***************************************************************** 09/24/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.245 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Ministers soften line on nuclear handout 2 Russia Will Maintain Military-Technical Ties With Iran * 3 Japan: Agency to designate N-checks as mandatory 4 Minatom Official Admits Iran is Hedging on Returning Bushehr SNF 5 US: Planning for plant affected - 6 Swiss: Debate set to continue over nuclear energy NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 US: NRC Grants TVA License Amendment to Produce Tritium at Watts Bar 8 US: NRC: Inspection errors hinder Davis-Besse restart 9 US: Perry plant shut down to fix fault in alarm 10 RU Russian Interest in Bulgarian Nuclear Power Plants NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 US: Sullivan questions BFI over radioactive trash at landfill* 12 Agency to designate N-checks as mandatory 13 US: AO denies blocking health study 14 US: Scarboro class-action lawsuit denied 15 US: Meritorious Claims for State Labor and Industry's Worker 16 US: Nuclear Plants Can Withstand Plane Crash AFP NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 17 US: Nevada outraged by eternal dump for nuclear waste 18 US: Spent fuel worries neighbors 19 Greenpeace challenges Swiss nuclear waste policy 20 Judge suspends NRC proceedings 21 US: Gubernatorial candidates split over nuclear waste 22 Terror fears over city nuclear waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS 23 Saddam 'has plans to use chemical weapons' 24 US: National service, debate on Iraq action urged 25 US: S.D. Missile Site to Become Museum 26 UK: Straw's admission fuels row on arms control 27 UK: Cabinet backs Blair on Iraq 28 UK: This dossier is not enough 29 Iraq Calls British Report 'Baseless' 30 UK: Expert: Dossier is 'trust me' report 31 Britain: Iraqis Sought Uranium 32 UK allows nuclear material sale to Iran 33 UK 'sells' bomb material to Iran 34 Gore joins Bush's Iraq critics 35 Iraq 'sought African uranium' 36 Blair's statement in full 37 Nobody is Safe 38 North Korea's nuke capability 39 UK: Straw's admission fuels row on arms control 40 Russia Will Maintain Military-Technical Ties With Iran 41 UK: What the dossier says US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 K-25, K-27 taken off the reverse auction 43 BNFL awards contract to clean up part of K-33 cleanup 44 DOE sets production hearings 45 States concerns about DOE's safety policy, personnel OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Ministers soften line on nuclear handout Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Terry Macalister Tuesday September 24, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Rising expectations that British Energy will receive a further injection of financial aid from the government yesterday sent shares in the nuclear generator soaring more than 80%. Wholesale electricity prices meanwhile tumbled as traders who anticipated shortages sold on the presumption that the nuclear reactors would keep running. The share bounceback came after almost daily falls for two weeks and despite more operational setbacks when a further two reactors were switched off at the weekend and group output cut to 40% of capacity. A deadline imposed by ministers for the company's future to be sorted out expires on Friday, but there are signs of a softening in their position. "There are no dream scenarios in this," said the energy minister, Brian Wilson, who inisisted that a decision was imminent. Suggestions of administration had not come from the government. Although Mr Wilson refused to rule out letting the company collapse, his words were interpreted as less hardline than earlier statements. Some investors appeared to believe a foreign buyer might emerge. Weekend reports suggested the Treasury was looking at extending the cash handout beyond the £410m emergency aid given after the company warned on September 9 of financial disaster. Shares in British Energy rose last night to 17.25p from 9.50p despite a statement that there have been no significant change in the company's circumstances since earlier this month and "discussions (with government) are continuing". A large amount of the stock was bought by Fidelity, the investment fund which is the second largest shareholder. Fidelity had let its holding in the generator - which provides a fifth of the country's electricity - fall from 10% to 7% but has now raised it back to 9%. Although the government believes many of BE's problems to be self-inflicted and is anxious not to be seen giving undue support to a lame duck, ministers have begun to realise the impact on jobs and the operational difficulties of letting a nuclear company fail financially. Falling wholesale power prices, partly as a result of liberalisation, have been the biggest problem for British Energy though its operational record has been patchy. Elexon, the power market manager, said two more reactors were out of action leaving Heysham and Dungeness providing no power to the national grid. British Energy has been lobbying the government to cut the £300m a year paid to state-run BNFL to handle nuclear waste while also seeking a cut in business rates and to be made exempt from the climate change levy. The generator also wants a restructuring of the electricity trading system, known as Neta, while environmentalists want the company shut down and are threatening to take the government to court for providing subsidies without first asking Brussels. The financial services authority is continuing to investigate after BE told analysts its finances were healthy three weeks before asking the government for help. Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] Friends of the Earth [http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuclear/index.htm l] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] World Nuclear Transport Institute [http://www.wnti.co.uk] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 2 Russia Will Maintain Military-Technical Ties With Iran * *September 24, 2002* News Content TehranTimes Navigation MOSCOW -- Russia will maintain its military-technical cooperation with Iran in line with its economic interests and its commitment to non-proliferation, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday. "Russia is independent in regard to its decisions on military-technical cooperation, including its cooperation with such countries as Iran or North Korea," Ivanov said, implicitly rejecting U.S. accusations that Moscow is enabling the two countries to acquire nuclear weapons. "Moscow is only supplying Tehran with weapons that cannot destabilize the situation in the region. These are defensive armored vehicles, anti-aircraft defense, firearms and anti-tank weapons," Ivanov said, as quoted by the Interfax news agency. "Tehran has never asked us to deliver short-range missiles or other offensive weapons systems," he said. Cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang "is also of an economic nature," Ivanov told Interfax. "Our cooperation with North Korea depends only on that country's economic possibilities," he said. In the military-technical sphere this currently amounted to repair and modernization of Soviet-era military equipment, he noted. ***************************************************************** 3 Japan: Agency to designate N-checks as mandatory [Daily Yomiuri On-Line] Yomiuri Shimbun In a bid to fill a loophole exposed by the recent spate of irregularities concerning safety inspection records for nuclear reactors, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has decided to make inspections that electric power companies conduct on their own plants mandatory, an agency official said Monday. Self-conducted inspections currently are voluntary. The agency, part of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, has also decided to set up a watchdog institution to pore over inspection records, even those compiled by voluntary inspections, the official said. Power plant operators that are found to have altered their voluntary inspection records would be punished under the revised law, the official said. The agency's decision will be discussed at a study panel the agency created following the recent string of irregularities, the official said. The conclusions of this discussion will form the basis of a bill the agency will submit to the next Diet session to revise the Electricity Enterprises Law. Recently, officials at power utility companies such as Tokyo Electric Power Co. have been found to have hidden inspection records mentioning cracks found in nuclear reactors. It has been revealed that the officials did not report the cracks to authorities because they believed they were too small to pose a safety risk. Under the present law, utilities have complete control over the self-conducted inspection process--they decide what is inspected, how it is inspected and what happens to inspection records. Thus, failure to report a the findings of a voluntary inspection to the agency is not technically a breach of any law. The official said the agency concluded that ambiguity surrounding the significance of the voluntary inspections was partly to blame for the latest rash of irregularities, and decided to redesignate the inspections "legally binding and self-conducted." Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 4 Minatom Official Admits Iran is Hedging on Returning Bushehr SNF Section on Russia's nuclear industry international co-operation and exports of Russian nuclear technology. MOSCOW - An official at Russia's Ministry for Atomic Energy, Minatom, has said that Iran is balking at contractual agreements stipulating the return of spent nuclear fuel after Russia has for months assured the world — particularly the United States — that all such contracts were ready to be signed, a Russian news agency reported. The official's assertion was confirmed to Bellona Web by a source close to the negotiations. www2.ijs.si Charles Digges, 2002-09-23 17:58 According to one source — an unidentified Minatom spokesman who was quoted by Interfax news agency on Friday — Tehran still has not signed an agreement, which was prepared by the Atomic Ministry last month and was described by ministry officials as "legally binding," outlining the transfer of the spent nuclear fuel, or SNF, from the controversial 1000-megawatt $800-million Bushehr reactor that Russia is building in Iran. According to the news report, the Minatom source said Moscow had asked Tehran recently to promptly sign the agreement — which had not been included as a clause in the original construction contracts — on the return of spent, low-grade radioactive material. "The delay seems to be [due to the preparation of] a new clause to the Russian-Iranian agreement on the Bushehr plant that has been presented to Iran," the official said according to Interfax. "As soon as Iran makes a judgment on the documents concerning the return of spent nuclear fuel, the clause will be added to the agreement." The ministry official added that Russia "will not supply nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant until an agreement on the [spent fuel's] return to Russia is signed." But the apparent foot dragging from the Iranian side about the eventual disposition of the SNF may not be a cause for a nuclear proliferation alarm. Speaking last Monday at the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual general conference in Vienna, Russia's Atomic Minister Aleksander Rumyantsev was quoted by the Global Security Newswire (GSN) as saying that Iran is not being uncooperative with Russia on the Bushehr issue. "On the contrary, at the general conference the Iranians proclaimed the complete openness of their nuclear activities," Rumyantsev said on Wednesday to a similar question posed to him by the Russian state news agency ITAR-TASS. Yury Bespalko, Minatom's long-time official spokesman, told Bellona Web on Monday that he, too, did not see any ill intent behind the delay in Iran's signing the contract that would return Bushehr's spent fuel to Russia. "As far as I know, all the contracts regarding the return of the [Bushehr spent] fuel are in order and the fuel will be returned," he said. The concern about Russia's reclaiming the waste from Iran centres on the fact that SNF, when reprocessed, yields plutonium that can be used in making nuclear weapons. The future of the SNF produced by the Bushehr plant has therefore been an especially unnerving question for the United States, which ranks Iran among the so-called "axis of evil," and has long contended that Russia's construction of the supposedly civil plant is a cover for the development of a weapons grade plutonium program in Iran. A spokesman for the US Embassy in Moscow told Bellona Web Monday that: "Our position on Bushehr is that it should not be built, that construction should not be completed." "If it is, then we believe it would be better that the Russians control the spent fuel, and not Iran," the spokesman added. Responsible officials at the Iranian Embassy in Moscow could not be reached for comment. The disclosure of Iran's stalling on the SNF contracts could be construed as an embarrassment in the wake of bold announcements last month by Deputy Nuclear Ministers Lev Ryabev and Valery Lebedev — and even Nuclear Minister Rumyantsev himself — that the SNF would be returned to Russia to prevent any proliferation risks. Ryabev said specifically at the time that the documents would indicate that: "Iran cannot use the SNF for any other purposes [than returning it to Russia]," and reiterated Minatom's assertion that Bushehr is a civilian project. Besides mollifying the United States about potential nuclear proliferation in Iran, the contracts for the return of SNF from Iran would serve another Minatom goal: giving Russia an edge on the international SNF import market. Should the Bushehr contracts fall through, it will represent a loss of millions for the ministry. Andrei Piontkovsky, a Moscow-based analyst with the Centre for International Studies, sees the leak about the unsigned condition of the documents by the Minatom official and the unnamed source with knowledge of the deal as a "positive" development. "These are positive statements because Minatom is not hiding anything," said Piontkovsky. "[Minatom] could have gone on and on saying the documents are signed and everything is under control, but this exposes the fact that Iran is looking for a weapons program." "[Russian] scientists working in Iran confirm this, and now Minatom[via the leaks] is suggesting that the tendency [toward a weapons program] exists, so now it will have to be talked about in the open, which is a positive move." Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman of the anti-nuclear group Ecodefence!, however, saw no signs of reform in the tentative Minatom admission of contract troubles with Iran. "[Minatom] has taken a very illiterate approach," he said. "First they will anger the United States if they lose the contract on SNF return should Iran refuse to return the fuel. Minatom also stands to lose money on the SNF imports it was counting on from Iran." "They've handled this poorly," added Slivyak. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 5 Planning for plant affected - [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, September 24, 2002 The governor was to have led drafting of an incentive package as the deadline nears for USEC's consideration. By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Gov. Paul Patton has canceled most of his activities this week and won't meet with Paducah officials to discuss an incentive package to entice USEC Inc. to build a new $1 billion uranium enrichment plant in Paducah. Paducah officials continue to worry that the fallout from last week's admission by Patton that he had a sexual affair with Clinton businesswoman Tina Conner will prevent him from being actively involved in drafting a competitive incentive package, which is due Oct. 25. John Cooper, Frankfort lobbyist for Paducah, said he is hopeful a planned meeting for Thursday will go on without the governor. "We've got some nuts and bolts things to talk about, so we're trying to set it up with the staff" in the governor's office and the Economic Development Cabinet. "We would have liked to have met with the governor this week, but that's not going to happen," Cooper said. He said it is imperative that the governor be involved no later than next week because of the deadline for submitting a final proposal in its competition with Piketon, Ohio. Patton cut back on his public schedule after acknowledging Friday that he had an affair with Conner, operator of the Birchtree Healthcare nursing home. Conner alleged that Patton used his influence to help her earth-moving company obtain status as a minority-owned business so it would be eligible for special state and federal contracts. She also alleged that he caused state regulators to crack down on the nursing home after the affair ended. Patton has denied the allegations. His schedule shows no public appearances until Friday, when he will be in Louisville for two meetings. His press secretary, Rusty Cheuvront, did not return telephone messages Monday. Paducah Mayor Bill Paxton and McCracken County Judge-Executive Danny Orazine said Patton's participation in finalizing the incentive package is vital. The plant is important to western Kentucky's economy because it will replace USEC's existing plant in western McCracken County, which employs about 1,400 people in high-paying jobs. "The timing for the city and county is absolutely terrible," Paxton said. "We're working on such a narrow window. Somebody has to lead this, and that's always been the governor. At this time, we still expect it to be him. That's why we want to meet with him as soon as possible." Patton said in an interview with the Sun — before the Conner allegations became public — that he would be actively involved in preparing the final incentive package. "That's my top economic development project in the state, and I'll spend whatever time is necessary in helping to put together a final plan," he said last month. ***************************************************************** 6 Swiss: Debate set to continue over nuclear energy swissinfo: The Swiss news and information June 20, 2002 7:26 PM Parliament has discussed the future of nuclear energy in Switzerland, but a consensus is still not in sight. The House of Representatives tackled the highly controversial issue on Thursday, debating a series of proposals. The arguments will continue during parliament's autumn session. Environmental organisations and centre-left political parties have called for the gradual shutdown of the country?s five nuclear power plants and an end to the reprocessing of spent fuel rods. The same groups also want to ban the construction of new reactors and to block any capacity upgrade over the next ten years. A previous moratorium ran out in 2000. Nuclear option The government has come out against these proposals, insisting it wants to retain the option of nuclear energy. According to a draft law presented to parliament, Swiss voters would be able to challenge the construction of new nuclear power plants. A ban would also be gradually imposed on the reprocessing of spent fuel rods. Last December, the Senate rejected the government?s draft law. Instead it voted to give the nuclear industry another ten years to reprocess spent rods. This decision was widely seen as the result of lobbying by the Swiss nuclear industry. Hans Rudolf Gubser of the Swiss power corporation, Axpo, argues that the Senate?s recommendation sent out a strong signal that there is political support for the nuclear industry. Reprocessing Anti-nuclear groups are concerned that the law will have no clout if the House of Representatives rejects the government?s proposals. In the past, Switzerland?s nuclear plants have sent their spent fuel rods to reprocessing plants in Britain and France, but protesters in Switzerland have often tried to block such transports for safety reasons. Environmental organisations are promoting renewable energy resources as a viable alternative to nuclear power. ?We are pushing solar and wind energy because Switzerland?s use of water power is still about 80 per cent,? says Kaspar Schuler from Greenpeace Switzerland. In 1997, electricity from nuclear power accounted for around 25 per cent of total energy supply in Switzerland, according to official statistics. Schuler dismisses suggestions that supplies generated by renewable energy resources could not replace nuclear power. ?It is a matter of investing in renewable energy,? Schuler told swissinfo. The nuclear industry, for its part, says it would welcome greater use of renewable energy sources, but it doubts whether the Swiss are willing to foot the bill. ?Voters last year overwhelmingly rejected the introduction of a new tax on non-renewable power to promote alternative sources of energy,? Gubser told swissinfo. Waste storage Switzerland does not have a permanent storage site for medium radioactive waste. The federal authorities have tried to mediate between environmental groups and the nuclear industry to try to find a suitable location for a long-term storage dump. Voters in central Switzerland rejected a plan for a storage site near Lake Lucerne in 1995. However, Axpo representative Gubser insists Switzerland should be allowed to follow international solutions for waste repositories. European comparison Switzerland?s neighbouring countries differ considerably in their stance towards nuclear energy. While Germany is planning to phase out the nuclear option, France generates about 70 per cent of its electricity with nuclear power plants. In a landmark vote in 1978, Austria decided against nuclear energy. There is continuing opposition against such plants in neighbouring countries, including Switzerland. Some observers say a decision by Finland in May to allow the construction of a new nuclear reactor could herald a new era for Europe?s nuclear industry. by Urs Geiser and Jonathan Summerton Related Sites - Federal Office for Energy - Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate - Swiss Association of Nuclear Energy - Anti-nuclear interest group - International Atomic Energy Agency © Copyright swissinfo SRI Swiss Radio International - an ***************************************************************** 7 NRC Grants TVA License Amendment to Produce Tritium at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant for Energy Department NRC: News Release - 2002 - 109 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-109 September 24, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) a license amendment to produce tritium at its Watts Bar nuclear power plant for use by the Department of Energy (DOE). The license amendment grants TVA permission to use tritium-producing burnable absorber rods at the Watts Bar facility, located near Spring City, Tenn. DOE has developed technology to produce tritium using lithium, rather than boron, in burnable absorber rods to be installed in the Watts Bar reactor. The irradiated rods are to be removed from the power plant and shipped to the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C., where DOE plans to extract the tritium. The NRC staff held public meetings on the issue in Rockville, Md., in February 1997, and in Sweetwater, Tenn., in August 1997. The NRC staff determined in September 1997 that TVA could place 32 of the burnable absorber rods in the Watts Bar reactor core to test the technology. TVA irradiated the rods until the spring of 1999 and removed them from the reactor. DOE has examined the rods and confirmed that the technology worked. A public meeting to discuss the tritium production and the NRCs process for reviewing the TVA license amendment request was held in Evensville, Tenn., last October. TVAs license amendment permits it to install up to 2,304 of the rods into the Watts Bar reactor and irradiate them for one fuel cycle, which lasts about 18 months. TVA will then remove the irradiated rods for shipment to DOEs tritium extraction facility at the Savannah River Site. DOE subsequently plans to have TVA install new rods in the reactor to repeat the process for the life of the plant. The TVA Watts Bar license amendment will be publicly accessible from the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Room sometime in September. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209. Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer Last revised Tuesday, September 24, 2002 ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: Inspection errors hinder Davis-Besse restart 09/24/02 John Mangels Plain Dealer Science Writer Flaws in FirstEnergy Corp.'s inspections this summer to judge how badly leaking coolant damaged its Davis-Besse nuclear plant have drawn extra federal scrutiny and a possible delay in the reactor's restart. The inspection gaffes broke two Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, the agency announced in a report released yesterday. One violation had to do with incomplete guidelines the inspectors follow; the other involved insufficient training. NRC inspectors double-checking FirstEnergy's work found that company inspectors had missed some corrosion and acid buildup - the consequence of years of undetected leaks from cracks in the reactor's lid. The acid in the reactor's coolant helps control the nuclear reaction but can rust metal parts. Leaking acid gradually ate a large hole in the lid, and airborne droplets corroded other parts. The Toledo-area plant has been shut down since Feb. 16 while the NRC supervises repairs. After the inspection problems surfaced in July, FirstEnergy halted the work for a week for retraining and other corrections. The inspections have since been redone, and the program is greatly improved, a spokesman said. The violations were "more than minor," but still in the least serious of the NRC's four categories, the report stated. They could have jeopardized the plant's safety if allowed to persist, it stated. The agency is performing follow-up checks and is not yet ready to OK FirstEnergy's corrosion inspection efforts, one of many items to be completed before the NRC will consider Davis-Besse's restart. The company says it still believes the reactor can be ready by Dec. 7. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Perry plant shut down to fix fault in alarm 09/24/02 Susan Jaffe Plain Dealer Reporter Defective equipment at the Perry nuclear power plant triggered a sudden shutdown of the reactor Sunday, the second unscheduled shutdown of the Lake County plant in three months. It will take a week to repair the problem in a system that sent a false alarm of damage in the turbine. The turbine was not affected, said Todd Schneider, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp., which owns the plant. The false signal occurred during a weekly test of the device, located in a non-radioactive area of the facility. Public health and the environment were not at risk, Schneider said. While the plant is shut down, workers will also plug a leaky seal on a water circulation pump and repair a valve that helps control the nuclear reaction inside the reactor. In June, a short circuit in a generator at Perry closed the plant for seven days, Schneider said. FirstEnergy is also repairing the disabled Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, 70 miles west of Cleveland, which has been out of service since Feb. 16 after an 8-inch-diameter hole was discovered in the reactor's steel lid. Also during the weekend, the utility reduced power to 68 percent at Unit 2 of its Beaver Valley nuclear plant, just over the Ohio border in Shippingport, Pa., to repair a water circulating system. Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said it was a good idea to use the down time at Perry to fix other things. "There may be some sensitivity, after Davis-Besse, to fix leakage problems at the first opportunity," he said. "Their option was to start back up and wait until the next refueling. It's more prudent to fix it now." To make up the lost nuclear power, Schneider said, FirstEnergy will rely on power from its coal plants and purchase electricity from other companies. Because energy demand is low at this time of year, FirstEnergy will not have to ask any of its large customers to cut back on energy consumption, Schneider said. The problem at Perry occurred early Sunday morning, and operators reported it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 93 minutes later. NRC spokeswoman Victoria Mitlyng said the company had four hours to notify the agency because the incident was not considered an emergency. For the same reason, she said, state and local officials, as well as some news media, did not have to be contacted. She said the NRC will oversee the Perry repairs but does not have to approve them before the company restarts the plant. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sjaffe@plaind.com, 216-999-4822 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 RU Russian Interest in Bulgarian Nuclear Power Plants Pravda. ¹ Sep, 23 2002 Russia is highly interested in the privatization of the power utilities in Bulgaria, the modernization of the old ones and the construction of new units of nuclear power plants. Putin said that after his second meeting with the Bulgarian president for the last couple of days. He underlined that Russia did not strive at any special attitude or preferences. Russia only wants its companies to be equal participants in the tenders. Putin and Parvanov met first at the Sochi Residence. On Saturday, they met in the Kremlin palace shortly before the departure of the Bulgarian president. © NEFTEGAZ Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When ***************************************************************** 11 Sullivan questions BFI over radioactive trash at landfill* MILTON J. VALENCIA, Herald News Staff September 24, 2002 Herald News Photo by DAVE SOUZA *FALL RIVER -- State Rep. David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River, is calling on the Board of Health and the state Department of Environmental Protection to research copies of invoices Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. sent to three communities, saying the bills raise concerns that the trash company has accepted radioactive waste from those towns.* But a BFI official says Sullivan misread the invoices and jumped to conclusions. And James Smith, the city's director of municipal services, said the invoices seem to appear BFI actually took the "standard operating procedures" to make sure no radioactive waste was allowed in the landfill. "It appears by the invoices that all the precautions have been followed," Smith said. Still, BFI and Smith's comments don't reassure Sullivan, who announced his concern at a press conference Monday outside the dump, known as Mt. Trashmore. At issue is three invoices BFI sent to Whitman, Norton and Albington in June, which Sullivan supposedly received copies of from what he called an anonymous source. The service provided under those invoices is listed under "radioactive trash load," so Sullivan questioned if the communities were bringing radioactive waste to the dump here, pointing out it would be a violation of the contract the city has with the company. He called the invoices another "red flag," raising his suspicions of BFI's operations, pointing out the company in the past has been cited for accepting sludge from outside communities, a violation of the contract. The city is also involved in litigation with BFI, accusing the company of disguising waste as cover material. "I'm here to alert the public," Sullivan said. "This is one more piece of a puzzle that needs to be looked at. "It's my responsibility to pass these off to the proper authorities and have them looked at," he said. But Rob DeRosa, BFI's local site manager, says Sullivan did not read beyond the radioactive trash load description. He pointed out that the three cities BFI billed were charged an environmental consultant fee, a charge for having to supervise the truck, a replacement vehicle fee, and a truck downtime fee. DeRosa said those charges -- all listed on the invoices -- were for the extra services BFI provided when officials pulled the truck off the site and examined it for radioactive waste. He also noted that, at the bottom of the invoices, there is a warning label reading: "Transporting any unauthorized hazardous waste to this facility for disposal is prohibited by law." DeRosa explained that a scale at BFI's entrance has a radioactive waste monitor. If any truck has waste that exceeds the monitor's regulations, it is pulled aside and a consultant is called in to examine the vehicle. Then, the respective city is charged for that service, for the time required to pull the truck aside, and for the workers supervising the truck. And, in some cases, the company is given a replacement truck in case the original truck is examined for an extended period of time. Smith and Thomas McGuire, the city's corporation counsel, confirmed Monday that the procedure is the same practice BFI has always followed. DeRosa said there have been cases where a truck was stopped by the radioactive monitor because it contained kitty litter from a cat that underwent chemotherapy. At times, diapers from babies who were in the hospital would set off the radar. Smith said there has been a case where a truck was stopped because it contained three tissues from a woman who had thyroid treatment. "We expect that when there is (caution raised on the monitor) the truck will be removed immediately," Smith said. He did say Monday that he is still researching the issue, however, having only learned of the invoices from the news media after Sullivan's press conference. Smith stressed, though, that it appears by the invoices that BFI acted properly. Sullivan still isn't convinced, though, noting that BFI is the agency responsible for checking this radioactive waste. He compared it to the "fox watching the chicken coup," and pointed out BFI's consultants were responsible for testing the environment. He said the city did not know the landfill released contaminants until its own consultants, Fuss & O'Neill of Connecticut, tested for contaminants. He said the city should consider hiring Fuss & O'Neill to check for radioactive waste in the dump. "I understand (BFI's) response, but they've also said they've been good neighbors," Sullivan said. "What this has done is raise these questions, questions that need to be answered to ensure the safety of our drinking water." Milton Valencia may be reached at mvalencia@heraldnews.com. /©The Herald News 2002/ ***************************************************************** 12 Agency to designate N-checks as mandatory September 24, 2002 12:52am In a bid to fill a loophole exposed by the recent spate of irregularities concerning safety inspection records for nuclear reactors, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has decided to make inspections that electric power companies conduct on their own plants mandatory, an agency official said Monday. Self-conducted inspections currently are voluntary. The agency, part of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, has also decided to set up a watchdog institution to pore over inspection records, even those compiled by voluntary inspections, the official said. Power plant operators that are found to have altered their voluntary inspection records would be punished under the revised law, the official said. The agency's decision will be discussed at a study panel the agency created following the recent string of irregularities, the official said. The conclusions of this discussion will form the basis of a bill the agency will submit to the next Diet session to revise the Electricity Enterprises Law. Recently, officials at power utility companies such as Tokyo Electric Power Co. have been found to have hidden inspection records mentioning cracks found in nuclear reactors. It has been revealed that the officials did not report the cracks to authorities because they believed they were too small to pose a safety risk. Under the present law, utilities have complete control over the self-conducted inspection process--they decide what is inspected, how it is inspected and what happens to inspection records. Thus, failure to report a the findings of a voluntary inspection to the agency is not technically a breach of any law. The official said the agency concluded that ambiguity surrounding the significance of the voluntary inspections was partly to blame for the latest rash of irregularities, and decided to redesignate the inspections "legally binding and self-conducted." Copyright 2002 The Daily Yomiuri Copyright © 2002 Financial Times Limited, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 13 AO denies blocking health study [The Hawk Eye Special Edition] Saturday, September 21, 2002 [Unknown dangers at IAAP] IAAP contractor maintains it has been forthcoming with workers' medical records. By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye MIDDLETOWN — American Ordnance, the prime contractor at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, denied Friday it has refused to cooperate with former workers and University of Iowa health researchers in releasing X–rays and other medical records. "We have cooperated fully with them in attempting to develop a process to provide them access to any information they need, while at the same time maintaining the confidentiality and control of personal records and X–rays," Tony Noll, director of business development, said in prepared statement. He said the plant offered to make the records and X–rays available for review at the IAAP or to provide them "under controlled conditions" for review at the university, which the researchers rejected. Noll also said the university team, lead by Lar Fuortes, an epidemiologist at the College of Public Health, also rejected American Ordnance's offer to make copied X–rays available for review. "American Ordnance has suggested a number of alternatives to university officials, which we believe would satisfy their requirements, while at the same time providing assurance that the records would be available to former employees in the future," Noll said. Fuortes said earlier this week that in the initial months of his team's survey of the health of former IAAP nuclear weapons workers, company officials were extremely cooperative, but in the past six months "have been stonewalling everyone." The issue apparently centers around the plant wanting to be indemnified against the loss of patient confidentiality and the loss, alteration or destruction of the X–rays and records. Gov. Tom Vilsack's office recently called on Army officials to help resolve the dispute, which they are apparently attempting to do. Noll said that since 1999, American Ordnance has provided copies of medical records to 381 former employees or their survivors. He added that the company no longer possesses some employee medical records because when the Atomic Energy Commission closed down its IAAP nuclear weapons operations in the mid–1970s, many employees transferred to the new facility in Texas. "Their records were transferred with them and are no longer available at the IAAP," Noll said. Fuortes researchers are working under contracts with the Department of Energy to assess the health of former nuclear weapons workers and to help them apply for federal compensation. Congress authorized a $150,000 compensation package to workers, or their survivors, who were made ill or died from exposure to silica, beryllium or radiation as a result of their work in producing nuclear weapons. The Atomic Energy Commission assembled and test fired components of nuclear weapons at IAAP from the late 1940s to the mid–1970s. The University of Iowa researchers also have begun collecting the names of former Army workers who made conventional weapons and will begin assessing their health. Noll said former workers, their survivors or representatives may call the plant at (319) 753–7428 if they have questions or want copies of medical records. "American Ordnance is committed to the support of any initiative which may impact the health or safety of current or former workers at the (IAAP)," Noll said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll ***************************************************************** 14 Scarboro class-action lawsuit denied The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff All claims have been dismissed in a class-action lawsuit involving residents of Scarboro and other neighborhoods and alleged dangerous exposure over more than a 50-year period to radioactive and other toxic substances in Oak Ridge. Moreover, a federal court in Knoxville stated that discrimination was not present in one of the original cases, and warned the plaintiffs' counsel that their "actions will not go on indefinitely as they attempt to flesh out some certifiable class and thereby coerce settlements from the defendants which have no benefit to the public." Judge James Jarvis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Knoxville handed down the Sept. 17 decision denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of several hundred thousand persons allegedly exposed to radioactive emissions from federal facilities here and granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. "The classes proposed for certification and others which the plaintiffs have suggested, are overly broad, ill-defined and unmanageable in a class setting," wrote Jarvis. "Accordingly the plaintiffs' motions to certify are denied. All individual claims are clearly barred by the one-year statue of limitations and the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on those claims." Because the plaintiffs did not suggest any "conceivable certifiable class," the claims were dismissed "in their entirety," said Jarvis. The two cases -- Fannie Ball, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., et al., and Steven L. Heiser, et al. v. Union Carbide -- were filed in January 2001. Plaintiffs in the original cases were residents either in Oak Ridge or the surrounding area. Most lived in the Scarboro neighborhood, just over the ridge from the Y-12 weapons plant. Defendants included contractors of the federal facilities. Also named were Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and John A Gordon, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. "Thirteen separate defendants operated the Oak Ridge facility for a more than fifty-year period," wrote Jarvis. "The plaintiffs have listed fifteen separate toxins which may have escaped the Oak Ridge facilities during that period. A few of the times when a specific toxin may have escaped are known, but the vast majority are unknown, if they in fact occurred. "Some were allegedly by air, some by land and some by water," continued Jarvis. "The effect that these emissions may have had is unknown, and by any modern scientific standards, unknowable." Jarvis noted that only one disease, thyroid cancer, has been linked with an emission, and that during the period of the 1950s. The court relied heavily on a research report funded by the Department of Energy and overseen by the Oak Ridge Health Agreement Steering Panel. The DOE, through a contract with the state Department of Health, hired private firms to study the federal facility's environmental releases and potential off-site health effects. ORHASP was formed for oversight. The report, completed in 1999, cited two groups of people who might have been affected by past releases from Oak Ridge plants: "Local children drinking milk from a 'backyard' cow or goat in the early 1950s; and fetuses carried in the 1950s and early 1960s by women who routinely ate fish taken from the contaminated creeks and rivers located downstream of the Oak Ridge Reservation." The plaintiffs claimed to have been exposed to a vast number of toxins including plutonium-239/240, tritium, uranium-233, uranium-235, iodine-131, iodine-133, cesium-137, strontium-90, krypton-85, mercury, lead, cadmium, cesium and beryllium. They claimed to have been at risk for contracting a vast number of diseases, including leukemia, thyroid cancer, breast cancer and many others. The court noted that "vestiges of discrimination are not present in the Ball case because the Scarboro neighborhood has been integrated since the 1950s. To find otherwise would mean the statute of limitations would never be tolled unless every black person left Scarboro," wrote Jarvis. Scarboro historically has been settled by a predominantly black population. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com. border="0"> [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 15 Meritorious Claims for State Labor and Industry's Worker Compensation Administration Benefits National Nuclear Workers for Justice PRESS RELEASE September 24, 2002 Contacts: Vina Colley Tel. 740-259-4688 email: vcolley@earthlink.net Gai Oglesbee Tel. 509-943-9307 email: goglesbee@att.net Meritorious Claims for State Labor and Industry's Worker Compensation Administration Benefits The US Department of Energy (DOE) designates, "A positive determination pursuant to Part 852 has no effect on the scope of State workers' compensation proceedings, the conditions for compensation, or the rights and obligations of the participants in the proceedings: provided that consistent with subtitle D such a determination will prevent DOE and may prevent a DOE contractor from contesting an applicant's workers' compensation claim." There is no "superfluous" language used by the DOE. The agency uses words like "provided that," "provise," or "stipulation" which means there are no "if's," here. "A positive determination has no effect on compensation proceedings if such a determination will prevent (or may prevent) DOE or its contractor from contesting a claim," said Vina Colley (Piketon claimant). Under normal operating procedures, the State L&I administrators know employees will likely contest claims since workers are forced to sue their employers to get workers' compensation. In this way, the State is expected to hear both sides. Part 852 is not intended to "change" the way the State's workers' compensation program normally operates - as to scope, conditions, rights, etc. The workers' compensation policies vary from State to State. The only departure from normal operations will be that because of the "Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Program Act of 2000," Subtitle D, the contractor may not be able to contest a claim. "Is DOE saying they won't take any action to contest these claims," said Gai Oglesbee (Hanford claimant). "If that is the intent, then that is good news." It seems the DOE is saying the employee is assumed to be worthy of compensation without argument; but, the DOE contractors "maybe not" inference is of concern from a legal standpoint. The contractors and their insurers have every legal right to contest these claims. The clause was written this way because DOE (or any other federal agency) knows it can't legally bar private business or a DOE contractor from taking any legal action they may deem necessary to their business interests or "the conduct of their business." The DOE can't, under current law, legally mandate that their contractors refrain from contesting any legal claims against them. So, the "may prevent" language is meant to satisfy the legal reality involved, but along with other DOE actions, is also meant - albeit quietly - to discourage DOE contractors from contesting these claims. Oglesbee and Colley agree they are hopeful when the DOE seems to be sending a message to their contractors that, "It isn't necessarily in your best interests, in terms of current and future business with us, to contest these claims...It's making us look bad...We want this compensation issue dispensed with us as quickly as possible." ***************************************************************** 16 Nuclear Plants Can Withstand Plane Crash AFP [Three Mile Island: Safe?] Three Mile Island: Safe? In Depth: Faces of 9/11 [http://www.discovery.com/911/911.html] On TV: Watch "New Detectives" Sep. 23 — U.S. nuclear power plants are capable of withstanding a terrorist plane crash attack such as those of Sep. 11, experts said Friday in the journal Science. Citing what they termed "exaggerated fears," the 19 scientists and nuclear safety experts said the modern design of nuclear plants, including "reinforced steel-lined 1.5-meter (5-foot) thick concrete walls," effectively dispelled those fears. "No airplane, regardless of size, can fly through such a wall," they said. "To tell people that they and the Earth are in mortal danger from events that cannot cause significant public harm is to play into the hands of terrorists by making a minor event a cause for life-endangering panic," said the article. It cited a 1988 experiment at the Sandia National Research Laboratory in New Mexico, in which an F-8 jet fighter, mounted on rails and traveling at 775 kilometers (480 miles) an hour, was crashed into a wall such as those encasing modern nuclear reactions. The plane's fuselage, including fuel tanks, penetrated only two centimeters (0.78 inch) and its jet engines only five, said the article. However, detractors of the experiment noted that the wall against which the F-8 was crashed was mobile and had, at the moment of impact, been forced backward dozens of feet. They also say a commercial jetliner such as those used in the Sep. 11 attacks has far more mass than the F-8 and, as such, has far greater penetrating force. Rebutting that, the Science article said a large jetliner involved in such a crash would behave much like a sealed preserve jar, absorbing most of the impact force itself. The detractors said, too, that although a nuclear reactor's core is protected by the 1.5-meter walls, its cooling system and spent nuclear fuel storage areas are not. Last February, Tom Ridge, head of the U.S. Homeland Security Office, had warned that domestic nuclear power plants were "vulnerable" and that their security should be re-thought in the face of the new terrorist threat. Before Sep. 11, the idea of using an airliner as a missile against a nuclear power plant was not even a consideration in the construction of these plants, he said. Copyright 2002 AFP. Click here for restrictions ***************************************************************** 17 Nevada outraged by eternal dump for nuclear waste Times Online September 24, 2002 From Roland Watson, Yucca Mountain, Nevada Map of proposed dump site BEYOND Las Vegas, the neon playground of instant riches and overnight ruin, nuclear scientists in the desert mountains are planning for eternity. A thousand feet underground they are preparing to receive deliveries of highly radioactive waste. The waste will arrive from across the United States every two days for 24 years. Once inside, a total of 70,000 tonnes of spent fuel will be put into more than 11,000 titanium-covered, corrosion-resistant tubes costing about £250,000 each. The fuel will be monitored for 300 years, then the mountain will be sealed. In 10,000 years the site will still be emitting dangerous levels of radiation. Such facts mean that the plan to bury the detritus of America’s commercial and military nuclear programmes, which will create by far the world’s largest and most potent toxic dump, crackles with controversy. Turning a slice of the desert into a giant radioactive repository has enraged the people of Nevada — in particular the casinos, which are worried that the punters will decide that playing the slot machines downwind of the mountain is not worth the gamble. Elsewhere, protesters talk of terrorist attacks on Yucca Mountain, a possibility that does not seem so remote after September 11. Yucca Mountain, a long, flat ridge of volcanic ash 5,000ft high and 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is one of the most secret places in the United States. The Nevada nuclear test site is bordered on three sides by the fabled Nellis Air Force Base. From the main road along its southern edge, A10 Warthog aircraft can be seen dropping bombs on a dried-out lake bed in terrain that could pass for Iraq. Out of sight lies the Holy Grail of conspiracy theorists: Area 51, the location of the US military’s most highly classified experiments, a site that officially does not exist. This is where the US honed its atomic and military proficiency. The view from the top of Yucca Mountain is pockmarked with towers and other test facilities, relics of a plan that was aborted in 1972 to fire nuclear-powered rockets to Mars. The next chapter in the area’s association with nuclear experiments will be the longest. The waste plan begins at the north entrance to the proposed repository, a temporary village of containers, tents and arc lights. From there a five-mile tunnel runs deep into the mountain, off which will run scores of other tunnels where the waste will be kept. Teams of biologists, hydrologists, geologists, climatologists, volcanologists and seismologists have given the best parts of their working lives to the 25-year-old project. They say that science is on their side. Patrick Rowe, senior scientist with the project, dismisses fears about terrorists. “You could hit the surface of the mountain with a nuclear weapon and still not deter the repository’s ability to contain the waste,” he said. Scientists calculate the chances of a volcano at one in 70 million a year. Earthquakes are more likely, as Nevada experiences more seismic activity than any other state except California. But the repository will be designed to withstand even severe quakes. Water contamination is highly unlikely: there is very little rain, and the moisture that does make it through the mountain drains into an isolated basin. Opponents of the plan are unimpressed. “We can’t predict tomorrow’s weather, let alone what geological events are going to take place in the next millennia,” Gary Skulnik, of Greenpeace, said. “If they built a site that could withstand earthquakes and seepage, it would be a miracle. But we can’t bank on miracles.” Drilling at Yucca began in 1978 as the authorities began to confront the problems created by America’s nuclear policy. The US has never reprocessed its waste — by then it had become cheaper to buy uranium than extract it from reprocessing. So the search began for a permanent home for the spent fuel that was building up at 131 power plants in 39 states, where the waste facilities were only ever designed to be temporary. In July President Bush approved the project, but five outstanding law suits and the need to win the blessing of the Nuclear Agency Commission means that the first shipments will probably not arrive before 2010. In terms of security, Yucca has undoubted advantages. It is remote, rugged, and will be guarded by former special forces troops and helicopter gunships. But its location means that the waste has to travel by road, rail and barge across 44 states. The convoys have been branded “mobile Chernobyls” by protest groups, and it is feared that they are open invitations to terrorists. Sunday Times. Copyright 2002 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html] ***************************************************************** 18 Spent fuel worries neighbors [http://www.mainetoday.com] Monday, September 23, 2002 Spent fuel worries neighbors Maine Yankee's decommis sioning progresses fast Press Herald Staff Reporter, Copyright © 2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. WISCASSET — Don Hudson worries about what will happen when the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant is completely dismantled — when all that remains is a transformer switchyard and an above-ground, dry-cask storage facility that will hold highly radioactive spent fuel until the federal Department of Energy takes it away. Hudson, president of the Chewonki Foundation, an environmental education organization located slightly more than a mile from the plant, is worried because he knows the process of moving the fuel to an approved government site could take decades. "Just think about how easy it would be for people to forget about Maine Yankee," said Hudson, 52, who also serves on the Maine Yankee Community Advisory Panel. "You can rest assured that I am not going to forget about it. I am probably going to be working on this for the rest of my life." Meanwhile, the dismantling continues. On Sept. 12, Maine Yankee removed the reactor pressure vessel from the hulking gray containment dome where it has rested since the plant began producing electricity commercially in 1972. It was lifted onto a skid, where it is now awaiting shipment, by barge, to the Barnwell Waste Management Facility in Barnwell, S.C. The 1,200-mile ocean trip will take about two weeks. Maine Yankee spokesman Eric Howes said the reactor vessel cannot be shipped until water levels in the Savannah River have risen enough for the barge to travel upriver. A drought in the South has lowered river levels to the point that it is now impossible. "They've received some rain this summer, but it is still not enough," said Howes, who would not speculate on how long the vessel might have to stay in Maine. Hudson and federal regulators said the company's inability to remove the reactor vessel from Wiscasset doesn't diminish Maine Yankee's accomplishments. Hudson toured the facility earlier this month. Many of the buildings, including the turbine building, have been demolished. Other buildings, their walls caved in, resemble a Middle East war zone. "The progress that they have made has been monumental. I was blown away by what I saw. I would say that things have been going very well," Hudson said. "The removal of the reactor vessel from the containment dome is certainly a milestone," he said. "It will allow for the complete removal of the rest of the buildings. All we'll be left with is a spent-fuel storage facility. "But what I am worried about is the long term. This fuel could be here beyond 2028, and I'm not satisfied that this country has the political will to find a resting place for such nasty materials." Ray Shadis, executive director for Friends of the Coast, an environmental watchdog organization, said his organization remains unconvinced that the site will be left clean. "I wouldn't take my kids out there to pick blueberries," said Shadis, who also serves on the Community Advisory Panel. Inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that Maine Yankee in the last two months has successfully completed two of its most challenging decommissioning tasks: moving some of the spent fuel to the new $70 million storage facility and removing the reactor vessel from the dome. "You can take a breath now. They handled it well," said Randy Ragland, a radiation specialist and NRC safety inspector. "They have demonstrated that when they get a big project, they can muster the resources." Howes said the $500 million decommissioning project is about 67 percent complete. Decommissioning began in 1997. Howes, who will be out of a job in a couple of years, said every building on the site — even Frank's Fission Chips, which has served breakfast and lunch to Maine Yankee workers for years — will be gone by the end of 2004. Howes says it is possible that a regional entity will be formed to oversee the spent-fuel storage facilities at Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee in Haddam, Conn., and Rowe Yankee in Massachusetts . The three nuclear power plants are in different stages of decommissioning. "The company will still exist, but it will be very different. And yes, (the issue of paying for spent fuel storage) is causing tensions," Howes said. In 1998, Maine Yankee sued the federal Department of Energy for $100 million to cover the cost of temporary storage. The lawsuit, which is still pending in a federal court of claims, alleges that the DOE failed to meet its obligation to remove high-level radioactive waste from the site. Ideally, Maine Yankee already would have shipped 60 containers of spent nuclear fuel to a storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but lawsuits could tie up that plan indefinitely. Yucca Mountain would allow the government to store high-level nuclear waste from 131 temporary locations in 39 states at one site. The site is about 100 miles from Las Vegas. The lawsuit leaves Maine Yankee with responsibility for maintaining and staffing the dry-cask storage facility until the dispute can be settled. Mike Webb, who is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's project manager in charge of the Maine Yankee decommissioning project, agreed that decommissioning has "gone reasonably well." The NRC expects to approve a license-termination plan — a blueprint for how the Maine Yankee site will be cleaned up —sometime early next year, Webb says. "The big problem for Maine Yankee has been Yucca Mountain," Webb said. "It has created a lot of extra expenses, a lot of delays and a lot of uncertainty. For a business to see this type of uncertainty is a heavy burden." Copyright © Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Greenpeace challenges Swiss nuclear waste policy swissinfo/Swiss Radio International. swissinfo June 8, 2002 10:43 AM The Swiss branch of the environmental organisation, Greenpeace, has called on the government to rethink its nuclear waste policy. The call comes as the House of Representatives prepares to debate a revision of the country?s nuclear energy law on June 19. Greenpeace claims that a proposed modification of the existing law could lead to the exportation of nuclear waste to Russia. The organisation says it is lobbying parliamentarians not to support a declaration of intent signed by the Swiss nuclear industry and Russian authorities in 1998. Around 20 Greenpeace activists - dressed in white and wearing masks - demonstrated outside the parliament building in the federal capital, Bern, this week as parliamentarians arrived for the summer session. ?We are calling on authorities to ban the reprocessing [of nuclear waste] and to prohibit the export of Swiss nuclear waste to foreign countries,? said Greenpeace spokeswoman Eva Geel. Contractual obligation Switzerland already sends nuclear waste to Britain and France but is contractually obliged to take this back once it has been reprocessed. However, under the deal signed with the Russians, nuclear waste would not be returned to Switzerland for final storage, Geel told swissinfo. ?If nuclear waste comes back to Switzerland and has to be stored for thousands of years, it will destroy the image of clean nuclear energy. So the obvious solution for them is to send it to Russia and forget about it,? she added. But Werner Buehlmann, head of the nuclear energy division at the federal energy office, said nuclear waste would not be exported to Russia unless ?very strict conditions? had been fulfilled. ?One of these conditions is that the foreign country must already have final storage facilities with an internationally accepted level [of security],? Buehlmann said. ?The conditions for the export of nuclear waste must be fixed in a bilateral agreement between that state and Switzerland, and we think that for the foreseeable future Russia will not be a candidate to fulfil our obligations in that field,? he added. by Scott Capper and Ramsey Zarifeh Related Sites - Greenpeace Switzerland (German and French) © Copyright swissinfo SRI Swiss Radio International - an ***************************************************************** 20 Judge suspends NRC proceedings Story published in the Johnson City Press: 9/24/2002. By Chris Garland Erwin Bureau ERWIN ? A judge appointed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel reviewing petitions filed in August to stop Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. from amending their license has suspended proceedings, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will file a revised notice in the Federal Registry. The first public noticed filed on July 9 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a 30-day notice for anyone to request a public hearing on the agency?s finding of ?no significant impact? regarding a Blended Low Enriched Uranium project. Judge Alan S. Rosenthal questioned the completeness of the public notice in a memorandum filed on Sept. 11. The NRC said Friday they will file a new notice in the Federal Registry. All petitions made to the NRC with the first notice will be included in the consideration process with any new petitions. NFS is filing for the license amendment to its special nuclear materials license that would authorize construction and operation of a uranyl nitrate storage building at its Banner Hill Road location. Hearing requests were filed by local individuals and organizations before the 30-day deadline to seek an opportunity for a hearing on the license amendment. The NFS endeavor, called project BLEU, would use highly enriched uranium left over from the cold war, that, when down-blended into a suitable fuel, could be used in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors. ?The most important thing to remember is that the BLEU project is good for the region and the country with no significant impact to the environment or the public,? NFS spokesman Tony Treadway said. ?Six years and millions of dollars on studies, analyses, public hearings and reviews by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TVA, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission, Tennessee Historic Commission and independent environmental firms all agree that the project does not pose a significant risk. Their conclusions were made independently of NFS? own assessment.? Many of the petitions sent to the NRC ask that a public hearing be held and a full Environmental Impact Statement be conducted before granting NFS an amended license. Rosenthal said in his memorandum on Sept. 11 the Federal Register notice was inadequate in that it failed to properly note the opportunity for a hearing. Monday, Rosenthal said, ?I agree that the staff?s (NRC) proposed course of action is entirely reasonable in this most unusual situation and also concur in the staff?s belief that the issuance of the revised notice will not affect my jurisdiction over the adjudication of the existing hearing requests. ?The licensee may reply to any supplements or new hearing requests within 10 days of their filing. In the meantime, all further consideration of the current hearing requests is suspended.? Treadway said the NRC has not given a date they plan to file the revised notice in the Federal Registry. /(Contact Chris Garland at cgarland@johnsoncitypress.com )./ © 2001-02 Johnson City Press and Associated Press All Rights Johnson City Press 204 W.Main St. ? Johnson City, Tennessee 37605 423.929.3111 For all other inquiries, ***************************************************************** 21 Gubernatorial candidates split over nuclear waste [startribune.com] Tom Meersman Star Tribune Published Sep 24, 2002 NUKE24 Nuclear waste storage, one of the most emotional and hard-fought controversies in Minnesota during the past decade, is also the most divisive environmental issue among the four major candidates for governor this year. DFLer Roger Moe and the Green Party's Ken Pentel oppose any additional storage of nuclear waste at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in Red Wing. Republican Tim Pawlenty and the Independence Party's Tim Penny favor allowing more waste to be produced and kept at the plant until a federal repository or private storage is available elsewhere in the nation. On various other environmental and natural resource issues -- global warming, water quality, natural resource funding and Minnesota energy development -- the candidates have mostly similar positions, although there are some important differences in their priorities. A 1994 legislative compromise allowed storage of highly radioactive waste in 17 outdoor casks at Prairie Island, which expected to run out of space in its underwater storage pool by 2002. The company later revised that date to 2007. The plant is owned by Northern States Power Co., which has since merged with another company and become a subsidiary. Although a national repository is under construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the project still faces numerous challenges, needs to acquire a license and is not likely to be available until 2013. Xcel has plans for an interim storage site on an Indian reservation in Utah, but that is uncertain. With time running out, approval to store more casks probably will be needed to keep Prairie Island running past 2007, posing a major policy question for Minnesota's next governor. Penny said he favors more storage at Prairie Island unless there are better alternatives. Prairie Island supplies about 20 percent of the electricity for 1.5 million Xcel customers in the Upper Midwest. Pawlenty, who served in the Legislature during the 1994 debate and voted for the agreement allowing the casks, said he would do so again as long as the additional storage would be temporary. As in 1994, he said more casks would have to be coupled with requirements that Xcel invest more in alternative energy. Moe also voted for the 1994 compromise bill but said the agreement established a limit on the number of casks that should not be changed. "That's what I agreed to then and I agree to that now," he said. If that means the plant must shut down in 2007, he said, perhaps it can be converted to burn natural gas. Pentel said that the 1994 compromise was wrong and that legislators extended a risky situation. "If you care about the state, you're not going to put the most lethal material in human history on the shores of your most precious river when all you're trying to do is boil water [to produce electricity]," he said. Prairie Island is in the Mississippi River. Pentel said the risks of nuclear plants have been underscored by terrorist attacks. As governor, he said, he would order the shutdown within one year of the Prairie Island plant and Xcel's nuclear plant in Monticello, about 45 miles northwest of the Twin Cities. Pet projects When asked if they had pet projects to benefit the environment or natural resources, Penny and Pawlenty mentioned the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which used a combination of federal and state money to pay farmers to convert 100,000 acres of farmland along the Minnesota River and its tributaries to wildlife habitat. The program encourages natural vegetation along the waterways to reduce soil erosion and runoff from fertilizers and pesticides. Both candidates want to extend the program to other rivers and to work with conservation groups to ensure success. Moe, who received the endorsement of the Sierra Club's Minnesota chapter last week, said he is eager to expand the use of wind-produced electricity and cleaner fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel that use Minnesota corn and soybeans. Pentel has proposed a crash program to cut electricity consumption dramatically. All of the candidates advocate more production of ethanol and biodiesel, and greater development of wind machines and power plants that burn renewable fuels. Natural resources Another issue -- advocated most strongly by hunting and fishing groups -- is whether Minnesota should dedicate a small portion of its sales tax revenue to a special fund for natural resource protection. Voters would need to approve the proposal as a constitutional amendment. All of the candidates agree that the state Department of Natural Resources needs a stable funding source for wildlife habitat, parks and trails. Pawlenty and Moe support the sales tax proposal. Penny, who has endorsed the idea, said he also has asked conservation groups to look at other funding options. Pentel said he agrees with the goals but not with the funding idea. Dedicated funds have a way of becoming "warped," he said, and the state needs flexibility in how it spends revenue. The candidates are aware that Minnesota faces a long list of environmental problems, including global warming and its potential effects on tourism, forest products and agriculture; human and animal waste in lakes and streams; ozone alerts in the metro area; chronic wasting disease in deer, and development pressures on the state's wetlands, lakeshores and open spaces. Questions, criticisms The candidates have also been criticized on some issues for perceived weaknesses. Pawlenty's pledge not to raise taxes has put him on the spot: Would environmental protection get adequate money under his leadership? To that concern, Pawlenty responded: "We don't have a spending problem, we have a results problem." Minnesota can help the environment generally without more spending, Pawlenty said, although there is "absolutely" a role for government in controlling pollution and managing natural resources. Penny's former consulting work for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank largely opposed to governmental regulation, has raised the question: Would he enforce pollution laws aggressively? Penny said his views on the environment are his own, not those of the institution. But he said Minnesota can be more creative and less prescriptive about how it meets environmental standards. "We ought to be as flexible and collaborative as possible as long as the goals are reached," he said. Moe's long career in government and his role as a legislative compromiser have raised questions about whether he has the vision to move boldly in new environmental areas. He said his experience is a strength, and he cited accomplishments as an author of many key environmental bills. Moe said he would challenge Minnesotans to do more volunteer work to improve the environment. "In all of us there is a sense of stewardship toward our natural resources, and I think we have to tap into that spirit," he said. Pentel holds strong views on more than nuclear power. Among other things, he proposes to change the economic structure that he said encourages heavy reliance on agricultural chemicals and promotes excessive logging. He said he is the only candidate with enough common sense to articulate a long-term sustainable vision for Minnesota. "We need to stop trashing our precious resource base, reverse course and set up policies to make sure that the next generation has a better place to live," Pentel said. "Because right now we're stealing from them, right and left." -- Tom Meersman is at meersman@startribune.com [meersman@startribune.com] . Copyright 2002 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 Terror fears over city nuclear waste Scotsman.com Edinburgh Evening News Tue 24 Sep 2002 /By MICHAEL HOWIE/ THE rector of Edinburgh University today demanded a security review amid fears radioactive waste used for research could become a target for terrorists. Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt universities - plus five others in Scotland - store spent radioactive materials which will cost thousands of pounds to dispose of. Green MSP Robin Harper, who is rector of Edinburgh, was today lodging a parliamentary question calling on the Scottish Executive to carry out an urgent audit of security at the institutions. He is also calling on universities stockpiling toxic waste to slash the amount stored on their premises. His call comes after a leading nuclear expert expressed concern that rising disposal costs were leading some universities to stockpile radioactive materials. Spent waste from X-ray machines, radiography and nuclear medicine is being stored on campuses rather than being safely removed. The storage of radioactive waste at universities, known as closed or sealed sources, is tightly regulated by Sepa. The materials kept by universities are mostly intermediate-level waste, and cannot be disposed of, only stored, in the UK. Most of it is handled by Britain?s only commercial nuclear disposal company, Safeguard, and is kept at an undisclosed compound. Edinburgh University and Heriot-Watt insisted they were not stockpiling radioactive waste, but admitted they did have some stored. Mr Harper, a Lothians MSP, said such materials were vital for research - but added: "I would ask Sepa to review the security arrangements for these materials and I will be calling for the Executive to order a security audit." He added universities holding on to nuclear material due to rising costs should think again. "I think they [universities] should be reviewing this policy quite seriously." Mr Harper said universities had to be extra careful as stockpiles of radioactive waste "could be a temptation to a terrorist organisation". "They might be able get hold of that out of a university store while they wouldn?t be able to get hold of it in Sellafield, for instance." "It?s expensive to dispose of and could be considered to be critical not so much on human safety grounds but in terms of being a target for terrorist groups." Independent nuclear consultant John Large warned the spiralling costs of disposal were leaving universities with a major headache, and many were keeping radioactive materials longer. "It?s a national problem and I?m not surprised it?s starting to bear heavily on universities. The legislation has got tighter , and because of September 11, people are more aware of terrorist problems. "Couple that with a tightening economic grip on universities and you can see the problem. "If the costs are too high the universities and hospitals will keep the source materials on their premises." But Mr Large said the longer the waste was kept on campuses, the bigger the risk of a potentially hazardous leak. "The question is whether their premises are adequate for long-term storage. " They?re not designed for ever." Edinburgh University is currently storing four closed sources, which cost £3000 each to dispose of. A spokeswoman said £35,000 had been budgeted for getting rid of spent waste in the current year. "The material is currently being held and is scheduled for disposal." A spokeswoman for Heriot-Watt University said it spent between £6000 and £10,000 a year disposing of the material. "We do have some material. However, we have been downsizing our stocks. It?s all stored in leadlined safes. We get visits from Sepa every few months and are meeting all the safety regulations." Tuesday Sep 24 2002. All times are London time. By Jean Eaglesham, Political Correspondent Ministers have been criticised over arms controls after the government was accused of allowing nuclear weapon components to be exported to Iran. The political row was fuelled by Jack Straw's admission that the government had approved the sale of Hawk jet components to India, in spite of earlier statements implying the contrary. Claims that New Delhi was seeking to purchase the Hawk sparked controversy earlier this year, amid heightened fears of a war between India and Pakistan over disputed Kashmir. The foreign secretary yesterday blamed an "oversight" by officials for the "misleading impression" created by earlier government assertions it had not received any application to export Hawks to India. In fact, an application by BAe Systems to export the Hawk components and production equipment had been recommended for approval by Foreign Office ministers. Another Department of Trade and Industry decision is under scrutiny. It is alleged in today's BBC Radio 4 /File on Four/ programme to have approved the sale to Iran of beryllium, a material that can be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The department would not comment on individual arms applications. © Copyright The Financial Times ***************************************************************** 27 UK: Cabinet backs Blair on Iraq Independent.co.uk PM silences critics with UN pledge By Andrew Grice Political Editor 24 September 2002 Tony Blair quelled a cabinet revolt over Iraq yesterday by promising his ministers he would pursue fully a United Nations solution to the crisis before resorting to military action. At the Cabinet's first meeting for two months, the Prime Minister stressed his priority was to secure the widest possible support for a new UN resolution, due to be published tomorrow, allowing an "intrusive" regime of weapons inspections in Iraq. But Mr Blair told his ministers that tough action must be taken against Saddam Hussein. He said: "The truth is the policy of containment has not worked. He [President Saddam] has been able to make progress in his weapons of mass destruction programme and has to be stopped." Several cabinet ministers stressed the need to give the Middle East peace process a higher profile in order to allay fears in the Arab world ?- a point accepted by Mr Blair. The Cabinet's debate on Iraq, due to last an hour, lasted for more than an hour and a half. Downing Street described it as "a serious and hard-headed discussion". Official sources insisted that no minister spoke out against military action if the UN process failed to resolve the crisis. Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, who publicly opposed a "second Gulf War" on Sunday, said: "We had a good discussion. We all agreed." Although Mr Blair's allies are confident of avoiding resignations over Iraq, one minister said: "We have not reached crunch time ? yet." Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said after the meeting that it would be "far better" for the Iraq crisis to be resolved peacefully, but he warned that military action might be needed. Mr Blair outlined to his ministers the contents of the 50-page dossier on the threat from Iraq, to be published this morning, which he said showed that the "real and serious problem" of Iraq's weapons programme had grown worse in since 1998. Mr Blair will stress his commitment to the "UN route" in an attempt to defuse a Labour rebellion in today's emergency debate on Iraq in the Commons. However, several Labour MPs warned that remarks by President George Bush showed he was determined to declare war. Mr Bush said: "If the UN will not deal with Saddam Hussein, the US and our friends will." Writing in The Independent today, Tam Dalyell, the longest-serving MP, said: "It seems to me that Bush and Blair are doing everything they can to avoid peace. That is why I am in favour of regime change ? in No 10 Downing Street." Mr Blair will also face tough questions on Iraq at a meeting of Labour's national executive committee today. But Labour chiefs have blocked a vote on a motion opposing military action tabled by the left-winger Mark Seddon. Mr Seddon said: "It makes a charade of democracy. The Baathist party [in Iraq] operates on similar principles." The Prime Minister was irritated by criticism at the weekend from Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who renewed his call for a Commons vote on military action. Although Mr Blair's spokesman said ministers would not be "gagged", one cabinet minister said: "Robin is playing his usual games. People are getting fed up with it." Mr Blair is more tolerant of criticism by Ms Short, the other leading cabinet "dove", whom he met for a "clear the air" session before yesterday's meeting. EDINBURGH EVENING NEWS ONLINE Back Issue: *Monday, 23rd September 2002* ALARMED: Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokeskman Menzies Campbell said that while the nuclear proliferation of Iraq was high on the international agenda we should not be aiding in the nuclear proliferation of comparable states. /By BILL JACOBSWestminster Editor/ THE Government has allowed the export of key nuclear weapons-grade material to Iran despite the fact that the Islamic fundamentalist country is trying to develop its own atomic bomb. The BBC revealed today that the Department of Trade and Industry allowed a quantity of the metal beryllium ? a key component for the manufacture of nuclear weapons ? to be sold to the Tehran regime despite a ban on the sale of arms to the country. Iran fought a ten-year war with Saddam Hussein?s Iraq and since the coup which replaced the Shah with Ayatollah Khomeini has been seen as one of the most dangerous Muslim states in the Middle East. The BBC?s File on Four programme tonight will disclose that other countries also received beryllium despite Britain being signed up to an international agreement restricting the sale of the metal to countries trying to develop nuclear weapons including Iran. The news came as Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed the cabinet prior to tomorrow's debate of a recalled Westminster parliament on military action to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein partly because he is seeking to make his own nuclear weapons. The revelations have alarmed MPs who now plan to raise the issue in the House of Commons tomorrow and elsewhere. Roger Berry the Labour MP who chairs the select committee which scrutinises controls on arms exports, has said he knew nothing about the sale of beryllium to Iran last year. He said: ?I?m so concerned that I will raise the issue with ministers.? Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said he was ?extremely alarmed? at the news. Fife North East MP Mr Campbell said: ?These revelations are very disturbing. We are rightly concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iraq but on the face of it we have a similar problem in Iran. ?It is not enough to have a system for the control of arms exports. It has got to work. It seems that there are loopholes in this system that are extremely alarming.? Britain has had an arms embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran since 1993 and is also a signatory of the international protocol which bans the sale of beryllium to named countries including Iran. The metal has a limited number of hi-tech uses in civilian industry. It is mainly used for weapons and is one of the most important components of a nuclear bomb. Leading experts in the nuclear field are expected to say tonight that beryllium and other items which the DTI has admitted licensing for sale to Iran would amount to a shopping list for someone trying to build nuclear weapons. Although the UK cannot export arms to Iran there is no trade embargo in place. The deal highlights the weaknesses of the UK?s much-vaunted new system for controlling the export of weapons set up in the wake of the arms to Iraq scandal. One of the reasons for the system was specifically to stop new countries acquiring nuclear capabilities. Iran is a nation of particular concern to the Americans, with US President George W Bush accusing it of sponsoring international terrorism. Along with Iraq and North Korea he named it as part of the terrorist ?axis of evil?. The Americans are understood to be concerned about these latest revelations. They show that Iranian secret service agents and procurement officials have worked hard in the UK to get beryllium and other sensitive nuclear material back to their government. The programme also names other countries working on nuclear weapons which have obtained beryllium and other nuclear weapons components from the UK. One of those is Pakistan, apparently involved in a military stand-off with India ? another nuclear power ? over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Iran is still considered, despite a more moderate leadership, as one of the most dangerous Muslim countries in the world. Its relations with Iraq remain tense and it has been highly critical of western military ventures in the Middle East. However, during the attacks on Afghanistan it remained broadly neutral because of its opposition to the the Taliban. Israel fears that if the Ayatollahs regained the sort of control of Iran they had after the overthrow of the Shah, nuclear weapons could be turned on the Jewish state. ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 33 UK 'sells' bomb material to Iran BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Monday, 23 September, 2002, 10:05 GMT 11:05 UK UK [DTI HQ] DTI is accused of approving controversial exports British officials have approved the export of key components needed to make nuclear weapons to Iran and other countries known to be developing such weapons. An investigation by BBC Radio 4 programme File on Four will disclose that the Department of Trade and Industry allowed a quantity of the metal, Beryllium, to be sold to Iran last year. That metal is needed to make nuclear bombs. Britain has had an arms embargo to Iran since 1993 and has signed up to an international protocol which bans the sale of Beryllium to named countries, including Iran. MP's concerns Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, who has been alerted to the BBC programme's material, is said to be extremely alarmed. Beryllium is a metal with a limited number of high-tech uses in civilian industry, but is mostly used in defence applications and is a vital component in a nuclear bomb. The programme has also interviewed a leading nuclear weapons expert in the UK who says that the Beryllium and other items which the DTI has licensed to Iran add up to a shopping list for a nuclear weapons programme. The UK has an arms embargo against Iran, but not a trade embargo. Export control weaknesses The programme highlights the weaknesses in the UK's new export control system, which was set up to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will reveal that Iranian procurement agents have been working in the UK to get sensitive material back to Iran, and that Pakistan has also been successful in procuring material for its nuclear programme from here. It is also likely to cause concern among Britain's allies. President Bush named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" accusing the Iranian regime of sponsoring terrorism. File on 4 is at 2000 BST on Tuesday 24 September on BBC Radio 4. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 34 Gore joins Bush's Iraq critics BBC NEWS | Americas | Tuesday, 24 September, 2002, 10:47 GMT 11:47 UK [Al Gore] Gore: Push for war makes world more dangerous Former US presidential candidate Al Gore has become the most senior Democrat to criticise President George W Bush's plans to attack Iraq. Mr Gore broke his silence over the issue to accuse the president of squandering the good will of the world towards America. Great nations persevere and then prevail, they do not jump from one unfinished task to another Al Gore He said war against Saddam Hussein would detract from the main US pursuit of those who killed more than 3,000 Americans on 11 September 2001. Mr Gore's remarks were similar to those made by a panel of retired four-star American generals testifying before a Senate committee as the US Congress prepares a resolution to authorise attacks on Iraq. Gore's assault The BBC's Justin Webb says Mr Gore, who has in the past backed the ousting of Saddam Hussein, is now accusing Mr Bush of trying to replace international law with the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States. "I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling that network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it, " Mr Gore told an audience in San Francisco. "The fact that we don't know where they are, should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location might be easier to identify." [General Wesley Clark (r) and John Shalikashvili (L), John Shalikashvili, former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff] Former generals wanted UN approval "Great nations persevere and then prevail, they do not jump from one unfinished task to another." Mr Bush's Republicans were horrified by the speech - a party spokesman called it "more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate". Generals warn Mr Bush is hoping to get broad backing from Congress within the next two weeks for a possible military strike and Mr Gore's intervention might well embolden those Democrats who want to limit the powers they grant the president, our correspondent says. On Monday, the Senate armed services committee heard testimony from a panel of retired generals - some advancing similar arguments to Mr Gore's. The war against terrorism is our number one priority and considering using force to do away with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a necessary part of that war General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Former Nato supreme European commander, Wesley Clark, said that "by lumping the two together - al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - it is also possible we will have incentivised Saddam Hussein now as a last-ditch defence to do what he wouldn't have done before, which is ... well find me the nearest members of al-Qaeda, here take this sack and do something with it". General Joseph Hoar, former Commander in Chief, US Central Command, said that although he remained in favour of regime change in Iraq, the first priority for the US "has got to be al-Qaeda". But former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili saw both issues as closely linked. "The war against terrorism is our number one priority and considering using force to do away with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a necessary part of that war." All the generals urged Mr Bush persevere with the task of getting authorisation from the UN Security Council for any action in Iraq. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 35 Iraq 'sought African uranium' BBC NEWS | Africa | Tuesday, 24 September, 2002, 10:59 GMT 11:59 UK [Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein] Britain says Iraq wanted African uranium Britain's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction says that Saddam Hussein tried to get "significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Africa produces about 20% of the world's uranium. Four African countries have exported uranium in recent years - Niger, Namibia, South Africa and Gabon. Other countries - Zambia, Central African Republic and Botswana - are believed to have exploitable deposits. Africa's uranium production in 2001 Niger - 3,096 tonnes Namibia - 2,239 tonnes South Africa - 898 tonnes Source: Uranium Information Centre However, the uranium produced is Africa is not of weapons grade and would need processing before it could be used in weapons. South Africa produces uranium as a by-product of gold and copper mining and has a domestic nuclear energy and research programme. Under the apartheid government, which was in power until 1994, it had a covert nuclear weapons programme. The BBC Correspondent programme in March 2001 uncovered evidence suggesting South Africa had supplied enriched uranium to Iraq in 1988. South Africa halted its weapons programme a year later and dismantled its weapons-making and enrichment capabilities before signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1991. The majority of Africa's uranium is produced by mining consortiums involving significant French, British or South African investment and the minerals produced are mainly exported to France and Japan. Apartheid bomb The main uranium producers in South Africa are the Hartebeestfontein Gold Mining Company, Palabora Mining Company, Western Areas Mining in Transvaal and the Buffelsfontein Gold Mining Company. South Africa has a domestic nuclear industry with two power reactors at Koeberg, north of Cape Town, and a research reactor at Pelindaba. In 1973, Prime Minister Johannes Vorster approved a weapons programme to develop a nuclear deterrent. The Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies in Monterey, California, says that by 1989, when the nuclear weapons programme was publicly abandoned by President de Klerk, South Africa had six "air-deliverable nuclear weapons". The South Africans weapons programme was dismantled after 1989. The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected and verified that it has been dismantled in its entirety. This included the decommissioning of uranium enrichment plants. The BBC television programme Correspondent reported in March 2001 that Iraqi defectors, including a nuclear engineer and an assistant to Saddam Hussain's son Uday, had revealed that Iraq obtained uranium for its nuclear programme from South Africa. The deal had been signed in 1986 and the uranium delivered in 1988. An unnamed South African intelligence official was cited by the programme as saying that the US Government approved the deal. "The story is true," he told Correspondent. "About 50 kilograms were sold to the Iraqis. The Americans gave the green light for the deal." Uranium industry Africa's other producers - Niger, Namibia and Gabon - export unprocessed uranium oxide. Niger is the world's third largest exporter of uranium and Namibia the fourth, according to the Uranium Information Centre. Gabon ceased exports after 1999 - reserves at the largest mine, Mounana, had been depleted. Niger's uranium industry is operated by the French company Cogema in a joint venture with the Societe des Mines del'Air and the state-owned mineral company Onarem. The Namibian output comes from the Rossing mine, run by the Rossing Corporation, whose majority shareholder is the British mining company Rio Tinto. The Central African Republic is believed to have deposits of uranium, but these have not been exploited. On 20 September, the republic's government denied reports that it had signed a deal giving Libya a 99-year lease for mineral exploration, including uranium prospecting. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 36 Blair's statement in full BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Tuesday, 24 September, 2002, 12:56 GMT 13:56 UK [Satellite image shows a new engine test stand being constructed ] Satellite images are contained in the dossier The full text of Tony Blair's statement to the emergency session of the House of Commons on Tuesday 24 September. Mr Speaker, thank you for recalling Parliament to debate the best way to deal with the issue of the present leadership of Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Today we published a 50 page dossier detailing the history of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, its breach of United Nations resolutions and the current attempts to rebuild the illegal weapons of mass destruction programme. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. At the end of the Gulf War, the full extent of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes became clear. As a result, the UN passed a series of resolutions demanding Iraq disarm itself of such weapons and establishing a regime of weapons inspection and monitoring to do the task. Iraq and weapons of mass destruction They were to be given unconditional and unrestricted access to all and any Iraqi sites. All this is accepted fact. In addition, it is fact, documented by UN inspectors, that Iraq almost immediately began to obstruct the inspections. Visits were delayed; on occasions, inspectors threatened; material was moved; special sites, shut to the inspectors, were unilaterally designated by Iraq. The work of the inspectors continued but against a background of increasing obstruction and non-compliance. Indeed, Iraq denied its biological weapons programme existed until forced to acknowledge it after high ranking defectors disclosed it in 1995. Chemical warfare Eventually in 1997, the UN inspectors declared they were unable to fulfil their task. A year of negotiation and further obstruction occurred until finally in late 1998, the UN team were forced to withdraw. As the dossier sets out, we estimate on the basis of the UN's work that there were: up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tonnes of VX nerve agent; up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 litres of anthrax spores; and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents. All of this was missing or unaccounted for. Military action by the US and UK followed and a certain amount of infrastructure for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and missile capability was destroyed, setting the Iraqi programme back, but not ending it. Illegal trading From late 1998 onwards, the sole inhibition on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme was the sanctions regime. Iraq was forbidden to use the revenue from its oil except for certain specified non-military purposes. The sanctions regime, however, was also subject to illegal trading and abuse. Because of concerns about its inadequacy - and the impact on the Iraqi people - we made several attempts to refine it, culminating in a new UN resolution in May of this year. But it was only partially effective. Around $3bn of money is illegally taken by Saddam every year now, double the figure for 2000. Self-evidently there is no proper accounting for this money. Because of concerns that a containment policy based on sanctions alone could not sufficiently inhibit Saddam's weapons programme, negotiations continued after 1998 to gain re-admission for the UN inspectors. UN flouted In 1999 a new UN resolution demanding their re-entry was passed and ignored. Further negotiations continued. Finally, after several months of discussion with Saddam's regime this year, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, concluded that Saddam was not serious about re-admitting the inspectors and ended the negotiations. That was in July. All of this is established fact. I set out the history in some detail because occasionally debate on this issue seems to treat it almost as if it had suddenly arisen, coming out of nowhere on a whim, in the last few months of 2002. It is an 11 year history: a history of UN will flouted, lies told by Saddam about existence of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes, obstruction, defiance and denial. There is one common consistent theme, however: the total determination of Saddam to maintain the programme; to risk war, international ostracism, sanctions, the isolation of the Iraqi economy, in order to keep it. At any time, he could have let the inspectors back in and put the world to proof. 'Active, detailed, growing' At any time he could have co-operated with the UN. Ten days ago he made the offer unconditionally, under threat of war. He could have done it at any time in the last eleven years. But he didn't. Why? The dossier we publish gives the answer. The reason is because his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running. The dossier is based on the work of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. For over 60 years, beginning just prior to WWII, the joint intelligence committee has provided intelligence assessments to British Prime Ministers. 'Authoritative intelligence' Normally its work is secret. Unusually, because it is important we explain our concerns over Saddam to the British people, we have decided to disclose these assessments. I am aware, of course, that people are going to have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services. But this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability. On chemical weapons, the dossier shows that Iraq continues to produce chemical agent for chemical weapons; has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq; has bought dual-use chemical facilities; has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons programme; and has a serious ongoing research programme into weapons production, all of it well funded. Anthrax In respect of biological weapons, again production of biological agents has continued; facilities formerly used for biological weapons have been rebuilt; equipment has been purchased for such a programme; and again Saddam has retained the personnel who worked on it, pre 1991. In particular, the UN inspection regime discovered that Iraq was trying to acquire mobile biological weapons facilities which are easier to conceal. Present intelligence confirms they have now got such facilities. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death. As for nuclear weapons, Saddam's previous nuclear weapons programme was shut down by the inspectors, following disclosure by defectors of the full, but hidden, nature of it. That programme was based on gas centrifuge uranium enrichment. The known remaining stocks of uranium are now held under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium But we now know the following. Since the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Saddam has bought or attempted to buy: specialised vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual use products such as Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fibre gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialised aluminium tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges. In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Again key personnel who used to work on the nuclear weapons programme are back in harness. Iraq may claim that this is for a civil nuclear power programme but it has no nuclear power plants. That is the position in respect of weapons. But, of course, the weapons require ballistic missile capability. This is again subject to UN disarmament resolutions. Iraq is supposed only to have missile capability up to 150 km for conventional weaponry. Pages 27-31 of the dossier detail the evidence on this issue. Demonstration of power It is clear both that a significant number of longer-range missiles were effectively concealed from the previous inspectors and remain, including up to 20 extended range Scud missiles; that in mid 2001, there was a step change in the programme and by this year, Iraq's development of weapons with a range over 1,000 kms was well underway; that hundreds of key people are employed on this programme; facilities are being built; and equipment procured, usually clandestinely. Sanctions and import controls have hindered this programme but only slowed its progress. The capability being developed is for multi-purpose use, including with weapons of mass destruction warheads. Now, that is the assessment to me from the joint intelligence committee. In addition, we have well-founded intelligence to tell us that Saddam sees his weapons of mass destruction programme as vital to his survival, as a demonstration of his power and his influence in the region. There will be some who dismiss all this. Intelligence is not always right. For some of this material there may be innocent explanations. There will be others who say, rightly, that, for example, on present going, it could be several years before he acquires a usable nuclear weapon. Though, if he were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two. Case overwhelming But let me put it at its simplest: on this 11 year history; with this man, Saddam; with this accumulated, detailed intelligence available; with what we know and what we can reasonably speculate: would the world be wise to leave the present situation undisturbed; to say, despite 14 separate UN demands on this issue, all of which Saddam is in breach of, we should do nothing; to conclude that we should trust not to the good faith of the UN weapons inspectors but to the good faith of the current Iraqi regime? Our case is simply this: not that we take military action, come what may; but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament (as the UN has stipulated) is overwhelming. I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and he has rejected. People say: but why Saddam? I don't in the least dispute there are other causes of concern on WMD. I said as much in this House on 14 September last year. But two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in which one million people died. And his is a regime with no moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam and human rights. Torture chambers Read not just about the one million dead in the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally murdered in northern Iraq; not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the attempt to subjugate and brutalise the Kuwaitis in 1990 which led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of political opponents; the prison "cleansing" regimes in which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by Amnesty International. Read it all and again I defy anyone to say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next, that he will use his weapons. But I can say that if the international community having made the call for his disarmament, now, at this moment, at the point of decision, shrugs its shoulders and walks away, he will draw the conclusion dictators faced with a weakening will, always draw. A real threat That the international community will talk but not act; will use diplomacy but not force; and we know, again from our history, that diplomacy, not backed by the threat of force, has never worked with dictators and never will work. If we take this course, he will carry on, his efforts will intensify, his confidence grow and at some point, in a future not too distant, the threat will turn into reality. The threat therefore is not imagined. The history of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is not American or British propaganda. The history and the present threat are real. And if people say: why should Britain care? I answer: because there is no way that this man, in this region above all regions, could begin a conflict using such weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world. That, after all, is the reason the UN passed its resolutions. That is why it is right the UN Security Council again makes its will and its unity clear and lays down a strong new UN resolution and mandate. Then Saddam will have the choice: comply willingly or be forced to comply. Murderous dictator That is why alongside the diplomacy, there must be genuine preparedness and planning to take action if diplomacy fails. Let me be plain about our purpose. Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam. They deserve to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator. Someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah. Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed. Disarmament Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East. So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam. But our purpose is disarmament. No-one wants military conflict. The whole purpose of putting this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of the international community to resolve this in the way it should have been resolved years ago: through a proper process of disarmament under the UN. Disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction is the demand. One way or another it must be acceded to. Afghanistan There are two other issues with a bearing on this question which I will deal with. First, Afghanistan is a country now freed from the Taleban, but still suffering. This is a regime we changed, rightly. I want to make it clear, once again, we are entirely committed to its re-construction. We will not desert the Afghan people. We will stick with them until the job is done. Secondly, I have no doubt the Arab world knows it would be better off without Saddam. Middle East Equally, I know there is genuine resentment at the state of the Middle East Peace Process, which people want to see the international community pursue with the same vigour. Israel will defend its people against these savage acts of terrorism. But the very purpose of this terrorism is to prevent any chance for peace. Meanwhile the Palestinians are suffering in the most appalling and unacceptable way. We need urgent action to build a security infrastructure that gives both Israelis and Palestinians confidence and stops the next suicide bomb closing down the prospects of progress. We need political reform for the Palestinian Authority. And we need a new Conference on the Middle East Peace Process based on the twin principles of a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We can condemn the terrorism and the reaction to it. But frankly, that gets us nowhere. What we need is a firm commitment to action and a massive mobilisation of energy to get the peace process moving again; and we will play our part in any way we can. Finally, there are many acts of this drama still to be played out. I have always said that Parliament should be kept in touch with all developments, in particular those that would lead us to military action. That remains the case. To those who doubt it, I say: look at Kosovo and Afghanistan. We proceeded with care, with full debate in this House and when we took military action, did so as a last resort. We shall act in the same way now. But I hope we can do so, secure in the knowledge that should Saddam continue to defy the will of the international community, this House, as it has in our history so many times before, will not shrink from doing what is necessary and right. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 37 Nobody is Safe On a nuclear fault line, trapped between Islamic militants and Indian soldiers, the Kashmiris have an election but hardly any choice about their own future By Jeffrey Bartholet NEWSWEEK Sept. 30 issue — The Indian soldier, in full battle gear and armed with an AK-47, seems only mildly embarrassed. He’s herding a dozen men and women down a narrow road in Indian-ruled Kashmir. “Nobody has voted, so we’ve got an order to collect them,” the soldier explains. “WE HAVE TO SHOW that people have voted.” He says he’s only following orders. Who gave the order? The soldier says he doesn’t know. Then he says goodbye, and the group moves on downhill, toward the local polling station in the village of Ait Mullah. A clutch of children and teenagers, relatives of the dragooned voters, stand at the gate of a home nearby. Haseena, 17, is the oldest. She says soldiers marched away with her 21-year-old brother and her 19-year-old sister. “We told them we weren’t registered to vote here, and anyway, they couldn’t force us,” she says. “But they wouldn’t listen.” Asked why local people didn’t want to vote, she averts her dark eyes. A small boy pipes up: “If they vote during the day, the militants will come at night and chop our heads.” FIRST STEPS Some people say these elections could be a first step toward resolving the 55-year-old Kashmir conflict. The vote, which began last week and continues through Oct. 8, is to choose an 87-member State Assembly for India’s Jammu and Kashmir. Secretary of State Colin Powell himself raised hopes in Kashmir—and the prospect of fresh U.S. engagement—when he said last July the balloting could open “a process that addresses Kashmiri grievances.” The disputed territory has been the subject of two full-scale wars between India and Pakistan, and last spring and summer the quarrel threatened to erupt into another war between the two neighbors, both of whom now have nuclear weapons. A free, fair and inclusive vote could produce legitimate representatives of Kashmir, who could then help negotiate the fate of the disputed territory—or so the theory goes. But in reality these elections—held under virtual military occupation, in an area under assault by terrorists—are not about hope, they’re about desperation. From one side, the Kashmir Valley’s overwhelmingly Muslim population is facing India’s security forces, who have a long record of torture and summary executions of suspected militants. The Army has a strong interest in getting people to the polls, because a high turnout will give legitimacy to Indian rule. From the other side, Kashmiris are threatened by armed extremists, including Pakistani, Arab and other self-declared holy warriors, who routinely murder or massacre civilians deemed to be enemies. They want the elections to fail, and have warned people not to participate. Neither side seems to represent the popular will of ordinary Kashmiris. According to a credible poll conducted for the Indian magazine Outlook in 2000, 82 percent of the valley’s people support a ceasefire “as a prelude to political dialogue,” and roughly three quarters favor “a separate identity” from both India and Pakistan. • MSNBC Terms, ***************************************************************** 38 North Korea's nuke capability Asia Times By David Isenberg On September 16, at a news briefing at the Pentagon, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said North Korea already has nuclear weapons and is developing more. "We know they are a country that has been aggressively developing nuclear weapons and have nuclear weapons," he said. Such a statement is consistent with past US intelligence assessments that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons in the mid-1990s. But Rumsfeld's unequivocal statement was a change from just a few days before, when a senior defense official seemed to say that concerns about Pyongyang "possessing" nuclear-weapons technology were related to its capability of making such weapons, rather than possessing actual weapons. However, Rumsfeld's statement is inconsistent with previous governmental estimates and those of private organizations, which have always said that North Korea may have the fissile material with which to make one or two nuclear weapons. So just what is the state of North Korea's nuclear program? That question has been the subject of much inquiry since US President George W Bush's January 29 State of the Union address when, in outlining the goals of the war on terrorism, he expanded the US mission beyond Afghanistan to include not only the termination of al-Qaeda networks, but also the prevention of links between these threats and regimes in an "axis of evil", named as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, that seek weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to menace the United States and its allies. The "axis of evil" statement intimated a harder-line policy toward North Korea at odds with the engagement or "Sunshine Policy" of US ally South Korea. Also, the speech made clear the priority placed by the Bush administration on countering WMD threats as an integral, if not central, component of the post-September 11, 2001, US security agenda. According to an article in the summer issue of Political Science Quarterly, these developments point to the renewal in coming months of an acerbic debate that took place at the end of the Bill Clinton administration over the merits of engaging or containing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Although the Bush administration's initial review of North Korea policy in June 2001 recommended unconditional engagement with Pyongyang on a broad range of issues, including its suspected nuclear-weapons program, ballistic-missile production and export, and its conventional-force posture on the Korean Peninsula, this position is far from a conclusive one given the well-known skepticism of North Korean intentions expressed in the Bush's "axis of evil" speech as well as other statements by administration officials. The standing non-proliferation agreement between the United States and the DPRK, the 1994 nuclear Agreed Framework, soon reaches critical implementation stages that will test the intentions of both parties and raises debates about US revision or abandonment of the agreement. And North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's self-imposed missile-testing moratorium, which was contingent on continued progress in US-DPRK dialogue, ends in December (although Kim told Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi last week that it would be extended). The North Korean nuclear-weapons program dates back to the 1980s, when North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. In September 1989 the magazine Jane's Defence Weekly stated that North Korea "could manufacture nuclear devices in five years' time, and the means to deliver them soon afterward". According to the Washington, DC-based group GlobalSecurity.org, it is estimated that North Korea has completed the cycle from acquisition of nuclear fuel to reprocessing it and is on the threshold of a nuclear-weapons capability. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether it has actually produced or possesses nuclear weapons, due to difficulties in developing detonation devices and delivery vehicles, which require high-tech and precision technologies. According to various sources of information, North Korea seems to have extracted enough plutonium to produce one or two nuclear weapons. A close examination by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the radioactive isotope content in nuclear waste from its power plants revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of plutonium per megawatt every day over a four-year period from 1987-91. The 0.9g per day multiplied by 365 days by four years and by 30 megawatts equals 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60 percent of 39kg, or some 23.4kg. Since a 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has eight kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to a mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about three nuclear warheads could be extracted. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, North Korea possesses enough plutonium (25-30kg) in spent nuclear fuel to produce perhaps five or six nuclear weapons. Until 1994, the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that eight kilograms of plutonium would be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Thus, the United States' estimate of 12kg could result in one to two bombs. In January 1994, however, the DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to four kilograms - enough to make up to three bombs if the US estimate is used and up to six bombs if the other estimates are used. On April 22, 1997, US Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon officially stated, "When the US-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, the US intelligence authorities already believed North Korea had produced plutonium enough for at least one nuclear weapon." This was the first time the United States confirmed North Korea's possession of plutonium. On August 7 this year, the Bush administration renewed its insistence that Pyongyang cooperate immediately with inspectors of the IAEA to determine how much plutonium North Korea had produced. So although there is no evidence that North Korea possesses a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang is thought to be capable of building a first-generation nuclear device, given its current state of technology. (©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.) Sep 24, 2002 Copyright Asia Times Online, 6306 The Center, Queen’s Road, Central, Hong Kong. ***************************************************************** 39 UK: Straw's admission fuels row on arms control [http://www.ft.com] By Jean Eaglesham, Political Correspondent Published: September 24 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: September 24 2002 5:00 Ministers have been criticised over arms controls after the government was accused of allowing nuclear weapon components to be exported to Iran. The political row was fuelled by Jack Straw's admission that the government had approved the sale of Hawk jet components to India, in spite of earlier statements implying the contrary. Claims that New Delhi was seeking to purchase the Hawk sparked controversy earlier this year, amid heightened fears of a war between India and Pakistan over disputed Kashmir. The foreign secretary yesterday blamed an "oversight" by officials for the "misleading impression" created by earlier government assertions it had not received any application to export Hawks to India. In fact, an application by BAe Systems to export the Hawk components and production equipment had been recommended for approval by Foreign Office ministers. Another Department of Trade and Industry decision is under scrutiny. It is alleged in today's BBC Radio 4 File on Four programme to have approved the sale to Iran of beryllium, a material that can be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The department would not comment on individual arms applications. © Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2002. "FT" and ***************************************************************** 40 Russia Will Maintain Military-Technical Ties With Iran September 24, 2002 [News Content] [TehranTimes Navigation] MOSCOW -- Russia will maintain its military-technical cooperation with Iran in line with its economic interests and its commitment to non-proliferation, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday. "Russia is independent in regard to its decisions on military-technical cooperation, including its cooperation with such countries as Iran or North Korea," Ivanov said, implicitly rejecting U.S. accusations that Moscow is enabling the two countries to acquire nuclear weapons. "Moscow is only supplying Tehran with weapons that cannot destabilize the situation in the region. These are defensive armored vehicles, anti-aircraft defense, firearms and anti-tank weapons," Ivanov said, as quoted by the Interfax news agency. "Tehran has never asked us to deliver short-range missiles or other offensive weapons systems," he said. Cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang "is also of an economic nature," Ivanov told Interfax. "Our cooperation with North Korea depends only on that country's economic possibilities," he said. In the military-technical sphere this currently amounted to repair and modernization of Soviet-era military equipment, he noted. [webmaster@tehrantimes.com] ***************************************************************** 41 UK: What the dossier says Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Dossier: Iraq close to building nuclear weapons Staff and agencies Tuesday September 24, 2002 Saddam Hussein is one or two years off building a nuclear weapon and has constructed test equipment for a missile capable of striking British military bases in Cyprus, according to the government's dossier on Iraq. The dictator's "violent and aggressive" regime has tried to obtain technology and materials for use in nuclear weapons and has developed mobile laboratories for military use, it said. Iraq has learnt lessons from UN weapons inspections and has already begun to conceal sensitive equipment in anticipation of the inspections resuming. The dossier, reflecting the views of intelligence chiefs, warns that Saddam does not regard weapons of mass destruction as a last resort. Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological agents and has military plans to use them in weapons, including against his country's own Shia Muslim population, it said. The dossier says Iraq is five years away from producing a nuclear weapon on its own but this could be shortened to between one and two years if it managed to obtain weapons-grade material from abroad. According to intelligence, Iraq has "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", despite there being no active civil nuclear power programme in the country that would require it. Saddam has also recalled specialists to work on his nuclear programme and retains expertise and design data relating to such weapons. British intelligence officials believe up to 20 medium-range al-Hussein missiles - capable of striking Israel, Turkey and Cyprus - have been retained by Iraq in violation of UN resolutions. In addition, Saddam is said to have constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of a similar range. On nuclear weapons, the government's intelligence-backed dossier is actually more conservative than a recent independent assessment by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, which said Saddam could obtain weapons "within months". Although authority to launch chemical and biological weapons rests ultimately with Saddam, intelligence said he may have delegated this authority to his son Qusai. In common with the assessment by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), the government's dossier says Iraq has continued to produce such weapons and retains some from pre-Gulf war stocks. He also retains the capability to produce the mass-casualty chemical agents mustard gas, tabun, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Saddam's nuclear programme is "almost certainly" seeking an ability to enrich to weapons quality uranium that is mined in Iraq. His approach is based on a process known as gas centrifuge uranium enrichment, but he is lacking certain key pieces of equipment, the report says. Useful links Arab Gateway: Iraq briefing [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/iraq.htm] Middle East Daily [http://www.middleeastdaily.com/] Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq [http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/] Iraq sanctions - UN security council [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm] UN special commission on Iraq [http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/index.html] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 42 K-25, K-27 taken off the reverse auction The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff Bechtel Jacobs has eased off the accelerator in the reverse auction race. Though still committed to running much of its procurement through what officials have called "the wave of the future," the company no longer plans to push its two behemoth cleanup projects -- over 1.7 million square feet in buildings K-25 and K-27 at the former gaseous diffusion site -- through the decommissioning hopper by reverse auction. Instead the vintage facilities will go out the old-fashioned way -- on paper bid. "We're still committed, but we're trying to be responsive and considerate since there seems to be some reservations in the subcontracting community," said Dennis Hill, spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs. Hill noted that Phase II of the cleanup project had started as reverse auction and gone through the pre-qualification stage before Bechtel Jacobs decided to pull back. He declined to say how many companies had chosen to pre-qualify. Reverse auction requires subcontractors to compete online with multiple chances to lower their bids in a limited amount of time. Companies can view their relative standing in the bid war, and resubmit bids accordingly. Bechtel Jacobs officials say they successfully bid the travel contract through reverse auction. Many in the subcontracting community had expressed alarm that Bechtel Jacobs would consider an online reverse auction for large, complex cleanup projects, saying it would encourage replacing the emphasis on technical expertise and merit with low-ball bidding. Bechtel officials have said that companies will exercise a professional approach whether bidding on paper or online. "I have to seriously question the wisdom of a reverse auction approach in what already amounts to a low bid environment, especially considering the accelerated cleanup schedule in Oak Ridge," said Bruce Kimmel, vice president with CDM, an engineering consulting company focusing on environmental work. Kimmel and others earlier noted they would have a difficult time convincing management of their firms to participate. Jenny Freeman, executive director of the East Tennessee Environmental Business Association, said this morning that she is pleased Bechtel Jacobs has shown "flexibility" in removing the procurement from reverse auction. "We're pleased Bechtel Jacobs decided against using reverse auction e-bids for that project because of the complexity and the uncertainties of that job," said Freeman. "We felt the D of buildings K-25 and K-27 was inappropriate for reverse auction. "ETEBA thinks that for the purchase of commodities or for small discreet projects with well-defined scopes of work, reverse auction could probably work." ETEBA earlier ran an informal survey of its membership of environmental subcontractors, and found almost 50 percent indicating they would not participate in the reverse auction process. The survey was submitted to the Department of Energy and to Bechtel Jacobs. Hill said the contractor plans to hold consultations with ETEBA to field concerns and to better educate the subcontractors in the reverse auction process. "Because it was such a large package and people are still unfamiliar with that process, we decided to pull back for now," said Hill. "We will continue the educational process with subcontractors, and we will start to incrementally increase the frequency and the size of procurements as we go into accelerated cleanup. "They can expect to see it again," said Hill. The Department of Energy's accelerated cleanup program has set a 2008 closure schedule for the site. Hill said that subcontractors now have an opportunity to submit "paper" proposals on the Phase II project, and those are due Oct. 7. Companies that pre-qualified the first time around do not have to resubmit, though modifications of proposals are allowed. Hill said the company hopes to award a contract sometime in November. Bechtel Jacobs holds the environmental management contract for DOE and is currently awaiting word from the federal agency on the status of that contract. About three months ago the company began touting the reverse online auction as a new tool that could save the government and taxpayers money, and held an orientation in June. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 43 BNFL awards contract to clean up part of K-33 cleanup The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 BNFL Inc. recently announced that a contract to decontaminate a portion of the K-33 building has been awarded to an Oak Ridge company. Safety and Ecology Corp. won the bid over four other finalists, according to a press release from BNFL. The company is charged with decontaminating a portion of the building in a 60- to 90-day period as a test run for BNFL to evaluate whether SEC's technology will work for the remaining decommissioning and decontaminating work. BNFL signed a contract with the Department of Energy in August 1997 to clean up the three gaseous diffusion plant buildings at the K-25 site. Safety and Ecology has been in business for 12 years and specializes in health and safety support services and environmental site remediation and construction. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 44 DOE sets production hearings Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 09/22/02 >Web posted Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:20 a.m. CT Pantex, four other sites in running for new facility From staff and wire reports The Energy Department will conduct public hearings in Amarillo about the department's proposal to consider the Pantex Plant and four other sites for plutonium pit production facility. The hearings will be from 7 to 10 p.m. Oct. 8 at Amarillo College's College Union Building, Oak Room, 24th Avenue and Jackson Street. The public meeting will let the public present comments, ask questions and discuss issues with representatives from the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. Besides Pantex, other possible sites include the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M.; Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. On Friday, the NNSA announced its plan to prepare a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern Pit Facility. The formal notice is the first step in carrying out government recommendations to manufacture plutonium pits, the triggers for nuclear warheads. The proposed $4 billion plutonium production facility would employ about 1,500 people and the DOE hopes to have it running by 2020. "A new facility would re-establish the capability to manufacture all pit types in the nation's current nuclear stockpile and meet any future requirements in an environmentally compliant manner," the NNSA said in a news release. The Supplement will support two decisions: whether to proceed with a modern pit facility; and, if so, where it should be built. The environmental impact statement also will evaluate maintaining plutonium pit capabilities at Los Alamos and the possibility of upgrading Los Alamos facilities to increase pit production, according to the NNSA. The NNSA is seeking comments related to its plans to prepare the Supplemental Programmatic EIS. Comments should be submitted within 60 days and mailed to Jay Rose, document manager, Department of Energy/NNSA, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. Comments also can be faxed to 1-202-586-5324 or e-mailed to James.Rose@nnsa.doe.gov Plutonium pit production was shut down at Colorado's Rocky Flats plant in 1989 because of environmental, health and safety problems at the plant. Operations at the Rocky Flats plant and the contractor that once operated the facility, Rockwell International, were the subject of an intensive two-year federal grand jury investigation that began in 1989 after FBI agents raided the plant. Then-U.S. Attorney Mike Norton, however, rejected the grand jury's findings, saying there was not enough evidence to bring charges in the case. Rockwell, which had operated Rocky Flats for more than a decade ending in 1989, later agreed to plead guilty to 10 environmental crimes and pay an $18.5 million fine. In 1993, a Colorado federal judge released the grand jury report, which said the federal government and Rockwell repeatedly violated environmental laws under the guise of "national security," according to The Associated Press. Grand jurors alleged, among other things, that the Department of Energy and Rockwell employees "engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise" by repeatedly violating environmental laws and that plant operators contaminated the drinking water of nearby communities. Amarillo Globe-News Staff Writer Jim McBride and The Associated Press contributed to this report. [webmaster@amarillonet.com] 1996-2002 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** 45 States concerns about DOE's safety policy, personnel The Oak Ridger Online - Opinion - Your views 09/23/02 p.m. on Monday, September 23, 2002 Your views To The Oak Ridger: The victims of DOE's workplace health and safety disaster -- the thousands of diseased, disabled, or prematurely deceased DOE workers and their families, who were harmed by toxic exposures in DOE facilities, generally without their knowledge or adequate protection, have received apologies from the U.S. government and, in some cases, a measure of compensation via the 2000 EEOICPA (Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Plan Act). Still, in light of this disaster, DOE's safety professionals, as the involved safety professions, have yet to acknowledge that a fundamental breakdown in their codes of professional ethics occurred, compounding the initial breakdown. "Safety rules are written in blood" is proverbial, many safety rules result from disasters. Much literal and figurative blood has been shed by the sick workers; they deserve a DOE where safety professionals are held accountable to their professional responsibilities and where they and their professions will not allow DOE to punish their members for doing their duty. I'm a licensed professional engineer (P.E.) and workplace and nuclear safety engineer in DOE. I'm also an "eight-time prevailing and still aggrieved" whistleblower as detailed on my Web site http://www.carsonversusdoe.com/ eudora="autourl">www.carsonversusdoe.com. By state law, I "shall hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public (including workers) in the performance of professional duty." This includes a positive duty to "blow the whistle," when necessary. According to my profession's code of ethics, I must 1) resign, 2) blow the whistle, or 3) both when my employer will not correct safety violations that imperil workers or the public, regardless of possible workplace/career retribution. In my opinion and experience, DOE and its contractors have a long history of treating the health of its workers as "expendable." The DOE sick workers evidence this, as does DOE continuing history of reprisal against its concerned employees. My case is illustrative -- DOE continues to suppress my safety findings, even after I have "prevailed" numerous times as a safety whistleblower, despite its "zero tolerance" policy. Its actions send a clear, chilling, message to its safety professionals, "keep your concerns to yourself." And how do DOE's safety professionals react? They generally express sympathy for my "personal problem" just as they do for the "personal problems" of the DOE sick workers. Had there not been such a breakdown in professional ethics among DOE licensed and/or certified safety professionals (and the safety professions generally), the DOE sick worker disaster would have been largely prevented, or, to the extent it did occur, the safety professions would already have examined how their codes of ethics or their implementation were inadequate to prevent it. The undisputable facts are that the sick worker disaster did happen and the safety professions have yet to acknowledge it. It's like the financial professions ignoring/denying their responsibility for Enron, WorldCom, and other corporate disasters. That should alarm everyone. Here are some hard-won suggestions: + Use the term "victims of a workplace health and safety disaster" when describing the DOE sick workers. It puts the focus where it belongs -- on DOE's safety professionals, whose failure to adhere to "hold paramount" the health and safety of DOE workers -- allowed it. + Insist that DOE implement a policy of requiring its (and its contractors') engineers being licensed and its other non-engineer safety professional being certified by national Bocards. DOE is the only civilian agency that is self-regulating in worker and nuclear safety, its facilities handle ultra-hazardous substances by risky processes, and it has a legacy of diseased and disabled workers -- engineering licensure and third party credentialing of its other safety professionals is clearly warranted and just common sense. + America's involved safety professions -- engineering, health physics, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine -- need to admit ztheir responsibility, partial though it may be, for the sick worker disaster, endorse current congressional efforts to provide just -- generous and inclusive -- compensation to the disaster's victims, and examine how their code of ethics and their implementation in DOE was inadequate to prevent it. + DOE's oft-stated policy of "zero tolerance for reprisal" needs to stop being a cruel hoax. This would happen if DOE's current safety professionals expressed outrage, to Congress, to their safety professions, and others, when another DOE safety professional, such as I (or more recently Janet Westbrook, a former radiation safety official at ORNL) are legally vindicated in their allegations of workplace reprisal for adhering to their professional obligation to "hold paramount the health and safety of workers and the public." Joseph P. Carson, P.E. Knoxville This country sorely needs real leadership To The Oak Ridger: In our rush to vanquish/eliminate/revenge ourselves upon the terrorists/Iraq and others, John McCain makes the frighteningly empty case that many elected officials have echoed: that President Bush is right pushing for war against Iraq because it's what the American people want. America is a representative republic, they say, and what the majority wants is what our leaders should do. We are doing this, we are told, because you, the American people, want it so. To give this rationalization its due inspection, one must consider that according to a poll just 90 days ago in Kuwait, the majority of the population thought that the 9-11 barbarians were morally correct in what they did on that horrific morning last year. One should also consider that a majority of Germans in 1938-39 thought that the war they had begun was a morally just war, or that most Japanese in the 1930s "knew" the subjugation of their little brothers in China was just and proper. Then, now, and in the future, popular opinion won't make assertions facts. In a representative republic such as the United States, the best and only fair way to elect leaders is by majority vote. This does not mean, however, that every issue afterward should be decided by the polls; yet that is exactly what our political leaders would have us believe. And understandably so: The polls and popular opinion represent politicians' best road to re-election. Once an elected official takes office we trust that they will use some fair and objective standard on which to base their decision-making process. From where should these objective standards come? Do they even exist? Let that question alone stand as the indication that this nation is sorely in need of such a set of standards and leaders with the integrity to stand, present them, and fight for them. I do not propose that a war designed to oust Sadaam Hussein is impractical, unjust, or unnecessary. This is not a commentary on the case of an American (U.N.)/Iraq war, but an observation of our sore need of real leadership in this country. We've simply not seen or heard any logical evidence that we are threatened directly as a nation by Iraq any more than our "allies" Saudi Arabia threaten us, as they funnel money to groups with established links to terrorist organizations. As an opinion piece, the only opinion offered here is that we do not now have in place such standards; the rest is a question put to you, the readers: From where should these standards come if they do not already exist. And we'd better answer this question correctly, and quickly: As in Rome all these many years ago, the barbarians are at our gates, and inside of our walls. John Nikitas Oak Ridge Thanks for help with tourism event To The Oak Ridger: On behalf of the Oak Ridge Convention and Visitors Bureau and Anderson County Tourism Council, we want to thank everyone who assisted with the Tennessee State Welcome Center Familiarization Tour Tuesday through Thursday, Sept. 10 through Sept. 12, 2002. This was an important opportunity for the Anderson County community to showcase our assets to the "front line" people of the state's tourism promotion efforts. We have received a tremendous amount of positive feedback from the participants. Without the assistance of the following individuals and organizations, the tour would not have been a success: Mark Morgan - Norris Dam State Park, Benny Carden - city of Norris, Sarah Hilten and Susan Forbes - Norris Museum/Norris Historical Society, Jim Folck - Sequoyah Marina, Kylene McLucas and Emily Robinson - Coal Creek Watershed Foundation, Shalish Patel and Trish - Comfort Inn Clinton, staff of Golden Girls Restaurant, John Rice Irwin and Elaine Irwin Meyer - Museum of Appalachia, Mayor David Bradshaw - city of Oak Ridge, Dr. Robin White and Jane Miller - BWXT Y-12, Lissa Clarke and Judd Brown - American Museum of Science and Energy, Sgt. Scott Ball - Oak Ridge Police Department, Leah Estes - Oak Ridge Art Center, Selma Shapiro - Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Sandy Burchfield and Robin Castleberry - Garden Plaza Hotel, Barbara Ferrell - The Ferrell Shop, Historic Jackson Square/Greenwich Village, Richard Evans - UT Arboretum, staff of the Bleu Hound Grille and the staff of Jefferson Fountain. Again, thank you! Stephanie Ailey Executive director Anderson County Tourism Council Joe Valentino Executive director Oak Ridge Convention and Visitors Bureau Questions for those who voted 'Yes' To The Oak Ridger: For a number of years, I have learned about how City Council operates and what is really going on in Oak Ridge from several writers in this Letters column. If Walt Zobel, Earl Cottongim, or Eugene Hise could be persuaded to run for City Council, they would get my vote. Also, Radford M. Carroll and Hal Smith offered a wonderful suggestion for funding the city mall that has since received little attention: The nearly 4,000 "Yes" voters should invest in the stock of a company with the sole purpose of redeveloping the mall. These shareholers would be more than welcome to 100 percent of the profits from such a high-risk scheme. Let's ask, in the new spirit of civility frequently mentioned in this column, for all of the "Yes" voters to put their private savings and investment behind the mall redevelopment project. Again, in this new spirit of civility, let's open a dialogue in which the "Yes" voters share with us some basic facts about the mall redevelopment plan. First, how many of them have read the business plan for the project? Rumor has it that the developers embarked on a $17 million development project without even having a written business plan. Second, what are the expected cash flows from the city's investment in the project over the first 15 years of the project. Surely all the wise "Yes" voters would not endorse one of the largest capital spending projects in the history of Oak Ridge if they did not have a clue about the investment return. Michael A.S. Guth Oak Ridge [http://www.oakridger.com/dailydouble] [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************