust between us, which was never more than a thin red thread, was completely cut off." Just one day earlier, Masazumi Nishikawa, the mayor of Kashiwazaki City, in Niigata Prefecture, told Tokyo Electric to cancel its plans to introduce a plutonium fuel into a conventional local reactor which was designed to burn uranium. The prefectural governor, Ikuo Hirayama, has seconded the mayor's moves. Antinuclear activists say they can now foresee a day when Japan joins countries like Germany and Belgium in banning new nuclear plant construction. Plant construction in the United States has long been frozen though not banned. "This kind of scandal, where there have been cover-ups for 10 years, causes a fatal doubt of government policy on nuclear energy," said Kiyoshi Sakurai, an industry critic and a physicist. "We will end up like Americans and some European countries, turning away from nuclear energy." Nuclear-generated electricity has been the bedrock of Japan's energy policy since the oil shocks of the 1970's, which hit Japan far worse than the United States, considering that Japan was a manufacturing economy without local supplies of oil. The country embarked on a crash program to build dozens of nuclear power plants. But it also poured tens of billions of dollars into the development of plutonium-burning reactors, known as fast breeder reactors; their technology, though unproven, theoretically would produce more nuclear fuel than they burn. The United States abandoned similar plans during the Ford administration, citing safety concerns, and since then, international nuclear energy experts and antinuclear activists in Japan have raised a host of other objections, from infeasibility to the terror-related risks of shipping vast stocks of plutonium internationally and around Japan. But the Japanese government has continued to spend heavily on developing plutonium-based reactors, even despite a sodium leak and a fire at its prototype fast-breeder reactor at Monju in 1992. "There is a single-minded commitment to nuclear power," said Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, an independent group in Washington doing research on nuclear nonproliferation. "The government clearly sees promoting nuclear power as its policy, because the bureaucrats absolutely believe that this is the key to their energy future for the next 200 years." The biggest liabilities faced by Japan's huge nuclear power industry are not the technologies of the future, but an accident-plagued present in which embarrassing failures in aging reactors have become disturbingly commonplace. The most frightening revelation in the unfolding Tokyo Power scandal has been that falsified inspection records had papered over large cracks in the stainless steel shrouds that cover the core of nuclear plants, allowing the reactors to operate for years without costly repairs. For many, this recalled an explosion at a nuclear plant operated by the Nagoya-based Chubu Electric Power Company, at Hamaoka, last November. The investigation there revealed the radioactive leaks. The Hamaoka plant began operating in 1976, and antinuclear activists in Japan have seized upon incidents like the one last year as evidence that many of Japan's 53 nuclear reactors, operating well into their third decade, are aging and a safety risk. Aging has emerged as a major concern in the United States, too, particularly since the discovery in March of a hole in the top of the reactor vessel at the Davis-Besse reactor, near Toledo, Ohio. Unforeseen corrosion by boric acid has nearly eaten through the six-inch thick steel vessel that contains the reactor's core, and American investigators are also looking into whether inspection or repair records at the plant have been falsified. In an interview before the Tokyo Power scandals, Shojiro Masuura, chairman of Japans Nuclear Safety Commission, denied that aging of nuclear plants was a problem. "In Japan there is no relationship between accidents and aging," he said. Regarding the Hamaoka leaks, he added, "the reactors fractures don't really relate to aging at all." American nuclear energy experts have expressed astonishment at that line of thinking. "Something has happened to the Japanese, and it doesn't look good," said Victor Galinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulator Commission. "I just can't imagine that any engineer, technical person or technical bureaucrat can deny that aging is a problem." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 17 [BATN] Port worker radiation fear hampers cargo scanning Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:17:34 -0700 Port workers leery of inspecting cargo Gamma-ray scanners used to detect explosives go underused because West Coast dock workers fear radiation exposure By Guy Ashley Worker safety fears are hampering security measures at West Coast seaports, including the Port of Oakland. U.S. Customs officials say the concerns keep them from getting the most out of a gamma-ray scanning device used to check shipping containers, to stop someone from smuggling destructive devices among the thousands of containers that pass daily. Despite many assurances the "vehicle and cargo inspection system," or VACIS, is safe, West Coast dock workers refuse to drive cargo loads past the equipment's scanning arms for fear of being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Instead, workers exit cargo-laden trucks before they are scanned, a process that dramatically cuts the number of containers that can be scanned, officials say. "We would prefer that they stay inside the trucks and drive them through," said Tom O'Brien, director of field operations for the U.S. Customs Service in San Francisco. "That would enable us to scan a lot more containers." Customs officials say they have taken pains to assure workers the scanners are safe. They say the practice of exiting the trucks, and forcing customs officials to run truck-mounted scanners over stationary cargo loads, cuts the number of containers that can be scanned by as much as half. In Oakland about 100 containers are scanned daily; that number could increase to as many as 200 using the preferred method, officials say. Scanning produces a black-and-white image of a container's interior, which customs officials review for signs of smuggled items. Ports around the country received the scanners as an extra measure of protection following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. With revelations that only 2 percent of cargo containers coming into the nation's ports are physically inspected, homeland security officials have placed great value on such technology as the gamma-ray scanners as a way to expand surveillance. "You try to reduce the size of the haystack, and this is one of the things we're doing to accomplish that," said Ray Boyle, the Port of Oakland's general manager for maritime operations. About 27,000 containers are shipped each day into the West Coast's major container ports: Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle/Tacoma and Portland. New seaport safety standards require shipping companies to provide manifests of all goods they intend to bring into port at least 96 hours before arrival. Customs officials use the detailed lists to decide which cargoes should be inspected or scanned with detectors. The decision is based on factors that include a shipping company's track record, the type of cargo and whether an incoming ship may have passed through countries known for terrorist activity. Boyle said he believes the new rules are helping ports target incoming cargoes that could be risky. He believes most incoming shipments come from trusted shippers with proven track records for securing their cargoes. "Potentially, the risk is greater when you are scanning fewer containers," Boyle said. "But just how much that risk would be reduced by increasing the number of containers that are scanned, in light of other security measures ... the jury's still out on that question." Customs officials and shipping companies met with union representatives in the spring to convince workers that driving trucks through the stationary scanners is safe. They reportedly were equipped with data from the manufacturer, Science Applications International Corp., that indicates exposures from the device were minimal. "VACIS has been designed to be totally safe," said Jim Winso, vice president and operations manager for the manufacturer, located near San Diego. Winso said the exposure level of the gamma-ray device is 100 to 1,000 times lower than X-rays. To reach the allowable U.S. Customs radiation exposure level "would require someone to stow away inside of a scanned container about 25,000 times in a year," he said. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents about 10,500 dock workers on the West Coast, was not fully convinced its employees would be safe if exposed repeatedly to the device. "They say the level of exposure is so little it's immeasurable," said Steve Stallone, an ILWU spokesman. "But we're not convinced that there isn't a problem with an accumulation of exposure, when you are working with these machines repeatedly, day in and day out." Stallone said the union has asked for an independent analysis of the exposure risks. O'Brien declined to comment on whether such a study might be done. Stallone said customs officials and shipping companies have backed off on the issue in recent months, while the ILWU is locked in heated contract negotiations with shippers over issues of job security and the use of technologies that could lead to workforce reductions. Stallone said concerns about VACIS are not an issue in the contract negotiations. Mike Fleming, a U.S. Customs spokesman in Los Angeles, declined to comment when asked if he felt the worker-safety concerns were being used as leverage in the ongoing labor talks. "We don't want to get in the middle of it," he said. Reach Guy Ashley at 510-763-8045 or gashley@cctimes.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/kgOolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Send a blank email message to: BATN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to subscribe, BATN-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to unsubscribe, BATN-digest@yahoogroups.com to switch email to digest mode, BATN-normal@yahoogroups.com to switch email to normal mode, BATN-nomail@yahoogroups.com to switch email delivery off. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN for web access & archives. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 18 'Vessels are sitting ducks for a terrorist' Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Tuesday September 17, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Brendon Rohan, 49 and retired from the Irish army, had anchored his boat the Spinner off Barrow-in-Furness yesterday awaiting the arrival of the two nuclear ships. He explained why he had sailed from the north-west coast of Donegal to be there. "I feel I am doing something worthwhile here for the people of Ireland, and for those in England, come to that. "My concern is safety. There are lots of issues, for example a fire. If a normal factory burnt down then it would be bad but it could be rebuilt, but at Sellafield it would be catastrophic, and could last for thousands of years. We have welcomed the children of Chernobyl to holidays in Donegal, we do not want our children and those in England to face that. "There is also a lot of concern on the east coast of Ireland about air pollution from Sellafield's normal operation and all the radioactivity in the sea but the whole of Ireland feels bad about these shipments. "I came before in 1988 to protest about the opening of the Thorp reprocessing plant and feel these shipments present a new danger. The BNFL ships are called the Pintail and the Teal - very appropriate: they are sitting ducks for a terrorist. "If anyone wanted to get back at Tony Blair for his war on terrorism or Iraq these ships would make an easy sitting target, and create a nightmare for everyone else. But for the future lots more of these sailings are planned. A simple collision at sea or a fire on the ship on any of these in the future would have disastrous consequences. "The Irish feel very strongly about this, as we first discovered 20 years ago when someone suggested building a nuclear power station in the south-west of Ireland. The protests were immediate and it was clear it was not going to happen. These days there are so many better alternatives of producing power, we do not need Sellafield, we do not need these shipments. That is what I am here to say." Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] Department of trade and industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 19 Groups Urge Senate Action on Nuclear Security* Public Citizen through */Sept. 17, 2002/* WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Congress should enact legislation to address security concerns at nuclear power plants, national environmental and public interest groups said today. Eleven groups circulated a letter to U.S. senators urging immediate action. "One full year after the tragedies of last September, Congress has not enacted /any/ legislation to mandate improvements in security at commercial nuclear facilities. This appalling situation leaves the public vulnerable," the groups wrote. "We strenuously urge the Senate to address these pressing nuclear security concerns before adjournment." The letter was endorsed by Friends of the Earth, GRACE Public Fund, Greenpeace, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Safe Energy Communication Council, STAR Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists and Women?s Action for New Directions. Click here to view the letter online. Nuclear plant owners have known of their vulnerabilities to terrorist attack, and recent news articles have reported that Al Qaeda specifically discussed bombing nuclear facilities. Not only are nuclear power plants not designed to withstand the type of attack experienced on Sept. 11, 2001, but nearly half of the facilities tested under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?s Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations (OSRE) program between 1991 and 2001 had serious vulnerabilities identified. A report released last week by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) found that since Sept. 11, security forces at nuclear power plants are undermanned, underequipped and undertrained. Although the U.S. House of Representatives included nuclear security provisions when it reauthorized the Price-Anderson Act last year, and although the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously approved the Nuclear Security Act in July, energy conferees last week rejected proposals to include security provisions to the nuclear title of the energy bill (H.R. 4). The Homeland Security Act, currently being debated by the Senate, is similarly silent on security at nuclear power plants. "Given the current focus on national security, how can lawmakers ignore the unacceptable risks posed by nuclear power plants?" asked Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "Congress must not allow another year to lapse without taking action on this urgent matter." ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 20 Iodide pills given as radiation care -- The Washington Times September 17, 2002 By Larry O΄Dell ASSOCIATED PRESS RICHMOND — The state this week will begin distributing pills that would prevent one type of radiation poisoning in the event of an accident or terrorist attack at Virginia's two nuclear power plants, Health Commissioner Robert B. Stroube said yesterday. One dose of potassium iodide, used to block radioactive iodine in the thyroid, will be given to each of the estimated 330,000 people who live or work within 10 miles of the plants near Mineral in central Virginia and Surry in southeastern Virginia. The state will keep an additional 330,000 doses in storage for emergency distribution. The drug will be handed out over the next few weeks at 18 locations, starting at noon tomorrow at the Peninsula Health Department in Newport News and the Isle of Wight County Health Department in Smithfield. Residents will have to show proof of identification and residence to obtain the drug. President Bush signed a bioterrorism bill in June that requires potassium iodide to be available to all residents living near nuclear power plants. Sixteen of the 33 states with nuclear reactors asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide potassium iodide, and Virginia is the 11th state to begin distribution, according to the American Thyroid Association. Dr. Stroube said residents should store the medication in a convenient place and should not take it unless his office instructs them to do so during an emergency. "Potassium iodide is most effective if taken within a few hours before, during or immediately after exposure," Dr. Stroube said. "The medication can help prevent thyroid cancer, especially in children." Potassium iodide saturates the thyroid with safe iodine and blocks radioactive iodine from entering. The use of the drug in Poland after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in the former Soviet Union was credited with greatly reducing the number of thyroid cancers.      One tablet is believed to protect an adult's thyroid gland for about 24 hours — long enough to give the person time to evacuate the danger area. The drug does not protect against other illnesses caused by radiation. "This is a supplement to the evacuation and sheltering," said Dr. Khizar Wasti, director of the state health department's Division of Health Hazards Control. "It is not a substitute for evacuation."      Alan Morris, president of Anbex Inc., which manufactures the drug, noted that the American Thyroid Association recommends making potassium iodide available to people who live up to 50 miles from a nuclear plant.      Dr. Wasti said the 10-mile limit was set by the NRC, not state health officials. "That's the most susceptible area, within 10 miles," he said. "All the modeling they've done shows the chances of radioactivity going past that is almost negligible." Some states have elected not to distribute the drug, fearing that it would lull residents into a false sense of security. Dr. Wasti said Virginia officials rejected that argument. "Our feeling was that we will not mandate it, but give the option to the public — leave it up to them," Dr. Wasti said. The Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of potassium iodide in 1982. Mr. Morris said some drugstores stock the drug, which also can be purchased over the Internet. People allergic to iodine should not take potassium iodide, the health department said. Also, people with certain thyroid diseases and skin diseases should consult their physician before taking the drug. ***************************************************************** 21 How much radiation is too much?* **The Daily Press** By R.W. Rogers Daily Press September 17, 2002 To this day, Jim Lyerly doesn't know much about the radiation that he claims destroyed his life and now ravages his family. He doesn't know the difference between gamma rays and alpha rays or what fission is. But the U.S. government knew plenty about radiation by the time Lyerly took part in Operation Redwing in 1956 - it just didn't want to tell. In 1904, Thomas Edison's assistant Clarence Dally became the first confirmed case of radiation poisoning death. More than 40 years later, radiation-caused deaths were documented after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In between, the government learned enough about radiation to view it as a legal landmine that had to be disarmed before the nuclear weapons program could move forward. It was considered such a threat that military and government leaders moved behind the scenes to quash future lawsuits. Meanwhile, generals brainstormed ways of using radiation itself as a weapon and prodded the Atomic Energy Commission into allowing troops to be moved ever closer to ground zero. The backing of the AEC, now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was vital for the military because it ran the nuclear weapons program and set the radiation exposure standards in the early days of the nuclear weapons program. Once the legal protections were quietly granted, the nuclear program kicked into high gear, according to Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Eileen Welsome in her book "The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." Military planners, initially enthralled by the massive destructive power of atomic weapons, soon began exploring ways of using radiation as a physical and psychological force. As early as 1947, the United States began experimenting with "dirty bombs" that could throw a shroud of deadly radiation over large areas. "In the contaminated areas, some would be doomed by radiation sickness in hours, some in days, some in years," read a report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff Evaluation Board on ways of using the atomic bomb. "But these areas ... would have no visible boundaries. No survivor could be certain he was not among the doomed and so, added to every terror of the moment, thousands would be stricken with a fear of death and the uncertainty of the time of its arrival." Decades later, when Atomic Vet widow Pat Broudy sued the United States over her husband's cancer death, government lawyers admitted that radiation dangers were known in the mid-1940s. The lawyers then invoked sovereign immunity, a legal principle that prevents people from suing the government regardless of negligence. Little factual information about the true risks from radiation seems to have trickled down to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who did the actual testing. The troops were instead told that radiation was no more dangerous than sunburn and was not to be feared. While AEC and military officials took this united stance publicly, behind the scenes the two sides debated just how dangerous radiation really was, according to the findings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation. President Clinton established the panel in 1994 to investigate reports of human radiation experiments and intentional release of radioactive materials between 1944 and 1974. He appointed the committee after Welsome uncovered several instances of people being experimented on without their knowledge. The committee report shows that while senior AEC officials tried to hold the line on troop exposure levels, military leaders pushed for ever higher exposure standards. The military got its way, though the potential hazards made AEC officials uneasy. Thomas Shipman, head of the Los Alamos Health Division, wrote an AEC official in 1956 that: "There are two basic facts which must never be lost sight of. The first of these is that the only good exposure is zero. The second fact is that once the button for a bomb detonation is pushed you have to live with the results no matter what they are." So the questions are: What did the government know about low-dose radiation? How did it determine radiation exposure levels? And what's now known about low-dose radiation exposure? Some of these questions have been debated since Antoine-Henri Becquerel discovered naturally occurring radiation in 1896. For most of the last 60 years, the government has embraced the 5-rem exposure standard. Atomic Vets seeking compensation had to prove at least that much exposure to win benefits. This standard is also the occupational yearly limit for U.S. workers. A rem is a measure of radiation absorbed by the body. The higher the rem exposure, the greater the accompanying health risks. But the 5-rem standard was never based on a health study. Scientists have never agreed on a safe exposure level - not 60 years ago and not today. The 5-rem standard was instead a compromise that was then held out to Atomic Vets as a de facto health standard. It was used by bureaucrats to decide when benefits should be paid. "The 5-rem standard is an administrative standard," said Dr. Stewart Bushong, a longtime professor of radiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets the standard for radiation exposure, while most of the rest of the world follows guidelines set by the International Commission on Radiation Protection. These organizations rarely agree. In 1977, for example, the ICRP met in England to re-examine its 5-rem standard for the first time since 1956, when Lyerly was taking part in Operation Redwing. Though its recommendation wouldn't be binding on the NRC, it would have influence and was of particular interest in the United States. The international body's stated goal was to make nuclear work no more dangerous than any other occupation. It set an accidental death rate of 1 in 10,000 as acceptable. This caused a problem. By the ICRP's own estimates, 5 rems of exposure produces a 20 in 10,000 chance of cancer death, a 4 in 10,000 chance of passing on a serious genetic defect, and a 9 in 10,000 chance of developing a non-fatal cancer. Hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of lives rode on the ICRP recommendation and whether the NRC followed the commission's lead as it had done in the past. A compromise was reached that allowed the higher exposure level while recognizing that it should be reduced. The 5-rem limit would stay, though it would no longer be acceptable. The new concept is known as ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable. The shift spooked the nuclear lobby in this country, which argued in the early 1980s that cutting the rem limit in the United States would cost nuclear plants millions of dollars. An Environmental Protection Agency study estimated that reducing the radiation-exposure standard to 1.5 rems would require the nuclear industry to hire nearly 30,000 additional nuclear workers and cost $400 million to $700 million. In 1990, the international body again looked at radiation standards. This time, it ditched the ALARA standard and recommended a 2-rem yearly occupational limit. The NRC did not follow suit. In 1991 it adopted the ALARA concept with the 5-rem ceiling. Critics consider ALARA essentially unenforceable. The NRC considers the lower radiation standards unneeded. Sami Sherbini, a health physicist for the NRC's headquarters in Maryland, said a lower standard would be superfluous since the average U.S. worker is only exposed to 0.3 rems a year. But if typical exposure is already so much less, why not move the limit? "We have no data at this time that indicates directly that there is a risk of cancer at doses below 10 rem," Sherbini said. "Lots of people believe there is no risk at all. Other people think there is." The rem debate might seem esoteric, but it means everything to Atomic Vets like Lyerly. That's because had the United States lowered its rem standard, it almost surely would have had to grant benefits to more Atomic Vets. Otherwise the government would be in the position of denying Atomic Vet claims for injury because they couldn't prove 5 rems of exposure while approving a lower threshold to protect public health. If Atomic Veterans had successfully leveraged this argument for compensation, it could have put the government on the hook for billions of dollars in compensation. In 1979 the Veterans Administration estimated that it would cost $612 million a year to pay Atomic Vets the benefits they demanded. A congressional staffer, however, said the VA was guessing at the price tag since no one knew precisely how many Atomic Vets there were 40 years ago, much less how many were then alive. Despite the lack of scientific consensus concerning the dangers of low-dose radiation, the 5-rem standard has proved a bureaucratic Maginot Line that very few Atomic Vets have been able to breach. "I would characterize the standards that the Atomic Vets have to meet as burdensome, cumbersome and in many cases arbitrary," said David Autry, a Disabled American Vet spokesman. "Whenever we raise the issue, the response is always that it is going to cost too much." "There's been stonewall after stonewall," Autry said. "Every arm of the government has done its best to thwart Atomic Vets. The government has no problem using people up, but they don't want to take care of them. It's an amazing and sad story." Of an estimated 220,000 U.S. troops who took part in nuclear weapons tests in the United States and the Pacific Islands - or who spent time at Hiroshima or Nagasaki - only 1,200 were exposed to more than 5 rems of radiation, according to the Defense Nuclear Agency. For its part, the government didn't arbitrarily dig in its heels and refuse to consider Atomic Vet claims. Government-sponsored studies in 1992 and 1996 showed Atomic Vets no more likely to develop cancer than anyone else. The studies by the Defense Nuclear Agency and Institute of Medicine reports did not convince many Atomic Vets or some academics. Steve Wing, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, studies Department of Energy workers at nuclear weapons plants across the country. A number of studies, Wing said, link radiation exposure levels below 5 rem to health problems. At a 1998 Senate hearing, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a specialist in mathematics applied to biomedical problems and a critic of nuclear weapons, said Atomic Vets should've been compensated long ago. "The first book on radiation-related cancer was published in 1912 - almost 90 years ago," Bertell said. "It would seem that the disputes which have surrounded this issue involve much more than straightforward scientific investigation and reporting." "There is peer-reviewed published research," Bertell continued, "which shows that excess cancers have occurred at dose levels which are within the maximum permissible dose levels set for workers and members of the public. "Setting such a cutoff for a veteran's eligibility for medical care is at best a subjective judgment and at worst a deliberate ploy to pretend that standards are protective and to save money." Bertell and other scientists also bemoan the fact that only Atomic Vets with selected, usually deadly cancers, are eligible for compensation. William Brady, a government scientist in the nuclear weapons program for decades, also testified before the Senate committee in 1998 - on behalf of the Atomic Veterans. "I thought it was time to even the score," Brady said when asked why he changed sides following his retirement in 1991. Brady began working at the Nevada Test Site in 1952, and during his 39-year career there served as a radiation monitor, a security officer, an expert witness and a health physicist. While Bertell criticized the government's medical reasons for denying Atomic Vets benefits, Brady took issue with the contractors hired to reconstruct the radiation levels the vets were supposedly exposed to. The reconstruction work was ordered to replace information lost during a 1973 fire in a military repository, or that never existed to begin with. Between 1978 and 1994, the Defense Nuclear Agency paid $13.6 million for work that was "overwhelmingly favorable to the government," author Welsome concluded in her book. "The first contractor did little for two years except give the same promises of action in its monthly briefings," Brady testified, "and then produce an impossibly nonscientific draft dose-reconstruction report." The next contractor, Brady said, "appeared to know a little more about what they were doing, but not much about health physics and even less about personnel radiation" exposure. The health of Atomic Veterans - and that of their children and grandchildren - remains an emotional and divisive issue to this day. According to information from the National Association of Atomic Veterans Web site, naav.com, the cancer death rate among Atomic Vets is more than 78 percent, with 56 being the average age of death. The claims are based on a database of 6,300 vets. The Web site also cites cancer figures from other countries that have used their service members in nuclear weapons tests. British researchers looking at their own Atomic Vets found a cancer death rate of 91 percent and an average age at death of 51, while the cancer rate among Australian Atomic Vets is 81 percent with an average death age of 53, according to the NAAV site. But when it comes to the issue of Atomic Vets, no assertions go unchallenged. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, which receives 80 percent of its budget from the government, reported that Atomic Vets actually had a lower-than-average chance of fatal prostate cancer, but a 20 percent higher risk of lymphatic cancer - including leukemia. The researchers said the leukemia finding wasn't conclusive because the participant pool was too small. Paul Charp, a senior health physicist for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, said it's impossible to evaluate the science behind Atomic Veterans' claims. Charp said that he's seen no credible study linking low-dose radiation with the types of health problems Atomic Vets and their families complain of, but that an ongoing study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health might one day provide an answer. "Even in atomic bomb survivors, there are no genetic problems being passed down," Charp said. "And based on what we have seen, and the National Academy of Science is a pretty prestigious group of folks, Atomic Vet illnesses don't appear to be any higher than in the general public." Scientists have recently found that cells do react to low-dose radiation; however, there's no agreement on what the finding means. Rick Rogers can be reached at 247-4629 or by e-mail at rrogers@dailypress.com . Copyright © 2002, Daily Press ***************************************************************** 22 Va. to dispense pills for radiation emergency HAMPTON ROADS - News [http://www.hamptonroads.com Potassium iodide pills. By TIM MCGLONE, The Virginian-Pilot © September 17, 2002 Starting Wednesday, anyone living or working within 10 miles of the Surry Power Station can receive a dose of potassium iodide. Newport News and Isle of Wight County will be the first to distribute the pills. Similar to table salt, potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland from cancer after exposure to radioactive iodine, one contaminant released during a nuclear accident. Children are most susceptible. The tiny pills do not protect against other ailments associated with radiation exposure, and people are not supposed to take them unless health or emergency management officials issue instructions to do so. The pills have been available for years but were not widely distributed until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the nation's nuclear plants went on high alert. ... Read more in The Virginian-Pilot or at PilotOnline.com ThinkIn--> RICHMOND -- Virginia will become the 16th state to dispense pills designed to provide limited protection from radiation's harmful effects after a nuclear power plant catastrophe. Starting Wednesday, anyone living or working within 10 miles of the Surry Power Station can receive a dose of potassium iodide. Newport News and Isle of Wight County will be the first to distribute the pills. Similar to table salt, potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland from cancer after exposure to radioactive iodine, one contaminant released during a nuclear accident. Children are most susceptible. The tiny pills do not protect against other ailments associated with radiation exposure, and people are not supposed to take them unless health or emergency management officials issue instructions to do so. The pills have been available for years but were not widely distributed until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the nation's nuclear plants went on high alert. Dominion Virginia Power operates two nuclear plants in the state, one on the banks of the James River in Surry County, across from Jamestown, and the other in rural Louisa County on the banks of Lake Anna. The Virginia Department of Health has provided to localities 330,000 pills, one for every person who lives or works within 10 miles of those plants. The department also stockpiled another 330,000 for an emergency. More than 300,000 people live or work within 10 miles of the Surry plant. Most pills will be distributed on the Peninsula. Norfolk, roughly 40 miles from the plant, and the four other South Hampton Roads cities are not on the distribution list. Officials warn that the pills are not a substitute for evacuation. ``It is not an antidote for radiation poisoning,'' said Dr. Khizar Wasti, a Health Department official. ``It may give a false sense of security to the public,'' he said. ``Some people may think that when they take the pill they don't have to evacuate.'' Most of the 33 states eligible to receive the pills have declined to participate, in part for that reason, officials said. And that was the main concern of a Virginia committee that studied the issue all summer before recommending to the governor that the pills be distributed. ``The chief concern among everybody is the fact that we would like the public to recognize that potassium iodide can help, but it's not necessarily the first and foremost way to protect yourself from radiation,'' said Surry County Administrator Terry Lewis, a committee member. Long before the threat of terrorism raised by the Sept. 11 attacks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had debated making potassium iodide tablets available to residents around plants, said Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion's nuclear operations. Still, distribution and sales of the pills have skyrocketed since the attacks. The pills to be distributed are manufactured under the name Iosat by the New Jersey pharmaceutical firm Anbex Inc., which saw sales increase from a few thousand a year before Sept. 11, 2001, to hundreds of thousands since. An Anbex official cited the pill's success after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the former Soviet Union. The Polish government distributed KI tablets after the accident, and the rates of thyroid cancer remain unchanged. But in neighboring Belarus, where the pill was not made available, thyroid cancer among children increased 100-fold in that time. Officials in Richmond said they are distributing the pills not because of any known threat to the state's two nuclear plants but to prevent panic and ensure readiness. No safety problems have arisen at either plant that would have prompted the distribution of the potassium iodide, Zuercher said. Dominion keeps the pills at its nuclear plants to give to emergency workers in case of an accidental radiation release. The company doesn't supply the tablets to its workers, who would be evacuated, Zuercher said. Surry workers said they are disappointed that the company has not provided the tablets to them. ``We find it a little unusual that everybody within a 10-mile radius is being issued these, but they're not available to us,'' said Rusty Tanner, a welder at the plant and shop steward for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 50. Officials said the workers are eligible to receive the pills just as anyone is within the 10-mile radius. People who live outside the limit can purchase potassium iodide at pharmacies that carry the pills. Newport News Health Director Dr. Elaine Perry said those who want the pill should bring identification, though no one will be turned away. A mother, for example, could pick up pills for her entire family without having to show identification for each family member. Potassium iodide should not be taken by anyone allergic to iodine or shellfish. People with certain thyroid ailments, such as Grave's disease, thyroiditis or goiter should consult their physicians. The thyroid produces hormones that help regulate heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and metabolism. Staff writers Carolyn Shapiro, Susie Stoughton and Michael Davis and news researcher Ann Kinken Johnson contributed to this report. Reach Tim McGlone at tmcglone@pilotonline.com or 446-2343. ***************************************************************** 23 Threat across the water unites the Irish Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Paul Brown Tuesday September 17, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, half his cabinet and the leader of the opposition Fine Gael, Enda Kenny, visited the Rainbow Warrior, the Greenpeace flagship, in Dublin before it set sail to wish the crew and the Irish peace flotilla well in their protest against nuclear shipments. It is an issue that unites Irish politicians and the electorate like no other: all want Sellafield shut, and they want it immediately. The plant, and the nuclear shipments to and from Japan, are seen as the biggest single threat to the welfare of the country. Rainbow Warrior crews who visit Dublin are treated as heroes. Last week hundreds queued to be shown round the vessel. The antagonism to Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels, and the reprocessing works just across the Irish sea goes back decades but has grown into a big political issue, partly because successive British governments have ignored Irish protests. Perhaps the issue that has raised most fears in Ireland is the presence of large heat producing tanks of highly active nuclear waste. BNFL has failed to make these safer by turning the liquid content into manageable glass blocks, as required by the UK's safety watchdog, the nuclear installations inspectorate. The tanks are acknowledged as the most dangerous terrorist target in Europe. The Irish government has been told that if the wind was in the wrong direction a well-directed terrorist attack could render the country uninhabitable. It will be 15 years before all the liquid waste is dealt with, and more is being produced all the time by the two nuclear reprocessing works that reclaim plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel. These works additionally discharge radioactivity into the atmosphere and the sea. The argument is that Ireland gets no benefit from nuclear power but is forced to share the pollution, and potentially faces the prospect of a devastating accident. Shipments to Japan, of necessity passing close by the Irish coast, are seen as another unwelcome threat. BNFL hopes these shipments will become a regular part of its business over the next 20 years, angering Ireland even more. Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] Department of trade and industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 24 LES: Area leaders feeling heat of uranium plant decision KnoxNews: State September 15, 2002 HARTSVILLE, Tenn.- Officials in the five counties that jointly own land at the site of a proposed uranium processing plant are trying to assess the potential dangers before agreeing to sell the property. But some residents wonder whether the scientific aspects of the project are too much for their leaders to handle. "You got country, hometown boys here, and this (international project) is very impressive to these folks," said Cynthia "Sandy" Malone, who has helped form the group Citizens for Smart Choices. "These boys are really taken." The officials _ from Sumner, Wilson, Smith, Macon and Trousdale counties _ say they want unbiased information about the risks and rewards of putting a uranium plant in their area, but that it isn't easy to find. "You just have to do a lot of reading and studying," said Jerry Clift, newly elected Trousdale County executive and owner of a discount grocery store. "That's the reason we are trying to find people who are mid-line, other than the company or the ones that oppose everything." Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium including American and European energy companies, announced last week that it wants to bring a new processing plant to Hartsville in Trousdale County. If county leaders decide to sell the land, LES will build the first such uranium processing plant in this country in 50 years. The plant would process uranium into material for nuclear fuel but would not have nuclear reactor capabilities or use materials with high-level radiation, LES officials said. Some leaders wish that the residents who elected them would trust them to make a smart choice. "Everyone is looking at all aspects of this, not just looking at money," said Michael Nesbitt, newly elected Smith County executive and a church pastor. He said he is consulting a range of government, corporate, scientific and watchdog Web sites to help make his decision. Prayer will also play a part, he said. "It's like (some residents) don't trust us to make the right decisions." Meanwhile, a Washington-D.C.-based anti-nuclear group last week accused LES of trying to limit debate by asking the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in April to take some topics off the table. The issues included the plant's effect on minority and low-income communities and disposal of depleted uranium that remains after the enrichment process. "LES is attempting to change the rules so that local people cannot even raise the same type of issues," raised by foes of a similar plant LES proposed and later withdrew in Louisiana in the 1990s, said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. LES spokeswoman Nan Kilkeary denied the group's claims and told The Tennessean newspaper that the company was seeking clarification about changes in federal law on nuclear licensing and on precedents the agency set in the Louisiana case. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Taiwan: Waste stores rile residents The Taipei Times Online: 2002-09-17 ENVIRONMENT: Two warehouses being built to store low-level radioactive waste could become a permanent repository, those living near the sites claimed yesterday By Chiu Yu-Tzu STAFF REPORTER Residents living near two nuclear power plants in Taipei County yesterday voiced their concerns about the construction of two warehouses for radioactive waste. At a press conference held by DPP Legislator Chen Mao-nan (³―­Z¨k) at the Legislative Yuan yesterday, representatives of Chinshan and Wanli townships, where the two plants are located, accused the Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) of covertly planning to turn the two sites into final repositories for radioactive waste. The residents said they were dismayed with the lack of transparency in Taipower's decision-making to build the warehouses. The two warehouses will be used to store low-level radioactive waste generated by the two plants. Each can store up to 40,000 barrels of waste and are expected to open in 2004. "Taipower is taking advantage of Taipei County residents after it failed to overcome opposition from residents of Wuchiu and Orchid Island," said Wanli Township Chief Tsai Tsang-ming (½²»a©ϊ). An interim repository on Orchid Island, where 98,000 barrels of radioactive waste are stored, opened in 1982. Responsibility for managing the repository was transferred from the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) to Taipower in 1990 under an agreement which required all the waste to be moved by the end of this year. One of the sites being considered is in Wuchiu, Kinmen County. But the Environmental Protection Administration has still not approved Taipower's environmental impact assessment for the site because of environmental and national security concerns. Taipower's failure to find a suitable permanent resting place for the waste stored on Orchid Island has generated resentment among the island's residents, who demonstrated on the streets there and in Taipei earlier this year. Chinshan Township Chief Yu Chung-yi (΄ε©ΎΈq) said the construction of warehouses could endanger residents because Taipower had not arranged for the local government to check fire-fighting equipment at the two sites. "Since construction began in February last year, no checks on fire-fighting equipment have been carried out," Yu said. The townships' residents, accompanied by Chen, yesterday reported the case to Control Yuan member Chao Chang-ping (»―©χ₯­) and requested a comprehensive investigation. In response to the accusations, Taipower officials yesterday said the company would cooperate with any Control Yuan investigation. Jeng An-hong (ΎG¦w§»), director of Taipower's Nuclear Operations Department, told the Taipei Times that waste would only be stored at the warehouses temporarily. "Our project for building the two warehouses, first raised in 1995, has nothing to do with recent setbacks in building a final repository," Jeng said. He said it was impossible for Taipower to transfer waste from Orchid Island to the two ware-houses for permanent storage and that Taipower would use the warehouses to take the backlog of waste stored at its nuclear power plants. About 35,000 barrels are stored at the First Nuclear Power Plant and 38,000 barrels at the Second Nuclear Power Plant. Taipower will ensure that waste from the power plants in future would only be stored temporarily at the warehouses before a permanent location is found, Jeng said. Each nuclear plant generates about 600 barrels of low-level radioactive waste annually. "We are still doing our best to find a place to build a final repository for radioactive waste," Jeng said. Regarding the residents' concerns about fire-fighting equipment at the construction sites, Jeng said Taipower had submitted the paperwork to local government agencies, but they were still processing it. This story has been viewed 384 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/09/17/story/0000168339] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Dark future for the fuel Sellafield hopes to reprocess Independent.co.uk © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor 17 September 2002 The Mox shipment due to arrive at Sellafield today was meant to be a triumphant emblem of what some people imagined in the 1970s would be the cheapest fuel on Earth. Unfortunately, 30 years later, the prices of all the alternative fuels, including oil, gas and uranium have remained doggedly low, while the real costs of mixed-oxide (Mox) uranium and plutonium reactor fuel has rocketed. It is possible that there will never be a viable "Mox economy", and that the shipment's three-year amble around the world will be emblematic of this nuclear fuel's failed search for a market. "BNFL's commercial case is looking pretty weak now," said John Large, an independent nuclear consultant. "These orders [for Mox] were placed about 10 years ago, when people expected that the price of gas and oil, and uranium as well, would all rise. Instead they're all low, and uranium is cheap, which means that Mox fuel is more expensive than raw uranium." When Mox fuel "burns" inside a reactor, it produces plutonium and uranium, which can then be recycled to remove unwanted elements. But opponents say that the recycling spreads radioactivity, creates a terrorist target and is commercially unviable. BNFL used to be confident it could justify the first two on the ground that the process made economic sense. Yesterday it said the names of clients for its Mox reprocessing are "commercially confidential" ? but increasingly they look nonexistent. Even the Japanese were believed to be a loss-leader customer ? in the hope that their example would encourage others to join ? and given a low price when the contract with them was signed 10 years ago. And now BNFL will have to spend millions of pounds simply to make the rods safe to keep at Sellafield. The problem is that during the past three years half of one form of the plutonium in the rods will have decayed into americium, a highly reactive and very radioactive element needing special handling. The longer the rods go unprocessed, the more americium there will be, and the more urgent the need for some intervention by BNFL to ensure their safety. Otherwise the rods, consisting of about 1,000 small fuel pellets, could begin to crack, while hydrogen produced from the decay will leave voids and make the plutonium inside clump together ? another potentially dangerous development. BNFL will then make new fuel rods from what is usable. In the meantime, another set of rods will have been prepared to ship back to Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the customer for BNFL's Mox reprocessing. That the rods going back are not the same as those arriving does not matter; what is important is their radioactive composition. Since arriving in Japan in September 1999, the rods have been stored underwater at secure facilities. At first they were awaiting use ? but since /The Independent/ revealed that safety data recorded while checking the rods had been faked, the rods have been awaiting a trip back to Sellafield. The Japanese companies that were to be customers for more fuel shipments, using the £472m Mox plant at Sellafield which went "active" last December, are themselves caught up in a series of scandals about cracked reactors. "Ten years ago if you'd said to the Japanese [power companies] that they'd need to make a safety case to their public for using nuclear, they'd have denied it was necessary," commented Dr Large. "But now the local prefectures are becoming more and more dominant in the argument, while it's become evident that there were cover-ups over the reactors." He suggsted that with Mox increasingly discredited, the Japanese could be forced simply to drop the contract with BNFL, in much the same way as German power companies are already moving away from reprocessing towards storage. Likewise, British Energy, another of the biggest customers for BNFL, is facing serious financial difficulties. Dropping reprocessing, and opting instead for cheaper long-term "dry" storage of its reactor waste, could save £300m ? about the size of the loan the Government just granted it to stave off insolvency. "If we were running the country," said Pete Roche, a nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace, "we'd prefer dry storage. The [waste] discharges are much less; in 'wet' storage [under water] there's a danger of spent fuel rods breaking." All in all, it's a pretty grim outlook for BNFL. Also from the Independent section. By Ian Herbert, North of England Correspondent 17 September 2002 After a journey of 1,156 days across 18,000 miles in the face of opposition from 80 nations, one of the most controversial ocean-going cargoes to pass through British waters will slip into a modest dockside berth at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria today. But the angry protests that have dogged every stage of its progress continued across the Irish Sea yesterday and will be there until the last moments of its long journey back to Britain. The five tons of plutonium and uranium mixed oxide (Mox) is a cargo that no one wants. Japan, to where it was shipped from British Nuclear Fuel's (BNFL) Sellafield installation, ordered it to be sent back amid evidence, revealed by /The Independent/ three years ago, that safety records at the nuclear facility had been falsified. Since then, the cargo has become a pariah of the high seas, containing enough plutonium to make 50 bombs, environmentalists claim. From the Pacific's Tasman Sea to the Indian Ocean it has met protesting flotillas. The latest was waiting in a watery sunshine and gentle breeze off the Pembrokeshire coast at 10.30 yesterday morning. Greenpeace's indefatigable protest vessel /Rainbow Warrior/ followed the cargo's two carriers, /Pacific Pintail/ and /Pacific Teal/, which were 40 miles ahead between Fishguard and Co Wexford. It tracked them for five hours through the Irish Sea to where an accompanying flotilla of 12 sailing boats was waiting. Flags carrying the Greenpeace and Irish "Nuclear Sea-Nuclear Free" flotilla symbols were hoisted by the boats, skippered and crewed by amateur environmentalists. A pirate radio station was then broadcast on a 40-mile radius FM band, delivering discussion on the topic of radioactive waste and music of the high-profile rock stars who have campaigned against the shipment, Bono from U2 and Jim Corr of the Corrs. The cargo ships, escorted by the Royal Navy and an RAF Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, manoeuvredto avoid coming too near the flotilla, firing water cannon as they sailed on, with anti-terrorist police visible on deck. But the flotilla made its point, securing a position just 20 metres from the cargo. "The security arrangements are not a joke but they are certainly not credible," a Greenpeace co-ordinator, Shaun Burnie, said from his vantage point on /Rainbow Warrior/. "This event has highlighted the kind of Irish Sea traffic which all nations are sick of. /The Independent/ is largely responsible for why we are here. The flotilla boats together represent the views of countries around the world who are saying this trade in nuclear bomb material has to stop before a disaster happens." BNFL insists the cargo, with its armed guard, is safe, though the company's marine transport head, Malcolm Miller, said: "We recognise that individuals and groups have the right to peacefully and lawfully protest about our activities." The cargo has now journeyed on towards Barrow, for removal by crane to the train, which will follow a dedicated track out of the dock before picking up a main line north to Sellafield, where the rods' plutonium radioactive waste will be separated from the remaining unused uranium. Another flotilla of four boats, which separated from the main group on Sunday, is moored in a position off Roa Island near the town, where it will make a similar protest early today as the cargo sweeps past, 30 minutes before finally docking. The people of Barrow have lived with the nuclear force for decades. The town's shipyards have produced all but two of Britain's nuclear submarines, and there is an air of bewilderment at the controversy accompanying its arrival. "We know enough about nuclear to know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy," one hotelier said yesterday. The main concern in the town seems to be the cost of containing a protest. Four members of an Irish environmental group were charged with public order offences yesterday after they chained themselves together on the roof of the Sellafield visitors' centre in Cumbria on Saturday. Local hotels are full of police officers who are there to contain any protest, but the local council has already announced that the costs of dealing with this summer's legionnaires' disease outbreak, which has killed at least five people, may be passed on to taxpayers. "Fingers Crossed", read the /Barrow Evening Mail/ banner headline, an indication that here, at least, nuclear apocalypse is the last thing on people's minds. * *By Marie Foy* * The Pacific Pintail arriving at barrow-In-Furness surrounded by protest craft. AN armed ship transporting radioactive plutonium fuel back to Britain from Japan sailed into port today trailed by a flotilla of protest boats. The objectors were waiting as Pacific Pintail arrived at the Cumbrian port of Barrow-in-Furness. Her sister ship, the Pacific Teal, remained out at sea and was due to dock later today. Hundreds of protesters including pop star Jim Corr were waiting to confront the two ships. Environmental activists did not block the Pacific Pintail as it sailed towards the Barrow dock but wanted to make a strong visual protest against "the dangers of nuclear material". The ships, bringing back radioactive material to Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, have caused a wave of protests across Ireland. Yesterday DOE minister Dermot Nesbitt attempted to allay growing fears about the shipment. A spokesman for BNFL said countries were entitled to their opinions but much of it stemmed from a misunderstanding over how dangerous the shipments are. He added that the plutonium fuel on board had not been used in a reactor which meant its levels of radiation were "very low". One group of protesting boats met the BNFL ships as they entered the Irish Sea and followed them towards the Barrow port. The convoy was confronted this morning by a second flotilla of protesters as it travelled down the final stretch of Walney Channel before docking at the port. About six police Zodiac boats flanked the freighter and a helicopter flew overhead as the ships entered the Channel. The armed BNFL ships were carrying five-ton (255kg) of plutonium mixed oxide fuel (MOX) to Sellafield. Publication Date: 17 September 2002 FUEL FEARS: Ships protest highlights the problems associated with nuclear industry What must be hoped is the first and last shipment of mixed uranium and plutonium reactor fuel (MOX) has safely arrived in Britain, three years after leaving. The flotilla of protesters who followed its passage up the Irish Sea have helped to publicise not only the dangers of transporting such material so close to land but of continuing with the whole nuclear industry. Sellafield has long been a dirty word with the people of Ireland, north and south, and its record has not improved in recent years. The present shipment, in two ships armed against interception by terrorists, left Britain three years ago for Tokyo and was rejected by the Japanese only because the Independent newspaper exposed that safety data back in Sellafield had been faked. The government has been forced to pay over £110m in compensation and BNFL now must go through the whole process again, hoping that if the second attempt at reprocessing is successful, other countries will be tempted to use the £450m facility. In reality, however, other potential customers will be watching the protests and probably calculating that the bad publicity, allied to doubts about the economics of reprocessing, cancels out any advantage that might be gained. Indeed, there has been a re-evaluation around the world of the value of nuclear power, because of the vast expense of storing radioactive material and decommissioning plants when they have outlived their usefulness. At the time it was planned, the MOX reprocessing facility was to have provided the cheapest fuel on earth, by constantly renewing spent fuel rods, but the price of alternatives has remained low. People are much better informed, nowadays, about the inherent dangers in nuclear power, with so many reports of faults and leaks in ageing plants like Sellafield. The Irish Sea has been described as the most radioactive in the world, because of carelessness in the past, which is a constant worry for those living along its shores or dependent on the fishing industry, even if there is little direct evidence of the effects on people's health. The fact that two ships carrying enough plutonium to make 50 bombs have had to make their way through and across busy shipping lanes has reawakened interest in the future of Sellafield. Can the government hold out forever, because of the thousands of jobs at stake, against the criticism not only of the environmental lobby but of the Dublin government, so sensitive to public opinion along the eastern seaboard? There may be no declaration of surrender, but the current protests must bring forward the day when the nuclear industry will be proved to be hopelessly uneconomic. Its trials have only begun. /The Irish Examiner 17 Sep 2002/ *By Neans McSweeney* IRATE students yesterday swapped their usual garb for what they labelled the new post-Sellafield disaster clothing range to highlight their concerns at having a nuclear plant so close to Ireland. Masks and protective clothing will not just be worn for protests, but will become an essential for all if tragedy strikes at Sellafield, the Union of Students in Ireland warned. Members abandoned their start-of-term preparations yesterday to protest outside the British Embassy in Dublin to highlight the continued threat posed to Ireland by a potential terrorist strike or a disaster at the Sellafield MOX plant. The nation's safety cannot be taken for granted, the USI warned, particularly in light of the tragedy of September 11 last year. USI president, Colm Jordan, said the public has to wake up to the potential threat posed by such a plant. "The anger at the situation has been re-ignited by the shipment of reject plutonium that passed through the Pacific on its way from Japan to Sellafield in the UK. "The first ever plutonium mixed oxide shipment was rejected because of documents falsified by BNFL [the plant's operator], a ludicrous situation that confirms everybody's fears regarding the plant. "The events in the United States on September 11 have threatened Ireland with a horrific security threat in the form of Sellafield as a possible terrorist target. "With Sellafield's record, discharges from the MOX plant into the marine environment are an inevitability. Our message is clear: the safety equipment worn by students today will become essential fashion accessories in the future should disaster take place in Sellafield." USI environmental officer Joyce Power said, "Plutonium is a cancer-causing, man-made substance which remains radioactive for over a quarter of a million years. "Belfast would be one of the first major cities to be affected after any Sellafield disaster, with the same fate afflicting Dundalk and Dublin within a short period of time. "The argument is often put forward that if the Sellafield plant was closed down, thousands of jobs would be lost. This is nothing to compare with the thousands of lives that would be lost in the event of a catastrophe at the plant." The USI is pleading with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to provide alternative employment in the Sellafield area and close the plant The Examiner Logo ***************************************************************** 31 Utah: Support Initiative 1 (n-waste bill) The Salt Lake Tribune -- Support Initiative 1 Tuesday, September 17, 2002 The Public Forum (Tribune, Sept. 12) published a letter regarding Initiative 1, the Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act. Its author states the initiative will allow nuclear wastes to come into Utah for storage. It does not; nuclear wastes already are dumped here. The initiative will allow companies to continue accepting Class A waste, but will prohibit the disposal of higher levels of radioactive waste (this does not include nuclear fuel rods -- their disposal is governed by federal rather than state law). There are three existing low-level waste disposal facilities in the United States that accept various types of low-level waste. These facilities are located in Utah, which currently levies a tax of 10 cents per cubic foot; Washington, which levies a minimum tax of $20 per cubic foot; and South Carolina, which levies a tax of over $200 per cubic foot. Washington only accepts waste from 14 Western and Midwestern states. South Carolina severely restricts the amount of waste it accepts. Interestingly, waste generated in Utah is sent to Washington for processing. This means that 100 percent of the waste dumped in Utah comes from out of state! The tax increase proposed by Initiative 1, $15 per cubic foot, is not prohibitive and is still 25 percent lower than the next lowest tax rate. Initiative 1 does not ask Envirocare to pay the increased tax. It is asking Envirocare to collect the tax from its customers and send it to the state (in the same way retailers collect sales tax). Individuals and companies throughout the United States. are generating this waste and dumping it in our backyard. There should be a cost associated with using Utah for this purpose, and our state and its citizens should benefit. Clearly, a "Yes" vote on Initiative 1 is the smart choice for Utah. KATHLEEN LEATHAM Clinton © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 32 Fight Over N-Waste Measure Is Costliest in Utah's History The Salt Lake Tribune -- Tuesday, September 17, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS The fight over a proposed radioactive-waste initiative has already cost more than $1.5 million, making it the most expensive ballot issue in Utah history. Financial details disclosed to the state elections office Monday show that Envirocare of Utah donated $1,086,944 to try to defeat the ballot initiative, which company leaders maintain would put them out of business. Meanwhile, proponents of the Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act reported raising less than half as much, $434,428, to get their initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot. Opposition campaign leader Hugh Matheson said Envirocare had no choice other than to spend the money to fight the proposed waste law, which will appear on ballots statewide as Initiative 1. "One company is paying to fight this initiative, which singles them out," said Matheson. "But the entire business community and Utah's elected officials are joining the coalition to fight the initiative because they don't want to see Utah become a battleground for corporate warfare by initiative." If passed by a majority vote, the initiative would outlaw "hotter" radioactive waste than is already permitted in Utah, and would raise taxes on radioactive waste already disposed of in the state. Those tax revenues would go to public programs such as schools and homeless relief. Some 95,974 registered voters in Utah signed petitions in the spring saying they wanted to see the waste law on the ballot this coming fall. But the measure almost did not make it onto the ballot, in large part because of the opposition campaign mounted by Envirocare, a company that earns more than $100 million a year operating a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste in Tooele County. Envirocare employees are among those who went door-to-door in rural Utah counties to urge voters to have their signatures removed from petitions. In the end, more than 3,000 rural voters withdrew their names and effectively forced the Elections Office to reject the initiative for the 2002 ballot because not enough counties were represented. Then, three weeks ago, the Utah Supreme Court declared the state's initiative law unconstitutional and ordered the waste law onto the ballot. Initiative proponent and lobbyist Frank Pignanelli said he was "dumbfounded" by the more than $1 million raised so far to defeat the waste law. "This is David versus Goliath," he said. Proponents, organized as a public issues committee (PIC) called Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control, reported one Goliath donation of their own: $200,000 from the National Education Association. Pignanelli said the donation made sense, given that a portion of proceeds from the tax would go to public schools for such things as hiring teachers and purchasing computers. "Obviously, the education community is interested in seeing this initiative on the ballot and getting it passed," he said. Another $50,000 for the proponents' campaign came from the Utah Education Association, a powerful force in state politics. South Carolina has raised about $86 million from its tax on low-level radioactive waste and has used the money primarily for schools. The largest private donation came from John W. "Jack" Gallivan, a former publisher of The Salt Lake Tribune, who loaned the campaign $150,000. Opponents detailed donations to their campaign in two separate reports, one for the PIC Utahns Against Unfair Taxes and the other for their own initiative, the Stop Targeted Taxes Act. The rival initiative was dropped in the spring, as opponents redirected their focus to defeating the proposed waste law. The Stop Targeted Taxes Act campaign was organized by veteran political consultants Joe Hansen, son of U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen, and Allyson Bell, who directed Gov. Mike Leavitt's 2000 re-election campaign. Both campaigns used established companies to gather signatures. And neither received small donations typical of grassroots politicking. Matheson said all of the opposition funding came from Envirocare and its holding company, SK Hart, which sees the waste-tax initiative as an effort by out-of-state competitors to put the Tooele County disposal site out of business. Opponents maintain that competitors are abusing Utah's process of direct citizen lawmaking and may use it again against other businesses. "Clearly, that's what's happening here," said Matheson, suggesting it is impossible to see the source of the national teachers' union contributions. "The question is, 'Who's going to be next?' " Pignanelli predicted Utahns will be seeing lots more from initiative opponents -- especially as they take their campaign to the airwaves in the eight weeks leading up to Election Day. He said waste-tax proponents did not have the money to mount that sort of campaign. "We are just waiting for the artillery to come in," Pignanelli said. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 33 Kenya: Former Coast PC Held Over Uranium Haul allAfrica.com: The East African Standard (Nairobi) September 17, 2002 Posted to the web September 17, 2002 Kurgat Marindany And Tom Odula Nairobi The Director of Betting Control and Licensing Board, Mr Timothy Sirma, was on Saturday arrested by police after he was found with a substance suspected to be uranium worth millions of shillings. The former Coast Provincial Commissioner was arrested together with two foreigners with whom he was travelling in his official vehicle. The trio were nabbed by plainclothes officers who posed as potential buyers of the product. Sirma was released after a 12-hour interrogation. The substance was stored in a rectangular metal box. Sirma denied before the police he was carrying the prohibited substance, saying what they had was "Red Mercury." The other two suspects - Mr Tom Feldman (South African) and Pelec Akaju Ochenje (Ugandan) - were yesterday still being held by police. Investigations are going on and police sources said the three could be charged with illegal handling of the substance as they are neither licensed handlers nor prospectors. Sirma, a long-serving administrator, was arrested by police on Saturday at 3.30pm at Utalii village while in the company of the two foreigners. Uranium is a radioactive grey and dense metallic element capable of nuclear fission and is used as source of nuclear energy. It is a restricted metal because of its use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and capacity to emit high levels of radioactive materials to the environment. World governments have stringent regulations on its mining and general handling because it is an abundant source of concentrated energy. It is very expensive in the black market. A source at Police Headquarters confirmed Sirma's arrest and said the suspected uranium heist had been handed over to the Government Chemist for analysis. Police sources said Sirma walked out of the cells a free man at night. The three were using a GK vehicle when they met with police officers who posed as customers at the Utalii Hotel. They later took the officers to Utalii village where the deal was supposed to be sealed, police said. The three suspects were later handed over to the Provincial Criminal Investigation Officer, Mr Gabriel Mutunga, who is probing the case. Sirma was released on Sunday at 3.30 am after recording a statement while being supervised by the Nairobi CID boss. Copyright © 2002 The East African Standard. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 UK: Protests as nuclear cargo returns BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tuesday, 17 September, 2002, 16:46 GMT 17:46 UK [Flask of mixed oxide fuel being unloaded from the Pacific Pintail at Barrow-in-Furness] The Mox shipment was rejected by Japan Anti-nuclear campaigners have dubbed the return of radioactive waste to Britain a "degrading spectacle". Two heavily-guarded ships, flanked by police, returned the plutonium mixed oxide fuel (Mox) to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria from Japan, where it was rejected three years ago. It was later taken by train to the Sellafield processing plant. About six boats of environmental protesters greeted the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal ships with a "visual protest" as they approached the specially-constructed docks complex. Greenpeace claimed there was enough plutonium on board the ships to make 50 nuclear weapons if they had fallen into terrorist hands. [Map of Irish Sea area] But the ships' owners British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) insisted the ships were safe - and that the fuel was not as dangerous as protesters believed. BNFL head of transport Malcolm Miller told the BBC: "The material we're carrying is uranium fuel with a small percentage of plutonium within it. "It hasn't been in a reactor so it's not particularly radioactive at all. It's a hard ceramic pellet material which is insoluble in water, so we consider it to be a safe transport." Campaigners from Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core) criticised the scene at Barrow. Martin Ford from Core said: "This is a degrading spectacle for the town of Barrow. "I hope the general public here will question the necessity of having to go through this. "More importantly, we want to know who is going to pay for this massive security operation." Click here to see the structure of the ships Very few people turned up to protest on land, although one man was arrested after gaining entry to a media site set up near the Barrow dock. Other local residents, such as Paul Smith, 44, from Barrow, said the nuclear shipments did not bother them. "Everybody has got a right to protest haven't they? But it's [BNFL] keeping 10,000 people in a job at Sellafield for another five or 10 years," said Mr Smith. The five tonnes of Mox was returned to Sellafield after it was rejected by Japan in 1999. Japan's largest nuclear company Tokyo Electric refused the consignment after BNFL admitted quality checks on the width of nuclear pellets was falsified by five staff at its Sellafield testing facility. BNFL was then forced to arrange for the controversial return transportation of the radioactive fuel. According to Greenpeace, the nuclear shipments have been condemned by 80 governments who denied the vessels access to waters around their countries. The fuel, which is contained in a single white armoured flask, will be taken off the freight train later on Tuesday or Wednesday. It will be stored at Sellafield until officials give the go-ahead for recycling it into new fuel. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 35 Nuclear cargo reaches Sellafield [Nuclear cargo reaches Sellafield] Environmental group Greenpeace claimed there was enough plutonium on board the ship to make 50 nuclear weapons if it had fallen into terrorist hands Nuclear cargo reaches Sellafield 17.49PM BST, 17 Sep 2002 A shipment of radioactive plutonium which was rejected by Japan because of security fears has arrived at the Sellafield nuclear power station after a three-year journey to the Far East and back. The Pacific Pintail freighter delivered the BNFL-owned fuel to a train after docking at the Cumbrian port of Barrow-in-Furness earlier today. The ship was followed by a flotilla of boats carrying environmental activists from the moment it entered the Irish Sea. Watched by police in a helicopter and four patrol cars, a short freight train shunted out of Barrow Dock at around 3pm. On one of the wagons stood a single white flask carrying five tonnes of uranium-plutonium 'Mox' mixture on the last leg of an 18,000-mile journey back to Britain from Japan. The Pacific Pintail, carrying the nuclear cargo, went across the deep oceans for security reasons and because many countries would not allow the cargo within their territorial waters. The plutonium was originally taken to Japan in 1999, but the company it was destined for rejected the cargo because of falsified security information. BNFL has admitted that quality checks on the width of the nuclear pellets were falsified by five staff at its old testing facility at Sellafield. Environmental group Greenpeace claimed there was enough plutonium on board the ship to make 50 nuclear weapons if it had fallen into terrorist hands. BNFL said earlier that Greenpeace is entitled to protest but insisted that a terrorist attack on the shipment, or a radiation threat to other countries during transportation, was "far beyond the bounds of reality". September 16: Barrow prepares for nuclear cargo September 15: BNFL hits back at Greenpeace ITV.NEWS. ***************************************************************** 36 Contaminated facility cleanup finally begins The Advocate Online News: 09/17/02 By MIKE DUNNE mdunne@theadvocate.com [mdunne@theadvocate.com] Advocate staff writer ST. GABRIEL -- Long-planned work has begun to clean up an old facility that dismantled radioactive gauges on Bayou Paul Road. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Project Manager Nancy Jones said Monday that the agency decided to move forward on its own to clean up the site and will use Superfund money to pay for the $1.5 million job. The agency negotiated for several months with three companies it has identified as "potential responsible parties," or companies that used Coastal Radiation Services and could, by law, be required to pay for cleanup. The former owners of Coastal Radiation do not have the means to clean up the site, Jones said. Coastal Radiation dismantled gauges and other equipment that used radioactive cesium-137. In the process, the site at 6745 Bayou Paul Road was contaminated. That pollution moved to neighboring properties. The site was cleaned up in the late 1970s, but current safety standards allow only about one-twentieth of the contamination considered acceptable in 1979. Another round of cleanup is needed, says EPA and the state Department of Environmental Quality. ExxonMobil and Holcim (formerly Ideal Cement) told EPA they don't believe they are responsible parties. Another company, Kaiser Aluminum, is in bankruptcy proceedings, which has complicated any agreement, Jones said. The agency will probably seek to recover cleanup costs after the work is done, Jones said. EPA can ask the courts for triple its costs. The clean-up work does not threaten the health of neighbors, she said. In September 2001, the EPA brought in a whole-body scanner that could detect radiation in people. None of the nearby residents screened showed any evidence of contamination, Jones said. "If you spend eight hours at the hottest spot, you still get less exposure than an X-ray," Jones said. Workers who go into hot zones will be checked for contamination on the way out. Late Monday afternoon, one worker ran a radiation detector over the shoes, pants legs and hands of workers who had been doing site preparation. EPA and its contractors have set up two trailers in a pasture just east of the Coastal Radiation site and put down boards on the ground to drive on. "We still don't have electricity," Jones said Monday afternoon. She said "supersacks," or strong baglike containers, will arrive early next week. After that, excavation will begin. Contractors will fill the 10-cubic-yard bags with dirt and debris after digging up 6 to 18 inches of topsoil. The bags will be shipped by rail to a licensed nuclear disposal site in Utah. The bottom of Bayou Paul, which lies across the street from the site, must be excavated down to at least 6 feet, Jones said. This week workers will dismantle a covering and break up the concrete that had been the floor of the facility. DEQ will test the dirt under the concrete to see if more excavation is needed, Jones said. Residents around the old Coastal Radiation shop have expressed concern about their health. Most have hired attorneys, who have advised the residents not to discuss the case. Copyright © 1995-2002, The Advocate, Capital City Press, All ***************************************************************** 37 Confrontation at sea as nuclear ships near England - 9/17/2002 - ENN.com Tuesday, September 17, 2002 By Georgina Prodhan, Reuters LONDON — Antinuclear activists and two ships carrying radioactive material confronted each other in the Irish Sea Monday as the shipment neared its English destination after a controversial two-month journey from Japan. A flotilla of boats and dinghies led by the flagship Rainbow Warrior of the environmental group Greenpeace circled the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail, which fired water cannons to keep protesters at bay, according to an activist on board the Rainbow Warrior. "The ships are passing us right now," said Greenpeace campaigner Mhairi Dunlop. "They've got water cannons on now and armed guards are on board. They've got five guards down one side of the Pintail. We're making sure that they hear us loud and clear. They're only one mile outside Irish territorial waters. It's sheer arrogance from this nuclear company that thinks it can just railroad everyone and bully everybody," she added. The shipment of nuclear waste by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) — the first of its kind since last year's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States — stirred up international protest during its epic 18,000-mile voyage from Japan to the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria, northwest England. INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION Environmentalists and national governments from New Zealand to Ireland feared the cargo of potentially weapons-usable MOX — mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel — could prove an attractive booty to terrorists on the high seas. New Zealand was particularly vocal in its opposition to the shipments passing through the Pacific Ocean, demanding Britain and Japan accept full responsibility for any accident that might occur. The transport has also provoked a row between Britain and Ireland, just 110 miles across the Irish Sea from the Sellafield plant. Irish Environment Minister Martin Cullen said as the shipment set off from Japan that it posed "an unacceptable risk to the environment of Ireland and the health and economic wellbeing of its population." The shipment has proved an embarrassment to state-owned BNFL. The company was forced to take the MOX back from the Japanese clients to whom they had sold it after admitting they had falsified safety documents. And the episode comes at a time of crisis for the creaking British nuclear industry. NUCLEAR CRISIS BNFL runs the country's oldest reactors, including six Magnox plants some 50 years old, and manages fuel and waste operations. The company announced record losses of US$3.6 billion in the year to March. The rest of the nuclear power industry was privatized six years ago as British Energy and produces one-quarter of the nation's electricity, but last week had to be bailed out by the government to the tune of $640 million. BNFL was not immediately available for comment on the confrontation with Greenpeace. But in an earlier statement, the company's head of marine transport, Malcolm Miller, said, "I would call upon anyone wishing to protest to do so in a safe and responsible manner." A second flotilla of protest vessels was preparing to meet the two nuclear ships on their arrival in Cumbria Tuesday morning. Copyright 2002, Reuters ***************************************************************** 38 Russian atomic official raises alarm about storage of spent nuclear fuel from submarines AP World Politics Tue Sep 17, 3:03 AM ET By ANATOLY MEDETSKY, Associated Press Writer VLADIVOSTOK, Russia - A Russian nuclear official raised alarm bells about the storage of spent nuclear fuel from Russian nuclear submarines, saying the facilities used to store the material are inadequate and that security around the facilities is frighteningly lax. Viktor Akhunov, head of the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry's department of ecology and decommissioning, told an international conference on nuclear security in Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok on Monday that corrosion is eating away at the hulls of 39 ships that store spent nuclear fuel from Russian submarines. He declined to say where the ships were based or how much fuel they contained, but said the corrosion on their hulls poses "the greatest danger." He said two such ships had been decommissioned over the past two years, and one of them was already six years past its intended life span. Akhunov also said security is lacking and storage facilities "dilapidated" at the Russian military bases around the country that store spent nuclear fuel from 170 submarines. Four of those bases are located in the Russian Far East, he said. Of the 190 Russian submarines that have been decommissioned since the end of the 1980s, only 71 have been dismantled and had their nuclear fuel removed, Akhunov said. Others remain docked off Russia's Pacific coast and in the Arctic Ocean, waiting to be salvaged. Two of the submarines have had accidents in their reactors, and salvaging them could be dangerous, said Vladimir Shishkin, chief designer of the Atomic Ministry's Institute for Energy Equipment Research and Design, who also spoke at the Vladivostok conference. The government plans to build a special shelter to store the submarines until the fission capability in their nuclear reactors ends in about 300 years, he said. Akhunov said the current Russian budget assigns the equivalent of dlrs 70 million to improve nuclear safety in the country — the most funding allotted since the breakup of the Soviet Union but still insufficient to meet the program's basic needs. He said Russia plans to salvage 131 submarines by 2010 — an effort that will cost dlrs 3.9 billion. Akhunov said several projects to improve the storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel are dogged by a lack of funding. He said his ministry was trying to drum up dlrs 7 million in foreign funding to upgrade a railroad link that would connect the Zvezda storage plant in the Russian Far East with a reprocessing facility. He also said a new construction project — to be a nuclear fuel storage base at Razboinik Bay near Vladivostok — lacks sufficient funds. The base would store fuel from 19 submarines in the bay, which are currently being kept afloat with pontoons. The Razboinik Bay project gained urgency after two decommissioned submarines sank off the northeastern Kamchatka peninsula in 1997 and 1999, said Pacific Fleet Vice Admiral Nikolai Yurasov, who oversees nuclear safety in the Russian Navy. The submarines were quickly raised and caused no environmental damage, he said. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 39 Greeneville actress takes on tough new role: Challenging NFS Elizabethton Star - Online Edition By Kathy Helms-Hughes STAR STAFF khughes@starhq.com (Part 1 of two-part series) She's no dumb blonde. Park Overall. The sharp-tongued Appalachian nurse "Laverne" who performed opposite Richard Mulligan on the NBC comedy "Empty Nest" has a new role: Crusader against Nuclear Fuel Services Inc.'s "BLEU Project," or Blended Low Enriched Uranium for those who hate acronyms. NFS was subcontracted by the Framatome ANP consortium, of which it is a member, to down-blend 33 metric tons of bomb-grade uranium into low-enriched fuel for Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Overall, through Washington attorney Diane Curran, filed a petition Aug. 8 seeking a hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of herself and four environmental groups -- the State of Franklin Group/Sierra Club, Friends of the Nolichucky River Valley Inc., Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance and Tennessee Environmental Council. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and 15 Northeast Tennessee residents also requested a hearing. All claimed they should have a say in whether the project proceeds because of potential impacts to their health, drinking water, property values and the environment. In the early 1990s, the Greeneville actress brought attention to what she calls the "tragedy of the Pigeon River" after publicizing pollution emitted from the Champion paper mill in Canton, N.C. Since that time, the paper mill has evolved into an employee-run facility and employees have worked with the community to reduce pollution. Economics NFS manufactures uranium fuel for use in U.S. Navy submarines and performs uranium processing, purification and recovery services for the Department of Energy and commercial entities. The BLEU Project would be financially beneficial to the Department of Energy, which would spend less than if it had to dispose of the surplus high-enriched uranium, and TVA would pay less for fuel. According to NFS spokesman Tony Treadway, the TVA project involves about $150 million. "That includes the work and construction of an NFS down-blending operation inside the plant and the new Framatome conversion facility outside the fence of NFS." Overall claims the difference in NFS making fuel for Navy submarines and down-blending uranium for Browns Ferry boils down to dollars and cents. "This expansion is not to do with 'God, America, and Apple Pie.' This expansion is to do with profit. And that profit is not going to be shared with the people of East Tennessee. "This is about flooding the market with foreign uranium. NFS's own union workers, if they would care to check the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by DOE, is against this. Even LES (Louisiana Energy Services) was against it, according to the draft comments," she said. Environmental impact Overall noted that NRC's Environmental Assessment (EA), which was based on information prepared by NFS, states: "Current environmental monitoring stations do not provide adequate coverage of the expanded site area for the BLEU Complex. In addition, the current monitoring program lacks adequate coverage for groundwater in the vicinity of the BLEU complex." She said the EA goes on to say, "Under the proposed action both uranium and thorium air emissions are expected to increase by a factor of 4 to 5 times current levels ... The long site history has resulted in some areas of the site, including groundwater, becoming contaminated with radiological and chemical constituents." On Aug. 3, 2000, NFS notified the NRC that it had possibly exceeded its annual effluent discharge limits in the month of May and had shut down its Waste Water Treatment Facility until an NRC inspection team could determine whether it had violated its license. In order to prevent shutdown of the processing facility, NFS submitted an application to NRC on Aug. 9, 2000, requesting an "expedited amendment" to its Special Nuclear Material license from concentration-based levels to dose-based levels so that it would not be in violation of its license. NRC granted the amendment on Oct. 27 allowing NFS to adjust its liquid effluent discharge action levels. NFS also submitted a license amendment request in April 2002 for its North Site Decommissioning Project after problems developed during cleanup of its Radiological Burial Ground. "Due to the high groundwater table in this area, the floor of the excavation can be under as much as 4 feet of water. Though the water from the area is pumped out of the excavation 16 hours a day for days at a time, the water is continually replaced by groundwater ..." the document states. Overall said East Tennesseans should note NFS's attorneys in Washington "have asked the NRC to deny standing to petitioners with cancer, with children in the school near NFS, anyone who takes their water from the Nolichucky, anyone who lives on the river -- in fact, to everyone who asked for a fair and open hearing. We are confident they will not be successful," she said. "I would like to alert NFS that we are not new to environmental justice. We are experienced, educated, and concerned individuals which make up respected groups that have funding and experienced legal counsel. Let us have an honest and open dialogue." Overall said NFS attorneys also claimed that petitioner David Byrd of Unicoi, who has cancer, lacked standing. "Mr. Byrd said, 'I live downwind from NFS. I don't want to breathe polluted air that is any worse than what it already is. I have a choice about cigarette smoke, but I would not have a chance to get away from this.' "They said 'Mr. Byrd's only injury is an existing cancer which could not possibly be related to the proposed license amendment.'" Overall said high groundwater concentrations of uranium and technetium-99 have been identified at NFS and some is now being found outside plant boundaries. NFS responded to petitioners' objections with a press release. Overall said, "I was surprised to find that they admit so much groundwater contamination, but Tony Treadway [NFS spokesperson] states that there is no threat to the river. He does not discuss the uranium and thorium NFS will be putting into the air. "I would really like to play chess with someone who has read his own material. I would like for them to put forward someone that can legitimately discuss the dangers that they have written themselves in their own Environmental Assessment." Overall said petitioners have been unable to locate a site-specific environmental report for the BLEU project. Petitioners found a June 1996 Environmental Impact Statement done by the Department of Energy before NFS was selected as the final site for the down-blending project. "We have the EIS, but it is mysteriously missing three pages relevant to NFS. We could not get the public comments [a separate document]. In order for anyone to get the entire EIS you have to petition the NRC under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the NRC in Oak Ridge 'can't lend it out,' 'couldn't find it,' or 'will let you read it now that they've found it, but you can't make copies.' More maddening is to research these documents on ADAMS," where information is made available to the public. "In light of these and other problems identified at the site," Overall said, "If NFS and the NRC are so concerned about our safety, why are they dodging a bona fide Environmental Impact Statement?" Copyright © 1996 - 2002 Elizabethton Newspapers, Inc. Direct questions or comments to webmas [webmaster@starhq.com] ter@starhq.com [webmaster@starhq.com] Elizabethton Newspapers, Inc., 300 Sycamore Street Elizabethton, Tennessee 37643 - 423.542.4151 ***************************************************************** 40 Bush's Secret 7 Nation Nuclear Hit List Draws World Outrage Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:41:08 -0500 (CDT) BUSH'S NUCLEAR 'LUNACY' Horror at Dubya's secret attack plan on 7countries http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11691273 &method=full&siteid=50143 By Alexandra Williams and Bob Roberts The Daily Mirror - UK 9-16-02 President Bush faced world anger last night over America's seven-nation nuclear hit list. British MPs joined the outcry after a leaked Pentagon report revealed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya. The secret policy was denounced as warmongering "lunacy". Alarmed officials from Moscow to Tehran warned that the "power crazy" President, buoyed up by the successful campaign in Afghanistan, could plunge the world into chaos. British politicians said the strategy threatened the stability of the NATO alliance. International tension mounted as Washington pressed Britain to back an attack on Iraq - including the possible commitment of 25,000 British troops to topple Saddam Hussein. Cabinet Minister Clare Short hinted that she might resign if Tony Blair supported a mass strike against Baghdad. She said: "We need to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein - we don't need to inflict further suffering on the people of Iraq." Labour MPs Alice Mahon and Tam Dalyell will today deliver a letter to 10 Downing Street warning the Prime Minister against joining any military action. US Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in London last night for talks with Mr Blair which will cover the threat posed by Iraq. No 10 insisted last night: "No decisions have been taken." Amid mounting anger, the target nations accused America of intimidation and "wreaking havoc on the whole world" and branded the plans a "lunatic" threat to world peace. In Britain, MPs said the sensational disclosures threatened the stability of the Western alliance. Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "The lunatics have taken over the White House. This report must be ringing alarms throughout NATO". The Pentagon document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, was leaked as the US lobbied Britain to join an invasion of Iraq. International Development Secretary and Cabinet Minister Clare Short hinted she might resign if a strike went ahead. The review says the US must be ready to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya. It then identified four areas where the US should be prepared to press the button: In an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, in an attack by North Korea on South Korea and in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor. Additionally, the weapons could be used against targets able to withstand conventional attack and in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. They could also be used in the event of "surprising military developments", reflecting fears that rogue states or terrorists could deploy weapons against the US. The review, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, orders the military to plan for the use of "smaller nuclear weapons" as a more effective deterrent against terrorist attacks. It also calls for cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons. It is the first time the US has reviewed its nuclear strategy since 1994 and the first list of target nations to be made public. Last night it was seen as a warning to those states who might be harboring terrorists. In Russia, defense hawk General Leonid Ivashov said: "The heart of US political doctrine is to push powerful Russia off the political scene." Russian politician Dmitry Rogozin added: "This is a nuclear stick intended to intimidate us." Vyacheslav Nikonov, of the Politika think tank, branded the plans a "very negative signal" which would be "received in an appropriate fashion by Russia's leadership". Iran's former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: "The US believes that by threatening countries they'll withdraw their demands. Their policy is one of intimidation." The Tehran Times newspaper said: "This indicates the US is going to wreak havoc on the world to establish its domination." Professor Michael Yahuda, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, warned: "China won't be happy to be classified among rogue nations." Liberal Democrat spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "America seems to be moving from nuclear deterrence to nuclear war fighting. "It would drive a coach and horses through NATO's doctrine of nuclear strikes as a last resort." US Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted the report did not signal imminent action. He said: "We should not get carried away with some sense the US plans to use nuclear weapons in some contingency in the near future. "It's not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this is sound military, conceptual planning. "Not a single nation is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice added: "We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely. "The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might use them against the United States that they'd be met with a devastating response." Vice-President Dick Cheney arrived in London last night to meet Tony Blair. He is expected to appeal for military support against Iraq. It is reported the US will ask for up to 25,000 British troops to form part of an invasion force. In the first sign of a Cabinet split, Ms Short denounced any invasion plans yesterday. She said: "An all-out military attack is, of course, not at all sensible. "We need to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. We don't need to inflict further suffering on the people of Iraq." Ms Short said the best answer was to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, a move firmly ruled out by Iraq's Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan yesterday. Her warning amounted to a threat to resign if there is a strike against Iraq. Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said military action on Iraq must only be a last resort. He said: "I think there are reckless elements in the Pentagon who are on a roll because of Afghanistan. "I would hope part of the task of our Government is to influence those who take a contrary view." Downing Street played down the reports of an American request for British troops. A spokesman said: "No decisions have been taken, let alone any requests made." Published in the Daily Mirror ) 2002 mirror.co.uk ** 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. ** ***************************************************************** 41 The legal case for war against Iraq Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Adam Roberts on why military action against Iraq can be legally justified Tuesday September 17, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Would the use of force against Iraq be justifiable in international law even if the current negotiations in the UN security council result in no new authorisation? On this key question there are profound differences of opinion, in part reflecting different views of what international law is. The debate has been needlessly muddled due to the baroque range of rationales for an assault on Iraq produced by various members of the US administration over the past few months. In an extraordinarily amateurish cacophony, US officials have stressed the need for regime change, for preventive war to stop a possible future threat, and for a pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat. They have also spoke of an attack on Iraq as the next phase of the war on terrorism. Although these rationales reflect real concerns, and some have respectable legal precedents, each presents acute problems if viewed as the prime basis for action. In some cases the evidence available may be widely viewed as insufficient to fit the argument. Some of these rationales will not persuade key constituencies, especially in the region. Worst of all, some of them (especially regime change and preventive war) risk opening up possibilities of other states taking unilateral action against any country they fear or dislike: witness current Russian threats of unilateral action in Georgia. It is no wonder that many lawyers and others have been sceptical about the US rationales. The fundamental legal argument against a projected US-led use of force, which adds to the current scepticism, is that under the UN charter force against a sovereign state is legitimate only when it is unambiguously self-defence against an armed attack, or when the security council specifically authorises it. In this view of the law, since the US and UK continue to say they may take action even if they fail to get security council approval, the proposed military action would appear unlawful. This is a serious view, which has attracted considerable support, but it is not the last word on the subject. Another view of international law puts more weight on ongoing practice. In this view, the very success of the UN system in propounding international standards can, in exceptional circumstances, create situations in which force may be lawful - or at least not unambiguously illegal. For example, if a state systematically kills or drives out its own citizens or supports wholesale terrorist activities, then the use of force against it may be accepted internationally even if there is no specific security council resolution. The coalition action that enabled Kurdish refugees to return home to northern Iraq in April 1991 is an example of such a "unilateral" use of force that gained international acceptance. Such action can be necessary because the security council has developed the habit of willing certain ends, but being reluctant to accept the military means to enforce them. For example, over Kosovo in 1998-99, the security council called on Yugoslavia to stop persecuting the Kosovan Albanians, but could not agree on military action because of the threat of a Russian or Chinese veto. When Nato embarked on military action, a move in the security council to declare it illegal failed, and the security council subsequently recognised the results of Nato's use of force by collaborating closely in the running of the province. In the case of Iraq, the core rationale for military action is Iraq's consistent violation of UN security council resolutions, particularly as regards disarmament and inspection. Over the summer, the Bush administration's ambivalence, or worse, about international institutions has prevented some of its members from putting security council resolutions at the heart of the argument about Iraq. This caused exceptional international hostility and scepticism towards US policy. George Bush's remarkable address at the UN general assembly on September 12 rectified that elementary mistake. The basic facts about the security council resolutions on Iraq are simple. All were adopted under chapter VII of the charter, which deals with enforcement; and all (unlike the main resolutions on the Israeli-occupied territories, which call for a negotiated settlement) require specific, immediate and unilateral Iraqi action. In resolution 678 of November 29 1990, the security council authorised member states to use force not just to implement the resolutions demanding Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, but also "to restore international peace and security in the area". At the time this was not seen as authorisation for a march on Baghdad, but it was a prudent recognition of the need for a range of measures to ensure stability. This resolution, including its reference to restoring peace and security, was strongly reaffirmed in resolution 686 of March 2 1991, at the end of the campaign to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Then resolution 687 of April 3 1991, "the mother of all resolutions", which spelt out the detailed terms of the ceasefire, required Iraq to renounce, unconditionally, any biological, chemical or nuclear programmes, and accept international inspection and weapons destruction by the UN special commission. Iraq has persistently violated these ceasefire provisions. The facts about this are laid out in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies on September 9. One could add that by systematically concealing information from the UN weapons commission, Iraq compelled it to rely on western intelligence agencies, including the CIA, whose modus operandi contributed significantly to the commission's problems. In 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation. Security council resolution 1205 of November 5 1998, passed unanimously, condemned Iraq as "in flagrant violation" of its ceasefire commitments. If one party violates ceasefire terms there must be doubt about whether the other parties, including the US and UK, remain bound by the ceasefire. In short, the strongest case for the legality of military action rests not on any general propositions about preventive defence or any other such ground, but upon Iraq's violation of UN resolutions. These resolutions already reflected wider concerns about the dangers posed by the Iraqi regime: it was precisely because of the need for preventive action that these particular ceasefire terms were imposed on Iraq in the first place. To rely on the violation of security council resolutions as the core legal rationale reduces a worrying risk that all the other purported rationales for military action present: they raise the bar for what would be convincing evidence justifying military action, for example requiring evidence of imminent threat of attack. With the violation of resolutions the evidence already exists, and there is less need to hype up the Iraqi threat in a manner that invites disbelief. Apart from the fundamentalist view that the only lawful unilateral use of force is self-defence, what are the main legal counter-arguments? Perhaps the strongest is that the key 1991 ceasefire resolution, 687, concludes by saying that the security council "decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area". This implies an obligation to try to take action through the security council. The US, thanks in part to UK pressure, is belatedly taking this path. Might the UN security council go so far as to authorise the use of force? It could do implicitly, by setting Iraq a deadline for compliance, and by spelling out that the ceasefire was and remains contingent on Iraqi compliance with all the terms of resolution 687. Or the security council could explicitly authorise force. The UK and US indications that they may act militarily whatever happens at the security council have already had a galvanising effect, compelling other members to consider whether they want the UN body responsible for international security to be left out of the picture. Also, security council members should be aware that one way to avert war may be to make a clear collective threat, thereby inducing concessions from Baghdad; indecision on the security council is more likely to lead to war. There is a real possibility that neither Russia nor China will exercise its veto power and that a tough resolution could be passed. The key arguments about the threatened military operation are prudential. Has deterrence of Iraq failed so clearly that action must now be taken? Is it wise to start this war when there is so much unfinished business in Afghanistan? Should action be taken against Iraq before there is a further effort to address the Israel-Palestine problem? Is there any viable plan for the future of Iraq? These all need to be explored, but preferably on the understanding that, in legal terms, there is a stronger basis for military action against Iraq than there was over Kosovo in 1999. Baghdad's systematic violation of ceasefire terms is the mother of all the other legal justifications being offered for the use of force against Iraq. · Sir Adam Roberts is Montague Burton professor of international relations at Oxford University and co-editor of Documents on the Laws of War. * An inquiry into the legality of the use of force against Iraq, organised by Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights, will be held at 10am on October 11at Gray's Inn hall, London WC1. For more information, contact nis@gn.apc.org [nis@gn.apc.org] . Iraq in pictures Photo gallery: 10 years after the Gulf war [http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,423152,00.html] Useful links Arab Gateway: Iraq briefing [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/iraq.htm] Middle East Daily [http://www.middleeastdaily.com/] Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq [http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/] Iraq sanctions - UN security council [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm] UN special commission on Iraq [http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/index.html] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 42 Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert* United Press International By Richard Sale UPI Terrorism Correspondent Published 9/16/2002 10:17 PM During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike when it seemed to be facing defeat at the hands of Syrian armor, according to a half dozen former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials familiar with the still-classified incident. On Oct. 5, Yom Kippur, -- the Day of Atonement and the holiest day of the year for Jewish people -- the armies of Egypt and Syria attacked Israel from two directions and made rapid gains. According to a former senior U.S. diplomat, by Oct. 8, Israel's northern front commander, Maj. Gen. Yitzak Hoffi, had informed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan that he couldn't hold out much longer against the 14,000 Syrian tanks rolling through Israeli defenses on the Golan Heights. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Dayan was "attacked by acute panic" and declared to advisers: "This is the end of the Third Temple." But if Israel was to perish, it would take Damascus and Cairo with it. According to a former senior CIA official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, Dayan sought an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and secured her authorization to arm 13 intermediate-range Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads. Eight F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft were also to be given nuclear arms, former senior U.S. officials said. The meeting took place close to "the Bor," Israel's huge underground war complex, these sources said. The predominant opinion today is that Israeli's first nuclear alert was a bluff, but "an extremely dangerous one," a former senior U.S. State Department official said. The Israelis demanded an emergency airlift of weapons and spare parts from the United States to support an all-out war effort. And they accused then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of deliberately withholding the re-supply in order to allow the Arabs to gain ground. According to a source close to former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, the Israelis were right. Kissinger's strategy was to "let Israel come out ahead, but bleed," the source said. What followed then was just possibly more frightening than anything else that has happened since World War II, according to former U.S. officials. "Israel played a very, very dangerous game, and we came close to a nuclear war," said a former very senior State Department official with detailed knowledge of the incident. Over the next 3 days, the launchers were armed at Hirbat Zachariah while the F-4s, on 24-hour alert, based at Tel Nof near Rehovot, were also prepared, according to former senior Pentagon officials. The initial targets -- these officials said -- included the Syrian and Eygptian military headquarters, which were situated near Damascus and Cairo, respectively. In those days, Israel's nuclear arsenal was something U.S. diplomats and defense officials were taught not even to mention. "To talk about Israel having nuclear weapons was a real career-ending move," one source said. At that time, the Jerichos were deployed inside caves, inside Israeli military air bases that had "huge blast doors," a former senior CIA official recalled Monday. The missile-launchers were set up on the back of railway cars and could be rolled out, fired, then rolled back and the blast doors closed, this official said. "We thought of deploying the Mark III missile in the same way," he added. Somehow, an agent in place in Israel alerted the United States of the arming of the Jerichos and on Oct. 12, an SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft based at Beale Air Force Base in California took off, refueled off of Rota, Spain, and then flew over Syria, Jordan and Israel. The plane, able to survey 100,000 square miles of land an hour, spotted the radiation from the missiles, according to a former Pentagon official and others familiar with the incident. According to this Pentagon source, Israel ordered their F-4s to down the plane, but the Blackbird soared to 85,000 feet, beyond the range of the Israeli fighters. A former employee of Rockwell International, Richard Freeman, told United Press International that the warhead of the Jericho was developed from the U.S. XW-58 warhead developed for the U.S. Army. It was about 24 inches long and 18 to 20 inches in diameter, weighing 200 pounds. With an accuracy of 500 to 1,000 meters, the warhead "was designed for air bursts above population centers or massed armor formations," he said. But a former CIA official added: "The thing had a lot of problems with its guidance system, and we weren't sure if deployment was real or just saber-rattling." Saber-rattling or not, that same day, the United States began a huge airlift to Israel including ammunition, tanks and aircraft. Israel made dramatic battlefield gains on all fronts until an Oct. 14 U.N.-Security Council-approved ceasefire brought the fighting to a halt. But then Israel's current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon -- who was at the time a major general commanding a division -- broke the ceasefire and began to encircle the Egyptian Third Army, opening the way to Cairo. It was the Soviets' turn to panic. According to half a dozen former State Department diplomats, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev told the United States he might be forced to send in crack troops to back up Egyptian forces defending Cairo. There was plenty of intelligence that elite Soviet paratroop units were on alert and moving. To halt Sharon, Kissinger raised the state of alert of all U.S. defense forces worldwide. Called DefCons, for defense condition, they work in descending order from DefCon V to DefCon I, which is war. Kissinger ordered a DefCon III. According to a former senior State Department official, the decision to move to DefCon III "sent a clear message that Sharon's violation of the ceasefire was dragging us into a conflict with the Soviets and that we had no desire to see the Egyptian Army destroyed." Israel, which had cancelled its nuclear alert, went on nuclear alert for a second time, until Meir quickly ended the crisis by ordering her army to stop all offensive action against the Egyptians. But the same State Department official pointed out something that has always been a major deterrent in the Middle East. "If Tel Aviv had used those weapons, most of the fall-out would have blown back on Israel because of the pattern of prevailing winds at the time," he said. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 43 Brazil admits selling uranium to Iraq Tuesday, September 17, 2002 at 09:30 JST RIO DE JANEIRO ? The small amount of uranium Brazil sold to Iraq between 1979 and 1990 were traded legally and could not have been used to produce nuclear bombs, the Brazilian National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN) said Monday. The commission was responding to a report in the British newspaper, The Times, which quoted an Iraq defector as saying the regime of Saddam Hussein could assemble a nuclear bomb within months using uranium purchased from Brazil. According to the newspaper, "The 1.3 tons of low-enriched material bought many years ago from Brazil" was being enriched in Iraq for use in a nuclear weapon. Brazil's official news agency Agencia Brasil said the International Atomic Energy Agency is about to release a statement on the case confirming the uranium from Brazil is not being used to produce an atomic bomb. "All the nuclear material Brazil has exported to Iraq remains sealed and is not being used for nuclear purposes," CNEN chairman Jose Mauro dos Santos said. The uranium sold to Iraq was extracted from mines in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais by the state corporation Nuclebras, which has since become defunct. The uranium was first shipped to the Brazilian Air Force's Center of Advanced Studies and then shipped to Iraq through the Port of Santos in Sao Paulo, according to the daily O Estado de Sao Paulo. Brazil sold uranium to Iraq before the United Nations imposed restrictive measures on trade with the government of Saddam Hussein, according to the nuclear commission. The uranium sold to Iraq was yellow cake, a type of mineral uranium in the first stage of enrichment, far from the stage of processing which allows the manufacturing of a nuclear bomb, the commission said. The uranium sales to Iraq took place during the rule of the military regime, which ruled Brazil for more than 25 years from 1964 and which reportedly had plans to assemble a nuclear bomb and a nuclear submarine. (Kyodo News) Japan Today Discussion ***************************************************************** 44 UK Opinion: War on Iraq: the mood shifts Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Alan Travis and Michael White Tuesday September 17, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Public opinion in Britain has dramatically swung away from opposition to a military attack on Iraq, according to the first findings of a new weekly Guardian/ICM tracker poll. Three weeks ago a similar Guardian/ICM poll asking the same question showed 50% opposed to a military attack on Baghdad and 33% in favour, a gap of 17 points. Now the gap has narrowed to four points with 40% against the possible war and 36% in favour. The rise of the "don't knows" from 17% to 24% suggests that growing numbers are no longer sure that they disapprove of the idea. The poll, taken over last weekend, shows that there is no longer a majority in Britain opposed to a military attack to remove Saddam Hussein. The results are a vindication of the prime minister's belief that the gap in the polls would close once the public began to focus on the debate over Iraq's capability to wage nuclear and chemical warfare. But few would have predicted that the movement in the polls would be quite so dramatic. The sharp swing in opinion suggests that the public mood could prove volatile but other recent surveys show that the prospect of UN support in the coming weeks could build further support for a military campaign. The change in public mood, if it is sustained, could also be crucial for Tony Blair as he faces the recall of parliament in a week's time, followed by the emergency resolutions at Labour's conference in Blackpool. The detailed results of the poll reveal that the biggest switch in the last three weeks has been among men. More men, 44%, now approve of military action against Iraq than oppose it, 37%, a reverse of the situation last month when men disapproved by 50% to 36%. Women still firmly oppose the idea of war but the gap among them has narrowed slightly from 50% against last month and 31% in favour to 42% against and 28% in favour now. There are also clear divides by age and class, with the middle classes generally opposed to the idea of war with Iraq, while the working class and poorest are mostly in favour. The swing in opinion revealed by the Guardian/ICM poll follows a weekend when the polls in America also began to strengthen in favour of President George Bush. A recent Los Angeles Times poll found strong majority support - 59% - for military action to oust President Saddam. But a swing in British public opinion would represent a move away from the general view across Europe. Recent polls in France, Italy, and Spain have shown strong opposition to a US-military attack on Iraq. In France, just over half the population oppose a US strike on Iraq but are willing to give majority approval if it wins UN backing. A poll for Le Monde taken last week showed that only one in three French voters thinks President Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction represents a serious threat. In Italy and Spain there are also large margins of opposition with 49% and 48% in each country saying they disapprove of such an attack. Russian polls show 53% against and only 26% supporting a US-led military operation. It is clear, however, from many polls that if Mr Bush and Mr Blair manage to secure UN approval for the attack, opinion across Europe could also swing into line. The Conservatives yesterday raised the domestic political stakes over Iraq when they refused to vote with Mr Blair in next week's Commons debate unless the government takes a tougher stance. To the surprise of ministers, Iain Duncan Smith announced that his MPs will be told to abstain if Tuesday night's vote is simply on the routine procedural decision to adjourn the house. On most nights the adjournment is nodded through without a vote. But since Neville Chamberlain's Tory government fell on precisely such a vote during the crisis of 1940 it has acquired symbolic importance in a war situation. Labour critics of the current threats to remove Saddam Hussein from power - by force if he does not comply with the UN weapons inspection regime - are determined to force a vote, on the adjournment if necessary. Some 161 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion expressing "deep unease" about the way the crisis is developing. The propaganda battle yesterday saw a significant intervention from the chancellor, Gordon Brown, whose silence on the issue had begun to attract Tory taunts that he half-hopes misjudgments on Iraq will topple Mr Blair. At a press conference to promote his tax credit policies Mr Brown said: "There is absolutely no doubting my determination and the rest of the government also, that we must take action where action is necessary." He added: "The world cannot stand by as someone either develops nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or in particular flouts the international community and the laws and regulations and decisions that have been made by the international community over a period of 10 years." No 10 will publish its promised dossier on Saddam Hussein at 8am next Tuesday, just three hours before Mr Blair's Commons statement. It will be over 50 pages long and contains what are said to be a modest number of new facts. · ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,002 adults aged over 18 by telephone from September 13-15. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 45 Abraham Urges 'Dirty Bomb' Action Las Vegas SUN September 16, 2002 By DANICA KIRKA ASSOCIATED PRESS VIENNA, Austria- U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham appealed Monday for concerted action to prevent nuclear material from being acquired by terrorists. Speaking to the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Abraham urged delegates to act immediately to counter the threat of so-called "dirty bombs" - radiation weapons that rely on conventional explosives to blow radioactive material far and wide. "After 9-11, there could be no doubt - if there ever was one in the first place, that terrorists could use nuclear materials to harm innocent civilians," Abraham said. He urged world leaders to hold an international conference to discuss the threat posed by dirty bombs. The United States and Russia have already been meeting to discuss the issue, he said. While nuclear warheads kill and destroy through the heat and blast of giant fission-fusion reactions, dirty bombs rely on conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material. The materials for a dirty bomb, like cobalt and iridium, are often used in medicine and industry. While not as destructive as a traditional nuclear bomb, dirty bombs are easier to build and to use. Abraham pledged $3 million to the IAEA to help safeguard nuclear security. Abraham made scant mention in his remarks about U.S. efforts to confront Iraq about possible nuclear efforts, referring briefly to President Bush's remarks at the United Nations last week. Meanwhile, the atomic organization's secretary-general flatly declared that the delivery of a nuclear reactor to North Korea under a U.S.-brokered deal could be delayed because the government wasn't in compliance with agreements allowing inspections. "If they do not want to delay the delivery of the reactor, they had better start cooperating right away - yesterday in fact," Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said. The deal, negotiated under former President Clinton's administration, gave North Korea two light water nuclear reactors for power generation in exchange for abandoning its nuclear weapons program. They are to be delivered by 2005. Under the plan, the IAEA is to inspect facilities to maintain that the nuclear material is not diverted for military use. The organization hasn't been give the access it needs, putting the planned delivery date in question. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 Talks Progress With N. Korea, Japan Las Vegas SUN: September 17, 2002 By YURI KAGEYAMA ASSOCIATED PRESS PYONGYANG, North Korea- In an unprecedented summit with Japan's prime minister, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il reportedly confirmed Tuesday that several Japanese allegedly kidnapped decades ago are still alive, a stunning concession that could lead to a new era in relations between the two estranged neighbors. Many divisive issues - including the North's suspected development of nuclear weapons and alleged spying activities off Japan's shores - loomed over Kim and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as the one-day summit began early Tuesday morning. But for the Japanese public - and Koizumi's political career - the most emotional and crucial issue was the whereabouts of 11 Japanese who went missing in the 1970s and 1980s. Japan says they were abducted by North Korea to train spies in Japanese language and customs. But in a surprise development, Kim confirmed that several of the Japanese Tokyo claims were abducted are still alive, according to Japanese media reports quoting an official who briefed reporters afterward. He had no further details, the reports said. A government official in Tokyo, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Kim commented on the missing people, but refused to say more until the families had been briefed. Talks to normalize relations fell apart two years ago over the kidnapping issue. Though denying any role in the alleged kidnappings, North Korea has recently agreed to look for missing Japanese. Kim's comments on the missing Japanese this time were welcomed by Tokyo and could pave the way for full-scale talks at establishing formal diplomatic ties. Japan and North Korea have never had diplomatic relations. The two nations have been so far apart on so many issues that many Japanese were stunned when the summit was announced late last month. Koizumi is the first Japanese prime minister to visit North Korea. Japan colonized the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945. The talks, held at a guesthouse on the outskirts of this North Korean capital, seemed to start off in a friendly enough mood. "I am not only happy that the prime minister has come so early in the morning to open a new page in history in North Korean-Japanese relations but I also feel thankful as a host nation," Kim told Koizumi. Koizumi, clad in his usual blue suit, arrived earlier at the guesthouse and was there to welcome Kim when he arrived wearing his signature khaki jacket. They shook hands. "I am happy that you have come to Pyongyang to mend a relationship that has been called so close yet so far," Kim said, referring to the age-old way Japanese and Koreans refer to their bitter history. The one-day summit expected to address such security issues as the North's missile development and suspected nuclear weapons program. Koizumi presented the Japanese stand in the morning talks before a lunch break and North Korea was presented its views in the afternoon session, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said. Koizumi's arrival at the airport in Pyongyang in the morning was absent of much fanfare, except for the obligatory red carpet. He was met by Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the legislative Supreme People's Assembly and North Korea's ceremonial head of state. Japanese officials say they sense an unusual softening in North Korea's stance recently that shows the isolated communist state may be ready to strike a deal with Tokyo. Hit by food shortages and struggling to revive a hobbled economy, North Korea is likely eager for monetary aid from Japan. As a U.S. ally, Japan could also provide a different sort of help. North Korea is increasingly worried about its tumultuous relationship with the United States after President Bush branded the nation in January part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. "We sense North Korea has changed, expressing more willingness to listen to our proposals and to talk," Foreign Ministry official Kenji Hiramatsu told reporters Monday. North Korea has recently stepped up dialogue with capitalist rival South Korea, engaging in sports exchanges, agreeing to reunions for families separated by the Korean War. On Monday, North and South Korean officials put finishing touches on plans to reconnect rail and road links across their heavily armed border. "The summit could open a way toward regional peace and stability," said Masao Okonogi, professor of politics at Keio University in Tokyo. "It can be considered a major success if there's even a simple confirmation from North Korea on whether the 11 people are alive or not." Koizumi stressed the importance of that issue before he boarded the plane Tuesday. "So long as there is no progress on the abduction issues, we cannot enter into talks on normalization of diplomatic relations," he told NHK, Japan's public television network. The families of those missing, in Tokyo to meet with government officials and await word from the summit, say hopes had never been higher for their loved ones to come home and insisted that Koizumi must avoid easy concessions. "Everyone feels that an ambiguous decision is what must certainly be avoided," said Shigeru Yokota, whose daughter Megumi disappeared in 1977 when she was 13 while walking home from school badminton practice. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Iraq: Inspectors Will Find Truth Las Vegas SUN: September 17, 2002 By WAIEL FALEH ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD, Iraq- Iraq said Tuesday that returning U.N. weapons inspectors could learn the truth about the country's alleged weapons of mass destruction "within a reasonable time," but claimed the United States still might find a new reason to attack. It was the country's first public comment after bowing to Arab and world pressure and agreeing to allow the unconditional return of inspectors following a nearly four-year absence. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said Iraq had balked because it was not sure if U.S. and British demands were "a genuine concern or a pretext." "If the inspectors come and act honestly, professionally in order ... to search for the truth ... they can reach the truth within a reasonable time. But if the Americans are using this as a pretext, they might use some other way in order to commit an aggression against Iraq," Aziz said after opening a "solidarity conference" in Baghdad. In attendance were lawmakers and other delegates from around the world. Aziz called on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council to monitor inspectors closely to ensure they do not overstep their mission. He said Iraq hoped the return of inspectors "will lead as soon as possible to the lifting of sanctions and normalizing the situation." Heavy pressure was applied to Iraq by Arab neighbors who fear a U.S.-Iraq war would destabilize an already volatile region. Baghdad's reversal of its long-standing condition that the return of weapons inspectors be linked to the end of trade sanctions came days after Saudi Arabia hinted the United States would be able to strike Iraq from the kingdom if the United Nations approved an attack. Egypt, among the most influential Arab states, had said it would support a U.S. strike on Iraq if it were done under U.N. auspices. Iraqi officials, citing comments from top officials in the Bush administration, speculated in the past that the United States would attack even if U.N. inspectors were allowed to return. The inspection regime was imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 to determine if Baghdad was continuing to make chemical and biological weapons and attempting to build nuclear arms and the missiles to deliver them. The United States accuses Iraq of sponsoring terrorism and has adopted a policy of ousting Saddam. In a Monday letter to Annan, Iraq agreed to allow the unconditional return of U.N. inspectors, "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." The White House dismissed the offer as a tactical move. Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until inspectors certify that its weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. Inspectors left the country in December, 1998 ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes to punish Iraq for not cooperating with inspections. Since then, Iraq had, until Monday, said it would allow inspectors to return only if the sanctions were lifted. On the streets of Baghdad on Tuesday, there were echoes of Aziz's questions about whether Iraq's decision to allow in weapons inspectors would defuse the crisis. "They will strike us, they already said they question our acceptance," said 48-year-old bookseller Ahmed Noori. "They are after the region's oil, not weapons." Noori was standing next to his book shop in al-Mutanabi Street listening to a short wave radio. Iraqi newspapers, radio and television are all controlled by the regime and none carried word of the decision on inspectors. Iraqis relied on foreign radio reports for the news. Sadiq Chelab, 50, a car painter, said his country had done the right thing. "Now the world has to watch for their reaction to see they are not after the implementation of U.N. resolutions but forcing us to accept a regime we do not want," Chelab said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 48 U.S. Presses U.N. Iraq Resolution Las Vegas SUN September 17, 2002 By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS UNITED NATIONS- Despite Iraq's promise of unfettered U.N. weapons inspections, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday he will seek a new U.N. Security Council resolution spelling out the steps Iraq needs to take to meet 11-year old U.N. demands. "We will press for a resolution," Powell said. "If they (the Iraqis) are serious, they will want one." Powell spoke during a photo session with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal while, back at the White House, a senior administration official corralled reporters to try to head off any slowing in what they had seen as momentum toward action by the Security Council and Congress. This official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, dismissed Iraq's offer as more of the same "rope a dope" that Saddam Hussein played with the world during the 1990s and said it shows Congress and the United Nations that he responds to pressure. "The last thing they should do now is lift the pressure," the official said. Iraq made its inspection offer Monday night, apparently hopeful that it will generate strong international opposition to the U.S. goal of installing a new regime in Baghdad, by force if necessary. What the Iraq proposal means in practice remained to be worked out. It is not clear, for example, whether President Saddam Hussein would allow the United Nations to inspect his palaces for evidence he has or is trying to develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Saddam's offer is the latest example of a greater Iraqi diplomatic sophistication of late. He has sought to improve relations with his neighbors while simultaneously wooing three of the Security Council's permanent members: Russia, China and France. President Bush's speech last Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly put the spotlight on Saddam's promises of 12 years ago to disarm - promises the administration says he has consistently ignored, imperiling world peace. Bush seemed to be making headway, finding a number of countries agreeing with his thesis that Saddam was making a mockery of the Security Council by systematically flouting its resolutions calling for Iraq to certify that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed. Saudi Arabia, which said only a month ago that it would not allow U.S. use of Saudi territory for an attack against Iraq, recently reversed itself but only in the event that the Security Council was amenable to the use of force. Before Monday night, Bush's speech had framed the debate among diplomats here over the Iraqi question. Now, part of the mix will be Saddam's four-paragraph letter to the United Nations that his decision to allow the inspectors' return was taken "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." Not long after the letter was made public, the White House signaled its strategy, suggesting the Iraqi move had really had changed nothing. Officials called it "a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action." The administration seeks three things in a new U.N. resolution: a list of Iraqi violations of previous resolutions; steps Iraq needs to take to comply; and consequences Iraq will face if it does not comply. U.S. officials least impressed with Saddam's offer of renewed inspections are those most convinced that inspections are not the answer. Vice President Dick Cheney said in August: "A debate with him (Saddam) over inspectors ... would be an effort by him to obfuscate and delay and avoid having to live up to the accords that he signed at the end of the Gulf War." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, another critic of inspections, said on Sunday: "Imagine a September 11 with weapons of mass destruction. It's not 3,000; it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children." Many countries, France included, agree with the United States that disarmament of Iraq is a worthy goal. But beyond that, agreement is elusive. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin sounded much like Secretary of State Colin Powell on Monday when he said, "We have one goal, which is the fight against proliferation." But de Villepin and Powell part ways on the issue of regime change. "This is not included in the mandate of the United Nations," de Villepin said. "If we begin discussing it, where will it end? It's a totally different process." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 49 Official says NTS not ready for more testing Las Vegas SUN September 16, 2002 By Mary Manning Because of aging equipment and not enough people with the proper expertise, the Nevada Test Site is not ready to resume underground nuclear weapons experiments within three years, as the Energy Department has said, according to a new report. Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman said investigators found that resuming nuclear testing at the site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, within three years would probably require funding and agency commitment that is typical of a presidential order to develop a new type of weapon. In a reply to a Bush administration order to review nuclear testing readiness, the Energy Department earlier this year said it would take 18 to 36 months to prepare the Test Site for a nuclear weapons experiment. The inspector general in a report released last week called that estimate into doubt. "Based on our review of the current status of available human and physical resources, the department's ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within established parameters is at risk," Friedman wrote. A White House spokesman was not immediately available for comment today. Nevada's lawmakers in Congress say they support renewed testing, if there is compelling evidence that deemed it absolutely necessary for national security. As the nation's nuclear arsenal ages, the Bush administration wants to speed up the timetable in case there is need for a full-scale weapons test. In September 1992, then-President George Bush halted nuclear weapons testing though subcritical experiments that stop short of a nuclear reaction continue to test the safety of existing weapons. After studying the site, federal investigators noted that equipment, unused in a decade, was wrapped in plastic and mothballed at the site and that almost 50 percent of the department's nuclear testing experts had left. Almost half of the remaining employees are eligible to retire in the next five years, the investigators said. Several retired experts interviewed by the inspectors said a mentoring program put in place during the mid-1990s to try to replace the lost expertise did not provide enough experience in actual experiments. "Specifically, plans were insufficient to fill key and critical positions," the report said. The Test Site "has also not kept pace with advances made in technology," the report said. Several computer systems used in nuclear experiments are no longer able to operate. Basic equipment is not ready, such as a processing plant used for preparing material to plug holes drilled to bury a nuclear weapon. Investigators found that the plant has been dismantled since 1992. "The challenges posed by these issues were heightened, because (the Test Site) did not have a comprehensive plan to address or overcome them," the report said. "If the department becomes unable to certify that testing can resume within the 24- to 36-month window, it could eventually lose its ability to ensure weapons reliability through underground testing, should such testing become necessary." Even preparing a nuclear experiment within two years or three years was at risk, based on the proposed funding level of $10 million a year, the report said. It would take an extra $5 million a year to ready the site for experiments. The report urged the department to hire and train experts, develop a plan to test and replace equipment, update its testing readiness and computer programs. Officials of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the Test Site, agreed with many findings, noting that funding and expertise are not sufficient. But in a letter responding to the audit they disagreed with the investigators' assessment of the Test Site's ability to conduct experiments if called upon to do so. Managers at the Test Site said that testing readiness is maintained in case an unexpected "technical surprise" emerges in the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons. They also noted that technical capabilities to design a nuclear experiment are in place in the national laboratories such as Lawrence Livermore in Northern California and Los Alamos in New Mexico. However, more than half of key experts to conduct an underground nuclear test were in Nevada, the report noted. Test Site managers said a plan to check aging equipment and identify what needs to be replaced, recommended in the audit, was not needed. "NNSA is confident that the weapons complex could resume testing on a time scale appropriate to address such a problem," wrote Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the Test Site. "Test readiness is an integral part of stockpile stewardship," Beckner wrote, adding the audit's statement that Nevada had not kept pace with technological advances "is factually incorrect." The Test Site has already begun to update its safety procedures and has contacted retired scientists for updating its expertise in nuclear testing, he said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 50 China denies supplying parts to Iraqi nuclear program AP World Politics Tue Sep 17,11:20 AM ET BEIJING - China on Tuesday denied providing parts for Iraq's atomic weapons program, dismissing an allegation that it had shipped specially configured aluminum tubing that might have been destined for Iraq. China opposes the spread of weapons of mass destruction and strictly controls all such technologies, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said. Kong was responding to information provided to The Associated Press last week by an international nuclear official. The official said a shipment of tubing intercepted in Jordan sometime in the last 14 months fitted a profile that would raise concerns in Washington. The shipment came from China and might have been destined for Iraq, said the official, who works for an international organization in Western Europe and spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is purely a fabrication and not worthy of comment," Kong said of the allegation. A Jordanian government official, who demanded anonymity, has denied any such shipment came through Jordan. Washington has claimed that thousands of pieces of such tubing have been intercepted on their way to Iraq, and that their configuration led its experts to believe they were meant for Iraq's centrifuge program. But U.S. officials have not provided details or said what it was about the tubing that made them suspicious. Nor has the administration offered any details on the origin or number of any attempted shipments. Washington suspects the parts were meant for use as rotors for centrifuges that spin gaseous uranium and separate the heavier isotopes needed in nuclear warheads, according to a U.S.-based expert with close ties to the Bush administration. Tubing might be used as the outer casing of such centrifuges, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Administration officials have accused Iraq of trying to circumvent U.N. sanctions and smuggle in aluminum tubes for use as centrifuge components. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 51 Saudis signal support for U.N.-endorsed action against Iraq - CNN.com - September 16, 2002 From Jonathan Mann NEW YORK (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's foreign minister signaled Saturday that his country would be willing to allow its territory and facilities to be used for military action against Iraq -- but only if such action is backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution. In an interview with CNN's Jonathan Mann, Prince Saud al-Faisal said that if action is taken under a U.N. mandate, then all U.N. member states, including Saudi Arabia, would be obligated to support it. However, Saudi Arabia still explicitly opposes toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and any unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq. Thursday, President Bush called on the United Nations to push Hussein to comply with 16 U.N. resolutions passed since the Gulf War, requiring the Iraqi regime to dismantle any capability to make chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Al-Faisal said Bush's address had changed matters considerably. He said the president's decision to invite the United Nations to address Washington's concerns in Iraq, rather than taking unilateral action, means that U.N. members are obliged to support the decisions the U.N. takes. LP, LLLP. An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 U.N. agency says it could resume nuclear inspections in Iraq immediately Boston Globe Online: Print it! By Susanna Loof, Associated Press, 9/17/2002 09:03 VIENNA, Austria (AP) The U.N. nuclear watchdog group welcomed Iraq's decision to allow the return of weapons inspectors and said Tuesday its team could resume work searching for alleged Iraqi nuclear arms as soon as the United Nations gives the word. The International Atomic Energy Agency said if Iraq gives ''cooperation in all respects,'' inspectors could quickly confirm whether Baghdad has halted any programs it may have had to develop nuclear weapons. ''If we have full cooperation from the Iraqis and can report progress, the sanctions could be suspended in one year,'' spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. Fleming said an inspection team was already put together and could leave for Iraq as soon as the U.N. Security Council had approved such a move. ''We could start work tomorrow. We have a plan in place,'' she said. The first weeks after the return would be devoted to building an infrastructure for the inspections, she said, noting that several inspectors had been in Iraq before and knew the country. The IAEA headed the search for nuclear weapons in Iraq while another U.N. inspections agency hunted for chemical and biological weapons until inspectors were pulled out in 1998 and not allowed since to return. Recent analysts' reports have said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is eager to develop nuclear weapons but doesn't have the capability to develop nuclear material on his own. If Iraq received the material from abroad, however, it could produce a nuclear weapon in months, an expert report this month said. Late Monday, under threat of U.S. attack and under pressure from Arab nations, Iraq agreed to allow all inspections to resume without conditions. Washington, however, expressed skepticism that Iraq would fully open itself to inspection and called the offer an attempt to split the U.N. Security Council. The IAEA expressed optimism. The organization said in a statement that it ''welcomes the decision of the Iraqi government to allow the return of the IAEA and United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.'' U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, in Vienna for the IAEA's general conference, told journalists Tuesday he ''was not up to date'' on the Iraqi letter and responses, but added that it remained unclear whether it was enough to prevent the use of force against Iraq. ''We've laid out what we believe are the steps that should be taken,'' he said. ''I'm not going to speculate about what would constitute compliance ... or satisfactory access.'' ***************************************************************** 53 Nevada Test Site not ready to resume nuclear blasts, report says Las Vegas SUN September 16, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - With equipment mothballed and experts retired, the Nevada Test Site is not ready to meet an Energy Department goal of resuming underground nuclear weapons experiments within three years, a new report said. Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman said it would take funding and a presidential order similar to that needed to develop a new type of weapon to quickly resume nuclear testing at the vast federal reservation 65 miles north of Las Vegas. Replying to a Bush administration order to review nuclear testing readiness, the Energy Department had said earlier this year that would take 18 to 36 months to prepare the Test Site for a nuclear weapons experiment. Nevada's lawmakers in Congress say they support renewed testing, if there is compelling evidence that deems it absolutely necessary for national security. However, the inspector general released a report last week saying that federal investigators found equipment left unused for a decade wrapped in plastic and mothballed at the site. Investigators said almost half of the department's nuclear testing experts had left, and almost half of the remaining employees were eligible to retire in the next five years. Basic equipment is not ready, such as a processing plant used for preparing material to plug holes above buried nuclear weapons. Investigators found that the plant has been dismantled since 1992. "Based on our review of the current status of available human and physical resources, the department's ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within established parameters is at risk," Friedman wrote. The report said it would take $5 million more a year for two or three years to ready the site for experiments. Current funding is about $10 million a year. The report urged the department to hire and train experts, develop a plan to test and replace equipment, and update its testing readiness and computer programs. Officials of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which operates the Test Site, agreed with many findings, noting that funding and expertise were not sufficient. But in a letter responding to the audit, they disagreed with the investigators' assessment, saying the Test Site could conduct experiments if necessary. They also noted that technical capabilities to design a nuclear experiment are in place in the national laboratories such as Lawrence Livermore in Northern California and Los Alamos in New Mexico. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 54 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT: Test site not ready to resume testing [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, September 17, 2002 Auditors say decline in personnel, safety, equipment factors By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The government faces problems getting the Nevada Test Site up to speed to resume nuclear weapons testing within two or three years, let alone faster turnarounds being considered by the Bush administration, according to a new report. Auditors working for the Energy Department's inspector general concluded the test site has suffered a decline of nuclear test-experienced scientists and technicians, delays in updating required safety studies and a deterioration of necessary systems and equipment. "The challenges posed by these issues were heightened because Nevada did not have a comprehensive plan to address or overcome them," inspectors said in a report issued Sept. 9 . "Based on our review of the current status of available human and physical resources, the department's ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within established parameters is at risk," Inspector General Gregory Friedman said in an accompanying memo to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. DOE deputy administrator Everet H. Beckner said he generally agreed with the findings, but disagreed with several of its recommendations. He maintained the nuclear weapons stockpile is not at risk because safety and reliability are monitored through subcritical experiments. Beckner said the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that manages the weapons complex, could resume underground testing "on a time scale appropriate" to fix "an unforeseen future technical surprise in the stockpile." The NNSA Nevada Operations Office completed a study in July that echoed parts of the inspector general's audit. It concluded the agency's ability to meet a two- to three-year test site readiness directive is in jeopardy unless Congress adds $5 million a year for the next three years to a $10 million readiness account. To boost test site readiness even faster, to an 18-month turnaround, would require $25 million per year, the NNSA study concluded. The 15-page inspector general's report, issued after an 11-month study, comes as Congress is debating whether to step up the timetable to prepare the test site to possibly resume underground nuclear test blasts. The last underground test occurred 10 years ago next Monday before the United States implemented a moratorium policy. Since then, the safety and reliability of weapons in the nuclear stockpile have been checked through "subcritical" experiments that don't create nuclear reactions. The House has voted to speed test site readiness to a one-year preparation period to give President Bush a "realistic option" to resume nuclear testing if he desires for reliability testing or for development of new weapons, according to its legislation. Lawmakers forming a final defense bill for this year are debating whether to speed the timetable to ready the Nevada range or whether to authorize a study that would weigh 12 month, 18 month or 24 month preparation times and recommend the best option. But DOE auditors evaluating the current testing program said they found key parts experienced "significant degradations" in the last decade. They said the NNSA's Nevada operation and its contractors have lost nearly half of their underground test personnel in the past five years, and half of the workers remaining will be eligible to retire in the next five years. To address the graying of the workforce, the Nevada Operations Office has created a "retiree corps" and established a mentoring program utilizing experienced personnel. But the new audit concluded "many key and critical personnel have not received test-related training since the mid-1990s." Additionally, auditors said, some equipment used for nuclear testing has "become obsolete and unserviceable," or has been mothballed or dismantled. Beckner disagreed, saying equipment being used in stockpile stewardship experiments will allow NNSA to be in a position to deploy the best technology available if underground testing is resumed. "Diagnostics and test instrumentation are customized to the specific test to be conducted," he said. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-17-Tue-2002/news/19648062.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-17-Tue-2002/news/19648062.html] ***************************************************************** 55 US calls for 'dirty bombs' conference BBC NEWS | Americas | Monday, 16 September, 2002, 17:34 GMT 18:34 UK US [Plutonium] Dirty bombs spread radioactive material over a wide area The United States has called for an international conference aimed at combating the threat of terrorists building so-called "dirty bombs". US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency that the devices, which scatter deadly radioactive material using conventional explosive devices are less deadly than conventional nuclear weapons, but far easier to make. None of us should underestimate the implications of the use of any kind of radiological device, be it a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham "And while the physical destruction they would cause is comparable to conventional explosives, the disruption caused by widespread contamination is far greater... it is disruption that terrorists seek," he said. Dirty bombs, while not as immediately destructive as traditional explosive devices, could ultimately prove far more devastating in terms of the loss of human life, due to nuclear fallout causing cancer and radiation poisoning. Mr Abraham cited evidence found in Afghanistan that the al-Qaeda terror network had investigated the possibility of building a dirty bomb as proof that the threat of such an attack was being explored by terror groups. [Alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla ] Padilla: The US says he attempted to build a dirty bomb He also said that some regimes were actively seeking to acquire the materials used in such a weapon, in an apparent reference to Iraq. "My president laid out the case against one such regime before the UN last week," he said. "No-one of us should underestimate the implications of the use of any kind of radiological device, be it a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb." Safeguards The US still holds a man in custody it says planned to build such a device to use on US soil. American-born Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, remains in US custody after being detained in May this year, despite human rights groups claiming the evidence against him is weak at best. IAEA Director General Mohammed al-Baradei said that the difficulties of preventing a dirty bomb attack are compounded by the fact that the materials used in the bomb can be acquired through industry or the medical profession. However he told French news agency AFP that it was possible to put safeguards in place. "We can do a lot of things by having security standards, by having appropriate physical protection and by having restricted access to these materials," he said. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 56 Joint Statement Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsev energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: September 17, 2002 [Print Friendly Version] September 16, 200 In their May 2002 Summit in Moscow, the President of the United States of America George W. Bush and the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin agreed to establish a joint experts group to work out proposals on near- and long-term, bilateral and multilateral means to reduce inventories of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. The United States and Russia recognize their common interest in guaranteeing the irreversibility of nuclear disarmament, strengthening nonproliferation and combating terrorism by accelerating the disposition of excess nuclear weapon materials. Ambassador Linton Brooks and First Deputy Minister Mikhail Solonin co-chaired the Expert Group on Accelerated Nuclear Material Disposition. We highly appreciate the results of the Expert Group. We are pleased with the accelerated pace the group maintained, finishing the report three months earlier than their initial deadline. The report will be forwarded to Presidents George W. Bush and V.V. Putin. The Expert Group identified several areas where joint cooperation could lead to reduction of HEU over-and-above commitments already in place under existing agreements. These include: 1. Creation of a strategic reserve in the United States from Russian HEU down blended into Low Enriched Uranium (LEU); 2. Increase in the rate and quantity of HEU converted to LEU under the Nuclear Material Consolidation and Conversion Project; 3. Use of LEU down blended from Russian HEU to fuel reactors in Western countries; 4. Use of Russian HEU to fuel selected United States research reactors, until cores are converted to LEU, and 5. In parallel, work on accelerated development of LEU fuel for both Soviet-designed and United States-designed research reactors. The Expert Group also identified potential new areas of near-term cooperation for weapon plutonium disposition. These include: 1. Fabrication of additional mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in Russian reactors, utilizing additional weapons-grade plutonium under the 2000 Agreement, and 2. A variation of this scenario that would provide for the possible use of some MOX fuel in Russia and for leasing or exporting of the remainder for use in other countries. The Expert Group will continue to study additional options that could be relevant in the future, taking into account their technical feasibility, impacts on commercial nuclear fuel market industries and required financial resources. Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 Corry Schiermeyer, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02- ***************************************************************** 57 New glassification technology pitched This story was published Sat, Sep 14, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is considering spending $30 million to develop a new type of tank waste glassification technology that has already flunked several earlier reviews. DOE's Inspector General's Office is recommending delaying spending on the effort, which could include construction of a test plant for the new technology at Hanford, until major technical uncertainties are addressed. In response, DOE's cleanup czar Jesse Roberson wrote that DOE will study the proposed technology within the next 12 months to see if it should be tackled. Her letter did not address whether the $30 million allocation would be delayed during the review. Hanford has 53 million gallons of highly radioactive wastes in 177 underground tanks. And construction is already under way on a Hanford vitrification plant to convert those wastes into glass. In addition, DOE has formally targeted three technologies to possibly be used in addition to the conventional glassification plant. The Advanced Vitrification System is a new fourth option. The technology is being pitched by a coalition of several East Coast firms -- called the Radioactive Isolation Consortium -- based in Falls Church, Va. The group is pushing the system for use at Hanford and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. DOE gave the consortium $10 million to develop the technology, and that contract recently was extended through January 2003. Now, DOE "is actively considering providing $30 million in additional funding for technology demonstration and construction of a pilot test facility," according to a report by the Inspector General. The consortium's Web site contends that its system will save "tens of billions of dollars" over the long run if it's used for a portion of Hanford's wastes instead of the conventional glassification plant. And the presence of the Advanced Vitrification System will provide an on-site competitor to keep costs down at Hanford's main glassification plant, the consortium argues. However, the Inspector General's report said at least four evaluations from 1996 to 2001 showed numerous unanswered technical questions, meaning the Advanced Vitrification System was not a serious candidate for use at Hanford. In 2001, an independent expert panel concluded the Advanced Vitrification System's glassified wastes could not meet the chemical and stability standards required by Hanford, the Inspector General's report said. The report said past reviews concluded there were missing sections in the consortium's designs, that its cost estimates left out major factors and were confusing, and that the system could require more waste canisters than Hanford's current approach. Consequently, the Inspector General's report recommended DOE hold off spending another $30 million until those questions are resolved. Roberson's letter said the Advanced Vitrification System will be studied as part of a 12-month review of alternatives to conventional glassification. That review will include a study -- headed by a yet-to-be-picked expert from DOE's Savannah River site -- to look at the cost issues. DOE is looking for cheaper and quicker ways to neutralize possibly up to 75 percent of the tank wastes without sending the materials through the conventional melters planned for vitrification facility. Other options include: -- Mixing some wastes with cementlike grout inside containers. -- Glassifying some wastes with portable electrodes inside containers. -- Steam reforming, which uses extreme heat and chemical injections to transform some wastes into pelletlike crystals. DOE hopes to weed out any obvious noncandidates next year, followed by more tests until 2005 or 2006 on remaining contenders before making a decision. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 58 Recycling to ease cylinder buildup - [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, September 17, 2002 In both Paducah and Piketon, UDS plans to create 20 subcontracting projects, resulting in 100 to 150 construction jobs. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Veazey Uranium Disposition Services says its new recycling facility should prevent additional buildup of about 38,000 uranium waste cylinders stored at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, create at least 150 permanent jobs and produce material that can be sold to help the federal government recoup costs. Starting in 2005, the facility will annually convert 1,500 to 1,700 cylinders of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) left over from enriching uranium for nuclear fuel, said Dick Veazey of Paducah, UDS cylinder operations manager. The conversion pace of those cylinders, holding a half-million metric tons of waste produced over about 45 years before USEC Inc. was privatized in 1998, roughly equals the number of new cylinders produced yearly by USEC, he said. Although his company's contract covers only the non-USEC cylinders, Veazey expects the Department of Energy eventually to expand the recycling program to include the new cylinders. "Our work will mean just about staying even with the newly produced cylinders," he said. "When you've got 38,000 cylinders, you're going to be in business for a long time." Nick Timbers, USEC president and chief executive officer, said there are no current talks with the Energy Department about converting the USEC cylinders. But under a new agreement, DOE is responsible for cleanup of about three years' worth of USEC cylinders since 1998, he said, adding that well over 95 percent of the cylinders at the plant were stored before USEC took over production. Last month, the Energy Department awarded a $558 million contract to UDS to build conversion plants in Paducah and Piketon, Ohio, and run them for five years through Aug. 3, 2010. After that, the contract will be re-evaluated. DOE wants all the material to be converted within 25 years. Veazey, who formerly managed production and cylinder maintenance at the enrichment plant, said DOE cleanup contractor Bechtel Jacobs has made great strides in repainting and otherwise improving the conditions of the cylinders. Veazey said better cylinders will be retained and poorer ones cut in half, compacted and shipped to a government-approved disposal site in Utah or Nevada. That process will systematically improve the overall condition of stored cylinders, he said. In both Paducah and Piketon, UDS plans to create 20 major subcontracting projects for the conversion plants, resulting in 100 to 150 construction jobs. Another 150 to 165 permanent operational jobs — about 60 in management and 90 in crafts — will be created in each community. Fifteen to 20 jobs in each area will be transitioned from Bechtel Jacobs as UDS takes over cylinder maintenance, Veazey said, and the rest will be new jobs. Veazey said agreements are in place to give the nuclear workers' union and laid-off USEC workers first rights for the jobs, covering a range from maintenance and operations to engineering to environmental and safety. "Obviously, people who are familiar with the enrichment plant and familiar with UF6 are the kind of people that we would want to hire," he said, adding that people with non-nuclear plant supervisory background also will have a chance for jobs. Permanent craft workers will be paid "prevailing wages" under an agreement with the union, and salaried personnel will earn wages similar to those in the enrichment plant and cleanup work force, Veazey said. Three firms — Framatome ANP, Duratek Federal Services, and Burns and Roe Enterprises —joined forces to form UDS specifically to bid on the project. Framatome, part of a French consortium, started operating UF6 conversion plants in Germany in 1994 and in Richland, Wash., in 1998. Veazey said the new plants represent "third-generation" technology that has operated safely in the other two areas. Veazey gave this look at the process: + The conversion breaks down toxic, slightly radioactive UF6 into uranium oxide and "high-quality" hydrogen fluoride, or HF. Although HF is volatile and caustic, the oxide is "very stable" because it doesn't react with air and is insoluble in water. Veazey said the process eliminates the threat of having the UF6 in cylinders react with moisture and release HF. + HF and fluorine are highly priced, readily marketable substances in the chemical industry. But the dark, powdery oxide has few commercial applications, such as in armor-piercing weaponry and radiation shielding. UBS will help sell the HF and look for oxide markets to help the Energy Department pay for part of the approximate $100 million construction costs of each of the facilities. + Paducah's conversion plant will be built on about 10 acres near the cylinder yards, directly across the enrichment plant access road from the Energy Department Site Office. The 24-hour facility will have four parallel conversion lines, each with two autoclaves to heat the UF6 — normally a solid resembling rock salt — into a gas to be mixed with steam and hydrogen. + After a reactor separates the uranium and fluorine components, the fluorine will be stored in tanks for sale to companies. Unless it can be sold, the oxide will be placed into a hopper to be poured into containers for shipment by rail or truck to disposal facilities in the Southwest. ***************************************************************** 59 U.S. energy secretary says nuclear power plays important role in energy supply AP World Politics Tue Sep 17, 9:38 AM ET VIENNA, Austria - Nuclear power should play an increasingly important role in the world's energy supply, despite fears prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. energy secretary said Tuesday. Significant improvements in the safety of nuclear power, along with growing concerns over pollution and climate changes, make the case for nuclear power strong, Spencer Abraham said. "Notwithstanding the events of Sept. 11, we should continue to make nuclear energy an important part of the world's energy mix," he said. Some security experts fear that nuclear power plants and the waste they produce could become targets of terrorist attacks. In a media briefing held during the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference, Abraham also reiterated that an international conference needs to be held soon to discuss the threat posed by so called "dirty bombs" — radiation weapons that rely on conventional explosives to scatter radioactive material over a large area. Unlike nuclear bombs, dirty bombs can be constructed with lower-grade radioactive materials, often used in medicine and industry. Abraham, who made a similar call to the agency's general assembly on Monday, said he had met with the agency's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. "I learned from him that they were equally interested in the proposal on a forum on (dirty bombs)," he said. "We're hopeful that we can begin putting together that process in the very near future." Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 60 Rocky Flats Cleanup (VOA Promo) voanews.com /17 Sep 2002 06:40 UTC/ The western state of Colorado evokes images of the spectacular Rocky Mountains and unspoiled nature. But some areas of Colorado are dotted with industrial plants that may not be environmentally friendly. One of the biggest industrial giants that used to operate in the greater Denver area, a former nuclear weapons production site, is now being dismantled to give place to a new national park. Colorado's Rocky Flats Closure is the world's largest nuclear clean-up project of this magnitude. We are in building 771 of the Rocky Flats closure site - once known as the most dangerous building in the United States. "In building 771, we have a room which has a unique reputation all by itself," says Project Manager Barbara Mazurowski. "There was a fire in this room in 1971 and there were such high levels of contamination released in this room that it was called the Infinity Room." Ms. Mazurowski manages the Rocky Flats nuclear clean-up and closure project for the U.S. Department of Energy. She says after that fire 30 years ago, the radioactivity in the building rose to such high levels that it could not be measured with the existing equipment. "So the amount of radioactivity was immeasurable, or to the point of infinity," she says. Ms. Mazurowski says there is no contamination in building 771 now. "Because of the work that we've done here in this building: removing the glove boxes, removing the tanks, removing process lines, decontaminating the building, this is no longer the most dangerous building of America." AP Photo AP Still, everyone entering building 771 has to wear special protective clothing and everyone going out has to be tested for possible contamination. For almost forty years, workers at the Colorado Rocky Flats site fabricated components for nuclear weapons. The components were then assembled in other places and the finished weapons were turned over to the Department of Defense for deployment. There is hardly a nuclear weapon anywhere in the United States that does not contain a part made at Rocky Flats. Patrick Etchart, spokesman for the Department of Energy, says the components were made from plutonium, uranium, beryllium and stainless steel, utilizing various dangerous chemicals in the process. "Plutonium came in the form of what is called "metal button" the size of a hockey puck. It was dark gray metal," says Mr. Etchart. "And you would take it and put it into the furnaces, into the rolling and forming mills and put it into the right shape for the weapon component." To protect workers from radioactive material, especially the so-called alpha-particles that are most harmful when inhaled, all the operations were performed in special enclosures, called glove-boxes. A worker would push his hands into long protective gloves attached to one side of the box and work with highly contaminating materials inside. All sides of the boxes were transparent so the worker could see what he was doing inside them. The gloves were attached to one side of the box, with the open end outside and "fingers" deep inside the box. "When we stopped operations, plutonium was left in seven major buildings out here," says Mr. Etchart. "One of the first things we did was remove the plutonium from six of those buildings and consolidate it in the one remaining building and then we started basically decontaminating and cleaning up the building." The decontamination process includes taking all the equipment out of the glove boxes and ridding it of radioactive particles. The material that cannot be sufficiently cleaned is packed into special waste drums, which are shipped to nuclear waste sites for isolation. Some of these sites are in Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. Mr. Etchart says only when a building is completely decontaminated, can it be dismantled. "What we've been doing lately is trying to accelerate the south side demolition. And, the south side was the non-plutonium operation so some of these are easier buildings that we can take down quicker so that's what we are doing, we are taking them down." The Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site closed operations in 1989. The clean-up and closure project started in 1995 and is scheduled to be finished in 2010. The cost of this the world's largest, nuclear clean-up project is $2 million a day. With the heightened security measures after the September 11 attacks, the cost has become even higher. Mr. Etchart says the Department of Energy and Kaiser-Hill, the company contracted to do the job, are working on completing the closure ahead of schedule, which would save a lot of tax-payers' money. "When they first talked about clean-up, some of the original estimates were that it would take 60 years and cost around $37 billion," he says. "We have been able to cut down the schedule to 2006, four years from now, at a total cost between $6 billion and $7 billion." About 4500 employees are currently working on dismantling the site: physicists, chemists, engineers, medical and security personnel, construction workers and others. When they finish their job, many of them will probably return to Rocky Flats, but not to a nuclear weapons plant. Instead, there will be a national park, affording spectacular views of those famous Rocky Mountains. *****************************************************************