DOE analysts told Committee staff that the CIA

contractors had not been provided with pertinent data on rocket systems that would have shown that the pressure inside rocket motor bodies is very high and these tests were not too high for rocket motors. The DOE also noted that materials intended for use in high-speed rotational equipment, such as centrifuges, are typically subjected to a battery of tests, such as spin testing, to determine ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, metallurgical flaws, and balance, but are not typically subjected to pressure tests. Solid-fuel rocket motors develop stresses from internal pressure and hydrostatic testing is typical for rocket motor cases.

on al Raya indicated that Iraq had consolidated the most important materials science elements of the former Iraqi nuclear weapons program in al Raya and that the center "would likely play a very key role in a restarted nuclear weapons program." The IAEA told Committee staff however, that there was never any suspicion from the UN that al-Raya contained nuclear facilities or was engaged in prohibited activities, although the IAEA and UN did inspect the facility because of equipment used and stored there and because former nuclear officials worked there.

b. Other Assessments of the Tubes

In its text box dissenting from the IC's position in the NIE, the DOE assessed that the anodized coating on the aluminum tubes and the quantity of tubes requested were inconsistent with their use for centrifuges.

(1) Anodized Coating

Iraq's aluminum tube procurement requests included a requirement that the tubes be anodized. Although the NIE assessment on the tubes did not include a discussion of the anodized coating, the CIA's September 2002 intelligence assessment did address this issue.

The

assessment added that "Iraq's prewar centrifuge effort used anodized molecular pumps indicating the Iraqis understand

"CIA and DIA analysts told Committee staff that while anodization is not necessary for an aluminum centrifuge, intelligence reporting suggested that Iraqi officials thought it was necessary

The CIA provided the Committee with a HUMINT report distributed in November 2002, after the publication of the NIE, which indicated that Iraq may have believed they needed to anodize aluminum rotor tubes.

The DOE alternative view text box in the NIE said that anodization is not necessary and can be problematic for centrifuges. "It is well established in open sources that bare aluminum is resistant to UF6 and anodization is unnecessary for corrosion resistance, either for the aluminum rotors or for the thousands of feet of aluminum piping in a centrifuge facility. Instead, anodization would likely introduce uncertainties into the design that would need to be resolved before a centrifuge could be operated." Some of these uncertainties are described in a

DOE analysts told Committee staff that the CIA's claims about

U.S. and European centrifuge programs using anodized surface coatings is misleading

The DOE analysts said that they asked Gernot Zippe personally if his rotor was anodized and he said, "no."

The DOE also provided Committee staff with an assessment of the November 2002 CIA HUMINT report. The DOE assessment, and comments from DOE analysts, noted that the HUMINT report that Iraq anodized aluminum rotor tubes used in its early Beams-type centrifuge design is inconsistent with Iraqi disclosures to the IAEA and post-Gulf

war reporting from this source which said Iraq used anodization in a gaseous diffusion nuclear program, not its centrifuge program.

Committee staff that the model was anodized in order to protect it from corrosion, but the actual rotors used in Zippe's centrifuge design were not anodized.

the DOE

noted in the NIE that anodization is a standard practice in missile construction for environmental protection. In a written response to questions from Committee staff, the NGIC agreed that anodizing "provides components of military weapon systems with maximum corrosion resistance. The coating also provides a surface having better paint adhesion than uncoated aluminum." The IAEA told Committee staff that Iraq was anodizing the tubes because they were being stored outdoors and, therefore, required the coating as environmental protection. According to the IAEA, Iraq lost thousands of the tubes it procured in the early and mid-1990s due to the corrosive effects of being stored outdoors. The Iraqis believed an anodized coating would better protect the new tubes they were attempting to procure.

(2) Quantity of Tubes

The DOE assessed that the quantity of tubes Iraq was trying to procure is inconsistent with the needs of a centrifuge program. Iraq was consistently seeking 60,000 tubes and in some cases over 100,000 tubes. The DOE assessed that ten to twenty thousand tubes would be sufficient to build enough centrifuge machines to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons annually. The fabrication of 60,000 centrifuges would take Iraq well over a decade even if it were able to produce 20 acceptable centrifuges per day, a large number considering Iraq's industrial capabilities.

The CIA assessed that over-purchasing is typical of Iraqi buying habits and likely reflects Iraq's attempts at quality control, to ensure that at least 10,000 to 20,000 tubes were of sufficient quality for use in a centrifuge program. The CIA's contractors and CIA analysts also relied on the NGIC's assessment that 60,000 tubes were too few for Iraq's Nasser

81 MRL system. The NGIC assessed if Iraq were to use the Nasser 81 MRL in a conflict, they could expend 60,000 rockets in less than a week, meaning that Iraq would need many more tubes for an effective weapon system.

The NGIC analyst told Committee staff, however, that he was unaware of other intelligence reports which showed that Iraq had attempted to procure over 100,000 tubes in some cases. The NGIC analyst was also unaware that Iraq had procured 160,000 tubes for the Nasser 81 program in 1989, and still had 66,000 tubes available in 1996, suggesting that it would take Iraq a long time to use even 60,000 tubes. The NGIC analyst also could not provide Committee staff with an assessment or estimate of Iraq's Nasser 81 rocket production rate. Iraq's rocket production rate was about 50 rockets per day, or about 10,000 a year. This would mean that it would take Iraq six years to produce rockets from all 60,000 tubes.

(3) IAEA Investigation of Tubes

(U) After publication of the NIE but before the war had begun in Iraq, the IAEA was able to investigate Iraq's claims that the aluminum tubes were intended for its Nasser 81 rocket program. The IAEA told Committee staff that, primarily because of U.S. concerns about the tubes, investigating the tubes became one of the key lines of work during inspections in Iraq.

(U) The IAEA was able to verify that Iraq was engaged in rocket production at the Nasser 81 facility, making propellant and warheads and painting the rockets. A random spot check showed that the Iraqis had 13,000 completed rockets in their inventory. These rockets were being produced from the older 7075-T6 aluminum tubes at Nasser. Many of the older tubes had corroded because they had been stored outside and the Iraqis told the IAEA that they were trying to procure more tubes because they were going to run out of unspoiled tubes in about twelve to eighteen months. The older Nasser tubes had not been anodized, and the Iraqis told the IAEA the new anodization requirement was intended to protect the new tubes from spoiling in the elements.

(U) The bottom line assessment of the IAEA was that the tubes Iraq was trying to procure were capable of being adapted for use in a uranium centrifuge, but that it would require significant research and development and technical skills which would require years of work, even for people who knew what they were doing. The IAEA officials said they could not totally disregard the scenario that the tubes could be used in a centrifuge, but there were many