*****************************************************************
11/23/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.304
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Anti-Weapons: Russian Scientists Threaten to Halt Space War
2 Blow for nuclear clear-up project
3 North Korea shuts door on nuclear inspectors
4 UK: £650m loan to BE in court challenge
5 Tariq Ali gives Paul Afshar his opinions on terrorism, Bush... 
6 IAEA: Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Revisiting the Basics
7 Iaea: News Update on Iraq Inspections 
8 UK: Greenpeace challenges BE
9 What will trigger the war?
10 Putin: UN Must Back War
11 Ritter discusses path to war with Iraq 
12 N. Koreans called 'stupid as a fox'* 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: Perry (nuclear tax) schools to seek tax increase 
14 US: 520-ton piece of nuclear plant hits the road
15 US: CP&L's Harris Nuclear Plant Reaches Safety Milestone*
16 US: Taxes stay $567K for power plant*
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
17 US: DOT says 'hazmat' cargo label may draw terrorists
18 US: Plant Workers Alleged Exposure Records Were Falsified - 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
19 Audience questions uranium plant's effect on Middle Tennessee 
20 US: Big Rock removes initial fuel cask 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
21 [southnews] NZ: No troops for US Iraq war
22 India's nuclear weapons play positive role in South Asia: Russia
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
23 LANL Warns of Contaminated Trees* *
24 Los Alamos Lab Investigation Expands
25 Sanford, energy chief discuss plutonium plan
26 Hanford's B Reactor an icon of Atomic Age
27 Incinerator raises debate on SRS permit 
28 Sanford, secretary of energy hold talk 
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
29 AU: Radioactive mineral discovered 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Anti-Weapons: Russian Scientists Threaten to Halt Space War
 
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:19:43 -0600 (CST)

 
Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Moscow)
October 18, 2002

ANTI-WEAPONS: RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS THREATEN TO HALT SPACE WAR

by Vladimir Bogdanov

     Is it possible for one eccentric professor to neutralize the 
enormous years-long labors of thousands of highly skilled scientists, 
engineers, and workers to develop precision "smart weapons" at the cost 
of tens of billions of dollars?   "Easy," as they say in Russia.   A 
St. Petersburg scientist, Dr. of Technical Sciences Valentin 
Vladimirovich Kashinov, has managed to do just that.   With his 
inventions he has virtually "shut down" western efforts to create 21st 
century weapons, precision "smart" weapons which find targets based on 
information from satellites, and thus are today considered nearly one 
hundred percent effective.   Valentin Kashinov made his "contribution" to 
the defense capability of the US and NATO, practically knocking out the 
latest, multi-billion dollar military space system, and at the same time 
raising doubts about the advisability of Washington's development of a 
national ABM defense. 

    Summoning Missiles to the Oven 

    In the heat of massed missile strikes on Belgrade and Yugoslavian air 
defense radar positions in the spring of 1999, the telephone rang one 
night in a St. Petersburg apartment. 

    It was the chairman of the radio club of Yugoslavia, Khranislav 
Milocevic.   Valentin Kashinov answered.   The Yugoslav described the 
great destruction and casualties caused by strikes of NATO aircraft, 
"HARM" air-to-ground missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.   Milocevic 
asked for help in fending off these bombardments.   Valentin 
Vladimirovich immediately inquired if they had any microwave ovens.   
This was followed by a puzzled silence, and then: "Of course!"   Kashinov 
advised that they get some ordinary microwave ovens and aim them upwards, 
with doors open, around an installation they wanted to protect, and then 
turn them on.   Khranislav understood at once.   The fact was that an 
American HARM missile would home in on any strong source of radio 
emission in the 400-10,000 MHz range, exactly the range of conventional 
household microwave ovens.   Literally the next day following this 
conversation, NATO forced bombed their own embassies in Belgrade. 

    NATO pilots were fooled, and bombed microwave ovens instead of 
Serbian tanks for nearly half the time of the air attacks. 

    According to a British officer who spent six months in the region and 
offered his own assessment of bombing damage, the Serbs lured the NATO 
planes using household microwave ovens to simulate the emissions of 
armored transport systems. 

    The NATO propaganda machine initially announced that more than 100 
tanks, 250 APCs, and 389 cannon had been destroyed.   These damage 
figures have since been revised, since independent observers found only 
13 tanks knocked out.   As it turned out, the same targets were targeted 
(and destroyed) repeatedly by different pilots. 

    A NATO officer who gave an anonymous interview to the British Herald 
stated that only three tanks were found.   "The Serbs use a lot of tricks 
to elude NATO bombs.   The use of microwave ovens from houses in Kosovo 
to thumb their noses at the alliance was only one of their ruses." 

    The beauty of Serbian countermeasures lay in the fact that it 
demanded nothing of them, since they used 100-dollar decoy devices 
(microwave ovens) which were available in every household.   And the 
guided bombs cost around 30,000 dollars..   They also studied Iraq's 
experience in the "Gulf War" (or rather, "Desert Fox," when they jammed 
the American GPS satellite system). 

    As for the military operation "Desert Storm" against Iraq in 1991, it 
is now clear that the Americans almost lost it, again thanks to the 
inventions of Russian scientist Valentin Kashinov.   According to 
information from the Reuters agency, at the time American planes in Iraq 
were able to hit less than a third of their marked targets.   Most of the 
bombs dropped on Iraq failed to hit their targets.   Most of them "hit 
the sand," as they say.   According to reports from US Navy 
representatives, the bombs fell at a distance of several tens of meters 
from the target.   Of twenty-five radars, only eight were destroyed.   
Nearly all the guided AGM-154A bombs deviated sharply to the left.   
According to Navy representatives, this was because of an error in the 
guidance software system.   But again the Americans prevaricated.   The 
simple fact was that the entire space guidance system didn't work. 

    A Mini-Jammer for Bombs and Satellites 

    In the last ten years, America has tried to fight by the contact-free 
method, without shedding the blood of its soldiers.   The US beat the 
Taliban regime in six weeks without a single casualty!   In these six 
weeks they achieved political and strategic goals which the USSR was 
unable to achieve in 10 years of ground war in Afghanistan losing tens of 
thousands of soldiers. 

    America is quietly cutting its ground forces.   Divisions remain only 
on paper.   The US no longer needs an infantry.   The Navy and Air Force 
remain, but only as carriers of munitions to theaters of military action. 
  The US is building itself an ABM system, but as a secondary, half 
measure.   Their chief goal is to create a space infrastructure, in the 
guise of an ABM system, to fight future contact-free wars. 

    Precision "smart" weapons now take center stage.   These find their 
targets from information transmitted by satellite, and thus, their 
creators believe, they are nearly one hundred percent effective.   "But 
that is only in the minds of the creators," Valentin Kashinov believes.   
"What is the actual case?   Some of the Tomahawks flew off into Macedonia 
and Bulgaria in the Yugoslavia campaign, and some self-destructed in the 
air." 

    After the famous telephone conversation, the Petersburg scientist 
e-mailed a plan to Yugoslavia for a simple radio device which could 
suppress the signals of the American NAVSTAR GPS satellite navigation 
system.   Deprived of their satellite guide, the missile was "blinded."   
Result: about 10 percent of the cruise missiles failed to reach their 
target.   According to a BBC report, 28 missiles self-destructed in the 
air in a single raid. 

    The American NAVSTAR GPS satellite navigation system is the NATO 
standard for all types of weapons-ships, aircraft, including cruise 
missiles and guided bombs, tanks, and even individual soldiers.   It has 
been been successfully developed for ten years now.   The system is 
reliable and user-friendly, and all combat arms have gotten used to it 
and trust it without question.   The GPS accuracy is 10 meters and its 
operating zone is the entire planet. 

    The US has even tried to introduce the GPS as the standard for the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), but this did not happen 
for many reasons, particularly because of its extremely low resistance to 
the slightest interference. 

    Without going into the technical details, let us say only that 
Russian scientists conducted an experiment with Ashtech GPS receivers of 
the OEM "Sensor" type (which can easily be purchased in Moscow).   The 
experiment showed that inference in the form of a carrier wave of any 
frequency between 1576 and 1578 MHz with a radiated power of -55 dB 
blocked reception of satellite signals by a receiver located nearby.   If 
we do the math, a few watts of power, about what a flashlight uses, is 
enough to jam GPS signals within line of sight at a distance of up to 500 
km. 

    Thus so-called GPS mini-jammers can have a power of a few watts.   
The jamming area is line of sight, and for a Tomahawk cruise missile 
traveling at a height of 25 meters is 20 kilometers. 

    The Storm Hits the Sand 

    Today, when the Americans are intensifying preparations for a new 
military operation against Iraq (which, according to some data, will cost 
the US 200 billion dollars), Kashinov's mini-jammers may again be in 
demand.   Especially since, it turns out, Baghdad has used them very 
successfully since 1991. 

    Valentin Kashinov relates: "Before Desert Storm began, I sent a 
registered letter to Baghdad suggesting that they use such rudimentary 
transmitters for electronic warfare (EW) against the American GPS 
navigational system.   The Iraqis immediately adopted this suggestion.   
An organized team of specialists traveled through the desert setting up 
transmitters.   US and British planes hunted this team, and continue to 
do so, for the war against Iraq has not halted even for a minute.   I 
learned from the mass media that more than 100 Tomahawks have 
self-destructed in the air en route to Iraq.    These missiles have 
built-in receivers and control computers.   Before flight, a program of 
the flight trajectory and target coordinates are entered in the computer. 
  The job of the mini-jammers is to create interference on the airwaves 
which prevents reception of satellite signals.   The phase-modulated 
signals used in the GPS are still considered the height of interference 
resistance, but that is not the case.   It is a serious miscalculation.   
The optimal interference for jamming phase-modulated signals is simply a 
detuned carrier wave.   A simpler EW device could not be imagined.    A 
self-destruct program is included in the computer for just this case.   
And this means that the Tomahawk is by no means a flawless weapon, as the 
Americans have assured the entire world.   Nor is the widely trumpeted 
American NAVSTAR GPS satellite navigation system, which consists of 24 
satellites on orbit, and compact palm-sized receiver/displays.   They 
show the location of an object in any coordinate system, as well as the 
speed and height of displacement.   But the higher-tech the weapon, the 
more easily it can be suppressed.   Western scientists have generally 
forgotten how to think; the computer is supposed to think for them." 

    Stealth Armor Covers the Whole Country 

    It should be noted that during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the 
Russian scientist sent Brussels a description of the anti-weapon against 
the NAVSTAR GPS system, warning that if they did not cease their 
outrages, he would publish methods for "rubbing out" other navigational 
systems as well, for example TACAN, DME, LORAN, etc. 

    And these means enormous losses for the West.   It has been 
calculated that because of Kashinov's mini-jammers, which virtually put 
the NAVSTAR system out of commission, the Americans lost 80 billion 
dollars and 20 years of work by their scientists.   According to 
available information, today they are trying to develop a new system, 
since the GPS system cannot be improved, and this will require time and 
money.   So the US will hardly be able to develop an ABM system with 
guaranteed effectiveness. 

    You see, the arsenal of anti-weapons includes devices which create 
short, or as they are called, "nanosecond" pulses of electromagnetic 
radiation of enormous power, exceeding the power of a nuclear burst.   
When they act on modern high-tech microcircuits (transistor diameter less 
than the thickness of a human hair), in the best case these emissions 
create system glitches, and in the worst case they put the microcircuits 
out of commission.   Naturally, the weapon controlled by the computer 
which is destroyed by the pulse is also knocked out, be it a missile, 
ship, or tank. 

    Portable space navigational system jammers produced by a Russian 
company were first displayed at the Moscow International Aerospace Show 
in 1997, provoking genuine shock and horror among military users of these 
navigation systems. 

    Of course, as they say, it is impossible to shut down America, and 
this is the normal course of the rivalry between armor and projectile.   
But today "Russian armor" can reliably protect, for some time, any 
country which desires it. 
*****************************************************************
 2 Blow for nuclear clear-up project

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 

Nick Paton Walsh, Moscow Saturday November 23, 2002 The Guardian 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk]                
 		
America's multimillion-dollar programme to secure Russia's 
ramshackle nuclear facilities from any terrorist threat was dealt 
a blow last night when it was revealed that the head of the 
project had resigned. 

The departure raises fears that the security and clean-up 
operation will be hampered and delayed at a time of frequent 
warnings about terrorists and "rogue states" trying to obtain 
material to make a nuclear weapon or a crude "dirty bomb". 

The programme was responsible for securing nearly 300 tonnes of 
nuclear material in the Russian Federation which was considered 
at risk. 

"Any disruption to the programme is a serious problem," said one 
source close to the project. "The agenda is already behind 
schedule. At the very least, this will slow the programme down." 

Jack Caravelli, the assistant deputy administrator at the US 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), resigned this 
month amid allegations about his conduct. 

Sources close to the department of energy, where the NNSA is 
based, told the Guardian that questions had been asked about the 
way in which Mr Caravelli allocated the lucrative contracts for 
clean-up work under the programme. 

Mr Caravelli, who was not available for comment, is understood to 
fervently deny the allegations. 

Sources close to the NNSA expressed their surprise at his 
departure. 

A senior source at Minatom, the Russian atomic energy ministry, 
said: "We have no criticism of this man. We worked well and 
productively with him." 

A spokesman for the NNSA said Mr Caravelli had resigned from his 
post because of "performance-related issues", and said it would 
be "inappropriate" to discuss details. He has been retained by 
the department of energy in a policy role. 
	
Useful links Itar-Tass news agency 
[http://www.itar-tass.com/news.htm] Moscow Times 
[http://www.moscowtimes.ru] Russia Today 
[http://www.russiatoday.com] St Petersburg Times 
[http://www.times.spb.ru/index.htm] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 3 North Korea shuts door on nuclear inspectors

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

Jonathan Watts, Tokyo Saturday November 23, 2002 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk]            
 		
North Korea ratcheted up the tension with the US yesterday by 
barring international inspectors from checking that aid 
deliveries of oil are helping the freezing population rather than 
the army. 

The move comes a week after the US, Japan and South Korea decided 
to suspend oil shipments to the North until it abandons an 
illicit nuclear weapons programme. 

The last shipment arrived from the US last week, but the 
half-dozen American inspectors who were due to track its 
distribution have been told that they cannot enter North Korea. 
The move represents a new phase in the unravelling of the 1994 
energy deal that was brokered to defuse a nuclear confrontation 
over North Korea's plutonium programme. 

As part of an agreement to scrap that programme, the 
international community said it would give the North 500,000 
tonnes of fuel each year. 

But last month Pyongyang announced it was engaged in a uranium 
enrichment programme, which could lead to bomb production. This 
week, it agreed that the agreement had collapsed, blaming the US 
for "boycotting the implementation of its commitments". South 
Korea's unification minister, Jeong Se-Hyun, has suggested that 
the North may try to revive a deal. 

"North Korea's dependency on food and oil from the outside world 
makes them unable to use brinkmanship," he said. 

However, the CIA believes the North already has enough plutonium 
to build eight nuclear weapons and may already have five. 

If Pyongyang does decide to raise the stakes again, it is likely 
to order international nuclear weapons inspectors, who are 
keeping an eye on plutonium stocks, to leave the country. 
	
Useful links [http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/] 
[http://www.kcna.co.jp] [http://www.tcsaz.com/koreanwar.html] 
[http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/kn.html] 
[http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ks.html] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 4 UK: £650m loan to BE in court challenge

  Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

David Gow, industrial editor
Saturday November 23, 2002
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
Greenpeace is to press ahead with a legal challenge in the new 
year to the government's £650m emergency loan to British Energy 
even though the near-insolvent nuclear operator's future should 
be decided in the next few days. 

The environmental pressure group and Ecotricity, a renewable 
energy company, yesterday won permission in the high court to 
seek judicial review of the government's decision to make the 
loan. The case will be heard in late January. 

The two argued that the loan, first granted in September, 
breaches EU law requiring member states to get European 
commission approval before providing state aid to companies. The 
government disputes their arguments. 

The court's decision came a week before the loan runs out amid 
growing expectations that ministers will formally agree to BE's 
restructuring in the private sector rather than see it go into 
administration - effectively renationalisation. 

Sources in Brussels also indicated yesterday that the loan, given 
without prior notification to the EU competition authorities, 
would be approved, possibly as early as next week. But any 
further aid would be paid in instalments. 

Emma Gibson, Greenpeace campaigner, said: "We are delighted to be 
able to go to court to try and get this money paid back into the 
public purse. We believe the loan is not only unlawful but that 
it is distorting the market and damaging truly clean energy 
providers like Ecotricity." 

In the high court Paul Lasok QC, for the two bodies, said the 
case highlighted current over-capacity in the generating industry 
that had led to cut-throat competition and would normally force 
the weakest companies to the wall. But BE had been rescued with 
state aid. "This cast on to the shoulders of other companies the 
serious consequences of over-capacity," he said. 

Legally, the government should have allowed BE to go into 
insolvency or administration and then paid for the closure of 
power stations. 

Greenpeace officials said that they would press ahead with the 
case as a matter of principle because "the government should not 
be let off the hook when they support one particular industry we 
consider to be environmentally damaging". 

The Department of Trade and Industry said: "The government 
believes that the loan facility put in place is in full 
compliance with the commission's rescue aid guidelines... Its 
foremost priorities remain nuclear safety and security of 
supply." 

BE, which provides a fifth of Britain's power, is likely to be 
offered the prospect of a substantial shake-up on the 
debt-for-equity model when ministers pronounce on its future next 
week - perhaps on Wednesday, the day of the chancellor's 
pre-budget report. 

Creditors, including bondholders and British Nuclear Fuels, would 
be offered stakes in a shrunken BE but at the cost of losing 
substantial sums. State-owned BNFL would be forced to sign up to 
a deal cutting the £300m a year it charges BE for fuel and 
reprocessing. 

A similar deal with BNFL collapsed in August when BE rejected a 
£180m offer and industry sources indicated yesterday that no 
final arrangement had yet been reached. Administration remained 
an option. 

Greenpeace said that any restructuring would inevitably involve 
further state aid to prop up an uneconomic industry. 
	
Useful links
British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] 
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] 
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] 
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] 
HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] 
UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] 
National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] 
Friends of the Earth
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc
lear/index.html] 
World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] 
World Nuclear Transport Institute [http://www.wnti.co.uk] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 5 Tariq Ali gives Paul Afshar his opinions on terrorism, Bush... 
and Will Straw

Oxford Student: 21st November 2002: Fundamental logic
 
21st November 2002     Student newspaper of the year    

Distinguished thinker 
    
Fundamental logic
 
I watched as a group of overexcited students milled around 
whispering his name to one another. I couldn't help but prepare 
for the arrival of a legendary celebrity, but their excitement 
was for a man called Tariq Ali, someone my tutor had described as 
an intellectual heavyweight. Exiled from Pakistan by General Ayub 
Khan in 1961 and then President of the venerated Oxford Union 
some years later, the past of this man captivated my interest no 
end. 

Arriving slightly late to our pre-arranged meeting place, Ali had 
a troubled look marring his expression. His hair neatly arranged 
on the top of his head with no particular style and his clothes 
rugged, Tariq appeared not as an eccentric academic, but as a 
distinguished thinker. To me he gave the impression of being a 
tormented intellectual, a man who had no regard for time , a man 
pre-occupied with more pressing issues like The War Against 
Terror. 

Tariq Ali is a man of many opinions and has a striking 
encyclopedic knowledge to support them. Ask him about anything - 
what he thinks of George W Bush, the colour of Starbucks coffee - 
and he will give a compelling and attention capturing response. 
However, there had been one thing, one niggling annoying modest 
detail about this man who was whispered about in bookshops that 
had bothered me for days. Why would someone, depicted by many as 
a 'firebrand socialist' want to be President of an institution 
where the closest thing its hardcore members got to fashion was a 
tweed jacket with leather elbow pads? No, Iím not talking about 
OUCA, but the notorious Oxford Union. 

"Well, there was nothing else in those days, the Union was a 
chamber for debate between left and right, a centre of ideas. The 
left was minute in Oxford and we made a decision to intervene. It 
was a constant battleground. Did you know my opponent for the 
Presidency was Douglas Hogg? It was perhaps the most politically 
polarised election campaign the Union has ever seen. After the 
1960s the Union became more of a talking shop. It became full of 
careerist politicians and there was no use any more in 
intervening."
 
Clearly many things have changed since Tariq has been at Oxford, 
though the Union's fashion sense remains timeless. I explained 
the recent issues surrounding the changes to the Oxford tutorial 
system and, more precisely, about student anger over the apparent 
lack of consultation. This is an issue which I knew would rattle 
Ali's cage.
 
"The great thing about the tutorial system is that it places a 
student on an even intellectual playing field, regardless of 
class or academic background. And so people will come to Oxford 
precisely because of this reason. Taking this away will 
disadvantage the entire system of teaching in Oxford. The 
tutorial system is the best form of education possible. I give my 
support to those fighting against this move by the University."
 
Tariq's latest book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms, has been 
described by some as a refreshing new perspective in the debate 
surrounding the conflict between the Judeo-Christian West and the 
Islamic East. However, like most of his works, it goes against 
the grain and is the source of much controversy. In it he tries 
to justify his belief that the dogma and fundamentalism of world 
leaders such as George W Bush and his entourage is equally, if 
not more dangerous than that of the influential Islamic clerics 
of the middle east. 

Upon first inspection, the book appears to be more of a vitriolic 
attack upon the Bush administration and its foreign policy than a 
reasoned and considered comparison, and it surprised me that a 
thinker as outstanding and worldly as Tariq Ali would propose 
such a doctrine. However, I learned throughout our encounter that 
to presume that Ali hadn't carefully and strategically planned 
his answer would be like believing Justin and Britney didn't get 
it on. Tariq is an intellectual heavyweight, and one who will 
fiercely and vigorously defend his standpoint, especially in this 
case.
 
"We have to examine the real fundamentalisms in this world. We 
have the USA represented by rulers such as Bush Junior who are 
more dogmatic and fierce in their defence of their beliefs than 
any others. It is a case of perspective. The Islamic 
fundamentalists represent a tiny minority in the Islamic world: 
they have no real power, no real hold over their populations. My 
book is more of a discussion of Islam in the context of US 
foreign policy. Essentially they are two different forms of 
fundamentalism. On the one hand, the US foreign policy has killed 
many people and has behind it the might of a military machine. 
Don't get me wrong, I condemn terrorism entirely, but letís look 
at it in perspective - the US is the real rogue state."
 
The Clash of Fundamentalisms draws out an idea central to Ali's 
canon. He perceives an elemental dichotomy at the heart of The 
War Against Terror and more generally at the core of the West's 
attitude to the Middle East in the treatment of terrorism. 

"In reality The War Against Terror is a war that promotes or more 
precisely creates terrorism. If the USA occupies Iraq, it will 
not resolve the issues which the world perceives as important, 
those of weapons and human rights abuses. It will anger those in 
the Middle East. It seems contradictory that the US is so 
preoccupied with Iraq when a country such as North Korea posses 
large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The US has desired a 
hold-all phrase for some time now to portray its adversaries, and 
now it has found one - terrorism."
 
This was Ali in full flow; his neatly arranged hair had now been 
frustrated by manic arm movements, gesticulating his disapproval 
of all things to do with the interpretation of terrorism. He 
captured the attention of passers by with his eloquent and 
commanding tone, yet I felt a sense of irritation on his behalf. 
Ali seemed aggravated with explaining his justification for such 
comparisons, as though it were apparently obvious to anyone who 
had thought about the issue clearly. I suppose you could call 
this Ali's dogma, his 'fundamentalism', and his 'fierce defence 
of beliefs', but there was something slightly more persuasive 
about the presentation of these ideas. Maybe it was his eminent 
intelligence; maybe it was his tendency to sound like the Indian 
equivalent of Sean Connery through his rounded and infiltrating 
voice. I couldn't really put it down to anything tangible. 

What was clear, however, was the refreshing nature of Ali's 
ideas. The way that he shifts conventional debate around 
conventional issues, disregarding repeated dogmas and presenting 
the public with a new perspective is revitalizing. 

I explained to Ali the debate around the Iraq war in Oxford. I 
was not prepared for the response that I was about to receive.
 
"Will Straw's behaviour around this issue is absolutely 
disgraceful. Even his father didn't go as far as he has. I find 
his attitude disgusting. When Jack (Straw) was President of the 
NUS they came out against the war in Vietnam and I don't see why 
(Will) is trying to stifle debate now. The boy is much more right 
wing than his father was. The government complains that students 
aren't engaged enough in politics and when they do, it 
complains."
 
As I said, a new perspective.
 
©  [http://www.ousu.org/] 2002
*****************************************************************
 6 IAEA: Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Revisiting the Basics
 		
[www.iaea.org]   

Washington D.C., 14 November 2002 
Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference 2002
 					 
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei   			 			
 				   
Addressing the Asymmetry of "Have's and Have-Not's"
 		 
Strengthening the Verification Regime
 
Consistency in Addressing Non-Compliance
 
Consolidation of the Regime
 
Working on New Approaches to Security
 
Conclusion
   				   
In little more than half a century, the age of nuclear weapons 
has witnessed the manufacture of more than 125 000 nuclear 
warheads - most packing a greater explosive force than the 
"Little Man" device used at Hiroshima. Nuclear weapons testing 
has resulted in over 2000 nuclear detonations - in the 
atmosphere, in space, underwater and underground. Despite the 
ending of the Cold War, non-proliferation and disarmament 
challenges abound in all categories of "weapons of mass 
destruction" - nuclear, biological and chemical - and one 
enduring legacy of the Cold War is a glut of weapon-usable 
fissile material, in the form of high enriched uranium and 
plutonium. And while we have not reached the predictions of the 
1960s - of an eventual 15 to 20 nuclear-weapon States - the 
unfortunate reality 40 years later is that at least eight 
countries are believed to possess nuclear weapons, and the goal 
of a nuclear-weapon-free world remains elusive. 

The 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 
(NPT), with 188 States party, represents the cornerstone of the 
global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament effort - and 
despite recent challenges, it has never been more relevant than 
it is today. But if we are to move forward, I believe it is 
essential that we revisit a number of the basic assumptions and 
features of the existing regime, and consider a number of new 
approaches.
 
Addressing the Asymmetry of "Have's and Have-Not's"
 
A key assumption at the core of the NPT was that the asymmetry 
between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States would 
gradually disappear. Different interrelated commitments were 
undertaken by two distinct groups of States: for the five 
nuclear-weapon States - that is, States that had manufactured and 
detonated a nuclear weapon before 1 January 1967 - a commitment 
to divest themselves of those weapons through "good faith" 
negotiations; and for all other States, a commitment not to 
acquire nuclear weapons, and to accept IAEA verification of all 
their peaceful nuclear activities, in return for access to 
peaceful nuclear technology. But the record on upholding those 
commitments is mixed. Global access to the benefits of peaceful 
nuclear technology - related to energy generation, human health, 
water management, food production, and environmental restoration 
- has indeed made significant progress, through the technology 
transfer efforts of the IAEA and others.
 
And the nuclear non-proliferation regime has overall been 
successful - but with some shortcomings which I will address 
later. Progress has also been made on the nuclear disarmament 
front, but much more remains to be done. Nuclear disarmament 
strategies have for the most part focused on the negotiation of 
bilateral nuclear arms control agreements between the holders of 
the two largest nuclear arsenals, and a few multilateral 
agreements designed to curb the quantitative and qualitative 
development of nuclear weapons. With the end of the Cold War as 
an impetus, some progress was made in the early- and mid-1990s, 
but the process unfortunately slowed in the latter part of the 
decade. While the START I Treaty, which entered into force in 
1994, made significant cuts in the level of deployed strategic 
weapons, START II, signed in 1993, has been abandoned. Efforts to 
end nuclear weapons development achieved an important milestone 
with the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 
(CTBT) in September 1996, but the pace of progress has been 
sluggish among the 44 countries whose ratification is required 
for the treaty to enter into force - and the rejection of the 
CTBT by the US Senate in 1999 was a distinct setback. Negotiation 
of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) continues to languish 
in Geneva, more than seven years after agreement was reached on a 
mandate. 

These problems can be traced in general to the continuing 
reliance on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and the lack of an 
overall disarmament strategy. In some cases - for example, the 
CTBT and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention - progress 
has faltered in part because of perceived doubts about the 
credibility of the respective verification regimes. These 
regressions have led to stagnation in the disarmament process and 
have put a damper on hopes for further progress. 

The 2000 NPT Review Conference, building on the package of 
decisions and resolutions that led to the indefinite extension of 
the NPT in 1995, resulted in a number of encouraging commitments, 
not least the "unequivocal undertaking" by the nuclear-weapon 
States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear 
arsenals. But a scant two years later, we have moved sharply away 
from those commitments, with a number of the '13 steps' toward 
nuclear disarmament - such as 'irreversibility,' 'START II, START 
III and the ABM Treaty,' further 'unilateral' reductions in 
nuclear arsenals, 'increased transparency,' 'further reduction of 
non-strategic nuclear weapons,' and 'regular reports' on the 
implementation of Article VI of the NPT - left without concrete 
follow-up actions and in some cases discarded.
 
This is not to say that there have been no encouraging signs. 
This summer, the Russian and US Presidents signed a treaty to 
further reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1700 
and 2200, respectively, by the end of 2012, and agreed to remove 
additional unspecified amounts of fissile material from military 
use. And at their June Summit, the G8 Heads of State established 
a Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials 
of Mass Destruction, and made a commitment to raise up to $20 
billion over the next ten years to fund, inter alia, the 
disposition of excess weapons-origin fissile materials. 

But in every fundamental aspect, the asymmetry remains between 
what US President Kennedy referred to as the "have's and 
have-not's." Moreover, some nuclear-weapon States have reversed 
direction, by stressing the continuing value of nuclear weapons 
in defense of national security interests, including discussions 
of the feasibility of developing new types of nuclear weapons, 
and scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons against 
non-nuclear-weapon States. 

In my view, the longer this asymmetry is perpetuated, the more it 
will become a threat to the very foundation of the 
non-proliferation regime. As the Canberra Commission stated a few 
years ago, the present situation "cannot be sustained, [because] 
the possession of nuclear weapons by any State is a constant 
stimulus to other States to acquire them." While it may be 
unrealistic to expect complete nuclear disarmament in the very 
near future, it is essential that incremental steps be taken by 
all parties, which would signal a willingness to reduce the 
volume of and dependence on nuclear weapons, in fulfillment of 
existing commitments.
 
A crucial step in moving towards nuclear disarmament will be to 
re-examine the longstanding doctrine of 'nuclear deterrence.' 
This doctrine remains deeply entrenched in the national security 
strategies of all the nuclear-weapon States, and continues to be 
relied on by many non-nuclear-weapon States, through the 
so-called 'nuclear umbrella' arrangements, as an important 
feature of their security portfolio.
 
Indeed, irrespective of whatever deterrent effect nuclear weapons 
achieved during the Cold War, they are progressively losing their 
value as a currency of power - particularly in preventing local 
conflicts and in dealing with threats posed by sub-national 
terrorist groups. Given that the only perceived legitimate use of 
nuclear weapons is for the ultimate survival of a State, 
nuclear-weapon States should at the very least be able to move 
faster towards bringing their weapons inventory to a bare 
minimum.
 
Strengthening the Verification Regime
 
The discoveries of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme in Iraq 
after the 1991 Gulf War made it painfully clear that the IAEA 
verification system, with its focus on declared nuclear 
activities and its limited rights of access to information and 
sites, was not adequate for the IAEA to provide the comprehensive 
peaceful use assurances required under the NPT. This stark 
realization prompted the international community to significantly 
expand the IAEA's verification rights. These new rights were 
incorporated into a 1997 protocol additional to safeguards 
agreements, with a request for all States to subscribe to it. 

For non-nuclear-weapon States with both a safeguards agreement 
and an additional protocol in force, the IAEA is now able to 
provide credible assurance not only about the diversion of 
declared nuclear material but, equally important, about the 
absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. 
Regrettably, however, many States have not taken the necessary 
steps to conclude the required safeguards agreements with the 
Agency, let alone the additional protocol: 49 non-nuclear-weapon 
States party to the NPT are still without safeguards agreements, 
and since 1997, when the Model Additional Protocol was adopted, 
only 28 such additional protocols have entered into force. 
Clearly, more work needs to be done to ensure that States take 
their non-proliferation obligations more seriously; however, I 
should note that some non-nuclear-weapon States are hedging on 
their willingness to conclude required additional protocols to 
their safeguards agreements, by pointing to the lack of progress 
on nuclear disarmament. Naturally, without safeguards agreements, 
the Agency cannot perform any verification activities or provide 
any assurance of non-proliferation. And for States without 
additional protocols, IAEA rights of access remain essentially 
the same as in pre-Iraq days. For the IAEA to provide the 
required assurances, it must have the required authority.
 
It is clear that the success of the IAEA verification regime will 
depend heavily on achieving universal adherence to the required 
safeguards agreements and additional protocols by all 
non-nuclear-weapon States party to the NPT. The Agency must also 
have adequate financial resources; despite our growing 
responsibilities, the safeguards budget, as well as the rest of 
the Agency's budget, for that matter, has been frozen for over a 
decade-and-a-half as the result of a blanket zero real growth 
policy imposed on all United Nations system organizations, 
irrespective of their responsibilities, priorities or modes of 
operation. This situation, if continued, will inevitably 
undermine the Agency's ability to conduct credible verification. 
Fortunately, recently, a number of Member States - including the 
USA - have recognized the importance of increasing IAEA 
resources, and are now advocating such an increase.
 
The IAEA verification regime would also benefit from closer 
co-operation with Member States in the area of information 
sharing. Irrespective of what information States might hold 
relevant to possible non-compliance with non-proliferation 
obligations, it is only through the IAEA that such information 
can be corroborated through inspection and conclusions drawn. The 
value of receiving timely information from States about alleged 
cases of non-compliance cannot therefore be overemphasized. I can 
report that good progress is being made in developing a modus 
operandi for the Agency to receive relevant information in a 
timely manner, while protecting the confidentiality of 
information, on the one hand, and respecting the independence of 
the Agency, on the other. 

Consistency in Addressing Non-Compliance
 
The aspect of non-proliferation that receives the most attention 
relates to compliance questions - currently, the situations in 
Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
 
Iraq In a recent editorial to the Washington Post, I clarified 
what I see as the purpose and value of weapons inspections in 
Iraq. The inspection activities that came to an abrupt halt in 
December 1998 had successfully thwarted Iraq's efforts to develop 
a nuclear weapons programme. We had neutralized Iraq's nuclear 
programme. We had destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless all 
its facilities and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons 
production - mostly by the end of 1992. We had confiscated Iraq's 
weapon-usable material - essentially research reactor fuel - and 
by February 1994 had completed its removal from the country. And 
while we did not claim that we had absolute certainty, we were 
confident that we had not missed any significant component of 
Iraq's nuclear programme.
 
In December 1998, the IAEA and UNSCOM inspection activities in 
Iraq were brought to a halt, with a military strike imminent. 
While satellite monitoring and other analytical work has 
continued since that time, no remote analysis can replace 
inspections, nor can it enable us to reach conclusions about what 
has occurred related to nuclear weapon development in Iraq in the 
intervening four years. The only way to establish the facts is 
through inspection. 

With the adoption last Friday of Security Council resolution 
1441, we are now preparing to resume our inspection activities in 
Iraq as early as next Monday, when Hans Blix and I are expected 
to lead an advance team of inspectors to Baghdad. The success of 
inspections in Iraq will in my view depend on five interrelated 
prerequisites: (1) immediate and unfettered access to any 
location or site in Iraq, and full use of all the authority 
granted to us by the Security Council - including the additional 
authority provided for in the new resolution; (2) ready access to 
all sources of information - including timely intelligence 
information; (3) unified and unequivocal support from the 
Security Council, with the affirmed resolve to act promptly in 
case of non-compliance - this, in my view, is the best support 
that inspectors could have and the best deterrence against 
non-compliance; (4) active co-operation from Iraq, with a 
sustained demonstration of its stated willingness to be 
transparent and to enable inspectors to fulfil their mission 
without any conditions attached; and (5) the preservation of the 
integrity and impartiality of the inspection process, free from 
outside interference, to ensure that conclusions are accepted as 
objective and credible by all parties. Efforts by national 
governments to infiltrate the inspection process are ultimately 
counter-productive, because they lead to the destruction of the 
very fabric of the process, let alone its credibility. 

I would hope and trust that, empowered with the appropriate 
authority and provided with the necessary information, inspectors 
should be able to verify effectively the disarmament of Iraq. In 
my view, the use of force should clearly be the last resort and 
not the first option. But regardless of how events unfold in the 
foreseeable future, inspections will be the key, in the long 
haul, to ensuring that clandestine efforts to develop nuclear 
weapons - in Iraq or elsewhere - are detected and thwarted. There 
is no certainty, for example, that a new regime in Iraq, 
democratic or otherwise, would automatically renounce 
unconventional weapons, if such renunciation were perceived to be 
inconsistent with its threat perception. It is essential, 
therefore, that we make every effort to see to it that inspection 
- which is central to the entire nuclear arms control effort - 
succeeds both in Iraq and everywhere else. This requires that we 
continue to learn from our past experience, that we refine the 
system, and above all that we continue to work together towards 
that goal. 

DPRK The DPRK acceded to the NPT in December 1985, but its 
safeguards agreement did not enter into force until April 1992, 
six years after its NPT accession. Shortly afterward, in 1993, 
the DPRK was declared by both the IAEA and the Security Council 
to be in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement. This is 
because the Agency has not been provided with the necessary 
access to information and locations to be able to verify that the 
DPRK has made a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear 
material that is subject to Agency safeguards. 

Our estimation is that the work required to verify the 
correctness and completeness of the DPRK's initial declaration 
could take up to three to four years, assuming full co-operation 
by the DPRK. In addition to being a basic obligation under the 
DPRK's safeguards agreement, this verification work is a 
prerequisite for the delivery of key nuclear components under the 
Agreed Framework between the USA and the DPRK - delivery that 
could begin as soon as mid-2005. I have therefore continued to 
urge the DPRK to agree to the initiation of this verification 
process.
 
Recent information has suggested that, during the past few years, 
the DPRK has been working, in addition, on a programme to produce 
high enriched uranium. We have asked the DPRK to confirm these 
reports, and offered to discuss at a senior level these and all 
other issues relevant to their coming into compliance with their 
non-proliferation obligations, which require that all nuclear 
material in the country be declared and be subject to IAEA 
safeguards. We have yet to receive a response.
 
As you are aware, comparisons continue to be made between the 
different approaches adopted with respect to Iraq and the DPRK - 
two countries in violation of their non-proliferation 
obligations. Various explanations have been advanced for these 
differences in approach. Obviously, the two situations differ and 
are highly complex, and it is understandable that incentives and 
disincentives - "the carrot and the stick" - have to be used with 
differing emphases. However, I believe that while differing 
circumstances may necessitate asymmetric responses, in the case 
of non-compliance with non-proliferation obligations, for the 
credibility of the regime, the approach in all cases should be 
one and the same: zero tolerance.
 
Consolidation of the Regime
 
In parallel with the above, we should continue to explore 
pragmatic ways to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. A case 
in point is the approach to the three remaining countries outside 
the non-proliferation regime. In my view, we should not continue 
to treat these States only as 'outsiders', but rather induce them 
to act as partners in the global effort to consolidate the 
non-proliferation regime and to make progress in nuclear 
disarmament.
 
A good example lies in the area of export controls. Both India 
and Pakistan continue to operate some nuclear reactors and 
related facilities that are subject to IAEA safeguards, yet - due 
to export controls - neither country is able to secure 
much-needed nuclear safety equipment and technology. Rather than 
focusing exclusively on a policy of denial, we must search for 
opportunities for engagement, through, inter alia, the 
application not only of sanctions but also of incentives. For 
example, in exchange for receiving nuclear safety assistance - an 
exception foreseen under the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers 
Group (NSG) - such States might commit themselves to follow the 
NSG guidelines and to actively support the CTBT and FMCT.
 
Working on New Approaches to Security
 
My final theme relates to the fundamental issue of security. To 
understand how to move forward, I believe we must examine not 
only the symptoms but also the underlying causes - the 'drivers' 
and motivations that give rise to nuclear proliferation. Why, for 
example, is the Middle East an area of recurring proliferation 
activity, as opposed to, say, Scandinavia? Clearly, it is the 
situation of enduring conflict and tension that creates this 
potential. The same might be said of South Asia, another 
'hot-bed' of proliferation concern.
 
In some regions, basic security concerns have been largely 
resolved - through the 'nuclear umbrella' arrangements to which I 
referred earlier and through regional arrangements and 
accommodations. And thus, in regions where security concerns have 
been addressed, there is little or no 'demand' for weapons of 
mass destruction. But it should come as no surprise that regions 
facing a security deficit and unresolved conflict are also the 
regions with a continuing 'demand'. 

In each of these problematic regions, the conflicts and 
proliferation concerns have been around for some time - in some 
cases sheltered or ignored. In such a regional context, the 
possession by one country of weapons of mass destruction provides 
a clear stimulus for their acquisition by others. Thus, for each 
of these regions, discussions of regional security cannot be 
de-linked from the settlement of regional disputes and must be 
addressed in parallel, in a comprehensive manner that takes into 
account the security concerns of all. A perfect security for one 
party may be a perfect insecurity for another.
 
One strategy currently emerging involves greater reliance on 
regional systems of security, like the one that has been 
developed in Europe. How effective these systems will be remains 
to be seen. However, in my view, the feasibility of moving 
forward - not only on proliferation concerns but also towards 
meaningful cuts in current nuclear arsenals - depends critically 
on our ability to develop credible alternative security 
strategies, strategies that do not include nuclear deterrence as 
a feature, strategies that are functional and upon which all 
States can rely with confidence. 

To this end, there is an urgent need to re-energize the 
collective security system of 1945, as prescribed in the United 
Nations Charter, through a broader definition of the concept of 
threats to international peace and security, to encompass not 
only military threats but also threats that relate to the lack of 
good governance and the usurpation of people's sovereignty, to 
the desperate need for economic and social development, and to 
the denial of human rights. Equally important, there is an urgent 
need for Security Council reform to better reflect the changing 
realities of recent decades, and to enable the Council, through 
clearly defined 'rules of engagement,' not only to respond but 
also to prevent threats to international peace and security. 
Areas of reform could include: a functioning mechanism for the 
settlement of disputes - including as appropriate the resort to 
international adjudication and arbitration; a smart system of 
sanctions for dealing with non-compliance, adaptable to different 
regimes and different situations; readily available and better 
equipped UN forces to contain and manage incipient disputes; and 
agreed limitations on the use of the veto power. 

Conclusion
 
Notwithstanding the challenges I have outlined today, I continue 
to believe strongly in the contributions that the multilateral 
treaty regimes make in preventing further proliferation and use 
of weapons of mass destruction. It is worth recalling the words 
of General Omar Bradley, spoken virtually half a century ago: 
"We've unlocked the mysteries of the atom and forgotten the 
lessons of the Sermon on the Mount. We know more about war than 
we know about peace." I trust that we will all continue to work 
together to prove that we have learned some lessons since General 
Bradley spoke those words. 
*****************************************************************
 7 Iaea: News Update on Iraq Inspections 

Media Advisory 2002/32 - News Update on Iraq Inspections - 20 
November
 
[www.iaea.org]   

IAEA, UN Chiefs Conclude Talks
 
The following is based on reports from the IAEA and UN advance 
teams in Iraq, and a press briefing 20 November in Cyprus by IAEA 
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and UNMOVIC Executive Director 
Hans Blix. 

Also see the summary of talks (pdf) and previous media advisories 
of 15 November and 18 November.
      
IAEA and United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq have concluded 
talks in Iraq focused on the resumption of international arms 
inspections in the country. The first inspections are scheduled 
to start 27 November, with teams moving in before then.
 			 
Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei over two days of talks with Iraq 
officials discussed the upcoming inspections, including practical 
arrangements and the requirement for Iraq to submit by 8 December 
a "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all 
aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems".
 			 
At a press briefing in Cyprus 20 November, Dr. ElBaradei and Dr. 
Blix described the Iraqi talks as "constructive", "professional", 
and "businesslike". They said Iraq had agreed to submit the 
required declaration of its weapons programmes by the specified 
date, and that the first operational inspections would begin in a 
week's time. Dr. ElBaradei said that the work that begins 27 
November will be "the real test" of Iraq's pledge to cooperate 
with inspectors, reaffirming that inspections offer a new 
opportunity. "We hope their words and commitments will translate 
on the ground into real, full cooperation," he said. 

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, on 18 November, urged Iraq to 
fully comply with Security Council demands for IAEA and UN 
inspections in Iraq "for the sake of his people, regional 
stability and world order." Speaking in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
where he was on an official visit, the Secretary-General said the 
arrival in Baghdad of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei signalled a 
"crucial new phase of disarmament."
 			 
The Secretary-General noted that the Council's resolution 1441 
states clearly what the Government of Iraq must do. "Acting in 
unison, Council members demanded that Iraq grant prompt and 
unfettered access to all and any sites," he said.
 
The latest available information on IAEA Iraq missions will be 
posted on the IAEA WorldAtom web site at www.iaea.org/worldatom 
[http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/] .
   
*****************************************************************
 8 UK: Greenpeace challenges BE

Scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com/>

Sat 23 Nov 2002

/IAIN DEY/

STRICKEN nuclear power generator British Energy was dealt another 
blow yesterday after the High Court opened the way for Greenpeace 
to challenge the legality of its £650 million government bail-out 
package.

The environmental lobby group and renewable energy firm 
Ecotricity have been granted permission to press for a judicial 
review of the deal brokered by Trade and Industry Secretary 
Patricia Hewitt.

Greenpeace claims the bail-out deal is in breach of EU state aid 
rules as it is distorting the electricity market and damaging 
renewable energy companies such as Ecotricity.

If the organisation wins the next round of legal argument, the 
government could be forced to withdraw the financing package 
which is keeping British Energy afloat.

News of the ruling comes just one week before the East 
Kilbride-based generator?s existing loan package expires.

Paul Lasok QC, for Greenpeace and Ecotricity, told the court the 
case was of particular importance in the light of the current 
over-capacity in the industry, which had led to cut-throat price 
competition.

He said in normal circumstances, the weakest companies would go 
to the wall, but this did not happen to British Energy because it 
was given state aid.

Justice Maurice Kay called for a three-day hearing, which will 
begin on 27 January.

In September the government gave British Energy a short-term £410 
million loan to keep the former state-owned utility in business. 
The handout was later rolled over and increased to £650 million.

Whitehall sources have claimed Chancellor Gordon Brown will 
intervene any attempts to extend the loan beyond next Friday?s 
deadline and allow British Energy to slide into administration.

The European Commission has already said that the government 
broke European rules by refusing to give prior notice of the 
finance package. A ruling on the legality of the deal is expected 
within the next two weeks.

The Commission is expected to approve the deal, according to 
sources in Brussels, although strict conditions will be attached.

But the environmentalists said they would press ahead with the 
claim regardless to ensure "no further illegality can take 
place".

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry restated 
yesterday that the government believes the BE loan package is "in 
full compliance with rescue aid guidelines".

Greenpeace campaigner Emma Gibson said: "Nuclear power does not 
add up and to keep it going can only mean pumping millions of 
taxpayers money into a nuclear black hole for years to come."

British Energy?s shares closed up 8 per cent at 10.25p.

 ©2002 scotsman.com <http://www.scotsman.com> | contact
*****************************************************************
 9 What will trigger the war?

<http://www.gulfnews.com>Gulf News Online Edition
<http://www.gulfnews.com>  
<#> * Dubai:Saturday, November 23, 2002*  

Washington |Reuters | 23-11-2002 *

With repeated air attacks on Iraqi targets, President George W. 
Bush is heaping pressure on Baghdad but his administration 
remains divided over what would trigger all-out war, U.S. 
officials and analysts said.

After pushing a new effort to disarm Iraq through the UN Security 
Council, Bush this week tempered harsh rhetoric with a 
wait-and-see stance as international weapons inspectors began 
their mission.

But with President Saddam Hussain challenging the United States 
and ally Britain with increased attacks on aircraft patrolling 
the no-fly zones over Iraq, and a key UN deadline looming, it was 
unclear how long Washington's forbearance might hold.

"There is no consensus (within the administration) whatsoever. 
There are deep factional differences over this," said Anthony 
Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 
a military expert on the region.

Those U.S. officials who believe war with Iraq is inevitable and 
necessary "are tending to set a much lower threshold" for action 
than those who believe that whether war is inevitable or not, 
Washington must cooperate to the extent possible with the 
international community, he told Reuters.

A Pentagon official confirmed the trigger remains under review. 
"It's been discussed and debated among various areas of the 
government and there is still that split," he said.

"There are those who want to be rather patient and those who want 
justification (for action) at any cost," he added.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, a moderate voice for trying to 
disarm Iraq peacefully, seemed to emerge victorious when the UN 
Security Council on November 8 unanimously approved a tough new 
resolution sending inspectors back to the Gulf state after a 
four-year break.

But differences in the administration persist and the issue of 
the war trigger has become a central focus.

U.S. officials and experts said if Saddam does what one analyst 
called "something egregious" ? like shooting down a UN plane or 
barring inspectors from visiting a suspect facility ? the 
rationale for war should be pretty obvious.

But anything short of that presents a vast gray area that would 
invite multiple interpretations of Iraqi behaviour and, 
conceivably, delay bringing the Iraq dispute to a resolution.

There are several potential flashpoints.

One is whether attacks by Iraqi air defenses on U.S. and British 
warplanes patrolling no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq 
constitute a "material breach" of the key Nov. 8 UN resolution 
and thus present a reason for war.

The zones were established after Iraq was ousted from Kuwait in 
the 1991 Gulf War. The United States insists the attacks are a 
"material breach," but most other countries vehemently disagree.

U.S. officials said they believe Saddam accelerated the no-fly 
zone attacks in recent days to try to sow dissension between the 
United States and other security council members.

Also, some officials see Saddam trying to intimidate the United 
Nations by raising fears that even aircraft carrying arms 
inspectors may be vulnerable to Iraqi attack.

Nevertheless, the administration does not seem inclined to make 
"no-fly" zone attacks a crisis-provoking event.

Washington must claim the attacks are a material breach of UN 
resolutions in order to preserve the legal argument but one 
Pentagon official said. "I don't think we will have cause to use 
Iraq's firing at U.S. and British aircraft as a cause for war."

He added: "We have to look calm and patient (and) can't yell 
'fire' about the northern and southern watch or it will blow up 
in our faces," alienating allies whose help may be needed in a 
war and in its aftermath.

Another potential flashpoint is December  8, when Iraq must 
submit to the UN a declaration of any weapons of mass destruction 
it may still retain along with related civilian facilities and 
materials.

Bush, speaking at a Nato meeting in Prague on Wednesday, 
threatened Baghdad in dire terms, saying Saddam was in his "final 
stage" if he denied having weapons of mass destruction in the 
declaration.

Bush also threatened "severe consequences" if Saddam does not 
fully disclose Iraq's arsenal.

The heavy betting in Washington is that Saddam cannot abandon his 
nuclear, chemical and biological capability because it is a key 
source of his power. Hence, the declaration is expected to be 
incomplete, at best.

So does that mean war after December 8?

A senior European official privy to Bush's meeting in Prague with 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the British came away from 
the discussion believing the Dec 8 declaration by itself would 
not trigger war.

A determination that Iraq is in "material breach" of the UN 
resolution would have to include a report by UN arms inspectors, 
now beginning work in the country, "and not just be based on what 
Iraq declares on December 8," the official said.

Cordesman said the declaration "can't be determinative as long as 
Iraq submits anything" and Baghdad has said it will be filing a 
document. After that, "it will take days or weeks to evaluate 
what is said in the paper," the analyst said.

The Pentagon official agreed December 8 is "unlikely to be 
cataclysmic." But he said if Saddam denies having weapons of mass 
destruction, that will be a further sign of Iraq's defiance of 
the international community and the United States likely will 
move more military forces into the Gulf region.

A buildup over many months has put the United States within 30-60 
days of reaching an optimum force level but if needed, "we're 
ready to go anytime" to war against Iraq, he said.    
 
· Bush, Putin say Iraq must obey UN arms calls 
*****************************************************************
 10 Putin: UN Must Back War

U.S. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin talk (AP)
Nov 22, 2002

By Ken Fireman Washington Bureau

November 23, 2002

Pushkin, Russia -- President Vladimir Putin on Friday expressed 
only conditional support for the U.S. campaign to disarm Saddam 
Hussein and appeared to raise pointed questions about the Bush 
administration's priorities in the war against terrorism.

Speaking after a 90-minute summit with President George W. Bush 
in this former czarist retreat near St. Petersburg, the Russian 
leader agreed that Iraq should be forced to give up any weapons 
of mass destruction. But Putin insisted the disarmament effort 
must be conducted within the framework of the United Nations, 
sending a clear signal that he would not support military action 
against Iraq unless it carries UN approval.

And Putin seemed to associate himself with Bush critics who argue 
that the American president's focus on Iraq could weaken the war 
on terrorism. Putin raised questions about the whereabouts of 
Osama bin Laden, the potential for instability in nuclear-armed 
Pakistan and the role of Saudi Arabian nationals in the Sept. 11 
attacks.

"Now, where has Osama bin Laden taken refuge?? Putin said in a 
comment hardly designed to please a Bush administration that has 
taken criticism from domestic political adversaries over its 
inability to capture the al-Qaida leader.

"They say that [bin Laden is] somewhere between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan,? Putin continued. "We know what ... [Pakistani 
President Pervez] Musharraf is doing to achieve stability in his 
country and we are supporting him. But what can happen with 
armies armed with weapons that exist in Pakistan, including 
weapons of mass destruction? We are not sure on that aspect and 
we should not forget about that.?

Bush won Putin's agreement to a joint statement this week calling 
on Iraq to disarm "fully and unconditionally? or face "serious 
consequences,? diplomatic code for the use of force. Putin added 
his personal commitment, telling reporters, "We agree with the 
president of the United States and his colleagues who say that we 
have to make sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction in 
its possession.?

But, Putin added, any action to enforce Iraqi disarmament should 
be taken only under UN auspices ? and thus through a process in 
which Russia has a veto. "We do believe that we have to stay 
within the framework of the work being carried out by the 
Security Council of the United Nations,? he said.

A White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said he did not 
interpret Putin's comments as a warning to forgo unilateral 
action against Iraq. "We both support implementation of the UN 
resolution,? he said.

A senior administration official shrugged off Putin's remarks 
about bin Laden, Pakistan and the Saudis. "He's expressed those 
kinds of comments for a while, and he's talking about a broader 
problem,? said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. 
"That's his view, not ours.?

But Putin's willingness to air those views so sharply and 
publicly indicated that he wanted to raise some warning flags as 
Bush moves toward a possible military confrontation with Iraq.

Bush's ostensible purpose for coming here was to reassure Putin 
that NATO's decision this week to embrace seven new members -- 
thus expanding to Russia's western doorstep -- posed no threat to 
Russian security. "The mood of the NATO countries is this: Russia 
is our friend, we've got a lot of interests together, we must 
continue our cooperation in the war on terror and the expansion 
of NATO should be welcomed by the Russian people,? Bush said.

Putin, who has gradually muted his opposition to NATO expansion 
as he and Bush have developed a partnership in combating 
terrorism, contented himself with the mildest of demurrals.

"We do not believe that this has been necessitated by the 
existing facts, but we take note of the position taken by the 
president of the United States,? he said. "We do not rule out the 
possibility of deepening our relations with the alliance.?

McCormack said the leaders had not discussed Russia's substantial 
economic interests in Iraq, interests that Bush said Thursday 
"will be honored? if Hussein is ousted. Regarding the war in 
Chechnya, McCormack said Bush had made a "forceful case? for 
Russia's need to find a political solution, while expressing 
support for its efforts to combat Chechen terrorism.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. <http://www.newsday.com>
*****************************************************************
 11 Ritter discusses path to war with Iraq 

La Voz Online - 

by James Newburg 
November 18, 2002 

An overflow crowd of young and old in the conference rooms of 
the Campus Center listened for nearly two hours as former United 
Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter explained his objections 
to American foreign policy in Iraq. 

Ritter led 14 U.N. weapons inspection missions in Iraq between 
1991 and 1998, searching for evidence of biological, chemical, 
or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. 

At the beginning of Ritter's speech, a San Jose State 
University student held up a bright green sign that listed 
"People on Saddam's Payrole (sic)." The list included Osama bin 
Laden, Yasser Arafat and Ritter. 

Ritter confronted the student's accusation that he accepted 
money from the Iraqi government. He explained that he received 
$400,000 from an Iraqi-American businessman from Detroit. He 
said the money went to help fund a documentary he made called 
"In Shifting Sands" examining the effects that U.N. economic 
sanctions have had on the people of Iraq. 

He also said that he enlisted the services of the FBI to 
research and ensure that the money he received was in no way 
affiliated with the Iraqi government. 

Ritter also said that the businessman who donated the money had 
no editorial control over the documentary. 

The accusation that he would receive money to make a piece of 
pro-Iraqi propaganda was "frankly speaking, a hell of an 
insult," said Ritter. 

With that exception, the rest of the audience seemed to receive 
Ritter well, applauding the former weapons inspector on several 
occasions. 

After dealing with the protester, Ritter said that people 
needed to look in the mirror and ask if they or someone they 
knew were willing to die for the cause of overthrowing the 
government in Iraq. If people found that they did not want to 
die for that cause, Ritter said, they needed to consider one 
more question. 
Ritter asked the audience, "What in God's name gives you the 
right to ask another American to go and die in your name?" 
Ritter warned that the imminent war with Iraq could lead to more 
terror attacks on American soil, the unnecessary killing of 
soldiers and civilians alike, as well as a protracted occupation 
with a high human and economic cost to America and the world. 

Ritter addressed the manner in which the Bush administration 
gained authorization from Congress to use military force in 
Iraq. He said that Congress acted like "compliant, scared sheep" 
in voting to give President Bush the power to take military 
action in Iraq. Members of Congress were looking toward the 
upcoming elections and feared to be labeled as "unpatriotic" by 
the White House, according to Ritter. He called the actions of 
Congress "cowardly." 

"We are a dictatorship of one George W. Bush," said Ritter, 
adding, "You might as well call him 'King George.'" 

In response to the limited debate about a possible war with 
Iraq, Ritter said that it was each person's responsibility to 
raise questions about this course of action. 

"Ladies and gentlemen, the most patriotic thing you can do 
right now is raise your hand and ask a question," said Ritter. 

Ritter then outlined the steps he thought the Bush 
administration should have taken to follow in the spirit of 
international law. 

In the event that Iraq did not comply with the Security Council 
resolution, Ritter said that the Security Council would approve 
any punishment they saw fit, including military action. Article 
Six of the United States Constitution binds America to the 
agreement that it has made with the U.N., meaning that the 
U.N.'s decision would be America's decision. 
"We must adhere to our obligations," said Ritter. 

If the President still wished to wage war on Iraq in spite of a 
U.N. decision, Congress would have to approve with a two-thirds 
majority, getting 290 votes in the House of Representatives and 
67 in the Senate. "Congress would consider the President's 
request because we are a democracy," said Ritter. 

If Congress were to reach that two-thirds majority, they would 
declare war or give the President war powers authority. "Troops 
will still go to war, but it is now a just war," said Ritter, of 
this hypothetical situation. 

Ritter spoke to the effectiveness of the weapons inspection 
teams during his time in Iraq. He said that the Dec. 8 deadline 
imposed by the Security Council on Iraq to declare their arsenal 
of weapons of mass destruction will prevent the weapons 
inspection teams from doing an adequate job. He said that the 
teams needed anywhere from at least six months up to two years 
in order to execute a more thorough search. 

Ritter held up the seven years that he was part of the 
inspection teams in Iraq as an example of a thorough search. 
Over the seven years of inspections, he said that his teams 
accounted for roughly 90 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction in the face of constant obstruction from Iraq. 
Ritter said he worked closely with intelligence agencies from 
other countries to gain information for his teams. The teams 
employed the knowledge of a wide range of specialists from many 
different countries, ranging from Arabic linguists to rocket 
scientists. 

Ritter stressed that in order for inspections to work, Iraq 
would have to cooperate with the U.N. teams, and the inspection 
teams would have to abide by the law. 

Ritter pointed to a routine of careful U.N. inspections as a 
policy that worked in dealing with Iraq, but said that another 
policy did not work: economic sanctions. He said that over a 
million Iraqis have died since the advent of sanctions, and that 
the continued policy does little but engender ill will toward 
America from the population of Iraq. 

"We're slaughtering the innocent people of Iraq and you wonder 
why they hate us," said Ritter. 

In concluding his speech, Ritter called on people to oppose 
what he referred to a "American imperialism," the Bush 
administration's strategy to go it alone in world affairs. He 
said that the American people were facing "a defining moment in 
world history," and that a continued policy of unilateralism 
could mean the death of America. 

Ritter said that not taking a stand on war in Iraq was not an 
option. 

"I condemn every one of you in here for the deaths of Iraqi 
people. I condemn every one of you in here for the future deaths 
of American soldiers," said Ritter. 

Ritter donated two copies of his movie, "In Shifting Sands," to 
the A. Robert DeHart Learning Center. 

Ritter was paid $4,000 to speak at De Anza, which according to 
event organizer Karl Schaffer marked a one-time discount from 
Ritter's going rate for speaking engagements. 

Resources : Copyright | 

Resources : © 2002 La Voz Online 
[http://www.ispi.net] 
*****************************************************************
 12 N. Koreans called 'stupid as a fox'* 

deseretnews.com 

Saturday, November 23, 2002 

*By John Robinson* 
Deseret News world/national editor 

North Korea has perfected the art of playing the spoiled 
international child. The fact that the Bush administration wants to
"send it to its room" is just fine with North Korea, says Mark
Peterson, associate professor of Korean studies at Brigham Young
University. Peterson lived in South Korea for 15 years. 

"Any attention is good attention ? especially if it means
money," Peterson adds. 

North Korea's posturing regarding its development of nuclear
weapons is part of an overall strategy to increase its resources.
"We'll abandon these weapons if the compensation's right," is the
game the North Koreans are playing, Peterson says. "That's what's
coming, count on it." 

And the North Koreans are very good at playing games. "They
come across as very stupid sometimes, but they're as stupid as a
fox," Peterson states. 

But when the game involves nuclear weapons, serious errors in
judgment could be disastrous, Peterson warns. 

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have squandered 
opportunities regarding the Korean peninsula, Peterson believes. 

"The Democrats were foolish. He (Clinton) wanted to get a
cheap legacy" so he gave North Korea too much latitude. "The North
Koreans out Arkansas-ed him." They weren't the dumb rubes Clinton
thought they were, Peterson says. 

While Clinton was too soft on North Korea, the opposite is
true with the Bush administration, according to Peterson. "I'm
really saddened by what the Bush administration has done" regarding
the two Koreas, Peterson states. 

Instead of providing North Korea some incentives to
cooperate, Bush and the cold warriors of the White House, Vice
President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are
hearkening to the approach taken during the Stalinist era, Peterson
says. 

"We ought to have a new paradigm for looking at North Korea
today," he states. 

Peterson is as disheartened by the way the Bush
administration is dealing with South Korea as much as he is with
their posture regarding North Korea. Instead of supporting South
Korea leader Kim Dae-jung, who the White House views as a liberal,
in his attempts to reach out to North Korea, Bush has distanced
himself from Kim. 

"They (Bush and his administration) want a new (South Korean)
administration that's more to the right." 

Both the immediate and long-term future of the two Koreas are
difficult to predict. Both sides know the historical magnitude that
will follow the person who reunites the two Koreas. 

It's possible that "somebody in North Korea in the military
will kill Kim Jong Il someday" and begin immediate peaceful
negotiations with South Korea, Peterson states. 

South Korea could also decide to invade North Korea to force
the reunification of the two Koreas, Peterson adds. 

Because of all the complexities and the nuclear wild card,
the Korean Peninsula is a dangerous place, Peterson says. "But then
it has been for 50 years." 

/E-mail: jrob@desnews.com <mailto:jrob@desnews.com>/ 

© 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 13 Perry (nuclear tax) schools to seek tax increase 

The Plain Dealer
                                
Saturday, November 23, 2002
 
Mark Gillispie Plain Dealer Reporter 

Perry- The cooling towers of the Perry nuclear power plant loom 
large over eastern Lake County and have become leviathanlike 
symbols of prosperity for a school district that once had 
problems paying its bills. 

        FirstEnergy Corp., the plant's owner, has made the Perry 
schools one of the richest districts in the state and the object 
of envy because of its ultra-modern - and completely paid for - 
$100 million school campus. 

        While the money train is still rolling for the system, 
which serves Perry Township and the villages of Perry and North 
Perry, it has slowed to the point that the school board plans to 
ask voters in May to approve an operating levy expected to raise 
$3 million a year. 

        "I think everyone knows that you would have been foolish 
to believe that tax money was always going to be there," said 
school board member Stephen Butsko. "That's about where we're at 
now." 

        The district had a surplus of $4.5 million for the fiscal 
year that ended June 30. District Treasurer Patrick East 
anticipates the surplus will dwindle to $2 million at the end of 
this fiscal year and drop in subsequent years. 

        The May levy would be the first time the district has 
asked voters to raise taxes since 1976. Perry also is part of a 
school financing district along with Madison, Painesville and 
Painesville Township that collects property taxes. The district 
was formed in 1990 to allow Perry schools to share some of their 
wealth. 

        In a prepared statement, Perry schools Superintendent 
Scott Howard said he was confident voters would approve the levy. 

        It will appear on the ballot as a 7.9-mill continuing 
levy and, if approved, will cost the owner of a $100,000 home an 
additional $240 a year in property taxes. Homeowners currently 
pay $6.13 for each $1,000 of appraised property value. 

        Perry schools charge the lowest property taxes among the 
county's nine districts. A successful levy would put Perry in the 
middle of the pack. 

        Amid all the talk about levies is an "X" factor in an 
equation that isn't likely to be solved anytime soon. FirstEnergy 
and Lake County Auditor Edward Zupancic have been involved since 
1995 in litigation over the Perry plant's value. 

        FirstEnergy says the plant, which cost $5.6 billion to 
build, is worth $61 million, and it has paid property taxes based 
on that amount since 1996. The value set by Zupancic has varied 
by year from between $325 million and $382 million. 

        Should Zupancic's argument prevail, FirstEnergy would owe 
the Perry schools more than $18 million. "We want to pay our fair 
share, but nothing more," said FirstEnergy spokesman Todd 
Schneider. "Our belief is the tax value on the plant should be 
$61 million." 

        Zupancic agreed that FirstEnergy should pay only what it 
owes. 

        "But in my opinion, $60 million is not a fair value," he 
said. 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: 

mgillispie@plaind.com, 216-602-4786 

*****************************************************************
 14 520-ton piece of nuclear plant hits the road
 
Recordnet.com
 
Generator's slow trek eye-catching By Neil Gonzales Record Staff 
Writer Published Saturday, November 23, 2002 

HERALD -- A mammoth freight began a slow, pain-staking trek along 
back roads Friday from the decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear 
power plant to Stockton. The payload is a 520-ton generator that 
once produced half of Sacramento County's electricity needs. 

The 913-megawatt generator lies on top of a specially-designed 
tractor-trailer rig that weighs more than 200 tons itself and 
measures about a block long. 

"It's the largest load ever hauled on state highways in 
California," said project manager Jim Nugent of San Leandro-based 
Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. 

California Highway Patrol Sgt. Matt Polanco described it as the 
biggest move that day in the nation. 

Or in the words of 8-year-old Danielle Neider watching the cargo 
crawl west on Twin Cities Road: "It's like a T-rex!" 

The caravan escorted by the CHP will take four days to reach the 
Stockton Deep Water Channel. There a barge will take the 
generator on a trip through the Panama Canal and to its final 
destination -- an operating nuclear-power plant in Surry, Va. 

Florida-based Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. bought the 
generator from Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which 
manages Rancho Seco. Siemens Westinghouse then contracted Bigge 
to make the delivery. 

"It's very challenging," Nugent said. "It's probably one of the 
most-complex jobs in the state." 

The move involves building a trailer specifically tailored for 
the task. "It has so many wheels and axles to redistribute the 
weight evenly on the roadway without overstressing the pavement," 
Nugent said. 

The trailer has 208 tires and 52 axles. 

Over the next few days, the move will briefly close stretches of 
roads or rearrange traffic flow as it travels at a walking pace 
of about 2 mph. It will make stops along the way. 

Its route includes going on Elliott Road and Highway 88 in 
Lockeford and through downtown Stockton on Weber Avenue. The 
generator should arrive on the East Coast in January, Nugent 
said. It will then be refurbished and installed in the Virginia 
power plant. 

Nugent declined to give out the project cost. SMUD spokeswoman 
Dace Udris wouldn't comment on how much Siemens Westinghouse paid 
to buy the generator. 

Siemens Westinghouse officials couldn't immediately be reached 
for more details. 

The generator was a major component of Rancho Seco, which 
operated for 14 years until a 1989 voter referendum called for 
its closure. 

During its operation, Rancho Seco's nuclear fuel heated water, 
producing steam to turn the turbine generator for electricity. 
Before Friday's move, the generator was checked for 
radioactivity, and no detectable amount was reported, SMUD said. 

Along Twin Cities Road, residents stepped out to watch the 
generator lumber by. Some had cameras and video recorders to 
capture the event for posterity. 

Steven Hart took the opportunity to make the day a teaching 
lesson for his children. 

"You get to see mathematics in motion here," Hart said, "so I got 
my two sons out here so they can see math, calculation and weight 
distribution at work." 

Hart's 8-year-old son was impressed with the moving project and 
learned something practical. 

"It was very interesting to look at," Eric said. "I learned what 
generators can do and how big they can be." 

* To reach reporter Neil Gonzales, phone 367-7428 or e-mail 
ngonzale@recordnet.com                                                  
   
Copyright © 2002 The Record, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy 
[webmaster@recordnet.com]   
*****************************************************************
 15 CP&L's Harris Nuclear Plant Reaches Safety Milestone*

Friday, Nov 22, 2002 *>> NEWSTRACKER Signup <<*

11-22-2002

RALEIGH -- Late Tuesday, CP&L's Harris Nuclear Plant reached an 
important safety milestone. As of 5 p.m. Nov. 19, the Harris 
Nuclear Plant had recorded 5 million work hours without a 
lost-time injury. The achievement puts the plant among the top 
safety performers for industrial sites in North Carolina. CP&L is 
a subsidiary of Progress Energy.

Earlier this year, the Harris Nuclear Plant was recognized by the 
North Carolina Department of Labor for completing four years and 
four million work hours without an injury. The plant's last 
lost-time accident occurred March 23, 1998.


"Each employee at the Harris Nuclear Plant has contributed to our 
success and we continue to build our safety culture," said Jim 
Scarola, vice president, Harris Nuclear Plant. "I am proud of our 
record, but we all must remain vigilant. Safety must remain our 
top priority for every task, every day."

Progress Energy, headquartered in Raleigh, NC, is a Fortune 250 
diversified energy company with more than 21,800 megawatts of 
generation capacity and $8 billion in annual revenues. The 
company's holdings include two electric utilities (CP&L and 
Florida Power) and a natural gas distribution company (NCNG) 
serving more than 2.9 million customers across the Carolinas and 
Florida. Progress Energy also includes non-regulated operations 
(Progress Ventures) covering merchant generation, energy 
marketing and trading, fuel extraction (Progress Fuels), rail 
services (Progress Rail) and broadband capacity (Progress 
Telecom). For more information about Progress Energy, visit the 
company's Web site at http://www.progress-energy.com/.
*****************************************************************
 16 Taxes stay $567K for power plant*

By: MARGARET GIBBONS, Times Herald Staff November 23, 2002

*COURTHOUSE - The Montgomery County commissioners, in preparing 
next year's county budget, are putting Exelon down for another 
$567,000 in taxes for the nuclear power plant in Limerick.

County Solicitor Richard D. Winters said the litigation between 
Exelon and the three local taxing authorities concerning Exelon's 
fair share of taxes on the facility remains pending.

As a result, a side agreement hammered out in 2000 between the 
utility company and the county still remains in effect, said 
Winters. And, under that agreement, the Peco Energy Co., which 
has since merged with Exelon, will continue to make a yearly tax 
payment of $567,000, said Winters.

"The agreement provides for the yearly payment until the 
litigation is resolved," said Winters, adding that the merger of 
the two companies does not impact that obligation.

The three taxing authorities (county, Limerick and Spring-Ford 
Area School District) have been battling for more than three 
years over the fair market value of the utility company's 
305.5-acre property off Longview Road.

A countywide reassessment, which took effect in 1998, placed a 
value of $939.4 million on the property. Peco appealed the 
assessment in 1999 to the county Board of Assessment Appeals and 
won a $26.8 million assessment reduction to $912.6 million.

Peco, claiming that even the $912.6-million assessment was 
excessive, appealed that decision to the County Court where it 
remains pending. Peco contended that the value of the property, 
which includes a nuclear power plant constructed in the late 
1970s at a cost of $6.8 billion, is less than zero. The utility 
company has argued that the cost of decommissioning the plant in 
the mid-2020s will be in excess of $1 billion and that gives the 
property a negative value.

The three taxing authorities strongly disagreed with Peco's 
position and have asked the court to uphold the assessment. All 
local real estate property taxes are levied against a property's 
assessed value.

In the past, Peco did not have to worry about the assessed value 
of its property. Utility companies were taxed under a state law 
that did not include the property assessment in its taxing 
formula.

Peco would pay the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax Act (PURTA) 
tax to the state, which would then return some of those monies to 
the taxing authorities in lieu of real estate property taxes.

The county received about $1.3 million in yearly PURTA taxes, 
with the bulk of that money coming from Peco for the nuclear 
power plant.

However, as a result of deregulation, Peco, starting in 2000, was 
taxed like any other business. The county sent Peco a tax bill 
for $2.23 million based on the property's assessed value.

The holdup in bringing the case to trial is the length of time it 
is taking experts on both sides to come up with their appraised 
values of the property, according to Wendy G. Rothstein, the 
solicitor for the school district who is spearheading the 
litigation for the taxing authorities.

It is a complicated appraisal and we cannot move forward until 
both sides have their numbers," she said.

Margaret Gibbons can be reached at mgibbons@timesherald.com or 
610-272-2501 ext. 216.

/©The Times Herald 2002/
*****************************************************************
 17 DOT says 'hazmat' cargo label may draw terrorists
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com]     

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Saturday, November 23, 2002
 
By LEE BOWMAN SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Concerned that terrorists might use 
hazardous-materials warning signs as readily as emergency 
workers, federal officials are looking for more secure ways of 
identifying what's on trucks and trains.
 
But firefighters and other rescue workers are sharply opposed to 
removing the brightly colored diamond-shaped placards required 
for containers hauling everything from explosives and radioactive 
materials to corrosives and poisons.
 
Ever since 9/11, federal officials have urged companies 
transporting hazardous materials to be more vigilant, most 
recently focusing on threats to railroads.
 
Security has been stepped up along rails and highways, with more 
railroad-police patrols and many truckers taking part in a 
"neighborhood watch"-type program.
 
Railroad officials were among the first to suggest last year that 
terrorists might use the signs and widely available guidebooks 
that go with them to assist in target selection.
 
"Can we continue to use those placards for what they can do for 
us to protect our systems, or do we have to lose that because of 
the potential misuse by terrorists?" asked William Harris, a 
transportation safety consultant and member of the President's 
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection.
 
"We understand the security concerns, but we're very wary of 
taking this established tool away from emergency responders for 
something new that everyone in the field may not fully understand 
or have the equipment to use," said Craig Sharmin, director of 
government relations for the National Volunteer Fire Council, 
which represents volunteer fire, emergency medical and rescue 
services around the country.
 
The U.S. Transportation Department, after meeting with industry 
officials about placards and other "hazmat" rules that might 
affect security, requested that its research center in Cambridge, 
Mass., study alternatives to placards.
 
"There are a number of security issues under review, but the 
department's not taking any formal action on placards now," said 
DOT spokesman Joseph DelCambre, adding there's no timetable for 
the technical review.
 
The transportation industry has new technologies to track and 
identify hazardous cargoes, from radio and cellular-phone 
transponders linked to ground antennas or satellites, to bar 
codes or "smart cards" attached to containers' sides.
 
Numerous services allow companies and authorized emergency 
agencies to quickly check on shipments through the Internet. 

Every day, more than 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials 
move across the United States, and some 15,000 spills or other 
accidents result each year, including about 400 that the DOT 
deems "serious."
 
"That's a lot of ethyl, methyl, nasty stuff," said Alan Caldwell, 
government liaison for the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs. "And the first responders need to know what's there and 
how to protect themselves from it. It's a trade-off between what 
we know happens every day and what's possible, and right now that 
knowledge for us outweighs any help the placards might give the 
bad guys."
 
  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820
*****************************************************************
 18 Plant Workers Alleged Exposure Records Were Falsified - 

By Van Rose
 
Pike County News Watchman
 
November 24,2002
 
NW Staff
 
PIKETON - Former workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant in Piketon are accusing operators of the facility of 
altering radiation exposure documents.
 
An article in the Columbus Dispatch reported that Jeff Walburn, a 
26-year employee at the facility, filed a lawsuit against 
Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Utility Services and the United 
States Enrichment Corporation in 2000 for using "false and 
unreliable exposure readings to receive incentive payments for 
operating a safe work environment." Walburn's attorney, Steve J. 
Edwards, claims he has evidence that his client's records were 
altered. Walburn is not alone in his claim. Vina Colley, an 
electrician at the Portsmouth plant from 1980 to 1985, stated 
that despite the fact she was absent from her job in 1985 due to 
a work-related illness, documentation indicated that she had some 
of the highest radioactive exposure in her career during that 
period. She said plant operators have not only kept poor records 
but have been known to shred documents to conceal the amount of 
radiation employees were receiving.
 
Colley, who has been diagnosed with a destroyed immune system and 
other respiratory problems due to radiation and chemical exposure 
at the plant, does not qualify for a $150,000 lump sum payment 
under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act of 2000. She believes poor documentation would make 
dose reconstruction needed to obtain compensation through state 
programs a waste of time.
 
"DOE has admitted that their recordkeeping was inadequate," said 
Colley, "and the government has admitted to making us sick, so 
why are they going to use useless records to do dose 
reconstructions when we all know there is no way they can tell us 
how much radiation we worked in?"
 
Mike Tulloh [http://www.nucnews.com/news/2002/mtulloh021115.htm] 
, a uranium materials handler at the Portsmouth plant from 1975 
to 1986, alleges that plant officials have a history of tampering 
with devices used to monitor radiation exposure. His job at the 
facility was to transfer and sample uranium hexafluoride into 
customer and government cylinders in areas where radiation was 
present.
 
"The contamination and radiation problems were so bad that the 
contractor removed radiation monitoring devices that notified 
workers of unacceptable levels of radiation and contamination," 
said Tulloh. "When you expose workers to deadly materials on a 
daily basis without their knowledge, deny them benefits when they 
become sick, lie about working conditions, and then pass ... 
legislation that just a few workers might qualify for, then what 
you have in legal terms is an 'intentional tort.'" The former 
plant worker claims to have spent 11 years of litigation 
involving two cases against U.S. Department of Energy contractors 
and won jury decisions in both of them. More action could be 
taken by past and present uranium workers if not for lack of 
media attention, he believes.
 
There are many more cases of falsification of radiation exposure 
documentation, explained Colley. She stated that it is, in fact, 
a national problem which plagues many other nuclear sites owned 
by DOE.
 
United States Enrichment Corporation Spokesperson Elizabeth 
Stuckle could not openly comment on allegations being made by 
former workers. She admitted that USEC has been aware of the 
legal action taken by Walburn but could not go into detail 
concerning the issue.
 
"We are studying the lawsuit," said Stuckle on Friday. DOE 
officials were unavailable for comment at press time.
*****************************************************************
 19 Audience questions uranium plant's effect on Middle Tennessee 
property values

By The Associated Press

November 22, 2002

LAFAYETTE, Tenn. - Elected officials, environmentalists and a 
representative from a consortium hoping to build a 
uranium-enrichment plant in Middle Tennessee answered questions 
Wednesday from people concerned about the project. 

Louisiana Energy Services wants to build a $1.1 billion plant on 
260 acres of old Tennessee Valley Authority land in Trousdale 
County. The meeting was in Macon County, one of five counties in 
a regional authority that owns the land. 

The audience focused on property values, safety and what LES 
would do with depleted uranium "tails" left over after the 
enrichment process. 

LES, a consortium including American and European energy 
companies, has proposed putting the tails in old uranium mines, 
company representative George Byers said. 

The consortium also is studying a Department of Energy contract 
to build a storage operation, and a proposal from a private 
company to build one in Utah, he said. 

The plant, which would permanently employ 250 people, would 
process uranium into material for nuclear fuel but would not have 
nuclear reactor capabilities or use materials with high-level 
radiation, according to LES. 

Tuesday, about 150 people attended a forum in Trousdale County to 
hear officials and residents who recently visited a 
uranium-enrichment plant in the Netherlands owned by Urenco, a 
European company in LES.  

The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 20 Big Rock removes initial fuel cask 

Traverse City Record-Eagle - 
www.record-eagle.com 

November 23, 2002 

- The first of eight such containers of radioactive waste put in 
dry storage By MICHELLE BARBERCHECK 

Special to the Record-Eagle 

CHARLEVOIX - This week was an important one for workers 
at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant: They completed the 
first critical step in dismantling the facility. 

Big Rock spokesman Tim Petrosky said the first cask 
containing spent radioactive fuel was successfully removed from 
the plant and placed in dry storage on the premises. 

"This is a key milestone on the path to returning the 
site to a greenfield," Petrosky said. 

Petrosky said a total of 441 bundles of spent radioactive 
fuel and an assortment of contaminated equipment need to be 
removed from the plant's spent fuel pool before the pool can be 
cleaned and the containment sphere demolished. 

The fuel rods are being loaded into seven, 19-foot-tall 
concrete and steel casks, with an eighth cask filled with the 
miscellaneous contaminated equipment. The casks all will 
eventually be moved about a half mile to a dry storage area - a 
thick, concrete pad about the size of a basketball court - on 
the nuclear power plant's 580-acre property. 

Petrosky said the first cask contained 63 bundles of 
spent fuel and the remaining 378 should be in dry storage by the 
first part of 2003. However, he emphasized the removal process 
is "not schedule-driven." 

Petrosky said workers were pleased at how smoothly the 
removal of the first cask went. 

"This initial load was exceptionally successful," he 
said. "We're very happy." 

He noted the removal process was also a learning 
experience. Workers encountered a couple of unexpected, although 
not alarming, situations. For instance, one bundle was slightly 
rusted at the end of its cell. 

"We said, 'OK, let's take a look at this. ... What do we 
do now?' " Petrosky said. "But we prepare for this kind of 
thing." 

Petrosky said workers at the plant prepared in part by 
acting out several "dry runs" of the removal process before 
actually attempting it, and will incorporate lessons they 
learned during the first removal to the remaining seven casks. 

Once all eight of the casks are in dry storage, they will 
remain there at least until 2012 when they are expected to be 
moved to a national nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, 
Nev. 

The Big Rock Point Plant shut down in 1997 after 35 years 
of operation. Petrosky said the demolition process will be 
complete and the site returned to a greenfield status by 2005, 
with the exception of the dry storage area. 

Return to www.record-eagle.com home page 
*****************************************************************
 21 [southnews] NZ: No troops for US Iraq war
 
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:22:53 -0600 (CST)

 

    Goff tells America where NZ stands on Iraq war

    23.11.2002 - By JOHN ARMSTRONG political editor
    NZ Herald  Saturday November 23, 2002

    New Zealand has told the US it will contribute
    humanitarian, medical or logistic support to an invasion
    of Iraq if military action is taken under United Nations
    mandate.

    It is unlikely that it will commit combat troops.

    Foreign Minister Phil Goff spelled out New Zealand's
    position during a 40-minute meeting yesterday with US
    charge d'affairs Phil Wall, second-in-charge at the
    American Embassy in Wellington.

    The meeting was held at Mr Wall's request as Washington
    sounds out about 50 countries on possible contributions to
    an American-led force.

    After the meeting, Mr Goff said Mr Wall had outlined
    contingency plans for action if Iraq did not comply with
    the requirements of the UN Security Council.

    "The US position is that the UN resolution offers Iraq a
    final opportunity to disarm peacefully and verifiably
    through unconditional and complete co-operation with UN
    weapons inspectors," he said.

    "However, its view is that only the credible threat of
    force and serious consequences are likely to elicit Iraqi
    co-operation and compliance with the resolution.

    "For this reason and as a contingency against Iraqi
    refusal to comply, the United States is seeking possible
    contributions for military or humanitarian assistance if
    force is used against Iraq."

    Mr Goff told Mr Wall that New Zealand would consider calls
    for assistance if action against Iraq was UN-mandated and
    within international law.

    "However, I reiterated that these conditions needed to be
    met, and that New Zealand's strong view was that force
    should be used only as a last resort.

    "I noted that military action against Iraq entailed
    serious consequences including potential loss of innocent
    lives, the potential destabilising of the Middle East and
    the undermining of the existing broad and united coalition
    against terrorism."

    UN-approved multilateral action would reduce some of those
    risks, Mr Goff said.

    Because it had a substantial proportion of its combat
    forces in East Timor, and had also committed Army, Air
    Force and Navy forces to Afghanistan in the war against
    terrorism, it was unlikely New Zealand could make a
    further commitment of combat forces.

    If the UN did approve action against Iraq, New Zealand
    would consider humanitarian, medical or logistic support.

    National's foreign affairs spokesman, Wayne Mapp, said the
    Government had already made a major commitment to the Gulf
    in the form of a frigate and an Air Force Orion.

    He was confident they would be involved in any action
    against Iraq.

    "It takes the public as fools for us to believe New
    Zealand is not engaged."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 22 India's nuclear weapons play positive role in South Asia: Russia

: World News : IndiaExpress.Com
 
15.14 IST   23rd Nov 2002 

By IndiaExpress Bureau 

A top Russian lawmaker has said that Indian nuclear weapons are 
playing a “positive role” in ensuring peace and stability in 
South Asia.

“As a militaryman, I can assert that as such nuclear weapons are 
a big evil and a great trouble, but India's nuclearisation was 
based on dire necessity to ensure national security,” Chief of 
the Russian State Duma's Defence Committee, General (Retd) Andrei 
Nikolayev said on Friday in Moscow. 

“Russia believes that a war in the region would have been 
inevitable if India had not exercised its nuclear option. To a 
certain degree, they (Indian nukes) are playing a positive role,” 
he said. 

Nikolayev was speaking on the eve of his visit to India to attend 
a seminar on Indo-Russian Strategic Partnership in the 21st 
century.

He stressed that Russia is bound by its non- proliferation 
commitments and has never helped New Delhi in its nuclear weapons 
programme, which he described as “purely indigenous”. 

“However, Russia and India have a common stand on nuclear arms, 
both of them do not see them as an instrument of war, but as a 
deterrence,” Nikolayev said.
*****************************************************************
 23 LANL Warns of Contaminated Trees* *

<http://www.sfnewmexican.com>

November 22, 2002

By WES SMALLING | The New Mexican 11/23/2002

* Los Alamos County and U.S. Forest Service personnel who are 
thinning trees in Bayo Canyon east of Los Alamos have been warned 
by Los Alamos National Laboratory not to remove trees they cut in 
various parts of the canyon because the trees might be 
radioactive. *

Small sections at the bottom of Bayo Canyon - formerly known as 
Technical Area 10 - were used from the 1940s until 1961 as test 
sites by scientists studying explosions, said LANL spokesman 
James Rickman.

The Forest Service is assisting Los Alamos County with various 
thinning projects on county lands. The crews are thinning dense 
ponderosa stands to try to reduce the danger of a large-scale 
fire in various canyons near the town.

Before work began earlier this week, LANL officials told thinning 
crews not to remove trees from certain areas within former test 
sites, which total less than 30 acres of the 160-acre thinning 
project, Rickman said.

"It's not because it presents any reasonable risk. It's just a 
precaution," Rickman said. "There's a negligible amount of trees 
in those areas anyway. But, never the less, we wanted to point 
that out in those areas."

As an added precaution, Forest Service and county crews have 
opted not to remove any vegetation from the entire canyon. 
Instead, crews are grinding the trees into mulch with a machine.

"There were a series of tests conducted at the site called the 
RaLa Experiments," Rickman said. "They were named that because 
they involved radioactive lanthanum, which has a half-life of 40 
hours."

Lanthanum was used as a tracer material in tests that studied 
explosions.

"So, since it has such a short half-life of 40 hours, most of the 
radioactivity from those tests would be nearly zero after two 
weeks."

But impurities in the lanthanum also produced small amounts of 
Strontium 90, a radioactive material prevalent in nuclear fallout 
that has a half-life of 28 years, he said.

"The reason that is a concern is because it acts similar to 
calcium," Rickman said. "If you would ingest it, it would tend to 
appear in your bones and teeth."

Bayo Canyon is a popular spot for hiking and horseback riding.

"Normal recreational use, the activities that are done in that 
area, don't present any risks to the public," Rickman said. 
"Because we've asked the Forest Service to leave those trees in 
that area does not mean people need to be afraid of that area. We 
have placards (in Bayo Canyon) that say 'No excavating,' but 
normal recreational use is not a problem."

Bill Armstrong, forester for the Santa Fe National Forest, said 
crews are staying out of the canyon bottoms and are trying not to 
disturb the soil because they have been told that buried 
hazardous materials can be pushed to the surface by plants.

The thinning project has an added importance now because of the 
contaminants, Armstrong said. Erosion and flooding are likely to 
occur if an intense forest fire burns in the canyon. The water 
could carry hazardous material toward homes in Los Alamos, he 
said.

Crews plan to finish the thinning project by early next year, 
Armstrong said.

Santa Fe New Mexican
*****************************************************************
 24 Los Alamos Lab Investigation Expands
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
November 22, 2002 By DEBORAH BAKER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

SANTA FE, N.M.- The investigation into allegations of financial 
wrongdoing and coverups at Los Alamos National Laboratory has 
expanded to include additional purchases made by lab employees, 
officials said. 

"The university will not tolerate theft or mismanagement at Los 
Alamos or in any other part of the university," University of 
California President Richard Atkinson said in a statement issued 
by the laboratory. 

The University of California operates the nuclear weapons 
laboratory for the Department of Energy. 

Atkinson said the widening investigation into business practices 
at the lab includes "the inappropriate use of purchase cards, 
allegations of criminal activities involving the laboratory 
purchasing system, and improprieties involving property 
management." 

Recent published reports based on internal documents provided 
anonymously - purportedly by lab employees - have cited millions 
of dollars in missing inventory. 

The Albuquerque Journal reported Sunday that based on internal 
documents, nearly $3 million worth of items disappeared or were 
reported missing from the period 1999 to 2001. 

The lab report said the figure was overstated because 1998 and 
1999 were combined. Lab spokeswoman Linn Tytler also said items 
listed as lost are sometimes recovered in the same year they're 
reported missing. 

Whistleblowers allege that laboratory leaders have tried to cover 
up the problems and interfere with investigations. The statement 
issued Friday also said: 

-The total of suspected inappropriate payments involving purchase 
cards used for personal items is now $3,500. The cards account 
for about $30 million in buying annually. A worker who tried 
without success to buy a car with a purchase card was placed on 
leave, although federal officials have declined to prosecute. 

-The FBI is still investigating about $50,000 in alleged illegal 
purchases by two employees. The lab said there is "no evidence of 
any compromise to national security." 

-Unaccounted-for inventory in 2002 was below one-tenth of 1 
percent. The lab said inventory tracking systems seldom achieve 
100 percent because of employee turnover, tracking errors, losses 
and theft. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 25 Sanford, energy chief discuss plutonium plan
 
 Charlotte Observer | 11/23/2002 | 

[observer.com - The observer home page]       
    
New S.C. governor wants assurances on proper disposal

 Associated Press

COLUMBIA - U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with S.C. 
Gov.-elect Mark Sanford for about a half-hour Friday to talk 
about plans for the Savannah River Site to handle weapons-grade 
plutonium and other issues.
 
Abraham and Sanford met in Dana Point, Calif., while Sanford 
attended the Republican Governors Association conference.
 
The Department of Energy plans to build facilities at the SRS 
facility near Aiken that will convert plutonium into a 
mixed-oxide fuel that can be used in commercial nuclear reactors. 
DOE embraced that plan as its method of disposing of several tons 
of plutonium from Rocky Flats, Colo., and other Western states as 
it complied with a nuclear arms treaty.
 
The plans turned into a pitched battle between Democratic Gov. 
Jim Hodges and federal officials.
 
Hodges didn't want the material transferred to SRS unless the 
Energy Department offered ironclad assurances that the material 
would not be stored permanently in South Carolina.
 
Sanford says he also wants assurances on the proper disposal of 
the material. He favors a bill that Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., 
pushed to set timetables for the removal of plutonium from SRS 
and impose fines if material were not processed on time.
   
*****************************************************************
 26 Hanford's B Reactor an icon of Atomic Age
 
[seattlepi.com]     

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Saturday, November 23, 2002
 
By TIMOTHY A. COWAN GUEST COLUMNIST

The Tri-Cities needs a unified vision for tourism to Hanford's B 
Reactor and through the Hanford Reach National Monument. Local 
organizations have announced campaigns for public access to 
Hanford, but none suggest an encompassing solution. The U.S. 
Department of Energy should take the initiative with preservation 
groups in producing world-class tourism at Hanford.
 
B Reactor sits as an icon of the Atomic Age with the potential of 
becoming an attraction to rival the likes of Los Alamos' Bradbury 
Science Museum or the World War II Memorial. The Hanford Reach 
National Monument is a historically rich landscape vital in 
drawing tourism through the Tri-Cities and to B Reactor..
 
Three years ago, I began investigating B Reactor in regards to 
long-term preservation and public exhibition. My architectural 
thesis project at Washington State University's School of 
Architecture drew the conclusion that B Reactor, a 60-year-old 
facility and National Historic Landmark, is essential in 
explaining the history of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and 
should ultimately become an exhibition of our heritage. 

To attract people to B Reactor, which is 30 miles from Richland, 
I propose building an interpretive center outside the 100 B/C 
Area, a zone in the reservation's northwest corner where B 
Reactor resides. The interpretive center would become a 
transition point for visitors providing necessary facilities to 
house artifacts and displays related to B Reactor and Hanford.
 
In this manner we could ultimately preserve the world's first 
full-scale nuclear reactor as an exhibition without transforming 
it into a building type it is not -- namely a museum. 

Tracing B Reactor to its conception led to naming this project 
the Enrico Fermi Interpretive Center. After all, countless places 
and streets in Richland were named after Hanford military leaders 
but nothing after B Reactor's inventor.
 
B Reactor has the ability to attract national and international 
attention. The interpretive center could become a stage for 
explaining Hanford's history, the Hanford Reach National Monument 
and the B Reactor Exhibition. Visitors from around the world 
would have the opportunity to experience the Hanford Nuclear 
Reservation holistically with an intimate look at this national 
treasure. 

Current tours to B Reactor originate in Richland and offer a 
thorough traveling presentation of the entire reservation. I 
propose that tours begin at the 1100 Area in north Richland, an 
original Hanford depot. Bus and train tours would embark on a 
journey to the Wye Barricade entrance, past remnants of the 
Hanford Construction Camp, Hanford and White Bluffs town sites 
and several reactor buildings before reaching the interpretive 
center.
 
By using existing roadways and rail lines to transport visitors 
to B Reactor, we could redirect the negative image of this unseen 
landscape by reconnecting people to it in order to explain its 
history. 

At the interpretive center, visitors could view documentation, 
artifacts and displays about B Reactor, listen to guest lectures, 
see documentary films and use interactive media to virtually link 
themselves to other sites related to Hanford in real-time via 
web-cam.
 
By adapting current and future technologies within a new 
facility, the experience could reach far beyond the Hanford 
boundaries to symbolically heal the wounds of World War II. 
Imagine viewing historic photos of B Reactor adjacent a 
satellite-linked video feed of the Trinity Test Site or 
present-day Nagasaki. 

Visitors would also have an opportunity to walk the site to B 
Reactor. Upon leaving the interpretive center, they would enter 
through the 100 B/C Area gate via an existing roadway aligned 
with B Reactor. Passing through this gate reveals the layers of 
security associated with these once top-secret production 
reactors. The ghostly sensation of walking in the desert adjacent 
one of man's greatest engineering creations enhances our 
perception of human scale and our relationship to one another. 

Once inside B Reactor, the visitor would feel transported in 
time, imagining teams of people, perhaps Fermi himself, 
controlling the reactor in and around the halls and rooms inside.
 
Converting the reactor into a museum is an appropriate attempt 
for historic preservation, but transfiguring it is not 
necessarily the best solution for memorializing its meaning in 
history. Even the historic designations B Reactor holds do not 
protect it from a demolishing hand. 

Local governments, organizations, historians and preservationists 
have differing agendas but must unite in one forum to ultimately 
preserve, maintain and exhibit B Reactor as a critical element in 
American and world history. With interest pouring in from local 
groups that support the preservation efforts, the Department of 
Energy has an opportunity to showcase to the world the building 
that changed the world.
 
Timothy A. Cowan, a native of Richland, practices architecture in 
Portland.
 
  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820

 Send comments to  [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1999-2002 Seattle 
Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy Policy 
*****************************************************************
 27 Incinerator raises debate on SRS permit 
 
112302 loc 9 SavannahNOW - Savannah Morning News JACKSON, S.C. -- 
Air quality surrounding the Savannah River Site could become more 
radioactive if the Consolidated Incinerator Facility at the 
site's H-Area were allowed to resume operations. -->

posted Saturday, November 23, 2002

By Eric Williamson Morris News Service 

JACKSON, S.C. -- Air quality surrounding the Savannah River Site 
could become more radioactive if the Consolidated Incinerator 
Facility at the site's H-Area were allowed to resume operations.

 Although site officials have stated no plans for resuming the 
facility's operations, a public meeting Thursday night revealed 
that a new air emissions permit being sought by SRS might keep 
the possibility open.

 The meeting, conducted by South Carolina's Department of Health 
and Environmental Control, was held at Silver Bluff High School 
as a step in the permitting process.

 DHEC requested public comment on any potential flaws in the 
permit proposal, which was submitted by the Department of Energy 
through the nuclear reserve's management contractor, Westinghouse 
Savannah River Co.

 The main opposition during the brief meeting was presented by 
Louis Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

 "As good as the permit is, it lacks important elements," Mr. 
Zeller said. He said the incinerator facility poses a particular 
threat because the radioactive nuclides in the materials 
potentially burned there cannot be destroyed, only dispersed into 
the atmosphere.

 "Although it may not be operating at this time, the draft permit 
plainly allows it in the future," Mr. Zeller said. "BREDL 
recommends that DHEC delete it from the permit and that it not be 
reinstated."

 SRS is required to keep radionuclides to less than 10 millirems 
per year at the site's borders, according to Brett Caswell, a 
DHEC Bureau of Air Quality permit writer.

 The average American receives about 360 millirems of radiation 
per year from both natural and man-made sources, scientists say.

 Mr. Zeller also questioned why a coal-fired power facility in 
D-Area, which has a history of excessive sulfur dioxide 
emissions, was separated from inclusion in the permit request. 
Permitting regulations seek to combine all rules on polluting 
areas at a site into one document.

 Mr. Zeller said that, regardless of the fact that the power 
station changed hands from Westinghouse to South Carolina 
Electric & Gas, the history of consent orders to force 
environmental compliance should be reflected in the permit.

 Carl Richardson, the director of DHEC's engineering services 
division, said SRS is in compliance with air quality standards.

Copyright 2002 Savannah Morning News. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy. [http://www.savannahnow.com/copyNOW.shtml] 
*****************************************************************
 28 Sanford, secretary of energy hold talk 

Augusta Georgia: Metro: 

Web posted Saturday, November 23, 2002 1:41 a.m. EST 

Associated Press 

COLUMBIA - U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with 
Gov.-elect Mark Sanford for about a half-hour Friday to talk 
about plans for Savannah River Site to handle weapons-grade 
plutonium, along with other issues. 

The two met in Dana Point, Calif., while Mr. Sanford was 
attending the Republican Governors Association conference. 

The Department of Energy plans to build facilities at the SRS 
facility that will convert plutonium into a mixed-oxide fuel, or 
MOX, that can be used in commercial nuclear reactors. DOE 
embraced that plan as its method of disposing of several tons of 
plutonium from Rocky Flats, Colo., and other Western states as 
it complied with a nuclear arms treaty. 

"This was the beginning of a good conversation about a number 
of issues of critical importance to South Carolina," Mr. Sanford 
said. "We talked about MOX production, pit production" among 
other issues. 

While the project could produce thousands of jobs, the 
department's plans to bring plutonium to South Carolina while it 
closed Rocky Flats turned into a pitched battle between 
Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges and federal officials. 

Mr. Hodges didn't want the material transferred to SRS unless 
the Energy Department offered ironclad assurances that the 
material would not be stored permanently in South Carolina. 

Mr. Sanford says he also wants assurances on the proper 
disposal of the material. He favors a bill that Rep. Lindsey 
Graham, R-S.C., pushed to set timetables for the removal of 
plutonium from SRS and impose fines if the proposed facility 
fails to process material on schedule. 

Mr. Hodges sued DOE to block the radioactive material from 
entering the state. The lawsuit said department officials had 
not conducted the proper environmental studies on the safety of 
shipping plutonium to SRS. 

The governor lost the lawsuit in U.S. District Court and the 
appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit is now 
on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to decide 
early next year whether to hear the case. 

Billy Want, the lawyer working on Mr. Hodges' lawsuit, says Mr. 
Sanford's office hasn't contacted him about the case. 

The lawsuit was discussed in the meeting with Mr. Abraham, a 
former Republican senator, but Mr. Sanford did not offer details 
about that part of the conversation. 

On Nov. 6, a day after Mr. Sanford defeated Mr. Hodges, the 
governor-elect told The State newspaper, he "would be inclined 
toward dropping the lawsuit. ... I've long believed that the 
legislative strategy is a much more valid way of bringing about 
change." But he added that he had not made a final decision. 

Mr. Sanford said recently that he favors new missions at SRS 
and would work better with DOE than Mr. Hodges. 

"We were encouraged to see his comments regarding the 
(mixed-oxide fuel) program after the elections," agency 
spokesman Joe Davis said. 

Energy officials requested the meeting with Mr. Sanford, Mr. 
Davis said, but Mr. Abraham also was scheduled to talk with 
other governors at the meeting. 

Another issue tied to SRS is a $2 billion to $4 billion 
plutonium trigger plant, which would provide key components for 
nuclear weapons. SRS is one of five sites being considered for 
that facility, which could create thousands of jobs. 

After meeting with Mr. Abraham, Mr. Sanford said he looks 
"forward to a good working relationship with Secretary Abraham's 
office, and this meeting was certainly a good start to that 
relationship." 

--From the Saturday, November 23, 2002 printed edition of the 
Augusta Chronicle 
*****************************************************************
 29 AU: Radioactive mineral discovered 

The Advertiser: 

23 November 2002 

By Science Reporter ANDREW DOWDELL 

A NEW mineral – which could help improve disposal of 
radioactive waste – has been named after a famous South 
Australian geologist and conservationist. 

Spriggite, a bright orange radioactive mineral 
containing uranium, is named after the late Dr Reg Sprigg. 

While the mineral is about 180,000 years old, it was found last 
year by SA Museum geologist Joel Brugger during his first field 
trip to Arkaroola station in the Flinders Ranges. 

Dr Brugger, 35, has just succeeded in having the name spriggite 
officially recognised by a panel of scientists from around the 
world. "It is very, very rare – this is the only place in the 
world where spriggite has been found to this point," Dr Brugger 
said yesterday. 

He had chosen to name the mineral after Dr Sprigg because of 
his enormous contribution to work in the Radium Ridge area, 
where spriggite was found. 

"Reg's family has also been really helpful with this work and 
they were very excited that we named the mineral after him," Dr 
Brugger said. 

Spriggite formed when oxygen-bearing groundwater came into 
contact with uranium minerals 180,000 years ago. 

While much of the uranium was carried away in the groundwater, 
some reacted with other elements to form the colourful mineral. 
Spriggite eluded geologists who scoured the area searching for 
uranium at the end of World War II. 

Dr Sprigg, who established Arkaroola station in 1969, was one 
geologist who worked on the British Government search for 
uranium. 

"Lots of geologists were walking around up there at the time 
and they probably saw the spriggite but didn't realise what it 
was," Dr Brugger said. 

The crystal structure of spriggite could help in the design of 
radioactive waste deposits. 

Spriggite is closely related to ianthinite, a mineral that is 
capable of absorbing dangerous plutonium in radioactive waste 
deposits submitted to oxidation. 

© Advertiser Newspapers Ltd 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************