***************************************************************** 09/22/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.243 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Taiwan: Anti-nuclear activists begin march 2 AU: Nuclear protests hurt only the sick 3 New rules may allow use of cracked reactors 4 British Energy plea for extra time to repay bail-out loan 5 Japan to allow use of cracked nuclear reactors 6 AU: Protesters rally against Lucas Heights reactor. 7 UK: Breathing space for BE 8 US: Cracks appear in NRC's new rules NUCLEAR REACTORS 9 US: Nuclear opponents keep their eyes on Millstone - 10 China's Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor Trial Successful NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 Ferry fears as nuclear subs poison shore 12 US: Nevada State loses federal funding for its birth defect registry NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 13 US: Inform All Goshutes 14 US: DOE waste will exceed space allotted for it in facility 15 US: Energy Department to move at-risk nuclear material to Nevada 16 US: Officials Covet N-Waste Profits 17 US: Editorial: Meetings on Yucca must be open to all 18 US: UTILITIES OFFER MILLIONS: Poor Utah tribe gambles on nuclear was NUCLEAR WEAPONS 19 Arrested for Peace? News of anti-war arrests wanted! 20 UK: Revealed: Iraq's quest to build nuclear bomb 21 Netanyahu: The Case for Toppling Saddam* 22 UK: Dossier to show Iraqi nuclear arms race 23 First Strike Could Be Precedent for Other Nations 24 Iraq: Invade and Unleash?* 25 Scientists debate terrorist threat to nuclear plants 26 Is a War With Iraq Worth the Environmental Risk? 27 Fight or flight: Examining the alternatives to war with Iraq 28 Inspectors anticipate high-odds Iraq mission 29 Scientists question Bush case against Iraq 30 Iraq Excludes Palaces From Inspection Sites US DEPT. OF ENERGY 31 DOE sets production hearings OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Taiwan: Anti-nuclear activists begin march The Taipei Times Online: 2002-09-22 Former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung, right, and about 100 other activists set out from Taipei's Lungshan Temple yesterday on the first of 50 weekend anti-nuclear marches across Taiwan. Participants are demanding a referendum on construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. PHOTO: CHIANG YING-YING, TAIPEI TIMES 1,000KM TREK: Organizers say public participation in the decision-making process for something as controversial as the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is a basic human right By Lin Miao-Jung STAFF REPORTER More than a hundred anti-nuclear activists began a 50-week series of weekend marches yesterday to demand a referendum on whether construction should continue on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. The activists hope to see a referendum no later than, and possibly in conjunction with, the presidential election in 2004. "Major public policies being decided by the public is a basic right for citizens. A mature democratic society should allow the public to express opinions and participate in the process of policy decision-making," said protest organizer Cheng Hsien-yu (¾G¥ý¯§) prior to the start of the march. Protest march * Marchers plan to walk 20km each week for 50 weeks to demand a referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. * Demonstrators completed 12.7km yesterday and plan to complete another 10.75km tomorrow. * It is the third such march to protest against the power plant since 1994. Estimates had more than 100 activists gathering in western Taipei City to begin their 1,000km march yesterday. Marchers plan to trek 20km each week to demonstrate their conviction. The DPP government, giving in to opposition demands, reversed in January last year its controversial decision of October 2000 to halt construction on the nuclear plant. Activists began their march after issuing a statement yesterday morning at Lungshan Temple in the Wanhua district and walked along streets in the west of Taipei. Marchers arrived at the administration building of the Department of Rapid Transit Systems in the afternoon, finishing their first leg of 12.7km. Marchers will continue their walk this afternoon in Taipei City with the goal of completing another 10.75km. The march, led by the Association for Promoting Public Voting on Nuclear Plant Four (®Ö¥|¤½§ë«P¶i·|), was the group's third such walk since September 1994 when former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung (ªL¸q¶¯) led a two-month, 1,005km trek to push for a referendum. Lin also participated in yesterday's march. The long-distance march as a form of protest has its roots in the Buddhist tradition and is intended to show participants' determination and bravery despite great hardship. In the group's statement, Cheng said that the nuclear power plant poses a huge potential threat to people's lives, property and security, and its budget is astronomical. The association advocates that the legislature freeze its budget immediately and let the public decide its future based on a vote. Cheng stressed that the awakening of citizens' consciousness is the basis of a democratic society, adding that relying too much on the representative system to allow a small number of politicians to speak for the public "could result in unsavory relations between politicians and big business." "The appeal, however, should be carried out by non-violent means," Cheng said. Cheng said advocates agreed to maintain friendly relations with the government and opposition and that they would use neither virulent language nor violence, even should violence be used against them. "Non-violent action as a model of establishing a non-oppressive and just society should be advocated," he said. Groups such as the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, Taiwan Agenda 21, the Homemakers' Union and Foundation and the Taiwan Peace Foundation have long advocated decommissioning the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. They also hope to close the other three nuclear plants to establish a nuclear-free country. In addition to Cheng and Lin, yesterday's march participants included National Taiwan University professors Shih Shin-min (¬I«H¥Á), Kao Cheng-yan (°ª¦¨ª¢) and Yang Chao-yueh (·¨»F©¨); Taiwan Peace Foundation Chief Executive Iap Phok-bun (¸­³Õ¤å), as well as Taiwan Agenda 21 Secretary-General Hsu Chu-feng (³\¥D®p). This story has been viewed 81 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/09/22/story/0000168987] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 AU: Nuclear protests hurt only the sick Daily Telegraph: [22sep02] By PIERS AKERMAN OVER the past decade, I've bought numerous Mambo shirts for friends, usually foreigners visiting Australia. I'll be thinking twice about giving these iconic garments in future. A farting-dog shirt may be a humorous gift, but a shirt that carries a message opposing the Lucas Heights nuclear facility, which produces medical isotopes, is no joking matter. Again, it's a case of intelligence versus stupidity, with all the smarts resting with the highly skilled technicians and physicians who use the isotopes to help people here and abroad, and all the dopiness in the domain of the empty-headed celebrities and protesters who prefer to keep their eyes tightly closed to avoid the evidence of their ignorance. Reg Mombassa, the farting canine's multi-millionaire creator, made the claim last week: "We all live in Sydney, and none of us likes the idea of having a nuclear reactor in a big city." Like most statements by the anti-nuclear-medicine crowd, the Mambo man's remark doesn't bear much resemblance to the truth. The last organised protest, May's Women Against Nuclear Industries rally at Lucas Heights, attracted just seven protesters. The biggest protest seen over the past two years attracted 150 people at Cronulla, despite intensive publicity on the ABC and in the Fairfax press. Sutherland Shire Council has spent $500,000 of ratepayers' money on its campaign against the reactor – though itmakes no mention of this in its 2000/2001 annual report. (What else has mayor Tracie Sonda forgotten to mention?) In April, several Sutherland councillors attended an anti-nuclear conference at Camp Wanawong, near Loftus, within their own shire, organised by their friends at Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth. Most punters paid $22 to attend, but the Sutherland councillors were charged $200 each – and the tab was generously picked up by ratepayers. A clue to the idiocy of the conference organisers is the fact that the event began each morning with the Dance of the Elm Tree, in commemoration of people who lost their lives at Chernobyl, and included a workshop on the sort of direct action that closed the reactor last year, denying patients nuclear medicines. Empty-heads like Reg Mombassa make perfect dupes for the obscene and mendacious multi-national protest organisation Greenpeace, which claims there are viable alternatives to Lucas Heights' nuclear medicines readily available. They should talk to real people – people likethe family of Patrick Corbett, who spent last Christmas in agony because a Greenpeace protest at Lucas Heights in mid-December delayed vital pain relief reaching him. As a result of that protest, the reactor's production of radio-isotopes was disrupted and Mr Corbett, a bone-cancer patient, was informed he would have to go without. Mr Corbett, 79, was in an ambulance outside his home and about to go for treatment when the hospital called, telling him not to come. His wife, Margaret, said he spent Christmas in a morphine haze without the radio-isotope Quadramet, which can give patients with serious cancer four weeks of pain relief in one dose. "We know there's no cure, but he's only got some sort of life when the pain stops," Mrs Corb- ett said. A senior physicist said the Greenpeace protest shut down the reactor, delaying shipments of nuclear medicine. By the time it arrived, it was past its useful life. The physicist, whose own mother had bone cancer, told a reporter she knew just what Mr Corbett was going through. "I was angry and upset," she said. The physicist had to explain to Mr Corbett's family, and that of another seriously ill patient, that there had been delays. She also e-mailed Lucas Heights, asking for a refund, and rang Greenpeace to complain. She should call Reg Mombassa. Either Mombassa hasn't bothered to read any of the dozens of submissions by nuclear-medicine professionals to numerous senate enquiries that make it perfectly clear alternatives to reactor-produced isotopes do not exist, or he chooses to believe Deep Green lies. The issue comes down to very basic physics. It's not rocket science – but, hey, when did the loopy Left ever let the facts get in the way of a good protest rally? Radio-pharmaceutical sales are at record levels,confirming the reality that every Australian will need one of these products for diagnosis or treatment at some time. There's a lot of exciting research going on into new cancer treatments using the radio-pharmaceuticals produced by reactors. Let's hope Reg Mombassa and his mates don't need them. But scientists say the radio-pharmaceutical part of the debate, although important, is only a small part of the rationale for the reactor. The new reactor's design is dominated by neutron guide halls for scientists examining the very nature of matter; this will be a huge boon to Australia's scientific and industrial community. Australia also continues to be a leader in nuclear safeguards work, and is used by the International Atomic Energy Agency to help check on unauthorised activities such as uranium enrichment. For decades, our international representatives have been successfully arguing in international forums against the use of nuclear weapons. To continue this, we need to have the nuclear expertise that, perversely, Greenpeace and people like Reg Mombassa would deny us. So, when thinking of buying a $40 shirt and supporting the protest against the Lucas Heights facility, be aware of the potential pain you're wishing on patients who rely on the reactor's products. Click here to send us yourfeedback STORIES IN THIS SECTION Nuclear protests hurt only the sick Kiwi title not hard to bear Exercise in tedium to tie dye for When down, keep talking Why blokes are feeling uneasy Mirror Australian Telegraph Publications ***************************************************************** 3 New rules may allow use of cracked reactors [Daily Yomiuri On-Line] Yomiuri Shimbun The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency plans to set new technical standards to allow nuclear power plants to continue operating damaged reactors if they are deemed safe, sources close to the ministry said Saturday. The decision follows revelations that nuclear power plant officials falsified inspection records. The agency plans to allow nuclear reactors that are found to have cracks to continue operating if they meet certain conditions, the sources said. Under the envisaged system, plants could continue to operate if a core shroud was found to be cracked up to half the thickness of its material, and if a recirculation pipe was found to have cracks up to a few millimeters deep and they were checked annually. If the proposal is incorporated into ministry ordinances, most of the cracks that electric power companies lied about in their reports will be deemed within the permissible level, the sources said. The proposal would be a drastic turning point in the nation's nuclear safety policy, they added. After listening to experts' opinions, the agency is planning to submit bills to revise the Electric Utilities Industry Law and relevant ordinances to the next Diet session, according to the sources. Existing technical standards for nuclear reactor parts are only applicable at the time they are designed or manufactured, and there exists no standard for the devices after they are put into operation, experts said. Therefore, when certain parts are found to be cracked or worn out, they need to be repaired or replaced even if there is no safety problem, the experts said. In other developed countries where nuclear reactors are in operation, including France, Germany and the United States, safety standards for nuclear reactors are clearly separated into those regarding the design and production phase and those regarding the period the part is used in the plant, which allows operators to continue using parts as long as they are determined safe. In compiling its proposed standards, the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency referred to other industrialized countries' standards and the latest scientific data collected by the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan and the Japan Electric Association. The agency's draft proposal specified the method of inspections, the safety evaluation of cracks and deterioration, and the method of repair and replacement for individual pieces of equipment and types of materials, the sources said. According to the draft, core shrouds can maintain sufficient strength to retain nuclear fuel and to support control rods even if they are cracked to a certain degree. Recirculation pipes are made of material that is supposed to endure massive pressure differences, as the air inside the pipe has a pressure 70 times the normal atmosphere outside the pipe. If the pipe is made of material 3.5 to 4 centimeters thick, it can continue to operate safely even if cracked up to a few millimeters deep, the sources said. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 4 British Energy plea for extra time to repay bail-out loan Independent.co.uk 22 September 2002 21:26 BDST By Jason Nissé British Energy is to plea with Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, to push back Friday's deadline for repayment of the Government's £410m emergency loan to the ailing group because a long-term rescue deal still cannot be struck. The Trade Secretary agreed to bail out the group two weeks ago after it said it would go into administration without government aid. However, the emergency loan is due to be repaid on Friday, a move that would force the nuclear energy group into administration. Attempts by the DTI, which is being advised by investment bank CSFB, and British Energy to strike a deal have run into difficulties. Last week British Energy added Schroder Salomon Smith Barney, which worked with the Government on the restructuring of Railtrack, to its team of advisers, which is being led by Lazards. British Energy wants a cut in the £300m a year it pays BNFL to deal with its nuclear waste, exemption from its £80m a year climate change levy, a reduction in its business rates and a reform of the electricity trading arrangement known as Neta. It has also sought a £150m-a-year contract to run the six ageing Magnox reactors owned by the state-controlled BNFL. It faces cash calls of up to £450m this year, which it cannot pay. But opposition to a deal to bail out British Energy has come from sources as diverse as Greenpeace, which went to the European Commission to try to block the deal, and the US group AES, which owns the giant Drax coal-fired station in Yorkshire. AES is meeting with the electricity regulator, Callum McCarthy, this week to put its case for an industry-wide solution to the low electricity prices that have forced British Energy into crisis. Government sources have indicated they would rather see British Energy go into administration than write a blank cheque for a bail-out. However, Ms Hewitt does not want to be faced with a large privatised company going into administration, and adding £14bn of nuclear liabilities to the Government's balance sheet, on the eve of next week's Labour Party conference. The potential collapse of British Energy is also providing a headache for banks exposed to the UK power sector ? notably JP Morgan Chase and Barclays. Morgan, which last week issued a profits warning and had its debt rating lowered by Standard & Poor's, was one of the lead lenders to US groups that bought into the UK energy sector. Its exposure is said to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. But this is dwarfed by the loan book of Barclays, which led the financing when British Energy bought the Eggborough coal-fired station in 1999 and is one of the main lenders to Drax. Barclays would not comment on suggestions that its loans to UK energy supplies totalled almost £2bn. ***************************************************************** 5 Japan to allow use of cracked nuclear reactors Saturday, 21-Sep-2002 9:33PM Story from AFP Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) TOKYO, Sept 22 (AFP) - Japan's trade and industry ministry plans to adopt nuclear safety standards that would allow the continued use of cracked nuclear reactors if they are deemed safe, a report said Sunday. Under the new rules, plants could continue to operate if there is a crack in the "shroud" -- the steel cylinder surrounding the reactor fuel core -- up to half its thickness. Cracks of a few millimeters (a fraction of an inch) in recirculation pipes would also be acceptable, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported, citing sources. The changes follow the revelation that several power companies, led by industry leader Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) in August, had concealed from the government inspection data revealing cracks. In TEPCO's case, the scandal spawned by the cover-up led to the resignation of top executives and the shutting-down of the number-two reactor at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata prefecture, northern Japan, for checks. If the standards are adopted, it would likely mean most of the cracks covered up by the power companies would be deemed within permissible levels, the paper said. "The proposal would be a drastic turning point in the nation's nuclear safety policy," the paper quoted sources as saying. It would bring Japan in line with other nations that have standards for wear at plants in operation, and which allow operators to continue using worn parts if they are deemed safe, the paper said. ***************************************************************** 6 AU: Protesters rally against Lucas Heights reactor. 22/9/2002. ABC News Online Sunday, September 22, 2002. Posted: 18:30:48 (AEDT) Several hundred people have attended a rally in the centre of Sydney to protest against the construction of a second nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in the city's south. The organisers of the rally believe the facility poses health and safety risks and that there are better ways to create nuclear fuel rods for scientific and medical purposes. They want a public inquiry into the need for the new reactor and greater transparency about the project. Construction of the reactor has been halted after the discovery of a earthquake fault line at the site. Spokeswoman for the People for Nuclear Disarmament, Natalie Stevens, says the fault is sufficient reason to scrap the project. "It's unsafe, it's unnecessary, it's a waste of taxpayers money and will create pollution for 250,000 years that we have no safe way of dealing with," Ms Stevens said. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 7 UK: Breathing space for BE Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Oliver Morgan, industrial editor Sunday September 22, 2002 Nuclear generator British Energy is likely to avoid falling into administration this week as the Government prepares to extend its emergency financing package beyond Friday's initial cut-off point. Senior government sources have indicated that the company will be given more time to draw up a restructuring plan with Schroder Salomon Smith Barney (SSSB), who it appointed as advisers on Fri day. Debate in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and 10 Downing Street is now said to be focusing on the length of the extension and whether it should be for the same £410 million agreed earlier this month. BNFL, the company's main trade creditor, has also made it clear it is strongly against administration. A source at BNFL, which is paid £300m a year for reprocessing BE fuel, said: 'We do not want our biggest customer to go down.' The Government, which does not want to damage BNFL, will be sensitive to this view. Last week shareholders stressed that they were prepared to see a radical restructuring of the company to avoid administration. A senior government source said: 'It is likely to be extended, which will give the company further breathing space. The alternative is administration, which does not give you any options. 'The main debate now is on how long the extension is. Should it be another two weeks to keep them focused, or should it be longer, say three months?' Ministers have concluded that the problems caused by administration outweigh the risks of extending the financing deadline. In administration, BE's liabilities would fall on taxpayers, it would lose its contract to operate profitable Canadian stations, and SSSB would have just a week to come up with a restructuring plan. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 8 Cracks appear in NRC's new rules The Plain Dealer 09/22/02 Stephen Koff Plain Dealer Bureau Chief Washington - Yielding to lobbying by the nuclear power industry and pressure from Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has changed - some would say relaxed - the way it regulates in recent years. The change has saved the companies millions of dollars in compliance costs, but in some cases it also has risked safety, according to interviews with industry and regulatory insiders and critics and an extensive review of public documents. A Plain Dealer review shows: The nuclear power industry, a savvy political player with deep pockets, leaned on Congress when it felt that NRC inspectors were being too harsh and wouldn't listen to its pleas. Congress in turn pressured the NRC, threatening to slice the agency's budget unless it backed off. The nuclear industry profited from the changes - the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying group, estimated from a 1999 survey that each of the nation's 104 plants could save as much as $5 million a year with the regulatory changes. Those changes altered the NRC's focus, shifting its sweeping enforcement strategy to one centered on areas most critical to safety. But the new focus relies heavily on self-policing by the corporations that own the power plants and on assumptions about what could go wrong. Those assumptions haven't always proved correct. The worst known case of false assumptions was at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Oak Harbor, near Toledo. Stainless-steel nozzles that pass through the lid above the reactor cracked, leaking boric acid - which ate an 8-inch-diameter hole in the lid. Only a thin stainless-steel liner kept the reactor's high-pressure coolant from causing a serious accident. The hole, discovered in March, was the result of years of neglect by plant owner FirstEnergy Corp. of Akron - and the industrywide assumption that a failure of the lid would be unlikely. The plant, meanwhile, had received the NRC's top safety ratings. Earlier error The NRC's failure was reminiscent of an embarrassment in February 2000 when a steam generator tube ruptured at Consolidated Edison's Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City. A small amount of radioactive material leaked into the Hudson River. As at Davis-Besse, NRC staff members had concerns that some plant components at the Indian Point plant might be weak. But the NRC didn't pay close attention to the methodology used in an engineering report from the plant that said everything was fine. It turned out that the methodology was badly flawed. Instead of questioning the methodology, the NRC took the utility at its word, the agency's inspector general later reported. The reasons: The NRC project manager assigned to the plant said that steam generators were outside his area of expertise and that the staff generally relied on the utilities to evaluate their own data. Likewise, a junior NRC engineer who had concerns about Indian Point was afraid to ask follow-up questions - because, according to the inspector general's investigation, she was told not to burden the utility unnecessarily. The agency "frowned upon" asking a utility more than one round of questions, she reported. This is the rap the NRC faces: It is "too close to the nuclear power industry." So says U.S. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who has dealt with the NRC for years and is bitter about losing the fight to keep nuclear waste out of his state. "They are a lapdog for the nuclear power industry," he says. He is not the first to make that accusation. Fifteen years ago, the House Interior Committee issued a 44-page investigative report with a title that neatly summed up its findings: "NRC Coziness With Industry." NRC Chairman Richard Meserve calls the criticism "very unfair." He and others at the agency say nuclear plants are safer than ever, a result of the decades of experience that power plant operators and the government now have. The agency cites statistics that show fewer workers are exposed to radiation, fewer shutdowns are required for emergencies, and more plants are running more hours and generating more electricity than ever. "If you look at all these indicators, you've got this slope that comes down to everything's working today," says Frank Gillespie, an NRC deputy director in charge of regulatory improvement. Numbers game Some of these statistics are skewed, note critics such as the environmental groups Greenpeace and Public Citizen - plants don't shut down as often in part because the NRC now lets them keep operating while they make certain repairs, unlike in the past. But most skeptics don't argue with the overall record. "By almost any measure, Davis-Besse being a horrible exception, the performance of the industry in terms of objective indicators has improved pretty substantially over the past decade," says Edward McGaffigan Jr., one of the NRC's five commissioners. But it would take only one bad accident to turn those statistics on their ear. And the NRC's more lenient approach during the last two years toward oversight leaves too big a risk that a nuclear accident will occur, critics say. The agency, formed to protect public safety by keeping a sharp eye on the industry, instead has become a cheerleader for nuclear power, say authorities who include former NRC commissioners. With Davis-Besse, the NRC "seemed to regard its mission as putting out a lot of reassurances that were at odds with the actual evidence," says Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner. "There was this attitude of patting people on the back and saying, 'OK, go back to work,' while they really didn't have a clue," says Victor Gilinsky, another former commissioner. The NRC operates on a set of engineering-backed assumptions that help it focus on power plants, systems and equipment that need more thorough and frequent monitoring. The system is "risk-informed" in NRC parlance: Engineers use complex formulas and matrices based on experience and studies to decide which components have the highest risk of breaking or leaking. The system is designed to help nuclear plant operators and inspectors prioritize. It lets an inspector "adjust how often you look at things that are running well and try to focus your inspection on things that are not running well," says Gillespie, who helped shepherd in this new regulatory focus. System upgrade The agency started phasing in the system in 1999 and fully implemented it in 2000. NRC officials say that they had wanted an analytical system for years because it would offer a more objective approach but that they had to wait for the necessary computer modeling to improve. The nuclear industry and the Nuclear Energy Institute, its lobbying arm, had been pushing for risk-informed oversight as well. It complained that the old regulatory system - a prescriptive series of rules enforced unevenly - did not distinguish between risky violations and benign infractions. That meant citations for having an electrical equipment operating manual that failed to include an instruction to plug the equipment in, says Steve Floyd, NEI senior director of regulatory reform, citing real examples. Another plant was written up after an employee left a book atop a control panel. As the inspector reasoned, a minor earthquake could have shaken the panel and the book could then have hit a control button. NRC inspectors, says Floyd, were "running amok" looking for infractions. The NEI was so interested in risk-informed oversight that it prepared a policy paper and held a conference in Orlando, Fla., in 1996 to talk it over with nuclear plant operators. But on the morning those executives were on their way to the airport for the conference, a bombshell dropped that set their efforts back several years: Time magazine came out with a cover story on how poorly the NRC was regulating the plants. The Time story focused on the Millstone nuclear plant in Waterford, Conn., which had been improperly handling spent nuclear fuel and ignoring safety requirements. When a conscientious worker complained, the plant's owner ignored him. In despair, he went to the NRC - and found that the agency had known about the problem for a decade but never tried to stop it. The NRC, said Time, "may be more concerned with propping up an embattled, economically straitened industry than with ensuring public safety." And the Millstone plant, it said, "is merely the latest in a long string of cases in which the NRC bungled its mandate and overlooked serious safety problems until whistleblowers came forward." Indeed, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that other utilities, too, were not correcting their safety deficiencies - and that the NRC allowed the problems to persist. Temporary fix The result was predictable: Congress held hearings, a chastened NRC swore it would improve, and the NEI shelved its proposal for regulatory change. By 1998, the power plants were chafing under the NRC's leash. The NEI went to Congress, complaining to sympathetic members about the NRC - not that the agency was tough but that it was petty, inconsistent and unpredictable. "We had a lot of problems with the NRC, and we realized we were not going to get the NRC's attention unless we went to their boss," recalls Floyd. "And Congress is their boss." One longtime nuclear-power supporter, Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, chaired a Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversaw the NRC's budget. In a hearing in spring 1998, he told the agency to back off - or he'd cut its budget for plant inspections by 40 percent. The NRC heard him loud and clear. "Shirley Jackson is a smart lady," says Floyd, referring to the woman then in charge of the NRC, "and she got the message from the congressional hearing." Jackson, now president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in upstate New York, did not respond to several requests for an interview. But Commissioner McGaffigan says of Domenici: "We needed a kick in the pants back when he gave us the kick in the pants." Working with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the agency wrote up its new plans. Goaded by Congress, it also fine-tuned several strategic goals, among them: Don't burden power plants with unnecessary regulations. "In all honesty, this agency goes through cycles," McGaffigan says. "After Three Mile Island [in 1979], people tell me that we just put a whole bunch of rules on the books. And when you look at them from the point of view of their cost-benefit effectiveness, they don't hack it." Changing the focus did more than save money, he says; it helped the agency prioritize its inspections and enforcement. Fuzzy math What worries skeptics is the mathematically modeled assumptions used in deciding where to put those priorities. For instance, the NRC and the industry decided that some components - such as reactor vessel lids - posed little risk. After all, how could a stationary piece of steel 6½ inches thick possibly break? But the industry had been aware of the cracking of stainless steel nozzles in the lid - the source of the Davis-Besse corrosion, it later turned out - for more than a decade. In France, the state-owned utility in the early 1990s began a program of replacing vessel lids on all its reactors because of concern about such cracking. To the NRC, however, the "chances of failure [of the lid] were so low that it didn't even appear on their radar screen," says David Lochbaum, a nuclear-safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. As a result, keeping an eye on the lid was a low priority to the NRC's two resident inspectors at Davis-Besse. The agency sent out periodic notices warning that nozzles in contact with boric acid could be prone to cracking and that boric acid was corrosive. But it was up to the plants, not the NRC, to check for damage. The nozzles allow rods that control the nuclear reaction to pass through the lid. Asked how the resident inspectors could have overlooked clues to the problem - including the repeated clogging of air filters with a brownish substance that proved to be airborne rust from the corroding lid - NRC officials said the inspectors had many other matters to attend to. In that regard, the steel lid on Davis-Besse may represent the biggest flaw in the NRC's new oversight system: Its assumptions may or may not be correct. "There are still unknowns after all these years," says Thomas Murley, a retired NRC director of reactor regulation. "That was not foreseen, and therefore it was not modeled in the risk assessment." Gillespie, the deputy director who defends the system, allows this: "There is an old quote that somebody in my 30 years of history said: 'The industry and the NRC are very good at preventing what we know about. But it's the instance that we haven't preplanned for that's going to get us.' " Overlooked area Some within the NRC suggest that too many such instances are possible. For one, many of the plant analyses do not adequately take into account the risk of human error, according to a recent internal NRC draft report. George Lanik, a team leader in the NRC branch that studies regulatory effectiveness, examined problems at power plants from 1993 through 2000. He looked at the "accident precursors" - events that led to the problems in the first place - and many were caused by human error. Some 42 percent of the incidents in what could have become serious accidents were "due to the events not typically modeled" on risk assessment, Lanik wrote. "It's the surprises, and the things that we haven't got in those models yet, that are going to come back to bite us," he says. But to avoid being unpleasantly surprised, top NRC officials say, every nuclear power plant has a series of safety systems that are intended to preclude or contain virtually any disaster before it hurts the public. NRC officials noted until recently that, despite the corrosion in the Davis-Besse lid, the stainless steel liner on the underside of the damaged head kept the radioactive coolant contained. But the NRC officials learned this month that that notion, too, might give dangerously false comfort. Subsequent tests showed that the liner was cracked and thinner than they had known. Further, they acknowledge, the liner was never intended to be a part of the safety system. The NRC is reviewing just what went wrong at Davis-Besse and how much of the blame it shares. An NRC task force expects to release a "lessons learned" report by the end of the month. NRC criminal investigators have been looking into why NRC officials allowed Davis-Besse to keep operating beyond the end of December when they knew there could be a problem. The agency is clearly expecting to wind up with egg on its face. Says Chairman Meserve: "I don't know what the lessons-learned task force at Davis-Besse is going to say. But I presume that they will have some comments about whether there were failures in our oversight program that need to be addressed. "I expect that would be fertile ground with them," Meserve says. "And if there are, this is something we're going to change." To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: skoff@plaind.com, 216-999-4212 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Nuclear opponents keep their eyes on Millstone - NorwichBulletin.com Saturday, September 21, 2002 By JONATHAN CARLSON WATERFORD -- News that potassium iodide pills will be distributed to residents within a 10-mile radius of Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in mid-October is not enough to quell the fears of some people who live in its shadow. One of those people is Christie Brinkley, a popular model who lives within 17 miles of Millstone. The supermodel, activist and mother of three lives on the East End of Long Island, just south of the Connecticut coast. She believes Millstone could be the next Chernobyl. "I am afraid of worse, actually," Brinkley said in an interview with the Norwich Bulletin. Brinkley is on the board of directors of the STAR Foundation (Standing for Truth About Radiation). The group, which has become one of the nation's most visible nuclear security watchdogs, recently met on Long Island to discuss the foundation's new urgency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Brinkley provides her celebrity to help spread the group's message. Millstone has become a staple of the group's awareness campaign. In 1999, STAR launched a legal action that halted plans to double the amount of highly radioactive spent fuel that was to be stored at the power plant. Super-model's fear Brinkley said she is more afraid of a spent fuel pool fire at Millstone than an attack on the main structure. "A lot of people think it's the reactor dome that will cause the problem," she said. "What they don't tell you is that the pools don't have containment domes over them. If a small plane were to plunge into one of them, it could have disastrous results." The containment pools are not just sitting out in the open, Peter Hyde, a spokesman for Millstone, said. He said Brinkley's comments were exaggerated. "We have numerous protections in place that are designed to ensure our spent fuel is safely stored, and the pools are built to remarkable specifications; including withstanding earthquakes and other incidents," Hyde said. Hyde said the concrete between the pools and the outside is at least 2 feet thick, and structurally sound. Brinkley said nuclear security remains an urgent matter. She quoted President Bush's State of the Union address, in which he said, "Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears ... We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants..." Brinkley and STAR are hard on the Bush administration when it comes to cleaning up what she calls, "dirty" plants like Millstone. "They have plans to build more plants. They are very pro nuke, and the reason they are pushing through Yucca Mountain is because they want to see this industry continue," Brinkley said. Waste storage The U.S Government plans to use the Yucca Mountain region in Nevada to store excess nuclear waste. U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., has been against the idea, saying that it "would not address our state's serious nuclear waste issues and would create some troubling new ones for Connecticut and the nation." White House spokesman Ken Lisaius responded to Brinkley's statements and explained the president's position on nuclear energy. "This administration has worked closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure oversight and maintenance of these plants is taken care of," he said. Lisaius explained that 20 percent of the nation's electricity comes from America's 103 nuclear power plants, and "to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, we cannot turn away from nuclear power." Brinkley countered, "It is a shame our government isn't supporting renewable energy industries. If our government gave the same kind of subsidies they give the nuke industry, then renewable energy would become cheap enough to really be a viable source." Trips to Capital Brinkley has made several trips to Washington, speaking on Capital Hill, and meeting with cabinet members to discuss ways to tighten the ropes on nuclear power plants. Brinkley said at first she was met with some smugness by senators who did not take her seriously. They soon found out, however, that this model knew what she was talking about. Former first lady and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, was one of the lawmakers who listened to Brinkley. Clinton has been a leader in creating the Nuclear Security Act, along with support from Lieberman. But the two have hit roadblocks in getting their bill moving. "We don't have adequate security at many of our 103 nuclear power plants," Clinton said in an interview. "We are working hard to meet the objections that some other senators have had. Obviously any piece of legislation requires hard work and compromise, but I am hoping we will get it passed through the Senate and House this year. "I have many colleagues that don't believe we need to do any more, and that is just their assessment," Clinton said. According to Lieberman's office, the bill calls for the following: Increased security at "sensitive nuclear facilities," including all commercial nuclear power plants and associated spent fuel storage facilities. Federalizing security at nuclear facilities through the establishment of a federal nuclear security force within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ensuring adequate evacuation plans. The bill would require emergency response exercises to be conducted with federal, state and local emergency response personnel within 50 miles of a sensitive nuclear facility no less than once every three years. Establishing sufficient stockpiles of potassium iodide within 50 miles of sensitive nuclear facilities and ensuring that locally tailored distribution plans for the potassium iodide are in place. Potassium iodide has been proven to minimize the effects of radiation exposure when ingested in a timely manner. 'Adequate' security Hyde said Millstone is working closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as those drafting the Nuclear Security Act. He said Millstone and the nuclear industry have been doing plenty themselves to provide adequate security. Copyright © 2002 Norwich Bulletin. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 China's Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor Trial Successful Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Sunday, September 22, 2002 China conducted a successful trial of the No. 1 generating unit of its first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor in Haiyan County of Zhejiang province. China conducted a successful trial of the No. 1 generating unit of its first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor in Haiyan County of Zhejiang province. Qian Jianqiu, chief engineer of the Qinshan No. 3 Nuclear Power Company, said the generating unit reached its first critical point, indicating the beginning of nuclear fission. Kang Rixin, board chairman and general manager of the company, said two other major experiments incorporating the unit in the power network and operating it at full capacity would be carried out before the unit enters commercial operation. It is expected the No. 1 unit will begin power production and be incorporated in the power network in November and operate at full capacity by the end of the year. With a designed generating capacity of 28 million watts for its two generating units, the reactor was made in China with imported technology from Canada. The reactor, which has a lifespan of 40 years, is expected to produce about 10 billion kwh of electricity each year after both units are operational. The reactor project is listed as the third stage nuclear energy development of Qinshan nuclear power station. Three pressurized reactors developed by China on its own were installed and put into operation at the station during the first two stage development in 1980s. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 11 Ferry fears as nuclear subs poison shore Clare Short leads opposition ahead of debate By James Cusick, Westminster Editor Concern for family safety as sediment close to new Superfast ferry terminal contaminated By Rob Edwards , Environment Editor The shoreline close to the new ferry terminal used by thousands of families at Rosyth is contaminated with radioactive waste from nuclear submarines, the Sunday Herald can reveal. Sediment a few hundred metres from where the passenger ferry begins its popular daily voyage to Belgium is polluted with cobalt 60, a toxic by-product of the reactors that power submarines. The pollution has leaked from the Rosyth naval dockyard, where nuclear submarines used to be serviced, and where seven are now stored. The revelation has alarmed environmentalists, sparked concern about 'discrepancies' from local authorities and prompted investigations by government regulatory agencies. It follows two other recent radiation leaks at the Rosyth dockyard, which is beginning a massive clean-up of the contamination left by three decades of working with nuclear submarines. 'There's no such thing as a safe level of radiation, so this contamination is particularly worrying as it is adjacent to the ferry terminal,' said Pete Roche, an Edinburgh-based campaigner with the environmental group Greenpeace. 'Nor is there such a thing as a safe nuclear submarine. We've no idea what to do with the old ones leaking away at Rosyth, yet the Ministry of Defence is still planning new ones.' The new ferry service from Rosyth to the Belgian port of Zeebrugge began in May, and has been heavily used over the summer. The two Greek-owned Superfast ferries that sail the route can each take 626 passengers, 115 cars and 110 large trucks. The cobalt 60 contamination was found by Edinburgh Radiation Consultants, an independent firm commissioned to survey the Firth of Forth by local councils. The results were reported to a recent meeting of the Standing Conference of Local Authorities in the Forth estuary. 'These showed the presence of cobalt 60 close to a jetty at Rosyth dockyard which is not accessible to the public,' said the group's chair, councillor Mike Rumney. The levels of contamination detected were higher than those found by Babcock, the company that runs the dockyard for the MoD. 'While we have no reason to doubt that the levels were within safe limits, we have asked Babcock to make a response on the figures and to account for any apparent discrepancies with monitoring by other authorities.' Many scientists now think that even the tiniest concentrations of radioactivity inside the body can increase the risk of cancer, particularly among children. Nevertheless, the government's green watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), says that the contamination at Rosyth is too low to be worrying. After the cobalt 60 was uncovered, inspectors from Sepa and the government's National Radiological Protection Board visited the site and took their own samples. 'This analysis did confirm the existence of the contamination but at very low levels -- up to 10 becquerels per kilogram -- in an area not normally accessed by members of the public,' said a spokeswoman for Sepa. 'The level of contamination gives Sepa no cause for concern. The issue will be dealt with as part of the decommissioning of the site.' A report published last week by Sepa discloses two other problems in the last year with leaking radioactivity at the Rosyth dockyard. On December 2, Sepa was notified that radioactive cooling water from the reactor on the submarine HMS Spartan had been accidentally discharged into the base's entrance lock. A valve failing under pressure was blamed. 'The design of the valve and pipework is believed to be the primary cause of the leak and the Ministry of Defence has instigated a programme of modification to prevent a reoccurrence of this incident,' the report said. On August 22 last year, Sepa served a legal enforcement notice on the dockyard because of its failure to maintain a leaky radioactive waste discharge pipe in good repair. Babcock was obliged to improve the pipe's engineering standards. Babcock is also asking Sepa for permission to discharge radioactive gas into the atmosphere from the dismantling of the former Polaris submarine, HMS Renown. This application came 18 months after similar bids to dispose of solid and liquid radioactive waste from the same project. Nick Parish, Babcock's radiation protection adviser at Rosyth, said that the cobalt 60 contamination came from a spill in 1988. It had not been possible to clean it all up at the time and concrete had been laid over the top. According to Parish, what was now being detected was remaining traces of cobalt 60 which were so low that they would not legally be defined as radioactive material. 'You've got to dig around to find it,' he said. Nevertheless, the area is going to be further investigated in the future using boreholes to determine the extent of the contamination. The highest levels found by the local authority consultants have not been replicated by others. 'People will draw their own implications from the word nuclear but we've in fact got a very clean nuclear site and we are in the process of demonstrating that,' argued Parish. 'We're quite confident that in terms of the ferry terminal there is no impact. There is no hazard. There's nothing to worry about.' The Sunday Herald revealed in July 2001 that radioactive waste was piling up at Rosyth and other naval bases because the Ministry of Defence had been banned from using Britain's nuclear waste dump at Drigg near Sellafield. For three decades, ministry officials had hugely underestimated the amount of radioactivity they were throwing away because they forgot about a vital isotope known as carbon 14. As a result, the ministry was condemned by the government's 19-member Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. 'It must raise serious questions as to whether the ministry, currently at least, can be regarded credibly as a waste consignor,' they concluded. / contact website ***************************************************************** 12 Nevada State loses federal funding for its birth defect registry September 22, 2002 Frank X. Mullen Jr. [fmullen@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 9/21/2002 08:25 pm [Tiffany Pennington's twins, Julia and Jeffery, 6, both have birth defects. - Candice Towell/RGJ] Candice Towell [ctowell@rgj.com] /RGJ Tiffany Pennington's twins, Julia and Jeffery, 6, both have birth defects. Other Stories [- ] Advocates say Nevada needs to commit to tracking birth defects [- ] Advocates say Nevada needs to commit to tracking birth defects [E-Mail This Article] E-Mail This Article [Printer-Friendly Version] Printer-Friendly Version [Subscribe to the Reno Gazette-Journal] Subscribe to the paper online Nevada’s fledgling birth-defects registry is dead because state officials asked for $100,000 more than a federal grant allowed, ignored other requirements, and lost funding entirely, the Reno Gazette-Journal has learned. The registry had operated under a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention federal start-up grant for the last three years, and state health officials had applied for a renewal. The registry began collecting data on children from birth to 7 in Clark County, and officials planned to begin monitoring children in the rest of the state this year. The purpose of the registry is to identify trends in birth defects so the state can work to prevent them and better help children born with them. Now the director of the registry has been moved to another state job, and the registry’s advisory boards are disbanded. State health officials said they aren’t sure why Nevada’s proposal wasn’t funded. But officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in interviews and documents the state didn’t follow requirements for grant applications. Advocates of the registry said its comes at the worst possible time. They said Nevada needs to develop a log of birth defects cases to compare with the number found in the event the nation’s nuclear waste is shipped to Yucca Mountain dump. “We were just getting started and now it’s dead in the water. It’s a tragedy for the people of Nevada,” said Dr. Coleen Morris, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Nevada Medical School, who was a member of the now-defunct genetics subcommittee of the registry. “We have an epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome, and we have to monitor the cases from year-to-year to see if the programs are working. We need to know what’s happening with birth defects in Nevada for so many reasons, including justifying program funding, pinpointing areas with high instances of birth defects, and determining if prevention programs are working. “It’s especially important to get that baseline data before nuclear waste is shipped here,” Morris said. Tiffany Pennington, Reno resident, who has a daughter with spina bifida and a son with autism, said a registry isn’t important to just parents whose children are born with medical problems. “Before my twins were born, I never thought about the possibility of having a child with special needs,” she said. “Then it happened and I soon found out there are few services, hardly any resources.” She said she had not heard of spina bifida before her doctor used the words when her daughter, Julia, was born with an imperfectly formed spinal column. About two years later, Julia’s brother, Jeffery, was diagnosed with autism and, again, there were few places to turn for help. “Thank God the twins go to Donner Springs School where the teachers and the staff are doing everything they can for them and have proven themselves to be miracle workers,” Pennington said. “Don’t think not having birth defects statistics doesn’t matter if you don’t have a special needs child. “It matters to everyone. If it happens to you, you’ll need all the help you can get. If there is no way to tell how many children need services, there will be no way to get them when you need all the help you can get.” State health officials said they will continue to collect copies of birth certificates for analysis to determine trends. But they admitted that system is weaker than the registry because all but the most obvious birth defects aren’t diagnosed for weeks or years. “We’ll do what we can with the resources available,” said Judith Wright, chief of the Bureau of Family Health Services at the Nevada Division of Health. “The registry exists, but it’s now a passive registry. We tried to keep up the active registry but there’s only so much funding available.” Application poorly written State health officials said they aren’t sure why Nevada’s proposal didn’t make the cut. “It’s always so competitive,” Wright said. “Who knows what the CDC was looking for?” Wright initially denied knowing why Nevada’s request wasn’t funded and said there was no letter or list of reasons for the rejection of the state’s proposal. However, CDC officials said Feb. 11 they sent Wright a letter and a list of reasons for the rejection. According to the CDC documents, Nevada asked the agency for $314,490 to continue the registry, even though the CDC guidelines set the amount of available funding at between $100,000 and $200,000. In its summary statement to Wright, the CDC wrote that the Health Division’s “budget exceeds estimated funding levels,” and that the CDC was “concerned that proposed activities might be quite different if (Nevada) adhered to the estimated funding range.” Wright defended the state application, saying it’s not unusual for state agencies to ask for more money than a federal grant allows. She said it was assumed the CDC would ask the state for a revised budget proposal if all the funding wasn’t available. “We budgeted for what we thought we needed,” she said. But others familiar with grant applications said requesting more grant money than is available isn’t a good tactic. “Asking for more isn’t always the kiss of death, but logic would dictate you would work within the suggested budget,” said Marcia O’Malley, the state coordinator for Family Voices of Nevada and a former member of the registry’s genetic subcommittee. “I guess there are many reasons besides sabotaging your own proposal that you might write a grant for more money than is indicated,” she said. “Getting federal funding is a complicated game and even if Nevada stayed within the guidelines, securing a grant is never a slam-dunk.” State officials baffled The CDC documents also listed other deficiencies in the registry’s grant application. Those included: o lack of a timeline and criteria for measuring the registry’s success o vague goals and staffing needs o no mention of working with American Indians o no consideration of automating survey forms o no job descriptions o no mention of data-sharing issues o no information provided on the state’s passive system o and poor health education materials. Nevada’s “plans should have been stronger because it asked for higher funding,” the CDC report concluded. Wright said she is baffled by the federal agency’s point system for scoring grant applications. She said she isn’t sure “what answers we would have had to give to satisfy what they were looking for.” Yet, the CDC’s program announcement for the grants listed many of the deficiencies cited as being required in applications. For example, the announcement specified that information on serving minority populations must be included, as well as information about goals, data sharing, staff needs, and “timeliness” of the registry’s information. Wright said perhaps Nevada’s application was rejected because she believes the CDC favors larger states when it comes to allocating grant money. But of the 20 states approved for funding, five have smaller populations than Nevada and one — Utah — is about the same size, according to CDC documents. “We could have done a better job of writing the grant application,” Wright said. “But we still have a registry system although collecting birth certificates is not as satisfactory as the system we had.” She said the state will continue to seek money to bring the active registry back on line. The Health Division recently applied for a pilot grant for a disease tracking network and Wright said if Nevada gets those funds some of the money could be used for restoring a portion of the birth defects tracking system. “We made a lot of progress when we had the (federal) money,” Wright said. “We’d like to see the active registry get back on line.” ***************************************************************** 13 Inform All Goshutes The Salt Lake Tribune -- Sunday, September 22, 2002 The Goshutes' plan to store 44,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent reactor fuel on their Skull Valley reservation has split the tribe down the middle. At the center of the dispute are the financial terms of the lease, which are known only to tribal chairman Leon Bear and perhaps a few of his associates. Fairness demands that this information be made available to all adult members of the tribe. That is one reason why the dismissal last week of a federal court suit was disappointing. Members of the tribe who oppose the storage facility brought the suit against the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others. While The Tribune has no way of knowing the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and has no reason to doubt that the dismissal was legally sound, it had hoped that this or some other legal proceeding would force Bear to disclose the terms of the lease to the other members of the tribe. Bear's opponents, led by Sammy Blackbear and Margene Bullcreek, claim that Bear has been bought off by Private Fuel Storage, the consortium of eight electrical utilities that proposes to store the spent nuclear fuel in casks parked on a 100-acre slab on the reservation. But, again, no one really knows because the financial arrangements between Bear and PFS are secret. Bear has said that the lease terms are a private business matter between the tribe and PFS and that his duty lies only with the tribal council. Fine. But how can the tribal council judge the financial terms of the deal when it doesn't have them? It is hard to imagine how keeping the lease terms secret from the other members of the tribe serves their interest. It is their land, after all, that would host the huge parking lot for nuclear waste for up to 40 years. They would be the beneficiaries of the lucrative deal, which undoubtedly would bring the 121 members of the tribe tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. But they also would bear the potential health, environmental and security risks of the facility. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that Bear's opponents would disclose the terms of the lease to the public and the news media as soon as they were given to the tribe. But most Utahns already know that the tribe stands to see a huge financial windfall if the project comes to be. That is the reason Bear is pursuing it. The flip side of disclosure is that Bear could acquit himself of charges that he has been corrupted by payments from PFS if he were to open those arrangements to scrutiny by other members of the tribe. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 14 DOE waste will exceed space allotted for it in facility A shuttle train carries workers through a tunnel inside the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. New estimates from the Department of Energy show the facility designed to hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive materials won't be big enough to accommodate all of the spent fuel accumulated from government research and defense activities over the years. Photo by Gary Thompson. Sunday, September 22, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By KEITH ROGERS © 2002, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Though construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is at least five years away, an Energy Department official already says there will be a need to expand the facility or put a second repository there. Joe Davis, a spokesman for Department of Energy headquarters, said new estimates, which he described as preliminary "working numbers," show the repository that scientists are designing to hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive materials won't be able to accommodate all of the thousands of glass logs from the agency's liquid, nuclear defense wastes. Once the conversion task is completed in 2035, only 8,275 glass logs out of 23,475 that are expected to be produced will fit into the repository Congress approved after spent fuel from civilian power reactors is entombed there. That means the need for a second repository, or expansion of the one on the drawing boards, is imminent even though construction of the facility is not expected to begin until 2007, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides to license Yucca Mountain. "The deal on the second repository is you can't conduct siting activities until Congress appropriates funds for it. You have to wait for Congress to make a move on it," Davis said in a telephone interview Friday. "Congress could also decide to increase the size for waste that goes into Yucca Mountain," he said, noting later that "Yucca Mountain is physically capable of holding all of the nuclear waste that is ever foreseeably generated in the country, including the DOE waste. "So that goes to the point of the expansion issue that Congress would have to address several years down the road. But the mountain itself is physically capable of taking it all," he said. His comments were made after DOE headquarters released new estimates on defense wastes last week in response to a Review-Journal query submitted in mid-July, days after the Senate overrode Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the planned repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In addition, the cost of converting the nation's highly radioactive liquid wastes into glass logs will exceed by $9 billion the price tag for the repository, according to calculations by Energy Department officials. The life-cycle costs for removing, treating, immobilizing and storing high-level radioactive waste will be nearly $67 billion by the time the last glass log from the Hanford Reservation in Washington is sealed in a canister in 2035. The life-cycle cost in 2000 dollars of the planned Yucca Mountain repository is expected to be about $58 billion, covering a period from 1983 through about 2135, or 100 years after the last waste canister is loaded into the repository. The new estimates bolster concerns by Nevada officials that the repository described in the Yucca Mountain Project's final environmental impact statement will be too small to store the highly radioactive materials contained in more than 90 million gallons of liquids, sludges and salts kept in tanks at four locations in the northwest and eastern United States. "I'm just floored by the costs that have been revealed and the numbers of the volumes that don't appear to correspond with the numbers in the environmental impact statement," said Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux. Loux said he and his staff had never previously seen the estimates or the conversion factors Energy Department officials used in their calculations. He noted that the Department of Energy has agreements with states where much of the liquid wastes are stored to remove those wastes by the time the Yucca Mountain repository reaches capacity in 2035, if one is built. "It begs the question that DOE is going to have to violate the agreement they have with other states, or violate the commitment to vitrify these materials before they come to Yucca Mountain," he said, referring to the course for dealing with liquid waste described in current Energy Department documents. "They've got a dilemma," Loux said last week. "It doesn't appear they can do both." Based on weight of materials, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act sets the repository's disposal limit at 77,000 tons, most of which -- 69,300 tons, or 90 percent -- is supposed to be spent nuclear fuel assemblies from commercial power reactors. The remaining 10 percent is supposed to be glass logs, spent fuel from Navy ships and submarines, research reactors, reprocessing projects and other radioactive waste forms that require special containment. Davis noted the allocation for the glass logs could be increased depending on how much spent fuel from commercial power reactors is ready for disposal during the 25 years the repository is loaded beginning in 2010, according to the current schedule. Loux said taxpayers ultimately will shoulder a disproportionate share of the disposal cost for highly radioactive defense and energy wastes given that the nuclear power industry is expected to spend between $30 billion and $40 billion for putting spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors in the mountain. The final impact document that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and President Bush used to decide on recommending the Yucca Mountain site calls for carving a maze of tunnels in the ridge to entomb approximately 22,280 glass-log canisters of high-level radioactive defense and energy wastes. The Energy Department's estimates released last week call for final storage of up to 23,475 glass-log canisters, or 1,195 more than the approximate number mentioned in the final environmental impact statement. Energy Department officials say the 2-foot-diameter canisters will be either 10 feet or 15 feet in length. In terms of weight, the transformed liquid wastes by law are supposed to be only about 7 percent of the tonnage destined for disposal. The new estimates show that based on the weight of materials in the defense-related canisters, only 8,000 of them -- and 275 from a reprocessing project in New York state -- could be accepted in the planned Yucca Mountain repository. That means the capacity of the 77,000-ton repository would be exceeded by as many as 15,200 canisters, or 65 percent of the glass logs expected to be produced. "What we see here is there will be about 15,000 of those canisters that have no place to go without implicitly expanding the Yucca Mountain repository," said Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency. Frishman also estimated that existing commercial power reactors are expected to produce about 10,000 tons more spent fuel than their 69,300-ton allocation for the planned repository. Since the department's vitrification campaign began at the Savannah River, S.C., site in 1996, some 1,300 glass logs have been produced and put in canisters now in storage. The waste stems from producing weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear bombs. Currently, Energy Department officials anticipate completing glass-log production there in 2027, but they have proposed to accelerate the campaign for completion in 2017. The West Valley Demonstration Project in New York is expected to shut down its melter after producing five more glass logs by the end of the month, bringing to 275 the number of canisters in storage there. The highly radioactive materials were left from a beleaguered commercial spent fuel reprocessing project. Construction began this month on a $4 billion waste-treatment project at Washington's Hanford Reservation where 177 tanks hold 53 million gallons of liquid wastes from producing plutonium for nuclear weapons beginning in 1944. But at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, plans to produce up to 5,000 canisters holding calcine -- a powder form of high-level radioactive waste -- are in limbo, hinging on whether 90,000 gallons of liquid waste from reactor experiments can be managed as transuranic waste. Such plutonium-tainted wastes are destined for disposal in a salt-cavern facility in New Mexico called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In answers to the July query, Davis acknowledged the department has an urgency to deal with the liquid wastes stored in tanks, of which 67 have leaked more than 1 million gallons laced with radioactive materials at the Hanford Reservation alone. "Given the risks of continuing to store (high-level waste) in storage tanks, some of which are 50 years old, there is an urgency driven by reducing risks to the sites in which these ... tanks are located," he wrote. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 15 Energy Department to move at-risk nuclear material to Nevada Associated Press [online@rgj.com] 9/21/2002 11:55 am The Energy Department confirmed Friday it plans to move several tons of plutonium and weapons-grade uranium to the Nevada Test Site from a federal laboratory in New Mexico where critics said it was at risk from terrorist attacks. The move had been anticipated for some time. Last month, an Energy Department memo, obtained and released by a private watchdog organization, indicated the move was only awaiting final review of an environmental impact report. That report now has been approved by Everet H. Beckner, deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, department officials said. NNSA spokesman Bryan Wilkes said the material is being moved because buildings at Los Alamos are aging and the Nevada Test Site has newer facilities and the best security. He denied there is a terrorist risk where the material is now located. The enriched nuclear material is stored in a part of Los Alamos National Laboratory known as Technical Area-18. Built in the 1940s, the facility is located at the bottom of a steep canyon, where the high ground and an adjacent highway make it difficult to defend. Pete Stockton, who headed an Energy Department team three years ago that recommended that the material be moved, said the material is not secure at Los Alamos. "They know they can't protect it anymore and they've known for a long time they can't protect it,"said Stockton, who now works for the private watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight. ***************************************************************** 16 Officials Covet N-Waste Profits Sunday, September 22, 2002 BY DAN HARRIE © 2002, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE While Gov. Mike Leavitt is hellbent on blocking American Indians from bringing tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste into Utah, some political insiders have quietly explored a backup scheme to put the stuff on remote state lands. This "Plan B" would be aimed at increasing state oversight of the project and reaping billions of dollars in cash. It also would be designed to thwart the proposed nuclear storage facility on the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes reservation, just 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, by shunting the waste to the eastern edge of the state, far from population centers. Utah Republican Chairman Joe Cannon was among a small group involved in initial behind-the-scenes discussions of the contingency plan. "There was a legitimate exploration of an alternative if, and only if, the Goshute Reservation was going to get it," Cannon confirms. "It would be a great shame for Utah to be stuck with this and not get a benefit." Individuals developing the backup plan are sensitive about having it exposed prematurely, fearing it could undercut Leavitt's message of unified opposition to nuclear waste. They know it could be difficult -- if not impossible -- to justify efforts to cut a better deal for nuclear waste storage when residents are being assured state leaders will use every means to prevent Utah becoming the nation's dumping ground. Plan B picked up momentum last year when former federal nuclear waste negotiator Richard Stallings made a presentation to a small gathering of business and political players in Salt Lake City. No elected officials participated, but Cannon attended and was so impressed that he met with sub-Cabinet level officials in the Bush administration to feel out prospects for such a deal. Some members of the Utah congressional delegation and state officers also were informally briefed. A former Environmental Protection Agency official in the Reagan administration and current chairman of Geneva Steel, Cannon said he backed off the exploratory efforts because of adamant opposition by Leavitt. Cannon considers Plan B all but dead. Not so for others. Capitol Hill lobbyist Nancy Sechrest says the proposal has life in it yet and continues pressing it with legislators, business groups and others. "If we're not going to have a lottery and we're not going to have gambling, this is the business we ought to be in," says Sechrest, former director of the state's second largest public employees' union and in recent years a lobbyist for varied interests, including landfills for non-hazardous and low-level radioactive waste. "I don't know if it will work or not. But, holy cow, we're going to lose $20 billion. You've got to try something, don't you?" The fortune she refers to is the Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal account built from 20 years of surcharges on ratepayer bills in areas of the nation where power is generated by nuclear plants. The fund, which has a balance estimated at $11 billion after expenditures of more than $7 billion, is intended to pay for government-approved transportation and storage of spent fuel rods. While a permanent underground repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is at least eight years from opening -- and perhaps much longer -- developers of the proposed Utah temporary storage site hope to be up and running in three years. A licensing recommendation is expected in early December for the $3.1 billion project independently financed by Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of eight utilities. Leavitt has headed efforts to reject the influx of up to 44,000 tons of highly radioactive waste to Skull Valley. But as a sovereign nation, the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe has successfully rebuffed political and legal attempts by the state to interfere with its contract with PFS. Still, the governor is not even close to conceding defeat. "We have a regulatory strategy; we have an environmental strategy; we have a congressional strategy; we have a corporate strategy," Leavitt says. "We will leave no stone unturned." It is a view shared by the public. A new Salt Lake Tribune poll shows that 71 percent of registered voters oppose the Goshute storage plan, with just 19 percent in favor and 10 percent undecided. An even more overwhelming 87 percent say the federal government should not be allowed to license the waste site over the objections of state officials. The survey, conducted Sept. 3-5 by Valley Research, has an error margin of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Waste opponents argue that Utah is being offered as a sacrificial junkyard for materials that will be lethally radioactive for 10,000 years. A briefing paper warns that the fuel assembly from a single power plant -- about half a ton of fuel -- contains as much radioactivity as 10 Hiroshima bombs. The proposed above-ground storage of waste in sealed casks on concrete pads, they warn, would pose unacceptable safety and environmental risks given its vulnerability to accidents, earthquakes or terrorism. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin rejects such arguments, saying opponents use "language that is designed to create fear." "An analogy to exploding atomic bombs just makes no sense at all. It is not a bomb, it is not designed to explode and it won't explode," Martin said. "We have proven we know how to shield the material and store it safely." Martin says she had heard vague rumors of an alternative Utah proposal, which she says would make sense. "If you strip away the politics of anything nuclear and just look at the safety and the economic benefits and jobs it will create and the feasibility, the fact that there is interest from another group shows that this is a valid idea," she says. That is precisely the kind of argument opponents fear could undermine Utah's battle against PFS, if a contingency plan were openly pursued. "At this point, conversation about that ought to remain academic and theoretical, rather than saying 'Let's lock anything down,' " says U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, who opposes any high-level nuclear waste storage in Utah. He says PFS will receive its license but be blocked from construction because of the momentum to open Yucca Mountain's permanent repository and for related economic reasons. Bennett allows that, "If it is inevitable it is coming to Utah over the efforts of the governor and the delegation, there are better places in Utah to put it" than Skull Valley. He says storage on public lands would trigger government oversight and safety measures not required for a private project. Leavitt points to the lack of state control of the PFS facility as one of its most alarming features. But he refuses even to dignify with serious consideration a question whether the state should be thinking about a contingency. "I don't see any purpose in that sort of conversation," Leavitt says. "We're opposed to it." Environmental activist and Utah downwinders' advocate Steve Erickson says the governor hardly could take any other position. "Leavitt would be hard pressed to go from 'Over my dead body' to 'Unless you give me enough money,' " Erickson said. He ridicules any alternative plan substituting state lands for the proposed Skull Valley nuclear storage site as a cynical ploy to "steal it from the Goshutes." "It has all the same problems that the Goshute deal has, although there might be a slight bit of state oversight," says Erickson. "Of course we'd fight it, as we'd fight all of this. The public clearly doesn't want it and they're not going to change their minds." Perhaps, says Sechrest, but "let's have a fair debate. Let the citizens know what the options are. "Maybe the people of Utah really, really, really, really don't want spent fuel rods either on the east side or the west side" of the state, Sechrest says. "But I just believe that, practically speaking, if you could put $1 billion into your education system every year and give every kid a computer and pay your teachers more, I think they'd all come in and say, 'Well, this is a no-brainer.' " Nevada political scientist Eric Herzik says a shifting political dynamic along the lines Sechrest describes is starting to take place in the home state of the proposed permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. "At some point -- and this is what I've always argued -- public opinion is going to switch," says Herzik, of the University of Nevada, Reno. "Ten years from now when, or if, the repository opens and Nevada has no benefits, I think public opinion is going to come back and say, 'What were you people thinking?' " says Herzik. "Public opinion can be very unforgiving -- hypocritical, but unforgiving." Exactly, say a few Utah politicians. "It's always responsible to look at all sides of the issue, although I'm still firm in my opposition to the fuel rods," says state Sen. Ron Allen, D-Tooele. "You know we are facing difficult times and it may be something that we have to put in front of the voters." A Republican legislative leader, who declined to speak publicly, said he expects to hear serious discussion of the contingency plan -- but only after the Nov. 5 election. Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, agrees that legislators, most of whom are up for election, will be more receptive to a public debate after the ballots are counted. "I'm floating it around," he acknowledges. Colleagues are initially cold to the idea. But they warm to it as an alternative should the Goshute facility become an inevitability, Dmitrich said. "If it's going to come, Utah ought to capitalize on it. With $1 billion a year we could solve a lot of our class-size problems and teacher-pay problems." The 34-year lawmaker says he wouldn't mind exploring a site in San Juan County, which he represents. The impoverished county in the southeast corner of the state was once a uranium-mining center, producing the raw materials for nuclear power and weapons. Local leaders in the early 1990s applied to the federal government for the right to be considered for a temporary storage site for spent fuel rods. Then-federal nuclear waste negotiator Richard Stallings recalls, "I had a couple of governors tell me, 'If you would force this on us we'll smile all the way to the bank.' " Leavitt was not one of those. He vetoed the San Juan County nuclear storage proposal uttering his now famous line, "Over my dead body." Stallings, a former four-term Idaho congressman born and educated in Utah, says he thinks the Goshutes' proposal will be licensed. But he speculates the state still could have a shot at creating its own site, thus positioning itself to reap the benefits of oversight and billions in revenue. Private companies could benefit, too. He said as much last year during a private brainstorming session in the 13th floor offices of ISG Resources, located in the University Club Building in downtown Salt Lake City. ISG is the nation's leading marketer of a cement substitute made from the byproduct of coal-fired power plants. A temporary storage facility for nuclear waste would be a huge customer for cement. The PFS proposal, for example, envisions approximately 3 million square feet of concrete pads, plus an on-site batch plant for cement to be used for the waste storage casks. Stallings' audience that day included Cannon, Sechrest, former state Republican Executive Director Spencer Stokes and ISG chief executive Steve Creamer. Creamer made millions a few years ago by developing the mammoth East Carbon Development Co. commercial landfill in central Utah on what was formerly state school trust lands. "It was mainly just a group of people who believe we're going to get shafted and we're going to get nothing out of it," says Stokes, now a lobbyist. Cannon and his cohorts put some energy into fleshing out the prospects, including engaging in discussions at the state and federal level. But the group always had two conditions: Plan B would only be developed if the Goshute facility was a certainty and if Leavitt signaled his willingness to let others develop a contingency. While many now see the Goshute project as all but a done deal, Cannon says, the governor's opposition never wavered. "He's dug way into the earth on this," Cannon said. Sechrest says she has conducted "endless" gut checks on Leavitt and the state Department of Environmental Quality, but the answer is always the same, and always unequivocal. "It would make it look like they're softening and they don't want the courts in any way or the NRC to perceive that this is welcome in Utah under any conditions," she says. "I can see them taking that position. I just can't figure out why they don't allow themselves an escape route." dharrie@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 17 Editorial: Meetings on Yucca must be open to all Las Vegas SUN: September 20, 2002 LAS VEGAS SUN Members of Congress ganged up on Nevada 15 years ago. They chose Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the only site in the nation to study as a possible burial ground for radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants. Given the site's geological drawbacks and the transportation dangers, it's clear that the decision to single out Yucca Mountain was largely political. In denying that, Congress pointed to how clearly it was ensuring fairness: Nevada was to have access to all Yucca-related data generated by the federal government as it studied the site. This was so the state could be fully informed as it mounted political and legal challenges to the federal government's plans to license the mountain and operate it until the waste was no longer deadly -- a minimum of 10,000 years. We support Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa and state Agency for Nuclear Projects Director Bob Loux as they seek to hold the federal government to that obligation. They have discovered that the Department of Energy, the agency studying Yucca Mountain, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency that will decide on the mountain's license, are holding frequent meetings without informing Nevada officials or the general public. The state officials have written letters to the federal agencies, charging that they are colluding to "shape the licensing proceedings to mask the inadequacies" of the site. If all federal meetings about Yucca Mountain are not open to Nevada, what can we conclude other than that the federal government is continuing to gang up on Nevada? All contents © 1996 - 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 UTILITIES OFFER MILLIONS: Poor Utah tribe gambles on nuclear waste Atlanta Journal-Constitution: ajc.com: Charles Seabrook - Staff Sunday, September 22, 2002 Skull Valley, Utah --- For 150 years, the Goshute Indians have eked out a living in this barren expanse of desert named for the human skulls that white settlers found here. Now, a small, impoverished band of Goshutes believes its economic salvation lies in something no one else wants --- tons of deadly high-level radioactive waste accumulating at nuclear power plants in Georgia and elsewhere in the nation. The band, with just 114 members, hopes to make tens of millions of dollars by storing more than 40,000 tons of the waste, mostly spent nuclear fuel, from eight utility companies, including the Atlanta-based Southern Co. The utilities have formed a private firm known as Private Fuel Storage to build the above-ground storage facility on the tribe's reservation, an 18,000-acre swath of desert about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The utility group and the Goshutes have signed an agreement --- vehemently opposed by the rest of the state --- calling for the waste to stay on the reservation until a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada opens years from now. "We've found something that will help us benefit from our land," says Leon Bear, tribal chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. Efforts to open a casino, a tire recycling plant, a molded plastics factory and other businesses on the reservation fell through, he says. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to decide whether to license the waste storage facility by the end of the year. If that happens, the site could open in 2005. Bear, 46, says the storage fees would pay for health care, housing, social welfare and cultural preservation for his band. Governor: Fight's with utilities But the rest of Utah is alarmed. In Salt Lake City, Gov. Michael Leavitt, a Republican, worries about nuclear accidents and the spread of radiation. He vows that the Goshute facility will never store the first ounce of waste. "We don't produce nuclear waste, and we refuse to store it for those who do," he says. The fight, he explains, "is not the state of Utah vs. a small, struggling Indian nation. It is one state slugging it out with major utilities eager . . . to move high-level nuclear waste out of their yards into ours." His stance is reminiscent of that of South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, who promised this summer to put his body in front of trucks to prevent tons of weapons-grade plutonium from coming into his state. A lawsuit Hodges filed to halt the shipments was struck down by the federal courts. Now, he promises to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have been similarly unkind to Utah so far. A U.S. district judge ruled in July that a batch of laws passed last year by the Utah Legislature to keep the waste out of the state are unconstitutional because they would regulate interstate commerce, a federal prerogative. "Clearly, Utah may not prevent radiological waste from entering Utah because of safety concerns," Judge Tena Campbell said in her ruling. "Nor, may Utah create a separate, state licensing process." Leavitt is considering an appeal, spokeswoman Nathalie Gochnour says. "He wants the nuclear waste storage plan dead, and he's willing to pursue any legal, environmental, legislative or political means to achieve that end," she says. The governor is not alone. Even some of Bear's fellow tribal members --- some of them close relatives --- are aghast over the proposal. "As soon as one piece of that nuclear waste gets in Skull Valley, it's a dead zone," says Sammy Blackbear, 38, who is Bear's cousin. "It goes against our culture and religion to bring something like this into Skull Valley." Led by Blackbear, the dissenting Goshutes filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior alleging that Bear has been corrupted by money from the utility companies and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Bear and his supporters, they note, drive around in luxury cars, rent an office in a Salt Lake City suburb and hire lawyers to fend off hostile legislation --- all with utility money. This month, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds but left open an opportunity for Blackbear and his allies to update their allegations and refile the case. "We will refile," Blackbear says, "and we will prevail." Southern Co. among backers The controversy reflects the nation's long struggle over what to do with highly radioactive junk created by nuclear power production. Forty-five years after the first commercial nuclear plant opened in Shippingport, Pa., the nation is still years from a solution. The waste is generated when nuclear fuel --- enriched uranium pellets encased in 12-foot-long metal tubes called fuel rods --- is irradiated to produce energy. When the fuel is spent, it is replaced. The highly radioactive spent material remains deadly for more than 10,000 years. No state wants the dangerous waste. With no permanent repository for the material available, the nuclear junk is piling up at 103 plants in 31 states at the rate of 2,000 tons a year. One such facility is Plant Hatch near Baxley in South Georgia, co-owned by Georgia Power Co. and several other utilities and operated by the Southern Nuclear Co. Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear are subsidiaries of the Southern Co. Most of Plant Hatch's spent fuel is stored in a large pool of water. But there is no more room in the pool. Newly generated waste goes in "dry-storage casks" and collects on the plant site. Like the nation's other utilities, Southern Co. has been waiting for years for the federal government to build a permanent repository for spent fuel. In July, President Bush signed the multibillion-dollar federal project at Yucca Mountain into law. In lobbying Congress for the project, the administration argued that in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, nuclear wastes stored outdoors at far-flung sites are vulnerable to attack. The Nevada facility, government officials say, should be ready to start accepting spent fuel shipments in 2010. But experts in government and in industry say that is an optimistic schedule. Yucca Mountain still faces several legal and regulatory hurdles --- not the least of which is Nevada officials' vow to continue legal wrangling to keep the repository out of their state. In a terse statement last week, Southern Nuclear officials said they were still "committed and supportive [of the Skull Valley project] through the licensing phase and are looking forward to the NRC's decision at the end of the year." Deal may total $48 million The great uncertainty over when --- and whether --- Yucca Mountain opens is what first brought the utilities and Indian tribes together. But it was the U.S. government, not the private companies, that broached the idea of storing wastes on tribal lands. In 1991, the U.S. Office of the Nuclear Wastes Negotiator sent letters to more than 300 Indian reservations offering grant money to consider accepting high-level radioactive waste. Leon Bear was among Indians flown by the government to Japan and Europe to study nuclear waste storage. In 1993, the wastes negotiator's office was stripped of its budget by President Clinton amid charges of environmental racism. By then, though, two tribes --- the Mescalero Apaches of New Mexico and the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes --- were seriously considering taking the spent fuel for a pile of money. A deal between the utilities and the Mescaleros fell through, but the Goshutes continued negotiations. In 1996, the Skull Valley band, led by Bear, agreed to lease 840 acres of its reservation for an above-ground, dry-cask storage facility. Private Fuel Storage, the utility group, calls the project a stopgap measure. When Yucca Mountain opens, the waste on the reservation will be transferred to the federal repository, it says. Bear says the lifetime of the Skull Valley site --- slated for opening in 2005 --- will be 45 years, including licensing, building, operating and closing it. Neither he nor the utilities will reveal full details of their arrangement, but experts say it will bring in at least $48 million to the tribe. Tribe, domain dwindling According to Bear, his band of Goshutes is among the most luckless and ravaged of all tribes. In his 1872 book "Roughing It," Mark Twain called the Goshutes --- cousins of the Shoshones --- a wretched tribe living in a "rocky, wintry, repulsive" landscape. The Goshutes once numbered 20,000 and dominated 3 million acres of desert. They survived by ranging over the vast area in small bands, gathering pine nuts, tracking game and making use of virtually everything that grew in the desert. Then came Mormon settlers, who regarded Native Americans as the descendants of an Israelite tribe cursed by God. A band of Bear's ancestors was herded into Skull Valley, a bone-littered Indian battlefield. A 1917 presidential order created the Skull Valley reservation. Today, the Skull Valley band remains one of the nation's smallest and poorest tribes with an average annual per capita income of about $8,000. Twenty-five tribal members live in the reservation's only village, where small, modest framed homes sit amid junk cars and other castaways. Bear's house stands out, although it is not imposing by any means. It is the only house that is painted. Bear says his goal is to bring his tribe out of a cycle all too familiar on Indian reservations --- grinding poverty, obesity, diabetes, alcoholism. His reservation, he explains, depends mostly on grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which pays for running water, a store and limited medical services, including a diabetes treatment program. He wants to build a medical clinic, new houses, a better water system and a cultural heritage center. The nuclear waste storage facility will be the means to that end, he says. "The spent fuel can be transported and stored safely," he insists. He provides a list of scientists from the University of Utah, Harvard University and other institutions who back him up. "If I thought that this was deadly dangerous, that it would desecrate our land, I wouldn't do it," he says. "I want my kids to have a future. I don't want to jeopardize their future." He says he is doing what the majority of his tribe wants. The members who oppose him, he notes, represent only about 20 percent of the Skull Valley band. One supporter is Mary Allen, the band's former vice chairwoman. "A lot of people have been away from the reservation because there's not many jobs," she says, "so this would be a good opportunity for many to come and live and work on the reservation." Area known for dangerous sites Alongside the only highway leading to the Skull Valley reservation, Gov. Leavitt has installed a big sign. It reads: "High Level Nuclear Wastes Dumping Prohibited Except by Permit." Bear says it is a dig aimed at him. He finds it mildly puzzling that the governor is so bent on preventing radioactive material from coming onto the reservation. The Skull Valley tribe's land, he says, already is surrounded by some of the most dangerous and polluted places in America. Within a 30-mile radius of Skull Valley are: > The Wendower Bombing Range, where the military practices dropping "smart bombs." > The Dugway Proving Ground, a vast secret complex where the Army is said to be testing everything from anthrax to bubonic plague. > The Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility, where the military is incinerating thousands of tons of chemical weapons filled with nerve gas and other deadly agents. > A hazardous waste landfill, a low-level radioactive waste landfill, two hazardous waste incinerators and a magnesium plant that is among the nation's biggest air polluters. "When you look at all of this stuff around us," Bear says, "our facility may be the cleanest one in the entire region." © 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 19 Arrested for Peace? News of anti-war arrests wanted! Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:25:04 -0700 The Nuclear Resister newsletter reports news of all anti-war and anti-nuclear arrests in North America, and many around the world. Since 1980, we also encourage international support for the people jailed as a result of these actions. We need your help to gather and report this news! As the United States threatens massive escalation of the war against Iraq, we know that activists will be arrested in dozens of places around the country and around the globe as the bombs fall. Please send us ANY news of anti-war or anti-nuclear arrests in your area, via email, post, phone or fax (##s below). If you were arrested, tell your story and what you know of the legal status for yourself and others arrested. If you saw a news story, send the basic information or a clipping. We will follow up for necessary details. Thanks for your help, and for making the news we report. the Nuclear Resister POB 43383 Tucson AZ 85733 phone/fax: 520-323-8697 e-mail: nukeresister@igc.org About the Nuclear Resister: The Nuclear Resister began publishing in 1980, originally to provide information about and encourage support for the women and men jailed as a result of anti-nuclear civil disobedience. Since the Gulf War against Iraq in 1991, the Nuclear Resister newsletter has also included comprehensive reports of anti-war arrests, including those resulting from civil disobedience, direct action, conscientious objection, or as the unintended consequence of other anti-war activity. In 1990 and 1991, the Nuclear Resister reported over 6,000 anti-war arrests at more than 225 protests in 27 states, and published the addresses of scores of imprisoned activists along with the addresses of more than 40 public conscientious objectors who served time in military brigs. One-hundred-and-thirty consecutive issues have chronicled more than 50,000 anti-nuclear and 12,000 anti-war arrests, and encouraged support for hundreds of resisters serving prison sentences up to 18 years. The Nuclear Resister is supported by subscriptions and the generosity of our readers. Subscriptions are $15/year, (bi-monthly 8-page tabloid). Bundles of the current issue are available for distribution in classrooms, at conferences, trainings and protests. Write or e-mail for free sample issue: the Nuclear Resister POB 43383 Tucson AZ 85733 e-mail: nukeresister@igc.org Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa, editors PLEASE FORWARD TO ACTIVIST LISTS AND ORGANIZATIONS -- APOLOGIES FOR DUPLICATE POSTINGS _____________________________________ the Nuclear Resister "a chronicle of hope" P.O. Box 43383 Tucson AZ 85733 - information about and support for imprisoned anti-nuclear and anti-war activists - Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa, editors phone/fax (520)323-8697 email: nukeresister@igc.org US$15/year/US$20 Canada/US$25 overseas - selections from current issue - updated prisoner addresses - & more can be read at: http://www.nonviolence.org/nukeresister * FREE SAMPLE ISSUE ON REQUEST * (please supply a postal address for samples) ***************************************************************** 20 UK: Revealed: Iraq's quest to build nuclear bomb Guardian Unlimited Observer | Focus | New evidence proves that Saddam Hussein has continued his efforts to assemble an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Special report by Peter Beaumont in London and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Peter Beaumont in London and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Sunday September 22, 2002 The Observer [http://www.observer.co.uk] In the days before Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf war, the vast sprawl of anonymous factory buildings that makes up the Badr General Establishment was a central hub in its efforts to design and build a nuclear bomb. As Iraq has admitted to the United Nations, it was here, 20 miles south of Baghdad, that the bustling teams of technicians and machinists worked on components for the gas centrifuges and molecular pumps that were intended for Iraq's enrichment cascade for the fissile material for its nuclear bomb. It was here too that Iraq's missile technicians worked on modification and production of the Scud B missiles that they hoped would carry a warhead. With Iraq's capitulation to the allied forces, Badr - like the State Enterprise for Heavy Equipment Engineering and dozens of other enterprises run under the auspices of the Ministry for Military Industrialisation - was supposed to be closed down and monitored under the UN ceasefire resolutions designed to dismantle Iraq's ability to retain, design and build weapons of mass destruction. But the scientists and managers from Badr had different orders from Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. What they have been up to goes to the heart of US and UK concern that Saddam has been trying to assemble the expertise and materials to build weapons of mass destruction, for the men from Badr turned up at a factory in Minsk in the former Soviet republic of Belarus.The Iraqi delegation that arrived at the Belstroyimpex headquarters in July 1995 was a high-powered one, travelling under the aegis of the Badr General Establishment. They carried a shopping list of high-specification machine tools, including diamond cutters, a powder-metal production line and a plasma-spray machine - all potentially components for nuclear weapons and a ballistic-missiles programme. The delegation was careful to cover its tracks, keeping the visit and the deals signed secret from the UN. Iraq went to greater lengths still to hide these purchases from the UN sanctions regime, smuggling them into Iraq via the Jordanian free port of Aqaba, and trying to hide the equipment once it reached Iraq. The Iraqi deal with Belstroyimpex was not unique. As arms inspectors and independent researchers have established in the past two years, the deal was only a small part of an intensive effort by companies and organisations linked to the Iraq's Ministry of Military Industrialisation to acquire forbidden technologies and materials from Belarus and over a dozen other countries. It is an effort, say diplomatic sources, that continued just two months ago, when Iraq's deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Military Industrialisation, Abdul Tawab Mulla Howeish, was in Minsk to sign a new protocol authorising scientific and technical exchanges between the two states. Indeed as lately as 1998 - before their forced departure from Iraq - UN inspectors discovered machine tools delivered from Belarus at the Saddam Artillery Plant, where they found Iraqi technicians installing 14 new machines for manufacturing 75-millimetre lenses with a military use. The crates were marked 'Republic of Belarus, Vitebsk Machine Building Plant'. The Iraqi activity in Belarus is the most worrying evidence that Iraq is still pursuing a covert procurement programme . It may not be the 'smoking gun' that proves that Saddam has acquired the fissile material to build his bomb, but it is evidence that he is trying hard. Firm evidence exists that in the decade since the end of the Gulf war Saddam quickly rebuilt his secret procurement networks, casting his net from the UK to eastern Europe, South East Asia and as far as Africa, operating through a complex network of front companies and middlemen. Iraqi agents have been active in Ukraine, Russia, Romania and in the former Yugoslavia. They have been spotted in Congo, Kenya, Jordan and Syria, in Malaysia and Indonesia. It has not always been a subtle or successful effort. Indeed some analysts say privately that the chaotic and piecemeal effort of Saddam's procurement network smacks of desperation. Its persistence is what is worrying Britain and the US. And it is these procurement efforts that will provide the backbone of Tony Blair's dossier on the threat posed by Iraq when it is released this week. That dossier is likely to argue that Saddam's current efforts have strong parallels with the massive Iraqi procurement programme in the 1980s when Saddam began scouring the world to build his secret conglomeration of chemical, biological and nuclear-weapons factories. 'There has been an awful lot of background noise,' said one European diplomat. 'There is a lot of Iraqi procurement effort going on. Some of it is very inconclusive. But what is worrying is the accumulating evidence of the kind of stuff they have been - and continue to be - after. That has been a constant since the end of the Gulf war. It may not amount to evidence of a bomb, or a new missile system, but it is certainly evidence that they still desperately want it.' A senior British diplomat in the region said: 'There has been concern that relations between Iraq and Ukraine and Belarus have been getting warmer over the last few months. There has been heightened activity and people going back and forth.' He said he had seen 'reports' from a variety of sources, including spies, of arms deals between the two nations and Iraq. Among those deeply concerned about Belarus and Ukraine is Tim McCarthy, who served with the UN Special Commission on Iraq (Unscom) from 1994 to 1999 and completed 13 missions in Iraq, serving as deputy chief inspector for the missile team. Now a senior analyst at the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies in the US, he studied much of the available evidence about the Belarus connection. 'My concern was high about Belarus, for a number of reasons. One of the deals that the Iraqis have done was with the Minsk Tractor Factory. Public reports have stated that civilian tractors are produced. But it also produces missile launchers for Pakistan. The real [Belarussian] expertise comes with the missile launchers, and that is disconcerting to say the least.' McCarthy said Belarus had drawn up numerous agreements with Iraq. 'The equipment that Belarus had agreed to give Iraq would be considered to be a very real non-proliferation problem.' Among the deals that most concerned him, however, was for a so-called plasma-spray machine used in anti-corrosion treatment of components used in nuclear weapons. 'The nuclear proliferation people were very concerned about that. We have very strong documentary evidence [about the deals]. It was production line stuff that would have been very hard for the Iraqis to acquire legally under the UN sanctions regime.' At the head of Iraq's secret procurement effort is Abdul Tawab Mulla Howeish. A wiry and mustachioed military officer in his late forties - who also holds the rank of Deputy Prime Minister - Howeish, has come to be one of the most important figures in Saddam's regime, inevitably visible in every photo opportunity given by Saddam to Iraq's state-controlled media. And it has been Howeish who has been most visible in recent Iraqi delegations to Belarus. It was his Ministry - under its previous head - that coordinated Iraq's massive secret procurement drive in the 1980s. The only difference, note inspectors who have been trying to unravel Iraq's new procurement programme, is that the names of the front companies - and the states prepared to deal with Iraq - have changed. One of best assessments of Iraq's procurement effort has been supplied by former US weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Despite being one of the fiercest critics of the hawkish Bush line on Iraq, Ritter has noted the way in which Iraq set up a series of front companies in Jordan, Syria, Malaysia, and other countries that acted as official buyers of banned weapons and systems, which later found their way to Iraq. 'We [UN weapons inspectors] were following, in '97 and '98, information that held that Iraq was working very closely with the government of Syria to use Syrian procurement networks in place with Belarus, with Ukraine, with Russia. The Syrians would acquire military technology, military equipment, military hardware, in contracts between these nations and Syria, and then Syria would transfer this material to Iraq in a covert fashion. And the method of payment was Iraqi oil.' Among companies that have already been revealed as being behind attempts to procure suspicious contracts are the Al Bushair trading company and the Al Saddirah Company - both identified in private memos by UN inspectors as the intermediaries in a number of deals to acquire banned technology in Belarus in the mid-to-late 1990s. Among those who have compiled their own dossier on Iraq's new procurement networks are two American researchers, Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington, and Kelly Motz, of Iraq Watch, who published the 'Shopping for Saddam' report last year. Much of the evidence they collected was based, they say, on unpublished information collected by UN weapons inspectors detailing their suspicions about Iraq's continued efforts to hide a large-scale and covert rearmament programme. 'What [the research] showed is that Saddam's procurement network is alive and well and has been working steadily despite the sanctions,' said Milhollin. 'There are a lot of companies out there willing to break the embargo.' Motz said: 'We are seeing everything from just some basic negotiations that probably didn't go anywhere once the firms figured out what was trying to be purchased to contracts that were actually implemented and goods that were found in Iraq by the inspectors. We have contracts for missile engine components, for guidance components for missiles. We actually found some high-end machine tools that are useful for making nuclear weapons, military goods such as [conventional] helicopters and aircraft which were clearly embargoed.' At about the same time that the men from the Badr General Establishment were on their way to Belarus, UN inspectors uncovered further evidence of Iraq's secret procurement efforts - gyroscopes from dismantled Russian inter-continental ballistic missiles that were smuggled into Iraq, then dumped in a river when they were found to be incompatible with their missile systems. A second shipment of 115 gyroscopes was discovered in Jordan in October 1995. What is clear is that despite consistent setbacks over the past eight years, Iraq's secret procurement effort is still active across the globe. Further evidence of this trend was supplied in the past fortnight. US Vice President Dick Cheney has added his own voice to the debate, claiming the US has intercepted efforts by Iraq to buy hundreds of highly machined aluminium tubes it says were destined for an Iraqi gas centrifuge enrichment system. 'You can say many things about what Iraq is up to,' said one diplomat familiar with the material. 'You can argue about what weapons he has, if any, how many, and if they will ever work. You can argue about whether he will takes two months or 10 years to build or acquire a nuclear bomb. But what you cannot argue with is the evidence that that Saddam has set up his secret weapons procurement network once again. That is the real worry.' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 21 Netanyahu: The Case for Toppling Saddam* *OpinionJournal* *Wall Street Journal Online* *September 22, 2002* *Federalist Digest Free by E-Mail* The Conservative E-Journal of Record *ActivistCash* Follow the money from foundation to activist group The longer America waits, the more dangerous he becomes. *BY BENJAMIN NETANYAHU* /Friday, September 20, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT/ Sept. 11 alerted most Americans to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. Most Americans understand that had al Qaeda possessed an atomic device last September, the city of New York would not exist today. They realize that last week we could have grieved not for thousands of dead, but for millions. But for others around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush's plan to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime? I do not mean to suggest that there are not legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq. Indeed, there are. But the question of whether removing Saddam's regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. Equally immaterial is the argument that America cannot oust Saddam without prior approval of the international community. This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, who has used these weapons of mass destruction against his subjects and his neighbors, and who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons. The dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Saddam were understood by my country two decades ago, well before Sept. 11. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Began dispatched the Israeli air force on a predawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Though at the time Israel was condemned by all the world's governments, history has rendered a far kinder judgment on that act of unquestionable foresight and courage. Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do. For Saddam's nuclear program has changed. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country--and Iraq is a very big country. Even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death. We now know that had the democracies taken pre-emptive action to bring down Hitler's regime in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been avoided. And we now know, from defectors and other intelligence, that had Israel not launched its pre-emptive strike on Saddam's atomic-bomb factory recent history would have taken a far more dangerous course. I write this as a citizen of the country that is most endangered by a pre-emptive strike. For in the last gasps of his dying regime, Saddam may well attempt to launch his remaining missiles, with their biological and chemical warheads, at the Jewish State. Though I am today a private citizen, I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime. We support this American action even though we stand on the front lines, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines. But we know that their sense of comfort is an illusion. For if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril. We support this action because it is possible today to defend against chemical and biological attack. There are gas masks, vaccinations and other means of civil defense that can protect our citizens and reduce the risks to them. Indeed, a central component of any strike on Iraq must be to ensure that the Israeli government, if it so chooses, has the means to vaccinate every citizen of Israel before action is initiated. Ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the U.S. But no gas mask and no vaccine can protect against nuclear weapons. That is why regimes that have no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction, and that will not hesitate to give them to their terror proxies, must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. These regimes must be brought down before they possess the power to bring us all down. If a pre-emptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries and the U.N., all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the U.S. must be prepared to act without it. This will require courage, and I see it abundantly present in President Bush's bold leadership and in the millions of Americans who have rallied behind him. I recognize this courage because I see it on the faces of my countrymen every day. Millions of Israelis who have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of terror have stood firmly behind our government in the war against Palestinian terror. We have not crumbled. We have not run. We have stood our ground and fought back. Today the terrorists have the will to destroy us but not the power. Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so. /Mr. Netanyahu is a former prime minister of Israel./ ***************************************************************** 22 UK: Dossier to show Iraqi nuclear arms race Guardian Unlimited Observer | International | Government file to expose Saddam's aims to procure deadly missile parts Peter Beaumont and Kamal Ahmed Sunday September 22, 2002 [http://www.observer.co.uk] Compelling details of how Saddam Hussein has created a massive secret weapons procurement network to rebuild his nuclear and ballistic missile programmes will form the heart of Tony Blair's long-awaited dossier on the threat posed by Iraq. The dossier, to be released on Tuesday, is expected to show how Saddam has accelerated his efforts to acquire banned technologies, particularly nuclear and ballistic missiles, since UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998. It will claim that the Iraqi dictator is more dangerous than he was in 1998, when the last UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. It is also expected to show how he has masked his activities behind a series of front companies, smuggling networks and middlemen in neighbouring states, all paid for by illegal oil transactions. Although the dossier is not believed to contain a 'smoking gun' - evidence that Saddam has already acquired the material to make a nuclear device - it will reveal his continuing vigorous efforts to do so. 'It is a sober assessment,' said one Number 10 official. 'On its own, it should not be seen as justification for military action, but it makes the case about his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.' Another official said that it would 'confirm beyond any doubt' that Iraq would be willing to launch a 'first-use' strike against neighbouring states. The 50-page dossier, which has been agreed with the White House, will become the centrepiece of what Downing Street aides have described as the 'key week' in the action against Saddam. Yesterday, Russia, a member of the UN security council, indicated that it would agree to a new UN resolution only if was provided with convincing evidence that action needed to be taken. The Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, said that the first group of U.N. arms inspectors could arrive in Iraq in early October. Government sources said that they were hopeful that a new UN resolution could be agreed as early as this week, with a clear deadline for Saddam to comply with weapons inspectors or face a second resolution proposing military action. Although German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder reiterated his opposition to military action yesterday, officials said that the international community was falling behind the position mapped out by President George Bush and Blair - a last chance for UN inspections or military action will follow. But yesterday Baghdad said it would not agree to any new UN conditions. It said it already had agreed with Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, on how to proceed with weapons inspections. An Observer investigation has revealed that Saddam's covert procurement network has been modelled on the same techniques he used in the 1980s to procure the tools, materials and expertise necessary to build weapons of mass destruction. Co-ordinated by the Ministry for Military Industrialisation, Iraqi officials have been trying to acquire high-specification machine tools, production lines, computer equipment and expertise for its long-range missile and nuclear weapons efforts. Among countries that have been identified as partners are Belarus and the Ukraine, which have been at the centre of the secret Iraqi procurement effort since the mid-1990s. Arms control experts - including former UN weapons inspectors - have identified both countries as being of 'grave concern' in the proliferation of banned technology to Iraq. The involvement of both Belarussian and Ukrainian companies was uncovered by UN weapons inspectors before they were forced to leave in 1998 and is understood to be continuing. Among technologies uncovered at sites in Iraq were machines that could spray nuclear bomb components with anti-corrosion material, and gyroscopes for missile guidance systems. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 23 First Strike Could Be Precedent for Other Nations *washingtonpost.com* *Analysts: New Strategy Courts Unseen Dangers* By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 22, 2002; Page A01 The Bush administration's declared willingness to attack potential enemies before they strike represents a new chapter in strategic doctrine that heightens the danger of unintended consequences and raises the pressure on the U.S. national security system to get things right the first time, military and diplomatic analysts say. Made official on Friday, the dramatic change in the decades-old strategy of deterrence and containment puts an option into play that could be effective against rogue states, according to experts. But they warned that the shift to preemption also risks establishing a precedent for countries whose motives or timing the U.S. government may not support. Just as Russia, India and Israel cited last year's U.S.-led assault on Afghanistan to justify aggressive measures against opponents they labeled terrorists, a preemptive attack by the United States on another country could prompt other governments to bypass the United Nations and launch a unilateral strike against a foe. "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Oxford University professor Adam Roberts. "I have to say it puzzles America's allies that that danger doesn't seem to be fully grasped." Preemptive military action would require the administration to draw early conclusions about a rival nation's capabilities and intent, placing a premium on accurate intelligence and judgment. It would necessitate a clear public case to avoid sharpening the perception that the United States plays by its own rules in foreign affairs. And the military would have to strike with precision, as the danger of retaliation would be great, defense analyst Harlan Ullman said. "You don't get a second chance," said Ullman, author of "Unfinished Business -- Afghanistan, the Middle East and Beyond," an assessment of international threats. "Preemption assumes a quick, decisive, relatively inexpensive victory. If that does not happen, you may not have the necessary logic and rationale for a long-term campaign." President Bush laid out his argument for beating an enemy to the punch in his National Security Strategy, released Friday. He declared the shift, part of a policy designed to maintain a "balance of power that favors human freedom," at the same time the administration has announced its intention to disarm Iraq -- unilaterally and by force, if necessary. For the president's national security team, the strategy document makes explicit a tactic that every administration has contemplated in contingency planning but few have applied. Senior officials contend that aggressive "anticipatory action" is a weapon more suited to threats posed by terrorists and terror-sponsoring states than the more passive Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. No longer is the military power of the United States sufficient to dissuade opponents from attacking American interests, the thinking goes. And no longer, by implication, is the Bush team confident that U.S. interests can be defended properly by collective action, whether sponsored by the 19-nation NATO alliance or the cumbersome machinery of the United Nations Security Council. "The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends," the National Security Strategy asserts. "The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just." Yet, to some observers, the very act of one country preemptively attacking another carries troubling echoes of vigilante justice when much of the world is working toward common understandings about the use of force. "It's a violation of the U.N. Charter. It's a violation of the NATO charter," said Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy at the National War College. If preemption as a policy takes hold, Gardiner asked, "where does it stop?" On Sept. 11, just as Bush was preparing to tell world leaders that the United States would act alone against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein if no one else would, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a determination of his own. He said Russia would be justified in launching attacks on Chechen rebels who seek refuge in neighboring Georgia. The Bush administration objected. Ullman worries that countries fearing a preemptive strike would develop stronger deterrent weapons. He gave Iran as an example, saying that a Tehran government might hurry its nuclear weapons program after seeing the United States lead an assault on Iraq, along with Iran a part of Bush's "axis of evil." Others have asked whether Pakistan, feeling pushed into desperation by India and its significant superiority in conventional forces, would feel freer to use nuclear weapons as a first strike. When deterrence ruled the strategic calculations during the Cold War, understandings among rival governments were generally clear. Superpowers knew that certain behavior could trigger a response. During the Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy, armed with reconnaissance photographs of missile sites in Cuba, ordered a blockade of the island and told Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev to remove them or face destruction of the sites. The Soviets backed down. These days, the threats posed by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are more diffuse and the rules less clear. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said earlier this year that the United States could not always afford to wait for "absolute proof" before challenging terrorist groups or countries that are thought to possess weapons of mass destruction. If preemption became widely acceptable, according to some military experts, one country fearing an assault might attack its rival first, preempting the preemptor and escalating a conflict that might have been resolved without force. Or a nation under a sudden attack might choose to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons it otherwise might not use. Brussels-based analyst Robert Kagan believes the dangers of the new doctrine can be overstated. "I don't think we're moving into the age of preemption," Kagan said. "I don't think other nations are being restrained from taking action by the fact that no one has set the precedent of preemption. That's not why China is not attacking Taiwan. That's not why India is not attacking Pakistan." "They're making calculations based on their own national interest and the relationships of international power," he said. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired Army general, briefly pushed aside the finer points of doctrine and the potential for trouble last week when he explained preemption's logic. "When we see something coming at us," he said, "we should take action to stop it." Ullman emphasized the radical change embodied in the elevation of preemption to a formal place in U.S. strategic doctrine after years when national security was defined by thickets of nuclear-tipped rockets and their cousins based on land and sea, none of which were ever likely to be launched. "You're now resting American security on different sets of assumptions," Ullman said. "Given the reality of September 11, this is no longer an academic debate." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 24 Iraq: Invade and Unleash?* *washingtonpost.com* Saddam Hussein might see his biological weapons as an asset to be used only if he is on the brink of destruction. By William C. Potter Sunday, September 22, 2002; Page B07 As the United States moves closer to war with Iraq, the Bush administration has sharpened its rationale for an attack: All remnants of Saddam Hussein's weapons-of-mass-destruction program must be destroyed. The return of U.N. inspectors, it is argued plausibly, might serve a number of useful purposes but cannot guarantee that disarmament outcome. The question no one in the administration wants to ask -- or answer -- is whether an invasion would guarantee the elimination of Iraq's biological weapons arsenal. An even more delicate question that has not been addressed publicly is whether an invasion might actually increase the likelihood of terrorist access to and acquisition of Iraq's deadly biological weapons assets. The answers to these questions are at best tentative and turn on many factors for which information is sketchy. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the stronger the argument about the limitations of U.N. inspections -- even if unconditional and unfettered -- the greater the difficulties a U.S.-led military force also would have in detecting and destroying concealed, mobile biological weapons stocks. To be sure, an occupying force would have several important advantages over an international inspection team. In particular, U.S. military forces could count on far more secure communications, rapid freedom of action and improved intelligence based upon new, on-the-ground sources. It would be imprudent, nevertheless, to presume that these significant assets would translate into the capability to identify and eliminate all of Iraq's biological weapons in a timely fashion. Hussein has repeatedly war-gamed a U.S. invasion. Surely he has taken steps to position his most lethal weapons at sites least susceptible to U.S interdiction. One cannot rule out the possibility that some of these weapons have been positioned outside Iraq, perhaps even on the territory of the United States and its allies, where their predesignated use awaits a specific turn of events. Little credible evidence has been provided regarding Iraqi ties to terrorists, at least in the recent past. There also is no reason to assume that Hussein has any incentive to share his weapons of mass destruction with anyone as long as he remains in power in Baghdad. It is less apparent, however, whether this proliferation disincentive would still apply under conditions in which his regime was collapsing and his power eroding. Indeed, much as Israel's nuclear force often is characterized as a "weapon of last resort," so might Iraq's biological weapons be viewed in Saddam Hussein's mind as an asset to be employed only if his regime were on the brink of destruction (as in, "If we are going to go, we'll take someone with us."). Even if biological weapons were not used militarily because of limited Iraqi delivery capabilities and possible U.S. preemptive action against missile and aircraft systems, we must assume that some biological weapons stocks might remain in the hands of Hussein's forces. In these circumstances, one also could imagine the remnants of Iraqi biological weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists. Iraq's latest offer to accept the unconditional return of U.N. inspectors is unlikely to satisfy Washington's demands or to derail its plans for military action. I hope such plans are based on a more careful assessment of the implications for the use and proliferation of biological weapons than is obvious in public discussion to date. /The writer is director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California./ © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 25 Scientists debate terrorist threat to nuclear plants The Seattle Times: seattletimes.com Sunday, September 22, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Faye Flam Knight Ridder Newspapers PHILADELPHIA — Are the nation's nuclear-power plants safe from a successful terrorist attack? Yes, say a group of engineers writing in today's edition of Science magazine. Don't bet on it, say other scientists familiar with dozens of reactors across the country. Authors of the Science article, including engineers from the nuclear-power industry, focused primarily on the effects of an attack by airliner. They concluded that, even if terrorists flew a jumbo jet directly into a reactor, they would not likely cause a meltdown, and if they did there would be few deaths from the small amounts of radiation released. Most damage would come from panic, they argued, prompted by an irrational fear of all things nuclear. Other scientists, though, said terrorists could use other tactics. Previous tests and mock attacks have exposed gaping holes in the security at nuclear plants, they said. "It's the stupid military officer who prepares for the last attack," said Gordon Thompson of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies and Cambridge, Mass. "It is prudent to assume that the attacker is well-informed, sophisticated and determined, and now we also assume the attacker is suicidal. That creates a whole new spectrum of opportunities that have to be analyzed." Two classified studies have been done, he said, one by the Sandia National Laboratory and one by the Electric Power Research Institute. From what Thompson knows, both focused exclusively on a jetliner crash, ignoring other ways terrorists might cause a nuclear release. He said the level of danger depends on the nature of the plant and methods of attack. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission until now has focused on accidents, not intentional acts. "I see no evidence they are conducting the kind of comprehensive analysis that's necessary," he said. The authors in Science argue that the basic laws of physics make it impossible for terrorists to kill many people by attacking a nuclear reactor. "If you had the assignment from Osama bin Laden to create this kind of a problem, I don't think you could do it," said Ted Rockwell, an engineer from Virginia-based consulting firm MPR Associates, who contributed to the Science article. The article was an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed research paper. Rockwell, whose firm does engineering consulting, argued that there's no way a plane could breach the thick, reinforced concrete buildings that protect nuclear reactors and contain radioactive contaminants in case of a meltdown of radioactive fuel. He cited government studies that have shown that a Boeing 707 could not breach the typical containment buildings, and, he said, even a larger plane would not pierce 3 to 5 feet of steel-reinforced concrete. Even assuming the worst, a core meltdown and a breach of the containment system, "we know there are limits on how bad it could be," Rockwell said. "Even if you blasted a hole in the containment vessel, few, if any people would be killed." "That's a pretty remarkably sanguine view," said Frank von Hippel, co-director of the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. He said he and his students have examined whether the spindle of an airplane turbine could breach a typical containment building. A lot depends on the size and speed of the aircraft, he said, but they deemed it possible. He also looked at spent fuel pools, storage tanks where water is used to cool hundreds of tons of still-radioactive fuel. "We concluded there was a real problem there, as well," von Hippel said. Certain types of reactors, called Mark 1 and Mark 2, keep their spent fuel five stories above the reactors. This is a particularly vulnerable situation, said Jim Riccio, a nuclear-power analyst from Greenpeace. "There is nothing between the spent fuel pool and a direct hit from an airliner except for corrugated steel," he said. For example, reactors at Peachbottom and Limerick in Pennsylvania use this type of design, he said. Princeton's von Hippel said these plants could improve public safety by moving spent fuel to concrete casks that can be placed in different areas to disperse the threat. Some environmental activists are creating petitions to force plants to do this. Another measure that could help is wider distribution of potassium-iodide pills, which can protect people from thyroid cancer, von Hippel said. Cancer-causing radioactive iodine can drift many miles from the site of an accident or attack. A problem, he said, might be cesium 137, a radioactive isotope that has a half-life of 30 years and could render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable. Before Sept. 11, nuclear plants regularly held exercises in which mock terrorists would try to attack. Those exercises have stopped, said David Lochbaum, a Nuclear Safety Engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the past, he said, drills exposed gaping breaches in security, he said. He heard from an insider at the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County, N.J., that the mock terrorists there were able to break into a back door that had not been secured and found they easily could have shot all the guards. While some have suggested protecting nuclear plants with anti-aircraft guns, he said, that could create a hazard in itself. More sensible might be high concrete I-beams that would break up a plane before it could hit the reactor or control room. The authors of the Science paper contend that few deaths would result from a release of radioactivity. Even after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, they argue, only 30 people lost their lives and no definitive link has been established between the accident and cancer deaths. Many dispute this rosy view of the Russian nuclear accident. The authors say many people have an irrational fear of radioactivity that helps exaggerate the risk: "To tell people that they and the Earth are in mortal danger from events that cannot cause significant public harm is to play into the hands of terrorists." Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 26 Is a War With Iraq Worth the Environmental Risk? The Salt Lake Tribune -- Sunday, September 22, 2002 BY ERIC SCIGLIANO SPECIAL TO THE LOS ANGELES TIMES Last year, in the U.S. Air Force's Air &Space Power Chronicles, Col. Richard Fisher published what many of his peers might consider rank heresy. "As a general consideration," Fisher wrote, "the U.S. should include environmental effects as an issue of central value along with politics, economics and social effects when deciding whether or not to wage war. . . . It may well be that the potential long-term environmental risk . . . outweighs the importance of other considerations." Are we ready to weigh environmental impacts in the calculations of war? We certainly notice them after the shooting stops. Farmers, elephants and other creatures in Cambodia, Angola and many other countries are still regularly killed by shells and land mines left from old wars. Children are still born crippled and deformed in Vietnam, three decades after U.S. planes stopped spraying Agent Orange and other herbicides. Iraq, however, affords a rare chance to weigh environmental impacts before a war erupts. The last war there gave a preview. It's not a pretty picture. In February 1991, the world watched in horror as Saddam Hussein's troops unleashed one final, spiteful assault of their own. They opened the spigots on Kuwait's vast oil reserves and detonated its wells, releasing what was far and away the largest oil spill in history. About 60 million barrels -- more than 200 times as much as the Exxon Valdez spilled -- oozed onto the ground, forming 246 black, lifeless lakes. It took nine months to put out the 613 oil-well fires spewing dark clouds that covered the region, lowering local atmospheric temperatures an average 10 degrees Celsius. Even before allied bombing began, Iraqi troops had begun releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the shallow Gulf waters, hoping to forestall a seaborne invasion -- by far the largest marine spill in history. The slick coated nearly 1,000 miles of coastline. American and Iraqi tanks chewed up the hard-packed desert, a particularly fragile ecosystem. Afterward, Kuwait's top environmental official reported that shifting dunes covered twice as much of the country as before, and dust storms rose to record levels. In 1998, the Swiss-based Green Cross International assessed the extent of recovery and lingering environmental effects in Kuwait. The Gulf's waters showed surprising resilience in the short term; shrimp harvests were back to normal and coral reefs appeared healthy, unlike reefs elsewhere. But in 2000, the Manchester Guardian reported a vast die-off of fish, apparently caused by surging nutrient levels that choked off oxygen. Kuwaitis blamed this surge on Iraq's draining the southern marshes to punish the Shiite marsh-dwellers who, at U.S. urging, had rebelled against Hussein. The land and the water beneath the land also proved vulnerable. Green Cross reported that the Kuwaitis had collected one-third of the pooled oil, but the rest continues to seep through the sand. Oil has contaminated at least 40 percent of Kuwait's freshwater reserves, leaving less than a two-month supply -- a thin margin if the next war knocks out desalination plants. Back in the United States, anguish and controversy continue to fester over the cryptic, chronic symptoms afflicting a reported 100,000 Gulf War veterans, despite $200 million spent on studies. Across Iraq, thousands of armor-piercing depleted-uranium shells -- one suggested cause of Gulf War syndrome -- continue their slow nuclear decay. Kuwait's postwar disaster is commonly described as unprecedented: "For the first time in the history of warfare," the Encyclopedia of the Gulf War intones, "a retreating army destroyed the environment." But the Iraqis merely practiced one of the oldest tactics in warfare. Like the Russians who burned their own capital as Napoleon approached, the Romans who (if legend is true) salted the ground where Carthage stood, and prehistoric hunters slaughtering mega fauna to starve rival bands, they scorched the earth, denying resources to their enemies. Saddam never employed what was most feared -- his chemical and biological arsenals -- in 1991. But he was never cornered then, and he still had Kuwait's oil to spit at his attackers. In any future Iraq war, the clean-up guys in white moon suits may play as big a part as the grunts in desert camo. Eric Scigliano writes on the environment for the Seattle Weekly. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 27 Fight or flight: Examining the alternatives to war with Iraq Pittsburgh, PA Sunday, September 22, 2002 One of the least heralded triumphs in American foreign policy occurred the night of Feb. 25, 1986, when two U.S. Air Force helicopters landed on a golf course adjacent to Malacanang Palace in the Philippines and spirited away Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and as many of her shoes as they could carry. Filipinos were rid of a corrupt dictator without a bloody civil war. Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com). I've thought since that the world would benefit if there were a small country in a pleasant place to which dictators could retire with a portion of their ill-gotten gains when it was clear time was running out. The Chinese sage Sun Tzu, who after several thousand years is still the greatest strategic thinker who ever lived, said the highest form of warfare is to win without fighting. We should remember his advice as we ponder what to do about Iraq. The optimal result would be if Saddam Hussein, like Marcos, would trade in his uniform and pistols for a floral-patterned shirt and golf clubs. Then a new, at least sort of democratic government in Iraq could destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and cease Iraq's support of international terror groups. Less than optimal -- especially for Iraq's long-suffering peoples -- would be an arrangement in which Saddam retained power, but would be defanged. He would open up his country to robust inspections, which would destroy his nuclear, biological and chemical warfare facilities. Though less beneficial to us than Saddam's departure or his demise, this would, for us, be a satisfactory outcome, preferable to the enormous expense and risks that war would entail. "Jaw Jaw is better than War War," said Winston Churchill, one of the greatest warriors of the 20th century. There is no question that a diplomatic solution is preferable to a military one . . . if diplomacy actually will lead to a solution. Unfortunately, most of those who natter on about "diplomatic solutions" are more interested in providing Saddam with a fig leaf for continued deceit and obfuscation than in removing from the world the specter of nuclear terror. From Sun Tzu's time to ours, history has demonstrated repeatedly that the only effective means of obtaining a diplomatic solution to a crisis is a credible threat of military action. It must be clear that we are determined to fight if diplomacy fails. And it must be clear that if we fight, Saddam will not survive the war. Saddam probably won't change his spots under any circumstances. But the only circumstances under which he might decide discretion is the better part of valor is if he is convinced the alternative is bloody death, very soon. If the United Nations really wants a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, it must pass a resolution demanding that Saddam admit, within no more than 60 days, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors accompanied by thousands of troops to protect them, who would be authorized to inspect any site they choose to inspect whenever they choose to inspect it, and to destroy immediately whatever contraband they find. The inspectors must also have the authority to interview any Iraqi they choose to interview without any other Iraqis (especially members of the secret police) present when the interviews are being conducted. The resolution must leave no ambiguity, no room for Saddam to quibble about details, and it must make clear what the "or else" is. The United Nations is an animal with a large jawbone and a small backbone. It has never confronted a dictator when he was in power. If the Iraq crisis is to be settled without war, the United Nations as well as Saddam must change its ways. We've got to corner the rat. But it would be prudent also to leave a hole through which he, but not his regime, can escape. If Saddam is convinced we'll kill him no matter what, he'll choose to go down fighting, in the nastiest way possible. But if as the shadow of death falls upon him, the alternative of departure is held out to him, his resolve may crumble. Ferdinand Marcos had pledged to die fighting in Malacanang Palace. But as the hour approached, a shameful (but comfortable) life in exile seemed more appealing. Copyright ©1997-2002 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 Inspectors anticipate high-odds Iraq mission By William J. Kole, Associated Press September 22, 2002 VIENNA, Austria - Four years after they were pulled out of Baghdad, international nuclear weapons inspectors will rely heavily on new sleuthing technology if they're deployed to Iraq again, the team's chief says. Although the nuclear inspectors have been in and out of Iraq since 1991, enduring sandstorms, scorpions and subterfuge, the stakes have never been higher: Their findings could stoke - or undermine - the U.S. effort to galvanize global support for an invasion. "We're like policemen trying to find one murderer among millions of people," said head inspector Jacques Baute. "The probability seems quite low. The group of inspectors is small, while the country is quite big." "But if you use the right techniques, the chances become quite good," he added. "A nuclear program needs a large infrastructure. That's something that benefits us." The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, put its 18-member core team on alert after Iraq's surprise announcement last week that it would accept the inspectors' return. The agency said the team could leave as soon as the U.N. Security Council clears the mission and visa and travel arrangements are nailed down. The inspectors come from a dozen countries - the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China, Ireland, Egypt, Austria, Canada, India, the Netherlands and the Philippines - and will draw support and intelligence from other U.N. member states. They include veteran physicists like Baute, who has spent years assessing Iraq's clandestine nuclear program. A separate New York-based team will head the hunt for biological and chemical agents. U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They left in 1998. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 Scientists question Bush case against Iraq Independent.co.uk 22 September 2002 21:27 BDST By Andrew Buncombe in Washington One of the key pieces of "evidence" in the Bush administration's case for military action against Saddam Hussein is being questioned by a number of leading US scientists. It is also alleged that the administration is silencing dissent among its own analysts who have raised questions. Two weeks ago the administration heralded the discovery of shipments of thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes to Iraq as proof that President Saddam was secretly trying to develop a programme to produce nuclear weapons. Such tubes can be used in the production of enriched uranium, vital for such a programme. The discovery of the tubes ? which were intercepted en route to Iraq ? was leaked to a leading American newspaper. Vice-President Dick Cheney went on a television talk show to say the tubes were evidence that President Saddam was "actively and aggressively" trying to develop a nuclear programme. But a report from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) says such claims cannot be made. The report ? a draft of which has been obtained by The Independent on Sunday ? concludes: "By themselves these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons. They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational." Washington says that in the past 14 months it has seized two separate shipments of tubes to Iraq. While it refuses to say where the seizures took place, it has been reported that at least one of the shipments originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan. There is no evidence that any of the tubes actually reached Iraq. The shipments sparked concern among the US intelligence community because of the use of such tubes in the centrifuges employed to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Because these centrifuges rotate up to 1,000 times a minute, it is essential to use high-strength, heat-resistant metals. But the report produced by ISIS, an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues, questions this conclusion on several technical grounds, suggesting that, based on information released by the government, the tubes were of a thickness that would make them difficult to weld. It also says that by the time Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was destroyed by coalition forces during the Gulf war, it had abandoned aluminum for specialised steel and carbon fibre. David Albright, the director of ISIS and a scientist with first-hand experience of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team, said there was a debate within the US scientific community about the government's claims but added that the Bush administration had clamped down on such discussion. "I don't know why there is not more debate. I have heard that a lot of people are expected to remain silent. [The Bush administration] has certainly scared people," he said. "I met one government scientist who said his phone was being monitored." Despite such alleged tactics, there are signs of dissent in the scientific community. A report in the current edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by the Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, also questions the tubing "evidence". It says: "The aluminum tubing story -- and others to come -- may be taken at face value by an insufficiently sceptical press, but the decision to go to war is simply too important to let the administration 'wing it' in presenting its rationale." ***************************************************************** 30 Iraq Excludes Palaces From Inspection Sites Los Angeles Times - September 22, 2002 * Diplomacy: Baghdad now opposes 'new, bad resolutions' involving access to compounds. Bush reviews detailed military options. By ROBIN WRIGHT, TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- After agreeing last week to allow U.N. weapons inspectors unconditional access, Iraq reversed course Saturday and said it would not abide by any new U.N. resolution allowing monitors entry to key presidential compounds. Baghdad's latest gambit came as the Bush administration was preparing for a week of intense lobbying both at home and at the United Nations to win passage of at least one resolution needed to confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over his alleged failure to surrender weapons of mass destruction. While Washington is still pursuing a diplomatic course, the administration is also fine-tuning military plans in the event Iraq fails to cooperate. President Bush is reviewing detailed military options delivered to the White House by the Pentagon this month, U.S. officials said Saturday. "He has options before him, and he is reviewing those options," White House spokesman Sean McCormack said. The classified document was drawn up by Army Gen. Tommy Franks, chief of Central Command, the unit that would orchestrate an offensive in the Persian Gulf region. It outlines the requirements to wage war, including numbers of troops, warplanes, ships and munitions, officials said. Franks, who stopped in Kuwait during a tour of the region to talk with local commanders, said Saturday that his forces were ready. "We are prepared to undertake whatever activities and whatever actions we may be directed to take by our nation," he said. Franks cautioned, however, that no decision had been made. The Iraqi announcement, which followed a meeting between Hussein and his top officials, could further complicate delicate diplomatic efforts to avoid the use of force. "Iraq declared it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the U.N. secretary-general," the government said in a brief announcement read on Iraqi radio. "American officials are trying ... to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council," the statement added. Saturday's move appeared to be an attempt to undermine a sweeping and tough new U.N. resolution that is expected to be circulated Monday at the Security Council by the United States and Britain, U.N. diplomats said Saturday. That resolution would charge U.N. teams with checking any and all sites suspected of having information on nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. It would also, in effect, scrap any past compromises. The Iraqi statement referred particularly to a 1998 agreement between Iraq and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Iraq's sprawling presidential compounds, which have many facilities besides Hussein's personal palaces. For seven years, Baghdad refused entry to the facilities on the grounds that such inspections would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty. A compromise in 1998 gave inspectors access, but only if they were accompanied by an array of diplomats--a deal that prolonged the process and gave Iraq a new channel of appeal, according to former weapons inspectors. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday that Baghdad's latest ploy was not unexpected. "Anyone who has watched the past decade has seen the Iraqi government ... change their position depending on what they thought was tactically advantageous to them and kind of jerk the United Nations around," he said in an interview on CNN. "So it is no surprise at all." The Iraqi move could boost U.S. efforts at winning congressional support for a resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to confront Hussein. "Saddam thinks he can go back to where we left off, to when he was still setting the rules of the game. But there's no tolerance for that in this administration--and he doesn't get it," said Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert and former intelligence analyst now at National Defense University in Washington. "He won a lot of support last week when he agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return. Now he's lost the advantage he gained." But the United States and Britain are still facing an uphill battle at the United Nations, where there are growing indications that the Bush administration may have to settle for two resolutions: one outlining the specific terms for Iraqi compliance in giving up its deadliest arms and the second on the consequences if Baghdad balks. Russia, which has veto power at the Security Council, appears to be coming around to supporting a resolution after questioning last week whether one was necessary, U.N. diplomats said Saturday. "We're not there yet, but we're headed in the right direction," said a State Department official who requested anonymity after White House talks with Russian leaders Friday. And a British diplomat said Saturday that none of the 15 nations on the Security Council are now opposed to a strict resolution on arms inspections. But France, which also has a veto, does not want the use of force or the consequences of noncompliance in any initial resolution. Many Arab countries and other Security Council members, which do not have veto power but could form an important bloc, also favor separating the issue of military action from the inspections. "We favor a two-step process because we want the strongest international support to whatever decision is taken by the Security Council, so that the international community is not divided and so Saddam Hussein does not believe he can rely on any country to help him delay. He must feel that at every step the world is united," said a French diplomat who requested anonymity. Although the United States and Britain still intend to introduce a single resolution, a British envoy said Saturday that "the threat part of the resolution--the 'or else' clause--will be the hardest part" to negotiate. From the U.S. perspective, the real catch is the timing of the resolutions. The French and others do not want a second resolution taken to the floor until Iraq is judged to be in violation, which could be months down the road. "It will be easier to get world support if we first urge the Iraqi regime to disarm and, if the regime does not comply, then to think of the consequences," the French envoy said. But Washington fears that the Iraqis will merely procrastinate without the threat of force hanging over their heads, a situation that could both prolong the process of disarmament and defer the prospects of military intervention. "Baghdad's decision to allow weapons inspectors back after President Bush's speech proves once again that the Iraqis only act when they have a gun to their heads. Without a strong message about the risks it faces for noncompliance in one resolution, the U.N. risks being messed around yet again," the British diplomat said. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 31 DOE sets production hearings Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 09/22/02 092202 news 8 Amarillo Globe-News The Energy Department will conduct public hearings in Amarillo about the department's proposal to consider the Pantex Plant and four other sites for plutonium pit production facility.-->Web posted Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:20 a.m. CT Pantex, four other sites in running for new facility From staff and wire reports The Energy Department will conduct public hearings in Amarillo about the department's proposal to consider the Pantex Plant and four other sites for plutonium pit production facility. The hearings will be from 7 to 10 p.m. Oct. 8 at Amarillo College's College Union Building, Oak Room, 24th Avenue and Jackson Street. The public meeting will let the public present comments, ask questions and discuss issues with representatives from the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. Besides Pantex, other possible sites include the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M.; Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. On Friday, the NNSA announced its plan to prepare a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern Pit Facility. The formal notice is the first step in carrying out government recommendations to manufacture plutonium pits, the triggers for nuclear warheads. The proposed $4 billion plutonium production facility would employ about 1,500 people and the DOE hopes to have it running by 2020. "A new facility would re-establish the capability to manufacture all pit types in the nation's current nuclear stockpile and meet any future requirements in an environmentally compliant manner," the NNSA said in a news release. The Supplement will support two decisions: whether to proceed with a modern pit facility; and, if so, where it should be built. The environmental impact statement also will evaluate maintaining plutonium pit capabilities at Los Alamos and the possibility of upgrading Los Alamos facilities to increase pit production, according to the NNSA. The NNSA is seeking comments related to its plans to prepare the Supplemental Programmatic EIS. Comments should be submitted within 60 days and mailed to Jay Rose, document manager, Department of Energy/NNSA, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. Comments also can be faxed to 1-202-586-5324 or e-mailed to James.Rose@nnsa.doe.gov Plutonium pit production was shut down at Colorado's Rocky Flats plant in 1989 because of environmental, health and safety problems at the plant. Operations at the Rocky Flats plant and the contractor that once operated the facility, Rockwell International, were the subject of an intensive two-year federal grand jury investigation that began in 1989 after FBI agents raided the plant. Then-U.S. Attorney Mike Norton, however, rejected the grand jury's findings, saying there was not enough evidence to bring charges in the case. Rockwell, which had operated Rocky Flats for more than a decade ending in 1989, later agreed to plead guilty to 10 environmental crimes and pay an $18.5 million fine. In 1993, a Colorado federal judge released the grand jury report, which said the federal government and Rockwell repeatedly violated environmental laws under the guise of "national security," according to The Associated Press. Grand jurors alleged, among other things, that the Department of Energy and Rockwell employees "engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise" by repeatedly violating environmental laws and that plant operators contaminated the drinking water of nearby communities. Amarillo Globe-News Staff Writer Jim McBride and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 1996-2002 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************