***************************************************************** 10/24/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.274 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Are true confessions good for Seoul? 2 U.S.: $10B If Russia Stops Iran Aid 3 Why axis' evildoers aren't equally evil 4 North Korea makes promise to mitigate nuclear concerns 5 Editorial: Tale of two evildoers / If Iraq becomes a target, why 6 Lee, Roh differ on how to resolve nuke issue 7 Pyongyang's nuclear effort challenges U.S. policymakers, but what 8 Oil delivered to North Korea despite broken nuclear pact* 9 North Korea's uranium is put at 30 kg* 10 [EDITORIALS]Nuclear crisis? What crisis?* 11 Economic planners from North may also have nukes on agenda* 12 [TODAY]The North looking for a way out* 13 Iraq resolution hits new snag; France, Russia fault language* 14 EU: Squabble over the bill 15 U.S. knew about nuclear link between N. Korea, Pakistan 16 Japan criticizes North Korea's nuclear weapons program 17 Let's Not Do It Again 18 UK: Nuclear industry warns of shut-off (labor strike) 19 INTERVIEW/Kunihiko Saito: Kim must ditch the nukes if he wants to ta 20 US: 'Time to reconsider a misguided policy' 21 APEC meet to open amid massive security effort 22 Asia to NK: Joint criticism expected NUCLEAR REACTORS 23 US: NRC Proposes $43,200 Fine Against Easton, PA., Company for 24 US: Business customers assail Duke Power settlement with regulators 25 US: Split on Nuclear Plants: Weak Spot or Fortress? 26 US: Report sent to DEP: Oyster Creek fish kill cause was mistimed jo 27 Irish Battle Over British Nuke Plant* 28 CITY PLEA FOR CHILDREN OF CHERNOBYL 29 Russia resisting incentives to halt aid on Iranian reactor* 30 US: Safety vs. whistling past the graveyard 31 US: Order of the day at nuke plant: This is only a test 32 US: NRC denies third party request - 33 US: Duke Energy to cut 1,500 jobs because of lower profits 34 China's Nuclear Power Capacity to Keep Rising NUCLEAR SAFETY 35 US: USDA Rule on Irradiated Produce is Huge Loss for Consumers, 36 Uzbekistan upgrades security checks on uranium fuel 37 UNEP Team Terminates DU Inspection of Bosnia 38 US: CDC gives $1.3 million to new USC bioterror center 39 US: Rising breast cancer rate fuels environmental concerns 40 US: Feds use equipment to detect contamination NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 41 Next German HLW shipment in early November 42 US: Proponents Defend Radioactive Waste Measure 43 US: No Nuclear Closure Radioactive waste from St. Albans in limbo 44 US: Iowa search for n-waste around weapons facility 45 US: Nevada adds to Yucca challenge list 46 US: Nevada to challenge DOE on missed nuke dump license deadline* 47 Sellafield: TONNES OF WORK 48 Sellafield: BOLDLY GOING WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE SINCE 1957 49 US: Commission discusses going ahead with Boyd County waste site 50 US: Waste-facility shift is sought 51 US: Commission still looking to build nuke waste dump (nebraska) NUCLEAR WEAPONS 52 Nuclear Renaissance or Nuclear Nightmare? 53 Inspectors Set to Return to Iraq 54 Powell: U.S. to Hold Ground on Iraq 55 In Mexico, Kim starts talks on nukes, economy 56 Seoul, Washington urge N. Korea stop nuclear program immediately 57 Empire of chaos challenged 58 EDITORIAL: Erasing Russia's arsenal US DEPT. OF ENERGY 59 Lawsuit may make FFTF fight too pricy 60 FFTF fire station to remain active 61 DOE should embrace state's role in cleanup 62 Campaign ad features former IAAP security guard OTHER NUCLEAR 63 Court reverses verdict on Chevron drilling case 64 No donor names required or given for $1 million in anti-Wellstone ad 65 Environmentalists flunk Arizona delegation - 66 Efforts Of Federal Management Teams Save Over $100 Million And 67 South Korean official questions U.S. account of North Korea's ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Are true confessions good for Seoul? The Taipei Times Online: 2002-10-24 By Ralph A. Cossa , SEOUL AND BUSAN They say that a little bit of confession is good for the soul, but North Korea's sudden burst of religion is creating a moral dilemma for Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul. First, Pyongyang decides to come clean on the kidnaping of Japanese citizens. Then it confirms Washington's worst suspicions about its secret nuclear weapons program by confessing that it indeed has one, in direct violation to the 1994 US-DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Agreed Framework, not to mention the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and several other agreements. What's going on here? The reasons for playing true confessions with Japan are pretty obvious: Tokyo made it very clear that there would be no progress toward normalization (and the billions of dollars of colonial era compensation that this is expected to bring in) unless Pyongyang came clean on the abductions issue. Understanding the North's motivations for coming clean on their nuclear program at this point in time is more difficult, however. Clearly the North got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. When presented with the evidence of prohibited nuclear weapons activity by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly during his visit to Pyongyang on Oct. 3 to Oct. 5 -- the first high-level visit by a Bush administration official -- the North reportedly vigorously denied the allegations at first and then, after an all-night meeting, were quoted as saying "of course we have a nuclear program," blaming President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech and the presence of US forces in the South for their deliberate violation of the above-referenced agreements. Some see the North's actions as deja vu. They recall the old 1993 to 1994 crisis prompted by the North's sudden withdrawal from the NPT, which led to the 1994 Agreed Framework (under which the North receives 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually and two light water reactors eventually in return for a verified freeze in its nuclear weapons program). Assuming that Kelly's proof would, at a minimum, end the fuel oil deliveries and halt the LWR construction anyway, the North may have decided to create a new crisis in hopes of reaching a new agreement, under which they would again be compensated for not doing what they were not supposed to be doing in the first place. Officials in Seoul have another (more polite) way of saying this, speculating that the North's confession "may be a sign that it wants to resolve the problem through negotiations rather than confrontation." To this end, local press reports also cite unidentified Republic of Korea (ROK) officials as saying that the North offered Washington a deal to barter US guarantees for its survival in return for resolving US concerns regarding the North's weapons of mass destruction. Given the South Korean media's tendency to report rumor as fact, however, this should be taken with a large grain of salt. ROK officials are understandably concerned -- what's good for the soul has not been good for Seoul. President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North had already been under attack for being too trusting (and generous) toward the North; "suspicions confirmed" has been the outcry from the opposition, with all presidential candidates (including the one from the ruling party) demanding the North comply with its promises and abandon its nuclear ambitions. Many have also tied the North Korean action, in one way or another, to Iraq. Perhaps the North decided to come out of the closet now because it believed the Bush administration was so preoccupied with Iraq that it would have to accept Pyongyang's actions. Or, more credibly, perhaps Washington's presumed determination to strike Iraq before it develops nuclear weapons caused Pyongyang to claim that it has them in order to deter Washington for picking on North Korea next. On this point it is worth noting that it is still unclear exactly what the North acknowledged having -- a secret program for developing nuclear weapons or the actual weapons themselves.One report also claims that North Korean officials said they "have more powerful things as well," causing speculation about possible biological weapons as well -- the North's possession of chemical weapons has been an open secret for years. One person I talked to even speculated that there was some conspiracy between Pyongyang and Washington behind the announcement -- South Koreans are world-class conspiracy theorists, although this one stretched the limits. And, of course, there are those who wonder if the North really did confess or if there wasn't a "secret offer" that Washington is still withholding, such as the grand bargain described above. Its reputation as a trigger-happy unilateral cowboy not-withstanding, the Bush administration's response to the crisis has been measured, non-threatening (to date), and taken in full consultation with Tokyo and Seoul. Bush has called the North's confession "troubling, sobering news" but has expressed his determination to address the issue through diplomatic channels. "We seek a peaceful solution," he said. One would have thought that this would have gained Washington a few rounds of applause. Instead, it raised questions as to why the administration was revealing all this now -- rather than the more logical question of why the North seemed to be precipitating another crisis. All eyes will now be on the planned Oct. 26 Bush-Kim-Koizumi summit meeting along the sidelines of the APEC meeting in Mexico, to see if the three leaders will be able to speak with one voice in charting a clear path toward bringing North Korea back into full compliance with its own earlier agreements, hopefully without resorting to forceful measures. This topic will also (rightfully) become a central theme in future Japan-North Korea negations, scheduled to resume in Kuala Lumpur at the end of the month, and should be high on Seoul's list in its own negotiations with Pyongyang. Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. This story has been viewed 343 times. Information [http://ecommerce.taipeitimes.com/] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 U.S.: $10B If Russia Stops Iran Aid Las Vegas SUN October 23, 2002 By BARRY SCHWEID ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- The Bush administration is holding out the incentive of a $10 billion project for Russia if it would stop helping Iran develop potent missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The potentially lucrative deal involves storage of radioactive material from around the world. "If the Russians end their sensitive cooperation with Iran, we have indicated we would be prepared to favorably consider such transfer arrangements potentially worth over $10 billion to Moscow," the State Department said. A tradeoff could resolve one of the most difficult issues in an overall good relationship between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They will meet this weekend in Mexico at a conference of leaders of Asian and Pacific nations. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton was sent to Moscow in advance of the meeting to discuss U.S. concerns about Russia's assistance to Iran. Bolton has talked to top Russian officials about the problem several times in the past without apparent results. Specifically, the administration wants Russia to halt construction of a light-water nuclear reactor at the Iranian coastal city of Bushehr. Russia has denied consistently it is helping Iran develop nuclear weapons or its missiles program. "The U.S. position is clear," the State Department said. "A weapons of mass destruction-armed Iran would be a major threat to Russia as well as to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." Hinting that Bush will take the issue up with Putin, the statement said, "We will continue to intensively work this issue closely at senior levels with Russia." An end to aiding Iran would benefit the U.S.-Russian relationship and help Russia "economically, politically and strategically far more than any short-term gain from sensitive transfers to Iran," the statement said. The United States controls whether spent fuel from reactors in other countries can be transferred to Russia for storage because it originally provided the fresh fuel to the countries. Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, who met with Bolton in Moscow, said afterward on Ekho Moskvy radio that "Russia is not providing any weapons technologies and is not even negotiating such projects with Iran." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Why axis' evildoers aren't equally evil [The Arizona Republic] By O. Ricardo Pimentel Republic columnist Oct. 24, 2002 The Bush administration is absolutely correct. There is a world of difference between Iraq and North Korea. Attack Iraq and we have a fair to middlin' chance of quick victory. At least that's how the administration has mapped it out, not properly weighing the possibility of heavy U.S. casualties and the certainty of long-term occupation and peacekeeping commitments. But attack North Korea and there is absolutely no doubt. There goes Seoul. Attack North Korea and we're taking on a 1 million-man army bristling with conventional and unconventional weaponry. Casualties high all around. In other words, it's the difference, in the administration's eyes, between invading Grenada and invading Cuba. Different countries. Different situations. Different strategies. So why has the administration been dancing so fast to impress upon us these nuances? Well, because it composed a flawed dance tune in the first place that warbled poetically on how war with Iraq is nothing less than a stark moral imperative. Let's call the tune the evil-axis, strike pre-emptively, protect-the-world, change-the-subject boogie. The message has been that Iraq is so dangerous that we reserve the right to act militarily, even unilaterally, to achieve "regime change." OK, but North Korea, which has perhaps one or two nuclear bombs already, is even more dangerous. Does this not require that "regime change" there should be the least of our demands? Right. But Saddam Hussein has killed his own people and invaded or threatened his neighbors. Wait a minute, Kim Jong-il and his predecessor have likely killed more people just with famine and failed economic policy. And no one needs to be reminded that North Korea did invade South Korea. It's why we still have somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000 U.S. troops over there. All right, but Iraq has flouted U.N. resolutions. (Sort of like Israel.) Hmm. North Korea has consistently engaged in belligerent behavior, kidnapping Japanese, seizing the USS Pueblo and shooting willy-nilly at nearly everyone. It bailed out of its 1994 deal with us to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. It already has missiles with enough range to hit or threaten both South Korea and Japan. The administration's talking points stress that the changed situation in North Korea, however, does not alter the need to deal militarily with Iraq. It asks, would we rather wait until Saddam is as strong as North Korea? Of course not. But the administration has also been touting war as the surest way to deal with such situations. The point is that in both cases there are clearly other options - doing nothing, until inspectors inspect and report, being key among them in the case of Iraq. There is every reason to believe that North Korea disclosed its nuclear program - after being presented with evidence that we knew something was up - as an invitation to more negotiation and the economic goodies that might result. It wants to join the community of nations because its isolation - internally and externally imposed - has caused economic catastrophe. Iraq has been similarly isolated and knows that, if it does not agree to inspection and disarmament, it will be even more of a pariah than North Korea has been. But Saddam is a madman, remember. Like starving your own people, using them and others as slave labor and kidnapping unsuspecting foreigners, as North Korea has done, isn't madness? The administration's argument and the reason for the fast dancing is really that we must war with Iraq and not North Korea because fewer Americans will be killed in a war with Iraq. OK. How many? No one is saying. Yes, Iraq and North Korea do pose different degrees of danger. Our policy, however, is built, ironically, around warring with the least dangerous and negotiating with the most. This makes pragmatic sense. Only one route, exhausting every option short of war, makes any moral sense, however. The truth is that there are just as many options available with Iraq. But, we're told, Saddam will not keep his word. Yup, sort of like we know North Korea can be trusted, right? Let's be honest. Because there is a reasonable chance that we can win a war on the relative cheap is not reason enough to wage one. Moreover, the need to change the subject from the economy, both for the November and 2004 elections, isn't either. Reach Pimentel at ricardo.pimentel@arizonarepublic.com [ricardo.pimentel@arizonarepublic.com] or (602) 444-8210. His ***************************************************************** 4 North Korea makes promise to mitigate nuclear concerns eTaiwanNews.com/ 2002-10-24 / Agencies / SEOUL Jeong Se-hyun, left, and Kim Ryung-sung (AP) North Korea agreed yesterday to resolve international concerns over its nuclear weapons program through dialogue but gave no indication that it would accept a U.S. demand to scrap it immediately. After marathon talks which ended early yesterday in the North's capital, Pyongyang, delegates from the two Koreas adopted an eight-point statement in which the North's communist government said it will use dialogue to resolve its nuclear issue. "In order to guarantee peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, the South and North will actively cooperate in resolving all the issues, including the nuclear issue, through dialogue," said the joint statement. President Kim Dae-jung stressed the importance of dialogue in dealing with the North's nuclear weapons program, saying that military action or economic sanctions could backfire. "All know how horrible war is, and no one wants it," Kim said in a meeting with political leaders. "Economic sanctions would free North Korea from international obligations and help it make nuclear weapons." A South Korean activist, in a costume symbolizing a North Korean woman, holds a mock nuclear missile during a protest against North Korea's nuclear weapons in Seoul yesterday. (Reuters) The talks in Pyongyang also focused on Korean reconciliation, with the two sides agreeing to build a joint industrial park in North Korea exclusively for South Korean businesses and allow South Korean fishing boats to operate in North Korean waters. But the agreement contained no clear-cut North Korean promise to give up its nuclear weapons program and honor its agreements with the United States, South Korea and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which bar it from developing or possessing nuclear bombs. The United States, encouraged by economic reforms and other recent changes in the reclusive communist nation, wants to resolve the issue peacefully but "will judge North Korea by what it does, rather than by what it says," U.S. Ambassador to Seoul Thomas Hubbard said Tuesday in a speech to South Korean economists. "For the United States this new North Korean nuclear weapons program is an overriding concern that must be resolved swiftly and visibly if we are to move forward," Hubbard said. Although North Korea is holding out for talks with the United States, Jeong put the best face on the agreement in comments to reporters upon his return to Seoul. "It is significant the North has listened sincerely when we conveyed worries the North's nuclear program raised among Korean people and international communities," Jeong said. "In other times, the North would have defiantly rejected such comments," he said. North Korea stridently warned the United States on Tuesday it would take unspecified "tougher counter-action" if Washington did not accept talks on the nuclear issue. "If the U.S. persists in its moves to pressurise and stifle the DPRK (North Korea) by force, the latter will have no option but to take a tougher counter-action," the ruling party daily Rodong Sinmun said in a statement. Pyongyang had promised not to develop nuclear weapons under a 1994 agreement with Washington -- and flouted it. Washington is not prepared to enter another lengthy negotiation to forge another written agreement, even if Pyongyang asks for it. Attending the meeting with President Kim yesterday were five major presidential candidates in the Dec. 19 elections. Kim's single five-year term ends in February, and he is constitutionally barred from running again. The leaders heard a briefing from Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun who headed the South Korean delegation to the talks in North Korea. National security adviser Yim Sung-joon reported on the international response to the North's nuclear ambitions. Kim said the discussion will help him better present South Korea's view when he meets U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi during a summit of Asian and Pacific rim countries in Mexico this weekend. Kim said he will also seek support from China, Russia and the European Union to resolve the North's nuclear issue. North Korea admitted to having a nuclear weapons program during talks with visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly on Oct. 3-5. The Koreas were divided in 1945. The 1950-53 Korean War ended without a peace treaty. About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against the North. © 2001-2002 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Editorial: Tale of two evildoers / If Iraq becomes a target, why not North Korea? Thursday, October 24, 2002 North Korea's acknowledgment last week that it was continuing to pursue a nuclear weapons program, put alongside the continuing effort to put a stop to Iraq's nuclear weapons program, raises the obvious question: Why Iraq and not North Korea? Various analyses are being put forward. One -- Iraq's -- says "oil and Israel." Another says an attack on Iraq would be relatively easy to carry out, particularly an aerial attack. An attack on North Korea would immediately plunge that region of the world into a much hotter war, including an almost inevitable North Korean invasion of South Korea, where the United States has 37,000 troops. It is also crystal clear that neither the United States nor anyone else is willing to launch a war against both Iraq and North Korea at the same time, in spite of years of U.S. military planning for two simultaneous major regional wars. This is a resource question, regardless of whatever political gloss anyone puts on it. There are, in fact, important differences between the Iraq and North Korea situations. North Korea has substantially more formidable armed forces than Iraq. North Korea is surrounded by stable, healthy states -- South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. Iraq is in a region of relatively fragile Arab nations and the third "axis of evil" state, Iran. The Middle East's political agenda is dominated by the explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a toss-up which country's leadership -- North Korea's or Iraq's -- is less trustworthy in negotiating and respecting agreements. Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are different, but really only as different as cashew and macadamia nuts. North Korea just annulled its 1994 agreement on nuclear arms control. Iraq has been dodging its post-Gulf war commitments since it made them in 1991. In part, the argument that economic development and survival produce more rational behavior carries the day in differentiating between a possible need for war with Iraq and a need for more active diplomacy rather than threats of war with North Korea. It is generally assumed that North Korea is against the wall in terms of economic survival and is thus going back to the bargaining table with the world to try to bid up the price for dropping its nuclear weapons program. It has attacked no one since 1950. Iraq has managed to squirm around both the inspectors and economic sanctions since 1991, using its oil resources. The argument about how much its population has suffered from U.N. economic sanctions is basically fraudulent: Saddam Hussein has spent the country's income on weapons and the perpetuation of his own rule instead of on the Iraqi people's needs. Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. For those reasons and because of the stability and capacity to persuade North Korea's neighbors, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, a sharpened negotiating strategy is more likely to succeed with North Korea than it is with Iraq. Even though North Korea is heavily armed, unreliable and to a degree unpredictable, the track to pursue with Pyongyang at this point should be further negotiations, rather than bombs away. Copyright ©1997-2002 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Lee, Roh differ on how to resolve nuke issue Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com Staff reporter Two major presidential candidates - Lee Hoi-chang and Roh Moo-hyun - were poles apart yesterday on whether the government should maintain financial aid to and exchange programs with North Korea amid growing international concern over the North's nuclear weapons program. "A serious situation arose. It is problematic if we keep providing assistance to the North and promote exchange programs, as if nothing happened," Lee, the leading presidential candidate with the conservative Grand National Party (GNP). "In particular, we must immediately suspend cash aid, which the North can divert to its nuclear program," Lee said at a policy conference hosted by the Korea Peace Forum, a Seoul-based civic group. Lee also emphasized that the North's nuclear issue should be solved on the basis of trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan. "I hope the three sides will draw up a joint solution at the APEC summit," Lee said. Taking the podium after Lee, Roh of the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) stressed the need to continue financial aid to the North and a set of inter-Korean exchange programs. "We have to deal with this issue - the North's weapons of mass destruction - on the basis of a Korea-U.S. alliance. Yet there are also some projects that we have to promote on our own, and inter-Korean cooperation programs should not be halted," Roh said. "The Seoul government must play a leading, active role in settling the issue as well, and avoid taking a passive stance that might force us to be swayed by neighboring nations," he said. In order to defuse the latest crisis on the peninsula, Roh proposed that South Korea, the United States and Japan try to strike a two-stage package deal with the North. "Washington should stop its hostile stance toward Pyongyang, while the communist nation should freeze its nuclear program. As a next step, Seoul, Washington and Tokyo can provide financial assistance to the North in exchange for Pyongyang's acceptance of international inspection of its nuclear sites," Roh said. The forum came one day after five presidential contenders, including Lee and Roh, held a conference with President Kim Dae-jung. The six political leaders agreed to ignore their party lines, cooperate and resolve the latest complication in inter-Korean relations. Rep. Chung Mong-joon, first runner-up in opinion polls, has recently stepped up his criticism of President Kim's "sunshine policy" of engaging North Korea. Chung, an independent lawmaker, did not attend the forum. In a news meeting Wednesday, Chung said that the Kim government should review its North Korea policy, including the Mt. Geumgang tourism project. Critics say Chung, the sixth son of Hyundai Group founder Chung Ju-yung, aims to keep his rivals in the presidential race from taking issue with his links to the business conglomerate. There have been allegations that Hyundai, which is running the Mt. Geumgang business, made a clandestine payment of $400 million to the North on behalf of the Kim administration in a bid to secure the first-ever inter-Korean summit in June 2000. (khj@koreaherald.co.kr) By Kim Hyung-jin 2002.10.25 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights reserved. *by Lee Young-jong * Octorber 25, 2002 The government has received information from the United States that North Korea might have enough enriched uranium to manufacture two nuclear bombs, a senior Seoul official said yesterday. U.S. intelligence has put the estimated quantity of the substance at about 30 kilograms, the official said. He said the intelligence was relayed to Seoul on two occasions, in August and in September. Manufacture of a nuclear bomb using uranium is considered to be easier than making one with plutonium. Seoul and Washington announced on Oct. 17 that the North had maintained a secret nuclear-weapons program in violation of several commitments to halt it. Another official, who specializes in intelligence affairs, said the North probably used more than 1,000 centrifuge isotope separators to enrich the uranium, and that the U.S. government had also relayed the location where the substance is stored. Natural uranium ore contains less than 1 percent of the isotope that is used in nuclear fission. An isotope is a variant form of an atomic element, usually a little heavier or lighter. Enriching is a procedure that separates the fissionable isotope from more abundantly-occurring one and concentrates it to the level that can trigger a nuclear reaction. Security experts said weapons manufactured from that quantity of uranium would have a force similar to the bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. Seoul officials reiterated yesterday that there was no credible evidence yet that North Korea has manufactured uranium bombs. Defense Minister Lee Jun said at the National Assembly on Wednesday, "We have had intelligence of considerable progress in the North's uranium bomb development, but there was no physical evidence for that." He also said there was no confirmation of whether North Korea was able to effectively use a bomb, if made, as a weapon. Other sources hinted that there might even be a disagreement between Seoul and Washington in judging how far the North's nuclear weapons program had developed. The senior official said the United States also believed that North Korea had conducted a nuclear weapons test in August 2000. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that he believes North Korea has a "small number of nuclear weapons." But, echoing Defense Minister Lee's statements, Seoul officials are hinting that its assessment of the information is more reserved than that of the U.S. government. One official said that the possibility of "a disagreement" between Seoul and Washington may be more about whether or not North Korea possesses enriched uranium than how to respond to the revelation of the North's secret nuclear development program. Seoul's position remains for now that inspections on possible possession of nuclear materials must include the possibility of enriched uranium within the framework of the 1994 agreement, the official said. That agreement, between Pyeong-yang and Washington, gave the North civilian energy aid in return for a promise to halt nuclear development. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 [EDITORIALS]Nuclear crisis? What crisis?* Octorber 24, 2002 It is shocking to learn that North Korea possesses 30 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, enough to build two nuclear bombs. More surprisingly, Washington gave Seoul this information in August and September, but Seoul has responded naively. Senior Seoul officials are saying that the allegations of the North's secret nuclear program are exaggerated, repeating the North's arguments. We wonder if the government has some reasons to downplay the nuclear issue that it cannot tell. Reportedly, Washington also told Seoul that Pyeongyang has enriched uranium using 1,000 centrifuge separators, and even where the enriched uranium is stored. Such information should have been discussed at the National Security Council and a resolute measure to dismantle the North's nuclear program should have been provided. The intelligence shows that the North's program is certainly more serious than what Seoul has been describing as "not yet a threat." There is no hint that the government took this matter seriously and tried to draw up careful resolutions. The fact that just a day before the South Korean delegation's departure to Pyeongyang for ministerial talks, the government made a great fuss about changing its negotiation strategy to reflect such intelligence declares the truth. Even more strange are the remarks of two senior Seoul officials. After returning from talks with the North, Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun suggested that the allegations on the nuclear issue may be exaggerated. The presidential special adviser Lim Dong-won said that Washington, just before the meeting of North Korean and Japanese leaders, deliberately tipped Tokyo and Seoul about Pyeongyang's nuclear program. Such arguments show conspiratorial views toward U.S. motives in revealing the nuclear program and providing intelligence evidence. Trying to downplay the crisis instead of to overcome it is extremely dangerous, foreshadowing possible diplomatic friction with Washington. The government's explanations are inconsistent day by day. It may be belated, but the government must realize the seriousness of this crisis and draw up a resolution that will ensure the national security. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Economic planners from North may also have nukes on agenda* *by Ko Soo-suk * Octorber 25, 2002 A delegation of 18 North Korean economic planning officials, including Kim Jong-il's brother-in-law, will arrive in the South tomorrow for a nine-day tour of industrial facilities. North Korea specialists here said it is possible that Chang Song-thaek, who is married to Kim Jong-il's sister, Kim Kyong-hui, may consult with Seoul officials on security issues, including the North's nuclear development program, during the visit. One expert said Mr. Chang might even deliver a personal message from Kim Jong-il. Mr. Chang is a senior official in the Workers' Party Organization and Guidance Department, a core administrative department of the Pyeongyang government. He is considered a key member of the North's circle of powerful officials close to the nation's leader, Kim Jong-il. The delegation is officially led by the head of the North's State Planning Commission, Park Nam-gi, who oversees the country's economic planning and national budget. Visits to industrial facilities in Seoul, Daejeon, Busan and Gwangju are planned. The delegates will also visit a Samsung Electronics plant in Suwon, the Posco steel mill in Pohang and the Hyundai Motor assembly line in Ulsan. The industrial park in Gumi, which is widely seen as having fueled South Korea's economic development in the 1970s, a petrochemical plant in Ulsan and commercial port facilities in Busan are also on the group's itinerary. The delegates have reportedly also requested a tour of recreational areas, including the bustling Apgujeong district of southern Seoul. A government official said the visit has been extended by two days upon the North's request and is expected to contribute to exchanges between the two Koreas. The delegation includes five cabinet-level Pyeongyang officials, including Minister for Chemical Industry Par Pong-ju and Song Ho-kyong, vice chairman of North Korea's Asia-Pacific Peace Committee. The delegates are also scheduled to visit with senior government finance and economy officials and business leaders. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 [TODAY]The North looking for a way out* *Kim Young-hie* Octorber 24, 2002 The New York Times' report that the Bush administration has decided to nullify the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea was hasty. The article quoted those present at a National Security Council meeting, but President Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a broadcast interview Sunday that the problem could be solved through diplomacy. Ms. Rice said that the reality of North Korea's necessity to avoid economic isolation is a leverage to pressure Pyeongyang; the North cannot escape that isolation while brandishing nuclear weapons. Her remarks reflect the reality that the North cannot pursue nuclear development in violation of the Geneva agreement as long as it needs help from the international community. The other means of pressure she was referring to involve collective international pressure: There are many other countries that feel threatened by North Korean nuclear arms. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the same thing the same day. Unilateral as President Bush might be, he would not single-handedly make a decision involving security in Northeast Asia before consulting his allies, especially when meetings with leaders of South Korea, China, Japan and Russia are scheduled late this week. It is noteworthy that a reaction symmetrical with Ms. Rice's hopes to solve the problem diplomatically has also come from Pyeongyang. Kim Yong-nam, North Korea's head of state, said that North Korea was "considering the recent situation as serious" when he met with South Korea's unification minister, Jeong Se-hyun. "If the United States is ready to stop its policies hostile toward North Korea, we are ready to solve security problems through talks," Mr. Kim said. I wouldn't be surprised if these messages from North Korean leader Kim Jong-il are relayed via Seoul to President Bush. What did President Bush mean by saying he could disarm North Korea peacefully? He said that North Korea's admission of a nuclear program was a chance for Northeast Asian countries to persuade Kim Jong-il to disarm and to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is taken that by "disarmament," Mr. Bush meant the halt of production, deployment and exports of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons and missiles. Mr. Bush strongly reaffirmed the U.S. position at the most appropriate time. His words seem to be a warning that new nuclear negotiations with North Korea should go beyond the boundaries of the 1994 Agreed Framework and designate all weapons of mass destruction as their object. This obviously should be so. North Korea probably had prepared for that when it admitted that it had a nuclear weapons program. North Korea might even feel carefree after having revealed its nuclear secret. It now has nothing more to hide. Even without Ms. Rice's statement, we know that North Korea is yearning to improve its relations with the United States, as well as with Japan, for economic reasons. An obstacle was the Bush administration's deep distrust of North Korea. North Korea might have made the shocking admission to stimulate a major breakthrough in the North Korea-U.S. dialogue. The turning point in this situation will be the APEC summit meeting in Mexico when Mr. Bush will meet with the heads of South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. A heavy burden is on the shoulders of President Kim Dae-jung. For that, Mr. Kim should get the suprapartisan support of the National Assembly and the public. It is better to leave aside the issue of hiding information on North Korean nuclear arms from the public for now. If the 1994 Agreed Framework is nullified, so are plans to build two light-water reactors in North Korea. With the light-water reactor plan gone and the U.S. fuel oil shipments ceased, North Korea could even become compelled to speed its nuclear development. If North Korea resumes its nuclear program, it could have a few nuclear warheads ready in a few months. That would further complicate the progress of the North-South dialogue. For Korea, a bad peace is better than a good war. The key to the problem is for North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Seoul and the four major powers must cooperate. Should the United States give up its hostile policies toward the North and the North give up its nuclear weapons, the 1994 Framework Agreement could live on in a revised form and the peaceful disarmament of North Korea that Mr. Bush talked about could become a reality. The writer is a senior columnist of the JoongAng Ilbo. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Iraq resolution hits new snag; France, Russia fault language* The Seattle Times Company Nation & World: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 *By Colum Lynch* /The Washington Post/ NATO's secretary-general says international cooperation is essential if nations are to successfully confront Saddam Hussein UNITED NATIONS ? France and Russia dealt a fresh setback yesterday to U.S. efforts to push through a U.N. resolution calling for arms inspections in Iraq, citing concerns that it implicitly authorizes the use of force if the U.S. determines Iraq is refusing to abandon its chemical, biological and *nuclear* weapons programs. Even if agreement were to come soon, the process of conducting the inspections could take months, pushing the potential starting date for any U.S. military action well into the middle of next year or beyond. Wrangling over the language of the resolution has taken some administration officials by surprise. After Congress approved an Iraqi war resolution two weeks ago, senior administration officials said they hoped the United Nations would quickly follow suit with a tough new mandate for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq. Instead, the United States has encountered stiff resistance from France and Russia ? two of the five permanent members of the Security Council. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said they did not approve of the U.S. text and that the administration would have to grant further concessions to obtain their support. The United States floated its draft resolution Monday, calling for tougher inspections and saying it would consult with the Security Council about the serious "consequences" after any report that Iraq was not cooperating with the monitors. However, the draft made clear that the United States would not have to wait for the Security Council to authorize military action. The proposal also recalled that Iraq is already in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions, and failure to cooperate with the world body would constitute a further breach ? which, U.S. officials argue, is sufficient justification to warrant use of force. Russia and France, backed by China, fear this is a hidden trigger that would allow an attack on the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. U.S. diplomats said they considered it a warning for Baghdad to take Security Council demands seriously. Diplomats said Russia's U.N. ambassador Sergei Lavrov sharply criticized Washington's threat of force at a closed-door meeting at the Russian mission. "The Russians were very tough in the meeting," according to a U.N. diplomatic source. "They don't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there should be force used at all." U.S. and British officials hoped their concession would have been enough to satisfy the French, who along with at least half the other 14 members on the council, want the United States to wait for U.N. approval before taking action. Sources familiar with the discussions said France wants wording that the Security Council, not the United States or other member states, retains the authority to determine what "serious consequences" would be. France also proposed removing U.S.-proposed demands for unrestricted access to Iraqi presidential compounds and to allow Iraqi scientists and their families to leave Iraq for interviews with U.N. inspectors. France also objected to time lines established by Washington to quickly test Iraq's cooperation. The slow pace of talks dashed hopes by some British and American officials to distribute a text to the full 15-nation Security Council last night. U.N. sources said talks among the five were expected to continue today. "The United Nations does not have forever," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "The United Nations is entering the final stages on this, and we would like to see an agreement reached." President Bush, campaigning for Pennsylvania Republicans, reiterated the warning he gave world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12. "If the United Nations can't make its mind up, if Saddam Hussein won't disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him for the sake of peace," he said. Pentagon officials acknowledged yesterday they may have to adjust their timetable for a military buildup in the Persian Gulf and said planners were looking at ways of slowing the deployment of American troops to the region. While the Pentagon has yet to reveal any firm deployment schedule, troops and equipment have started flowing to the region, setting the stage for what officials had indicated would be a surge in forces toward the end of the year to give President Bush the option of deciding to attack Iraq as early as January. "It's fair to say there's some recalibration going on," one senior defense official said. If Saddam agrees to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspections, at least initially, that could delay military action beyond winter and spring, which are considered the most suitable times for conducting war in Iraq. The United States yesterday postponed a planned military exercise in Qatar, a possible Gulf launch pad for any attack on Iraq, from November to December to allow time for equipment to arrive, the U.S. Embassy said yesterday. * In other developments * ? U.S. and British warplanes attacked Iraqi air defenses in a northern "no-fly" zone yesterday after Iraqi forces fired on patrolling jets, the U.S. military said. ? Organizers of a weekend march to oppose the Bush administration's showdown with Iraq promised yesterday that the demonstration will draw thousands to Washington to become the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam War. The march will coincide with similar protests in San Francisco and several cities around the world, including Berlin, London, Mexico City, Rome and Tokyo. /Information from the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press is included in this report. / Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 14 EU: Squabble over the bill Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | EU applicants deserve a better deal Leader Thursday October 24, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] In its financial aspect, EU enlargement resembles a group of well-to-do friends dining at an expensive restaurant. They order dish after dish, à la carte, then expansively invite others to join them. The mood is self-congratulatory. But when the bill comes, the atmosphere sours. The hosts disagree over who should pay for what. Unseemly squabbles ensue, threatening to spoil the whole occasion. EU leaders meeting in Brussels today will doubtless try to avoid such a falling out. On past experience, their instinct will be to put off contentious decisions until their next summit, in Copenhagen in December. But that would be a pretty pathetic outcome. Joint positions on agricultural aid, structural and cohesion funds, and compensation payments to the 10 EU candidate members are required if accession negotiations are to be completed next month. Significant new expenditure on institution building, on resolving the Cyprus dispute, on preparing Romania, Bulgaria and even Turkey for membership, and on decommissioning nuclear plants must also be agreed. As usual, the EU has left the hard choices to last. Yet the main reason why this has all become so fraught is that, as with the EU's institutions, enlargement is forcing a fundamental, overdue review of how the EU's finances are organised. The stingy proposal to phase in payments to farmers in candidate countries over 10 years, starting at 25% of current levels, for example, is linked directly to the impasse over common agricultural policy reform. Jacques Chirac's smokescreen tactics over the British rebate cannot obscure the fact that France, the biggest CAP beneficiary, and others are going to have to do their painful bit for the new, improved Europe, preferably before 2006. That message comes from Britain, but also from Germany, the EU's biggest net contributor, where ever-gloomier economic prospects beset Gerhard Schröder's weak new coalition. Likewise, enlargement-inspired pressure to redistribute regional aid is focusing attention on what overall, long-term levels of structural funding are desirable and may be affordable while Europe's economies splutter. But the present proposal to cut 5bn off a planned 25.6bn in funds for the 10 new members in 2004-06 is selfish. Put bluntly, they need the money more than do the far wealthier west Europeans. Poland and the rest should not be penalised for their disorderly hosts' self-indulgence. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 15 U.S. knew about nuclear link between N. Korea, Pakistan Mercury News | 10/24/2002 | [mercurynews.com - The mercurynews home page] By Dan Stober and Daniel Sneider Mercury News Despite its startling announcement a week ago, the Bush administration had detailed knowledge for more than a year about North Korea's program to covertly make uranium fuel for an atom bomb, the Mercury News has learned. North Korea's admission that the country's secretive, authoritarian government was pursuing a new route to nuclear weapons sparked international alarm last week. But interviews with experts and former Clinton administration officials, and a review of little-noticed statements by Bush officials, raise questions about why the administration waited so long to deal with this threat, now the subject of intense diplomatic efforts. In addition, the administration had strong evidence, dating back to the Clinton presidency, that North Korea got help from Pakistan's top nuclear weapons scientist. The Pakistanis appear to have given nuclear technology to North Korea in exchange for long-range ballistic missiles that could reach deep into the territory of its traditional foe, India. Bush administration officials pointed a finger at this in early June 2001, at a time when they were courting India. But since Sept. 11, when Pakistan became a key ally in the war on terrorism, they turned mum on the Pakistan connection. It is not clear who authorized the deal, but the existence of the Pakistan-North Korea tie was already known more than two years ago, during the Clinton administration. ``Our concerns were addressed to the Pakistanis at the highest levels,'' in connection with President Clinton's trip to Islamabad in 2000, said a senior Clinton official who was involved. ``Our concern was about whether the Pakistani government was sufficiently in control of its nuclear labs and certain nuclear scientists.'' Lead scientist That information was apparently passed on to the new administration. On June 1, 2001, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage used language that was clearly understood to refer to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the flamboyant founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. He expressed concern that the Pakistani nuclear labs, the Khan Research Laboratory and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Agency, might be spreading nuclear technology to North Korea. The concerns centered on ``people who were employed by the nuclear agency and have retired,'' Armitage told the Financial Times of London. He spoke two months after the sudden retirement of Khan, who had been the well-known face of Pakistani nuclear weapons for decades. ``It is suspected that he did something on his own with North Korea as a quid pro quo for missile technology,'' said Rifaat Hussain, a prominent Pakistani political scientist who has written extensively on the country's nuclear program and is now a visiting scholar at Stanford University. The Khan Research Laboratory has both a missile-development center and an industrial-sized gas-centrifuge plant for enriching uranium for Pakistan's nuclear weapons. ``If there was a transfer, Khan's organization at the lab would probably be the contact,'' said Gaurav Kampani, an expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. ``But he could not have done it without the sanction of the military,'' which tightly controls the nuclear weapons program. Pakistani government officials have denied the charges that they aided the North Korean nuclear program. And a State Department official refused to explain Armitage's remarks and how they related to last week's revelations, citing a policy of not commenting on intelligence matters. The National Security Council also refused requests to explain the administration's policies on this issue. Uranium program The Bush administration told reporters last week that North Korea has a secret nuclear program -- in violation of a 1994 international agreement to halt their weapons effort. The North Koreans admitted the secret program three weeks ago after being presented with evidence by visiting senior U.S. diplomat. The Bush administration explained that North Korea was attempting to enrich uranium, a secret program separate from its earlier efforts to make a bomb from another radioactive metal, plutonium. U.S. intelligence officials subsequently told the New York Times that Pakistan was a major supplier of the uranium-enrichment equipment, part of a barter deal to obtain North Korean ballistic missiles. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN last Sunday that there was evidence of North Korea's pursuit of this program going back to at least 1999 but that they decided to confront the North Koreans based on evidence confirmed only this past summer. She referred to a ``shadowy proliferation network'' that supplied the technology but did not name any specific countries. The Washington Post reported that U.S. intelligence caught North Korea trying to import large quantities of high-strength aluminum that could be used to construct centrifuges. There was also evidence of significant new construction, the Post reported. Khan, the man believed to have supplied the North Koreans, is a metallurgist who worked at a Urenco uranium enrichment facility in the Netherlands until 1975, when he left with stolen blueprints for centrifuges and a list of Urenco's key technology suppliers. The Khan Research Laboratory in Kahuta was founded the next year. Khan's high-profile life and nuclear bravado made him a household name in Pakistan. He is seen as instrumental in Pakistan's development of a uranium bomb and its first test in 1998. The rivalry between the two Pakistani weapons labs became more intense after the 1998 nuclear test, with scientists squabbling over credit for the success, some of them angry at Khan's grandstanding. In the 1990s, both labs competed to design a ballistic missile to counter India, with KRL championing a liquid-fuel missile while the PAEC pursued a solid-fuel model. Pakistan's Ghauri missile, designed by Khan's lab, is based on the North Korean Nodong missile. Possible bargaining North Korea's aid to Pakistan's missile program goes back at least to the 1980s, said Joseph Bermudez, who has written extensively about North Korea's military for Jane's Intelligence Review. ``We saw all that activity,'' Bermudez said. ``We didn't know exactly what the North Koreans were getting in return, but we didn't think it was money, because Pakistan was in such a bad way.'' Help with the North Korean nuclear program was considered a possibility, he said. Rumors of a North Korean centrifuge program, perhaps hidden underground, had circulated for some time. It was curious that the North Korean bomb program had pursued only plutonium, while most other nuclear states followed a dual-track effort of producing both plutonium and uranium, Bermudez said. What specific help Pakistan may have given North Korea is unknown. It could be equipment, materials, blueprints, expertise or a shopping list of where crucial items might be purchased, said Kampani, the expert at the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies. ``If it was a bargain, it fits together so perfectly,'' he said. Contact Dan Stober at [dstober@sjmercury.com] and Daniel Sneider at [dsneider@sjmercury.com] . ***************************************************************** 16 Japan criticizes North Korea's nuclear weapons program Oct 23, 7:12 PM By YURI KAGEYAMA, Associated Press Writer CABO SAN LUCAS, Mexico - Japan criticized North Korea's nuclear weapons program on Wednesday as a violation of an agreement signed last month by the two nation's leaders to resume talks on diplomatic relations. Senior Foreign Ministry official Toshimitsu Motegi told trade and foreign ministers at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum that Tokyo will start the talks Oct. 29 as planned, but will tell North Korea that its nuclear ambitions are "our highest priority." Motegi said North Korea's program went "against the spirit" of last month's agreement, according to a Japanese government official, who was briefed on the closed ministers' meeting. He spoke only on condition of anonymity. "Security problems of North Korea are not only a matter of grave international concern, but also our own national concern for Japan," the official quoted Motegi as saying. North Korea admitted this month to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that it had a nuclear weapons program. Other countries had long suspected it did, but its admission created deep concern around the world. Japan and North Korea have never had diplomatic relations. They agreed during a Sept. 17 summit between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to restart the talks, which fell apart two years ago. The sticking point had been Japan's demand for the return of Japanese citizens abducted by Pyongyang during the 1970s and 1980s, allegedly to train North Korean spies in Japanese language and customs. During the summit, Kim surprised the Japanese by admitting to kidnapping at least 13 of their citizens. Five of the victims are now in Japan for a visit, and Japan is pressing North Korea for more information on the others. Motegi said the abductions will also be a critical issue in the talks. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 Let's Not Do It Again Henry Sokolski on North Korea on National Review Online October 24, 2002, 9:00 a.m. To go forward, we must admit Amy Carter was right. By Henry Sokolski With North Korea's angry admission that it had been cheating on its earlier pledges not to make nuclear weapons, the bitter fruit of nearly a decade of U.S. diplomatic dithering against the world's worst nuclear cheater came due. Clearly, the U.S. now will have to do more than stop bribing Pyongyang to behave or concoct some new, contrived horse trade in the name of nonproliferation. Instead, President Bush must come clean with the American public on what went wrong by explaining what truly heady trouble is ahead if North Korea continues to build. We must also recount how we got into this mess to make sure we don't repeat ourselves. Certainly, North Korea with its enrichment program is now even more able and anxious to deal. Four times burnt — on Pyongyang's l985 nuclear nonproliferation pledge to open up to nuclear inspections by l987, its l992 commitment to Seoul not to build a plutonium chemical separation plant, its International Atomic Energy Agency agreement to be open to full inspections in l992, and its l994 pledge to not obtain or store nuclear weapons — we need to listen but should offer nothing. Paying extortion, as we did for these pledges, by endorsing Pyongyang's "safeguarded" nuclear program in l985, withdrawing our tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in l991, and offering Pyongyang advanced U.S.-designed reactors, diplomatic normalization, and hundreds of millions of dollars of fuel oil and food aid in l994 and l998, may well have been diplomatically expedient. But whenever you rush into blackmail, pay too much for it, do it too long, glorify it, or willfully ignore that you are failing to fend off what you are paying to prevent, then, it becomes a terrible (and an-all-too-addictive) mistake. Certainly, Congress needs to be vigilant lest our diplomats "misengage" again. This, then, leads to the next imperative — to clarify the costs of further dithering. North Korea is believed already to have one or two bombs. It can chemically strip out enough plutonium on a one-time basis from its known reserves of spent fuel to produce another six. In addition, it can produce a bomb's worth of plutonium a year from its one completed reactor. Finally, 12 months from now it is likely to complete an enrichment plant capable of producing six bombs worth of weapons uranium a year. Mate these numbers with North Korea's missile arsenal and in 36 months you have an armory of over 20 nuclear missiles capable of targeting all of Japan (including U.S. troops in Okinawa), a good part of the Pacific, and military facilities in the U.S. territory of Guam. This is bad for the U.S., the region, and the world. It means that our ability to defend our friends and interests in one of the globe's richest regions will increasingly come within the crosshairs of a hostile nuclear sniper. Nor should we assume that South Korea, which has already tried to go nuclear once, or Japan, which sits on thousands of bombs worth of plutonium, will sit by idly if we do. China, moreover, has a reserve of nearly 2,000 bombs worth of weapons material that it has not yet weaponized but could, and likely would, if others in the neighborhood ever tried to. Unlike proliferation in the Middle East, nuclear rivalries here will be measured in weapons numbers that could easily keep the U.S. (and Russia) from reducing their own massive stockpiles. This suggests that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is not just another multilateral charade for the U.S. to blow off. Certainly, if we want to avoid further nuclear threats, theft, and terrorism in Eurasia, the Pacific, and the Middle East, we actually need to concede that Amy Carter was right and, for the first time, actually work to enforce the NPT. This not only means that the U.S. and its allies must penalize Saddam for deceiving inspectors and trying to get the bomb, but make North Korea pay a price (beyond unplugging our misguided nuclear and oil bribes) for its nuclear cheating on the NPT. We certainly should not fool ourselves again into thinking that further bribes or continuing our current energy payoffs to Pyongyang will earn anything but its contempt and more cheating. Instead, the U.S. and like-minded nations should go to the U.N. (before North Korea threatens to pull out of the NPT — again) and insist that it quickly open up and disarm. If it refuses, we must engage our friends (rather than Pyongyang) to isolate and contain North Korea until the regime and the nuclear threat it presents goes the way of the Soviet Empire. Finally, with regard to the upcoming U.S.-China summit this Friday, Bush should invite Jiang Zemin to join us to disarm North Korea out of informed self-interest. China, like the U.S., should have an interest in avoiding a rearmed Japan or a nuclear Korea. Bush should calmly explain, however, that if China does not choose to join us, we and our security allies in Asia will do our best — as we did before we ever engaged Pyongyang — without Beijing's help. — Henry Sokolski directs the [http://www.npec-web.org/] , a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C. ***************************************************************** 18 UK: Nuclear industry warns of shut-off (labor strike) Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Safety risk BNFL reviews its emergency procedures Kevin Maguire Thursday October 24, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Fears grew last night over the impact of strikes by firefighters as the nuclear sector warned it could be forced to halt part of its operations during industrial action. British Nuclear Fuels, which runs the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria, said it had reviewed emergency procedures ahead of 36 days of walkouts by firefighters due to start on Tuesday. The general services union GMB, said it was "inconceivable" that the stoppages called by the Fire Brigades Union would not hit the chemical, nuclear and transport sectors, as it accused ministers of "wanting it both ways" by urging people to work normally while warning of the dire consequences of strikes. With the heads of the Aslef and RMT rail unions vowing to back employees refusing to drive trains during strikes if they fear safety is jeopardised, BNFL managers promised to put safety first. A BNFL spokesperson said: "We have carefully reviewed all safety cases. Contingency plans have been submitted to the regulators. However, we shall review the situation during the strikes and we shall shut processors down if we cannot guarantee safety." John Edmonds, the GMB general secretary, wrote yesterday to nuclear employers seeking assurances over safety. He said: "Our members are aghast by some of the statements made by ministers over recent weeks. There are a number of particularly sensitive sectors such as chemical and nuclear industries where there are real safety concerns." Carolyn Jones, director of the Institute of Employment Rights, said laws and regulations enabled workers to walk out if they did have genuine safety concerns. The 1999 management of health and safety at work rules permit workers to leave their positions if they believe they are in "serious, imminent and unavoidable danger". The regulations are underpinned by the 1996 Employment Rights Act covering safety linked to unfair dismissal. Bob Crow, the RMT leader, also cited legislation in defence of employees refusing to work during firefighters' strikes if they feared for their lives. The railway inspectorate said most trains could run safely and Network Rail, Railtrack's successor, said dangerous loads would be barred from links like the Severn tunnel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 19 INTERVIEW/Kunihiko Saito: Kim must ditch the nukes if he wants to talk asahi.com : ENGLISH Asahi Shimbun www.asahi.com [http://www.asahi.com/] JAPANESE The Asahi Shimbun Japan should first make it clear that without resolution of the abduction issue and the abandonment of nuclear weapons development, nothing can move forward. We must not allow North Korea to dictate terms and do as it pleases. Revelations that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has not abandoned its nuclear weapons program clearly show that it is in violation of the 1994 U.S.-North Korea framework agreement. Now, the logical conclusion is that the United States must reconsider its North Korean engagement policy. As Japan prepares to resume normalization talks with North Korea, Kunihiko Saito, a former Japanese ambassador to the United States, stresses the importance of Japan demanding that North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons development before considering normalizing diplomatic ties. Q: North Korea's nuclear development is once again an issue. Do you think a nuclear crisis is flaring up again? A: I think we are facing a very serious situation. The 1994 U.S.-North Korea framework agreement was a product of Japan-U.S.-Republic of Korea (South Korea) consultations. The fact that North Korea clearly violated the agreement is very regrettable. North Korea is a country that completely ignores the rules of international society and common sense-a country that cannot be trusted. Be that as it may, given that Japan is a neighbor, there is no way we can completely ignore it and have nothing to do with it. That is the difficulty of North Korean diplomacy. Q: In 1994, North Korea refused to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities and withdrew from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The situation led the United States to threaten the use of force, didn't it? A: Japan, the United States and South Korea made a joint effort to establish the framework for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) to prevent North Korea from acting rashly. Put simply, it was an agreement that forced North Korea to give up the development of nuclear weapons. For the United States, too, North Korea's nuclear weapons development is a threat. But with Nodong missiles pointing our way, it is a more direct threat to Japan. South Korea has the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and is aiming for reunification, So, the interests of Japan, the United States and South Korea coincide. Q: What are the barriers to Japan, the United States and South Korea taking a joint approach? A: It cannot be helped that they don't share the same degree of enthusiasm at all times. For example, when North Korea fired a Taepodong missile in 1998, American reaction was clearly cooler than Japan's and led the government to repeatedly appeal to the United States. However, once we think with a cool head, we realize that the three countries have common interests. There is no way we can let North Korea drive a wedge into Japan-U.S. and Japan-South Korea relations. That is absurd. Q: However, since the Bush administration took office, American policy has changed. The disclosure of North Korea's nuclear weapons development program by the U.S. government at this juncture appears to be an American attempt to stop Japan advancing North Korean policy on its own. What do you think? A: I think that's taking things too far. If that were the case, the United States would directly say so to Japan. From my experience as a diplomat, the truth is mostly simple. Q: Up to now, it has been difficult to maintain a balance between the abduction issue and normalization of diplomatic ties in advancing Japan-North Korea negotiations. With the emergence of the nuclear problem, we now have three difficult issues on the table at the same time. How should we deal with the situation? A: Normalization of diplomatic ties with North Korea is something that Japan must pursue to enhance its security as much as possible. Although critics say Foreign Ministry negotiators are giving priority to normalization, I don't agree They are advancing normalization negotiations to enhance Japan's security. Along the way, there are many problems that must be resolved. I think it is natural that we should talk about economic cooperation after that. With its economy in such a bad state, North Korea wants Japanese money. It was also threatened by the United States. These two major factors moved North Korea to face up to the truth and admit to the abductions that it had been denying for so long and apologize for them in the course of Japan-North Korea negotiations. It thought that once it owned up and apologized for the abductions, things would advance smoothly. But it misjudged the situation. Q: How should Japan deal with North Korea in the normalization talks to begin on Oct. 29? A: It should first make it clear that without resolution of the abduction issue and the abandonment of nuclear weapons development, nothing can move forward. We must not allow North Korea to dictate terms and do as it pleases. First of all, it is necessary to demand unlimited access for nuclear inspections. We need to make it promise that it will freeze its nuclear development program without fail. We don't know the best policy to deal with North Korea because international common sense means nothing to it. It is Japan's misfortune to have such a country for a neighbor, but we have no choice but to do everything we can. I think North Korea will come to realize the hurdles it must clear in advancing negotiations are much higher than it thought. * Kunihiko Saito joined the Foreign Ministry in 1958. He became administrative vice minister of foreign affairs in 1993 after serving as ambassador to Iran. He was ambassador to the United States from 1995 to 1999. After serving as president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency, he became acting chairman of the International Friendship Exchange Committee of Japan.(IHT/Asahi: October 24,2002) (10/24) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 20 'Time to reconsider a misguided policy' Jordan Times (Opinion Section) By George S. Hishmeh WASHINGTON — The stunning news that North Korea has acknowledged it has had for some time a programme to develop fuel for nuclear weapons, seen here as a brazen violation of a 1994 pact with the United States, could not have come at a worse time for the Bush administration. The administration was days from a national election where control of the US Senate — where the Democratic Party has a majority of one — and a Republican-led House of Representatives is very much in the balance. A decisive swing to the Democratic Party could jeopardise the Bush administration's stance on several foreign and domestic issues. More significantly, it would diminish President George W. Bush's chances for reelection for another four-year term, in two years' time. The first salvo on the domestic scene after this sudden turn of events came from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida, who urged the administration to rethink its focus on Iraq, now the celebrated target of an imminent US military invasion and subsequent “regime change”. “If you put the two — North Korea and Iraq — on the scales and ask the question: `Which today is the greatest threat to the people of the United States of America?' I would answer the question, `North Korea'. And I think that needs to be part of the rebalancing of our foreign policy priorities,” Graham said on a nationwide TV talk show last Sunday. There were accusations from some senior Democratic congressmen that the White House withheld North Korea's admission about its nuclear weapons programme until after Congress had passed its resolution authorising war with Iraq. In fact, Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was said by some senators to have avoided any mention of the North Korean covert nuclear weapons programme during a classified briefing held in a secure chamber less than three hours before the news was revealed officially to a few, selected, journalists. To quell the uproar, the Bush administration sent its biggest guns — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice — to appear on various TV talk shows to refute these charges, but not very convincingly. It was pointed out that there was a 12-day gap between North Korea's admission to a senior US official and the public disclosure here, during which time Congress passed the Iraq resolution. Moreover, Bush signed the resolution into law just hours before the administration confirmed the North Korean developments. Hence, the softer tone from the White House on the controversial American designs against Iraq, which followed the surprisingly mild American reaction to the North Korean violation. “I believe we can do it (disarmament) peacefully,” the president declared, although he had branded North Korea, Iraq and Iran as the “axis of evil”. Actually, the American vehemence began with both Powell and Rice; the secretary of state declaring that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, could remain in power if he were to disarm peacefully. “Remember where regime change came from — it came from the previous (Democratic) administration,” Powell said. Bush echoed the same tune, saying he was trying diplomacy “one more time” to disarm Iraq, and if the Iraqi president met UN demands it would be a sign his regime has changed. The Korean revelations also precipitated a new American draft UN resolution, said to include several compromises, including a two-step process opening the way for a military response, but not necessarily requiring two votes should the Saddam government mount obstacles in the face of the inspectors. How serious and genuine is the new American low-key approach remains to be seen and, more importantly, tested. But the new American stance has an additional hurdle that it has chosen to ignore, namely the hawkish policies of its key Middle Eastern ally, Israel. The attacks by Israeli settlers of Palestinian villagers, compelling the few villagers to evacuate their place of residence temporarily, underlined long-cherished Zionist dreams for “ethnic cleansing”; and the return of Israeli settlers to their usurped mountaintop encampments after being dislodged by the Israeli army is bound to complicate matters further in the region for the pro-Israeli Bush administration. Speaking in Washington here last week, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, reflected Palestinian feelings when he declared that regardless of what the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will do in the months ahead, the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not going to leave their homeland as some did in 1948 and 1967. “It is time for the Israelis to give themselves the needed security,” Patriarch Sabbah said, undoubtedly having in mind the drastic effects of suicide bombings — one was reported the following day; and allow the Palestinians “to enjoy their legitimate freedom”. If there is a Washington turnaround on Iraq, it is time for the Bush administration to reconsider its misguided policy on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Patriarch Sabbah was not very far off when he declared: “What is happening today (in the Palestinian territories) cannot be coming from people who believe in God.” Thursday, October 24, 2002 ***************************************************************** 21 APEC meet to open amid massive security effort The Taipei Times Online: 2002-10-24 AFP, LOS CABO, MEXICO Asia-Pacific countries were to open a heavily-guarded meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, yesterday under escalating US pressure for action against terrorism, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), culminates at the weekend with a leaders' summit. The meeting is shielded by 3,000 security forces and several warships lying off the coast of this balmy Pacific resort, Los Cabos. Trade and foreign ministers begin the negotiations as tensions mount over global security, overshadowing the economic and trade goals that first bore APEC. The three key concerns are: -- Iraq: Bush on Tuesday stepped up pressure on the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution setting strict conditions for UN weapons inspections in Iraq. "If the United Nations can't make its mind up, we will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein for the sake of peace," President George W. Bush said in Pennsylvania. -- North Korea: Bush is hoping Chinese President Jiang Zemin other Asian leaders will join him in demanding that North Korea dismantle its nuclear arms program. -- Terrorism: The Bali bombing, which killed more than 180 people, rammed home that few nations are immune from international terrorism, and cranked up pressure on members, especially in Asia, for concrete action. US negotiators are seeking progress in expanding anti-terror commitments made at the APEC meeting in Shanghai last year, a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. Also see story Lee Yuan-Tseh to try and warm icy relations with Chinese president This story has been viewed 349 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/10/24/story/0000176860] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 Asia to NK: Joint criticism expected Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun Asia-Pacific leaders are expected to jointly criticize North Korea for its nuclear weapons development program when they hold an annual regional summit here on Saturday and Sunday, sources said Thursday. Participants in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit are likely to express concern over and criticism of Pyongyang's nuclear armament plan in a joint declaration, according to the sources. The leaders from APEC's 21 member economies, including Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and U.S. President George W. Bush, are expected to describe the North Korean nuclear program as "a threat to the regional economy," the sources said. Thus, they are expected to strongly call on North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program. It has already been reported that the APEC declaration will contain an antiterrorism statement. Now it has become certain that the APEC leaders will declare North Korean nuclear program to be as serious a concern as terrorism. Japan, the United States and South Korea have been spearheading efforts to include the strong censure of Pyongyang in the upcoming APEC summit declaration. China has already shown its readiness to join in the move of the three nations, the sources said. Koizumi, Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung are expected to hold a three-way summit parallel to the APEC talks on Saturday to confirm that their countries will strengthen their cooperation in dealing with North Korea. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 23 NRC Proposes $43,200 Fine Against Easton, PA., Company for Deliberate Violations of NRC Requirements NRC: News Release - Region I - 2002-064 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov No. I-02-064 October 24, 2002 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: [opa1@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has cited Advanced Medical Imaging and Nuclear Services of Easton, Pa., for deliberate violations of agency requirements. The NRC has proposed a $43,200 fine against the company. It also issued orders to two company officials barring them from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities until December 14. An NRC inspection conducted in November and December of last year and a subsequent investigation by the agencys Office of Investigations found that the company deliberately used NRC-licensed materials and conducted NRC-licensed activities between March and November 2001 without a required authorized user or radiation safety officer. The NRC found that when a consulting physicist assisted in preparing the NRC license application in October 2000, the companys vice president provided him with the name of a physician to perform the duties of authorized user and radiation safety officer. The license was issued in February 2001. Between then and November, NRC-licensed radioactive materials were used in nearly 600 treatments. However, an audit conducted by the consultant in October 2001 revealed that the authorized user and radiation safety officer had not been signing documents required by procedures since the license was issued. Despite that, NRC-licensed activities continued until an NRC inspection on November 30. On December 14, the NRC issued an order suspending the license of Advanced Medical Imaging. The NRC has lifted the order suspending the license concurrent with the issuance of this enforcement action because the company has put into place corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the violations, including adding qualified individuals to the staff at Advanced Medical Imaging to perform the functions of authorized user and radiation safety officer. The company was cited for three violations of NRC requirements for which a civil penalty is assessed: using byproduct material for medical use without an authorized user; failing to appoint a radiation safety officer; and creating incomplete and inaccurate records. Normally, a civil penalty of $4,800 would be assessed for such violations. However, in this case, a base fine of $4,800 was assessed for the violations that occurred between March and October. An additional civil penalty of $4,800 per week has been assessed for the violations that occurred after the consultant raised the issue in October 2001. The NRC issued orders to the companys vice president, Kenneth M. Baab, and the chief operating officer, Chitranjan Patel, barring them from taking part in NRC-licensed activities for one year, beginning on December 14, 2001 -- the date of the NRC order suspending the license of Advanced Medical Imaging. The company has 30 days to respond to the notice of violation in writing. The vice president and chief operating officer have 20 days to request hearing on the orders issued to them. This enforcement action will be posted on the NRC's web site at www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#materials. Thursday, October 24, 2002 ***************************************************************** 24 Business customers assail Duke Power settlement with regulators By PAUL NOWELL AP Business Writer Criticism is coming from some of Duke Power Co.'s biggest customers in North Carolina on a $25 million settlement offered after an independent audit found the utility underreported its profits for three years. An independent audit released Tuesday found Duke Power hid nearly $124 million. The utility did not admit wrongdoing in the deal that must be approved by regulators in North Carolina and South Carolina. "We feel the consumer was left out of the process and there was no public scrutiny," Sharon Miller, executive director of the Carolina Utility Customers Association, said Wednesday. CUCA represents companies ranging from GlaxoSmithKline, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., and Cone Mills Corp. A Duke Power spokesman said the association was using the case to re-ignite its failed efforts to persuade state regulators to conduct the first full-blown investigation of Duke Power's rates in more than a decade. In July, the North Carolina Utility Commission rejected CUCA's request for a rate investigation. The commission said a new state law passed in June froze power-company rates in exchange for reduced coal-plant emissions. "This issue is between the commission and Duke," said Duke Power spokesman Tom Williams. "It's our understanding that they (commission members) are strongly considering the proposed settlement." Miller said the audit's findings support her group's argument for a full investigation of Duke's rates. "We opposed the closed-door investigation and now we're opposed to the closed-door settlement," she said. "We need a top-to-bottom look at Duke's records." The audit of Duke Power's accounts said the utility, which serves parts of North Carolina and South Carolina, devised a plan to underreport earnings by nearly $124 million over a three-year period. Regulators in both states must approve the proposed deal. "Duke undertook a coordinated effort to identify and record (entries) which would lower Duke's net utility operating income reported to the state commissions," Boston auditing firm Grant Thornton LLP said in the report, which was requested by regulators from both states and took 10 months to complete. The settlement would entitle residential customers to several dollars over 12 months starting in the summer of 2003 as a result of fuel cost adjustments, Williams said. Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp., Duke Power's parent company, would take a $19 million charge against its fourth-quarter earnings as a result of the deal. Concerns about Duke's accounting practices were first raised by Duke accountant Barron Stone, who contacted South Carolina regulators in 2001. He said Duke excluded refunds it received from nuclear-plant insurance and included executive compensation and other costs that should have been charged to shareholders. The settlement provides that Duke Power would restore about $50 million to its nuclear insurance reserve fund. More than $80 million of Duke's underreporting involved money in the fund. The audit said Duke officials were concerned about the threat of a rate reduction after the South Carolina Public Service Commission in 1998 reduced rates charged by another utility. To avoid exceeding the allowed return, Don Stratton, Duke's manager of rates and regulatory affairs, prepared a spreadsheet that calculated Duke needed "$70 million (in) additional expense items," said the report. Duke Energy did not admit wrongdoing in the proposed settlement. The company acknowledged its internal investigation found that some accounting errors were made. North Carolina regulators will discuss the proposed settlement Monday. The South Carolina Public Service Commission meet the next day. Last modified: October 24. 2002 1:29AM heraldtribune.com /Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 / © Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Split on Nuclear Plants: Weak Spot or Fortress? The New York Times October 24, 2002* *By MATTHEW L. WALD* WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 ? In the what's-next guessing game that began after the terrorist attacks last year, a divide has opened up among experts assessing the risk to the public from attacks on nuclear power plants. Many current and former government officials say the reactors are in Al Qaeda's cross hairs, but inside the industry, many executives counter that what drives the issue is politics and unreasoning fear. Current and former high-ranking officials at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland for a recent exercise on how to cope with terrorism illustrated this divide. Over two days, they simulated a meeting of the National Security Council and were fed hypothetical situations in which intelligence, vague and conflicting at first but becoming more specific as the hours went by, indicated an attack somewhere in the eastern United States. They were also given an assessment that said that the targets vulnerable to the widest range of threats were not nuclear reactors, but places where chemicals were manufactured or stored. Almost immediately, the role-players shifted the discussion to how to protect the reactors. "The players defaulted in that direction," said Dave McIntyre, the deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security, a nonprofit group that sponsored the exercise with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. McIntyre said he thought the concern with reactors was an unnecessary detour, because their security had been improved far more than security for other potential targets. But the group did not see it that way. Reporters who were allowed to sit in on the exercise had to agree not to quote the participants, to allow them, the sponsors said, "to be as open and candid as possible" in the drill. The group included former Senator Sam Nunn, playing the president; James M. Loy, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, playing the role of secretary of homeland security; Charles Curtis, a former under secretary of energy, playing energy secretary; George Terwilliger, former acting attorney general, as attorney general; R. James Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director, as national security adviser; Wesley Clark, the former supreme allied commander in Europe, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Other participants played the jobs they used to have: James S. Gilmore III, former governor of Virginia; Shirley Jackson, former chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; James Lee Witt, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Dee Dee Myers, a former White House spokeswoman. They explored creating a 50-mile zone around each nuclear plant where all flights would be banned, or bringing in antiaircraft batteries. On the other side, some people outside the simulation who are actually in charge of security at nuclear plants say they do not believe that they are threatened by terrorism, and are unenthusiastic about security improvements. Mark P. Findlay, the director of security at the Nuclear Management Company, which operates six Midwestern reactors, said in a telephone interview that there had been no credible threats against nuclear plants, and that he would prefer not to hire more guards now, for fear of having to lay them off later. "How do I deal with staffing levels when I have a government that's based on politics and not events and credible threats?" Mr. Findlay said. The airlines might once have said the same, and there have been attacks on nuclear plants abroad. Mr. Findlay is not alone. Last month, 19 current and former executives in the nuclear power plant field published a paper in Science magazine that asserted that a reactor could easily withstand a crash of the kind that destroyed the World Trade Center, a position disputed by others, including some on whose work the authors relied. The Science article argued that talk of vulnerability was simply wild-eyed conjecture by people who never liked nuclear power anyway. That category includes at least some local government officials who are now uneasy about the reactors in their midst. In the neighborhood of the Indian Point reactors, 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan, local governments have passed resolutions against them. In Westchester County, where the two plants are, the County Board of Legislators voted on Sept. 9 to close them eventually. If the plants are so safe, why are so many people worried about them? "The news media has made the nuclear industry the poster child for the post-Sept. 11 world," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. "People who have been inundated for a year now gravitate toward that topic." "Some media grad student ought to do a study of air time and column inches dedicated to the subject," Mr. Kerekes said. Peter Stockton, a nuclear security expert who is a former special assistant to the secretary of energy, drew a different conclusion. Mr. Stockton, who now works on civilian power plant security questions with the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group here, said the power plant managers were in denial as the managers of nuclear weapons plants were when he was at the Energy Department. "They say, `We've been at this for 50 years and we've never been attacked yet,' " he said. "They believe a credible threat is that a terrorist group has targeted that one plant, and they're coming." Paul M. Blanch, an engineer who found safety problems a decade ago at the nuclear utility where he worked, and whom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later said was mistreated by his employer as a result, said the denial was "par for the course for the nuclear industry." "The industry has been defensive about every threat, whether it's security or accident," Mr. Blanch said. "If something happens, like happened with airlines, maybe they wouldn't be so defensive," he said, "but it hasn't happened yet. " Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 26 Report sent to DEP: Oyster Creek fish kill cause was mistimed job Asbury Park Press | Story October 24, 2002 The Jersey Shore's News Source   Published in the Asbury Park Press 10/24/02By GREGORY J. VOLPE MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY -- The work at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant that caused the death of 5,876 fish last month should not have been performed when it was, according to an incident report filed by the plant this week. The error occurred because of miscommunication among plant personnel, said Dave Simon, spokesman for Exelon Nuclear, which operates the plant. If the work had been done as originally scheduled in April, or the backup plan of October, the waters around the plant would have been cooler and the fish kill would have been averted at least in part, he said. "There was confusion in terms of talking to each other and making sure the right people had talked with each other," Simon said. "We made a mistake in terms of doing it when we were not supposed to." Plant personnel kept switching the dates before settling on Sept. 23. That was deemed a safer time for an outage for routine maintenance and refueling than the scheduled October date, Simon said. The Sept. 23 fish kill, which was the largest at the plant in the past 17 years and possibly its largest ever, was caused when the plant's dilution pumps were shut down at 2:30 a.m. for maintenance upgrades on the electric transmission and distribution systems. The pumps regulate the temperature of water after it has cooled the nuclear reactor and before it is released into the Oyster Creek discharge canal. Without the pumps in use, the discharged water heated up the canal by about 10 degrees, to 106, in less than two hours, according to the report plant officials sent to the state's Department of Environmental Protection on Monday. Fred Mumford, DEP spokesman, said the department has not yet received the report and will not conclude its investigation or decide whether to penalize the plant until after reading it. Simon said he doesn't know whether the plant will be fined. "That's for the state to decide," he said. "We'll accept whatever the state does." The report also lists the plant's corrective action plan. Senior site management and licensed senior reactor operator personnel reviewed the N.J. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to better familiarize themselves with environmental objectives. The plant is also drawing up a policy to ensure more effective communication with state officials when undertaking actions that might violate the terms of its operating permit. The plant will also hold staff meetings to ensure future compliance with the permit conditions and will change the way work is schedules to make sure the dilution plant isn't taken off line when doing so would be environmentally unsafe. Oyster Creek's report also lists the numbers of each species killed: 2,720 striped bass, 999 Atlantic menhaden, 664 white perch, 315 spot fish, 287 American eel, 254 Oyster toadfish, 230 Atlantic croaker, 130 Gizzard shad, 112 bluefish and 13 of other species. Officials also recorded two types of crabs killed: 69 spider crabs and 22 blue crabs. Simon could not say whether the plant will restock the canal, as one local critic suggested. Gregory J. Volpe: (609) 978-4584 or gvolpe@app.com ***************************************************************** 27 Irish Battle Over British Nuke Plant* /By Mairead Carey/ THE Irish government has taken the British government to an international court in a bid to force it to reveal secret documentation about the dangers of the MOX nuclear plant in Sellafield. The state is accusing the British of covering up the risks associated with the controversial plant. The British government has so far refused to reveal the data on the grounds that it is commercially sensitive information. The Attorney General Rory Brady dramatically spelled out the risks to the court of arbitration in the Hague this week. He pointed to the threat of a terrorist attack on the plant, a risk which he said had been heightened since September 11. He warned of the dangers of radioactive emissions from an accident or fire at the site, and of discharges of radioactive material into the Irish Sea. The risks of leakage from a shipment of nuclear fuel were also high, he said. Any fire at sea could cause the fuel to vaporize, releasing large breathable particles into the atmosphere. The MOX plant is to make fuel from separated plutonium from the adjoining Thorp plant at Sellafield. It will also produce radioactive wastes, a significant amount of which would be discharged into the Irish Sea. ?Ireland?s concerns are reinforced by the fact that the Irish Sea, a semi-enclosed sea, is one of the most radioactively-polluted seas in the world,? Brady told the court. The groundbreaking case is expected to last a week. But even if the Irish government wins its case it will not be able to force the British government to shut down the state-owned facility. That battle will be fought another day. /Irish Voice/ Contact Us | ***************************************************************** 28 CITY PLEA FOR CHILDREN OF CHERNOBYL BY JO BARR 12:00 - 24 October 2002 An Exeter charity is appealing for families to host children affected by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Exeter Children of Chernobyl has been bringing groups of youngsters from the poverty-stricken former state of Belarus to the city for the past seven years. Belarus borders the Ukraine and was badly contained as a result of the contamination spread by the Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion and fire in 1986. The contamination continues to have a negative affect of the population's health, leading to massive increases in cancer and leukaemia - especially in children. By taking groups of children out of Belarus for a month, it is argued that it can add up to two years to a child's lifespan. It also serves as a welcome break from the problems they face at home. Group treasurer Geoff Hiscocks said: "We can't invite every deserving child to Exeter, of course, but we can make a difference to the lives of some of the most deserving children. "We can all be proud of what Exeter has done for the children of Belarus over the years. "We all know how pleasant life is in Exeter, and it is a pleasure for everyone involved to be able to share our quality of life with these children and give them some much needed care and friendship." Most of the background work has been done for the next group of children to travel over in June, but more help is needed to ensure the trip can go ahead, including finding more suitable host families. As well as host families the group is also looking for volunteers who can help sort out visas and the administrative paperwork involved with planning the trip and bringing the children over. Geoff said: "It's a lot of work for everyone but, when they finally arrive, the rewards for all those involved are huge. A month may not seem much, but you can see the difference in their health and confidence by the end. "It will be such a shame if we are unable to host next year's visit." Anyone who thinks they can help should call Geoff on 01392 664260 or email geoffander@eurobell.co.uk. | *UzLaws* Uzbekistan *UzReport.com Posted 24.10.2002 15:20* U.S. Ambassador John Herbst attended a ceremony at the Institute of Nuclear Physics (INP) to commemorate the completion of security and safety upgrades at the institute. A delegation from the United States comprised of representatives from the Department of Energy and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) arrived in Tashkent specifically for this event. In September 2002, Dr. Bekhzad Yuldashev, INP director and president of the Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, requested assistance from the U.S. for safety and security enhancements for the INP reactor to address the take-over threat posed by terrorists. The U.S. sent a security team to Tashkent in November 2000 to assess the situation and decided to assist with upgrades in 2001. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took the lead in upgrading security at the INP. Throughout 2000-2002, security and safety upgrades were implemented with funding from the U.S. Department of State Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, such as installation of a video surveillance system and replacement of obsolete equipment. Personnel from the U.S., Russia and Ukraine, under DOE funding and SNL technical oversight, assisted the INP to implement these technical upgrades. Additional future U.S.-INP cooperation will involve security training. The completion of this project illustrates continued U.S. assistance efforts in Uzbekistan. Copyright © 2001 UzReport.com Powered by Uzbrand ***************************************************************** 37 UNEP Team Terminates DU Inspection of Bosnia Pravda.RU Oct, 23 2002 UNEP terminates its inspection of sites suspected of being targeted by Depleted uranium military ordnance during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, according to UNEP sources. Samples of water, soil, vegetation and air have been taken from six sites identified by NATO as possibly having been targeted with DU, while six other sites denounced by local residents as being radioactive have also been inspected. WHO experts are analysing data on increased rates of cancer in cluster areas around where DU ordnance was supposedly deployed, namely in Sarajevo and Banya Luka. Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of the Depleted Uranium Assessment Team of UNEP, stated that the purpose of the visit was to assess whether or not DU ordnance posed a health risk to the local population “either now or in the future”. Previous studies conducted in Kosovo and Southern Serbia led to recommendations by UNEP that local populations should take precautionary action “to avoid contact with the substance”, described by WHO sources as having “significant chemical toxicity”. Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru Copyright ©1999 by " [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When reproducing our ***************************************************************** 38 CDC gives $1.3 million to new USC bioterror center The Sun News | 10/23/2002 | By Kevin Wiatrowski The Sun News The Grand Strand helped inspire a new federally funded research center at the University of South Carolina dedicated to guarding the region against bioterrorism. The center got about $1.3 million Tuesday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its headquarters will be at USC's Arnold School of Public Health. "What we really want to do is push the envelope in identifying and researching ways the [state], security and military people can communicate better," said Dr. Harris Pastides, dean of the Arnold School. Ashby Ward, president of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, praised the decision to put a bioterrorism center in South Carolina. But he doubted the Grand Strand has a high-enough profile to make it a terrorism target. "We assume they would go for bigger year-round populations like Charleston or Hilton Head," he said. USC officials see the Grand Strand as highly vulnerable to bioterrorist threats that might arrive with tourists. "What if we have a bioterrorism event while it's bike week at Myrtle Beach?" asked Donna Richter, chairwoman of the Arnold School's department of health promotion, education and behavior. Aside from tourism, USC officials said the state hosts a bioterrorism center because of: The traffic passing through the Port of Charleston, the nation's fourth-busiest port. The U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in Aiken County, which receives plutonium from all over the United States. Barnwell County's low-level radioactive waste landfill and Sumter County's hazardous waste landfill. High-profile military bases, such as Fort Jackson and Shaw Air Force Base in the Midlands and Parris Island and Charleston Air Force Base on the coast. The USC bioterrorism center will work with 19 other centers around the country to prepare public health workers nationwide to respond to bioterrorist threats, Pastides said. "Each one of these centers brings some special skills to the table," Richter said. USC's contribution includes knowledge of communication in instances of coastal bioterrorism, working with public officials and training health care workers to identify biological agents, Richter said. But with many South Carolinians living in rural areas, health workers' biggest challenge could be getting help to them in the case of an attack, Richter said. "If we have a bioterrorist event, it isn't going to matter where you live," Richter said. Contact KEVIN WIATROWSKI at 626-0305 or kwiatrowski@thesunnews.com [kwiatrowski@thesunnews.com] . ***************************************************************** 39 Rising breast cancer rate fuels environmental concerns [MSNBC.com] Health advocates urge more research on role of pollutants By Francesca Lyman MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR Oct. 23 — The National Cancer Institute has released some eye-opening new figures revealing that not only is the United States not winning the war on breast cancer, but the enemy has been gaining on us over the past 15 years. That has prompted environmental health advocates to demand more and better research into the possible role of pollutants, radiation and other environmental factors in driving the dreaded disease. FORGET THE San Andreas Fault. The news that Marin County, Calif., had seen a skyrocketing increase in the incidence of breast cancer unleashed an earthquake of concerns. Breast cancer jumped by 72 percent among Marin women ages 46 to 64 during the 1990s, according to a May report in the journal Breast Cancer Research. “These high rates set off a mobilization of people from throughout the Bay Area to work together on solving this medical crisis,” says Fern Orenstein, a board member of Marin Breast Cancer Watch, a local nonprofit group that has sponsored community forums attended by thousands of residents as well as researchers. “While most cancer researchers discount the role of the environment, that’s about 95 percent of what people in the community talk about,” says Orenstein. Local concerns range from the possible roles of radioactive dumping and nuclear submarines in the San Francisco Bay to hazardous chemicals in Richmond Harbor to toxic fuel from jetliners and pesticides on suburban lawns. Here, as in many places, relatively little research has focused on possible environmental links to the disease. But last week, California received nearly $1 million from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to plan a surveillance system to track chronic disease and its links to the environment. It is one of 20 states beginning to do such tracking. STATE OF THE SCIENCE In August, two groups, The Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action, released “The State of the Evidence,” a report compiling results from many studies that they say already show links between environmental toxins and breast cancer. Among the findings: Common pollutants, such as benzene, a compound found in car exhaust, are linked to breast tumors, and people who move to industrialized counties suddenly face a higher breast cancer risk within one generation. "Something environmental has to be going on, since we haven’t had a steady change in genes of such magnitude,” she says. The NCI’s Edwards, however, attributes the increase to better early-stage detection, and a miscalculation caused by delays in hospitals’ reporting patient data. She adds that breast cancer deaths will continue rising as the population ages. “If you look at what we know today, the greatest risk is due to reproductive factors ... as well as lifestyle factors like alcohol and smoking,” she says. “If [the environmental component] is there, it’s very hard to measure, especially exposure over time. It’s not that I want to discount the environment, it’s just that it’s very difficult to study.” Dale Sandler, deputy chief of the epidemiology branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, thinks the increase in breast cancer, while not drastic, deserves more study. “With correction for error and the now statistically significant trend, it will be less easy to be complacent,” Sandler says. The fact is, she admits, “we have very little information on the potential role of environmental exposures in breast cancer risk, and more research is needed.” Francesca Lyman is an environmental and travel journalist and author of “Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest” (Workman, 1998). ***************************************************************** 40 Feds use equipment to detect contamination Equipment can detect substances up to a foot beneath ground surface. The Hawk Eye Newspaper Thursday, October 24, 2002 Plant flyover begins By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye MIDDLETOWN — Scientists scouting for radioactive hazards took to the cloudy sky over the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Wednesday on a mission Army and state officials hope turns up no surprises. However, officials do expect that the specially equipped Bell 412 helicopter will spot areas contaminated by depleted uranium, which regulators already know is there, at least at one firing site. Rodger Allison, the plant's environmental projects manager, said the pilots with the Remote Sensing Laboratory from Las Vegas, made two passes over the 19,000–acre compound. The first was to check for flight hazards such as towers and power lines that could interfere with the flights, and a second to calibrate the radiation–detection equipment mounted on the helicopter's runners. Later in the day, the plant's commander, Lt. Col. Yolanda Dennis–Lowman, said the pilots were flying the perimeter of the plant, which consists of a 500–foot–wide swath outside the fences in Middletown. The survey of the entire plant grounds is to begin today, Allison said, and could take six days. It is not expected to interfere with plant operations. Dennis–Lowman said the helicopter's equipment, with the copter flying at about 100 feet, will be able to detect radioactive substances lying 4 to 12 inches beneath the surface of the ground.. Steve Riedhauser, a senior scientist with Bechtel Nevada, a Department of Energy contractor, said the radiation gear will be able to detect gamma rays coming from such sources as depleted uranium, plutonium, cesium, radium and cobalt. Department of Energy documents and worker accounts suggest that over the decades IAAP workers handled such materials. The Army had insisted that the AEC cleaned up its operations on the nuclear production line and at the firing sites before it moved its nuclear operations to Texas. But those assertions were cast into doubt when shards and chunks of depleted uranium were found at Firing Site 12. In addition, tons of the heavy metal barium, used by the AEC, were discovered near several open–air burn pads, and delayed cleanup of the pad areas. The now–shuttered Atomic Energy Commission, assembled, took apart, and in later years, test–fired components of nuclear weapons for the late 1940s to the mid 1970s when the AEC moved nuclear operations to the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas. The scientists are using the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport as their staging area, and housing the helicopter there. It's about a five–minute flight to the plant. The copter is to make two east–west flights a day, covering about 5 square miles in each sweep. The plant consists of about 30 square miles of farmland, forested areas, as well as the buildings and exterior areas used in the manufacture and disassembly of conventional weapons, and disposal of waste products. Dennis–Lowman said the radiation survey is not directly related to the worker health study being conducted by the University of Iowa, but data from the flyover would be shared with the health researchers. Allison said the radiation scientists had hoped to begin the actual survey Wednesday morning but were hampered by technical problems including water in the pods attached to the copter containing the detection instruments. He said the rainy weather forecast for the area the next few days should not hamper the flyover unless the pilots determined flying conditions were unsafe. Snow, however, could be a more serious problem, Allison said, because a snow cover could make detecting radiation very difficult. However, the helicopter will follow Brush and Spring creeks from the plant as they wind toward Skunk River south of the IAAP. Riedhauser said the Remote Sensing Laboratory has conducted about 500 similar operations in scouting for radioactive hot spots, including at nuclear reactors. The IAAP "is a medium size survey area," Riedhauser said. The flyover came about after months of persistence by state regulators and officials including Sens. Charles Grassley, R–Iowa, and Tom Harkin, D–Iowa, and Gov. Tom Vilsack. Asked Wednesday why the Army had done an about–face on the matter, Dennis–Lowman said: "The senior leadership of the Army decided it was in the best interest of the public to conduct this flyover and get a final determination on what exactly, if anything, is on the installation that may present a health hazard." She said that if something extremely dangerous is found, the plant could be evacuated. However, that is very unlikely, she said. The flyover drew this comment from the former security guard who set off a storm of controversy over the plant with a letter to Harkin in 1999. "I am thrilled they are going to do it," said Bob Anderson of Burlington. "And I hope they find nothing." In a short letter written as part of an environmental issues class at Southeastern Community College, Anderson told Harkin that he and several fellow IAAP workers had contracted a cancerous lymphoma, and wondered whether it may have been related to radiation or other hazards workers were exposed to at the plant. At the time, Harkin said he was not aware that IAAP ever made nuclear weapons. Army officials said final results of the flyover won't be determined until June or July. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 41 Next German HLW shipment in early November Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:40:54 -0700 Next German HLW shipment in early November During early November, the latest transport of highly radioactive nuclear waste is scheduled to roll into Wendland, a normally peaceful, scenic, rural region of Northern Germany with storybook houses, small farms, and a mighty river, the Elbe. The waste is destined for Germany´s "temporary" storage facility near Gorleben, where it will be left in an unprotected shed until a "final" storage is found, if ever. Nuclear waste is shipped in a special cask, called a "castor", weighing 120 tons. The castor is an unproven container that has been shown to leak radioactivity. One castor was even deformed by the tremendous pressures (each castor contains more radioactivity than that released at Chernobyl or Hiroshima). Moreover, a shock protection system required by law was recently found to be non-existent -- a slipshod "fix" is to be accomplished by inserting wooden blocks during unloading! As if this wasn´t enough, the latest transport will consist of TWELVE castors hooked together! This potential death train -- in violation of legal procedures -- will roll through densely populated cities all the way from the northwest French coast -- an easy target for terrorist attacks. In Wendland, the train with its 1,500-ton cargo must cross many crumbling overpass bridges built in the last century and an embankment recently weakened by flood waters. The train tracks reach only to Dannenberg, where each castor must be off-loaded onto special trucks for the final 20-kilometer trip to Gorleben. As the train nears Wendland, its enraged citizens will be involved in a massive protest demonstration. To counter this "threat", it´s planned that as many as 30,000 heavily armed riot police from all over Germany will crowd into this small county, creating police-state conditions. Civilian movements will be restricted, civil rights violated, and constitutional protections cast aside. During this deadly transport (lasting about a week) we will try to send out daily e-mails in English reporting the most significant events. If you would like to receive these reports without charge, just send a blank e-mail with the word "subscribe" as the subject, to castordiary@gmx.de (Associated with the Citizens Initiative for Environmental Protection, Luechow-Dannenberg, Germany) CastorDiary ***************************************************************** 42 Proponents Defend Radioactive Waste Measure The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, October 24, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS Initiative 1 advocates said this week the proposed Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act is not the legal Frankenstein opponents make it out to be. Proponents convened a news conference in the Capitol to counter what they say are "myths" about the initiative, which voters statewide will see on their Nov. 5 ballots. Tuesday's news conference was in response to one opponents held recently at which they called the initiative "incomprehensible." Lisa Watts Baskin, Initiative 1's prime author, said it was "an insult" for opponents to say the measure is monstrously complex. "This is not too complicated for you to understand," she said. "This is radioactive waste. It's nasty, and if we do take it, let's get money for it." The measure, put on the ballot by a petition drive, would outlaw "hotter" radioactive refuse than the low-level waste now allowed in Utah. It also would hike taxes on the out-of-state waste already disposed of at the nation's only commercially owned and operated radioactive landfill, Envirocare of Utah, in Tooele County. It also would channel revenue from any radioactive waste taxes to programs for schools and the homeless, and enact new ethics curbs on state employees and board members who regulate the waste. The measure is supported by the Utah Education Association, Utah Crusade for the Homeless and Utah Legislative Watch. It is opposed by a majority of state legislators and Envirocare, which is underwriting the opposition group, Utahns Against Unfair Taxes. Watts Baskin said the proposed law was developed after consultation with the state Tax Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality, experts on the radioactive waste business and other states with such landfills. "This is not anything new," added Mickey Gallivan. "We're just trying to be like the other guys, only we don't want hotter waste." Proponents also disputed that Initiative 1 is 13,000 words, as opponents say. Watts Baskin said the measure changes 5,000 words -- some cut from state law, some added to it. Election laws require the initiative to repeat language already part of state law. Hugh Matheson, director of the opposition campaign, insisted the measure is "very, very complex" and that it will be the subject of expensive legal battles, possibly on constitutional issues. "They are very real questions, and there is not only one but several." He noted that the proposed law would create two new boards to oversee revenue distributions, change the makeup of the Radiation Control Board, hike tax rates and remove an existing tax on radioactive waste recycling. "It's just all over the map," he said. Initiative 1 supporter and University of Utah constitutional law professor Edwin Firmage disagreed that the initiative is unconstitutional under the supremacy and equal protection clauses as opponents have said. He said the state has clear authority to place a fair tax on the out-of-state waste sent to Envirocare and to safeguard citizens from "hotter" radioactive waste. "One of the bedrock principles of the Utah Constitution is the ability of citizens to make laws," he said. "When the Legislature is no longer responsive to the needs of the people, then it is up to the citizens to enact laws that will protect our state from becoming a dumping ground for radioactive waste." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 43 No Nuclear Closure Radioactive waste from St. Albans in limbo By Daniel Hendrick Daniel Hendrick, an editor at the Queens Chronicle, is a frequent contributor to Newsday. October 24, 2002 The decommissioning of a St. Albans nuclear medicine laboratory remains unfinished more than a year after the contaminated equipment was removed. In the summer of 2001, the United States Army Corps of Engineers removed the floors, walls, pipes and testing equipment from an underground laboratory at the St. Albans Veterans Administration Hospital, at Linden Boulevard and 179th Street. The laboratory was contaminated in 1964 by a small spill of strontium-90, a radioactive material used to treat eye conditions and detect certain cancers. The irradiated items had to be removed in two shipments, one in June 2001, the second a month later. But the second shipment, which had a higher level of radioactivity, has not reached its final destination in South Carolina and remains at a transit point in Tennessee 16 months later. The reason, according to Corps of Engineers spokesman Dave Brouwer, is to save money. "The plan is to put this material from St. Albans with other materials," Brouwer said. "When they get enough so that it's economically feasible to ship, it's going to a site in South Carolina." Until that shipment takes place, which Brouwer hopes will be by the end of this month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not sign off on a final report that closes the case file and terminates the hospital's nuclear license. The news came as a surprise to local residents, who have been monitoring the cleanup for 2 1/2 years. "We haven't heard anything from the engineers. No one has really gotten back to us about what's going on," said Sadie Westbrook, president of the St. Albans Civic Improvement Association. "Of course, we are concerned about it." The spill occurred when a beaker of strontium-90 boiled over on a hot plate, spilling two cups of the substance on the concrete floor. As a result, the three-room laboratory, a nearby men's room and a drainage area were contaminated. The Department of the Navy, which operated the hospital at the time, certified that it had cleaned the spill, but a subsequent inspection by the NRC in the late 1990s detected lingering contamination. Based on preliminary findings, a Corps of Engineers contractor began the cleanup in the fall of 2000, operating under the assumption that the contaminated items would have had the lowest level of radioactivity, known as Class A. But after the work began, a pipe that carried the strontium-90 from the nuclear medicine laboratory to a drainpipe was found to be "hotter," registering it as Class B waste. In June 2001, 307 55-gallon drums of the Class A waste left the hospital for Utah. One month later, four drums of the Class B waste were transported to a facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn., where they remain. "We will try to move as quickly as possible. Everything has been removed, so there's nothing really urgent about the matter anymore," Brouwer said. John Mazzulla, a spokesman for the Veterans Administration, which inherited the nuclear license from the Navy, said the agency hopes the matter will be resolved "as soon as possible." The hospital has no plans to use the decommissioned laboratory. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. ***************************************************************** 44 Iowa search for n-waste around weapons facility KHQA | Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Iowa Army Ammunition Plant The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in southeast Iowa started a search Wednesday for man made radioactive waste around the facility. A specially equipped helicopter with a three-man crew will conduct searches for the next five or six days. The crew is looking for traces of depleted uranium, plutonium, and other radioactive elements that may have been left behind at the plant. Lt. Col. Yolanda Dennis says, "Senior leadership of the Army decided it was in the best interest of the public to conduct this fly over and get a final determination of what exactly if anything is on the installation that may present a health hazard." The plant made nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The findings from the fly over won't be known until next summer. Copyright © 2002 Gray MidAmerica TV Interactive Media, LLC. ***************************************************************** 45 Nevada adds to Yucca challenge list reviewjournal.com -- News: Thursday, October 24, 2002 Missed deadline provides more ammunition By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials served notice Wednesday that the Energy Department's failure this week to meet a deadline to finalize a Yucca Mountain licensing package will become part of the state's legal challenges to the nuclear waste project. The state's four federal lawmakers demanded that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham explain why DOE was in a hurry to win approval for the Yucca site when it will take another two years to finish preparing an application to build a repository. They said federal law requires Abraham to report to Congress why DOE missed the deadline and "actions it intends to take to improve its operation or organization." "We expect a personal report from you as to why DOE could not have changed its project decision schedule to produce a Yucca Mountain site recommendation in mid-2004 instead of mid-2002 as seems only logical and appropriate," said a letter to Abraham signed by Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. DOE officials had no immediate comment. The latest conflict in the Yucca Mountain Project stems from a section of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act that gave the Energy Department 90 days after a final repository selection to file com- prehensive licensing paperwork with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Monday marked the 90th day after President Bush signed a resolution on July 23 declaring Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the government's preferred site for storage of 77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste from government facilities and spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants. DOE officials had long conceded they wouldn't have an application ready within 90 days. Their latest schedule calls for one to be submitted in December 2004, although an analysis by the General Accounting Office questioned whether that might be optimistic as well. Abraham has said he considered the 90-day time frame not a deadline but a guidepost for DOE to keep moving forward. Other DOE officials say budget cuts by Congress forced Yucca managers to prioritize site selection activities over license preparation in recent years. "I don't believe those relieve DOE of its legal responsibility," said Bob Loux, head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. Congress intended a repository license application to be closely tied to the site recommendation to ensure the project it was approving was the same one that would be reviewed by the NRC, Nevada lawmakers told Abraham in their letter. They said the state intends to challenge the submission of a years-late license application in the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding that the NRC will convene to weigh the repository project. R-J | [http://www.reviewjournal.com/] ***************************************************************** 46 Nevada to challenge DOE on missed nuke dump license deadline* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 10/24/2002 10:40 am Nevada officials say the Energy Department's failure to apply this week for a license to operate a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain will become part of the state's legal challenges to the project. The state's four federal lawmakers called for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to tell them and Congress why his agency didn't submit a license request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Monday _ 90 days after the Yucca site was picked. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., also said in a letter to Abraham that they want to know why the Energy Department rushed to win approval for the Yucca Mountain site, but intends to wait until 2004 to submit the license request. "We expect a personal report from you as to why DOE could not have changed its project decision schedule to produce a Yucca Mountain site recommendation in mid-2004 instead of mid-2002 as seems only logical,"the letter said. Energy Department officials had no immediate comment. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which started the federal government's search for a nuclear waste repository site, set the 90-day mark. Monday was the 90th day since President Bush signed the resolution formally naming Yucca Mountain as the site to entomb 77,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste from government facilities and spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants. Abraham has said he considered the 90 days a guideline instead of a deadline. Department officials have said the application should be ready by December 2004. The Nevada lawmakers argue in their letter that Congress intended a repository license application to closely follow site selection to ensure the project approved was the same one that would be reviewed by the NRC. They said the state intends to challenge the late filing of the license application when the NRC convenes hearings on the Yucca Mountain licensing process. The state also has five lawsuits pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., against elements of the Yucca project. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal , a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Sellafield: TONNES OF WORK [The Whitehaven News] [http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk] REPROCESSING at Sellafield has topped the 50,000 tonnes mark. Most of the fuel - more than 40,000 tonnes of it - has been treated in the B205 Magnox plant but Sellafield first started reprocessing in B204, which began operations in 1953/54 in order to separate nuclear materials from fuel burned in the plutonium-producing Windscale Piles. B205, which has been the site's main financial bread-winner since 1964, is currently shutdown for engineering projects and planned maintenance. Thorp, which reprocesses oxide fuel from more modern nuclear reactors, has dealt with more than 4,000 tonnes of fuel since it opened eight years ago. ***************************************************************** 48 Sellafield: BOLDLY GOING WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE SINCE 1957 [The Whitehaven News] [http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk] [Windscale Pile] FOR the first time Sellafield workers have been allowed inside the Windscale Pile chimney which caught fire and released masses of radioactivity into the surrounding countryside back in 1957. On the 45th anniversary of what was then the world's worst nuclear accident in October 1957, BNFL radiation workers and contractors are involved in taking away radioactive debris from inside the top of the 406-feet high chimney. Nuclear robotic equipment has already dealt with the worst of the contamination in order to keep down radiation doses to the workers. But the task of removing some of the contaminated steeelwork and internal insulation is being undertaken manually, by rotating the work so that the radiation doses to operators are kept within authorised safe limits. It is part of a nuclear decommission and dismantling project which has never been tackled anywhere else in the world. The other Windscale pile chimney which was unaffected by the '57 fire has already been dismantled and disappeared completely from the Sellafield skyline. Jim Whitehead, the 38-year-old pile chimney project manager who was six when the accident happened, said that the job of taking down Windscale Pile No 1 chimney is much more difficult. "In radiological terms it is a unique nuclear dismantling project," he said. "We have used a lot of remote handling techniques to get rid of the higher-level radiation contamination. Most of it was trapped at the top of the chimney in the filters and concentrator. The radiological risk is really quite low now that the nuclear reactor at the base of the chimney is shut down and blocked off completely. The chimney and the reactor are separated by a wall between them. I think the risks are more on the conventional safety side and that is where we are now tending to concentrate. "The radiation levels have come down to such a level using the robotic equipment to remove the higher contamination items which is why we can access the inside of the chimney using men and this is what we are doing at the moment. "We are working the men around so that in any one period they are working well below the actual daily radiation limit inside the top of the chimney which the remote machine could not reach." BNFL health physics safety staff are heavily involved and so are site contractors. "There is quite a big pool of contractors, around 40 plus, and we are rotating people around to be able to work well within the set limit (radiation ) of 400 microsieverts for any given spell," said Jim Whitehead. He stressed: "There have been no major accidents, incidents or excess radiation doses to anybody." It will take another three years until the end of 2006 to completely dismantle the chimney right down to the level of the reactor. The reactors are being decommissioned under a separate project. ***************************************************************** 49 Commission discusses going ahead with Boyd County waste site 10/23/02 - theindependent.com News Last modified at 5:34 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 • On the Net: Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission [http://www.cillrwcc.org/] By Scott Bauer The Associated Press LINCOLN -- After more than 15 years of squabbling, plans are moving ahead to site a low-level nuclear waste dump in northeast Nebraska. The five-state commission that has worked since the 1980s to build a site in Nebraska voted Wednesday to adopt a resolution that could ultimately result in federal regulation of the proposed facility near Butte in Boyd County. First, Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns will be asked to cede authority to license the dump from the state to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If Johanns rejects that, the commission will discuss asking the NRC to revoke regulatory authority from the state. That discussion will occur at the commission's Jan. 22 meeting if Johanns rejects giving up authority or no response is heard from him by the end of the year. Johanns will not give up the state's authority to regulate the dump, said John Wittenborn, the attorney representing Nebraska in a lawsuit over the licensing of the dump. Nebraska joined Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana in 1983 to form the Central Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Commission. The other states voted in 1987 to put the dump in Nebraska. The fight began soon after, with both sides wrestling in court on several issues. Last month, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf ordered Nebraska to pay $151 million in damages over its handling of licensing of the proposed facility. Kopf said former Gov. Ben Nelson, now a U.S. senator, and the state acted in bad faith in refusing to license the facility. An appeal of that decision will be filed next week, Wittenborn said. The case is expected to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Nebraska's representative on the commission argued against moving ahead with the resolution while the court case was still pending. Greg Hayden offered an alternate resolution that, in part, would require the commission to consider not looking for a dump site any longer. No vote was taken on the resolution, which failed to garner a second to Hayden's motion that a vote be taken. The vote to adopt the resolution moving ahead with possible federal regulation of the dump was approved 4-1, with Nebraska voting no. Moving ahead with the resolution, which was offered by Kansas' representative Jim O'Connell, keeps alive the possibility of locating a dump in Nebraska, said the commission's attorney Alan Peterson. Hayden questioned how federal regulation of the dump would work. Specifically, he asked whether the NRC would build better roads and provide fire and police protection in the area. "If we don't worry about some of the practical details, I don't know how we move ahead," he said. • On the Net: Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission [http://www.cillrwcc.org/] © 2002 The Grand Island Independent ***************************************************************** 50 Waste-facility shift is sought Omaha.com October 24, 2002 *BY ROBYNN TYSVER* WORLD-HERALD BUREAU Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission LINCOLN - A five-state compact that has battled for years to build a low-level nuclear waste facility in Nebraska is pinning its hopes on the federal government. The compact on Wednesday asked the State of Nebraska to voluntarily relinquish control of the proposed facility to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If Nebraska refuses, as expected, the commission will then consider in January whether to ask the NRC directly to intervene. The state's attorney, John Wittenborn, said Nebraska would not cede authority to the federal government. He said it was unlikely the NRC would agree to intervene. The quest for federal intervention is the latest round in a 15-year dispute between Nebraska and four other states that want to build a regional waste facility in Boyd County. The squabbling began in 1987 when Nebraska was chosen as the host state. Nebraska denied a license for the facility in 1998. The other compact states - Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma - filed a lawsuit. Last month, the compact won a $151 million judgment against Nebraska in federal court. A federal judge ruled that Nebraska's refusal to license the facility was based on politics and not science. Nebraska will file an appeal of that ruling next week in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Wednesday, it was apparent that the four other states in the Central Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact still believe Nebraska has an obligation to license a facility. It also was apparent that Nebraska had little sway in the compact, from which it plans to withdraw in 2004. The state's representative, Greg Hayden, argued against the resolution but was chastised several times by other compact members for straying from the agenda. Hayden continued to press the state's argument that the safety of the site near Butte, Neb., was questionable. He also questioned how it would work if the NRC, rather than the state, licensed and regulated the facility. "I don't think the purpose of this meeting is to get into that kind of detail today," said Catherine Sharp, Oklahoma representative and chairwoman of the compact. "That's been a problem of this committee, not worrying about the future for the last 15 years," Hayden replied. The resolution was adopted 4-1. The NRC has control over nuclear waste but cedes regulatory authority to states that are in agreement with federal rules. Alan Peterson, the compact attorney, believes an argument can be made that because Nebraska failed to act in "good faith" in the licensing process, the NRC could strip the state of its authority over low-level nuclear waste. He said the NRC should be able to license and regulate the facility in Nebraska. And, he said, the compact's resolution keeps alive its plan to build in Nebraska. Wittenborn, the state's attorney, said he doubted the federal government would usurp the state's authority to regulate nuclear waste. The NRC has never taken such action against a state before, he said, and there are no grounds to do that now against Nebraska. ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 51 Commission still looking to build nuke waste dump (nebraska) After more than 15 years of squabbling, plans are moving ahead to build a low-level nuclear waste dump in northeast Nebraska. The five-state Central Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission that has worked since the 1980s to build a site in Nebraska voted Wednesday to adopt a resolution that ultimately could result in federal regulation of the proposed site near Butte in Boyd County. First, Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns will be asked to cede authority to license the dump from the state to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If Johanns rejects that, the compact will discuss asking the NRC to revoke regulatory authority from the state. That discussion would occur at the commission's Jan. 22 meeting if Johanns rejects giving up authority or no response is heard from him by the end of the year. Chris Peterson, a spokesman for Johanns, said the governor would not relinquish Nebraska's right to regulate the dump. A move by the NRC to revoke the state's authority "would be unprecedented, and the state of Nebraska would fight that," Peterson said. Nebraska joined Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana in 1983 to form the compact. The other states voted in 1987 to put the dump in Nebraska. The fight began soon after, with both sides wrestling in court on several issues. Last month, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf ordered Nebraska to pay $151 million in damages over its handling of licensing of the proposed facility. Kopf said the state and former Gov. Ben Nelson, now a U.S. senator, acted in bad faith in refusing to license the facility. An appeal of that decision will be filed next week, Wittenborn said. The case is expected to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Nebraska's representative on the compact argued against moving ahead with the resolution while the court case was still pending. Greg Hayden offered an alternate resolution that would require the compact to consider not looking for a dump site any longer. Hayden's motion to vote on the resolution failed to garner a second. The vote to adopt the resolution moving ahead with possible federal regulation of the dump was approved 4-1, with Nebraska casting the lone no vote. Moving ahead with the resolution, offered by Kansas representative Jim O'Connell, keeps alive the possibility of building a dump in Nebraska, said the compact's attorney, Alan Peterson. Hayden questioned how federal regulation of the dump would work. He asked whether the NRC would build better roads and provide fire and police protection in the area. ``If we don't worry about some of the practical details, I don't know how we move ahead,'' he said. Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 52 Nuclear Renaissance or Nuclear Nightmare? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:43:56 -0700 Thought the Nuclear Power Industry was Dead? Guess again. The Bush Administration is Breathing New Life into Commercial Nukes. By Karl Grossman Special to CorpWatch October 23, 2002 RELATED ARTICLE Protecting Nukes from Liability by Karl Grossman Last month, nuclear industry executives and U.S. government officials got together in Washington, D.C. for a conference called "The Nuclear Renaissance"-- a gathering boosting a comeback of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. "Renaissance" has replaced "revival" as the word being used by nuclear proponents in the U.S. and around the world to describe their desired recovery of the nuclear industry. There has not been an order of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident shattered public trust in nuclear technology. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster damaged confidence in atomic energy worldwide. But the nuclear industry and its allies in government are back for a "renaissance." In March 2003 there will be a Nuclear Renaissance Forum in Chicago sponsored by the nuclear plant manufacturers Framatome and Westinghouse. A few days before last months Washington meeting, the World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium in London featured a session on "Nuclear Renaissance." Russia and the US have teamed up to launch a new 'Atoms for Peace and Prosperity' Program. -- Dr. Andrei Gagarinski, Kurchatov Institute, Russia At the session, Dr. Andrei Gagarinski, director of international affairs at Russias Kurchatov Institute, said his atomic research facility had teamed with the U.S. Department of Energy-owned Sandia National Laboratories to put together "a new Atoms for Peace and Prosperity Program." The program was considered at President George Bushs summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, according to Gagarinski. In the U.K. in August, Robin Jeffrey, chairman of British Energy, called for a "nuclear renaissance" telling the British Nuclear Engineering Society that "working in partnership [we can] create a financial and commercial framework for a programme of new build." Nuclear Globalization Meanwhile, as it prepares for its hoped-for "renaissance," the nuclear industry has globalized: * British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has purchased Westinghouse (the worlds largest reactor manufacturer) and ABB/Combustion Engineering (itself the product of an earlier merger of the Swedish ABB and the U.S. corporation Combustion Engineering). * Siemens, the largest reactor builder in Germany, and Framatome, with a monopoly on construction of French reactors, announced their intent to merge most aspects of their nuclear businesses. * General Electric (the world's second largest reactor manufacturer after Westinghouse) joined with Mitsubishi to build new atomic plants in Japan. * Minatom, the giant Russian state-owned nuclear entity, is moving to build new nuclear plants in Russia and internationally. A handful of giant multinational energy corporations are positioning themselves to become "the robber barons of the 2lst Century," says Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy-Amsterdam (NIRS-WISE Amsterdam). Mariotte added that "perhaps no industry is embracing globalization quite so fervently," in a field "where the stakes are highest, where the threats to all life are most at risk." Paul Gunter, head of the organizations Reactor Watchdog Project, who attended the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference in Washington, said rather than a renaissance, what is involved is "a relapse into the failed nuclear energy policy" of the past. George W. Bush: Nuclear President "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really is good." -- Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill The "renaissance" also now comes with what Mariotte says "may be the most ardently pro-nuclear power presidency in U.S. history." The Bush administrations stance on nuclear power is aggressive and minimizes the dangers of atomic technology. As Bushs Secretary of Treasury Paul ONeill has told The Wall Street Journal, "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really is good." The administration struck a close working relationship with the nuclear industry well before taking office. Its energy "transition" advisors included: * Joseph Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the lead nuclear industry-funded trade group. * J. Bennett Johnston who as a senator was a leading pro-nuclear power figure in Congress and now runs a consulting firm that assists the nuclear industry. * Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute and former head of the American Nuclear Energy Council, forerunner of the NEI, and a friend of Bush going back to their days at Yale Representatives of four U.S. utilities involved with nuclear power. Two weeks after being sworn in, Bush set up a "National Energy Policy Development Group" and appointed Vice President Dick Cheney as its chairman. Its members included ONeill and Andrew Lundquist, who also coordinated the energy "transition" team was named executive director. "The National Energy Policy Development Group supports the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our National Energy Policy," declared the group's report, issued ten weeks later. "America," said Bush in unveiling the plan, should "expand a clean and unlimited source of energy: nuclear power." This National Energy Policy whose recommendations were discussed at length at the Nuclear Renaissance conference - would substantially increase the use of nuclear power in the U.S. both by building new nuclear power plants many on existing nuclear plant sites, and extending the 40-year licenses of currently operating plants by another 20 years each. Nukes: Exception to the War on Terrorism? Some observers might think the September 11th terrorist attacks -- and the reported plans by Al Qaeda to strike at U.S. nuclear plants -- might hold up plans for a "nuclear renaissance." But Richard A. Meserve, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), struck positive notes at the Nuclear Renaissance conference at which he was a keynote speaker. The NRC was created in 1975 to impartially regulate nuclear power replacing the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which Congress deemed to be in conflict of interest being set up to both promote and regulate nuclear power. "First, the physical protection at nuclear power plants was strong before September 11th. I am aware of no other industry that has had to satisfy the tough requirements that the NRC has had in place for a quarter of a century," stated Meserve. "Secondly, there have been no specific credible threats of a terrorist attack on nuclear power plants since September 11th," he added. "Third" Meserve concluded, "in light of the events of September 11th, the NRC has recognized the need to reexamine past security strategies to ensure that we have the right protections in place for the long term." "The agency could not have presented the situation farther from the truth," noted Gunter of the Reactor Watchdog Project. "Before September 11th, the industry and NRC were mired in an endless dialogue on security deficiencies and the rising cost of safeguarding nuclear power plants" he said. And federal security exercises conducted since 1991 led to "failing grades" half the time, according to Gunter. Gunter said that after the September 11th attacks, the NRC closed down its formal security exercise program. "The vulnerability of attacks from the air and the water were never evaluated," he explained. "Contrary to Dr. Meserves remarks, nuclear power plants remain both structurally and programmatically vulnerable to sophisticated and premeditated acts of terrorism," according to the head of the watchdog group. Corporate Welfare Also making a presentation at the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference was Westinghouse Vice President for New Plants Ernie H. Kennedy who described "the post-TMI phase" for the nuclear industry as a "collapse of new plant orders, cancellation of existing orders" and "sharply increasing O&M [operation and maintenance] costs." But, he said, the nuclear industry in the 1990s had been busy "getting the house in order" and "preparing for the renaissance 2000s." Now, said Mr. Kennedy, there is "slow but sustained improvement in public acceptance" and "improved political support." Gail H. Marcus, Bush administration appointee as principal deputy director of the U.S. Department of Energy, who is also president of the pro-industry American Nuclear Society, began her presentation by quoting from report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. She said new nuclear power plants would be built under a "cost-shared" arrangement between the federal government and utilities. This will be combined, she said, with the Department of Energys "Early Site Permit" or expedited nuclear plant process on three projects soon to be advanced. The "cost-shared" and "Early Site Permit" arrangements will be initially used in construction by: * Dominion Energy for new nuclear plant at the current North Anna nuclear plant site in Virginia * Entergy for a new nuclear plant at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant site in Mississippi * Excelon for a new nuclear plant at the Clinton nuclear plant site in Illinois. Marcus said the new plants were expected to come on line by 2005 and some, or all, of the "advanced" nuclear plant would be deployed by 2010. The Lone Dissenter The sponsors of The Nuclear Renaissance Conference -- Framatome, Canadian reactor manufacturer AECL Technologies, Winston & Strawn, a Washington law firm that represents clients involved with nuclear power, and EXCEL, a provider of services for U.S. and international commercial nuclear power facilities -- allowed one anti-nuclear advocate to make a presentation. "The real question is: How should the nuclear industry be held responsible for the health and environmental disasters that it has created?" -- Winonah Hauter, Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program, Public Citizen Winonah Hauter, director of the Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program at Ralph Naders Public Citizen, spoke as part of a panel discussion titled "How Should the Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Assets Be Valued?" "The answer to the question about valuing the benefits of nuclear assets is simple. There are none," Hauter stated. Then she fired off questions of her own. "The real questions that should have been asked at this conference is: How should the nuclear industry be held responsible for and required to bear the full cost of the health and environmental disasters that it has created? Why are our government agencies lapdogs for the industry? How has the industry bought public policy?" As to the claim of nuclear proponents at the conference that atomic plants assist in offsetting global warming, Hauter pointed out that the nuclear fuel cycle creates a vast amount of greenhouse gases. "An elaborate energy-intensive process of uranium mining, milling and enrichment must take place before the fuel rods can even be fabricated. All of these processes use massive quantities of fossil fuels. The manufacture and construction of reactors require more fossil fuels. And [as to] the back end of the fuel cycleif the industry is successful in dumping waste on the unwilling citizens of Nevadait will take more fossil fuel to move thousands of shipments." "And even if nuclear energy didnt use fossil fuel," she went on "the regular radiation releases from plants would way offset any benefit." Hauter challenged the industry public relations campaign promoting nuclear energy as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels. "Nuclear power plants are not cost-effective, which means they can only be built if nuclear corporations are allowed special dispensation from the government. Let me put that more clearly: the industry has to feed at the trough of taxpayer money to survive. So the industry is looking for new ways to justify its existence." Activists Crash the Party The Nuclear Renaissance Conference received uninvited guests, too. Activists from Greenpeace crashed the conference with a 200-pound ice sculpture depicting a nuclear plant melting. Carved into the ice statue were the words No New Nukes. "Greeenpeace is putting plans for any nuclear renaissance on ice" said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "Despite benefiting from millions of dollars of government subsidies, nuclear power plants are still too expensive to build, too dangerous to operate and too vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks." The activists also distributed a broadside at the conference called The No New Nukes Times. A New York Times-like front page featured stories with headlines such as, "Once Touted As Too Cheap To Meter Now Too Costly to Matter" and "Dr. Strangelove Hands Plutonium Over to Homer Simpson." Conference attendee Gunter of NIRS/WISE Amsterdam commented that in order to bring about a "renaissance" the nuclear industry faces a number of obstacles. Chief among them he cited "increased public mistrust and growing opposition to a proliferation of new nukes." "The meltdown of the industry plans hatched in the early 1970s to build a thousand reactors by the year 2000 was in large part the result of a public unwilling to swallow the lies of nuclear industrialists and their political cronies," said Gunter. "New construction on the enormous scale the industry must contemplate will provide the anti-nuclear movement with the opportunity to raise concerns over the vulnerability and costs of security, the proliferation of an already unmanageable nuclear waste problem and the inherent risk of an accident associated with the most expensive and dangerous process conceivable for boiling water to make electricity" according to the head of the watchdog group. Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, is the author of books on nuclear technology including Cover Up: What You ARE NOT Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power and host of numerous television programs on atomic energy available from EnviroVideo. Donate Now! Get a free t-shirt! Site Search Related News Posted: 08/08/2002 Support South African Anti-Privatization Activist Update on Bolivian Activists >> More Action Featured Articles Updated: 10/23/2002 Nuclear Renaissance or Nuclear Nightmare? CorpWatch Exclusive by Karl Grossman Will Congress Investigate US Agencies' Enron Ties? From Issue: Enron George and Dick's Corporate Misadventures From Issue: Money & Politics Sempra: Exporting Pollution From Issue: U.S.-Mexico Border Nigeria's Gas Crisis: Suffering in the Midst of Plenty By Sam Olukoya >> More Articles Campaign Updates Updated: 08/16/2002 Eskom: Corporate Powerhouse or Green Company? From Campaign: Corporate-Free UN Related News Updated: 10/20/2002 USA: Energy Industry's Dirty Secrets About to be Revealed Burkina Faso: Thousands March Against Privatisation and for Higher Wages USA: Internal Memos Connect Enron to California Energy Crisis Mexico: Legislation Strikes Blow Against Privatization, Secrecy USA: Documents Show Energy Plan Fuelled By Industry >> More News Bulletin Board Updated: 02/14/2002 Help for Needy Enron Execs India: Energy Workers Unite Against Globalization and Privatization >> More Bulletins Archives Background Articles Related Links CorpWatchers Email List CorpWatch PO Box 29344 San Francisco, CA 94129 USA Tel: 415-561-6568 Fax: 415-561-6493 URL: http://www.corpwatch.org Email: corpwatch@corpwatch.org ***************************************************************** 53 Inspectors Set to Return to Iraq Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Thursday October 24, 2002 1:30 PM VIENNA, Austria (AP) - U.N. weapons inspectors are prepared to return to Iraq within 10 days if the Security Council approves a new resolution toughening the inspection regime, the nuclear monitoring agency said Thursday. Nuclear inspectors with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, have been gearing up for their first return to Baghdad since they left nearly four years ago. ``We could be back in a week to 10 days'' after the Security Council approves a resolution, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. ``For logistics reasons, we need a little bit of time to arrange the flight and get people organized,'' she said. The Security Council on Wednesday was handed a U.S. proposal, drafted with British support, that would give the inspectors broad new powers to seek out and destroy material for weapons of mass destruction. The resolution would warn Iraq of ``serious consequences'' if it obstructs their work. A vote on the new resolution could come early next week, and if it is approved, the inspectors could deploy to Baghdad sometime around Nov. 8. No specific date has been set for their return. Still, the United States and Britain have been at odds with France, Russia and China over how tough a new resolution should be and approval is by no means certain. Cyprus said Wednesday that it had agreed on the establishment of an office there that will be used as a base for the Iraq inspectors. The IAEA declined to say whether the new resolution will help or hurt its mission to provide a fresh assessment of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. ``We're just watching with interest the developments on the resolution,'' Fleming said. The inspectors worked out details with the Iraqis on their eventual return in meetings earlier this month. No further consultations with the Iraqis are planned before the teams return, Fleming said. The inspectors pulled out of Iraq in December 1998 on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes, amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams. By the end of the 1991 Gulf War, inspectors discovered the oil-rich nation had imported thousands of pounds of uranium, some of which was already refined for weapons use, and had considered two types of nuclear delivery systems. Inspectors seized the uranium, destroyed facilities and chemicals, dismantled over 40 missiles and confiscated thousands of documents. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 54 Powell: U.S. to Hold Ground on Iraq Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Thursday October 24, 2002 1:30 PM CABO SAN LUCAS, Mexico (AP) - Iraq needs to know there will be consequences if it doesn't comply with weapons inspections, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned, adding that despite criticism the United States will stick to the ``basic principles'' of a tough new U.S. proposal in the United Nations. Speaking to reporters Wednesday night on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Powell said Iraq can't be allowed to ``sit back and smile'' if it fails to meet its obligations. ``This is not a new concept or new language,'' he said at a news conference. The United States began circulating an Iraq proposal to fellow U.N. Security Council members on Wednesday, and the draft met with mixed reactions. Russia denounced language that could trigger military action, while French officials who had opposed earlier proposals appeared willing to negotiate. The proposal, drafted with British support, would give weapons inspectors broad new powers to search and destroy and warns Iraq of ``serious consequences'' if it obstructs their work. ``We want to give (inspectors) what they need to do the job, and that job has to be the disarmament of Iraq,'' Powell said. Earlier, in a meeting with college students, Powell said the United States always prefers to resolve conflicts peacefully. ``We should try to avoid war whenever possible,'' he said. Powell said President Bush would discuss Iraq and North Korea's nuclear weapons program with APEC leaders when he arrives for a summit here on Saturday. The United States was joining other APEC members in sending a message to North Korea that ``there can be no economic aid when we have this kind of behavior,'' Powell said. Powell flew to Cabo San Lucas on Wednesday afternoon and went directly into a meeting with Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda. The two appeared briefly to answer questions from college students, who asked how countries can prevent terrorist attacks that have become a focus of the meeting of Pacific Rim leaders. Powell said it was important to raise living standards in order to eradicate the conditions that draw people into terrorist activities. ``When people see hope in the future, when they see an opportunity to make a living ... then there's no room for anger, there's no room for the type of terror activity we see,'' he said. At the news conference, Powell also condemned the storming of a crowded Moscow theater by 40 armed Chechen rebels who threatened to blow up the building and their hostages if Russian security forces attacked. ``It's a tragic situation that shows us once again the kind of world we are living in,'' Powell said. Powell and Castaneda talked about security along their common border and closer ties, Mexico's foreign department said from Mexico City in a statement. Powell did not comment on his discussions with Castaneda. Last month, Powell asked the Mexican foreign secretary to support the U.S. stance on Iraq in the United Nations. Mexico, a U.N. Security Council member, has been lukewarm. The two countries have also differed in recent months over migration. Mexico wants the United States to let more Mexicans cross the border and live there legally. The United States was considering a migration accord, but the Sept. 11 attacks derailed those efforts. Powell said Wednesday he shares Mexico's concerns about migration, and that the United States realizes it needs foreign migrant labor to survive economically. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox are scheduled to meet Saturday. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 55 In Mexico, Kim starts talks on nukes, economy Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com LOS CABOS, Mexico -President Kim Dae-jung will kick off his summit diplomacy here Friday, which will focus on discussions on the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear development, and counter-terrorism measures with Asian and Pacific leaders. Kim arrived in this seaside resort town Thursday to attend the 10th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and hold a set of bilateral talks with APEC leaders and a crucial three-way summit with the United States and Japan. He is scheduled to have separate bilateral meetings with Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri and Mexican President Vicente Fox on the eve of the opening of the two-day APEC summit that opens Saturday. High on the agenda for the Kim-Megawati talks are the issues of North Korea's nuclear development and the recent bomb blast on the popular resort island of Bali that killed about 190 foreign tourists, Seoul officials said. In talks with Mexican leader Fox, Kim is expected to focus debate on bilateral economic cooperation, including the promotion of a free trade agreement, and anti-terrorism, the officials said. The two bilateral summits will be followed by the three-way meeting of Kim, U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Saturday, which Seoul officials believe will be a watershed for peace on the Korean Peninsula. The three leaders plan to discuss how to press the North to abandon its declared nuclear development program, which they have said poses a threat to global security. "I will have an in-depth discussion with the leaders of the United States and Japan about a peaceful resolution to the North's nuclear issue through dialogue," Kim said in his departure statement in Seoul. "As far as this matter is concerned, our position is firm. We will not tolerate the development of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs. The North's nuclear development programs should be eliminated not only for our national security but also for peaceful inter-Korean co-existence," he said. Kim will also discuss the North Korean nuclear issue during a bilateral summit with President Jiang Zemin of China, the major economic and military supporter of the North, shortly after the end of APEC on Sunday. Kim also said APEC leaders will reconfirm international resolve to combating terrorism and discuss ways to aid global economic recovery and sustain growth. The major topics of discussion at the APEC summit forum are international cooperation against terrorism and securing the safety of trade in the Asian and Pacific region. The United States plans to urge APEC leaders to endorse a number of specific anti-terrorism measures aimed at shielding the region from the economic turmoil caused by terrorism, which include steps to boost transportation security, disrupt terrorist financing and increase cooperation on customs and immigration procedures. But Kim expressed concerns that the strengthening of trade security may have a negative effect on international trade facilitation and could deal a blow to South Korea, which relies heavily on exports. (shinyb@koreaherald.co.kr) By Shin Yong-bae Korea Herald correspondent 2002.10.25 ***************************************************************** 56 Seoul, Washington urge N. Korea stop nuclear program immediately Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com Staff reporter South Korea and the United States agreed Thursday to take joint steps in persuading North Korea to discard its latest nuclear weapons scheme, officials in Seoul said. Foreign Minister Choi Sung-hong met his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell in the Mexican resort city of Los Cabos. Their talks centered on Pyongyang's program to enrich uranium for use in making nuclear weapons. The talks, held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, came two days after the North promised to resolve the security issue "through dialogue," but failed to pledge an end to its nuclear development, during high-level negotiations with the South. "The two sides agreed that North Korea should abandon its nuclear development programs without preconditions as soon as possible," a Foreign Ministry official in Seoul said. Choi and Powell also discussed ways to rally for international efforts to keep the communist country free of nuclear weapons, as it is required under its 1994 agreement with Washington and other anti-nuclear pacts. The two also touched upon the agenda for the planned three-way summit of South Korea, the United States and Japan, Seoul officials said. They said the two sides discussed a set of options regarding the fate of the 1994 agreement, which is in jeopardy after North Korea admitted to continuing nuclear development in violation of the accord. What the two governments decided to do with the Agreed Framework was not immediately available. The South Korean government had hoped that the agreement, under which a U.S.-led consortium is providing twin light-water reactors to the North, will remain intact. A number of tougher measures, however, have reportedly been proposed by the Bush administration, such as delaying, suspending or scrapping the light-water reactor construction. (jihoho@koreaherald.co.kr) By Kim Ji-ho 2002.10.25 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights reserved. *****************************************************************