*****************************************************************
09/23/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.244
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Germ: Environment issues swing the vote Success boosts centre-left 
2 Japan to water down N-safety 
3 British Energy facing crucial week
4 Ten countries agree to develop nuclear systems* 
5 UK: Power failure 
6 UK: UBS flight from British Energy
7 Japan, France agree to cooperate more closely on nuclear energy 
8 US: Secretary of Energy Announces International Agreement on the 
9 Russia says it will finish Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran by 
10 UK: Longer lifeline for nuclear group 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
11 US: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power
12 US: TMI - Index of the Kemeny Commision Reports 
13 Japan: Government inspectors complete reactor probes* 
14 Japan: Crack found in Miyagi nuclear reactor 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
15 US: NRC to Discuss Apparent Violation Involving Nuclear Gauge with N
16 US: Drill to test region's readiness for Indian Point emergency 
17 US: Sick worker claims being processed 
18 US: EEOICP Claims Statistics  (DOE Sick Workers)
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
19 US: Discount to be offered on tainted dirt 
20 US: New nuclear waste estimates show need to expand Yucca Mountain 
21 US: Onus on DOE to prove vit plant can deliver 
22 US: Nuke fuel route supposed to stay out of LV Valley 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
23 !*"Israel Helps South Africa Develop A-Bombs" by Lorenzo Komboa
24 !*"Arms Race in the Middle East" by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
25 US: Lawmakers Debate Bush Request 
26 UK 'sells' bomb material to Iran 
27 Nuclear Dangers Beyond Iraq 
28 Blair to plead for cabinet unity as Short breaks ranks on Iraq
29 A Good Nuclear Hoax 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Germ: Environment issues swing the vote Success boosts centre-left 
partnership 

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search 


John Hooper in Berlin 

Guardian 

Monday September 23, 2002 

Bill Clinton was famously reminded by a supporter not to wander
off the key issue in his campaign with the words: "It's the
economy, stupid". Last night's early projections suggested that, in
Germany's general election, "it was the environment, stupid". 
There were many issues, but the remarkable showing of the Greens
indicated that the environment had been a central concern. And if,
as the pollsters were predicting, a new centre-left government
emerged from the confusion, then the Greens were likely to have a
level of influence and authority at Gerhard Schröder's cabinet
table that they have never enjoyed before. The early reckonings saw
them winning 8.5%, compared with 6.7% four years ago. 

That would give them 54 seats - an increase of seven. Party leader
Joschka Fischer told supporters: "We said we wanted 8 [percent]
plus 'x'. Now it looks as if the 'x' will be an 'XXL.'" 
His spiky-haired cabinet colleague, Renate Künast, who runs a
"super-ministry" for food, farming and consumer protection, said
pointedly: "We fought a joint and unique red-green election
campaign." Indeed, the Greens' contribution was immense. Mr
Fischer, the foreign minister, put his all into winning votes on an
exhausting, countrywide bus tour. 

The Greens accounted for some of the most important achievements in
the track record Mr Schröder was able to take to the hustings.
Their first four years in government delivered a tax on fossil
fuels, an agreement to phase out nuclear energy, a huge increase in
wind power, a fall in carbon dioxide emissions, a 
push for organic farming, and the legalisation of gay marriages. 

But, above all, the Greens made a decisive contribution in the two
issues that seem to have turned the result the centre-left's way.
One was the chancellor's pledge to have no part in a US-led attack
on Iraq - which winkled out many left-leaning voters who might
otherwise have abstained. That undertaking would 
have looked a great deal less credible had it not come from a
leader who had spent four years in coalition with a party still
nominally committed to pacifism. 

The second key factor was last month's extensive flooding in
southern and eastern Germany. Here, the chancellor moved faster
than his rival, Edmund Stoiber, showing leadership by touring the
affected areas and swiftly arranging aid and compensation. It also
concentrated voters' minds on the environment in general, and
global warming in particular. The media was soon 
asking for Mr Stoiber's views on the subject and noting that he did
not even have an environment spokesperson. 

As the conservative challenger struggled to establish his green
credentials, the chancellor had no need to do so and the Greens
rose in the polls. 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 2 Japan to water down N-safety 

The Australian: 

[September 23, 2002] 

By Stephen Lunn, Tokyo correspondent 

JAPAN's nuclear safety authority was preparing to water down the 
industry's safety standards, reports yesterday warned, as two 
more electricity companies admitted to concealing safety breaches 
in key equipment servicing nuclear reactors. 

The Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency will set new technical 
standards that would allow damaged reactors to keep working 
despite having cracked equipment, provided the cracks were deemed 
safe, the Yomiuri newspaper reported, citing government sources. 
The standards would more closely match those at reactor sites in 
Germany, France and the US, which allow for an acceptable wear 
and tear component. Japan's ongoing specifications for its 
nuclear reactor parts are the same as for when they are 
manufactured. Japanese nuclear experts said this meant parts were 
found to be in need of replacement or repair when there was no 
safety issue. 

This would allow a reactor to continue to operate even if the 
shroud that encircles its core was cracked to up to half its 
thickness, or if a recirculation cooling pipe had cracks of up to 
a couple of millimetres. Any change to the standards would 
require parliamentary approval. It is understood the Economic 
Ministry that controls Japan's nuclear power program is hoping to 
put the new standards to the next sitting of Japan's parliament. 
The safety agency is conducting an intensive investigation into 
admissions from the owners of two power stations that they had 
concealed details of cracks in water pipes that carry cooling 
water in boiling-water reactors. This represents a more dangerous 
flaw than cracks in the shrouds, which caused concern at nuclear 
facilities owned by Japan's biggest electricity generator Tokyo 
Electric Power Co. 

Safety investigators spent the weekend trawling through records 
and conducting site inspections not only of TEPCO's three nuclear 
power plants but also facilities owned by Chubu Electric Power Co 
and Tohoku Electric Power Co. The investigations were hastily 
arranged after Chubu Electric Power admitted on Friday it had 
detected nine separate cracks in coolant pipes in two reactors at 
its Shizuoka plant, and Tohoku Electric Power confessed to 
finding cracks in four pipes cooling one reactor at a facility 
100km north of Tokyo. The investigations coincided with the 
weekend release of a report by the International Energy Agency 
entitled World Energy Outlook, which predicted a worldwide 
decline in nuclear power use, except for Japan. 

"Japan has announced that nuclear policy is an important part of 
its energy future, but the worldwide trend is that nuclear power 
is in decline," IEA executive director Richard Priddle told a 
conference in Osaka. "Few new reactors will be built under 
current government policy," he said. Japan's Economic Minister, 
Takao Hironuma, was less forthcoming about the role of nuclear 
power in the country's future, mentioning it only once during a 
long speech. He focused on the alternative energy source of 
natural gas. "One of the most important energy policies for Japan 
in recent years has been the shift to the use of more natural 
gas," he said, emphasising it was a cleaner energy source than 
oil and coal, and more accessible to the Asian market. 

*****************************************************************
 3 British Energy facing crucial week

BBC NEWS | Business | 

Monday, 23 September, 2002, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK 

[Dungeness B Power Station] British Energy provides one-fifth of 
the UK's electricity 

struggling nuclear power firm British Energy is facing a crucial 
deadline this week as it battles for its financial survival. 
Earlier this month the company won an emergency loan from the 
government of £410m ($635m) after it warned that it faced 
insolvency. But the loan deal expires on Friday. 

Press reports have suggested that the government will extend the 
financial aid package, and that shareholders and bondholders are 
considering injecting extra cash into the company. 

Energy Minister Brian Wilson told BBC Radio 5 Live that no 
decision had yet been made and added: "There are no dreams 
scenarios in this". Nonetheless, hopes of a deal sent British 
Energy shares up 7p, or almost 70%, to 16p by mid-afternoon. 

Loan talk 

British Energy and the government will continue negotiations over 
the loan this week. 

Mr Wilson said "the flow of information is continuing" and that a 
decision was "imminent". 

Speculation about British Energy's fate has shifted in the last 
week. Initial reports suggested the company would be put into 
administration. But it is now widely expected that the loan will 
be extended, in part because of the high financial and social 
costs associated with putting the company into administration. 

Mr Wilson said "the suggestion of administration hadn't come from 
us", but would not rule out the possibility. 

Long term solution 

As well as the extension to the loan, British Energy is seeking 
long term help. 

The group, which provides a fifth of the UK's power, has been hit 
by a drop in the wholesale price of electricity and by a shutdown 
at one of its power stations. 

It is lobbying the government for a cut in the £300m a year it 
pays the state-run British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to deal with 
nuclear waste. It is also seeking exemption from the climate 
change levy, a cut in business rates and reform of the 
electricity trading system known as Neta. Reports have suggested 
that a number of bondholders in the company are willing to 
subscribe to new "fund-raising" bonds providing the government is 
willing to drop the climate change levy. Foreign interest? 

Reports of stake-building in British Energy has also sparked 
rumours of a potential foreign bidder. 

Fidelity International, the US company's overseas arm, now owns 
9.19% of the firm, making it the group's second largest 
shareholder. However, the FSA, the financial regulator, is 
continuing its investigation into the time it took British Energy 
to disclose its problems. The FT said on Monday that three weeks 
before British Energy approached the government for help, the 
company told analysts that its financial position was healthy. 

*****************************************************************
 4 Ten countries agree to develop nuclear systems* 

Saturday, September 21, 2002 ** 

The United States, Japan and eight other countries have agreed to 
jointly develop a series of new nuclear energy systems by 2030, 
U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said Friday in Tokyo. 

The agreement was reached at a policy-group meeting of the 
Generation IV International Forum held Thursday and Friday. 

The pact calls for commercializing fourth-generation nuclear 
energy systems after the current decade but before 2030, Abraham 
said in a statement. 

"Generation-four nuclear energy systems will be able to recycle 
the most troublesome constituents of spent nuclear fuel, thereby 
vastly reducing the quantity of highly radioactive waste to be 
disposed of," Abraham told a news conference. 

The six energy systems to be developed involve: developing a 
gas-cooled fast reactor, a lead alloy liquid metal-cooled 
reactor, a molten salt reactor, a sodium liquid metal-cooled 
reactor, a supercritical water-cooled reactor, and a very high 
temperature gas reactor, Abraham said. 

Initiated by the U.S., the forum consists of government 
representatives from the 10 countries and meets regularly to 
discuss cooperation on fourth-generation nuclear energy systems. 

Abraham is visiting Japan to attend the eighth International 
Energy Forum meeting. 

The members of GIF are Argentina, Brazil, Britain, Canada, 
France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland and the 
U.S. 

*The Japan Times: Sept. 21, 2002* (C) All rights reserved 
 
*****************************************************************
 5 UK: Power failure 

money.telegraph.co.uk - Power failure 

(Filed: 22/09/2002) 

How did it happen? Mary Fagan looks at the circumstances leading 
to the FSA's probe into British Energy's sudden financial demise 

British Energy's embattled chief executive Robin Jeffrey will 
never forget August 2002. 

Within the space of a few short weeks, the nuclear generator went 
from being (in his words) financially sound to teetering on the 
verge of a financial abyss from which only a reluctant government 
can haul it back. 

Just how that happened - and who knew what - remains an important 
but as yet unanswered question. Were British Energy's 
shareholders kept in the dark for too long? If so, who is to 
blame? 

The Financial Services Authority, the City's watchdog, is piecing 
together the events of those fateful days, to assess whether the 
company kept the stock market properly informed about its fragile 
condition. Jeffrey's reputation - forged over more than 30 years 
in the nuclear industry - rests on the FSA's verdict. 

It is too early to predict what the FSA will eventually rule. But 
here is what those intimately involved in the saga say were the 
critical events. For Jeffrey and his team the nightmare began in 
earnest on Friday August 30 at its Cockspur Street offices in 
London. 

There they heard the conclusions of a report for the company by 
the consultants Accenture, which warned that there would be 
excess supply in the electricity generation market for the next 
10 years and that, as a result, wholesale prices would be low. 

Accenture's prediction was a body blow to the generator, whose 
finances had already been battered for months by very low power 
prices. The penny finally dropped that the company's revenue 
projections for the next two to three years, and therefore its 
entire business plan, were in tatters. 

The management was shocked but decided there was still hope. 
Behind the scenes the company had been fighting to renegotiate a 
fuel reprocessing contract with the state-owned British Nuclear 
Fuels (BNFL) which costs the generator £300m a year. 

That Friday, Jeffrey and his fellow directors were confident a 
deal with BNFL was imminent and that it would save British Energy 
up to £180m a year. 

Along with a planned sale of US assets, the board believed that 
was enough to secure their ability to draw down on short-term 
banking facilities and give the troubled company some much needed 
breathing space. But the Accenture report was just the latest in 
a series of setbacks British Energy's management had had to face. 

It had already been a massively tough year, not only because 
plunging power prices made it impossible for the company to make 
any money but because, unlike other UK electricity businesses, it 
owned no business supplying consumers which could have benefited 
from the cheaper power. 

Just a few weeks earlier, the City had become seriously nervous 
when the company admitted it had been forced to shut two reactors 
at Torness in Scotland because of technical problems. 

That had prompted Jeffrey and Keith Lough, the finance director, 
to hold a conference call on August 14 to reassure City analysts 
that in spite of the lost output from Torness, the finances were 
sound. In their insistence that there was no crisis looming at 
British Energy the duo were soon to be proved terribly wrong. 

It was no secret by then that the company was hoping to shore up 
its finances by running some of the old Magnox reactors owned by 
BNFL - in exchange for a management fee - and by seeking 
exemption from the Climate Change Levy. 

What was less well known were the attempts to renegotiate the 
reprocessing contract and exactly how critical those talks with 
BNFL would be. 

On August 20, just six days after the call to analysts, the 
company's lawyers, Clifford Chance, asked during a telephone 
"board meeting" whether the market fully realised the importance 
of reaching agreement with BNFL and how serious its plight would 
be if there was no deal. 

The management, said the lawyers, should verify the company was 
still able to draw down on its short-term banking facilities and 
was therefore still viable. City insiders say that British Energy 
took this on board and that it duly consulted advisers at Lazard, 
its merchant bank, and ABN Amro, its stockbroker. 

Management were assured that there was no problem, on the basis 
that the company's share price at that time reflected its 
financial position and prospects. There was therefore no need to 
publish a formal Stock Exchange statement. This was, of course, 
before the Accenture report. 

At least one of the lending banks confirmed again on August 28 
that the company could still draw down on the facilities. The 
Accenture bomb dropped just two days later. 

The meeting with Accenture was not the only one held on August 30 
concerning the future of the nuclear company. There was also a 
routine meeting attended by financial advisers to the Department 
of Trade and Industry and by representatives of British Energy 
and BNFL. 

There they discussed the fact that by next spring British Energy 
would need more than the anticipated savings from BNFL if it was 
to refinance its balance sheet. At the time, there was an 
assumption in Whitehall that British Energy was exaggerating its 
problems in an attempt to get some financial help from the 
Government. 

This scepticism had been prompted when British Energy announced 
in May that it was paying an unchanged dividend to its 
shareholders for the year to March 31 despite having reported a 
pre-tax loss of £493m. 

Anyway, between that Friday meeting and the following Wednesday, 
ministers and officials learned the ghastly truth, as the 
putative deal with BNFL unravelled. 

The next important event was on Monday September 2, when a senior 
partner at Clifford Chance told the company it should check again 
with the lending banks that short-term facilities were still 
available. That same day the company also had a telephone 
conversation with a senior banker from ABN Amro. 

He was not happy with what he heard - the situation no longer 
tallied with that on August 14 - and consulted his counterpart at 
the cobroker, HSBC. 

The following day both brokers told senior management in a 
conference call that British Energy must convene a board meeting. 
The board, said the brokers, must decide either to make an 
announcement on its financial situation or seek an exemption from 
the Stock Exchange. 

It is thought that British Energy at that point considered 
announcing that it was in talks with BNFL and that failure could 
lead to insolvency. However, it was apparently not possible to 
have a board meeting until Friday September 5. By then the 
stricken company had been overtaken by events. 

The beginning of the end came swiftly. On Tuesday night Jeffrey 
received a letter from BNFL indicating that the saving on the 
reprocessing contract was much less than the expected £180m. 

This was confirmed the following morning. British Energy and BNFL 
give different accounts of how far apart they were. But British 
Energy believes the saving on offer was less than £100m. 

The gap was due partly to a government-inspired plan to allocate 
£50m of the annual "savings" to a nuclear liabilities fund. 
Whatever the causes, the chasm between what British Energy needed 
so desperately and what was offered that morning meant there was 
no deal. 

This meant it would no longer be possible to draw down the 
lending facilities for the cash-hungry company. Jeffrey 
immediately wrote to Patricia Hewitt, the industry secretary, to 
say the company had no choice but to put itself into 
administration. 

That evening there was a hastily convened meeting at the DTI, and 
Hewitt, who was in Scotland but constantly in touch, agreed that 
she would try to find a way of keeping the company afloat. 

Bizarrely, no statement to that effect was made to the Stock 
Exchange until 6.40pm on Thursday. City insiders say that the 
delay was due to the need for a British Energy board meeting and 
the requirement to liaise closely with its benefactors at the 
DTI. 

So that is broadly what happened. It is now over to the FSA to 
decide whether this was a model of modern corporate governance. 
But compared to keeping the lights on at British Energy, this may 
not be Jeffrey's primary concern. 

[http://money.telegraph.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 6 UK: UBS flight from British Energy

money.telegraph.co.uk - 

By Malcolm Moore (Filed: 23/09/2002) 

UBS Global Asset Management has sold the majority of its stake in 
British Energy as the company's bondholders moved to find a 
solution to the crisis. 

[British Energy logo] 

Hope on the horizon? A bond 'rights issue' is a possible solution 
for the company UBS, which was holding more than 64m shares, or 
10.3pc of British Energy, as recently as last week, no longer has 
a notifiable interest in the company. UBS had steadily increased 
its holding from roughly 5pc to more than 10pc during the past 
six months until the crisis hit the nuclear generator. 

At the same time, Fidelity, one of the world's largest fund 
managers, acquired a further 13.4m shares in British Energy, 
making it the company's second largest shareholder with a 9.19pc 
stake. Meanwhile, some of the company's largest bondholders 
mulled over an action plan for the firm to prevent it going into 
administration.

Bondholders including Gartmore Investment Managers and Barclays 
Global Investors are said to be willing to subscribe to a bonds 
"rights issue" - new bonds secured on the company's assets - 
providing the Government agrees to drop the climate change levy. 

"If the Government made the concessions, British Energy's nuclear 
assets in the UK are viable and if you have a viable business 
then like every other investor, bondholders and shareholders 
would be prepared to put in cash," said an unnamed bondholder. 

The value of British Energy's sterling bond due to mature in 
March 2003 stood at 45pc on Friday evening. British Energy has 
£400m in outstanding bonds. 

Bondholders are urging the Government to extend its £410m 
emergency loan beyond next Friday to allow more time to plan a 
rescue for the company. Sources close to the company said that 
there was a "growing confidence" that the Government would 
lengthen the deadline. 

It also emerged over the weekend that British Energy was warned 
by its brokers that it should make a stock market announcement 
over its plight two days before it admitted it was talking to the 
Government. 

British Energy chairman Robin Jeffrey told analysts just weeks 
before the collapse that there was "no financial crisis" at the 
firm. The Financial Services Authority is now studying the tape 
of that conference call. 

Meanwhile, energy minister Brian Wilson stoked hopes that the 
Government has little intention of abandoning the British nuclear 
energy programme. Mr Wilson told reporters that without nuclear 
power, Britain would be even more dependent on foreign gas for 
its electricity. 

"The only way we could have complete security of supply without 
nuclear power would be to become 70pc dependent on gas, 90pc of 
which would be imported, some of it from places I don't think we 
would probably wish to stake our children's future on," he said. 

*****************************************************************
 7 Japan, France agree to cooperate more closely on nuclear energy 
despite recent Japanese safety scandal 

AP World Politics 

Sep 22,11:23 AM ET By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, Associated Press 
Writer 

TOKYO - Japanese and French energy ministers agreed to further 
collaborate in developing their nuclear energy industries Sunday 
even as a cover-up scandal of alleged safety breaches at nearly a 
dozen local reactors in Japan escalated. 

Meeting on the sidelines of the International Energy Forum in the 
western city of Osaka, Japanese and French energy ministers said 
they would particularly work closely together in the area of 
safety, the Japanese government said in a statement. 

Japan already has a close relationship with France in developing 
nuclear energy, sending its used nuclear fuel to Europe for 
reprocessing, which allows the remaining uranium to be recycled.

The process also extracts plutonium, which is used to produce the 
volatile mixed-oxide fuel known as MOX. The Japanese government 
and domestic power companies had planned to begin using MOX at 
power plants three years ago. But those plans were put on hold 
after two workers were killed in 1999 by a radiation leak at a 
fuel-reprocessing plant northeast of Tokyo in the country's 
worst-ever nuclear accident. 

Since then, public distrust of nuclear energy here has only 
deepened amid a brewing cover-up scandal involving three of the 
county's major utility companies. 

Energy Minister Takeo Hiranuma was quoted as telling his French 
counterpart that Japan was working to restore public confidence 
after the scandal broke last month, when it was discovered that 
Tokyo Electric Power Co. had been hiding structural problems at 
its nuclear plants. The scandal has since extended to two other 
utility companies, Chubu Electric Power Co. and Tohoku Electric 
Power Co., prompting a two-day probe of 11 reactors at five 
nuclear power plants over the weekend by the Nuclear and 
Industrial Safety Agency. All three utility companies have 
acknowledged failing to report known cracks in reactors to the 
government, but claim the damage was never serious enough to pose 
a safety hazard. 

Indeed, current proposals being drafted by the agency would allow 
reactors with minor damage — such as the cracked shrouds and 
pipes now under investigation — to continue operating if they do 
not present a risk, said the Yomiuri newspaper Sunday. 

Such changes would align Japan more closely with practices in 
France, Germany and the United States, the report said. But 
Hiranuma said in the statement that Japan had no plans to revise 
its nuclear policy. Calls to both agency and company officials 
were unanswered on Sunday. 

Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 Secretary of Energy Announces International Agreement on the 
Future of Nuclear Energy Technologies 

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release 

RELEASE DATE: September 20, 2002 [

US and Nine Leading Nuclear Nations to Jointly Develop Nuclear 
Energy Systems 

TOKYO, JAPAN - U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced 
today that the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), comprised 
of ten leading nuclear nations meeting in Japan this week, have 
reached agreement on six Generation IV nuclear energy systems to 
be pursued for joint development. Generation IV nuclear energy 
systems are next generation, advanced nuclear reactor and fuel 
cycle technologies available after this decade but before 2030 
that represent significant advances in economics, safety, 
reliability, proliferation-resistance and waste minimization. 

The activities of the GIF and the Generation IV initiative 
support the recommendation in the Bush Administration's National 
Energy Policy to pursue research in collaboration with 
international partners to develop the next generation of nuclear 
technologies. 

"Ten countries, key to the future of nuclear power, have now 
selected six technologies that they believe represent the future 
shape of nuclear energy and are now in the process of partnering 
to bring these technologies to reality," Secretary Abraham said. 
"This unprecedented accomplishment points not only to a future 
when the original promise of nuclear energy will be fulfilled, 
but to one that shows that the future of nuclear is an 
international future, involving the collective skills, the 
expertise and resources of many countries." 

For the last year, more than 100 experts from the ten GIF 
countries, as well as the Organization of Economic Cooperation 
Development Nuclear Energy Agency, the European Commission and 
the International Atomic Energy Agency have participated in the 
development of a Generation IV technology roadmap. With the 
completion of this roadmap, the GIF has converged on the 
following six next generation technologies for future bilateral 
and multilateral cooperation: 

+ Gas-cooled fast reactor systems 

+ Lead alloy liquid metal-cooled reactor systems 

+ Molten salt reactor systems 

+ Sodium liquid metal-cooled reactor systems 

+ Supercritical water-cooled reactor systems 

+ Very high temperature gas reactor systems 

The GIF, initiated in January 2000 and formally chartered in July 
2001, is an international collective represented by the 
governments of leading nuclear nations that agree that nuclear 
energy is important to the future world energy security and 
economic prosperity and are dedicated to joint development of the 
next generation of nuclear energy systems. In addition to the 
United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United 
Kingdom are members of the GIF. 

Additional information on the Energy Department's nuclear energy 
initiatives can be found at www.nuclear.gov 
[http://www.nuclear.gov] . 

The Secretary's Generation IV Forum speech Overview of Generation 
IV Technology Roadmap(pdf) Generation IV International Forum: 
Update(pdf) 

Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 Corry Schiermeyer, 
202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-185 

*****************************************************************
 9 Russia says it will finish Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran by 
the end of 2003 

AP World Politics 

Sep 23,10:14 AM ET 

MOSCOW - Russia plans to finish construction and launch the 
controversial Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran by the end of 
2003, Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev was quoted as 
saying Monday by the Interfax news agency. 

The United States has strongly objected to Russian participation 
in completing the 1,000-megewatt plant, which both Russia and 
Iran insist will be used for civilian purposes only. The United 
States says Bushehr could help advance Iran's weapons program. 

Interfax reported that Rumyantsev said the project would be over 
by the end of 2003 and that Russia has no other nuclear programs 
with Iran. Earlier this month, Russia drew up a plan for the 
return of spent nuclear fuel from Bushehr. The United States had 
said this was vital to prevent the fuel from falling into the 
wrong hands and possibly be used for weapons of mass destruction. 
Iran still must agree to the plan. The deal to finish Bushehr, 
which was started by the Germans and interrupted as a result of 
the Iranian revolution, is worth about dlrs 800 million to 
Russia, which has been reluctant to abandon the project both for 
economic reasons and matters of international prestige. The 
Kremlin has floated preliminary plans to help Iran build five 
more nuclear reactors over the next 10 years, but Interfax quoted 
Rumyantsev as saying Bushehr is the only actual nuclear program 
Russia has with Iran. Earlier this month, Viktor Kozlov, head of 
the Atomstroiexport company, which is heading the construction, 
said the Bushehr plant would be completed by the end of 2003 or 
the beginning of 2004. 

(dgs/sbg) 

Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 UK: Longer lifeline for nuclear group 

British Energy is set to get extra breathing space from its 
troubles this week with the Government forecast to extend its 
emergency loan. 

The Government is said to be planning on extending the nuclear 
group's loan, worth £410 million, beyond Friday's deadline. 

British Energy, which supplies a fifth of the UK's electricity, 
was given the loan earlier this month after warning it could face 
insolvency unless it received immediate financial aid. 

The loan lapses on September 27 and fears have been mounting that 
the firm will be placed in administration. 

Reports said the Government was preparing to extend the emergency 
package beyond Friday's cut-off point for a few weeks or even 
months. 

The Sunday Times said sources close to the talks believed that 
the lifetime would be extended for another fortnight. 

The paper said shareholders and bondholders were understood to 
have talked about providing an injection of funds to save British 
Energy from administration. 

However The Business newspaper said the group would secure an 
extension of emergency funding which would allow it to trade 
until Christmas. 

The Observer quoted a senior government source saying the main 
debate was whether the extension should be "another two weeks to 
keep them focused, or should it be longer, say three months?". 

A long extension would be seen as the strongest signal that the 
Government is determined to find a solution for British Energy 
that leaves it in the private sector, and will allay fears it 
will be put into administration. 

© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 23 September 2002 
This Is London
*****************************************************************
 11 Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power
 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:45:23 -0400 (EDT)

 
http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/
======================================================


[Federal Register: September 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 59580-59581]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23se02-108]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265]
 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 
50.71(e)(4) for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25, 
issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation 
of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy 
County, Illinois, and for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and 
DPR-30, issued to the licensee, for operation of the Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, 
Illinois. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing 
this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant a schedular extension for Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (Dresden), Units 2 and 3, and for Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities), Units 1 and 2, for submittal of 
revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs) from the 
regularly scheduled dates. 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires that subsequent 
revisions to the UFSAR be submitted periodically to the NRC provided 
that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. 
The Dresden and Quad Cities UFSAR revisions are currently submitted on 
a 24-month cycle. The next scheduled date for submittal of the revised 
UFSAR for Dresden is June 30, 2003, and for Quad Cities is October 20, 
2003. However, the licensee plans to submit revised UFSARs along with 
Operating License Renewal Applications (LRAs) for Dresden and Quad 
Cities in January 2003. The licensee plans to resume the established 
schedule for submittal of the UFSAR revisions in 2005 for both 
stations. The licensee requests a one-time exemption to postpone 
submittal of the revised Dresden and Quad Cities UFSARs until 2005.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated August 9, 2002.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The licensee proposes to submit revised UFSARs with LRAs in January 
2003, and to resume the established schedule for submittal of UFSAR 
revisions for Dresden on June 30, 2005, and for Quad Cities on October 
20, 2005. An exemption is required because 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires 
that subsequent revisions to the UFSAR be submitted periodically to the 
NRC provided that the interval between successive updates does not 
exceed 24 months.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated November 1973, 
and for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, dated 
September 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On August 22, 2002, the staff consulted with the Illinois State 
official, Mr. F. Niziolek of the Department of Nuclear Safety, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the

[[Page 59581]]

NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated August 9, 2002. Documents may be examined, and/
or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located 
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the 
NRC Web site, <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</A>. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff 
by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
<A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of September, 2002.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony J. Mendiola,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-24151 Filed 9-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 12 TMI - Index of the Kemeny Commision Reports 

The Reports of The President's Commission On The Accident At 
Three Mile Island 

The Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three 
Mile Island is just one of the documents produced by the 
commission and its staff. Over 30 other reports were published. 
Construction Note: Until all of the available reports associated 
with the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile 
Island have been published here, this site will be nominally 
"under construction." Tentative publication months have been 
provided for some of the reports not yet online. 

Reports: 

Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three 
Mile Island (online: 8/12/2002) 

Staff Reports to the Commission 

Reports of the Technical Assessment Task Force, Vol. I 

+ Technical Assessment Task Force Staff (added 9/2/2002) 

+ Technical Staff Analysis Reports Summary 26 report summaries 
and 2 Appendices) (added 9/3/2002 to 9/8/2002) 

+ Summary Sequence of Events (added 9/9/2002 to 9/21/2002 Reports 
of the Technical Assessment Task Force, Vol. II Planned for 
November, 2002 

+ Chemistry 

+ Thermal Hydraulics 

+ Core Damage 

+ WASH 1400 — Reactor Safety Study 

+ Alternative Event Sequences Reports of the Technical Assessment 
Task Force, Vol. Ill Planned for December, 2002 

+ Selection, Training, Qualification, and Licensing of Three Mile 
Island Reactor Operating Personnel 

+ Technical Assessment of Operating, Abnormal, and Emergency 
Procedures 

+ Control Room Design and Performance Reports of the Technical 
Assessment Task Force, Vol. IV Planned for January, 2003 

+ Quality Assurance 

+ Condensate Polishing System 

+ Closed Emergency Feedwater Valves 

+ Pilot-Operated Relief Valve Design and Performance 

+ Containment: Transport of Radioactivity from the TMI-2 Core to 
the Environs 

+ Iodine Filter Performance 

+ Recovery: TMI-2 Cleanup and Decontamination The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Report of the Office of Chief Counsel 
Planned for March, 2003 

The Role of the Managing Utility and Its Suppliers, Report of the 
Office of Chief Counsel Planned for February, 2003 

Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Response, Reports of the Office 
of Chief Counsel 

Reports of the Public Health and Safety Task Force 

+ Public Health and Safety Summary 

+ Health Physics and Dosimetry 

+ Radiation Health Effects 

+ Behavioral Effects 

+ Public Health and Epidemiology Report of the Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Task Force 

Report of the Public's Right to Information Task Force 

*****************************************************************
 13 Japan: Government inspectors complete reactor probes* 

Monday, September 23, 2002 ** 

Government inspectors completed a two-day probe Sunday into the 
inspection records of nuclear power plants operated by three 
utilities embroiled in coverup scandals. 

The inspectors from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency 
began the on-site investigations Saturday, examining the records 
of Tokyo Electric Power Co., Chubu Electric Power Co. and Tohoku 
Electric Power Co. The agency is part of the Ministry of Economy, 
Trade and Industry. 

Of the four plants covered, five were inspected Saturday, with 
that day's work ending at Tepco's Fukushima No. 2 plant in 
Fukushima Prefecture. 

The agency said the inspectors obtained more than 10 records at 
each of the plants and questioned power company officials at each 
location concerning the reported coverups. 

The inspectors will compare the records with those to be 
submitted by Toshiba Corp. and Hitachi Ltd., which have been 
commissioned by the utilities to conduct voluntary in-house 
inspections. 

The five nuclear plants subject to the probes are in Fukushima, 
Miyagi, Shizuoka and Niigata prefectures. 

An inspector who checked Tepco's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in 
Niigata Prefecture said, "We have found no falsified portions in 
the records so far, but it seems that reports on cracks did not 
go above the plant's section in charge." 

A inspector in charge of Tohoku Electric Power's Onagawa plant in 
Miyagi Prefecture said, "We have no impression so far that there 
were clear wrongdoings." 

The agency is trying to get to the bottom of alleged coverups of 
damage to pipes that carry primary cooling water in boiling-water 
reactors. It wants to know if power companies tend to hide 
reactor-related problems, and if so, why, they said. 

Government inspectors rarely conduct simultaneous on-site 
investigations at nuclear power plants of different power 
utilities. 

The three utilities earlier acknowledged failing to report 
reactor cracks to the government despite learning of the damage 
during regular in-house checks. 

Tepco said Friday it has found cracks in eight of its nuclear 
reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear power plants, 
as well as the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant. Each of the eight 
reactors had two to 12 cracked pipes. 

Chubu Electric Power said Friday it has found a total of nine 
cracks in two reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka 
Prefecture. 

Also on Friday, Tohoku Electric Power acknowledged finding four 
cracks in a nuclear reactor at the Onagawa nuclear power plant in 
Miyagi Prefecture. 

The cracked pipes are potentially more serious than the cracked 
reactor shrouds that were at the center of many of the earlier 
cases of damage disclosed at nuclear reactors. In the earlier 
cases, Tepco acknowledged having falsified reports. 

Tohoku Electric Power supplies power in the Tohoku region while 
Chubu Electric Power serves Aichi, Nagano, Yamanashi and other 
prefectures in central Japan. 

*The Japan Times: Sept. 23, 2002* (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 14 Japan: Crack found in Miyagi nuclear reactor 

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 


Monday, September 23, 2002 at 18:00 JST 

SENDAI ? 

Tohoku Electric Power Co said Monday it has detected a crack in a 
reactor at its nuclear power plant in Miyagi Prefecture, 
northeastern Japan during regular inspections. 

Company officials said the crack was found in the shroud of a 
reactor pressure vessel of the No. 1 nuclear reactor at the 
Onagawa nuclear plant but that there has been no radiation 
leakage or impact on the external environment. 

(Kyodo News) 


Japan Today Discussion 

*****************************************************************
 15 NRC to Discuss Apparent Violation Involving Nuclear Gauge with N.J. Firm 

NRC: News Release Region I - 2002 - 59 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Office of Public Affairs, Region I 
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

No. I-02-059 September 20, 2002 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 

Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
[opa1@nrc.gov] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with 
representatives of a New Jersey company on Thursday, September 
26, to discuss an apparent violation of agency requirements. The 
apparent violation by Craig Testing Laboratories, Inc., involves 
failure to maintain constant surveillance of a portable nuclear 
density gauge in use at a construction site. The device was 
subsequently damaged. The predecisional enforcement conference is 
scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the 
NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. The meeting will be 
open to the public for observation, with NRC officials available 
to answer questions prior to adjournment. 

Craig Testing is based in Mays Landing, N.J. An NRC inspection 
determined that on July 15, an employee of the firm was using the 
gauge, which contains radioactive material and can be used to 
measure soil density, in a trench at Hopewell Valley High School 
in Pennington (Mercer County), N.J. At one point, the gauge user 
was asked to move his vehicle to allow construction equipment to 
pass. While doing that, he lost visual contact with the device 
and it was damaged by a forklift. 

While no one was injured as a result of the event, and the 
radioactive material inside was found to be intact, a failure to 
maintain constant surveillance of a gauge in use represents an 
apparent violation of NRC requirements. 

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does 
not mean that the NRC has made a final determination that a 
violation did occur or that enforcement action, such as a fine, 
is warranted. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the 
apparent violation, its causes and its safety significance. The 
meeting will also provide the company with an opportunity to 
address any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection 
report and to present its corrective actions. 

No decision on the apparent violation or any possible enforcement 
action will be made at the conference. Those decisions will made 
by senior NRC officials at a later time. 

Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer 

Last revised Friday, September 20, 2002 
*****************************************************************
 16 Drill to test region's readiness for Indian Point emergency 

By ROGER WITHERSPOON THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: 
September 22, 2002) 

BUCHANAN — On Tuesday morning, the instruments in a control room 
at Indian Point 2 will show something very, very wrong. Then, 
things will only get worse. 

Before the day is half over, the nuclear power plant's operators 
will lose control of more than 400,000 gallons of coolant. The 
reactor core will turn into a nuclear, molten slag, which will 
melt through the reactor's steel liner and drop into the pool of 
coolant water on the huge containment building's floor. 

The force of the resulting steam explosion will burst through the 
building, threatening people in four counties with wind-borne 
radioactive contamination. At that point, the emergency response 
teams of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange counties and 
the State Emergency Management Office will begin trying to 
protect as many residents as possible. They will have to evacuate 
everyone who may be in the path of the radiation cloud, control 
all traffic in the region, set up emergency evacuation centers, 
safely remove children from schools and shut-ins from hospitals 
and nursing homes, and treat contamination victims in special 
hospital facilities and emergency centers. The emergency will not 
be real, but the stakes will be high. County, state and Indian 
Point officials will attempt to prove to federal regulators that 
the more than 300,000 residents within 10 miles of the nuclear 
plants could be safely protected or evacuated in the event of a 
real radiation emergency. 

Federal regulators will also try to assure the public that the 
exercise — a biannual drill of the counties' emergency evacuation 
plans — is a valid measure of the level of protection the public 
can expect. "The purpose is to show that, should there be a real 
emergency, we can protect the public health and safety," said 
Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive 
Andrew Spano. "Which we can do." 

The drill, which uses a relatively small number of people to 
simulate the interactions of thousands from scores of 
organizations, has come under increasing criticism since the 
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. It has been 
looked at as an ineffective tool to test how well emergency 
workers and law enforcement officials could safely evacuate 
thousands of frightened people. Of late, critics have cited the 
official analysis of the response to the Trade Center disaster by 
New York City firefighters and police as an example of the Indian 
Point drill's deficiencies. 

The study found that many of these first responders died 
needlessly because of a lack of individual training and 
coordination between agencies. "Our analysis of the police and 
fire response recommends full training and drills and simulations 
for all personnel, not just representatives or officers," said 
Andrew Giangola, spokesman for McKinsey and Co., the consulting 
firm that analyzed New York City's response on Sept. 11. "This is 
to ensure that procedures are known and followed by all of those 
who will be responding to a catastrophe. 

The city faces a new reality, new levels of threats that 
necessitate new levels of training done more realistically." The 
regional emergency response plans for Indian Point have not 
significantly changed in recent years, and do not take into 
account the kind of terrorist attack that felled the Twin Towers, 
or an attack on the pool of spent fuel elsewhere on the plant's 
property. Tuesday's drill will focus on the response to a 
particular area that would be contaminated based on prevailing 
winds, which will be selected by testers the day of the exercise.

Westchester will need to show that it can evacuate residents 
within a mile of the plant and along the path of the radioactive 
cloud. If the wind route takes the radiation into Putnam or 
Rockland counties, they will also have to test their evacuation 
plans. Controllers who face the mock crisis will not operate the 
real reactor, but will work in an identical simulator room 
fighting a series of nuclear problems thrown at them by those 
running the drill. The test is to ensure that Indian Point meets 
its federal license requirement to have a realistic emergency 
plan in place. How well the agencies involved interact and 
respond to the simulated emergency will be evaluated by teams of 
52 inspectors from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 20 
inspectors from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

NRC inspectors will monitor actions within the plant to determine 
how well control room operators and other plant personnel respond 
to their various challenges and communicate with outside 
agencies. That part of the drill is of particular significance to 
Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which purchased Indian Point 2 last 
September, and has had to deal with poorly trained staff at 
virtually every level. The plant has a "yellow" designation by 
the NRC, the agency's second-lowest safety rating, because four 
of its seven control room crews failed their annual licensing 
exams in October. Entergy has since instituted new training 
programs for the entire staff in an effort to upgrade 
performance. 

NRC documents obtained by The Journal News show that, since 1995, 
Indian Point 2 has had difficulty passing parts of its emergency 
drills or properly responding to real problem situations because 
of employees' inability to correctly identify the cause of 
equipment or system malfunctions. The regulatory agency's most 
recent cause for concern in the area of emergency preparedness 
was the plant's Feb. 15, 2000, steam generator tube failure, 
which resulted in the leak of 20,000 gallons of radioactive 
coolant in the plant and a small release of contaminated gas into 
the atmosphere.

Two members of the NRC team that investigated the accident 
criticized the plant's response and wrote in a March 30, 2000, 
memo that, "We are uncertain that the licensee could protect 
public health and safety during a significant radiological 
emergency because of the difficulties demonstrated by the 
licensee in implementing their emergency plan … Given the history 
of the licensee's various communication breakdowns, procedural 
deficiencies, qualification lapses, poor personnel coordination 
and weak technical support, we conclude that the outcome of the 
licensee's response to a challenging emergency would be 
uncertain."

"We have seen some improvement, but they still have a way to go," 
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said recently. "Entergy has devoted a 
lot of resources to try to address these problems, including 
mentoring control room operators, improving their training and 
providing better equipment. They are taking steps to get at the 
root of these problems, but they do take time. This will be a 
good test." 

Mike Slobodien, Entergy's director of emergency programs, said 
training has been completely changed at the plant. "We do not 
tell them what is wrong," he said. "We only tell them symptoms. 
They have to use the proper diagnostic equipment, make the 
appropriate tests and only then do they get the information 
allowing them to go to the next step. The objective is to 
demonstrate they can figure out what is going on." 

Tuesday's drill is the largest in a series of tests designed to 
examine the region's overall emergency response capabilities. 
Other reviews conducted earlier this summer examined the ability 
of hospitals to set up isolation treatment areas to care for 
contaminated or injured victims, whether reception centers could 
hold school children and other evacuees, and whether systems were 
in place to protect food, livestock and water sources. In Putnam, 
for example, FEMA evaluated a four-hour drill designed to show 
that ambulance crews and Putnam Hospital Center were equipped to 
handle a person contaminated by radiation. 

Officials representing 23 state agencies and Gov. George Pataki's 
office will participate in Tuesday's drill from the State 
Emergency Management Office in Albany. At Westchester's emergency 
command center in the county office building in White Plains, the 
top two officials of each county department will join Spano in 
the drill. During the past year, Tolchin said, more than 1,500 
county employees have participated in emergency training at a 
cost of more than $4.6 million. The county received $412,500 from 
Entergy for emergency planning and training. 

The decisions made by officials during the drill will not 
actually be carried out by anyone. There will be no police 
barricades set up, no sample evacuations, no mock victims treated 
at hospitals. There will be field monitoring teams that will be 
sent out to take radiation readings at various points in each 
county. 

Each participating police and fire department will have a 
representative talking about their responsibilities, said Robert 
Reynolds of FEMA's National Preparedness Division. For example, 
he said, a traffic control point might be selected in 
Croton-on-Hudson and the designated officer from that department 
would go to the spot, where he would be interviewed by FEMA 
testers. 

"He would not be graded on his travel time," Reynolds said, "but 
on whether or not he understands his responsibilities." 

The officer would then explain how he would set up barricades and 
direct traffic away from the advancing radiation cloud. That 
discussion would represent how the entire Croton Police 
Department would effectively deal with all traffic through its 
area.

Similarly, an interview with a police officer in Nyack could 
represent traffic control for all of Route 9W or the Palisades 
Parkway. 

Dennis Michulski, a SEMO spokesman, said the drill was primarily 
"a full-scale decision-making exercise. During an emergency, all 
state agencies are available. But the idea here is to present 
problems and test how the answers to those problems are worked 
out in a timely manner." While a key element of any evacuation is 
transportation, that, too, will be simulated. Calls will be made 
to bus companies at the time they would be contacted during a 
real emergency, but no buses will actually hit the road. 

Nor will the public be involved in any aspect of the drill, a 
lack of participation that also has critics wondering how the 
counties can accurately predict how residents would react during 
a true emergency. William Waugh, a professor of public 
administration and urban studies at Georgia State University and 
a specialist in urban emergency response, said exercises such as 
the Indian Point drill assume the public will follow instructions 
in the event of a real emergency. "Under the best of 
circumstances that doesn't happen," he said. "People don't do 
what they are told. We don't respond to authority the way we used 
to. If a drill is to be effective, (planners) have to pay much 
more attention to involving the public than they are used to. 
"But FEMA drills and those of very few agencies are built to 
involve the public," he said. "They have a law enforcement and 
military orientation, and human factors are not necessarily 
considered. Yet everyone in emergency management knows that some 
people will comply, and some people won't. In real emergencies, 
there are a lot of people who do not follow directions and are 
injured or killed. You can't assume that people will get in their 
car and go when you say go, or go only where you want them to 
go." 

Send e-mail to [rwithers@thejournalnews.com] 

[http://www.thejournalnews.com] - 
*****************************************************************
 17 Sick worker claims being processed 

The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

p.m. on Monday, September 23, 2002 

The Department of Energy has reached agreements with 11 states on 
assisting contractor employees in applying for workers' 
compensation benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act. The agreements that have been 
reached are with the states representing more than 99 percent of 
claims, according to a DOE press release. The agreements are with 
Alaska, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

Additional agreements are pending, according to the release. 
Under the program workers or their survivors may apply to DOE for 
a determination of whether the worker's illness or death arose 
from exposure to toxic substances at an Energy Department 
facility.

Claims will be reviewed by an independent physicians' panel. If 
the panel determines that the worker's illness resulted from 
exposure while at work, the DOE will assist the worker in filing 
a claim with their state and direct the worker's contractor 
employer not to contest the claim. 

To date the DOE has received more than 19,000 cases. According to 
the release, processing of cases has begun and will proceed in 
the order in which the cases were received. Each case will be 
assigned to an Office of Worker Advocacy nurse caseworker who 
will be the main point of contact with the applicant. 

Those interested in applying for assistance should contact the 
DOE toll-free hot line at 1-877-447-9756. Additional information 
is available online at [http://www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy] . 

[http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] 

[http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 18 EEOICP Claims Statistics  (DOE Sick Workers)

Division of Federal Employees' Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 
[ ] www.dol.gov/esa 


Totals as of September 12, 2002 
Claims Filed 33,938 
Recommended Decisions 
Approved 5,959 
Denied 6,623 
Final Decisions 
Approved 5,134 
Denied 2,770 
Compensation Paid 
Payments 4,603 
Total Dollars 333,092,879 
Medical Bills Paid 
Total Dollars 3,139,220 
Referred to NIOSH 
7,766 
Compliance Assistance OWCP 
+ EEOICP 
+ DFEC 
+ DLHWC 
+ DCMWC About OWCP OWCP Contacts OWCP Customer Assistance 

U.S. Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 1-866-4-USA-DOL, 
TTY: 1-877-889-5627 Contact Us 
[http://www.apps.dol.gov/feedback/feedback.asp?agency=OWCP&webmasterURL=mailto:
 
esaweb@dol-esa.gov&programURL=http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/ec.htm] 
*****************************************************************
 19 Discount to be offered on tainted dirt 

northjersey.com  Bergen News 

Sunday, September 22, 2002 

By TOM DAVIS Staff Writer 

MAYWOOD - The Utah company that's stored radioactive dirt from 
the Maywood Superfund site for four years wants to keep doing it, 
and end months of speculation over where the federal government 
will ultimately dump the soil. 

This week, Envirocare will offer a 20 percent discount to the 
federal government to dump thorium-laced soil, said Al Rafati, 
the company's executive vice president. The Utah disposal 
facility, he said, would essentially outbid the federal 
government's more affordable, but problematic choice: Cotter 
Corp. of Colorado. 

The Army Corps of Engineers and its project contractors chose 
Cotter early this year, saying Envirocare's offer was 12 percent 
higher. But the decision sparked a furor in Colorado, where 
residents wary of Cotter's practices prodded state's officials in 
the spring to delay the soil's arrival. It is unclear when or if 
the state will allow Cotter to take New Jersey's waste. 

Also unclear is how much soil the Army Corps will ship from 
Maywood. Initially, the corps said it intended to send up to 
470,000 tons of radioactive soil strictly to Cotter. Now the 
federal agency has a tentative $244 million plan to treat tons of 
the soil in New Jersey, keep much of the treated dirt in Maywood, 
and send an undetermined amount of contaminated material to 
either Cotter or Envirocare. 

Rafati said his company is the best choice because its sole 
purpose is to dump hazardous waste. Cotter, on the other hand, 
wants to use the soil to cover other contaminated materials at 
its uranium mill.

"There would be no compelling reason for them [the corps] to 
consider anybody else," said Rafati, who said Envirocare's "pure 
disposal rate," not including transportation and equipment costs, 
is about $100 per cubic yard. 

Cotter officials say the company has no plans to change its 
original offer. "Our bid is a fixed bid," said Executive Vice 
President Rich Ziegler. "It's up to the corps as to who brings in 
the soil." 

The corps, meanwhile, says a new bid from Envirocare will have 
little or no impact on its plans to clean up sites in Maywood, 
Lodi, and Rochelle Park that were contaminated by Maywood 
Chemical more than 40 years ago. The federal agency has been 
using Envirocare as a temporary solution while it waits for a 
resolution in Colorado. 

The corps, which hopes to complete the cleanup by 2008, has been 
sending as much as 20 rail cars of tarp-covered dirt a week to 
Envirocare since the Cotter plan was shelved. 

Allen Roos, project administrator for the corps, said the federal 
government ultimately will have to review the latest offer from 
the Utah disposal facility, once it's made. 

The corps is removing radioactive thorium, which seeped into the 
area's groundwater after it was dumped on the Maywood plant's 
property prior to 1959. 

Tom Davis' e-mail address is davist@northjersey.com 

*****************************************************************
 20 New nuclear waste estimates show need to expand Yucca Mountain 

Las Vegas SUN: 

September 22, 2002 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Current plans for the nuclear waste repository 
at Yucca Mountain do not include enough space to hold all the 
liquid radioactive waste to be produced by the federal 
government, according to an Energy Department official. 

New agency waste estimates mean that an expansion of the planned 
site, or construction of a second facility in Yucca Mountain, 
will be needed to hold all defense and energy wastes to be 
converted for storage by 2035, said DOE spokesman Joe Davis. The 
site is expected to be filled by that year to its 77,000-ton 
capacity. 

"The deal on the second repository is you can't conduct siting 
activities until Congress appropriates funds for it," Davis said. 
"You have to wait for Congress to make a move on it." 

Davis spoke with The Las Vegas Review-Journal in a copyright 
story published Sunday. 

The modified estimates involve high-level liquid nuclear waste 
produced by the DOE and Department of Defense that is being 
converted into more manageable and stable glass cylinders. 

More than 90 million gallons of the highly radioactive waste, 
some of it dating back to 1944, are now stored as liquids, 
sludges and salts. Based on weight, only about a third of the 
estimated 23,475 glass cylinders to be produced by 2035 will fit 
in the facility currently planned at Yucca Mountain. Spent 
nuclear fuel from commercial power plants will take up the 
remainder of the space. 

Davis told the newspaper that Yucca Mountain remains physically 
capable of holding all nuclear waste to be produced. With 
congressional approval the facility could be expanded to 120,000 
tons, to be filled by 2048. The site about 90 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas, which would open as early as 2010, has been approved 
by Congress, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and President Bush. 

It must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a 
series of hearings that could stretch into 2007. 

Bob Loux, chief of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, said he 
had not previously seen the new DOE numbers, which also were not 
included on the environmental impact report viewed by federal 
officials. He said the lack of space means the Energy Department 
may need to break agreements with four states where liquid wastes 
are currently stored. The DOE had agreed with Idaho, Washington, 
New York and South Carolina to remove the wastes by 2035 if the 
Yucca Mountain facility is built. -- 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 21 Onus on DOE to prove vit plant can deliver 

Published Sept. 23, 2002 

The Department of Energy will be penny-pinching its way into a 
bad deal for taxpayers if does not heed the growing chorus of 
warnings about the cost of Hanford's waste treatment plant. 

Harry Boston, the department's former manager in charge of 
overseeing the project, said back in May that the $4 billion 
plant would cost an extra $500 million. Bechtel, the contractor 
on the job, agreed. 

The Energy Department's cleanup czar, Jessie Roberson, said that 
figure was unacceptable. 

Now, the department's own independent review panel has concluded 
the project will cost even more, putting the base expense at $4.8 
billion to$5 billion. 

As the agency looks to pare those numbers, it runs the risk of 
underbuilding a plant designed to glassify some of Hanford's 
nastiest wastes. A lower price only is a bargain if the plant 
still does an adequate, timely job. 

Even at $4 billion, the vitrification plant is a monumental 
investment. It should be built to make the most of that 
investment.

Bechtel wants to build the plant faster and bigger than the 
Energy Department does. Roy Schepens, the Energy Department's new 
manager overseeing the project, expects to release numbers later 
this month or early October that will show what his department 
thinks of that approach. 

If higher profits are all that is pushing Bechtel to speed up the 
construction schedule, then the Energy Department will be right 
to rein the company in. 

But if there's more to it, if spending more on the plant now 
could save money laterby allowing the plant to handle more of the 
wastes and shave years of operating costs,then the Energy 
Depart-ment will have a tough time making its case for 
cuttingcorners. 

The department would have to explain its reluctance to invest in 
proven waste treatment technology when it is considering spending 
$30 million on studying untested technology that, if feasible, 
will cost hundreds of millions to develop. 

And it would have to prove that any money-saving plan can still 
deliver on the commitments the Energy Department has made in the 
Tri-Party Agreement that sets deadlines for Hanford cleanup. 

Short-term taxpayer savings are not a bargain when the results 
are broken promises and even greater expense later. The onus is 
on the department to prove the vitrification plant it builds will 
have the capacity and construction schedule to meet the 
department's commitments to this community and region. 

A plant that can tackle as much of Hanford's tank wastes as 
possible is thebargain taxpayers really deserve. 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 22 Nuke fuel route supposed to stay out of LV Valley 

Las Vegas SUN: 

Today: September 23, 2002 at 9:49:29 PDT 

By Mary Manning <manning@lasvegassun.com 
[manning@lasvegassun.com] > 

The Energy Department has promised Gov. Kenny Guinn to keep 
nuclear weapons-grade fuel shipments planned for shipment from 
New Mexico to the Nevada Test Site off Hoover Dam and out of the 
Las Vegas Valley. The National Nuclear Security Administration on 
Friday published its intent by 2006 or 2007 to start shipments of 
plutonium, uranium and four reactors currently at a facility in 
New Mexico to the Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

A decision on which route the shipments will take has not been 
announced. The National Nuclear Security Administration is part 
of the Energy Department and manages the weapons inventory, 
weapons components, weapons fuel and operations at the Test Site. 

Before the shipments begin, the special laboratory at the Test 
Site has to be prepared for receiving the equipment, a statement 
on the project said. It would be the first time the federal 
government has moved large amounts of nuclear weapons fuel 
containing plutonium and uranium to the Test Site to enhance the 
safety of future experiments. 

The next step in the plan will be a notice published by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency about the project, James Rose of 
the Energy Department's relocation project said. 

Energy Department officials said the Test Site is the best 
location because New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory site 
was aging and forest fires nearby in 2000 also posed a possible 
threat. The New Mexico site also failed a mock attack by a 
government oversight team the same year. The Energy Department 
estimates it will cost about $100 million to ship more than two 
tons of plutonium, more than 12 tons of depleted uranium and four 
reactors to Nevada. 

An alternative plan to keep the nuclear weapons fuel at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico would have cost between 
$80 million and $90 million for refinishing walls at the aging 
complex.

The Test Site's $100 million Device Assembly Facility, completed 
in 1998, is a sophisticated laboratory designed to assemble 
nuclear weapons for experiments at the Test Site. While the 
facility was planned during the early 1980s, when nuclear testing 
was at its height, no nuclear experiments have been conducted at 
the Test Site since 1992. A nonprofit watchdog group, the Project 
on Government Oversight, applauded the Energy Department's 
decision. The group had been lobbying for better security of the 
nuclear materials after the mock attack penetrated the New Mexico 
facility. 

The New Mexico facility, built in the 1940s, was located down a 
steep canyon and vulnerable to aggressive attackers, the 
oversight project's report said. The Nevada congressional 
delegation has had mixed reactions to the plan. Sen. Harry Reid, 
D-Nev., wants assurances that the material, if it is brought to 
the Test Site, is shipped safely, spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. 
Rep. Shelley Berkeley, D-Nev., recognizes the Test Site as the 
nation's premier facility for nuclear weapons, but objects to 
Nevada being the only solution to securing nuclear materials. 
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., is reviewing the move, a spokeswoman 
said. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 23 !*"Israel Helps South Africa Develop A-Bombs" by Lorenzo Komboa
 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:39:45 -0500 (CDT)

 
FORWARDED ARTICLE
===================

From: Lorenzo Ervin <komboa@yahoo.com>
Date:Sun, 01 Sep 2002 13:06:59 -0700 (PDT)

THE REST OF THE NEWS
By Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
(an occasional series on race, class, and the
struggle)

ISRAEL HELPS SOUTH AFRICA DEVELOP A-BOMBS
(part two of a series)

Israel was allied for many years with the white
racist government of South Africa, going back to the
1970s. It did a massive trade in diamonds with the
apartheid regime which undermined the international
economic boycott, and it helped them develop an atomic
bomb in the 1980's which threatened Africa and the
world.  This is important to bear in mind because
Israel still refuses to sign the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Agreement or allow itself to be
inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency,
all while they and America protest hypocritically
about Iraq.

This is also important because we are being told that
Iraq, the Muslim and Arab countries of the Middle
East, and North Korea, are the greatest threats of
nuclear proliferation and threat of nuclear attack in
the world today. This is absolute nonsense.  Yet,
Israel armed the most dangerous regime in the world.
How did all this come to pass?

Two things to bear in mind;  The apartheid regime had
its own nuclear development  program  going back to
1969, but due to the international arms boycott and
its own technical limitations, it was only when  South
Africa made a deal  with the Israelis to swap uranium
for the Israeli nukes, in return for expertise, that
the program moved forward in earnest.  The South
African Atomic Energy Commission could not have moved
as fast as it did otherwise.

The effort  required about a thousand experts,
according to Dr. Waldo Stumpf, AEC project director,
and to protect secrecy only white persons with a top
secret clearance and born in South Africa were given
access to project files or allowed to observe testing
at Pelindaba, the main facility.  But this has since
been proven as a cover story, the truth is that almost
from the beginning they had Israeli support, and lied
about "program self-sufficiency" to protect Israel's
involvement.

After only a few years of work with Israel, the AEC
had solved most technical problems. By 1977, the South
Africans had a bomb that they could test, exploding it
in the Kalahari desert. Both Americans and Russians
were able to monitor the blast. In 1980, Israeli and
South African nuclear scientists tested a 2-3 kiloton
airborne weapon.  From 1977 until 1989, the AEC
produced seven nuclear devices, along with 10-25
nuclear tipped artillery shells believed to have been
smuggled in by Israel.  Strong evidence of South
African-Israeli missile cooperation surfaced first in
1986, when Mordechai Vanunu, a technician in the
Israeli nuclear program defected and went public; and
later in 1989, when a powerful rocket took off from
South Africa's Overberg Test Range.

It turned out to be a South African version of
Israel's Jericho-II missile. U.S. officials confirmed
later that the CIA had obtained evidence of a
full-scale partnership between the Israeli and South
African governments to develop, test, and produce
long-range missiles and rockets. A U.S. official who
tracks missile proliferation told the Risk Report, a
publication which tracks nuclear weapons violations,
that South Africa's space launcher, the RSA-4, was
built around the same engines that power Israel's
Jericho-II missile and its Shavit space launcher.

According to Roger Jardine, national coordinator of
the African National Congress' Science and Technology
Project, he believes that he is just one of many
activists at the time who believed that the apartheid
government would have dropped nuclear devices on black
African countries to defend the Afrikaner way of life.
It would not have mattered how many casualties this
would have caused.

South African officials threatened to drop a nuclear
bomb on  Angola when it became engaged in a war in
that country on behalf of UNITA in 1983, and after
Cuba had intervened on behalf of the Angolan
government.  Clearly, it was capable of mass murder if
it thought this was the best option or only way out.
Prime Minister Pieter De Klerk has stated that he only
reason that the racist apartheid authorities did not
use such weapons is because it feared Russian
retaliation and even more instability in South Africa,
but most believe that only because there was no
invasion and there was no unity among the white ruling
group to use such drastic measures to support the
state, did they stop support for the nuclear weapons
program.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that Israel is
a dangerous regime, which supported the most hated
government in the world.  It gave them nuclear weapons
technology, and potentially the ability to kill
millions. That is yet one more reason why we should
not support any U.S. war against Iraq on behalf of
Israel.  Not because we want Iraq to have such weapons
itself, but because we believe that the Middle East
should be a zone free of all weapons of mass
destruction.  What we understand with Israel is that
it will not only arm itself but its military and
political allies.  That is why its nuclear weapons
plants must be inspected,  and it must be made to sign
the nuclear non-proliferation agreement without
further delay.

---END---

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: map@pencil.math.missouri.edu

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dk1d.b20mef
Or send an email to: nattyreb-unsubscribe@topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
*****************************************************************
 24 !*"Arms Race in the Middle East" by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:39:58 -0500 (CDT)

 
FORWARDED ARTICLE
===================

From: Lorenzo Ervin <komboa@yahoo.com>
 Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 13:08:50 -0700 (PDT)

THE REST OF THE NEWS
By Lorenzo Komboa  Ervin

Arms Race in the Middle East
(Part three of a series)

So here we are on the verge  of a new war in the
Middle East, a conflict that only aids Israel, while
it covers-up the real source of instability in the
Middle East:  American arming of Israel, which has led
to a new regional arms race.  President Bush's
administration is telling the American people and the
world that he simply must invade Iraq because its
leader Saddam Hussein, you see is threatening nuclear,
chemical and biological war.  He has also time to time
threatened to use American nuclear and conventional
arms against Iran and North Korea for a similar
reason.   But the real problem here is that if the
Iraqis are "seeking" or "building" nuclear devices or
chemical and biological weapons,  as is always being
alleged by the Bush administration, it is because the
U.S. has already given such weapons to Israel, and the
other states in the region are trying to catch up.
Israel has almost 400 nuclear weapons, has nuclear
submarines, has the four largest army in the world,
the eight largest navy, and all the latest weapons
systems.  All while Iraq has a rusting armory , and is
under severe pressure to get rid of that.  They must
look at this with wry humor, if not fear and loathing.

But it is not just Iraq being pressured in this way,
and that is very important to understand. The United
States is preventing the Arab and Muslim states from
obtaining nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction   while supporting Israels armory and
giving political rationalizations why they should have
them.  That is what is behind this particular planed
attack.  They want to protect Israeli hegemony, giving
them the right to strike, while not allowing the other
countries the right to defend themselves from that
strike.

So U.S. arms assistance to Israel is a large part of
the problem of an arms race in the Middle East.  But,
for some strange reason, the U.S. looks at itself as a
"neutral bystander" when it comes to events in Israel;
but the reality of massive U.S. arms sales to Israel
means that Washington is deeply implicated in whatever
happens there.  Every gun and bullet that shoots an
Arab is an American bullet, every fighter plane that
bombs an apartment building or refugee camp is
American, as is most of Israel's armory.  Even weapons
that Israel makes for itself or buys on the
international arms market is arranged or approved by
the U.S. government.  A conservative estimate is that
Israel now receives 17-20% 0f all U.S. foreign
assistance and has purchased more than $7 billion
worth of U.S. weapons over the last decade--much of it
financed by grants from the U.S. government.  The
weaponry includes more than 200 F-16 fighters , with
100 more on order. The Bush budget for fiscal 2003,
will raise the military finance assistance to $2.1
billion and toss in another $28 million to buy
manufactured anti-terrorism equipment.  In all, Israel
has received over $100 billion  in American aid since
the 1968 Arab-Israeli  war.

So one must ask: what type of double-dealing is at
work here to justify a war based on a situation where
the party braying the loudest about the procurement of
Iraqi arms is the very party responsible for one-sided
arming of Israel, ensuring an arms race, even to
secure nuclear weapons.

Let's get real here, the American government itself
is responsible for this problem of nuclear
proliferation and an arms race in the Middle East, and
can never be looked at as impartial partner with clean
hands. For to pretend that it can negotiate a peace
makes it the most hypocritical country on earth.
Certainly it has no moral right to attack anyone else
alleging that they are causing an arms race. It's
absolute nonsense, and immoral posturing of the worst
sort.   To go to war under such bogus circumstances is
a criminal aggression.

What needs to happen in the Middle East is not an
attack on Iraq by the U.S., but rather an agreement by
all parties, including the US, to make the Middle East
a nuclear/WMD free zone.  Israel must be made to give
up its nuclear and Chemical/biological weapons, and
the other countries must made to comply with a new
treaty involving all weapons of mass destruction. The
disgusting American approach is just a military
intervention on behalf of Israel, nothing more.

According to Bahig Nassar of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, a Middle East plan to make the region a
WMD free zone would include five verification regimes:
(1) zero nuclear weapons; (2) zero chemical
weapons;(3)  zero biological weapons; (4) zero
ballistic missiles and other delivery vehicles for WMD
(5) zero laser systems.   If you'd like to see the
entire report, go to: http://www.waging
peace.org/articles/bmd/nassar_bmd_alternatives_middle_east.html

----END---

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: map@pencil.math.missouri.edu

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dk1d.b20mef
Or send an email to: nattyreb-unsubscribe@topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
*****************************************************************
 25 Lawmakers Debate Bush Request 

Las Vegas SUN: 

September 22, 2002 By RON KAMPEAS ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON- Lawmakers predicted Sunday that President Bush's 
request for a mandate to restore regional security in the Mideast 
would be scaled down to address just Iraq, allowing congressional 
authorization to take on Saddam Hussein. 

There were also bipartisan pleas for Israeli restraint in the 
face of Iraqi provocation, although members of Congress said they 
would understand if Israel felt the need to respond to attacks. 

The White House has proposed a resolution that would authorize 
the president "to use all means that he determines to be 
appropriate, including force, in order to ... defend the national 
security interests of the United States against the threat posed 
by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the 
region." 

"It's much too broad, there's no limit at all on presidential 
powers," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. "There needs to be some changes ... it's not 
even limited to Iraq," Levin, D-Mich., said on "Fox News Sunday."

Bush wants the U.N. Security Council to enforce bans on weapons 
of mass destruction against Iraq. The United States believes Iraq 
is stockpiling deadly chemical and biological weapons, and is 
rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. 

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, said keeping "region" in would set too broad a 
precedent. 

"I predict that won't be the language," Biden told CNN's Late 
Edition, adding that the White House was amenable to change. 

"They've made it clear to me that they understand they want to 
talk about it. ... We can clean this up in a way that we don't 
set a precedent for future presidents," said Biden, D-Del. 

Some Republicans sympathized with the need to contain the 
language. "These are very, very important definitions, because it 
will guide the president and this nation probably into war," Sen. 
Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said on ABC's "This Week." 

Even those comfortable with the proposed language said they would 
accommodate change to speed it through. The White House wants the 
legislation to pass before Congress recesses before elections 
Nov. 5. "We can correct that, it don't think that's fatal to the 
heart of the resolution," said Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the 
House International Relations committee. 

Still, Hyde, R-Ill., called the objections "specious" and said 
the proposed resolution was standard Hagel and Sen. John Kyl, 
R-Ariz. predicted the resolution would easily pass before the 
elections, but Biden warned that Bush needed to work harder to 
explain his plans. 

"The American people are grown up," he said. "You tell them what 
we need to do, tell them the threat, and they will back the 
president. But we haven't told them all of the story yet." 

He and Levin also urged Bush to work closely with the Security 
Council, saying it would bolster domestic backing for any war. 
"There is a degree of confidence that increases in direct 
proportion to the notion that we are not going to be going alone 
with this," Biden said. Levin said the Iraqi president was more 
likely to fold before joint action than if he were threatened by 
the United States alone. "I want him to look down the barrel of a 
gun with the world behind it." Whatever the stakes, lawmakers 
urged Israel to avoid retaliating against any Iraqi provocation. 

"The Israelis going into it could just be a widespread war in the 
Middle East," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said on CBS' Face the 
Nation. Biden agreed. "You would find probably every embassy in 
the Middle East burned to the ground before it went too far," he 
said.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said Israel would heed U.S. 
appeals for restraint, but reserved the right to respond if it 
were attacked. "We understand there is not going to be two wars 
and there are not going to be two supreme commands," Peres said 
on CNN.

"It will be, should be coordinated ... and also, we insist on our 
rights." The Pentagon has delivered to Bush a detailed set of 
options for using military force to remove Hussein and neutralize 
his most dangerous weapons, according to a senior defense 
official.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the Pentagon favors a 
"narrowly focused ... intense" war that would target Saddam and 
the elite surrounding him, instead of the infrastructure targets 
that were characteristic of the 1991 Gulf War and actions since 
then. 

One focus of the next war would be Tikrit, Saddam's hometown 100 
miles north of Baghdad. The Iraqi leader draws most of his 
confidantes from extended family in the Tikrit area. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 26 UK 'sells' bomb material to Iran 

BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | 

Monday, 23 September, 2002, 10:05 GMT 11:05 UK UK

[DTI HQ] DTI is accused of approving controversial exports 

British officials have approved the export of key components 
needed to make nuclear weapons to Iran and other countries known 
to be developing such weapons. 

An investigation by BBC Radio 4 programme File on Four will 
disclose that the Department of Trade and Industry allowed a 
quantity of the metal, Beryllium, to be sold to Iran last year. 
That metal is needed to make nuclear bombs. 

Britain has had an arms embargo to Iran since 1993 and has signed 
up to an international protocol which bans the sale of Beryllium 
to named countries, including Iran. 

MP's concerns 

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, who 
has been alerted to the BBC programme's material, is said to be 
extremely alarmed. Beryllium is a metal with a limited number of 
high-tech uses in civilian industry, but is mostly used in 
defence applications and is a vital component in a nuclear bomb. 

The programme has also interviewed a leading nuclear weapons 
expert in the UK who says that the Beryllium and other items 
which the DTI has licensed to Iran add up to a shopping list for 
a nuclear weapons programme. The UK has an arms embargo against 
Iran, but not a trade embargo. 

Export control weaknesses 

The programme highlights the weaknesses in the UK's new export 
control system, which was set up to stop the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons. It will reveal that Iranian procurement agents 
have been working in the UK to get sensitive material back to 
Iran, and that Pakistan has also been successful in procuring 
material for its nuclear programme from here. It is also likely 
to cause concern among Britain's allies. President Bush named 
Iran as part of an "axis of evil" accusing the Iranian regime of 
sponsoring terrorism. File on 4 is at 2000 BST on Tuesday 24 
September on BBC Radio 4. 

© MMII | News Sources | Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 27 Nuclear Dangers Beyond Iraq 

The New York Times 

September 23, 2002* 

*By MICHAEL LEVI* 

WASHINGTON President Bush wisely warns of the danger posed by a 
nuclear-armed Iraq, but he remains unevenly engaged in other 
efforts that would stem the spread of nuclear weapons. Saddam 
Hussein's nuclear potential has been repeatedly cited by the 
administration as the one unassailable reason why the American 
people should support an invasion of Iraq. Yet ours is a 
dangerous stance: If we remove the threat of Saddam Hussein while 
leaving the rest of our nonproliferation policy unchanged, we 
will achieve only a marginal improvement in our security against 
nuclear terror. To make an invasion of Iraq worthwhile, a new 
investment in nuclear security is urgently needed. 

Leading experts and many in the intelligence community agree that 
Saddam Hussein still needs several years to produce enough highly 
enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. Thus, when Vice President 
Dick Cheney warned that Iraq could quickly obtain nuclear 
weapons, he could only have been referring to one thing: Iraq 
might acquire the crucial fissile material it needs abroad, 
through theft or on the black market. 

How much security can we buy by merely removing one customer for 
this supply? Certainly, Saddam Hussein's nuclear potential is 
greater than that posed by terrorists working without state 
support. Intelligence reports suggest that Iraq has the implosion 
technology needed to make a bomb from 20 kilograms of highly 
enriched uranium. Al Qaeda, for example, probably does not have 
such technology and would need three times as much for the simple 
Hiroshima-type weapon it could master. Other sources indicate 
Iraq could make a bomb from plutonium; terrorist groups like Al 
Qaeda most likely could not. For these reasons, Iraq poses a 
special threat. 

That said, our current effort, focused narrowly on Iraq, is 
woefully inadequate for reducing the nuclear threat. The same 
uranium Iraq seeks abroad might be bought by terrorists and 
fashioned into bombs. A terrorist group like Al Qaeda, if it were 
to obtain a nuclear weapon, would be more likely than Iraq to use 
it. 

And yet our responsibilities in securing nuclear materials are 
being ignored. A month ago, Ted Turner and the Nuclear Threat 
Initiative had to pitch in $5 million to evacuate two bomb's 
worth of poorly secured uranium from Belgrade. House Republicans 
are pushing for a provision in next year's defense bill that 
would block the president from spending nonproliferation money 
outside the former Soviet Union. 

Over a year ago, a bipartisan commission chaired by Howard H. 
Baker Jr. and Lloyd N. Cutler urged that we spend $30 billion 
over the next 10 years to secure nuclear materials in Russia; at 
our current spending rate of $1.1 billion per year, we will fall 
miserably short. 

Despite inadequate funding, our programs have been very 
successful. We have secured the uranium that might have made 
thousands of bombs and we have kept numerous Russian nuclear 
scientists from going to work for rogue regimes. 

A new investment in nonproliferation would help convince a 
skeptical world that we're serious about nuclear proliferation ? 
that our obsession with Iraq is about weapons of mass 
destruction, not domestic politics or oil or revenge. An extra 
billion dollars spent on nonproliferation would be a tiny 
fraction of the cost of war in Iraq. If nuclear terrorism visits 
America, will it be any consolation that the bomb was not Saddam 
Hussein's? 

/Michael Levi is director of the Federation of American Scientists'
Strategic Security Project/ 

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company 
*****************************************************************
 28 Blair to plead for cabinet unity as Short breaks ranks on Iraq
strikes 

Independent.co.uk <http://www.independent.co.uk> 

By Nigel Morris, Political Correspondent 

23 September 2002 

Tony Blair will appeal for cabinet unity today over Iraq as he 
presents his senior ministers with a dossier of evidence that 
Saddam Hussein is building up his arsenal of chemical and 
biological weapons. 

Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International 
Development, became the second cabinet minister yesterday to make 
public their fears that Britain is being dragged into US-led 
strikes on Baghdad.

Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, has already stepped out of 
line by suggesting the United Nations could have a veto on 
military action in Iraq. 

But Mr Blair will take a robust line in this afternoon's special 
cabinet meeting called to discuss the deepening Iraq crisis. 
Members will debate a 55-page dossier, Iraq and Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, to be presented to MPs before tomorrow's emergency 
recall of Parliament. 

The Prime Minister will insist that ministers present a united 
front in public discussion of Iraq. A senior Whitehall source 
said: "He [Tony Blair] believes very firmly that everyone has to 
be pulling in the same direction." 

The dossier is unlikely to include a "smoking gun" ? evidence 
that Saddam Hussein has achieved nuclear capability or which 
firmly links Iraq to the al-Qa'ida network. But it will contain 
claims that his regime has attempted to rebuild its arsenal, 
including ballistic missiles, in the four years since the UN 
weapons inspectors left the country. 

It will say that Iraq has spent billions of pounds on defence 
since then, including the stockpiling of biological and chemical 
weapons. To underline the point, the dossier will contain 
photographs of injuries inflicted on civilians by Iraqi forces in 
Iran and Saudi Arabia. In addition, the dossier will assert that 
Saddam has sought to acquire a nuclear capability. 

Saddam is also understood to have hidden rocket launchers, and 
Russian-built short-range missiles that could reach Israel. Some 
British officials fear they could be easily adapted to carry 
nuclear missiles were Iraq to develop them. 

Iraq is also believed to have several unmanned "drone" planes and 
the dossier is expected to allege that Iraqi agents hid their 
activities behind front companies in other states, paying for 
weapons with illegal oil transactions. 

A Downing Street spokesman refused to be drawn on the dossier's 
contents. But he said: "It will be a sober and serious assessment 
of the threat." 

Ms Short, interviewed on GMTV, confirmed that the widespread 
fears in Labour ranks over military action in Iraq extended to 
the Cabinet. 

She said: "We cannot have another Gulf war. We cannot have the 
people of Iraq suffering again. They have suffered too much. That 
would be wrong. We have to find a way of enforcing, quite 
rightly, UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein should be frightened, and 
the élite around him. We should frighten them. We should be ready 
to impose the will of the United Nations on them if they don't 
co-operate but not by hurting the people of Iraq. Each one of 
them is as precious as the 3,000 people in the twin towers. We 
can't sacrifice them to putting it right." 

Striking a very different tone, John Reid, the Secretary of State 
for Northern Ireland, said: "As far as the people of Iraq are 
concerned, our forces have been risking their lives for 11 years 
to protect the people of Iraq from their biggest threat who is 
Saddam Hussein." 

<http://www.independent.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 29 A Good Nuclear Hoax 

Opinion / Columnists / Moscow on the Potomac 

Monday, Sep. 23, 2002. Page 12 

By Matt Bivens 

WASHINGTON -- It is easy to forget that once upon a time, the 
world's third-largest nuclear arsenal belonged to little Ukraine.

Kiev made history when it renounced its mini-superpower status in 
a three-way deal brokered with Russia and the United States. In 
the summer of 1996, top military officials from those three 
nations marked the departure of the last warhead by planting 
sunflower seeds at a Ukrainian missile base. Overnight, the 
sunflower -- emblem of Ukraine's willingness to give up the bomb 
-- became the leading symbol of global movements for nuclear 
disarmament. 

Now comes Petro Symonenko, the Ukrainian Communist Party chief, 
insisting the sunflower photo-op was a farce. He says a 
parliamentary investigation a few years ago determined that 200 
warheads Ukraine had pledged to deliver to Russia for dismantling 
never arrived -- at least according to the paperwork. "Two 
hundred Soviet Army nuclear warheads that were located in Ukraine 
are now located no-one-knows-where," Symonenko said at a Sept. 11 
news conference. 

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has denied the allegation. U.S. 
and Ukrainian arms control experts have also expressed surprise. 

"My initial reaction is one of skepticism," said Jon Wolfstahl, a 
former U.S. Energy Department official now with the Carnegie 
Endowment's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Project. "The process by 
which nuclear weapons went from Ukraine to Russia was a very 
tightly controlled one, where the United States acted as an 
honest broker of sorts. All information that the U.S. government 
has ... says the weapons are accounted for." 

Rose Gottemoeller, a top Clinton administration official who 
worked on the delivery of Ukrainian arms to Russian dismantling 
factories, noted that the Ukrainians had monitors follow the 
weapons through the process from start to finish. And Oleksandr 
Sushko, director of Ukraine's Center for Peace, Conversion and 
Foreign Policy, dismissed Symonenko's bombshell as "political 
speculation." 

The political context is certainly important to bear in mind. 
Thousands of street protesters have been demanding the 
resignation of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who has been 
compellingly implicated in corruption and in the murder (and 
beheading) of an opposition journalist. (Kuchma's government has 
admitted that it is the president's voice on a tape recording in 
which he seems to be ordering the journalist's death, though it 
says the tape itself has been doctored.) 

Investigators from the U.S. Justice Department are also 
investigating a tape in which Kuchma seems to be giving 
permission for Ukraine to sell four radar systems for detecting 
Stealth fighter jets to Saddam Hussein. Opposition figures in 
Ukraine say Kuchma himself has overseen the sale of other 
(as-yet-unspecified) military hardware to Iraq. 

Some American observers ask if this means Saddam is armed with 
200 Ukrainian nuclear warheads. Not likely. It is far more 
probable that Kuchma's opposition is angling for terrified and 
angry international headlines -- the kind designed to put the 
Ukrainian president squarely in the camp of the international 
villain of the hour. 

So, dismiss Symonenko's missing warheads as a politically 
motivated hoax -- one less thing to worry about. But remember 
that the story of Ukraine's missing 200 nuclear bombs is so 
sobering precisely because, like any good hoax, it is a plausible 
fit with some harsh realities: The world is awash in 
weapons-grade nuclear materials, more such material is being 
created by the hour and very little of effect is being done -- 
indeed, very little can be done, short of renouncing nuclear 
power and closing reactors worldwide -- to secure it all. 

Matt Bivens, a former editor of The Moscow Times, is a 
Washington-based fellow of The Nation Institute 
[www.thenation.com [http://www.thenation.com] ]. 

© Copyright 2002, The Moscow Times. All Rights Reserved. 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************