***************************************************************** 09/16/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.222 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 BBC NEWS: Iraq war allies rebuff UN chief 2 YellowTimes.org: ''Iraq is full of WMD'' 3 UK Independent: Annan declares Iraq war illegal and warns of electio 4 SF Chronicle: Differences narrow on what to do about Iranian nuclear 5 Las Vegas SUN: North Korea Says It Won't Join Nuke Talks 6 Las Vegas SUN: N. Korea Stalling on Nuclear Talks 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: S. Korea Conduced Defense-Oriented Pluton 8 BBC: N Korea stalls nuclear talks 9 Japan Times: SIX-PARTY TALKS Pyongyang deal still possible 10 US: Seattle Times: Do federal security dollars go where the risk is 11 US: Rockwell: 30,000 Nukes ... And the Voters Don't Know Where Bush 12 Newsday: Yoko awards grants to Hersh and Vanunu NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: [NukeNet] Nuke Power's Large Role In Adding To Global Warming 14 US: [NukeNet] new NRC security brochure 15 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th 16 US: NRC: [3150-AH44] X/Import of nuclear equipment 17 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH47 18 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Subcommittee Meeting o 19 US: APP.COM: Valve problem causes shutdown of nuclear plant 20 Guardian Unlimited: 'Britain must build nuclear power plants' 21 US: NRC: NRC Dispatches Staff in Preparation for Hurricane Ivan 22 US: NRC: Protecting Our Nation - Since 9-11-01 (NUREG/BR-0314) 23 YLEnews: Nuclear Power from Russia? 24 NZZ Online: Wind energy blows back on course 25 UK Greenpeace: Nuclear is too dangerous, dirty and expensive 26 US: Maine Today: Engineers having a blast 27 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th 28 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 29 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th NUCLEAR SAFETY 30 [du-list] Ban DU until it is proven harmless 31 US: [du-list] America’s Nuclear Wars 32 US: Lexington Herald-Leader: Nuclear workers' program reviewed 33 AFP: All nuclear material stolen from Russia recovered - official 34 US: Charleston.Net: Air Force team to look for old hydrogen bomb off NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 35 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW); Notice of Meeti 36 US: EPA: Radiation Removal site: Sad Diego Ca 37 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: U.S. Supreme Court interventio 38 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca ruling appealed by DOE 39 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: No longer ignored 40 Las Vegas SUN: NEI to take appeal on Yucca standards to Supreme Cour 41 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: GOP hopes for Yucca amnesia 42 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Feds, not plants, own nuke waste 43 AJ: Editorial: LES Donation Crosses Conflict-of-Interest Line 44 US: PE.com: Rialto water order likely 45 Senator Harry Reid: NV Congressional Delegation Calls For Restoratio NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 46 Rocky Mountain News: Hefley neutral on overhaul of aid for ex-Flats 47 Las Vegas SUN: 4 Workers Fired in Los Alamos Lab Scandal 48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: U.S. Senate approves study of Manhattan 49 Las Vegas RJ: Bill provides $20 million for training at test site 50 SFnewmexican: LANL fires, disciplines employees 51 Tri-City Herald: Bill allows B Reactor as museum 52 SF Chronicle: 5 employees to leave scandal-torn UC lab 53 Times-News: INEEL plant undergoes cleanupBy Michelle Dunlop 54 San Francisco Bay View: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons p OTHER NUCLEAR 55 [du-list] Professor Yagasaki's explanation (!!!???) on 56 [du-list] Nuclear Weapons Stealth Takeover: 5 Admirals, U.C. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: Iraq war allies rebuff UN chief [http://www.bbc.co.uk] Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 16:02 GMT 17:02 UK [UN Secretary General Kofi Annan] Key states who joined the US-led invasion of Iraq have rejected claims by the United Nations secretary general that the war was illegal. Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. But authorities in the UK, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria and Japan said the war was backed by international law. Australian Prime Minister John Howard described the UN as a "paralysed" body. And a former Bush administration aide, Randy Scheunemann, branded Mr Annan's comments "outrageous". 'Political interference' Mr Howard, fighting a cliffhanger re-election battle, insisted the invasion was legal. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal Kofi Annan [ src=] Annan interview excerpts The full interview is due to be broadcast at intervals on the BBC World Service this Saturday from 03:30 GMT Labelling the international body "paralysed", he said it was incapable of dealing with international crises. "The legal advice we had - and I tabled it at the time - was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," he said. Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, accused Mr Annan of trying to influence the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election. "I think it is outrageous for the secretary general, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," he told the BBC. "To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," Randy Scheunemann said. He said the UN's failure to act in Sudan, and in other areas around the world, was proving that effective multilateralism may be a contradiction in terms. 'Painful lessons' We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful Patricia Hewitt UK trade and industry secretary The British government - which has argued that UN resolutions provided a legal basis for intervening to topple Saddam Hussein - said the 2003 invasion was "not only lawful but necessary". "We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions," Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt told the BBC. Japan's top government spokesman, Hiroyuki Hosoda, told a news conference that he would be seeking clarification about the exact significance of Mr Annan's words. Polish Foreign Ministry spokesman Boguslaw Majewski said the "decisions which at that time were made by the international community in Iraq, did have legal basis". And Bulgarian spokeswoman Guergana Grantcharova cited previous Security Council resolutions which, she said, supported the case for war. 'Illegal invasion' Mr Annan told the BBC World Service he hoped he would not see "another Iraq-type operation for a long time". He said there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections and it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences. The invasion of Iraq was illegal, he said, from the point of view of the UN charter. Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January. The BBC's Susannah Price, at UN headquarters in New York, says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down. US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week. ***************************************************************** 2 YellowTimes.org: ''Iraq is full of WMD'' Thursday, September 16, 2004 @ 00:07:43 CDT   ( [Paul Harris] By Paul Harris YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada) (YellowTimes.org) -- The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn’t find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil. Few understand that the United States is still lying. Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them. The United States has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the World War II, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD. Most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although they also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (the ‘agents’ were so named because of the colour of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, but in Vietnam they became defoliants, used to strip away the trees and grasses in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces. Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and killed by incineration anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. Napalm bombs were also dropped on Japan by Allied troops during World War II and used in flamethrowers in Germany in the same war. Later, it was used by United Nations forces during the Korean War. Although its use was banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did not sign the agreement. The U.S. claimed to have destroyed its supplies of napalm by 2001 but that appears to be a matter of semantics rather than fact; current evidence shows they have used it as recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11: "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." The Pentagon claims its denial of napalm use is not untrue because they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed the product the ‘Mark 77 firebomb’. Its victims will surely appreciate the clarification. While the United States remains the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I &II. American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and although it doesn’t have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb. The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements, treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S. military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those international treaties, and its own laws, the United States continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all species, including our own. Depleted uranium is a waste by-product of nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear power. It is used in weapons because it is cheap, ignites easily and burns fiercely on hitting a solid target. When it impacts, it releases an aerosol of fine uranium oxide that is breathable and spreads great distances by wind until weighted down by rain, where it falls to the ground and is absorbed into soil or water sources. It was first developed for the U.S. Navy in 1968 and DU weapons were supplied to, and used by, Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since then, the U.S. has sold DU weapons to at least 29 countries. The plans for this substance, however, actually date back to 1943. A declassified document from the Manhattan Project is a blueprint for depleted uranium weapons. The Americans have given DU to weapons manufacturers free of charge. Scientists are quite certain on two points: DU is deadly; and the effects of this material will continue to contaminate the earth long after humans are extinct. They are also fairly clear that continued use of DU will mean the future is going to move ahead without us. Euphemistically, some in military circles refer to DU as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, the ultimate gift that keeps on giving. The half-life of the material is 4.5 billion years. This is very dangerous material: it meets the U.S. definition of a 'weapon of mass destruction' and while the United States is prepared to invade sovereign countries on the basis they 'might' have WMD themselves and they 'might' be willing to use them, the Americans actually have them and actually use them. And they use them in complete disregard for the people and nations on whom they are dropped, even in disregard of the health of their own and allied troops. In the three-week Gulf War in 1991, just 467 U.S. personnel were reported as wounded. Of the 580,400 GIs who served in that war, more than 11,000 are now dead and in excess of 400,000 are on permanent medical disability. New cases are arising by an astounding 43,000 per year. In a nutshell, more than 70% of those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 now have medical problems. The only substances to which these troops are known to have been exposed are vaccines and depleted uranium. Vaccines do not cause the diseases these troops have contracted. In response to the mounting evidence of the hazards, the American response has been to use the same material in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and for a second time in Iraq. This transcends mere politics: it has now gone on through three presidential administrations. Even worse, the Americans knew the deadly hazard inherent in this material before they ever started to use it. A military report prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1974 stated: “In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant.” A contractor to the military, Science Applications International Corporation, noted in a July 1990 report that “aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects.” Americans have cheered the successes of their military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in the Balkans. Most remain ignorant of the horrendous weapons their troops used to destroy such feeble enemies. Even more, they are almost completely ignorant of the hazards faced by their own troops from the toys at their disposal. There is no outrage in the U.S. for the dangers being faced by American troops, even less outrage for the innocent victims of this lethal onslaught. But America’s craven allies can offer no excuses for their silence. None of the information presented in this article is secret: it is readily available from a variety of sources. In several countries, there are victims of DU exposure who thought they were going to fight the good fight with their Yankee friends, little realizing that their best buddy was going to expose them to lethal substances, just because they could. The American decision to initiate the use of DU weaponry, and then to continue its use even when evidence mounted to thwart any lingering doubts about the hazards, is a despicable act. This has been a cold, calculated decision to inflict long-lasting harm on enemies with no regard for the innocent in those lands and no regard even for American and allied troops. There are few observers who would excuse any other nation behaving in this way from charges of war crimes. Depleted uranium appears to have been given the green light in 1990 for three reasons: to test the efficacy of fourth generation nuclear weapons still in their development stage; to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weaponry; and to facilitate the reintroduction of nuclear weapons into the American arsenal. And it has done a marvelous job of stopping the enemy. Unfortunately, the side effects on civilian populations and the long-lasting environmental effects are horrendous. If the use of this weaponry marks the future of American strategy, and given their proclivity for military adventures, the deleterious effects of DU on the environment and on the population of various countries is assured. More, the health of American and allied troops is also compromised. The continued use of DU weapons should be sufficient reason for America’s allies to decline invitations to future military excursions. Regardless of the peril presented by the enemy, America’s allies need to be concerned about the peril presented by America. [Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. He lives in Canada.] Paul Harris encourages your comments: pharris@YellowTimes.org [pharris@YellowTimes.org] YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated. ***************************************************************** 3 UK Independent: Annan declares Iraq war illegal and warns of election credibility By Colin Brown and Patrick Cockburn 16 September 2004 Tony Blair last night suffered a fresh blow after Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said the war in Iraq was "illegal". Speaking on the BBC World Service, Mr Annan said the war was "not in conformity" with the UN Security Council or with the UN Charter. Asked if there was legal authority for the war on Iraq, Mr Annan said: "I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the security council, with the UN charter." He also said there could not be credible elections in Iraq next January if the current unrest continued. His remarks are certain to provoke demands by anti-war Labour MPs at Westminster today for a statement by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith. The UN weapons inspection team, led by Hans Blix, found little evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but this is the first time that Mr Annan has been so outspoken in his criticism of the grounds for going to war. The Foreign Office last night sought to play down Mr Annan's comments, saying: "The Attorney General made the Government's position on the legal basis about the use of military force clear at the time." However, both Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, and Clare Short, the ex-Secretary of State for International Development, resigned from the Cabinet over the war, challenged the legality of the war and Lord Goldsmith's ruling. There has been continuing doubt about the legality of the war. Ms Short has claimed that the chiefs of staff of the armed forces were reluctant to go to war until Lord Goldsmith gave a ruling on the eve of battle that there was legal justification for the war. Lord Goldsmith argued that the threat from weapons of mass destruction was one of the reasons for justifying action under UN resolution 1441. However, the Iraq Survey Group is expected to confirm that no evidence of WMD has been found. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the number two in the Foreign Office legal team, resigned in protest at the case for attacking Iraq in a pre-emptive strike, a week before the war began. It has also been claimed that the Foreign Office fears that its legal justification for the war on Iraq could be open to legal challenge as a result of the ruling in the International Court of Justice against the construction of Israel's security wall. Mr Annan's question over the Iraq elections could prove more damaging for the US and the UK alliance The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told a private meeting of Labour MPs this week that the purpose of the attacks by insurgents in Iraq was to prevent elections taking place. He said the stakes were high because a peaceful democratic Iraq would be a model for the Middle East. Mr Annan said last month that UN staff returning to Iraq after two suicide bomb attacks last October would have to rely on US-led multinational forces for their protection. The small team led by Ashraf Jehangir Qazi of Pakistan is due to arrive in Baghdad on 22 September with the UN election team. Mr Straw told the MPs attempts were made to get non-multinational force countries to provide security for the team but, apart from Canada, that was unsuccessful. Mr Straw said the failure to close the borders to insurgents after the war was the major failing of the post war period. Meanwhile, the US sought yesterday to defend the two helicopter pilots who fired seven rockets into a crowd in Baghdad on Sunday, killing 13 people and wounding 41, saying they had come under "well-aimed ground fire". This is different from the first statement by the US military claiming that they opened fire with rockets to prevent a Bradley fighting vehicle which had been hit by a bomb from being looted of arms and ammunition. The US account of the incident in which Mazen al-Tomeizi, a Palestinian television producer working for al-Arabiya satellite channel was killed, was contradicted by the film taken by his cameraman at the moment the rocket struck. There is no sound of firing from the crowd in the moments before the helicopters attacked. The US military's accounts of incidents in which it claims to have targeted insurgents but only civilians have died are frequently discredited by Arab television pictures of the incident, which US officers apparently do not watch before issuing statements. At the weekend the US claimed to have hit insurgents in a precision raid in Fallujah while Iraqis were watching pictures on television of an ambulance attacked from the air in which a driver, a paramedic and five patients died. The war in Iraq continues to intensify, with a sharp increase in the overall death rate. Three headless bodies were discovered yesterday on a road north of Baghdad and appeared from tattoos to be Iraqis whose hands were tied behind their backs. While insurgents have often beheaded foreign hostages in their fight against the government and coalition forces, it is not a tactic usually used against Iraqis. In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, there was an upsurge of fighting in which 10 people were killed, including two women. Meanwhile, the US has dashed Iraqi hopes that money would at last be invested in the country's crumbling infrastructure and no longer spent on arms and security services as under Saddam Hussein. The State Department has announced that it is switching $3.4bn of US funds from water and power projects. Most of the money will be reallocated to boosting security and oil output. Iraqis had expected that 18 months after the invasion they would get continuous electricity supplies. Instead, many districts in Baghdad get only 14 hours a day. Polluted water is one of the chief killers of children but even in an important city such as Basra only 18 per cent of the supply is clean. Marc Grossman, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, said earlier in the week that $1.8bn of the diverted money would go to recruit 35,000 Iraqi police officers, 16,000 border guards and 20 Iraqi national guard brigades. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 4 SF Chronicle: Differences narrow on what to do about Iranian nuclear program at U.N. atomic watchdog agency meeting ANDREA DUDIKOVA, Associated Press Writer Thursday, September 16, 2004 (09-16) 02:10 PDT VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- U.S and European negotiators tentatively agreed Thursday to censure Iran for reneging on a freeze on uranium enrichment and moved closer to setting a deadline on Tehran to dispel suspicions it is trying to make nuclear arms. The latest version of a draft resolution being prepared for a board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency and made available to The Associated Press showed the two sides sharing "serious concerns" on enrichment but still negotiating a list of demands to make of Iran. "We are making progress" on the draft being circulated among the 35 board members, said a diplomat from a European Union country. Another EU diplomat said his group was meeting later in the morning to discuss the latest copy of the draft, containing language both from the Europeans and the Americans. Both Washington and the European Union want a commitment from Iran to stop enrichment and demand it meet other conditions meant to banish fears Tehran may be interested in nuclear weapons. But the two sides came into the meeting with different views over how to achieve that aim. The draft being discussed Thursday expressed "serious concern" that Iran "has not heeded repeated calls from the board to suspend ... all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." And it expressed alarm at Iranian plans to process more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment. It also called on Iran to suspend all such activities; called on IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei to submit a report by November reviewing the past two years of his Iran probe, and demanded Iran resolve "resolve all outstanding issues and inconsistencies" feeding fears it may have a weapons program. A proposal in the draft submitted by the United States, Canada and Australia would also set an Oct. 31 deadline on Iran to meet all the conditions. While no punitive action is directly threatened should it fail to do so, one western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity described the date as an "indirect trigger" that could open the way for referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council. The United States is seeking European support to have Tehran taken before the U.N. Security Council if it defies the call for an enrichment freeze and other demands. Iran is not prohibited from enrichment under its obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has faced mounting international pressure to suspend such activities, which can produce uranium for generating power or making nuclear weapons, as a good-faith gesture to prove it is not seeking to make atomic weapons. The IAEA meeting adjourned Wednesday to allow for back-room negotiations and consultations with capitals. Plans were to reconvene Friday for a vote on a final version of the Iran resolution. Last week, Iran confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment. Even before that, international concerns over Iran's nuclear program were growing, fueled by suspicions that Tehran had never really suspended enrichment activities, as it had pledged to do so a year ago. Hossein Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to the meeting, suggested Iran was not about to cave in to threats of Security Council action. "I think one year is enough," he told The Associated Press, when asked if his country would agree to extend its October commitment to suspending enrichment. Mousavian did not name a date for a resumption of enrichment, but suggested it could be "a few months" away. An IAEA report gave Iran some good marks for cooperating with the most recent phase of a two-year agency probe into the country's nearly two-decade-old covert nuclear program, which surfaced publicly only two years ago. But the report also said Iran must do more to banish all suspicions that it harbors nuclear weapons ambitions. Mousavian referred to that report in arguing there is no need to demand a further freeze. "All major necessary confidence building measures have been taken by Iran, and today the agency has full control and supervision," he said. "That's why we believe that (a) one-year suspension is good enough." On the Net: IAEA: www.iaea.org [http://www.iaea.org] San Francisco Chronicle ©2004 Associated Press ***************************************************************** 5 Las Vegas SUN: North Korea Says It Won't Join Nuke Talks ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Thursday it will not join six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program until rival South Korea fully discloses the details of secret atomic experiments conducted years ago. The communist state relayed its position when British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell visited Pyongyang earlier this week, an unidentified spokesman of the North Korean Foreign Ministry told the North's official news agency, KCNA. The comments further clouded U.S.-led international efforts to hold a new round of six-nation talks on the North's nuclear programs this month as planned. During Rammell's visit, North Korea "clarified its stand that it can never sit at the table to negotiate its nuclear weapon program unless truth about the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea is fully probed," KCNA quoted the North Korean spokesman as saying. South Korea recently acknowledged that it conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago. That admission came shortly after it said it conducted a uranium-enrichment experiment four years ago. Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. Although South Korea denied any ambition to possess nuclear arms, the controversy over its experiments has threatened to further disrupt troubled efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. Three rounds of talks by China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia haven't produced major progress toward settling the North Korean nuclear dispute. -- ***************************************************************** 6 Las Vegas SUN: N. Korea Stalling on Nuclear Talks By SANG-HUN CHOE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Thursday it will not join six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program until rival South Korea fully discloses the details of its secret atomic experiments. The communist state relayed its position when British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell visited Pyongyang earlier this week, an unidentified spokesman of the North Korean Foreign Ministry told the North's official news agency, KCNA. The comments further clouded U.S.-led international efforts to hold a new round of six-nation talks on the North's nuclear programs this month as planned. Also Thurday, China said that "many difficulties" stand in the way of resuming the six-party talks. During Rammell's four-day visit that ended Tuesday, North Korea "clarified its stand that it can never sit at the table to negotiate its nuclear weapon program unless truth about the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea is fully probed," KCNA quoted the North Korean spokesman as saying. South Korea recently acknowledged that it conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago. That admission came shortly after it said it conducted a uranium-enrichment experiment four years ago. Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. Although South Korea denied any ambition to possess nuclear arms, the controversy over its experiments has threatened to further disrupt troubled efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. Three rounds of talks by China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia haven't produced major progress toward settling the North Korean nuclear dispute. The six nations had previously agreed to meet again by the end of this month, but no date has been set. "It is down to North Korea and the United States," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan on Thursday. "There are many difficulties for the talks to be held as planned." "Even if the new round cannot be held as planned, then we should hold it as soon as possible," Kong said. Washington wants North Korea to halt its nuclear activities immediately. North Korea says it will freeze its nuclear facilities as a first step towards their eventual dismantling, only if the United States lifts economic sanctions and provide energy and economic aid. A senior U.S. official said this week that North Korea has decided to wait until at least after the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential elections to start talking again. The North Korean spokesman said his government clarified to Rammell that "it does not care who becomes U.S. president and that it considers the U.S. policy towards the (North) as the only yardstick." In Seoul, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said he was confident that investigations by a U.N. nuclear watchdog will prove his country's nuclear experiments were not conducted for weapons advancement. "It is regrettable that some section of the international community is raising suspicions on the transparency of our peaceful nuclear power activities without having basis on the truth," Ban told reporters. The remarks came after the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said earlier this week that Seoul's failure to report the unauthorized experiments was a matter of serious concern. A group of IAEA investigators plans to visit South Korea next week for the second time, and South Korea is ready to provide its utmost cooperation, Ban said. -- ***************************************************************** 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: S. Korea Conduced Defense-Oriented Plutonium Test: Monthly Updated Sep.16,2004 19:57 KST The October edition of Monthly Chosun reported that the South Korean government had extracted a small quantity of plutonium from early 1993 to the end of 1994 in the dimension of self-defense as North Korea declared its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This research is totally different from the extraction of plutonium already announced by the government, which was conducted back in 1982. Quoting a high rank official from the Kim Young-sam administration and scientist who participated in the research, the Monthly Chosun reported, ¡°Known as the '88 Project,' it was intended to secure 86-87 percent of full nuclear weapons development technology in order to prepare for any contingencies. The plan was, however, wiped clean in 1994.¡± In an interview with Monthly Chosun, the official testified, ¡°A research team of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) reported its plan to develop nuclear technology just after North Korea withdrew from the NPT around March 1993. I told them to proceed with it according to the scientists' judgment.¡± Quoting a nuclear engineer who took part in the research, the magazine said, ¡°After Jung Kuen-mo became minister of Science and Technology back in 1994, the project was completely abandoned.¡± About this, former Minister Jung said to Monthly Chosun, ¡°I will not talk about anything nuclear.¡± In accordance with this, information officer Lee Sang-mok of the Ministry of Science and Technology said the report didn't make sense, adding ¡°Currently, I¡¯m not aware of anything.¡± An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade disclosed ¡°I haven¡¯t heard anything about this.¡± KAERI also stated, ¡°It is news to us,¡± adding, ¡°We don¡¯t have anything to say.¡± It added, ¡°Although we checked this story with former employees who worked at that time, none of them knew anything about it.¡± (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 8 BBC: N Korea stalls nuclear talks Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004 [Yongbyon nuclear facility] The six-nation talks were due to discuss N Korea's nuclear facilities North Korea has said it will not agree to further nuclear talks unless South Korea's admission about secret nuclear experiments was "fully probed". The North's official KCNA news agency said Seoul's recent disclosure had "thrown great hurdles" in the way of further multi-party talks. Seoul has admitted its scientists did conduct small-scale secret trials. The admission dampened hopes that any progress would be made soon in ridding the North of its nuclear capabilities. "[North Korea] clarified its stand that it can never sit at the table to negotiate its nuclear weapon programme unless [the] truth about the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea is fully probed," KCNA quoted a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman on Thursday. A new round of talks - between China, the two Koreas, the US, Japan and Russia - was due to have taken place later this month. Three previous rounds have made little headway, but analysts still see the multi-party discussions as the best chance of resolving the standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. There has been recent speculation that North Korea wanted to delay further discussions until it knew the outcome of the US presidential election. But a foreign ministry spokesman told KCNA that the North "does not care" who becomes the next US President. The BBC's Charles Scanlon, in Seoul, says that South Korea's disclosure appears to have strengthened the North's position, as it seeks economic and diplomatic compansation for any nuclear concessions. Secret experiments South Korea stunned the region on 2 September when it revealed that it had fallen foul of international nuclear accords. A small number of South Korean scientists had conducted secret tests to produce 0.2g of enriched uranium in 2000, the government admitted. It said the experiments were not authorised by the government, and were conducted for South Korea's civilian nuclear power industry. Later it also admitted that a small amount of plutonium - a key ingredient in nuclear bombs - had been extracted in secret research conducted in the early 1980s. The revelation is deeply embarrassing, both to South Korea and its ally the US, which has already chastised Seoul for the secret experiments. North Korea said last weekend that the news of South Korea's tests had made it even more determined not to abandon its own weapons programme. ***************************************************************** 9 Japan Times: SIX-PARTY TALKS Pyongyang deal still possible Thursday, September 16, 2004 By RALPH COSSA SEOUL -- "The odds of any progress regarding the North Korean nuclear issue appear slim to nonexistent between now and the U.S. November presidential elections." This is the conventional wisdom, as publicly proclaimed by South Korean officials. I have also heard this view echoed in Washington and Beijing in recent weeks. North Korea is hoping for "regime change" in Washington, the reasoning goes, and the Bush administration is too divided and too preoccupied with Iraq for there to be any significant progress before November. This may well be true. But history and logic (to the extent that logic is ever a factor on Korean-related issues) argue otherwise. There are good reasons why both Washington and Pyongyang, especially the latter, may be willing to cut a deal -- or at least establish the framework for one -- prior to November. The U.S. reason is simple: a settlement that achieves the minimum U.S. objective -- a verifiable end to North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs -- defuses a potential major campaign issue (former President Bill Clinton ended the North's nuclear programs; President George W. Bush allowed them to start up again). But Pyongyang can also best achieve its ultimate objective -- regime survival -- by moving forward before November. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is a master of brinkmanship politics. But he is not suicidal. Eighteen months ago, when U.S. forces were rapidly marching on Baghdad, Kim reportedly went into hiding, afraid that he would be next. After the U.S. became bogged down in Iraq, the North felt a sense of relief; Pyongyang has been given a free pass to misbehave and stonewall, and continue its game of playing all sides against one another. But the pass is not open-ended, and what may be brinkmanship in October could become Russian roulette in November if Bush wins a second term and regime-change advocates in Washington gain the upper hand. While the North may think (falsely, in my view) that it would get a better deal from a Kerry administration than from a Bush administration, it should also realize that it stands a better chance of getting Washington to take "yes" for an answer in October -- when even the worst of the neocons would feel compelled to accept any halfway reasonable offer from Pyongyang -- than after a successful re-election campaign. This is especially true if, as suspected, the current U.S. State Department "internationalists" do not continue into a second term. If, in late September, Kerry is ahead by 20 points, there is virtually no chance that Pyongyang would negotiate before the November elections. But, what are the odds of this? More likely, the race will at best be too close to call; today Bush is leading. Would North Korea be willing to bet its regime survival on a more unconstrained second Bush administration? I think not. It is, of course, always dangerous to try to predict North Korean behavior or motives. But, we saw a similar tactic in September/October 1994, when Pyongyang negotiated the Agreed Framework immediately prior to U.S. midterm elections. While I happen to believe the Clinton administration got the best deal possible at that time and that the Agreed Framework bought us a lot of time and created a growing sense of dependency by Pyongyang on outside assistance -- leverage that is not being fully applied -- the North Koreans can be excused for thinking that election-year politics gained them a better deal, since this has been a steady Republican mantra for the past 10 years. Similarly, the North waited until just before the 2000 elections to try to entice then-President Clinton to come to Pyongyang; a tactic that almost succeeded, had it not been for higher priority Middle East developments. If history is an accurate guide and survival logic continues to prevail, look to Pyongyang to suddenly become more responsive and to put forth at least a marginally acceptable counterproposal in late September or early October. To be credible, Pyongyang must acknowledge that its suspected uranium-enrichment program does in fact exist. Washington cannot accept anything less. But, despite its past denials, it is not impossible for Pyongyang to make a 180 degree turn and acknowledge that it did have a "peaceful" uranium program or that a rogue element in the North -- Pyongyang's version of Pakistan's nuclear expert A.Q. Khan -- had been acting improperly unbeknown to the government. Ironically, Seoul's recent admission that it had rogue scientists conducting uranium-enrichment experiments four years ago, rather than undermining the prospects for a settlement -- another piece of "conventional wisdom" -- may actually provide a model for a similar "confession" by the North. Unless Bush's poll numbers start to dramatically decline, don't be too surprised to see Pyongyang becoming more receptive to Washington's earlier phased-approach proposal that allowed rewards from others (but not from Washington) in return for a verifiable freeze as a first step toward nuclear disarmament. The pressure will then be on the Bush administration to deal constructively with Pyongyang or to explain to a war-weary American electorate why it won't take "yes" for an answer. Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The Japan Times: Sept. 16, 2004 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 10 Seattle Times: Do federal security dollars go where the risk is greatest? Thursday, September 16, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M. Close-up By Scott Canon Knight Ridder Newspapers FRED BLOCHER / KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS Federal homeland-security money helped Kansas City police buy an armored car, breathing apparatuses and protective overgarments, shown by Sgt. Mike Perne. Although its population is only about 10 percent of the New York City area's, it received $13.2 million, more than a fourth of New York's $46.7 million allotment. FARGO, N.D. — Sure, concedes Tom Hall, it's unlikely al-Qaida puts the Dakotas at the top of a target list. He'll probably never foil a terrorist plot with the laptop computer (military rugged and washable so it can be scrubbed after a chemical attack) that gives him on-the-spot answers about all manner of explosives. Much more likely, the federally funded gadget will simply prove invaluable the 30 to 50 times a year he heads out as commander of the Cass County, N.D., Regional Bomb Squad — disposing mostly of farmers' aging dynamite, teenagers' pipe bombs and the random grenade that turns up in a veteran's attic. Still, he's hoping for more money from the U.S. Homeland Security Department. He'd like a $175,000 bomb-sniffing robot. The federal anti-terror dollars that buy chemical suits and police radios in North Dakota and other sparsely populated parts of America's midsection have big-city mayors seething. They grumble that three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, money split among the states for homeland security still bears little relation to where the threat runs highest. J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE / AP Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., joined by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., uses a report-card styled chart Tuesday on Capitol Hill to demonstrate where he feels the federal government needs to improve its efforts in homeland security. $8.2 billion outlay Over the past two years, $8.2 billion in federal homeland security funds flowed across the country in ways that factor risk almost as an afterthought and that shortchange — as measured in dollars to people — the country's most crowded places. Each "Code Orange" alert costs New York City $5 million a week, mostly in police and firefighter overtime. Federal anti-terror funds do not cover that, but they do pay gymnasium fees for 37 volunteer firefighters in Estes Park, Colo. "Give us the money," said Dennis Michalski of the New York State Homeland Security Department. "We're in the bull's-eye." Analysts such as Jack Riley, the co-director of the Rand Center for Terrorism Risk Management, agreed that location matters. "If you're a terrorist and you only have a few shots ... there's something that's fundamentally more attractive about top-tier cities," he said. "It shows that you can attack the important targets that have been on virtual lockdown for the last three years. Not somewhere remote from media centers." Politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., argue that the nation's biggest city doesn't cash in on farm subsidies, so where does Idaho get off tapping into federal security funding? The Senate rejected Democratic efforts to boost anti-terrorism spending for big cities Tuesday in approving legislation financing the Homeland Security Department next year. The overall measure was approved by 93-0. The Senate must next work out a compromise with the House, which has approved spending for the 2005 budget that follows the same pattern as the two previous years. Stocking up Rural communities have seized on federal homeland security grants to order gear for police, ambulance crews and firefighters that would have taken years to pay for with local tax dollars. "Do we have the same equipment needs as they do in New York City? No," said Hall, the bomb squad boss in Fargo, N.D. "But ... you don't know where something bad is going to happen." Remember, say officials in flyover country: Before Sept. 11, the country's deadliest home-soil terrorist attack was in Oklahoma City. Consider one key standard. Each state and territory starts with a guaranteed percentage of the homeland security pie. That means roughly a quarter of the dollars get doled out regardless of population or any analyses of terror threat. In hopes of better matching money to hazard, Congress created the Urban Area Security Initiative in April 2003 for the seven metropolitan areas judged most in the line of terrorist fire. But that list has ballooned to 51 cities and 30 mass-transit systems. Although the population of Kansas City, Mo., is only about 10 percent of the New York City area's, it received $13.2 million under the program, more than a fourth of New York's $46.7 million allotment. Critics say the post-Sept. 11 rush to do something — and to win widespread support for spending — turned homeland security grants into state entitlement programs. The Sept. 11 Commission wrote, "homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." The panel backed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he called the system "pork-barrel politics at its worst." Per capita So New York — consensus pick for a repeat attack, and where casualties would probably run highest — ended up with $31.81 per person in homeland-security grants in the past two years. That's about the same as heartland states Missouri and Kansas. California, with its people-packed coastline, got $22.16 a person. The scattered peoples of Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming and North Dakota got more than $90 per capita. Even within states, however, the money split can seem puzzling. In Kansas, at 99 cents a head, Johnson County falls last in per-capita counterterrorism funding in the state, compared with $28 for every resident of Marion County north of Wichita. "There is no magic formula," said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the adjutant general and director of homeland security for Kansas. "Every county has to have at least some capacity and be involved in a collective effort." Missouri's homeland security director, Tim Daniel, dismisses per-capita spending comparisons, arguing the job of defending a country is far too complicated for such simple mathematics. Yet he said Washington's effort included too little accounting of threats and vulnerabilities. A congressional report concluded that almost a third of the states split their grants among counties and cities "without regard to need or risk." Shawn Reese, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service, wrote in a recent report that eliminating the promise of a percentage of the national total to each state wouldn't mean small states would get nothing, but it might mean more politics in another form. "If you go away from the formula, it becomes highly subjective," Reese said. "Then any state can argue that something it has is highly risky." Judging how well states spend the money is difficult. Most have laws putting homeland-security spending out of public view for fear of tipping terrorists to soft spots. Even in states that don't have such laws on the books, officials often clam up. First responders State officials who do talk reveal earnest attempts to outfit first responders — the police, ambulance workers and firefighters who show up first at a disaster. The grants buy better radios that allow myriad agencies to talk to one another. They pay for gear and training to improve bomb squads and hazardous-material response teams. Missouri spent $5.2 million in federal aid to outfit every full-time law-enforcement officer in the state with a suit and gas mask to respond to a chemical attack, "regardless," in the words of a congressional report, "of the type of community in which he or she works." Experts criticize such buys, too. Military-style chemical weapons, for instance, tend to disperse in minutes. So only people who show up immediately need the equipment. Next, protective gear must be nearby. That means it often ends up in the trunk of squad cars, where it degrades from extreme temperatures and the piling on of other police detritus. Finally, experts caution about putting too much faith in gear that the user could assume provides more protection than it actually does. "They don't need to spend tons of money on equipment and [hazardous material] suits," said Greg Evans, director of the Institute for Bio-Security at St. Louis University. "They need to be spending more money on education and planning." Yet state and local emergency management types insist they haven't become emergency-response spendthrifts. Missouri decided to buy all those hazard suits after consulting people across a range of professional disciplines, Missouri Homeland Security Director Tim Daniel said. A panel noted daily chemical spills on highways, occasional dumps from train accidents, and the possibility of terrorist strikes with chemical weapons or on industrial chemical caches. Political pressure to respond with defensive measures after the Sept. 11 attacks forced Congress and the Bush administration to spend money before sophisticated means of figuring how best to do that came together, Daniel said. "Nationally, we just kind of threw money against the wall," he said. Mind games That's partly because figuring out how to protect a country so large, so diverse and with so many targets isn't simple. Some research has begun to apply game theory and other kinds of analysis to outguessing terrorists, much the way military minds schemed nuclear-weapons strategy during the Cold War. "A lot of it is applied economics — trying to guess at rational behavior and what is cost-optimal," said Vicki Bier, an industrial engineer and risk analyst at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The work starts by recognizing that neither the whole country nor even a single city can be made bulletproof, she said, and understanding that terrorists will shift their tactics to counter improved defenses. Then analysts study goals and tactics of the enemy — principally al-Qaida and other violent Islamic extremists. "Even a pretty big office building in a relatively small city might not be an attractive target," Bier said. "If nobody in the Middle East, or for that matter virtually nobody on the two coasts, has heard of that building, then knocking it down, it doesn't get to their objective." Other targets But that rationale doesn't argue putting all of America's defenses into New York, Los Angeles and Washington. Surveillance videotapes of Las Vegas were discovered in raids of al-Qaida associates in Detroit and Madrid, Spain, in 2002. In Kansas City, the Mid-America Regional Council consulted the FBI and local law enforcement to figure out where and how terrorists might strike the area. They looked at the region's infrastructure and where its various emergency responders most needed improvement. The resulting application tapped the urban area grant program for $13.2 million in the 2004 federal budget. One key, said Erin Lynch, emergency-services manager for the regional council, was developing regional capabilities so units in one department didn't load up on specialized equipment already available in a nearby city. "Then you try to hold it up to the common-sense test," Lynch said. Should terrorists never strike in Kansas City — or Fargo — experts widely agree the investment in first responders still makes communities better able to handle tornadoes or industrial accidents. Whether federal money should pay for those local worries is more controversial. Creating a "monster" Mayer Nudell, a security consultant with counterterrorism experience in the U.S. State Department, said homeland spending has been too skewed to the wish lists of states and cities. He's skeptical that Congress will change the formulas this fall, because election-year pressure will run out, cutting back significantly funds to smaller states. "Congress was under pressure, so they created this monster," Nudell said. "They should have taken more time and tried to get it right." Information on Tuesday's Senate action was provided by The Associated Press. Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 11 Rockwell: 30,000 Nukes ... And the Voters Don't Know Where Bush and Kerry Stand? by Lawrence S. Wittner [http://www.lewrockwell.com by Lawrence S. Wittner [wittner@albany.edu] In the run-up to the Iraq war, the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were exhaustively discussed by the politicians and the pundits. But, in the aftermath of that conflict, when no WMDs were to be found, they became an embarrassment to the war enthusiasts, who conveniently forgot about them. Certainly, the mass media, only recently filled with alarms about nuclear attacks, have said remarkably little about nuclear weapons over the past year. This is unfortunate. Despite the nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties of the past, 30,000 nuclear weapons remain in existence, with the potential for annihilating civilization. Furthermore, a number of nations appear to be in the process of building them. And, finally, the two major party candidates for president – George W. Bush and John Kerry – have taken positions on nuclear weapons that diverge markedly. Since becoming president, Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (ratified at this point by 115 nations), and has developed guidelines that expand the possibilities for using nuclear weapons in a variety of situations, including "surprising military developments." Furthermore, despite the Bush administration's criticism of other nations for developing nuclear weapons, it has flouted U.S. commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968. In that treaty and in its periodic updates, the nuclear powers, including the United States, pledged to work toward divesting themselves of nuclear weapons. But there has been no move along these lines during the Bush administration. The only nuclear arms control measure negotiated by the president is the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed with Russia in May 2002. Although, ostensibly, this measure will reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads that are deployed on U.S. and Russian missiles, there is no deadline for the reduction, the deactivated warheads will simply be kept in storage, and the treaty will terminate in 2012, after which its provisions can be ignored or forgotten. Rather than eliminate nuclear weapons, the Bush administration has chosen to build new ones. In the president's 2005 budget, he requested $36.6 million for research on new nuclear weapons, including "mini-nukes" and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (the so-called "bunker buster"). An uneasy Congress is still grappling with this proposal. In this same budget, the president requested another $30 million to reduce the time necessary to resume U.S. nuclear testing. If new nuclear weapons are to be built, such testing is necessary. And the resumption of testing would also have some other important consequences. It would bring an end to the great power moratorium on nuclear testing that has been observed by Russia, China, Britain, and France since 1996. Some or all of these nations would then resume nuclear testing themselves, building new nuclear weapons and adding to the vast nuclear stockpiles that they (and terrorists) can draw upon. Not surprisingly, the official web site of the Bush re-election campaign says nothing about nuclear arms control and disarmament, but lauds the administration's leadership in building new kinds of weapons – without, by the way, mentioning that a number of these new weapons are nuclear. John Kerry has taken a stand that is much more in line with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as well as with the arms control and disarmament policies of past presidents, both Democratic and Republican. He has criticized the Bush administration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and lauded the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). "The failure of the United States to ratify the CTBT," he declared, "will seriously undercut our ability to continue our critical leadership role in the global nuclear non-proliferation regime." Kerry has also attacked the building of new U.S. nuclear weapons, stating: "What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?" Speaking in June 2003, he stated: "It is absurd to think the United States will start development on a new generation of nuclear weapons at the same moment we seek the world's support in an effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and technology." The official Kerry campaign website declares that the Democratic presidential candidate will work to "end production of new fissile material for nuclear weapons by negotiating a global ban on production of new material." On this site, Kerry also promises to strive to "reduce existing stocks of nuclear weapons and materials by ending development of the new generation of nuclear weapons" and by "accelerating reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals." [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804748624/lewrock well/] Unfortunately, most presidential campaign coverage in the mass media ignores these significant differences between the two candidates on nuclear weapons issues. But the differences are real. Voters should recognize that, in November 2004, they have an important choice to make when it comes to the future of nuclear weapons – and perhaps their own future, as well. September 16, 2004 Lawrence S. Wittner [send him mail [wittner@albany.edu] ] is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804748624/lewrock well/] (Stanford University Press). This article originally appeared on the History News Network [http://hnn.us/] . Reprinted with permission of the author. Copyright © 2004 History News Network [http://hnn.us/] . Reprinted with author's permission. Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page [http://www.lewrockwell.com] ***************************************************************** 12 Newsday: Yoko awards grants to Hersh and Vanunu [September 16, 2004] September 16, 2004, 1:02 AM EDT NEW YORK (AP) _ Yoko Ono has awarded two peace grants to journalist Seymour Hersh and Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, men she said epitomize her late husband John Lennon's song "Gimme Some Truth." Hersh and Vanunu will each receive a $50,000 LennonOno Grant for Peace, according to a statement released Thursday by Ono's publicist, Elliot Mintz. Ono said the 2004 honorees were "people who have spoken out for the benefit of the human race by overcoming extreme personal difficulties and, in doing so, have allowed the truth to prevail." "My hope is that the awards will not only honor the two recipients for their incredible courage but ask others to follow their example to take a stand for truth," she said in the statement. Vanunu, a former technician at an Israeli nuclear reactor, served 18 years in prison for divulging information about Israel's nuclear secrets. He was released from prison earlier this month. Seymour Hersh, a writer for the New Yorker magazine, has published a series of investigative articles about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, compiled in a new book, "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib." Ono established the biennial grant program in 2002. The first winners were Palestinian artist Khalil Rabah and Israeli artist Zvi Goldstein. This year's winners will be honored at a private dinner at the United Nations Delegates Dining Room on Oct. 7, two days before the anniversary of Lennon's birthday. The former Beatle was killed in 1980 outside his Manhattan apartment. He would have been 64 on Oct. 9. Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press [http://www.newsday.com ***************************************************************** 13 [NukeNet] Nuke Power's Large Role In Adding To Global Warming Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:13 -0700 Dear Friends of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, We are thrilled to announce that an op-ed written by Dr. Helen Caldicott was published in the Baltimore Sun recently. The piece, entitled "Nuclear power still a deadly proposition," is printed in its entirety below. In the opinion piece, Helen debunks the myths that nuclear power is "clean and green" and raises the real environmental concerns behind the current use of nuclear power and behind the new interest in nuclear power for the future. This article highlights just a few of the reasons that we are holding our fall symposium, titled, Nuclear Power and Children's Health, in Chicago on October 15th and 16th. We hope that you will join us for this important meeting. For registration information, go to http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/conferences.cfm. Enjoy reading the article and, when you are done, please pass it on to other people like you who are interested in learning more about nuclear power and the important work of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. By sharing this article and Helen's work, you are helping create a consensus for a nuclear-free future. Thanks for your continued support! -The NPRI team (Helen, Julie, Megan, Regina, Rupali, Jessica, and Crystal) Nuclear power still a deadly proposition By Helen Caldicott Originally published August 17, 2004 in The Baltimore Sun WHILE VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney is actively promoting nuclear power as a significant plank in his energy plan, he claims that nuclear power is "a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source." The Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industries, is currently running an energetic campaign for the revivification of nuclear power. Ubiquitous TV and radio ads carry the admonition that "Kids today are part of the most energy-intensive generation in history. They demand lots of clean electricity. And they deserve clean air." Also, a consortium of 10 U.S. utilities has requested funding from the federal government for the construction of new reactors based on a European design, and they hope to receive government approval by 2010. This is a major policy change since no new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1974. Nevertheless, the claims of the Mr. Cheney and the nuclear industry are false. According to data from the U.S. Energy Department (DOE), the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion. The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world. CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon. But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle -- to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers. Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated. Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation, taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. Fully 95 percent of U.S. high level waste -- waste that is intensely radioactive -- has been generated by nuclear power thus far. This nuclear waste must then be guarded, protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years -- a physical and scientific impossibility. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time, inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer, genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations. Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity. Helen Caldicott, a pediatrician, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 14 [NukeNet] new NRC security brochure Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:38:13 -0700 The title is "Protecting Our Nation Since" subtitle "9-11-01" http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0314/br0314.pdf I laughed when I saw the cover page. First of all, the title makes it sound like the NRC started protection in 2001. Then, there is a picture of a bald eagle sitting on a tree which is super-imposed to look like it's right next to the nuclear plant in the background. Three years ago TMI Alert filed a petition to require entrance guards at nuclear plants. The NRC has not yet made a decision. The GAO report and other testimony at Tuesday's US House of Reps. hearing worries the NRC public relations department which acted in a timely fashion. Scott Portzline _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc 04-20854 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55844] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-104] [[Page 55844]] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 34-- Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations. 3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: Applications for new licenses and amendments may be submitted at any time. Applications for renewal are submitted every 10 years. Reports are submitted as events occur. 5. Who is required or asked to report: Applicants for and holders of specific licenses authorizing the use of licensed radioactive material for radiography. 6. An estimate of the number of responses: 867 (NRC: 188 [67 + 126 recordkeepers] and (Agreement States: 674 [220 + 454 recordkeepers]). 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 580 (126 NRC licensees and 454 Agreement State licensees). 8. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 243,922 hours. The NRC licensees total burden is 48,335 hours (85 reporting hrs [an average of 1.3 hours per response] plus 48,250 recordkeeping hrs [an average of 384 hours per recordkeeper]). The Agreement State licensees total burden is 195,587 hours (299 reporting hrs [an average of 1.4 hours per response] plus 195,414 recordkeeping hrs [an average of 430 hours per recordkeeper]). 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 34 establishes radiation safety requirements for the use of radioactive material in industrial radiography. The information in the applications, reports and records is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected and that licensee possession and use of source and byproduct material is in compliance with license and regulatory requirements. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 18, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0007), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of September, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 04-20854 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: [3150-AH44] X/Import of nuclear equipment FR Doc 04-20855 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 55785-55790] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-21] Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Radioactive Materials: Security Policies AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations pertaining to the export and import of nuclear equipment and radioactive materials. This proposed rule is intended to reflect recent changes to the nuclear and radioactive material security policies of the Commission and the Executive Branch, for the import and export of radioactive material. A specific license will be required for the import and export of high-risk radioactive material. DATES: Submit comments by November 30, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH44 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personally identifiable information, such as your home e-mail address, will not be removed from your comments. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov [SECY@nrc.gov] . If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov [ cag@nrc.gov] . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov] . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800- 397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Schuyler-Hayes, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-2333, e-mail: ssh@nrc.gov [ssh@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As a result of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review of nuclear and radioactive material security requirements, with particular focus on high-risk radioactive material. This material, including certain quantities of cobalt-60, cesium-137, iridium-192 and americium-241 isotopes, has the potential to be used in a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or a radiological exposure device (RED) in the absence of proper security measures. This review takes into consideration the changing domestic and international threat environments and related U.S. Government supported international initiatives in the nuclear security area, particularly activities conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Recently, the Commission issued a series of domestic Orders concerning security measures applicable to high-risk radioactive material. These Orders include enhanced security requirements which are also known as ``Additional Security Measures,'' or ASMs. The ASMs have been issued to domestic licensees of the NRC and Agreement States, under the Commission's exclusive authority to provide for the common defense and security. They have not been made available to the general public because they contain sensitive security information that is protected for public disclosure as Safeguards information in accordance with section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act. The ASMs include several provisions that pertain to export and import shipments, particularly concerning security during transportation and advance notice of proposed shipments. It is anticipated that these orders may be reflected in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations covering radioactive material (primarily revisions to 10 CFR Parts 30-36 and 70). The Commission has also supported U.S. Government efforts to establish common international guidance for safety and security measures for radioactive sources. This effort resulted in a major revision to the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources (Code of Conduct or Code). The revised Code of Conduct was approved by the IAEA Board of Governors in September 2003, and is available on the IAEA Web site at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/] Standards/index.html. Following approval of the current Code of Conduct, the Commission has played a key role in multilateral meetings of technical and legal experts convened by [[Page 55786]] the IAEA to develop guidance under the Code relating to export and import of high-risk radioactive material. It is expected that the draft ``Guidance for the Import and Export of Radioactive Sources in Accordance with the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources'' (IAEA Export/Import Guidance) developed by those experts will be submitted to the IAEA Board of Governors for approval at its September 2004 meeting and subsequently published by the IAEA. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for the export and import of Category 1 and 2 radioactive sources described in Table 1 of Annex 1 of the Code, as discussed below. Table 1 includes a list of high-risk radionuclides with activities corresponding to thresholds of concern that is essentially identical to the list found in the proposed Appendix P to be added to 10 CFR Part 110. While the radionuclides and threshold quantities are the same, the proposed Part 110 appendix uses the more encompassing term ``radioactive material'' rather than ``sources.'' Therefore, unlike the Code of Conduct, the proposed rule encompasses the import and export shipments of bulk radioactive material, in addition to sealed sources. The U.S. Government has formally written to the IAEA Director General expressing its non-legally binding political commitment to work toward following the guidance contained in the Code of Conduct. In addition, the IAEA Export/Import Guidance is virtually the same, with relatively few modifications, as the export/import guidance text endorsed earlier by President Bush and 28 other Leaders at the 2004 G-8 Sea Island and U.S.-European Union Shannon Summits. Although the Code and the supporting IAEA Export/Import Guidance are not legally binding on IAEA Member States, the Commission nevertheless believes it essential for Commission to update its export/import regulations to reflect the guidance in the Code of Conduct and the Export-Import Guidance consistent with our responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission's mission of promoting the common defense and security, as well as for achieving a globally harmonized approach to ensure a level playing field for commerce. This proposed rule is intended to accomplish these objectives. Discussion The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes requiring specific licenses for the export and import of high-risk radioactive material as identified above. This proposed rule follows the guidance contained in the IAEA's Code of Conduct and is consistent with the Code's section on ``Import and Exports of Radioactive Sources'' (paragraphs 23-29). This section of the Code is intended to guide countries in the development and harmonization of policies and laws on exports and imports of high- risk radioactive sources to ensure that such sources are only exported to authorized end-users in countries with adequate regulatory controls and that sources are not diverted for illicit use. Under the sections of the Code of Conduct relating to exports and imports of radioactive sources, exports and imports of such radioactive sources should take place with the awareness of the exporting country authority and with the prior notification of the importing country authority. Additionally, exports of Category 1 quantities of such material require the consent of the importing country. While prior notification to the importing government authority, may originate from either the exporting licensee or exporting government authority, consents to the import of Category 1 sources must be provided on a government to government basis. The Code of Conduct provides that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a country should authorize the import or export of high- risk radioactive material only if it is satisfied that the recipient is authorized to receive and possess the radioactive material and the importing country has the technical and administrative capability, resources and regulatory structure needed to ensure that the radioactive source will be managed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Code. The specific radioactive material and amounts covered by this rule are listed in the proposed Appendix P to Part 110 and are essentially identical to the list of high-risk radioactive materials in Categories 1 and 2 in Table 1 of the Code of Conduct. With the exception of plutonium, the high-risk radioactive materials listed in Appendix P are categorized as byproduct material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Although Radium-226 is encompassed by the Code of Conduct, it is not listed in Appendix P or covered by the proposed regulation because radium, as a naturally occurring radioactive material, is not subject to Commission's licensing authority. However, radium-226 is subject to export/import controls administered by the Department of Commerce. It should be noted that, in response to NRC's request for information, to date no NRC or Agreement State licensee reported possessing, importing, or exporting Category 1 or 2 amounts of radium. The proposed rule requirements described in this notice would apply to all identified licensees, both NRC and Agreement State. Exports. Under the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR Part 110, the principal criterion for approving exports of the materials listed in Appendix P is a finding that the export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. The non-inimicality finding is relevant to both the nuclear proliferation significance of exports and the related security concerns of high-risk radioactive material falling into the hands of non-state organizations, including terrorist groups. In making its inimicality determination, the Commission will, consistent with the Code's guidance, consider whether the importing country has the technical and administrative capability and the resources and regulatory structure to manage the high-risk radioactive material in a safe and secure manner, and has authorized the recipient to receive and possess this material. Under the proposed rule, the Commission will require the applicant for the export license to provide the NRC with pertinent documentation demonstrating that the recipient of the radioactive material has the necessary authorization under the laws and regulations of the importing country to import, receive, and possess the material. For proposed exports of Category 1 amounts of high-risk radioactive material listed in Appendix P, the Commission will also assess whether the government of the importing country has provided its consent to the import. Consistent with the Code, in cases where a recipient may lack the necessary authorization to receive and possess the radioactive material or where a receiving state may be lacking in technical and administrative capability, resources, or regulatory structure, the NRC may, in exceptional circumstances, also consider as part of its overall inimicality determination whether an alternative arrangement has been or can be made to manage the radioactive material in a safe and secure manner. In examining these and other factors that may be pertinent to assessing whether the proposed export will be inimical to the U.S. common defense and security, the Commission may seek the advice of the Executive Branch and will take into account information it receives as part of regular interactions with its foreign regulatory counterparts, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Executive Branch. The Commission anticipates that further [[Page 55787]] guidance on what constitutes ``exceptional circumstances'' and other aspects of the Code will be set forth in the IAEA Export/Import Guidance discussed above, and will consider that guidance in preparation of the final rule. If, after considering the above information the Commission authorizes the export, then export licensees will be required to provide prior notification to the importing country authority and to the NRC of individual shipments. Imports. For imports, the licensing criteria are non-inimicality to the U.S. common defense and security and a finding that the import does not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. Since all recipients in the U.S. must be properly authorized by the NRC, an Agreement State or the Department of Energy to possess such radioactive material, the proposed changes to Part 110 for imports under NRC's licensing authority of high-risk radioactive material will simply require (1) that the U.S. recipient is authorized to receive and possess the radioactive material and (2) prior notification to the NRC of individual shipments. The Commission will expect the applicant for the import license to provide the Commission with pertinent documentation that each recipient of the radioactive material has the necessary authorization to receive and possess this material. For proposed imports into the U.S. of Category 1 amounts of high-risk radioactive material and for proposed imports allowed under provisions for exceptional circumstances, the Commission will also be responsible for providing the necessary formal U.S. Government consent to the export authority of the exporting country. Conclusion. The proposed criteria discussed above for approving specific export and import licenses for high-risk radioactive material will provide the Commission with the necessary flexibility to process each application on a case by case basis. For example, the Commission may wish to limit exports to new recipients or to a State with limited experience with its regulatory infrastructure to single shipments of radioactive material. On the other hand, in States with mature regulatory infrastructures with known and competent recipients, the Commission intends to use the provisions of Sec. 110.31(e) by issuing broad specific export and import licenses for multiple radionuclides, shipments, and destinations and with authorizations for up to five years or more. The duration of the import or export authorization will be consistent with the expiration date of the recipient's authorization to possess or use the radioactive material. However, each shipment under these export/import licenses that meets or exceeds the Category 2 limits in Appendix P will require prior notification as discussed above.\1\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The more restrictive requirements for the export of plutonium 238 and 239 contained in Sec. 110.21 will continue to be the limiting controls. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Implementing Date The final rule will have an implementation date which will allow a period of six months for exporters and importers to apply for and receive required specific export and import licenses. Summary The proposed changes to the Commission's export/import regulations in Part 110 apply to a small number of high-risk radioactive materials when exported or imported in amounts exceeding clearly defined limits. They also provide the Commission with flexibility to treat each export and import license application on a case-by-case basis, with the ability to accommodate the still evolving domestic and international security measures for high-risk radioactive material. Section by Section Analysis Subpart C--Licenses. Proposed changes would indicate that all exports and imports of high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part require specific licenses if amounts involved meet or exceed that set out in that appendix. In Sec. 110.23, changes would be made to paragraph (a)(3) clarifying that individual export shipments of americium-241 under a general license must be less than the amounts specified in Category 2 of Appendix P to this Part. (Currently, this section authorizes individual shipments of several 20 curie quantities of americium-241 to most countries as long as the 200 curie per country limit is not exceeded.) In Sec. 110.23, a new paragraph would require that individual export shipments of the high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part and conducted under the general license provisions of this paragraph be below the amounts indicated for Category 2. In Sec. 110.27, a new paragraph would require that individual import shipments of high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part and conducted under the general license provisions of this paragraph be below the amounts indicated for Category 2. In Sec. 110.32, a new paragraph (g) is added to clarify documentation requirements accompanying an export license application for radioactive material listed in proposed new Appendix P. Subpart D--Review of License Applications. Proposed changes would indicate licensing criteria for high-risk radioactive material exports and imports. In Sec. 110.42 a new paragraph would specify the licensing criteria for the export of high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part in amounts indicated for Categories 1 and 2. In Sec. 110.43 a new paragraph would specify the licensing criteria for the import of high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part in amounts indicated for Categories 1 and 2. In Sec. 110.45 a new paragraph would describe the requirements for issuing import licenses for high-risk radioactive material listed in a new Appendix P to this Part in amounts specified in Categories 1 and 2. Subpart E--License Terms and Related Provisions. Proposed changes would clarify that transportation issues are covered by NRC's domestic regulations. In Sec. 110.50, a new paragraph is added covering advance notification requirements. Also, the word ``transport'' would be added after ``use'' in paragraph (a)(3); and the term ``71'' would be added after ``70'' in (renumbered) paragraph (b)(5). This would clarify that ``transportation'' is not covered directly in Part 110 and to indicate that 10 CFR Part 71 of NRC's domestic regulations cover transportation. A new Appendix P to Part 110 would list the high-risk radioactive material and quantities requiring specific export and import licenses. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. There are no voluntary consensus standards addressing this subject matter. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an [[Page 55788]] environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to OMB for review and approval of the information collection requirements. The burden to the public for these information collections is estimated to average 2.4 hours per application, 15 minutes per notification, and 15 minutes per recipient's certification to the licensee including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques? Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@nrc.gov [INFOCOLLECTS@nrc.gov] ; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0036 and 3150-0027), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments to OMB on the collections of information or on the above issues should be submitted by October 18, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from the Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301-415-2333 or by e-mail at ssh@nrc.gov [ssh@nrc.gov] . The Commission requests public comment on the regulatory analysis. Comments on the analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is necessary to reflect the nuclear and radioactive material security policies of the Executive Branch and to comply with evolving international agreements to which the U.S. Government subscribes. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit analysis is not required for this rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Exports, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear and radioactive materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; notice is hereby given that the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 110. PART 110--EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 161, 181, 182, 183, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2201, 2231-2233, 2237, 2239); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 5, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Sections 110.1(b)(2) and 110.1(b)(3) also issued under Pub. L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403). Section 110.11 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d, 88 Stat. 473, 475 (42 U.S.C. 2074). Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309(a), Pub. L. 99-440. Section 110.50(b)(3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142 (42 U.S.C. 2153). Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.130-110.135 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42(a)(9) also issued under sec. 903, Pub. L. 102-496 (42 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.). 2. In Sec. 110.23, paragraph (a)(3) is revised and a new paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows: Sec. 110.23 General license for the export of byproduct material. (a) * * * (3) For americium-241, exports of any country listed in 110.29 must not exceed one curie (308 milligrams) per shipment or 100 curies (30.8 grams) per year and must be contained in industrial process control equipment or petroleum exploration equipment. Exports to countries other than those listed in 100.28 or 110.29 must be contained in industrial process control equipment or petroleum exploration equipment and individual shipments must be less than the amounts specified in Category 2 of Appendix P to this Part. * * * * * (7) Individual export shipments of byproduct material must be less than the amounts specified in Category 2 of Appendix P to this Part. * * * * * 3. In Sec. 110.27, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (f) is added to read as follows: Sec. 110.27 General license for import. (a) Except as provided for in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to import byproduct, source, or special nuclear material if the consignee is authorized to possess the material under: * * * * * (f) Individual import shipments of radioactive material must be less than [[Page 55789]] the amounts specified in Category 2 of Appendix P to this Part. 4. In Sec. 110.32, a new paragraph (g) is added to read as follows: Sec. 110.32 Information required in an application for a specific license/NRC Form 7. * * * * * (g) For proposed exports of material listed in Appendix P to this part, pertinent documentation that the recipient of the material has the necessary authorization under the laws and regulations of the importing country to import, receive, and possess the material. 5. In Sec. 110.42, new paragraphs (e) and (f) are added to read as follows: Sec. 110.42 Export licensing criteria. * * * * * (e) In making its findings under paragraphs (a)(8) and (c) of this section for proposed exports of radioactive material listed in Appendix P to this Part, the NRC shall consider whether: (1) The receiving country has the appropriate technical and administrative capability, resources and regulatory structure to manage the material in a secure manner; and (2) The foreign recipient is authorized to receive and possess the material; or (3) In exceptional circumstances, that an alternative arrangement has been made to manage the material in a safe and secure manner. (f) For proposed exports of Category 1 amounts of radioactive material listed in Appendix P to this Part, the receiving country consents to the import of the material. 7. In Sec. 110.43, a new paragraph (e) is added to read as follows: Sec. 110.43 Import licensing criteria. * * * * * (e) With respect to the import of radioactive material listed in Appendix P to this Part, the U.S. recipient is authorized to possess the material under a contract with the Department of Energy or a license issued by the Commission or a State with which the Commission has entered into an agreement under Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act. 8. In Sec. 110.45, a new paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as follows: Sec. 110.45 Issuance or denial of license. * * * * * (b) * * * (5) With respect to a proposed import of radioactive material listed in Appendix P to this Part, the U.S. recipient is authorized to possess the material under a contract with the Department of Energy or a license issued by the Commission or a State with which the Commission has entered into an agreement under Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act. * * * * * 9. Sec. 110.50 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(3), add the word ``transport'' after the word ``use,'' b. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) are redesignated as (b)(5) and (b)(6), c. Add the number ``71'' after ``70'' in the newly redesignated paragraph (b)(5), and d. Add a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: Sec. 110.50 Terms. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) A licensee authorized to export or import material listed in Appendix P to this Part is responsible for notifying NRC and the importing country in advance of each shipment. A list of points of contacts in importing countries is available at NRC's Office of International Programs (see Sec. 110.4). The NRC office responsible for receiving advance notifications for all export and import shipments will be specified on each specific export and import license. Notifications must be made at least 24 hours in advance of each shipment, and to the extent practical, 10 days in advance of each shipment. Notifications may be electronic or in writing and should contain the following information: (i) A copy of the authorization applicable to export shipments as required by Sec. 110.42, paragraph (e)(2), (ii) Estimated dates of when the shipment is to begin and end, (iii) Exporting or importing facility, (iv) Recipient, (v) Radioactive material and specific activity, (vi) Aggregate activity level, and (vii) Number of radioactive sources and their unique identifiers (such as the manufacturer, model number and serial number). If the unique identifiers are not available, a description of the radioactive source shall be provided. * * * * * 10. A new Appendix P to part 110 is added to read as follows: Appendix P to Part 110.--High Risk Radioactive Material ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Category 1 Category 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Radioactive material Terabequerels Terabequerels (TBq) Curies (Ci) (Tbq) Curies (Ci) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Americium-241.................................. 60 2,000 .6 20 Americium-241/Be............................... 60 2,000 .6 20 Californium-252................................ 20 500 .2 5 Curium-244..................................... 50 1,000 .5 10 Cobalt-60...................................... 30 800 .3 8 Cesium-137..................................... 100 3,000 1 30 Gadolinium-153................................. 1,000 30,000 10.0 300 Iridium-192.................................... 80 2,000 .8 20 Plutonium-238\1\............................... 60 2,000 .6 20 Plutonium-239/Be\1\............................ 60 2,000 .6 20 Promethium-147................................. 40,000 1,000,000 400.0 10,000 Selenium-75.................................... 200 5,000 2.0 50 Strontium-90................................... 1,000 30,000 10.0 300 Thulium-170.................................... 20,000 500,000 200.0 5000 Ytterbium-169.................................. 300 8,000 3.0 80 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- \1\ The limits for Pu-238 and Pu-239/Be in this table apply for imports to the U.S. The limits for exports of Pu- 238 and Pu-239/Be can be found in Sec. 110.21. [[Page 55790]] Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of September, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 04-20855 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: RIN 3150-AH47 FR Doc 04-20856 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 55736-55739] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-3] Medical Use of Byproduct Material Minor Amendments: Extending Expiration Date for Subpart J AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material to extend the expiration date for training and experience requirements that will be superseded (Subpart J) for 1 year, from October 24, 2004, to October 24, 2005. The rulemaking is necessary to allow sufficient time for implementation of the forthcoming final rule that amends the training and experience requirements, including new requirements for recognition of specialty board certifications. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anthony N. Tse, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-6233, e-mail: [ant@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The 2002 Final Rule On April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20249), the NRC published a final rule amending its regulations regarding the medical use of byproduct material. The final rule addressed, among other things, new training and experience (T) requirements for radiation safety officers, authorized medical physicists, authorized nuclear pharmacists, and authorized users. This rule also addressed the requirements for recognition of medical and other specialty boards whose certifications may be used to demonstrate the adequacy of the T of individuals mentioned above. This final rule was effective on October 24, 2002. In addition, NRC retained the existing T requirements, designated as subpart J in 10 CFR part 35, for a 2-year period. Therefore, subpart J remains effective until October 24, 2004. Statements in the Preamble of the 2002 Final Rule In the preamble, NRC stated that during an NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) briefing of the Commission on February 19, 2002, the issue of recognition of medical and other specialty boards was discussed. In that meeting, two committee members expressed concern that some boards did not qualify for recognition and might not be ready to apply for recognition within 6 months after publication of the final rule. Therefore, implementation of the new part 35, without Subpart J, could disrupt the current license authorization process for new medical personnel because many license authorizations are granted based on recognition of board certification. The preamble further stated that NRC had considered this matter and decided to retain the training requirements in subpart J for a 2-year period after the effective date of the final rule. During this transition period, the NRC would continue working with the ACMUI and the medical community to resolve any concerns about the training and experience requirements. The NRC would consider changes to the T requirements, as appropriate. The T Proposed Rule After the publication of the 2002 final rule, the NRC worked with the ACMUI and other stakeholders to consider what changes were necessary to the T requirements. Several public meetings were held to discuss the changes. On December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68549), a proposed rule on T requirements was published for a 75-day public comment period. The NRC is currently considering public comments and developing the T final rule. One commenter stated that the current transition period for subpart J, which ends on October 24, 2004, must be extended to allow time for boards to [[Page 55737]] prepare applications and for NRC to process applications, including ACMUI review. The NRC agrees that additional time for implementation of the changes to T should be allowed beyond October 24, 2004. Actions Taken in This Final Rule NRC is amending part 35 to extend the expiration date of subpart J for 1 year, from October 24, 2004, to October 24, 2005. The NRC believes that it is prudent to extend the expiration date of subpart J at this time to allow affected stakeholders (i.e., medical and other specialty boards, and medical use licensees) to effectively plan their implementation. The following sections are revised by changing the date from October 24, 2004, to October 24, 2005: Sec. 35.2, paragraph (1) of the definitions of ``Authorized medical physicist,'' ``Authorized nuclear pharmacist,'' ``Authorized user,'' and ``Radiation Safety Officer''; Sec. Sec. 35.10(b) and (c); 35.51(b)(2); 35.100(b)(2); 35.190(b), (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2); 35.200(b)(2); 35.290(b), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2); 35.300(b)(2); 35.390(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2); 35.392(b), (c)(2), and (c)(3); 35.394(b), (c)(2), and (c)(3); 35.490(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(3); 35.491(a) and (b)(3); and 35.690(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Because these amendments constitute minor administrative changes to the regulations, the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0010 and 3150- 0120. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information of an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this final rule; and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter 1. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. List of Subjects for 10 CFR Part 35 Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Drugs, Health facilities, Health professions, Medical devices, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 0 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 35. PART 35-MEDICAL USE OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 0 1 The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); Sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); Sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 0 2. In Sec. 35.2, the definitions of ``authorized medical physicist,'' ``authorized nuclear pharmacist,'' ``authorized user,'' and ``Radiation Safety Officer'' are amended by republishing the introductory text and revising paragraph (1) of each definition to read as follows: Sec. 35.2 Definitions. * * * * * Authorized medical physicist means an individual who-- (1) Meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.51(a) and 35.59; or, before October 24, 2005, meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.961(a), or (b), and 35.59; or * * * * * Authorized nuclear pharmacist means a pharmacist who-- (1) Meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.55(a) and 35.59; or, before October 24, 2005, meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.980(a) and 35.59; or * * * * * Authorized user means a physician, dentist, or podiatrist who-- (1) Meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.59 and 35.190(a), 35.290(a), 35.390(a), 35.392(a), 35.394(a), 35.490(a), 35.590(a), or 35.690(a); or, before October 24, 2005, meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.910(a), 35.920(a), 35.930(a), 35.940(a), 35.950(a), or 35.960(a) and 35.59; or * * * * * Radiation Safety Officer means an individual who-- (1) Meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.50(a) and 35.59; or, before October 24, 2005, meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.900(a) and 35.59; or * * * * * 0 3 In Sec. 35.10, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.10 Implementation. * * * * * (b) A licensee shall implement the training requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.50(a), 35.51(a), 35.55(a), 35.59, 35.190(a), 35.290(a), 35.390(a), 35.392(a), 35.394(a), 35.490(a), 35.590(a), and 35.690(a) on or before October 25, 2005. (c) Prior to October 25, 2005, a licensee shall satisfy the training requirements of this part for a Radiation Safety Officer, an authorized medical physicist, an authorized nuclear pharmacist, or an authorized user by complying with either: * * * * * 0 4. In Sec. 35.51, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.51 Training for an authorized medical physicist. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) Has obtained written certification that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized medical physicist for each type of therapeutic medical unit for which the individual is requesting authorized medical physicist status. The written certification must be signed by a preceptor authorized medical physicist who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.51, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.961, or equivalent Agreement State requirements for an authorized medical physicist for each type of therapeutic medical unit for which the individual is requesting authorized medical physicist status. [[Page 55738]] 0 5 In Sec. 35.100, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.100 Use of unsealed byproduct material for uptake, dilution, and excretion studies for which a written directive is not required. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) A physician who is an authorized user and who meets the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920; or * * * * * 0 6. In Sec. 35.190, paragraph (b), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(ii), and paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.190 Training for uptake, dilution, and excretion studies. * * * * * (b) Is an authorized user under Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.910, 35.920, or 35.930, or equivalent Agreement State requirements; or * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.190, 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.910, 35.920, or 35.930, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, involving-- * * * * * (2) Has obtained written certification, signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.190, 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.910, 35.920, or 35.930, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user for the medical uses authorized under Sec. 35.100. 0 7. In Sec. 35.200, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.200 Use of unsealed byproduct material for imaging and localization studies for which a written directive is not required. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) A physician who is an authorized user and who meets the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920; or * * * * * 0 8. In Sec. 35.290, paragraph (b), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(ii), and paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.290 Training for imaging and localization studies. * * * * * (b) Is an authorized user under Sec. 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920, or equivalent Agreement State requirements; or (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user, who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, involving-- * * * * * (2) Has obtained written certification, signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user for the medical uses authorized under Sec. Sec. 35.100 and 35.200. 0 9. In Sec. 35.300, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.300 Use of unsealed byproduct material for which a written directive is required. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) A physician who is an authorized user and who meets the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 35.290, 35.390, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.920; or * * * * * 0 10. In Sec. 35.390, the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and paragraph (b)(2) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.390 Training for use of unsealed byproduct material for which a written directive is required. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.930, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. A supervising authorized user, who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(b) or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.930(b), must also have experience in administering dosages in the same dosage category or categories (i.e., Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(1), (2), (3), or (4)) as the individual requesting authorized user status. The work experience must involve-- * * * * * (2) Has obtained written certification that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user for the medical uses authorized under Sec. 35.300. The written certification must be signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.930, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. The preceptor authorized user, who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(b) or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.930(b), must also have experience in administering dosages in the same dosage category or categories (i.e., Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(1), (2), (3), or (4)) as the individual requesting authorized user status. 0 11. In Sec. 35.392, paragraph (b), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2), and paragraph (c)(3) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.392 Training for the oral administration of sodium iodide I- 131 requiring a written directive in quantities less than or equal to 1.22 gigabecquerels (33 millicuries). * * * * * (b) Is an authorized user under Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b) for uses listed in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(1) or (2), Sec. 35.394, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930, 35.932, or 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements; or (c) * * * (2) Has work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), 35.392, 35.394, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930, 35.932, or 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. A supervising authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(b), must also have experience in administering dosages as specified in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(1) or (2). The work experience must involve-- * * * * * (3) Has obtained written certification that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user for medical uses authorized under Sec. 35.300. The written certification must be signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), 35.392, 35.394, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930, 35.932, or [[Page 55739]] 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. A preceptor authorized user, who meets the requirement in Sec. 35.390(b), must also have experience in administering dosages as specified in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(1) or (2). 0 12. In Sec. 35.394, paragraph (b), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2), and paragraph (c)(3) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.394 Training for the oral administration of sodium iodide I- 131 requiring a written directive in quantities greater than 1.22 gigabecquerels (33 millicuries). * * * * * (b) Is an authorized user under Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b) for uses listed in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(2), or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930 or 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements; or (c) * * * (2) Has work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), 35.394, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930 or 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. A supervising authorized user, who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(b), must also have experience in administering dosages as specified in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(2). The work experience must involve-- * * * * * (3) Has obtained written certification that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user for medical uses authorized under Sec. 35.300. The written certification must be signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.390(a), 35.390(b), 35.394, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.930 or 35.934, or equivalent Agreement State requirements. A preceptor authorized user, who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.390(b), must also have experience in administering dosages as specified in Sec. 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(2). 0 13. In Sec. 35.490, the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1)(ii), and paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.490 Training for use of manual brachytherapy sources. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) 500 hours of work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.490, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.940, or equivalent Agreement State requirements at a medical institution, involving-- * * * * * (2) Has obtained 3 years of supervised clinical experience in radiation oncology, under an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.490, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.940, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, as part of a formal training program approved by the Residency Review Committee for Radiation Oncology of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the Committee on Postdoctoral Training of the American Osteopathic Association. This experience may be obtained concurrently with the supervised work experience required by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and (3) Has obtained written certification, signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.490, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.940, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user of manual brachytherapy sources for the medical uses authorized under Sec. 35.400. 0 14 In Sec. 35.491, paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.491 Training for ophthalmic use of strontium-90. * * * * * (a) Is an authorized user under Sec. 35.490, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.940 or 35.941, or equivalent Agreement State requirements; or (b) * * * (3) Has obtained written certification, signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. Sec. 35.490, 35.491, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. Sec. 35.940 or 35.941, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user of strontium-90 for ophthalmic use. 0 15 In Sec. 35.690, the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 35.690 Training for use of remote afterloader units, teletherapy units, and gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) 500 hours of work experience, under the supervision of an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.690, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.960, or equivalent Agreement State requirements at a medical institution, involving-- * * * * * (2) Has completed 3 years of supervised clinical experience in radiation oncology, under an authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.690, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.960, or equivalent Agreement State requirements, as part of a formal training program approved by the Residency Review Committee for Radiation Oncology of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the Committee on Postdoctoral Training of the American Osteopathic Association. This experience may be obtained concurrently with the supervised work experience required by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and (3) Has obtained written certification that the individual has satisfactorily completed the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section and has achieved a level of competency sufficient to function independently as an authorized user of each type of therapeutic medical unit for which the individual is requesting authorized user status. The written certification must be signed by a preceptor authorized user who meets the requirements in Sec. 35.690, or, before October 24, 2005, Sec. 35.960, or equivalent Agreement State requirements for an authorized user for each type of therapeutic medical unit for which the individual is requesting authorized user status. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of September, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 04-20856 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Subcommittee Meeting on FR Doc 04-20858 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55846] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-106] Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACNW Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on September 24, 2004, at the Suncoast Hotel (Fairway 2 Room), 9090 Alta Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. The entire meeting will be closed to public attendance pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Subcommittee will continue to discuss self-assessment of ACNW performance in CY 2004, potential operational areas for improved effectiveness, and other activities related to the conduct of ACNW business. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting Mr. Howard J. Larson, Assistant Director for ACNW/Team Leader (telephone 301/415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (e.t.). Dated: September 9, 2004. Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. 04-20858 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 APP.COM: Valve problem causes shutdown of nuclear plant [http://www.app.com/] ASBURY PARK PRESS Published in the Asbury Park Press 9/16/04 By NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY -- The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant shut down Tuesday night so that workers could repair a backup safety valve that malfunctioned during a routine test. The 650-megawatt reactor will resume generation of electricity after the valve is repaired and tested, said Gina G. Scala, plant spokeswoman. Officials were not sure how long the work would take to complete, she said. Personnel performing a quarterly safety test Saturday found that the valve failed to close fast enough. Plant operators would close the valve in case they needed to shut down the plant in an emergency, such as a blackout. The valve, when closed, blocks steam from entering the turbine. Steam, which is heated by nuclear fission, spins the turbine, generating power. The malfunctioning valve is backed up by another valve that would serve the same purpose. Oyster Creek reduced power generation Saturday to 40 percent of capacity so personnel could have another look at the troublesome valve. The plant's owner, AmerGen, shut down the reactor about 11 p.m. Tuesday to protect workers assigned to make repairs. Scala said AmerGen considered the outage a planned one, as federal regulations did not require the company to make repairs immediately. Unplanned outages can compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase oversight. "Oyster Creek is committed to operating the plant safely and we wouldn't operate without redundancy," she said. AmerGen has notified the state Department of Environmental Protection and the plant's resident NRC inspector about the shutdown, according to the NRC. The last planned shutdown occurred in May, when personnel checked equipment needed to ensure reliable power generation through the summer. Oyster Creek is plugged into a regional electric grid that can compensate for outages. September ones are easier than most because air conditioner and heater use is low, said Ray Dotter, a spokesman for PJM Interconnection, the company that manages the power grid. The plant supplies about 9 percent of the state's electricity and contributes about 1 percent to the PJM grid, enough to power 600,000 homes. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com the Asbury Park Press ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: 'Britain must build nuclear power plants' Blair is chided for nuclear omissions The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Financial Times Editorial, September 15 "Predictions of the potentially dire effects of climate change pile up, not least from Tony Blair. [Tuesday's] warning from the prime minister ... came not only as competition for the green vote in next year's election heats up but also as the season for Caribbean hurricanes, a long-standing phenomenon that could none the less be aggravated by global warming, is under way. "Yet it is hard to see many other leaders joining Mr Blair in giving high priority to the reduction of greenhouse gases ... Compliancy is widespread ... None the less ... he intended to use his chairmanship next year of [the G8 group of industrialised countries] to try to get progress on climate change. A first step would be acceptance of the scientific evidence in which President George Bush, notably, refuses to believe." Michael Hanlon Daily Mail, September 15 "When it comes to climate change, evidence counts for little and emotion counts for all ... There is no doubt that the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere has risen in the past century, and there is little doubt, too, that human activities are to blame ... In any case, our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly for the production of electricity, is getting mankind into all sorts of trouble ... "If Mr Blair really is planning a revival in nuclear power - which, despite the misguided hysteria, is by far the safest and greenest form of generating power - such a policy would be to his credit." Simon Jenkins Times, September 15 "Mr Blair clearly regards the Earth's temperature as yet another public service in the portfolio of Her Majesty's government ... If they really believe in the apocalypse, only one technology is currently available to hold it at bay and that is nuclear power ... So did Mr Blair couple his predictions of doom with plans for a new generation of nuclear stations to replace those being decommissioned after 2008? No, he did not ... He is standing by his pledge to cut Britain's CO2 emissions by 20% by 2012 and increase to 20% over 15 years the renewables component in Britain's generating mix ... [But] Mr Blair has no way of meeting these targets ... If Britain is sincere about wanting to reduce carbon emissions it must build nuclear power plants." Niall Ferguson Independent, September 15 "The government's response to the impending energy crisis has thus far been ... wind power ... Global warming is no joke. But the problem is that ... for today's giant turbines, anything below 8mph and much above 50mph is no good. As a result, their output is intermittent and volatile. That means we still need back-up from traditional sources for power ... Ironically, the effect of expanding wind power capacity is therefore to decrease the efficiency with which we run our fossil-fuel stations, which have to go on standby when the wind is just right." Lord May Daily Telegraph, September 15 "Nuclear power is an unpopular child of the energy family ... But we should not be afraid to point out that, as an energy source, it is relatively 'climate-friendly' [and] as such, should be given serious consideration. Keeping the nuclear option open should not be seen as a trade-off with support for renewable energy. Britain must do a better job of reaching its targets for renewables and reducing the wasteful use of energy. And there is security in a diversity of supply. In the short to medium term, it is difficult to see how we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without the help of nuclear power ... "Given that it takes about 10 years from the commissioning of a nuclear power station to it providing electricity, Britain would need to start building significant nuclear capacity, taking full advantage of the technical advances that have taken place elsewhere in the world while we have turned our backs on this technology." Useful link Green party of England and Wales [http://www.greenparty.org.uk] Email us Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [ [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: NRC Dispatches Staff in Preparation for Hurricane Ivan News Release - Region IV - 2004-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-04-037 September 15, 2004 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have been dispatched to two nuclear plants and two emergency response centers in preparation for Hurricane Ivan. The NRC has staffed its Incident Response Center to monitor and assist Louisianas River Bend and Waterford nuclear plants, and any other plant that may be impacted by the hurricane. Personnel have already been dispatched to the plants, to augment NRCs resident inspectors permanently assigned to those sites. Staff also have been sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agencys Regional Operations Center in Denton, Texas, and to Louisianas Emergency Operations Center in Baton Rouge. In accordance with NRC requirements, Louisianas nuclear plants have made the necessary preparations for Hurricane Ivan and we have pre-positioned our people to monitor events and respond, if needed, said Bruce S. Mallett, administrator of NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. At this time, the NRCs primary focus is on Waterford, 20 miles west of New Orelans. The plant declared a Notice of Unusual Event, the lowest of NRCs emergency classifications, after the National Weather Service issued a hurricane warning for St. Charles Parish, La., at 4 p.m. on Sept. 14. The plant is operating at full power, but its procedures require that it begin shutting down 12 hours prior to any predicted hurricane force winds on site. The plant has emergency diesel generators available if needed and has additional diesel generators, normally used in routine operations, and emergency battery power available should the need arise. Waterford is situated some 14 to 17 feet above sea level, and has flood protection above the predicted storm surge. Key components also are housed in watertight buildings capable of withstanding hurricane force winds and flooding. Mallett said the regional office in Arlington will maintain close contact with the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md., and its staff at Louisianas nuclear plants until the hurricane threat has passed. Last revised Thursday, September 16, 2004 ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Protecting Our Nation - Since 9-11-01 (NUREG/BR-0314) Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > NUREG-Series Publications > Brochures Prepared by the Staff > NUREG/BR-0314 Protecting Our Nation - Since 9-11-01 (NUREG/BR-0314) On this page: + Publication Information + Introduction Download complete document The following links on this page are to documents in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). See our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools page for more information. + NUREG/BR-0314 (PDF - 5.33 MB) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Publication Information Date Published: September 2004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Availability Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is committed to protecting the health and safety of the public and the environment. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, reaffirmed the need for collective vigilance, the need for enhanced security, and improved emergency preparedness and incident response capabilities across the Nations critical infrastructure. As a result, the NRC has since conducted a comprehensive review of the agencys security programs and made further enhancements to security at a wide range of NRC-regulated facilities. Last revised Tuesday, September 14, 2004 ***************************************************************** 23 YLEnews: Nuclear Power from Russia? 16.09.2004, 17.46 A Russian owned company has applied for a permit to construct an underwater cable to supply nuclear power to Finland, according to the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The cable would terminate at Mussalo near Kotka on the south coast. [Image:YLE24] United Power submitted the application in late May. The applicant says the cable would supply electricity generated by the state Rosenergoatom company. The cable would be linked to the Russian grid near the Sosnovy Bor nuclear power station. With a capacity of 1,000 megawatts, the cable would be able to export power to meet 10% of Finland's annual electricity needs. The Ministry of Trade and Industry has requested additional data from the company concerning the impact on both the Finnish power grid and environment. The Ministry said a licence to construct the cable could be granted if safety requirements are met and if the project is appropriate from the standpoint of the country's electricity market. YLE24 ***************************************************************** 24 NZZ Online: Wind energy blows back on course September 16, 2004, 23:45 Wind energy is set to make a comeback in Switzerland, with the unveiling of a major project designed to increase capacity by ten times the current amount. The authorities are seeking to win over environmental organisations, which have in the past criticised wind turbines as a blot on the landscape. In 2003 the Swiss threw out two popular initiatives which had sought to abandon nuclear power in favour of alternative sources of energy. But rising oil prices have since led the government to reassess the importance of renewable energy. According to the Federal Energy Office, by 2010 Switzerland should be producing ten times more electricity from wind energy than it does today. Power needs But the authorities also point out that such an increase would still only total 0.1 per cent of the country’s total electricity needs. Officials have already pinpointed 28 locations where wind turbines could be set up. Environmental groups have also been brought on board to help in the process of deciding where the turbines should be located. Pro Natura, the Swiss branch of non-governmental organisation Friends of the Earth, has in the past criticised the construction of wind turbines as a blot on the landscape. But the green group welcomes the government’s new wind energy campaign and has adopted a more moderate tone, calling for “an in-depth assessment of all new locations”. Broad support? Though the electorate threw out the idea of dumping nuclear power in a nationwide vote last year, previous surveys have shown that wind energy enjoys broad support. A poll conducted in 2002 by the Vevey-based research institute, Mediactif, found that 89 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of wind as an alternative form of power. When asked to explain the term “renewable energy”, 57 per cent referred to wind power. Other alternatives mentioned by survey respondents included solar and geothermal energy, and hydroelectric power. Three-quarters of those polled said they would not mind if wind turbines were put up in their neighbourhood. Recent surveys in two locations which already have wind turbines found the majority of local residents had no objections to living close to the power sources. Concerns Nevertheless, the government is concerned that people living in areas which may be earmarked for turbines could attempt to block or delay construction work. The authorities say they will therefore conduct research into the suitability of each location before deciding whether to go ahead with the plans. Criteria to be taken into account include distance from places of residence and the impact on the natural environment. The bulk of Switzerland’s wind energy is currently generated at the Mont Crosin power plant in the Jura. Two new wind turbines are to be installed at the site and energy production is to be increased by 80 per cent – enough to provide electricity for 2,700 homes. The authorities plan to extend the wind energy facilities at the site even further in future as part of efforts to supply five per cent of all electricity requirements in the region between Nyon in canton Vaud and Delémont in canton Jura. “And all of this energy will be 100 per cent pollutant-free,” assures the Federal Energy Office. swissinfo, Urs Maurer Copyright © Swissinfo / Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG ***************************************************************** 25 UK Greenpeace: Nuclear is too dangerous, dirty and expensive Nuclear future?: uk politics news site politics.co.uk [politics.co.uk] Thursday, 16 Sep 2004 Jean McSorley, nuclear campaign co-ordinator for UK Greenpeace, told politics.co.uk that nuclear power was too dangerous, too dirty and too expensive to be the answer to addressing climate change. The lowest estimate of building new reactors was £5.85-£8.37 billion, and they could not be built in time to head off global warming. She said: "Would it be worth building ten more costly, hazardous plants which present terrorist targets in terms of offsetting greenhouse gases? No, because ten new plants would offset only 4-5 per cent of future estimated CO2 emissions. In contrast renewable energy is available now, can be built quickly, is economical, safe and doesn't leave us with piles of nuclear waste we simply cannot deal with." Greenpeace © 2004 www.politics.co.uk [webmaster@politics.co.uk?subject=Politics Webmaster] . About Us of Use ***************************************************************** 26 Maine Today: Engineers having a blast The dome of Maine Yankee's nuclear reactor will be demolished in an explosion on Friday. --> [http://www.mainetoday.com] Thursday, September 16, 2004 By DENNIS HOEY, Portland Press Herald Writer WISCASSET — The concrete dome that once capped Maine Yankee's nuclear reactor is going out with a bang Friday morning - a very big bang according to the engineers who have spent months planning its destruction. Right now, the 20-million pound structure resembles an alien spaceship on stilts. But by late Friday morning, if everything goes according to plan, the dome will be lying on a pile of rubble. Its destruction will also mark the end of an era in Maine that began in 1972 when Maine Yankee started producing electricity. The nuclear reactor, including fuel, cost $270 million to build in 1968, according to Maine Yankee officials. It will cost $500 million to remove. Between the time it opened and the time it closed - Dec. 8, 1996, - the plant produced 118 billion kilowatts of electricity. "This has been an extremely well engineered project and I have to take my hat off to Maine Yankee for that," said the project's explosives expert, Doug Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc. "This will become the first (reactor) dome in the nation to be taken down this way. It's cutting edge." Bill Henries, Maine Yankee's director of engineering, Justin Manafort, vice-president of Manafort Brothers, the project's general contractor, and Loizeaux took members of the media and guests on a tour of the explosion site Wednesday afternoon. It was the last chance to get a close look at the steel reinforced concrete structure and dome that most people came to associate with Maine Yankee The decommissioning project is more than 90 percent complete, and by the end of the year, no buildings will remain. The property on Bailey Point will become a field. Officials have created a 1,000-foot safety zone around the blast site. The demolition is scheduled to occur at 10 a.m. Friday. "Explosive demolition has become a spectator sport. If we let people, they would stand right here," said Loizeaux, who was standing just a few feet from the perimeter of the containment dome's footprint. Henries said nine columns or rectangles, which were once part of the reactor dome's walls, are all that support the dome. Engineers cut through the walls leaving just enough of a shell to support the dome. In the process, they gutted the interior removing more than 13 million pounds of concrete and steel. The columns will be blown up, causing the dome, which is 150-feet tall, to drop intact. Dome walls are more than 4 feet thick. Henries said 365 holes were drilled in the columns. He said 1,100 pounds of dynamite sticks will be placed in the holes. There will be a loud sound, similar to a jet taking off, before a pulse or shock wave. Despite the firepower and the year of planning, the explosion and collapse will take just a few seconds. Manafort said construction crews will spend about two months hammering the dome into pieces for transport by rail to a storage facility in Utah. The Maine Yankee office building will be demolished in three weeks, leaving no structures on the property other than a high-level nuclear waste storage facility known as the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. Manafort said chain link fences and a black fabric have been wrapped around each column to prevent debris from flying. "At night the dome is lit up for security reasons," Manafort said. "It looks like it's levitating because you can't see the legs." Staff Writer Dennis Hoey can be contacted at 725-8795 or at: dhoey@pressherald.com [dhoey@pressherald.com] ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc 04-20850 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55842-55843] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-102] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 63-- Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: One time. 5. Who is required or asked to report: The State of Nevada, local governments, or affected Indian Tribes, or their representatives, requesting consultation with the NRC staff regarding review of [[Page 55843]] the potential high-level waste geologic repository site, or wishing to participate in a license application review for the potential geologic repository. 6. An estimate of the number of responses: 9. 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 3. 8. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 363 (An average of 40 hours per response for consultation requests, 80 hours per response for license application review participation proposals, and one hour per response for statements of representative authority). 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 63 requires the State of Nevada, local governments, or affected Indian Tribes to submit certain information to the NRC if they request consultation with the NRC staff concerning the review of the potential repository site, or wish to participate in a license application review for the potential repository. Representatives of the State of Nevada, local governments, or affected Indian Tribes must submit a statement of their authority to act in such a representative capacity. The information submitted by the State, local governments, and affected Indian Tribes is used by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards as a basis for decisions about the commitment of NRC staff resources to the consultation and participation efforts. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 18, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0199), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 04-20850 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of FR Doc 04-20851 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55844-55846] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-105] Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed no Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-49, DPR-20, DPR-24, DPR-27, DPR-42 and DPR-60 issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (the licensee) for operation of the Duane Arnold Energy Center located in Linn County, Iowa; the Palisades Plant located in Van Buren County, Michigan; the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin; and the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota, respectively. The proposed amendments allow entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a technical specification (TS), while in a condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, provided the licensee performs a risk assessment and manages risk consistent with the program in place for complying with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.65(a)(4). Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 exceptions in individual TSs would be eliminated, and Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 revised to reflect the LCO 3.0.4 allowance. This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), on possible amendments concerning TSTF-359, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated December 23, 2003. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a [[Page 55845]] margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of a facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/] reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which [[Page 55846]] may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments. If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV [HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV] ; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov [ OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov] . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated December 23, 2003, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission L. Mark Padovan, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-20851 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc 04-20853 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55843] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-103] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 39-- Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging. 3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: Applications for new licenses and amendments may be submitted at any time. Applications for renewal are submitted every 10 years. Reports are submitted as events occur. 5. Who is required or asked to report: Applicants for and holders of specific licenses authorizing the use of licensed radioactive material for radiography. 6. An estimate of the number of responses: 1,800 (NRC: 391 [356 + 35 recordkeepers] and (Agreement States: 1409 [1,283 + 126 recordkeepers]). 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 161 (35 NRC licensees and 126 Agreement State licensees). 8. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 34,933 hours. The NRC licensees total burden is 7,594 hours (111 reporting hrs plus 7,483 recordkeeping hrs). The Agreement State licensees total burden is 27,339 hours (405 reporting hrs plus 26,934 recordkeeping hrs). The average burden per response for both NRC licensees and Agreement State licensees is 3.2 hours, and the burden per recordkeeper is 214 hours. 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 39 establishes radiation safety requirements for the use of radioactive material in well logging operations. The information in the applications, reports and records is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected and that licensee possession and use of source and byproduct material is in compliance with license and regulatory requirements. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 18, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0130), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of September 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 04-20853 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 [du-list] Ban DU until it is proven harmless Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:38:17 -0700 Ban DU until it is proven harmless By Julie Flint Special to The Daily Star Wednesday, September 15, 2004 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=8369 Some called it a "dirty bomb" dropped on the Pentagon, namely the report last month that eight out of 20 men who had served in the same unit during the invasion of Iraq now have malignant cancers. That's 40 percent in 16 months. The soldiers were reportedly exposed only to vaccines and depleted uranium (DU) - and vaccines are not known to cause cancer. It was the second such bomb in only a few months. The New York Daily News had earlier reported that four out of nine military police returning from Iraq had tested positive for DU contamination. The four - none of whom had been exposed to the heat of battle - approached the paper after being refused testing by army doctors. Here's a wild guess why: Each DU test costs $1,000 - and hundreds of thousands of U.S. servicemen are, or have been, in Iraq, (not to mention, of course, some 26 million Iraqis). Critics of DU weaponry say money has always been at the heart of the refusal to acknowledge, and properly investigate, the effects of the low-level radiation contained in DU. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf war, the bill to clean up waste uranium from America's nuclear industry would have amounted to many tens of billions of dollars. Cheaper, by far, to recycle it in the arms industry. (DU makes the most effective anti-tank weapon ever devised.) Then, too, there is the issue of compensation: Imagine the bill if it were proven that DU is even contributing to the "anecdotal" - i.e. insufficiently researched - surge of illness among Iraqi civilians and war veterans. (Gulf war veterans on medical disability since 1991 number 518,739. There are no statistics for Iraqis.) Government scientists say DU presents an insignificant hazard. Its radioactivity dose falls within permitted levels. But opponents of DU challenge old assumptions about the safety of even minimal exposure. They say new risk models indicate that the dangers of low-level radiation are 100 to 1,000 times greater than hitherto believed. DU is, admittedly, only one of the possible causes of the health problems that have followed in the wake of the Allies' wars in Iraq. Professor Doug Rokke, the former director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, has pointed out that when the U.S. military decided to blow up Iraq's chemical, biological and radiological stockpiles, in situ, "chemical agent detectors and radiological monitors were going off all over the place." Not easy, then, to prove a causal link to any one contaminant. But looking at the properties of DU and the effects it could have on the body, and comparing these with the medical problems of DU workers, Gulf war veterans and Iraqi civilians, it is clear that DU cannot be - must not be - ruled out as one of the possible causes. The little research that has been done into the effects of low-level radiation has not been done with the victims of war, but with the perpetrators. This preoccupation with "us" as opposed to "them" is nothing short of criminal. The rate of cancer in Basra has multiplied 15 times since the Gulf war. "The only factor that has changed is radiation," says Dr. Jawad al-Ali, a British-trained oncologist at Basra's Talimi Training Hospital. Even more horrifying is a U.S. government study of 251 veteran families in Mississippi. Of children born to these families after the war, 67 percent had congenital deformations. Before the war, none had. Coincidence, say those who fight with DU. War crimes, say those who fight against it. Cause for serious investigation, say those with any sense (or humanity). Despite differing short-term conclusions, final recommendations from the UN Environment Program, the World Health Organization and Britain's Royal Society agree on two things: There can be no definitive conclusions without more research, and areas where DU is detected must be cleaned up. If the silence of governments can be understood - DU disposes of nuclear waste in an extremely cheap and "effective" way - the near-silence of human rights groups cannot be. Although Amnesty International has expressed "concern" about "the possible indiscriminate effects on health" of DU munitions, a Human Rights Watch report published in February 2003 about international humanitarian law issues in the coming war in Iraq did not even mention the words "depleted uranium." DU munitions, admittedly, are not specifically prohibited by international law. But a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission called for their "complete elimination" almost a decade ago, in 1996, after human rights lawyer Karen Parker successfully argued that the military use of DU violates several of the requirements of the UN Convention on Human Rights - weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment, must not act off the battlefield, and must not continue to act after battle is over. Until it is proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that DU is harmless, DU weapons should surely be banned. If the worst-case scenario proves correct, the effects of DU will be felt for years to come - in and around Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia. Dust storms will carry DU particles far and wide, and old DU munitions will retain their radioactivity for all eternity - in wrecked tanks where children play and in cooking pots made from recycled scrap. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those who dispose of their DU in weapons have no right to claim the moral high ground in Iraq. A restricted British Defense Ministry document obtained by Scotland's Sunday Herald newspaper and dated Feb. 25, 1991, four days before the Gulf war cease-fire, warned that inhalation or ingestion of particles from DU shells is a health risk. It said full protective clothing and respirators should be worn when close to DU; bodies exposed to it should be hosed down before disposal; and that DU contaminated food. Yet even today the fertile, DU-contaminated grasslands west of Basra are being used to grow food and rear livestock! A critic of DU has recalled the words of the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre during another brutal war: France's war in Algeria. He said: "It is not right, my fellow-countrymen, you who know very well all the crimes committed in our name. It's not at all right that you do not breathe a word about them to anyone, not even to your own soul, for fear of having to stand in judgment of yourself. I am willing to believe that at the beginning you did not realize what was happening; later, you doubted whether such things could be true; but now you know, and still you hold your tongues." Not much, it seems, has changed. Julie Flint is a veteran journalist based in Beirut and London. This is the second of two articles on depleted uranium, which she wrote for THE DAILY STAR -- Posted for educational and research purposes only, ~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~ NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a home for your web domain? We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 31 [du-list] America’s Nuclear Wars Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:38:22 -0700 America’s Nuclear Wars By Paul Harris Sep 15, 2004 Axis of Logic http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_11792.shtml American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and even though it doesn’t have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb. It is one of the ironies of history: The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn’t find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil. They continue to lie: Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them. Despite going to war in Iraq on the basis of fabricated evidence about Saddam Hussein’s stock of vicious weapons, the United States itself has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the Second World War, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD. Still, most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although the Americans also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (all of the ‘agents’ were so named because of the colour of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, and were used in Vietnam as defoliants to strip away the forests and trees in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces; and they were used in far greater concentrations than would be usual. Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and killed by incineration anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. Those of us old enough will remember the horrifying television images of Vietnamese children being incinerated. This was not the first or only use of this material: napalm bombs were dropped on Japan by Allied troops during World War II and used in flamethrowers in Germany in that same war. Later, it was used by United Nations forces during the Korean War before reaching the apex of its popularity during the Vietnam conflict. Although its use was banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did not sign the agreement. The U.S. claimed to have destroyed all its supplies of napalm by 2001 but that appears to be a matter of semantics rather than fact; current evidence seems to verify that they have used it as recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11: "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." The United States has denied using napalm but only because they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed the product the ‘Mark 77 firebomb’. Its victims will surely appreciate the clarification. While the United States remains the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I & II. Background The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements, treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S. military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those international treaties, and its own laws, the United States continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all species, including our own. Depleted uranium is the waste by-product of nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear power. It is deadly and is used in weapons because it is cheap and ignites and burns fiercely on hitting a solid target. When it impacts, it releases an aerosol of fine uranium oxide that is breathable and spreads great distances by wind until rain comes to weigh it down, where it falls to the ground and is absorbed into soil or water sources. The Americans have given DU to weapons manufacturers free of charge. It was first developed for the U.S. Navy in 1968 and DU weapons were supplied to, and used by, Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since, the U.S. has sold DU weapons to at least 29 countries. The plans for this substance, however, actually date back to 1943. A declassified document from the Manhattan Project is a blueprint for depleted uranium weapons. Euphemistically, some in military circles refer to DU as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, the ultimate gift that keeps on giving. The half-life of the material is 4.5 billion years. Scientists are quite certain on two points: DU is deadly; and the effects of this material will continue to contaminate the earth long after humans are extinct. They are also fairly clear that continued use of DU will mean the future is going to move ahead without us. There should be no misunderstanding about the seriousness of this material: it meets the U.S. definition of a 'weapon of mass destruction' and while the United States is prepared to invade sovereign countries on the basis they 'might' have WMD themselves and they 'might' be willing to use them, the Americans are actually using them. And they use them in complete disregard for the people and nations on which they are dropped, even in disregard of the health of their own and allied troops. On that basis, there is some serious question as to whom has really earned the title 'Evil Empire'. Self Abuse In the three-week Gulf War in 1991, just 467 U.S. personnel were reported as wounded. Of the 580,400 GIs who served in that war, more than 11,000 are now dead and in excess of 400,000 are on permanent medical disability. New cases are arising by an astounding 43,000 per year. In a nutshell, more than 70% of those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 now have medical problems. The only substances to which these troops are known to have been exposed are vaccines and depleted uranium. Vaccines do not cause the diseases these troops have contracted. The only known exposure with the potential to cause these illness is the depleted uranium. In response to the mounting evidence of the hazards, the American response has been to use the same material in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and for a second time in Iraq. For protestors and advocates for the afflicted, there is no comfort in knowing that this transcends politics and has now gone on through three presidential administrations. Even worse, the Americans knew the deadly hazard inherent in this material before they ever started to use it. A military report prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1974 stated: "In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant." A contractor to the military, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), noted in a July 1990 report that "aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects." For 13 years, veterans of Gulf War Part One, and subsequently the Balkan veterans, have been hounding their governments to determine if they have been contaminated by the DU used in those conflicts. They are unable to search for this evidence through conventional medicine because suitable testing equipment is not available outside of government facilities owing to the national security issues involved. There has been a lengthy debate over the issue of GWI, and now Balkan Illness, while many allied personnel who served in those conflicts have endured unexplained and premature deaths or debilitating systemic illnesses. There is evidence of transmission of related diseases to sexual partners and children born to these veterans since the conflicts. But while the veterans continue to pressure the U.S. government for proper DU screening programs, a series of reports confirm the inadequacy of testing efforts and the fundamental failure to understand the ramifications of DU use. In the absence of adequate testing and follow-up, the military continues to use this material in a form of Russian Roulette with its own troops, notwithstanding the horrendous results on the nations where the weapons are being dropped. In the words of the well-known humanitarian, Henry Kissinger: "Military men are just dumb, stupid, animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." And as if to prove his point, a report carried by both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post on February 27, 1991 quoted American troops firing DU weapons at hapless Iraqi soldiers: "We toasted him … we hit the jackpot … a turkey shoot … shooting fish in a barrel … basically just sitting ducks… There’s nothing like it. It’s the biggest Fourth of July show you’ve ever seen, and to see those tanks just ‘boom’, and stuff just keeps spewing out of them … they just become white hot. It’s wonderful." Where is the outrage? Americans have cheered the successes of their military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in the Balkans. Most remain ignorant of the horrendous weapons their troops used to destroy such feeble enemies. Even more, they are almost completely ignorant of the hazards faced by their own troops from the toys at their disposal. There is no outrage in the U.S. for the dangers being faced by American troops, even less outrage for the innocent victims of this lethal onslaught. But America’s craven allies, including my country Canada, can offer no excuses for their silence. None of the information presented in this article is secret; it is readily available from a variety of sources. In several countries, including Canada, there are victims of DU exposure who thought they were going to fight the good fight, little realizing that their best buddy was going to expose them to lethal substances, just because they could. The American decision to initiate the use of DU weaponry, and then to continue its use even when evidence mounted to thwart any lingering doubts about the hazards, is a despicable act. This was a cold, calculated decision to inflict long-lasting harm on enemies with no regard for the innocent in those lands and no regard even for American and allied troops. There are few observers who would excuse any other nation behaving in this way from charges of war crimes. Bracing for the next American onslaught Depleted uranium appears to have been given the green light in 1990 three reasons: * to test the efficacy of 4th generation nuclear weapons still in their development stage * to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weaponry * to facilitate the reintroduction of nuclear weapons into the American arsenal And it has done a marvelous job of stopping the enemy. Unfortunately, the side effects on civilian populations and the long-lasting environmental effects are horrendous. If the use of this weaponry marks the future of American strategy, and given their proclivity for military adventures, the deleterious effects of DU on the environment and on the population of various countries is assured. More, the health of American and allied troops is also compromised. The continued use of DU weapons should be sufficient reason for America’s allies to decline invitations to future military excursions. Regardless of the peril presented by the enemy, America’s allies need to be concerned about the peril presented by America. Sources include: ‘Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq, Humanity’ ­ Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press ‘Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD’ ­ Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press ‘No protection from known danger’ ­ Dan Fahey, Military Toxicity Project ‘Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets ­ A death sentence here and abroad’ ­ Leuren Moret ‘Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War’ ­ Leuren Moret ‘The People versus George Walker Bush: International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan at Tokyo’ ‘An Examination of Uranium Levels in Canadian Forces Personnel Who Served in the Gulf War and Kosovo’ ­ Health Physics Society Journal, 82(4): 527-532; April 2002 ‘Perpetual Death from America’ ­ Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki ‘Trail of a Bullet’ ­ a special series prepared by the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium) ‘Details’ ­ Paul Harris, YellowTimes.org (March 12, 2003) several reports prepared by the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference (www.uraniumweaponsconference.de) various reports prepared by the Uranium Medical Research Centre ­ especially see the report ’12 years too late?’ for an extensive list of source material -- Posted for educational and research purposes only, ~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~ NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a home for your web domain? We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 32 Lexington Herald-Leader: Nuclear workers' program reviewed | 09/16/2004 | ASSOCIATED PRESS KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp predicts Congress will put the Department of Labor in charge of a compensation program for sick Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers. The effort has stalled under the Department of Energy. "Too many members of the House and the Senate lost confidence in the Department of Energy because they got so far behind," Wamp, R-Tenn., said Monday. Congress passed a law four years ago directing the Energy Department to help workers file claims for lost wages and medical benefits under state workers' compensation systems. That reversed a decades-old practice in which the government helped contractors fight the workers' claims. Lawmakers and many of the workers, including hundreds in Wamp's district in Oak Ridge, claim that the DOE has squandered much of the $95 million it received. As of the end of July, the agency had paid only 31 claims out of 25,000 filed. Wamp told The Knoxville News Sentinel's Washington bureau that he still thinks Oak Ridge workers would get federal benefits faster under improved management by DOE. But he said, "I think their reputation in managing the program was damaged, maybe irreparably." The Senate voted earlier to put the Labor Department in charge. Wamp said he will support whatever compromise the House and Senate craft, although he remained concerned that getting the Labor Department ready could add more delays. ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: All nuclear material stolen from Russia recovered - official Homebase"> [http://www.spacewar.com/]  WAR.WIRE
MOSCOW (AFP) Sep 15, 2004 All the nuclear material that has been stolen from Russia over the past quarter of a century has been recovered, the head of the country's atomic energy agency said on Wednesday. Alexander Rumiantsev, making his comments after a series of terror attacks in Russia, said that the quantities stolen never amounted to more than tens of grammes. "Over the past 25 years we have recorded several disappearances of military-quality nuclear material and it was always tens of grammes. These materials were always retrieved as a result of painstaking inquiries," he said. He revealed however that only 10 percent of a 100 kilo quantity of natural uranium that also disappeared has been recovered. But he added: "This substance could never be used to make nuclear weapons, something that the thieves surely ignored". Rumiantsev reiterated that security measures were very tight at the country's nuclear power stations in the wake of the deadly attacks that included the downing of two planes, a suicide blast in Moscow and the Beslan hostage tragedy. "It is clear that terrorists are planning to attack nuclear power stations, and this is why these are guarded by soldiers and interior ministry forces, who have very strict instructions over terrorist attacks," he said. He also called for greater efforts to prevent the theft of radioactive isotopes used in industry and hospitals, something that happened "relatively frequently". All rights reserved. © 2004 Agence France-Presse ***************************************************************** 34 Charleston.Net: Air Force team to look for old hydrogen bomb off Tybee Island 09/16/04 BY TONY BARTELME Of The Post and Courier Staff The Air Force is sending a 20-person team to Georgia next week to study an area of ocean off Tybee Island where a group of bomb hunters think an old hydrogen bomb may be buried. Armed with radiation detectors and other equipment, the team will take samples and use other equipment to verify whether the so-called "Tybee bomb" has been found, an Air Force spokesman said Tuesday. A bomber dropped the 7,000-pound weapon in 1958 after the aircraft collided with a Charleston-based fighter. Despite an extensive search then, the bomb wasn't found. Air Force officials stress that the bomb wasn't armed -- it didn't contain a plutonium capsule required for a nuclear detonation -- and therefore poses no threat to the public. "There was no risk of a nuclear detonation in 1958, nor is there a risk of detonation in 2004," said Air Force Lt. Col. Frank Smolinski. Officials, however, have acknowledged that the bomb contains highly enriched uranium and several hundred pounds of conventional explosives. Earlier this year, a group led by Derek Duke, a retired Air Force colonel from Statesboro, Ga., said it found a large object near Tybee Island that was emitting radiation. Duke and his colleagues have been searching for the bomb since the late 1990s and fear that it may, in fact, have a plutonium capsule. Duke recently relayed his group's findings to the Air Force, which put together a team of experts from the Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration and National Laboratories. The group is to meet Monday in Georgia and go over Duke's data Tuesday, Smolinski said. On Wednesday, the group will boat to the site in Wassau Sound where Duke thinks the bomb might be buried in the seabed. Experts will take samples from the sand in the seabed and measure radiation levels, Smolinski said. Tropical Storm Jeanne may, however, push the visit back. "Everything has been well thought out and planned," he added. "We want to emphasize that none of our activities will pose any danger of detonating the bomb -- if indeed there's a bomb there." For Duke, the Air Force's move is a vindication of sorts. His group, which includes retired military officers, members of the original unit that searched for the bomb in 1958 and Tybee Island residents, has been criticized for threatening national security and trying to profit off the lost bomb. Duke said Tuesday that he was "extremely pleased" with the Air Force's decision to send a large team of experts to study the information his group uncovered. "They have been extremely professional and diligent about this." Duke also risks the possibility that the military team won't find anything, or that the source of radiation may be something other than the missing bomb. "It was a risk I had to take," he said. Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved. webmaster@postandcourier.com [webmaster@postandcourier.com] ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW); Notice of Meeting FR Doc 04-20859 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55846-55847] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-107] The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 153rd meeting on September 22-23, 2004, at the Suncoast Hotel (Ballroom A), 9090 Alta Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 (1) 8-8:10 a.m. Opening Statement [[Page 55847]] Working Group on the Evaluation of Igneous Activity and its Consequences at a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Open) (2) 8:10-8:20 a.m. Greeting and Introductions Working Group Session; 1 Geologic Considerations in the Estimation of Probability of Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain (3) 8:20-8:50 a.m.\1\ NRC Perspective on Volcanism Modeling Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time allocated for a specific agenda item. The remaining 50 percent of the time is reserved for discussion. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- (4) 8:50-9:50 a.m. NRC Overview of Igneous Activity in the Yucca Mountain Region 9:50-10:10 a.m. * * * Break * * * (5) 10:10-10:55 a.m. 1996 Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Analysis: One Subject Matter Experts' Perspective (6) 10:55-11:40 a.m. Alternative Views on the Likelihood of an Igneous Event in the Yucca Mountain Region 11:40-1 p.m. * * * Lunch * * * (7) 1-2 p.m. Session 1 Working Group Roundtable Discussion (8) 2-2:30 p.m. Public Comments 2:30-2:45 p.m. * * * Break * * * Working Group Session 2; Characterization of Magma/Repository Interactions (9) 2:45-3:30 p.m. NRC Staff Perspective on the Modeling of Magma/ Repository Interactions (10) 3:30-4:15 p.m. 2002 Recommendations of the DOE-Sponsored Igneous Consequences Peer Review Panel: One Panelist's Perspective (11) 4:15-5 p.m. Alternative Views on the Modeling of Magma/Repository Interactions at Yucca Mountain (12) 5-6 p.m. Session 2 Working Group Roundtable Discussion (13) 6-6:30 p.m. Public Comments Adjourn Day 1 Thursday, September 23, 2004 (14) 8-8:10 a.m. Opening Statement Working Group Session 3; Biosphere Doses Due to Disruptive Igneous Events (15) 8:10-9:40 a.m. NRC Staff Perspective on Challenges to Modeling Doses due to Disruptive Igneous Events (16) 9:40-12 p.m. ACNW Invited Speakers on Biosphere Dose Modeling Issues 16.1 Perspectives on Aerosol Modeling Issues 16.2 Perspectives on Resuspension Modeling Issues 16.3 Perspectives on Dose Modeling Issues 12-1 p.m. * * * Lunch * * (17) 1-2 p.m. Session 3 Working Group Roundtable Discussion (18) 2-3 p.m. Presentations by Stakeholder Organizations 3-3:15 p.m. * * * Break * * * (19) 3:15-4:15 p.m. Panel and Committee Summary Discussion (20) 4:15-4:45 p.m. Epilogue Remarks (21) 4:45-5 p.m. Closing Comments by the Working Group Chairman (22) 5-5:30 p.m. Discussion of ACNW Letter Report 5:30-6 p.m. * * * Break * * * (23) 6-7 p.m. Future ACNW Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee Adjourn 153rd ACNW Meeting Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2003 (68 FR 59643). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson, Assistant Director for ACNW/Team Leader (telephone 301/415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. e.t., as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Larson as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Larson. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti ons/] (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Dated: September 10, 2004. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 04-20859 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 EPA: Radiation Removal site: Sad Diego Ca FR Doc 04-20895 [Federal Register: September 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 179)] [Notices] [Page 55817-55818] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16se04-57] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-7813-2] Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as Amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act; 38th Street Radiation Removal Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice, request for public comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a proposed Administrative Order on Consent (``AOC, Region 9 Docket No. 2004-00015) pursuant to section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA concerning the 38th Street Radiation Removal Site (the ``Site''), located in San Diego, California. The respondent to the AOC is California Department of Transportation (``Cal-Trans''). The AOC provides Cal-Trans with a covenant not to sue and contribution protection for the removal action at the Site. To date, EPA has incurred approximately $967,836.00 in response costs related to the Site. Cal-Trans is reimbursing $84,301.53 of the incurred response costs to EPA, consistent with EPA's determination of $84,301.53 Cal-Trans' ability to pay. For [[Page 55818]] thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed AOC. The Agency's response to any comments will be available to public inspection at EPA's Region IX offices, located at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 18, 2004. ADDRESSES: The proposed Agreement may be obtained from Judith Winchell, Environmental Protection Specialist, telephone (415) 972-3124. comments regarding the proposed Agreement should be addressed to Judith Winchell (SFD-7) at EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and should reference the 38th Street Radiation Removal Site, San Diego, California and USEPA Docket No. 2004-008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Helmlinger, Office of Regional Counsel, telephone (415) 972-3904, USEPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Dated: September 8, 2004. Pete Guria, Acting Chief, Response, Planning, and Assessment Branch. [FR Doc. 04-20895 Filed 9-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M ***************************************************************** 37 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: U.S. Supreme Court intervention sought Thursday, September 16, 2004 Nuclear industry group wants ruling reversal By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Energy Institute has served notice it intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that threw the Yucca Mountain Project into turmoil when it was issued in July. Lawyers for the nuclear industry association say in court documents the effort to build a repository for the nation's radioactive spent fuel is important enough to merit the attention of the highest court. The NEI filed a motion Sept. 8 asking a federal appeals court in Washington to delay finalizing a July 9 ruling that struck a blow against the repository until the justices are asked to intervene. Officials with the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have indicated they do not plan to join a Supreme Court appeal. But the nuclear industry group said the case "involves a matter of great national importance: the creation of a national repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste." The deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to accept the case is Nov. 30, NEI attorneys said. The NEI is attempting to focus the justices on a July 9 ruling by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The judges voided a 10,000-year radiation safety guideline the Environmental Protection Agency had written for the repository. They said EPA disregarded the views of a National Academy of Sciences study that recommended radiation protections for thousands of years longer. The ruling has thrown the Yucca project into uncertainty as the EPA, the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission weigh its impact only months before the DOE planned to submit repository licensing paperwork for review. Of 8,883 petitions for writ of certiorari received during their 2003-04 term, Supreme Court justices accepted only 91 for argument, according to Ed Turner, deputy public information officer. Bret Birdsong, a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said odds are long the justices will accept the Yucca case. But it may intrigue them. "They will sometimes grant `cert' in cases that pose issues of national importance and this could be regarded as that because waste will be shipped from places all around the country," said Birdsong, who was an attorney in the Justice Department's environmental division from 1994 to 2000. But Birdsong said the legal questions the NEI plans to advance may not rise to a compelling level to interest the justices. And the industry's case may be diminished in the eyes of the Supreme Court if the government chooses not to join the appeal. "If the Solicitor General has decided not to pursue it, in some sense that sends a message to the court it may not be worth their time," he said. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca ruling appealed by DOE Thursday, September 16, 2004 STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is appealing a ruling that Yucca Mountain Project managers violated rules for an online database created to store millions of documents about the nuclear waste repository. DOE attorneys said a review board at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission misapplied federal law and NRC regulations when it weighed the case. A 16-page DOE appeal was filed on Sept. 10 with the three commissioners who oversee the nuclear regulatory agency. A three-judge review board said on Aug. 31 that DOE failed to follow regulations when it posted 1.2 million documents related to the nuclear waste repository on an Energy Department Web site this summer. The judges said the documents needed to be placed on "licensing support network" database at the NRC to be considered official. The violation was one of several found against the Energy Department related to the online database. DOE was told to correct the problems, which could set back its bid to meet a year-end deadline to complete a Yucca license application. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: No longer ignored LAS VEGAS SUN Within the span of three days in Nevada this week, we have had the unprecedented sight of the major parties' presidential tickets visiting our state. Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards was in Reno for a rally on Monday and Republican President Bush visited Las Vegas on Wednesday, followed today by a stop in Las Vegas from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and a visit to Reno from Republican Vice President Dick Cheney. Both Bush and Kerry were in Las Vegas to address the National Guard Association's convention, so the two were speaking to a national audience more than they were directly to Nevadans. Nonetheless, they have made so many trips to our state that you'd think that tiny Nevada was a behemoth like next-door neighbor California -- and in a way it is. In the Electoral College sweepstakes, with a winner-take-all system of allocating each state's votes for president, Nevada is one of the states in this year's race for the White House that is still up for grabs. Neither candidate is putting much money or time in uncontested states, such as California, that clearly will vote Democratic, or Texas, which obviously will vote Republican. Nevada traditionally has leaned conservative and voted Republican in presidential elections, but nevertheless Democrat Bill Clinton carried the state twice in the '90s. It's also one of the beauties of the way we elect our president that even sparsely populated states such as Nevada -- and the issues they care dearly about, such as this state's opposition to Bush's plan to build a nuclear waste dump here -- still matter. Indeed, Kerry's opposition to the Yucca Mountain project could be just the defining issue that enables him to beat Bush in Nevada -- and put him in the White House. ***************************************************************** 40 Las Vegas SUN: NEI to take appeal on Yucca standards to Supreme Court Today: September 16, 2004 at 9:46:16 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski < [suzanne@lasvegassun.com] > SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Energy Institute will ask the Supreme Court to evaluate a federal appeals court decision affecting the Yucca Mountain project. In the meantime, NEI has asked a federal appeals court to allow the 10,000-year radiation standard on the Yucca Mountain project to remain in place until the Supreme Court decides whether to take up the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on July 9 that the Environmental Protection Agency did not follow the law when it established a 10,000-year standard, largely because it did not accept the National Academy of Sciences recommendation of a far higher standard, perhaps 300,000 years. NEI asked the appeals court to rehear the case but the court said it would not. The standard was supposed to be thrown out a week after the court's decision to rehear the case, but NEI asked the court earlier this month to keep the standard in place until the Supreme Court makes a decision. NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said the group plans to appeal to the Supreme Court but nothing has been filed there yet. Under the standard, the Energy Department would have to prove it could store nuclear waste safely inside Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for 10,000 years. But the court said either Congress must change the law that guides the project or the EPA must come up with a new standard, either outcome would delay the project. The EPA has said the federal government will not appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Nevada has claimed victory since the July 9 ruling, saying the project is in trouble. Joe Egan, an attorney hired by the state to handle Yucca issues, said he didn't think NEI's attempt to appeal would go far. "We regard this as a 'Hail Mary' pass with a watermelon," Egan said. "There is virtually no chance at all the watermelon is going to reach the end zone." Egan said the state will file a response Friday to NEI's request. If the appeal court does not grant NEI's request, the court's ruling to throw out the radiation standard would finally become official. Only the Supreme Court could overturn the decision, he said. Egan said it is unlikely it would because the federal government has decided not to go forward with appeals on the decision. Nevada claims that the project could not meet a higher radiation standard, so setting a new one could delay or ultimately stop the project. ***************************************************************** 41 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: GOP hopes for Yucca amnesia The Nevada Republican party did not mention Yucca Mountain by name in its platform and now the Republicans have neglected to mention it in their "contract with Nevada." That is some oversight, given that a majority of Nevadans know that science has taken a back seat to politics in the project. Come to think of it, the National Republican Party did not mention Yucca Mountain either. Maybe the Republicans think we'll have amnesia until after the election. Perhaps Yucca Mountain could be added in the contract with Nevada. It could be worded: "The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository has not met scientific standards today and in the past. The federal government should consider abandoning the project." In Nevada, we need open debate -- not silence -- about Yucca Mountain before the election. FRANK PERNA ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Feds, not plants, own nuke waste This is in response to the Aug. 22 letter from Tamara Thompson, headlined "Users must fund nuclear disposal." Ms. Thompson erred in saying nuclear waste is owned by the "nuclear plants." The federal government owns the nuclear waste. This ownership agreement has been in place since the 1950s and was reinforced by law in the Waste Policy Act of 1982. Additionally, regarding who pays for storage of the waste, the $23 billion to $25 billion in surcharges (depending on the source of the figure) paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund by the commercial nuclear power industry was for the development of the Yucca Mountain Repository. These monies were set aside strictly for the development of the repository and should be made available without further meddling by Congress -- Congress has spent $9 billion to $10 billion of this money on other items and uses the remainder to offset the budget. For the good of this country, nuclear waste will come here. If Nevadans are smart, they will take every opportunity to reap the benefits of locating the repository here. JIM RALEIGH ***************************************************************** 43 AJ: Editorial: LES Donation Crosses Conflict-of-Interest Line Albuquerque Journal 7777 Jefferson Street NE Albuquerque, N.M., 87109 EDITORIALS September 15, 2004 Wednesday A $10,000 donation to one of Gov. Bill Richardson's political committees from a company that wants to build a controversial uranium enrichment facility in Lea County presents an appearance problem for the governor. He should order the money returned. Louisiana Energy Services (LES) hopes to build a $1.2 billion enrichment facility near Eunice to supply fuel for nuclear reactors. Richardson says he won't support the plan unless LES guarantees that the waste it produces won't be stored in New Mexico. There are no storage facilities in the United States for the waste, and LES has no definitive plan for disposing of it. The waste is relatively low in radioactivity. A worker would have to stand within a foot of a waste canister for an hour to be exposed to 1/30th of the dose he would get from a dental X-ray. But without Richardson's support, it's unlikely LES could obtain needed state permits to build and operate the facility. Returning the money -- donated to Richardson's Moving America Forward --isn't without recent precedent. In July, Moving America Forward received a $5,000 in-kind donation from a Little Rock-based law firm that was bidding on -- and eventually received -- a contract to represent the state in securities-fraud cases. The money covered a trip by Richardson to Las Vegas, Nev. Though that donation "did not in any way influence" the contracting process, said Richardson spokesman Billy Sparks, the money was returned. In August, Moving America Forward gave back a $10,000 donation received from Pittsburgh-based The Bantry Group. At the time, a Bantry subsidiary was bidding for -- and eventually received -- a multimillion-dollar contract to provide health care for state prisoners. Sparks said the money was being returned "to avoid even the appearance of impropriety." The LES donation falls into the same category. Copyright 2004 Albuquerque Journal Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico) ***************************************************************** 44 PE.com: Rialto water order likely San Bernardino County 01:15 AM PDT on Thursday, September 16, 2004 By K. FRANKE SANTOS / The Press-Enterprise The county may be ordered Friday to drill wells to help replace Rialto's water supply, tainted by perchlorate contamination believed to be coming from a county-owned landfill. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, which oversees local water quality, is expected to demand that the county clean up contamination suspected to be coming from the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and threatening a key well that supplies drinking water to Rialto. High levels of perchlorate have been found in a monitoring well 250 feet from a drinking-water well called Rialto No. 3, said Kurt Berchtold, assistant executive officer for the regional water-quality control board. Perchlorate has not been detected in Rialto No. 3, he said. The order would speed construction of replacement wells, Berchtold said. The county would pump out contaminated water, treat it and then supply it to Rialto to replace water that would be lost if No. 3 were shut down, he said. The county still is investigating alternatives for the cleanup, said Rex Richardson of the county's solid-waste management division. He said replacement wells would be drilled over the perchlorate plume and would be part of the county's ongoing cleanup strategy for Rialto, he said. Construction of the wells is expected to be finished by April 2005. The order builds on another from January 2003 in which the water-quality control board ordered the county to investigate the perchlorate contamination and clean it up. In compliance with the 2003 order, the county built monitoring wells around the landfill. The No. 3 well pumps about 2.9 million gallons of water per day. It supplies about 15 percent of Rialto's current water supply, said Bill Hunt, consulting geologist for the city. Rialto has closed six of its 15 wells, four because of perchlorate contamination and two because of drought. Perchlorate is a highly soluble salt used as a propellant for rockets, munitions and fireworks. Some scientists believe that it can impede the function of the thyroid gland, which helps regulate growth and metabolism. Other scientists say perchlorate has no such effect. The land that the perchlorate plume is believed to originate from is adjacent to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. The county bought the land in the mid-90s to expand the landfill. Some suspect the perchlorate contamination came from past users, including the U.S. Army, which stored missiles and other munitions on the property during World War II. The Army Corps of Engineers has disputed the Army's possible role in the contamination, Berchtold said. Berchtold said he expects the county's plan for the replacement wells to be finished in the next few days. It will be open for public review and comment Friday through Oct. 18. More headlines... © 2004 Belo Interactive Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 Senator Harry Reid: NV Congressional Delegation Calls For Restoration Of Funds Critical To Local Yucca Oversight - Assistant Democratic Leader From Nevada"> [http://reid.senate.gov] Thursday, September 16, 2004 Washington, D.C. -- The five members of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation today called on Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham to restore federal funding guaranteed to counties in Nevada for oversight activities relating to Yucca Mountain.  The letter asks Abraham to justify the denial of funding that has been made available for years to Affected Units of Local Government in Nevada as part of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).  The 1982 law provides that county and city governments be given funding for oversight of dump related activities that may have public health, economic, social or environmental impacts.         The full text of the letter is as follows:  Dear Secretary Abraham: We are writing to express our concern regarding recent actions by the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). OCRWM has recently determined that affected units of local government (AULGs) can no longer use oversight funds for "transportation planning" or other transportation activities, including the preparation of scoping comments for the proposed Caliente Rail Route Environmental Impact Statement.  The Department has also established that oversight funds may no longer be used for preparation of documents for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing Support Network (LSN). The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) requires the Secretary to make grants to any AULG to review the Department's activities "for the purpose of determining any potential economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts of the repository."  Transportation activities have been recognized by the Department as meeting this criterion for more than twenty years.    Furthermore, for almost fifteen years, LSN-related activities have also met aforementioned criterion for oversight funding.  The Department's new guidelines restrict the ability of the affected counties in Nevada to include pertinent research on the LSN.  In the past, neither transportation nor LSN expenditures have been disallowed by the DOE Inspector General in audits of county programs.  These activities have been considered legitimate areas of study under the NWPA since 1982, and nothing in the letter or intent of the law has changed in this regard.  With this in mind, the Nevada Delegation requests a justification for OCRWM's recent changes to oversight funding guidelines.  Additionally, we request that the Department reconsider its funding guidance and continue to provide local governments with the necessary oversight resources. ### ***************************************************************** 46 Rocky Mountain News: Hefley neutral on overhaul of aid for ex-Flats workers By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News September 16, 2004 Everyone in Colorado's House delegation except Congressman Joel Hefley is supporting a Senate plan to fix an aid program for Rocky Flats and other nuclear weapons workers, which has paid only 31 of 25,000 ill bomb-makers while spending nearly $95 million. Colorado's other six representatives, including four Republicans and two Democrats, have signed a letter seeking support for the reform plan from their House colleagues. The plan has already passed the Senate, as an amendment to the military spending bill. It is awaiting approval from a House conference committee. Hefley, a Republican from Colorado Springs, is remaining neutral on the issue, said his spokeswoman, Sarah Shelden. Congress created the program in 2000, saying atom bomb makers put their lives on the line for the nation's defense. But senators have been infuriated by the soaring cost and poor results of the aid program assigned to the Department of Energy. The Bush administration opposes the Senate reform, saying the DOE has solved its problems running the 4-year-old compensation program. The Senate plan moves the program from the DOE to the Department of Labor, which has successfully run such worker compensation programs for years. More importantly, it would add federal funding to pay the workers' claims. ***************************************************************** 47 Las Vegas SUN: 4 Workers Fired in Los Alamos Lab Scandal By MARY PEREA ASSOCIATED PRESS ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A security scandal at the birthplace of the atomic bomb has cost five Los Alamos National Laboratory workers their jobs, lab officials said. Four workers were fired from the nuclear lab and one will resign under pressure for their roles in a security and safety scandal at the lab, the lab's director said Wednesday. The fired workers were among 23 suspended this summer after two computer disks containing classified information went missing and an intern was injured in a laser accident. The discovery of the missing disks July 7 prompted a virtual shutdown of the lab, idling roughly 12,000 workers. Of the remaining 18 suspended employees, seven were subject to other discipline such as demotion from management, salary reductions or written reprimands. One remains on investigatory leave. Ten will return to their positions with a finding of "no wrongdoing." "It's very important to get this behind us," Director Pete Nanos said in a phone interview. Nanos spoke by cell phone from an airplane after meetings in Washington, D.C. Nanos declined to discuss specific cases of fired employees but said that some were dismissed for "not taking actions that you were supposed to take, or signing off on things that you hadn't done." Another employee had not taken appropriate precautions in a safety area. Three of the workers will leave the lab in connection with the missing computer disks; the other two were involved in an accident in which a laser injured an intern, he said. "These personnel actions touched all levels of employment, staff and management and varying levels of tenure," lab spokesman James Fallin said. He declined to be more specific about the lab departments or positions involved. Nanos also said the northern New Mexico lab has finished its investigation into the two missing disks. Information from the probe has been turned over to federal authorities. Nanos refused to release additional details. He said other agencies are still investigating. Nanos, who held a series of all-hands meetings with lab workers after the scandal broke, added that the "commitment of employees right now is extremely high." Fallin emphasized "that today's announcements provide very clear evidence that it's not business as usual at this laboratory. ... Accountability is the order of the day." The University of California operates the lab under a contract with the Energy Department. S. Robert Foley, the university's vice president for laboratory management, said the disciplinary action was important. "This action moves (the lab) one step closer to completing the restart of all activities," he said. Problems at Los Alamos have drawn criticism from Congress and senior officials at the Energy Department, putting in question the fate of the 61-year-old institution - the birthplace of the atomic bomb. The Los Alamos management contract has been put up for bid for the first time in the lab's history. -- ***************************************************************** 48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: U.S. Senate approves study of Manhattan Project sites as parks [seattlepi.com] Thursday, September 16, 2004 By SHANNON DININNY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YAKIMA -- The U.S. Senate yesterday approved a bill requiring the federal government to study the possible addition of historic Manhattan Project sites, including a reactor at the Hanford nuclear site, to the national park system. Former nuclear workers and concerned residents for years have been trying to preserve the world's first full-scale plutonium production nuclear reactor -- Hanford's B Reactor -- as a museum. Just yards from the Columbia River, B Reactor produced the plutonium for the first man-made nuclear blast, the Trinity test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. The reactor also produced the plutonium for the bomb that was dropped that August on Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II. It was built as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb. Hanford B is a scientific battlefield that must be preserved for future generations to study a difficult time in American history while recognizing the accomplishments of Cold War veterans, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a news release. Construction began June 7, 1943, just six months after physicist Enrico Fermi turned the theory of nuclear power into the reality of the Atomic Age. B Reactor was shut down in 1968 and decommissioned. The reactor has been open for limited historical tours since the mid-1980s, but those were slowed by the 2001 terrorist attacks. The federal Energy Department still allows tours for groups interested in historic preservation. The Energy Department manages cleanup at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in south-central Washington, the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035. The reactor has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places, but its future has remained in doubt as the cleanup progresses. The bill approved by the Senate would direct the secretary of the interior to study the potential for developing B Reactor and other key Manhattan Project facilities as historical sites. The House version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., has not yet been approved by the full House. The other eight Hanford reactors are expected to be cocooned, which involves removing extra buildings around the reactors and demolishing all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor cores and sealing them in concrete. A decision on the future of B Reactor isn't expected to be made until 2006. select.nwsshopads{font-size:8pt;width:140px;} [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy ***************************************************************** 49 Las Vegas RJ: Bill provides $20 million for training at test site Thursday, September 16, 2004 STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Nevada Test Site was granted $20 million by the Senate this week to continue counterterrorism tr- aining. The desert installation has played a growing role since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a base for emergency workers to learn how to respond to attacks involving chemicals or nuclear "dirty bombs." The $20 million would allow training to continue at current levels, said aides to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. More than 6,000 police, firefighters and military personnel were expected to undergo training in 2003. The test site allocation was made part of a bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security for 2005. The bill passed the Senate late Tuesday by a 93-0 vote. The Bush administration had requested $8 million for the test site training, but the Senate increased the figure to $20 million at the urging of Nevada's senators, aides said. "The test site is doing vital work, and this funding will allow that work to continue," Reid said in a statement. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the money will allow military personnel and emergency workers "to keep us all safer." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 50 SFnewmexican: LANL fires, disciplines employees Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:01 pm www.santafenewmexican.com Diana Heil | The New Mexican In an unprecedented move, Los Alamos National Laboratory fired four employees at once Wednesday. Over the summer, 23 workers have been on paid leave while the lab investigated them in connection with suspected safety and security violations. Now, only 10 employees will return to the office unblemished  "with no findings of wrongdoing. In addition to the four who lost their jobs, another employee might resign instead of being fired. Seven more were punished. And one employee is still under investigation. In early July, the lab reported two computer disks missing from the Weapons Directorate during a special inventory for an upcoming experiment. Director Pete Nanos suspended all work a week later and ordered employees through a lengthy process designed to tighten safety and security. Although the FBI hasn't disclosed whether the two computer disks that supposedly disappeared this summer ever existed, the lab has completed its own internal investigation. The personnel actions are based on "enough factual information gathered through the internal investigation, Nanos said in a memo to employees Wednesday. The lab also looked into the case of a student intern who was injured in an accident with a laser. Three of the workers will leave the lab in connection with the missing computer disks; the other two were involved in the laser accident, Nanos told The Associated Press. The seven punished employees who kept their jobs were either reprimanded in writing, demoted, given a reduced salary or suspended without pay  or a combination of those actions. What's "pretty unusual about this situation is two incidents occurred close together and five people have left the lab, spokesman Kevin Roark said. "But mostly it's all the publicity that makes it so out of the ordinary, he said. Occasionally, the lab fires employees for security, safety and other violations but without much news coverage. Typically, it's one person at a time. "Contrary to the popular belief, people do get fired from the lab from time to time, said Roark, who did not know how many people in all the lab has fired this year. Officials would not release the names, positions or departments of the 23 employees who were being investigated or the names of those fired. Workers can appeal the actions and request a hearing before a panel. There appear to be no trends among the 13 employees who were subject to action from the lab. "They cross all levels of laboratory employment and a wide variety of tenure  from many, many years to a shorter period of time, Roark said. The security-and-safeguards division and the human-resources division conducted the investigations. Afterward, a lab board and a University of California board reviewed the findings. Some suspect the lab is making bold moves to help University of California's chances in keeping the management contract, which will be up for competitive bid this year for the first time in 60 years. "It's a sign that they're interested in keeping the contract, to me, said former lab worker Chris Mechels. Mechels, who worked in the lab's supercomputing division until he retired in 1994, said Nanos must "play hard ball to change bad practices ingrained in lab culture. "Some of these terminations could easily have been warranted, he said. "I'd like to see (the lab) announce the reasons, so it's very clear that it was based on some very real issues. Historically, good scientists and employees who were good friends with their managers could escape firing, Mechels said. He hopes that trend is changing. "My frustration with the laboratory has been they have never played a serious game with safety or security, he said. To this day, he wonders why the lab didn't fire anyone over computer hard-drive violations in the past. "How bad do you have to screw up to get fired? he said. If employees are going to take the code of safety and security seriously, the lab cannot be afraid to fire managers or senior scientists, Mechels said. He also thinks the lab should involve the union in safety walk-throughs. When managers do it, "it's like criticizing your own kids, he said. After seeing what Nanos considered a pattern of lapses in security and safety, he ordered employees to stop most work July 16. By the end of September, most activities will be restarted, he said in a memo Wednesday. To date, 100 percent of low-risk activities and 42 percent of medium-risk activities have resumed. The highest-risk activities will begin soon. Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 51 Tri-City Herald: Bill allows B Reactor as museum This story was published Thursday, September 16th, 2004 By Annette Cary The U.S. Senate passed a bill Wednesday to help turn the nation's first full-scale nuclear reactor into a museum. A companion U.S. House bill to study preserving B Reactor at Hanford also was approved Wednesday by the Committee on Resources, clearing the way for the bill to be considered by the House. Both bills direct the National Park Service to conduct a study on developing both the Hanford reactor and other Manhattan Project facilities as historical sites. "Hanford B is a scientific battlefield that must be preserved so future generations (may) study a difficult time in American history, while recognizing the accomplishments of our Cold War veterans," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who sponsored the Senate bill. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, who sponsored the House version of the bill, is optimistic it could be signed into law this year. "I believe preservation of the B Reactor would help tell the story of the Manhattan Project and serve as a useful educational tool -- especially for those generations who didn't live through World War II or the Cold War," Hastings said in testimony submitted to the House committee Wednesday. B Reactor, on the banks of the Columbia River, was the nation's first full-scale production reactor. As part of the Manhattan Project that raced to develop the atomic bomb, B Reactor produced the plutonium for the world's first nuclear explosion, the Trinity Test in New Mexico. It also produced plutonium for the "Fat Man" bomb dropped over Nagasaki, Japan on Aug. 9, 1945. Within days, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II. B Reactor continued to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program until 1968. The bills do not appropriate the money for the feasibility study, which would take two years to complete and cost $500,000 to $750,000. Hastings and Cantwell will continue work to get the money needed, but the bill approved Wednesday is an essential first step, said Jessica Gleason, spokeswoman for Hastings. Some of the eight reactors built along the Columbia River after B Reactor have already been "cocooned" for long-term storage. If money is not found to save B Reactor, it also likely would be demolished down to the 3-foot-thick shield walls that surround the reactor core. All openings would be sealed and a new roof installed to cocoon the reactor. Now B Reactor is not open to the public, other than occasional tours. Tours are planned in October to mark the 60th anniversary for the reactor but are full and no more reservations are being accepted. "To tour the B Reactor facility is to see first-hand an amazing feat of engineering and American innovation," Hastings said in testimony to the House committee. "B Reactor is largely maintained in its original state and provides visitors with a true feeling of the 1940s era and the remarkable challenges and achievements of the Manhattan Project." © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 52 SF Chronicle: 5 employees to leave scandal-torn UC lab 7 others keep jobs but face discipline at Los Alamos [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] Thursday, September 16, 2004 Five employees have been forced out of their jobs at the University of California-run Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico following months of scandals involving missing computer disks and unsafe lab practices. Four employees were fired, and one is resigning in lieu of termination, lab spokesman Kevin Roark said late Wednesday. Seven other employees will be disciplined but keep their jobs, 10 will return to work "with a finding of no wrongdoing whatsoever," and one remains under investigation, Roark said. He refused to identify any of the employees or spell out the charges against them, citing state and federal privacy laws. Lab officials are still looking for two computer disks that may contain nuclear-weapons data. They noticed the disks' absence July 7. Since then, officials from Los Alamos, UC, the U.S. Energy Department and the FBI have turned the nuclear weapons lab upside down trying to find the disks. The search has been so frustrating that at one point they speculated that perhaps the disks never existed in the first place. Wednesday, the Associated Press quoted lab director George "Pete" Nanos as saying some employees had been fired for "not taking actions that you were supposed to take, or signing off on things that you hadn't done." Another employee had not taken proper safety precautions, he said. Nanos has held all-hands staff meetings bawling out employees at the lab where atomic bombs were born 59 years ago. He also shut down regular operations at the 12,000-employee lab to give officials time to figure out ways to improve their performance. "It's an issue of survival," Nanos told reporters in late July. He was alluding to UC officials' concerns that Los Alamos' problems might make it hard for the university to win future contracts for managing the lab, should UC regents decide to compete for them. The competitions could begin as early as later this year; UC's present contract expires in late 2005. UC has run Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley national laboratories under contract to the Energy Department for a half-century. On Wednesday, Roark told The Chronicle the round of firings and associated actions "puts the laboratory in a new place, one where we can begin to move forward and put this behind us." S. Robert Foley, UC vice president for laboratory management, said he supported Nanos' firings and other actions. Chronicle news services contributed to this report.E-mail Keay Davidson at [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] . [graphical line] Page A - 8 ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ ***************************************************************** 53 Times-News: INEEL plant undergoes cleanupBy Michelle Dunlop Online -- Twin Falls, Idaho www.magicvalley.com The Times-News | AG Weekly | Thursday, September 16, 2004 • Twin Falls, Idaho Times-News writer IDAHO FALLS -- One of the oldest chemical processing plants at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory will likely undergo cleanup as a step toward protecting the Snake River Aquifer. The cleanup plan is pending the outcome of a public comment period. "It makes sense to do this particular action sooner than later," said Kathleen Trever, the Department of Environmental Quality's INEEL oversight administrator. The U.S. Department of Energy, which manages INEEL, awaits public comment on its proposal to remove 1.5 million gallons of water and sludge from the spent nuclear fuel basins in Chemical Processing Plant-603A at INEEL. The Department of Energy's intent is to prevent potentially leaking basin water and sludge into the Snake River Plain Aquifer. "The overall goal of the process is just to get that water out of the basin," said Joseph Campbell, of INEEL. Campbell said the water itself doesn't pose a huge concern due to its lower level of radioactivity. The sludge, debris and discrete objects also found in the 603 basins contain higher levels of radioactivity than does the water. The water, however, could push contaminants into the aquifer. Basin 603 background During the 1950s, the Department of Energy constructed Chemical Processing Plant-603. The building is made up of two spent nuclear fuel facilities, referred to as CPP-603A and CPP-603B. After completion in 1953, the basins were used to store spent nuclear fuel. Although the basins were constructed of reinforced concrete, no secondary liners were added. According to the Department of Energy, the basins meet the construction codes, safety requirements and seismic criteria of the 1950s. While extracting the actual basins might seem logical, the option isn't practical at this time, Campbell said. "There is a part of the building that is still in operation, so removing the basins wouldn't make sense," Campbell said. In 2000, the Department of Energy removed all spent nuclear fuel from CPP-603A. However, the basins were left full of water to shield spent nuclear fuel items like sludge. The dry storage of fuel continues today in CPP-603B. Preferred plan The Department of Energy has taken six plans into consideration to clean the basins of Chemical Processing Plant-603A. However, both Campbell and Trever agree the preferred plan makes the most sense. "It strikes an appropriate balance between worker risks and environmental risks," Trever said. Under the preferred plan, water and sludge would be removed from the basins in CPP-603A. The water would be tested and sent to an evaporation pond if it meets certain standards. Sludge would also be removed under the preferred plan, but it would be treated and stabilized before ending up in a designated landfill. As water is removed, grout will be added to the basins. "That alternative includes removal of the basin water and sludge and grouting the debris in place," Campbell said. "They're leaving some of the debris in the basin. The few items that have radioactivity will be trapped in place by the grout." Under a 1995 cleanup agreement between Idaho and the federal government, INEEL must have all radioactive waste at the site removed or cleaned up by 2035. However, Trever said, the Energy Department isn't required to clean up basin 603 until that time. "DOE could not do something in the short term, but ultimately something will need to be done," she said. Reaction to proposed plan The Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog group, is happy the Department of Energy plans to proceed with the cleanup. "By in large, getting the liquid out of the basins is a good thing," said Beatrice Brailsford, a spokeswoman for the organization. "We're very much pleased with going ahead with cleanup." However, Snake River Alliance questions certain items in the preferred plan, Brailsford said. Under the preferred plan, "discrete objects" won't be removed from the basins due to the risks doing so would inflict on workers. The organization questions whether the grout will remain in place. Brailsford also doesn't understand why the smaller debris will be left during the cleanup process. "Why, if it is distinctly hotter or more radioactive than the sludge, and it can be removed with the sludge, don't they dispose of it?" she asked. Public comments will be accepted through Sept. 23. Comments can be mailed to Kathleen Hain, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 1625 MS 1222, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-1222 or submitted online at http://cleanup.inel.gov [http://cleanup.inel.gov] . Times-News reporter Michelle Dunlop can be reached at 735-3229 or by e-mail at mdunlop@magicvalley.com [mdunlop@magicvalley.com] . Cleaning Chemical Processing Plant-603A INEEL's preferred removal plan seeks to prevent or lessen the possible release of contaminants into the Snake River Aquifer. It includes: * Radioactive sludge and water will be removed from the basins. * After removal, sludge will be treated/stabilized before being sent to an appropriate landfill. * As water is removed from the basins, grout will be pumped in and will hold in place radioactive debris. * Estimated cost: $4.8 million. * Time to implement: 14 months. Copyright © 2004, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 54 San Francisco Bay View: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons program National Black Newspaper of the Year 9/15/04 [http://www.sfbayview.com] Five admirals, Carlyle Group and Rand take over Part 1 by Leuren Moret This windowless building at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was headquarters for the super secret National Radiological Defense Laboratory. San Francisco Bay lies in the foreground with the Hunters Point neighborhood, heavily impacted by radioactive and toxic contamination, in the background. Fifteen years after the shipyard was declared a Superfund site, the Navy still has not decontaminated even the cleanest part. Photo: Maurice Campbell, www.mecresources.com “I think some of these folks would put nuclear tips on ice cream cones if they could.” - U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., on efforts by Bush administration officials to repeal a research ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, quoted in Global Security Newswire May 19, 2003 UC and nuclear weapons: the kiss of death The top-secret Manhattan Project was laid out by Robert Oppenheimer the night Ernest Lawrence took him to the Bohemian Club during World War II. It was a part of California’s brutal rise to economic and political power described in “Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin” by Gray Brechin. In 1939, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr had argued that building an atomic bomb “can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory.” Years later, he told his colleague Edward Teller, “I told you it couldn’t be done without turning the whole country into a factory. You have done just that.” That was after Edward Teller had stuck the proverbial knife in Oppenheimer’s back, and pulled his security clearance. This 46-acre landfill at the Hunters Point Shipyard, lying across a cove from the 49ers’ Candlestick Park stadium, is filled with radioactive and toxic waste and explosive gases. Mayor Newsom wants to give the land right beside the landfill next month to Lennar Corp. to build 1,600 new homes. Photo: Maurice Campbell, www.mecresources.com Teller - also known as Dr. Strangelove - went on to promote a grandiose U.S. nuclear weapons program for decades at the nuclear weapons labs: Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos. The program remained under a no-bid University of California management contract for 61 years. In a stealth takeover by the Carlyle Group, facilitated by five admirals, the management contract will be transferred next year to the University of Texas, where the military and the Carlyle Group will have control. A new “ramping up” of the nuclear weapons program is underway, with program funding at the highest level ever - even higher than during the Cold War – extending nuclear weapons into outer space, into the very atmosphere that makes life on earth possible, and with no “real” enemy in sight. Estimating the cold war mortgage In 1995 dollars, according to the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. has spent approximately $300 billion on nuclear weapons research, production and testing. Today in the nuclear weapons complex there are 10,500 contaminated sites, 2.3 million acres under DOE ownership, and 120 million square feet of buildings. The DOE Environmental Management program estimates that the 1995 high base cost to clean up the environmental legacy is $350 billion. That excludes the Nevada Test Site, Hanford, the Savannah and Clinch rivers and the Columbia River, which are considered to be “national sacrifice zones” because the technology does not exist to clean them up. That was the cost for cleaning up the environment. The damage to the human health, not only of Americans but also to the global population, was predicted by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) in a 2003 independent report on low level radiation for the European Parliament to be 61,600,000 deaths by cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths, and 1,900,000 fetal deaths. “In addition, the ECRR committee predicts a 10 percent loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.” The cost to the predominantly Black community living near the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco is much greater. Shortly after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Navy established the secret Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL) at the shipyard to study the biological effects of ionizing radiation. The premier military radiation research facility of the post-World War II era, the lab operated at the shipyard until 1969. Operation Crossroads ships returning to the Hunters Point Shipyard following exposure to detonation of radioactive blasts were researched and decontaminated, and secret experiments exposing animals, plants, military personnel, prisoners and local residents to radiation were conducted at the NRDL, where 550 civilian scientists worked with 65 Navy officers. The radioactive waste and dead animals from the lab were dumped on the base, which lies along the shore of San Francisco Bay. The shipyard’s largest dump, filling a stream gorge, is now a 46-acre toxic and radioactive landfill. More waste was sunk offshore not far from the Golden Gate Bridge in a battleship and 55-gallon drums, contaminating one of the richest fisheries in the world. Studies by the San Francisco Department of Public Health have documented an inexplicably high incidence of breast cancer among Black women under the age of 40, suggesting environmental causes. Dr. Janette Sherman became a medical doctor because of her concern about radiation after experimenting with radiation on lab animals at the NRDL as a researcher there in the 1950s. Her book, “Life’s Delicate Balance – Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer,” identifies ionizing radiation as one of the main causes of breast cancer. Even worse, the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), while conducting studies on infant mortality and cancer around nuclear power plants, discovered that milk contaminated with radiation has been shipped into Black inner city communities – a genocidal plan which explains why Blacks have the highest cancer rates, infant mortality and asthma in the U.S., which has been blamed on poverty. The studies using U.S. government data on radiation in milk revealed that at the time of Chernobyl the Pennsylvania Milk Board had been selectively shipping radioactive contaminated milk from dairies around the Three Mile Island and Peachbottom reactors into Black inner city communities on the East Coast (see Jay Gould, “Infant Mortality and Milk,” a chapter in “Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup”). An RPHP study on health improvements by race in San Francisco County after the shutdown of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in 1989 reports that health improved for all ages, diseases and races except for Blacks. Black infant mortality also increased after startups and accidents, but unlike improvements in infant mortality for whites and Asians, which decreased after the 1989 shutdown, Black infant mortality continued to reflect startups and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants in California. UC Regents meeting May 15, 2003: the point man One year ago, Admiral Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under DOE, informed California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents that the management contract for the nuclear weapons labs would be put up for competitive bid for the first time, with the award to be made in 2005. When a Regent asked if it would be for all the labs or just Los Alamos, he replied that it would be for Los Alamos. Later another Regent questioned him again, and this time he said, “It would be inconceivable for just one lab.” He requested a competitive bid from UC, but the Regents were now leery of the politics involved, and Brooks was challenged by a fiery Bustamante. The lieutenant governor demanded to know why UC should waste millions of dollars preparing a bid when the University of Texas was the most favored institution to get the award and had a member on the blue ribbon panel making the award decision. Admiral Brooks also informed the Board of Regents that “we’re back in the bomb business” because Los Alamos had just produced the first plutonium “pit” since Rocky Flats closed down. He indicated that they would be making “mini-nukes” only, and nuclear weapons testing would start at the Nevada Test Site in 2005. An hour later, and 45 miles away, he announced to Livermore employees that “we’re back in the bomb business” and they would be making big ones, little ones and more. By this time it seemed to me that Admiral Brooks was a slippery character, and I began to wonder why an admiral was involved. UC Regents meeting Aug. 17, 2004: two admirals stage ‘the setup’ On Aug. 4, 2004, UC President Dynes, a physicist and consultant to Los Alamos and former chancellor of UC San Diego, and UC Regents Chair Gerald Parsky visited Los Alamos and met with employees over chronic and recent security and safety lapses at the lab. Parsky told them: “The regents will be left with no choice about the contract competition if we do not feel confident that you understand the importance of security, procedures and safety at the lab. If we feel that you understand this and that steps are being taken to address these issues, the regents will not only endorse competing for this contract – we will compete to win.” During three minutes of public comment before the Regents on Aug. 17, I informed them that the lab contract was going to the University of Texas; it was a “done deal.” I told them that the management contract change was a chess move the Carlyle Group was making to privatize the nuclear weapons program, that Carlyle owned 70 percent of Lockheed Martin Marietta, and that Lockheed a year ago had bought Sandia Labs - they make the trigger for nuclear weapons. When “Carlyle” was mentioned, I noticed that the chair, Gerald Parsky, and the vice chair, Richard Blum, who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, started shifting around in their chairs. Body language can say a lot. They began a disruptive and loud conversation carried on through the rest of my comments. As a Livermore whistleblower, I commented that the loss of computer discs with classified information and missing keys had happened almost daily for 61 years under sloppy UC management, and that science fraud as well as health and safety violations had been just as bad. During my week of security briefing at Livermore in 1989, we had been told the story of a scientist taking classified material home in his briefcase who did not notice it had fallen off the back of his bike. A merchant found the battered briefcase in an intersection, and several days later a horrified lab security employee found that every page of a lengthy report with “CLASSIFIED” stamped on each page had been taped in the window of the merchant’s shop hoping the owner would claim his lost secret documents. What was even more egregious, I pointed out, was an article in the July 10, 2004, issue of the Daily Mirror about the murder by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad of Robert Maxwell, a British publisher. It revealed that Maxwell, who was the former owner of the Daily Mirror, was a high level Mossad agent and had sold PROMIS software to Los Alamos with a back door for the Mossad to spy on the lab. In closing, I told the Regents that no matter who got the contract award, “The University of California would forever be known as the university that poisoned the world.” References for Part 1 “Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin” by Gray Brechin, UC Press, January 1999. “Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report,” U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management Executive Summary, March 1995. “Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the U.S. and What the DOE is Doing About It,” U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management, January 1996. “ECRR: 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk – Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes, Regulator’s Edition: Brussels, 2003,” http://www.euradcom.org. “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer” by Dr. Janette Sherman, 2000, http://www.janettesherman.com. “Asthma; Infant Mortality; Recruiting Foster Parents” by Lynda Crawford, Gotham Gazette, May 5, 2003, http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/children/20030506/2/379. “Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup” by Jay Gould and B. Goldman, 1990, http://www.radiation.org, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1990/s90/s90reviews.html#anchor 203469. “Letter to Employees of University of California-managed National Labs,” Today at Berkeley Lab, Aug. 6, 2004, http://www.lbl.gov/today/2004/Aug/06-Fri/letter-jump.html. “A Career in Microbiology Can Be Harmful to Your Health: Death Toll Mounting as Connections to Dyncorp, Hadron, PROMIS Software and Disease Research Emerge” by Michael Davidson and Michael C. Ruppert, Feb. 14, 2002, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_14_02_microbio.html. Media coverage of Los Alamos security lapse, July 2004, http://www.4law.co.il/lanl1.htm. “NASA plans to read terrorists’ minds at airports” by Frank J. Murray, Washington Times, Aug. 17, 2002, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm. Air Travel Privacy FOIA Documents: “NASA Ames Research Center Northwest Airlines Briefing December 10-11, 2001,” Electronic Privacy Information Center, http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/foia1.html. Stop Carlyle! website, http://isuisse.ifrance.com/stopcarlyle/enindex.htm. Parts 2-4 of this exposé will appear in the Bay View in the coming weeks. The entire article is available at www.sfbayview.com. Email Leuren Moret at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. sfbayview.com [http://www.sfbayview.com/circulationandrates.shtml] San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: [editor@sfbayview.com] ***************************************************************** 55 [du-list] Professor Yagasaki's explanation (!!!???) on Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:38:11 -0700 so many (confused) words and not a single word to 'define' this strange concept of 'atomicity' - could professor yagasaki try again, and define his concepts before using them? bruno "OHTA, Mitsumasa" wrote: To: From: "OHTA, Mitsumasa" Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:18:11 +0900 Subject: [du-list] Professor Yagasaki's explanation on atomicity Dear all Here is Professor Yagasaki's explanation on atomicity, which I asked him to write when the topic was raised on this list months ago. http://www.cadu-jp.org/Meaning%20of%20atomicity.pdf "The meaning of total atomicity –How to measure the hazardous nature of internal exposure of alpha ray from low level radioactive materials. Total health hazard is proportional to the atomicity.–" I understand atomicity is one indicator to measure approximately the post-explosion danger of internal exposure by alpha particles. Thanks Mitsumasa Ohta, Japan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 56 [du-list] Nuclear Weapons Stealth Takeover: 5 Admirals, U.C. Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:38:20 -0700 Qgroup, andQrandnuclearXweaponsXstealthXtakeover: 5Qadmirals, u.c.Qregents,QcarlyleXgroup, andQrandX byQleurenXmoretXtuesdayX14thQseptemberX2004 Qhttp://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=33 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0-rc5 (2004-09-13) on darwin.ctyme.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO, NO_REAL_NAME,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,SUBJ_GROUP, SUBJ_WHITELIST,US_DOLLARS_3,WHITE_ACRONYMS,WHITE_LINKS1,WHITE_PHRASE, YAHOO_HOST autolearn=ham version=3.0.0-rc5 Nuclear Weapons Stealth Takeover: 5 Admirals, U.C. Regents, Carlyle Group, and Rand by LEUREN MORET Tuesday 14th September 2004 http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3323 http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Moret-Nuclear-Carlyle16sep04.htm "I think some of these folks would put nuclear tips on ice cream cones if they could." U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) on efforts by Bush Administration officials to repeal a research ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. Global Security Newswire ‘Quote of the Day’ May 19, 2003 UC AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE KISS OF DEATH The top-secret Manhattan Project was laid out by Robert Oppenheimer the night Ernest Lawrence took him to the Bohemian Club during WW II. It was a part of California’s brutal rise to economic and political power, described in IMPERIAL SAN FRANCISCO: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin. In 1939, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr had argued that building an atomic bomb "can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory." Years later, he told his colleague Edward Teller, "I told you it couldn’t be done without turning the whole country into a factory. You have done just that." That was after Edward Teller had stuck the knife in Oppenheimer’s back, and pulled his clearance. Teller (also known as ‘Dr. Strangelove’), went on to promote a grandiose US nuclear weapons program for decades at the nuclear weapons labs: Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos. The program remained under a no-bid University of California management contract for 61 years. In a stealth takeover by the Carlyle Group, facilitated by 5 Admirals, the management contract will be transferred next year to the University of Texas where the military and the Carlyle Group will have control. A new ‘ramping up’ of the nuclear weapons program is underway, with program funding at the highest level ever - even higher than during the Cold War ­ extending nuclear weapons into outer space, into the very atmosphere that makes life on earth possible, and with no "real" enemy in site. ESTIMATING THE COLD WAR MORTGAGE In 1995 dollars, according to the Department of Energy (DOE) the US spent approximately 300 billion dollars on nuclear weapons research, production, and testing. Today in the nuclear weapons complex there are 10,500 contaminated sites, 2.3 million acres under DOE ownership, and 120 million square feet of buildings. The 1995 high base cost, estimated by the DOE Environmental Management program, to clean up the environmental legacy is $350 billion. That excludes the Nevada Test Site, Hanford, the Savannah and Clinch rivers, and the Columbia river which are considered to be "national sacrifice zones" because the technology does not exist to clean them up. That was the cost for cleaning up the environment. The damage to the human health not only of Americans, but also to the global population, was predicted by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), in a 2003 independent report on low level radiation for the European Parliament, to be 61,600,000 deaths by cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths, and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. "In addition the ECRR committee predicts a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout." The cost to the predominantly black community at Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco is much greater. Navy ships brought back to Hunter’s Point shipyard for decontamination by the Navy, after the first atmospheric tests in the Pacific, led to the establishment of the secret Naval Radiological Defense Lab (NRDL) which operated at the shipyard into the 1970’s. Secret experiments exposing animals, plants, soldiers, prisoners, and local residents to radiation were conducted at the NRDL, where 550 civilian scientists worked with 65 Naval officers to study the biological effects of ionizing radiation. The radioactive waste and dead animals from the lab were dumped at the shipyard, filled a back bay, and sunk off the Golden Gate bridge in a battleship and 55 gallon drums, contaminating one of the richest fisheries in the world. The community today has the highest rates of breast cancer in women under 40 in the US, as well as high rates of other radiation related diseases. A former City of San Francisco coroner found that every Hunters Point resident he had done an autopsy on, had cancer no matter what the cause of death. Even worse, the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), while conducting studies on infant mortality and cancer around nuclear power plants, discovered that milk contaminated with radiation has been shipped into black inner city communities ­ a genocidal plan which explains why blacks have the highest cancer rates, infant mortality, and asmtha (Gotham Gaz.May 2003) in the US, which has been blamed on poverty. The studies using US govt. data on radiation in milk revealed that at the time of Chernobyl the Pennsylvania Milk Board had been selectively shipping radioactive contaminated milk from dairies around the Three Mile Island and Peachbottom reactors into eastern black inner city communities (see Jay Gould, Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup). In an RPHP study on health improvements by race in San Francisco County, after the shutdown of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in 1989, health improved for all ages, diseases and races except for blacks. Black infant mortality also increased after startups and accidents, but unlike improvements for whites and Asians which decreased after the 1989 shutdown, black infant mortality reflected startups and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants in California. UC REGENTS MEETING - MAY 15, 2003: THE POINT MAN One year ago Admiral Linton Brooks, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under DOE, informed Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents that the management contract for the nuclear weapons labs would be put up for competitive bid for the first time, with the award made in 2005. When a Regent asked if it would be for all the labs or just Los Alamos, he replied that "it would be for Los Alamos". Later another Regent questioned him again, and this time he said "it would be inconceivable for just one lab". He requested a competitive bid from UC, but the Regents were now leery of the politics involved, and Brooks was challenged by a fiery Bustamante. The Lt. Governor demanded to know why UC should waste millions of dollars preparing a bid when the University of Texas was the most favored institution to get the award, and had a member of the University of Texas on the blue ribbon panel making the award decision. Admiral Brooks also informed the Board of Regents that "we’re back in the bomb business" because Los Alamos had just produced the first plutonium "pit" since Rocky Flats closed down. He indicated that they would be making "mini-nukes" only, and nuclear weapons testing would start at the Nevada Test Site in 2005. An hour later, and 45 miles away, he announced to Livermore employees that "we’re back in the bomb business" and they would be making big ones, little ones, and more. By this time it seemed to me that Admiral Brooks was a slippery character and I began to wonder why an Admiral was involved. UC REGENTS MEETING - AUGUST 17, 2004: TWO ADMIRALS STAGE "THE SETUP" On August 4, 2004, UC President Dynes, a physicist and consultant to Los Alamos and former Chancellor of UC San Diego, and Gerald Parsky, Chair of the UC Regents, visited Los Alamos and met with employees over recent security and safety lapses repeated at the lab. Parsky told them: "The regents will be left with no choice about the contract competition if we do not feel confident that you understand the importance of security, procedures and safety at the lab. If we feel that you understand this and that steps are being taken to address these issues, the regents will not only endorse competing for this contract ­ we will compete to win." During three minutes of public comment before the Regents on August 17, I informed them that the lab contract was going to the University of Texas, it was a ‘done deal’. I told them that the management contract change was a chess move the Carlyle Group was making to privatize the nuclear weapons program, and owned 70% of Lockheed Martin Marietta, and that Lockheed a year ago had bought Sandia Labs (they make the trigger for nuclear weapons). When "Carlyle" was mentioned I noticed that the Chair, Gerald Parsky and Vice Chair Richard Blum (married to Senator Diane Feinstein) started shifting around in their chairs. Body language can say a lot. They began a disruptive and loud conversation carried on through the rest of my comments. As a Livermore whistleblower, I commented that the loss of computer discs with classified information and missing keys had happened practically every day for 61 years under sloppy UC management, and that science fraud as well as health and safety violations had been just as bad. [During my week of security briefing at Livermore in 1989 we were told that a scientist taking classified material home in his briefcase did not notice it had fallen off the back of his bike. A merchant found the battered briefcase in an intersection, and several days later a horrified lab security employee found that every page of a lengthy report with "CLASSIFIED" stamped on each page had been taped in the window of the merchant’s shop hoping the owner would claim his lost secret documents.] What was even more egregious I pointed out, was an article in the July 10, 2004, issue of the Daily Mirror about the murder by the Mossad of Robert Maxwell, a British publisher. It revealed that Maxwell, who was the former owner of the Daily Mirror, was a high level Mossad agent, and had sold PROMIS software to Los Alamos with a back door for the Mossad to spy on the lab. In closing, I told the Regents that no matter who got the contract award, "the University of California would forever be known as the University that poisoned the world…" As Admiral George P. Nanos, Director of the Los Alamos lab (appointed Jan. 2003), and Admiral S. Robert Foley Jr., UC vice president for laboratory management (appointed Nov. 2003), sat down at the table where the Regents waited, I began to wonder how many more Admirals were involved and why. It did not take long to find out. Admiral Foley informed the Regents about the missing CREM, computer storage devices with classified data, and acknowledged that the security lapse damaged the university’s chances of retaining its Los Alamos contract. "This erodes your position, without any question at all. It’s about as bad as it could be when you’re trying to prepare for a re-competition". He announced that Jack Killeen had been appointed to the UC Presidents Office as special assistant for Los Alamos security: "Jack’s our guy, he was with Wackenhut and he’s our guy…". Among lab employees Wackenhut was better known for ‘wacking’ lab whistleblowers like Karen Silkwood, attempting to run people like Dr. Rosalie Bertell off the road, and has a well-deserved reputation for being a nasty outfit. President Bush and his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, are known to spend time together hanging out with cronies at the Wackenhut "country club" in Florida. Admiral Nanos continued and complained that employees would not follow the security and safety rules. When Foley chimed in that there were going to be more security incidents and lapses at the lab in the future before they got it straightened out, it began to look like a setup. Regents Blum, Parsky, Connerly and a few more leaned forward and demanded to know how it was possible, and stated it was unacceptable, that there would be more security lapses. Foley should have been fired on the spot for falling down on the job. It was obvious that Nanos and Foley were there to blame the employees, justify the management change, and discourage the Regents from competing for the contract. And justification for "cleaning house" and removing the "old guard" who would stand in the way of a takeover and for what is planned for ramping up the program. An Editorial in the Oakland Tribune the day before remarked that the NNSA was established in 1991 after the Wen Ho Lee scandal, but had failed to address real security lapses since. NNSA is in bed with the lab administrators which it supposedly is overseeing. This had been exactly my experience at Livermore in 1991 when I reported graft, fraud, corruption, contractor overcharges, and health and safety violations on the Yucca Mountain Project and Superfund Project to Richard Berta, the Western Regional Inspector in the DOE Inspector General’s office for the nuclear weapons labs, Site 51, and the Nevada Test Site. After bringing two inspectors to my house and taking my testimony, he reported to Duane Sewell, the "secrets keeper" at the lab, and Bert Hefner, lab PR person. When I called a month later to talk to Berta about the outcome, he said "we found no basis to your allegations… and I got a new office with a view and new oak furniture from Sewell…". My allegations had been reported many times to the FBI by other more senior lab staff… and they were ignored as well. The Editorial concludes: "NNSA failed miserably in its policing responsibilities. It should be reorganized or axed, and Brooks and other top officials should be replaced with more independent, less-compromised leadership." The meeting ended before Dr. Walter Kohn, a physicist representing the UC Faculty opposed to UC management of nuclear weapons labs, was able to speak before the Regents. Regent Sherry Lansing, CEO of Paramount Pictures, stood up and announced in a loud voice "…oh Walter, I want to hear your presentation [at a future meeting]… but I have a plane to catch…", and crossed the room to give him a big kiss. By this time I had decided to investigate the UC Regents and their ties to the defense industry. Later that evening, a friend told me "…they ARE the Carlyle Group…". UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS STUDENTS ­ The FIAT PAX Website Right after the Regents meeting I contacted a group of students and a Texas State Representative Lon Burnam, opposed to the Univ. of Texas bid for the nuclear weapons management contract. A student told me about FIAT PAX, a website put together by UC Santa Cruz students listing the top 50 University recipients of defense funding for research (see below), and their ties to corporations (see below). The UC Regents with ties to the defense industry were listed with detailed bios. Parsky, the Chair, was the top fundraiser for Bush (after Ken Lay) in both Presidential election bids, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Vice Chair Blum was tied to the Carlyle Group, invested in URS Corporation (leading contractor with DOD), Korea First Bank [Carlyle is moving into Korea and taking over banks], and sits on the Board of Northwest Airlines. [A FOIA document revealed in 2001 that Northwest was the first airline to collaborate with NASA to install mind-reading technology in US airports to catch "terrorists".] Regent Lansing was a trustee of the RAND Graduate School, a branch of the RAND Corporation which had been involved in war-gaming nuclear wars between the US and the USSR, and acts as a bridge between US universities and the military. I also learned that the Carlyle Group managed large amounts of endowment funds for the University of Texas, and that CALPers, the State of California workers pension fund which is the largest in the nation owns 5.2% of Carlyle. FIAT PAX sums it up: "The University of California’s system wide finances are incredibly entangled with weapons manufacturers. The UC’s retirement plan portfolio is invested in dozens of military-industrial contractors through stock purchases. At least five corporations within the UC retirement portfolio conduct virtually no business other than weapons manufacturing and military subcontracting, these are: General Dynamics with a UC investment of $21,471,120, Northrop Grumman for $16,125,200, Raytheon for $16,818,200, TRW for $8,327,650, and Lockheed Martin for a staggering $33,046,370." "It is through these informal personal, formal institutional, and financial exchanges that universities serve the warfare state and its corporate allies. Personal relationships connect military, corporate, and university personnel while bridging the divide between these institutions. Formal institutional links establish cooperation and coordination across the military-industrial-academic complex. Be they research institutes, labs, and centers, or personal relationships spanning industry-university-military, the web of connections far exceeds any attempts to quantify." And then I knew that the Admirals, and vested Regents, were the kiss of death to the UC bid. ADMIRAL VISHNU BAGHWAT, FORMER CHIEF OF THE INDIAN NAVY On July 17, 2004, Admiral Vishnu Baghwat replied to my question "Why are so many Admirals involved with the nuclear weapons contract bid?": "The reason why the Navy and the Admirals are predominantly involved in the weapons is that until the Space military launch posts are ready and positioned with the minimum degree of reliability, the US Navy has more than 70 % of the first and second strike capability on its boats and hence an equivalent amount of the budget earmarked for strategic systems." His comments made the link for me between the nuclear weapons program, the Navy, NASA, and other types of directed energy weapons developed in nuclear weapons labs intended for space. Marion Fulk, a former Manhattan Project scientist and retired Livermore nuclear physical chemist told me that nuclear weapons cannot be used in space without contaminating the atmosphere, and laser weapons will not work because there is too much space trash already up there which will impede the effectiveness of the lasers. Wars in space will create more space trash until it is impossible to leave the earth, which already according to Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, is very dangerous now since a paint chip nearly took out the windshield of the space shuttle. The US plans to weaponize space are a violation of the United Nations 1967 Outer Space Treaty: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The intent was "to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space" and specifically prohibited the weaponization of space with ANY weapons, including nuclear weapons. The 2001 Space Preservation Act, HR 2977 which was introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, let the cat out of the bag and revealed under the "Definitions" in the bill, that directed energy weapons which can target individuals and populations from space for the purposes of psychotronics, mind control, and mood control, are clearly the new space weapons intended to establish global dominance by the New World Order. Directed energy weapons developed in the nuclear weapons labs have been used on nuclear weapons lab whistleblowers, UC students, handed over to the EPA to use on environmentalists, and to the FBI to turn over to local law enforcement. These weapons are now land, air, and sea based. Space is the last frontier. ADMIRAL BOBBY RAY INMAN ­ SPOOKS-R-US Tipped off by a journalist in Washington DC, my investigation of Admiral Bobby Ray Inman revealed that he was THE Admiral at the center of the spider web. A look at his social network (see Namebase.org) helped put the ‘puzzle palace’ together, and I discovered he was National Security Advisor to five Presidents, Director of the NSA, Deputy Director of the CIA under William Casey, Vice Director of the DIA, Director of Naval Intelligence, President of SAIC, Chair of the 1985 Congressional ‘Inman Commission’ on Terrorism, affiliated with the Carlyle Group, on the advisory boards of Tufts and the University of Texas, represents SBC Communications Corporation at Cal Tech, Chairman Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, and a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. And, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman is a member of the University of Texas faculty. One could say he is a dangerous man. One job he didn’t get was Secretary of Defense under Clinton: "1994: Former admiral Bobby Ray Inman, stung by press and Senate criticisms of his record, asked President Clinton to withdraw his nomination as secretary of Defense. A Clinton aide, George Stephanopoulos, later wrote that Inman had held back information during his White House background check." A look at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) reveals just exactly what kind of activities are undertaken in a spook shop where there is no accountability, and what business Inman was conducting at SAIC under his leadership. SAIC is one of the largest private employee-owned corporations, and like the Carlyle Group, escapes scrutiny (because it is privately owned) despite annual revenues of more than $5.9 billion. In 1990 it was indicted and pled guilty to ten felony counts of fraud on a Superfund site, called "one of the largest [cases] of environmental fraud…" in Los Angeles history. DOE contracted SAIC to manage and operate the Yucca Mountain Program, which I worked on as a scientist at the Livermore Lab. I became a whistleblower at Livermore in 1991 because of my knowledge of the extent of science fraud on the most important public works project in US history. SAIC’s control over internet domain names, gained when they purchased Network Solutions Inc., caused a furor and identified the ties in SAIC to "the shadow ruling-class within the Pentagon". Basically SAIC is a private spook corporation, involved in voting machines (SEQUOIA etc.), controlling the internet (Network Solutions), training foreign militaries, and the contractor that set up global communications for the US military. The internet is being changed from a public resource to a lucrative operation influenced by spooks and former Pentagon officials. The internet was a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project to begin with. One of SAIC’s prime clients is DARPA (DOD), which recently employed 5-time convicted felon Admiral Poindexter, an associate of Inman’s going back to Iran-Contra. Poindexter was forced to resign over his involvement with PAM, a "terrorism futures market" DARPA project which predicted assassinations, terrorism and other events in the Middle East. His earlier controversial program TIPS ­ the Total Information Awareness Program ­ was set up to spy on Americans. He was also involved in creating large information databases on Americans which are now being used to track citizens. SAIC also had contracts to develop information systems for the Pentagon, FBI and IRS. Police can now legally stop a person on the street, ask their name, type it into a palm pilot and come up with detailed personal information in a few seconds. An Associated Press story on Sept. 9, 2004, "Conn. City Uses Scanners to Nab Criminals" revealed that police in New Haven, Connecticut, are now driving around in police cars with infrared scanners connected to databases which they are using on license plates to hunt for "criminals", tax delinquents, and parking ticket violators. Some of the $25,000 scanners were paid for in one month from collected revenues. A military project, the real purpose of the internet is revealing itself: "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." - Zbigniew Brzezinski. The association of Admiral Inman, the Bush crime syndicate, Texas oil companies, and the Carlyle Group with the University of Texas explained why an advanced 4th generation nuclear weapons research program is there. And it explained why the University of Texas is so eager to take over the nuclear weapons labs. But this takeover resembles Inmans involvement with a stealth takeover of the Mars program transferring it from JPL management and control to NASA. The NASA Deep Space Program was started at JPL to do space exploration more efficiently with lower costs. Criticism of NASA/JPL Mars mission failure problems in the Thomas Young Report released on March 28, 2000, revealed that the supposedly public space program had been hijacked into secrecy and that the military was calling the shots. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on March 29, 2000, revealed at JPL the day after release of the report, just who was in control and the existence of an oversight committee that nobody at JPL knew existed: "I’d also like to acknowledge Admiral Inman, head of the JPL Oversight Committee at Cal Tech. He couldn’t be here today, but I talked to him by phone. His commitment to the team here is also unwavering. And I thank him for that." Goldin was there "to address beleaguered personnel, scientists and engineers of the Nation’s premier unmanned center for planetary exploration, and to somehow advise them of the new political and engineering realities, while simultaneously exhorting them to continue to new heights but now under more stringent NASA management". The real question is what was Admiral Inman doing as chair of a committee in a private university overseeing all civilian unmanned exploration of the planet Mars without the knowledge of anyone at JPL? In two years Admiral Bobby Ray Inman took over the space program, and in another year from now he will have succeeded in taking over the nuclear weapons program. When Newsweek called him "a superstar in the intelligence community", it was for good reason. A Naval officer I interviewed later replied when I asked him if he knew Inman "…oh yeah… he’s one of the players…". DEPOPULATION: 4th GENERATION NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DEPLETED URANIUM The development of 4th generation nuclear weapons is now underway in the US (in first place), Germany and Japan (tied for second place), followed by Russia and other nuclear and non-nuclear States. As an expert witness on the environmental and health effects of depleted uranium (DU) weaponry for the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan held in Japan in 2003, I discovered that there was a connection between the use of depleted uranium by the US since 1991- in the Middle East, Yugoslavia, and Central Asia - and 4th generation nuclear weapons. [Carlucci, former Chairman of the Carlyle Group (1989-2003), sat on the Board of Directors of General Dynamics (1991-97) which is one of the main manufacturers of DU weaponry in the US.] International scientists, Drs. Andre Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitali, watch-dogging nuclear weapons developments globally, pointed out that DU weaponry is being used to study the radiobiological effects of the new nuclear weapons now under development: "It is shown that the radiological burden due to the battlefield use of circa 400 tons of depleted-uranium munitions in Iraq (and of about 40 tons in Yugoslavia) is comparable to that arising from the hypothetical use of more than 600 kt (respectively 60 kt) of high-explosive equivalent pure-fusion fourth-generation nuclear weapons." The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and productivity of a nation and the economy. The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is a good example of an environmental disaster with lingering and long-term health effects on a population, as well as causing trans-boundary contamination. DU is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles (smaller than bacteria or viruses) which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air. There is no possible protective clothing, air filters, or treatment for internal exposure to this form of a poison radioactive gas. It was proposed as a military poison gas weapon in 1943 under the Manhattan Project. Even worse, uranium targets the DNA, and the Master Code (histone) which controls the expression of the DNA, and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations. The US CODE, TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 40 > Sec. 2302, defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as: The term ’’weapon of mass destruction’’ means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity. The US has staged four nuclear wars since 1991 using illegal DU dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets as radiological weapons and released an amount of radiation into the atmosphere which is at least ten times more radiation than the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, released during atmospheric testing. In June 2003, the WHO predicted in a press release that cancer will increase 50% globally by the year 2020, which can only be from an environmental cause. Already medical and scientific journals are reporting mysterious increases of infant mortality in 20 regions of Europe (Lancet Jan. 2004), the UK (Guardian Aug. 2004), and the US (New Scientist Feb.2004). Infant mortality should be decreasing now as a continuing trend for more than a century because of improved education and prenatal care, instead it is increasing in the US for the first time in 45 years with no identified cause. For radiation specialists, infant mortality is the most sensitive indicator of radioactive pollution, a response researchers have identified as a result of exposure to low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plant accidents, releases, and startups. The global pollution from thousands of tons of DU in nano-size particles traveling around the earth and being deposited in the global environment will have a devastating long-term effect. Not only will it cause illnesses and genetic mutations in the future generations of those internally exposed, but it will have a depopulating effect long proposed by the US military. DU is the perfect weapon delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution - the real killer ­ directly into living cells where they cause the cells to go haywire and dysfunctional: "Should humans be so stupid as to continue both technological escalation and wars between nation-states, radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives." MORE-4-US Research on population control is now being carried out secretly by biotech companies. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a University of California microbiologist discovered that wild corn in remote parts of Mexico is contaminated with lab altered DNA. He was denied tenure at UC Berkeley when he reported this to the scientific community, despite the embarrassing discovery that the Chancellor denying him tenure was getting large cash payments from a biotech company each year. Chapela revealed that a spermicidal corn developed by a US company is now being tested in Mexico. Males who unknowingly eat the corn produce non-viable sperm. Depopulation is quite another thing. It is killing off large segments of living populations. Even Prince Philip of Britain, a member of the Bilderberg Group, is in favor of depopulation: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund - quoted in ’Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?’, Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been proposing, funding, and building BioWeapons Level 3 and Level 4 labs at many places around the US ­ even on university campuses and in densely populated urban locations. In a BioWeapons Level 4 facility a single bacteria or virus is lethal. For what purpose are these labs being developed, and who will make the decisions on where BioWeapons created in these facilities will be used and on whom? More than 20 world-class microbiologists have been murdered since 2001, mostly in the US and the UK ­ nearly all were working on developing ethnic specific BioWeapons. Citizens around the US are frantically filing lawsuits to stop these labs on campuses and in communities where they live. Despite the opposition of residents living near UC Davis, where a BioWeapons Level 4 lab was planned with the support of the town Mayor, she suddenly reversed her position after a monkey escaped from a high security primate facility. When residents claimed that if UC Davis could not keep monkeys from escaping from their cages, they certainly could not guarantee that a single virus or bacteria would not escape from a test tube. The escaped monkey killed the project. The extreme secrecy surrounding the takeover of nuclear weapons, NASA and the space program, and BioWeapons labs is a threat to civil society, especially in the hands of the military and corporations. THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION The New World Order can be described as a network of members of the Bilderberger Group, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Trilateral Commission. The membership in both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission by Admiral Bobby Ray Inman is of particular interest in light of the developments surrounding control by the military of the US nuclear weapons program and the NASA space program. "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England… (and)…believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established…. "The Trilateral Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States." With No Apologies (1979) by former Senator Barry Goldwater "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens." - Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. THE MEDIA At this time in history, it is incomprehensible how a nation can enjoy the benefit of the most sophisticated communications technology in world history and remain so uninformed… or dumbed down. The policies being carried out by the US government that are destructive, both domestically and around the world, are being conducted under a veil of secrecy. The only possible way this dumbing down or control of information could occur is that it has been socially constructed. It is a conspiracy of lies, manipulation and disinformation which increasing numbers of Americans are aware of and should be calling it treason: "The Rockefeller family has always taken a lead role in the CFR. In the 1960s, while American men and women were dying in the jungles of Vietnam and while the military/industrial complex was sucking trillions of dollars out of American taxpayers’ wallets, the Rockefeller dynasty was financing Vietnamese oil refineries and aluminum plants. If there had ever been a formal declaration of war, the Rockefellers could be tried for treason. Instead, they reaped dividends. These are just a few of the abuses of power which demonstrate the results of the power elite’s manipulations of our destiny as a society. If you’ve ever wondered why you don’t hear about this network of power, just take a look at the CFR’s membership roster. Many of the chief executives and newspeople at CBS, NBC/RCA, ABC, the Public Broadcast Service, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and many other key media outlets are CFR members. International power orgs depend on the masses remaining ignorant for their plans to come to fruition." David Rockefeller, a member of the Bilderberger’s, thanked the media facilitators: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years....It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller speaking at the Bilderberger meeting in June 1991 in Baden Baden, Germany MEDIA MEMBERSHIP: Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) Trilateral Commission (TC) CBS Laurence A. Tisch, CEO CFR Roswell Gilpatric CFR James Houghton CFR/TC Henry Schacht CFR/TC Dan Rather CFR Richard Hottelet CFR Frank Stanton CFR NBC/RCA John F. Welch, Jr., CEO CFR Jane Pfeiffer CFR Lester Crystal CFR/TC R. W. Sonnenfeldt CFR/TC John Petty CFR Tom Brokaw CFR David Brinkley CFR John Chancellor CFR Marvin Kalb CFR Irving R. Levine CFR Herbert Schlosser CFR Peter G. Peterson CFR John Sawhill CFR ABC Thomas S. Murphy, CEO CFR Barbara Walters CFR John Connor CFR Diane Sawyer CFR John Scali CFR Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Robert MacNeil CFR Jim Lehrer CFR Charlane Hunter-Gault CFR Hodding Carter III CFR Daniel Schorr CFR Associated Press (AP) Stanley Swinton CFR Harold Anderson CFR Katherine Graham CFR/TC Reuters Micheal Posner CFR Baltimore Sun Henry Trewhitt CFR Washington Times Amaud de Borchgrave CFR Children’s TV Workshop (Sesame Street) Joan Ganz Cooney, Pres. CFR Cable News Network (CNN) W. Thomas Johnson, pres. TC Daniel Schorr CFR New York Times Richard Gelb CFR William Scranton CFR/TC John F. Akers, Dir. CFR Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Dir. CFR George B. Munroe, Dir. CFR Donald M. Stewart, Dir. CFR Cyrus R. Vance, Dir. CFR A.M. Rosenthal CFR Seymour Topping CFR James Greenfield CFR Max Frankel CFR Jack Rosenthal CFR John Oakes CFR Harrison Salisbury CFR H.L. Smith CFR Steven Rattner CFR Richard Burt CFR Flora Lewis TC Time, Inc. Ralph Davidson CFR Donald M. Wilson CFR Henry Grunwald CFR Alexander Heard CFR Sol Linowitz CFR/TC Thomas Watson, Jr. CFR Strobe Talbott TC Newsweek/Washington Post Katherine Graham CFR N. deB. Katzenbach CFR Robert Christopher CFR Osborne Elliot CFR Phillip Geyelin CFR Murry Marder CFR Maynard Parker CFR George Will CFR/TC Robert Kaiser CFR Meg Greenfield CFR Walter Pincus CFR Murray Gart CFR Peter Osnos CFR Don Oberdorfer CFR WHO SHOULD CONTROL THE US NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM? "Some people say Domenici is a sucker for big science. And they may be right." Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), when asked at a press conference last week if his vigorous support for his state’s Los Alamos National Laboratory had helped create a culture of complacency that contributed to last month’s security and safety lapses. In 1991, Richard Berta, the Western Regional Inspector for the Department of Energy at the nuclear weapons labs and the Nevada Test Site, told me: "The nuclear weapons labs exist for the Pentagon… and the Pentagon exists for the oil companies…" It is inappropriate for a university to be in control of nuclear weapons research and management. University of California faculty have long opposed UC management of the labs, supported by a majority of the students. UC is now in the position of managing, developing, proliferating, investing in, and profiting from Weapons of Mass Destruction. The fact that UC investments of $33,046,370 in Lockheed Martin Marietta (70% owned by Carlyle), and $21,471,120 in General Dynamics ­ one of the two biggest US manufacturers of DU weaponry which has been sold to 29 countries, make UC complicit in war crimes. Students and faculty should be informed of this. The State of California employee pension fund owns 5.2% of the Carlyle Group. The military, should NEVER be in control of ANY nuclear weapons program, it should ALWAYS be in civilian hands. And the Carlyle Group, a private corporation with vested interests and ties to oil companies, has NEVER been investigated or subjected to ANY oversight whatsoever, and for that reason should not have any control or influence over US nuclear weapons policy and development. Admiral Bobby Ray Inman and his associates in the intelligence business have demonstrated their systematic abuse of the internet, voting machines, and American civil liberties. Should we give them the trigger, the nukes, the budget they want, and the cover of secrecy? I don’t think so. Management and oversight of the nuclear weapons labs belongs at the National Science Foundation, a US government agency, with the resources to make rational decisions and reign in the planned unlimited proliferation of nuclear weapons on earth and in space. "There is a toxic quality to war that affects the inner life of individuals and, as a collective consequence, the society itself. In the degradation and dehumanization of the individual lies the destruction of all mankind." - Butler Shaffer ALL governments are terrorist organizations…and for that reason Humanity is on the brink of extinction. References: IMPERIAL SAN FRANCISCO ­ Urban Power, Earthly Ruin by Gray Brechin, UC Press January 1999. "Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report" US DOE Office of Environmental Management Executive Summary, March 1995. "Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the US and What the DOE is Doing About It" US DOE Office of Environmental Management, January 1996. "ECRR: 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ­ Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes, Regulator’s Edition: Brussels, 2003". http://www.euradcom.org "Asthma; Infant Mortality; Recruiting Foster Parents" by Lynda Crawford Gotham Gazette May 05, 2003. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/children/20030506/2/379 Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup by Jay Gould and B. Goldman (1990). Letter to Employees of University of California-managed National Labs Today at Berkeley Lab August 6, 2004 http://www.lbl.gov/today/2004/Aug/06-Fri/letter-jump.html "A Career in Microbiology Can Be Harmful to Your Health: Death Toll Mounting as Connections to Dyncorp, Hadron, PROMIS Software and Disease Research Emerge", Michael Davidson and Michael C. Ruppert, February 14, 2002. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_14_02_microbio.html Media coverage of Los Alamos security lapse, July 2004. http://www.4law.co.il/lanl1.htm "NASA plans to read terrorist’s minds at airports" by Frank J. Murray 8/17/02, Washington Times. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm Air Travel Privacy FOIA Documents: "NASA Ames Research Center Northwest Airlines Briefing December 10-11, 2001", Electronic Privacy Information Center. http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/foia1.html Stop Carlyle! website http://isuisse.ifrance.com/stopcarlyle/enindex.htm "Our Opinion: NNSA must share blame for Los Alamos mistakes" August 16, 2004, Oakland Tribune. http://ucnuclearfree.org/articles/2004/08/16_oped_nnsa-must-share-blame.htm FIAT PAX ­ Let There Be Peace: A Resource on Science, Technology, Militarism and Universities http://www.fiatpax.net "Defense Funding at 50 Universities" http://www.fiatpax.net/profiles.html "The University Web of Corporate Power" http://www.fiatpax.net/dohe/universitynetwork.htm "UC’s retirement fund investments" http://www.fiatpax.net/iilinks2.html United Nations 1967 Outer Space Treaty http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/outersptxt.htm HR 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001 http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html Social Network Diagram for Admiral Bobby Ray Inman http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_INMAN_BOBBY_RAY "1994: Former admiral Bobby Ray Inman" http://www.appointee.brookings.org/sg/a2.htm "Pentagon scheme for a futures market in terror" by Berry Grey, July 31, 2003, World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/fut-j31_prn.shtml "BEST GUESS: Economists explore betting markets as prediction tools" by Erica Klarreich, Science News Oct. 18, 2003, V. 164 p.251-253. http://www.sciencenews.org "Conn. City Uses Scanners to Nab Criminals" by Diane Scarponi, Sept. 9, 2004. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_re_us/scanning_for_scofflaws Summary of Thomas Young Report released on March 28, 2000 http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/news71.html "When The Best Must Do Even Better" remarks by NASA Admin. Dan Goldin at JPL on March 29, 2000. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/ftp/Goldin/00text/jpl_remarks.txt International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/ FourthGeneration Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, by Andre Gsponer and J.-P. Hurni (1999). http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/INESAPTR1.html A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted-uranium munitions versus fourth-generation nuclear weapons by A. Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitale, 4th International Conference of the Yugoslav Nuclear Society, Belgrade, September 30-October 4, 2002. http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0210071 "Letter to Congressman McDermott from Leuren Moret ­ February 21, 2003." http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03.htm "Preferential Staining of Nucleic Acid-Containing Structures For Electron Microscopy" by Huxley and Zubay, J. Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology (J. Cell Biol.) 11 (2): 273. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Huxley-Zubay-Staining1nov61.htm (Nov 1961) "Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War" by Leuren Moret, World Affairs Journal August 2004. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm "Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets - A death sentence here and abroad" by Leuren Moret, Aug. 18, 2004, San Francisco Bay View. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Dirty-Bombs18aug04.htm WHO press release 03/09/08: "Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020" http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Cancer-Rates-15M3apr03.htm "Sudden unexplained infant death in 20 regions in Europe: case control study" R.G. Carpenter et al, Lancet January 17, 2004, V.363, p.185-191. "Rise in stillbirths prompts inquiry" by John Carvel, August 20, 2004, The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1287041,00.html "US infant deaths rise for first time in 45 years" by Shaoni Bhattacharya, Feb 12, 2003, New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99994675 "Three Mile Island: Health study meltdown" by Joseph Mangano, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September/October 2004, Volume 60, No. 5, pp. 30-35. http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/so04/so04mangano.html "Smart dust, roboflies, microbugs: UC is spying on you" by Leuren Moret February 26, 2003, San Francisco Bay View. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Berkeley-Library-Classified22feb03.htm Statement by Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C337802379/E1557478132/ Statement by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C337802379/E1557478132/ Statement on role of Rockefellers on Council of Foreign Relations http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/base/cfrnwo.html Statement by David Rockefeller at Bilderberger meeting June 1991 http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C337802379/E1557478132/ MEDIA MEMBERSHIP: Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) Trilateral Commission (TC) http://www.freedomdomain.com/neworder/connections.html http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Moret-Nuclear-Carlyle16sep04.htm by : LEUREN MORET Tuesday 14th September 2004 -- Posted for educational and research purposes only, ~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~ NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a home for your web domain? We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************