*****************************************************************
09/23/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.228
*****************************************************************
   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 [southnews] Iraqi scientists detained despite lack of WMD
2 CNEWS Iraq: Iraqi who kept nuclear secrets in garden cautions 
3 Guardian Unlimited: The case for impeachment
4 BBC: Iran warns Israel against strike
5 Xinhuanet: Iranian nuclear deadlock racks all parties   
6 Straits Times: Bombs or bribes no answer to Iran nuke threat - 
7 Dar Al Hayat: The Iranian Nuclear File 
8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Threatens to Turn Japan into "Nu
9 JoongAng Daily: Ex-leader denies atom research report
10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North is called able to test
11 Japan Times: Look for a larger Russian role in Korea
12 Korea Times: Seoul Invites NK to Attend Pugwash 
13 [southnews] US to sell Israel bunker-buster bombs
14 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Interim Staff Guidance Documents 
15 US: Washington Times: Nuclear attack protection
16 US: Michigan Daily: 113 Years of Editorial Freedom - Bush, Kerry 
17 In Bid To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, UN Agency Tracks Illicit Traffi
18 UPI: Brazil, UN nuclear talks melt down - 
19 Interfax:: Russia, EU discuss increasing uranium supplies - Rosatom
20 BBC: Brazil nuclear talks 'not over'
21 Haaretz: The nuclear sum game
22 Haaretz: Israel to host atomic monitors
23 Xinhuanet: IAEA's new Board of Governors elected   
24 Hi Pakistan: Seven nations hit out at nuclear powers     --> 
25 Arab Monitor: Israel upgrades to become atomic power in the Mediterr
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
26 The Herald: British Energy rescue plan wins EC approval   
27 BBC: British Energy seeks to delist
28 UK Independent: British Energy carries out threat to delist its shar
29 Guardian Unlimited: Commission backs £5bn British Energy deal
30 US: ONN. Ohio News Now: Nuclear agency review finds need to make ref
31 ThisisLondon: British Energy decides to delist 
32 US: NRC: Denial of petition 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 [NYTr] A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium
34 US: MUST SEE- Kucinich slide show on depleted uranium weaponry
35 US: [progchat_action] Can I Buy My Son A Gas Mask?
36 US: [DU-WATCH] The big story at  McAlester is the one your missing
37 [du-list] McALESTER: McAAP 2000 Lb Bomb Makers Get Hemolytic
38 US: NRC: Radiac Research Corporation, Brooklyn, NY; Notice of Issuan
39 US: NRC: Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Sump 
40  Guardian Unlimited: Gulf war uranium tests too late for many, say v
41 US: AxisofLogic: U.S. Military: Uranium Casualties
42 US: Arizona Daily Sun: County launches preemptive strike against nuk
43 SFBV: US troops have no protection from America’s poisonous uranium
44 Herald Sun: War disease tests 
45 New Zealand News: Troops returning from Iraq to be offered radiation
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
46 US: L.A. Daily News: Agency proposal rejected Court invalidates wate
47 Interfax: 20 radioactive burial sites found in Belarus
48 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Oversight of Yucca is in jeopardy
49 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Sandoval missed chance on Yucca
50 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Eject Bush to stop nuke dump
51 RGJ: Application for nuclear waste grant is rejected
52 UK Independent: British nuclear waste to be sent to central Asia
53 Nevada Appeal: Nevada loses nuclear waste grant
54 US: Boston.com: Pollutant discovered in treated waste water
55 US: Boston.com: Superfund cleanup set for two sites
56 US: Austin Chronicle: News: Nuke Waste: Get It While It's Hot!
57 IRIN: KYRGYZSTAN: Not ready to import nuclear fuel for 
58 KLAS: DOE Imposes "New" Yucca Rules
59 US: Concord Journal: Citizen involvement needed at Starmet Superfund
60 Whitehaven News: NDA BOSS TELLS NUCLEAR STAFF: YOUR JOBS ARE SAFE 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
61 UPI: Efforts to end nuclear testing intensify - 
62 BBC: Nuclear weapons: Can they be stopped?
63 BBC: Brazil allows nuclear inspection
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
64 Guardian Unlimited: Los Alamos Scientist Says He Was One Fired
65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs 
66 Oakland Tribune: UC considers unleashing labs
67 santa fe new mexican: Top LANL scientist to appeal his firing
68 Tri-City Herald: FFTF dismantle options debated 
69 Sf Chronicle: SAN FRANCISCO / UC needs 'industrial partner' for lab 
70 Austin Chronicle: News: UT Idles on Los Alamos
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [southnews] Iraqi scientists detained despite lack of WMD
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:01:33 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ 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/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The only two women who are said to be in the custody of US authorities 
are biologists

Iraqi scientists detained despite lack of WMD

By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Independent Digital (UK) 23 September 2004

The US has detained for far too long Iraqi scientists arrested last year 
in the belief that they would provide information about Saddam Hussein's 
WMD, according to an Iraqi government source.

Even when US investigators concluded that no such weapons existed the 
scientists were not freed because the Americans feared their release 
would be seen as a tacit admission that Iraq had no WMD. This may 
explain why the US embassy in Iraq is determined to detain Dr Rihab 
Taha, who once worked on biological weapons, while the Iraqi justice 
ministry says it sees no good reason for her continued detention.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose Tawhid and Jihad group is threatening to 
behead the British contractor Kenneth Bigley, probably had no idea that 
his demand would focus attention on the detention of two female Iraqi 
scientists. It is more likely that Zarqawi was trying to make propaganda 
points since it is widely rumoured among Iraqis that the US and Britain 
hold many female Iraqi prisoners.

When Dr Taha, a microbiologist with a doctorate from the University of 
East Anglia, surrendered to US forces in Baghdad on 12 May last year, US 
officials hoped she would lead them to biological weapons.

In the approach to the war, one of the key demands of the US and Britain 
was that Saddam Hussein allowed free access to scientists whom the UN 
inspectors wanted to interview about WMD. After the war, American 
inspectors, first under David Kay and from January under Charles 
Duelfer, were able to order the detention of these scientists.

But the 1,500-page study by the US government's Iraq Survey Group now 
concludes that Iraq had no large-scale programmes to build such weapons.

The Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology has unsuccessfully sought 
the freedom of some detained scientists on the grounds that their 
expertise is needed to rebuild Iraq's scientific potential. Dr Taha 
headed a research team to develop biological weapons from 1985 to 1995 
and it is possible that she and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, the biotech 
researcher nicknamed "Mrs Anthrax", were able to provide information 
about WMD developed during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but much of this 
would already have been known in the US and UK.

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 2 CNEWS Iraq: Iraqi who kept nuclear secrets in garden cautions 
against proliferation
 	 	 	
[http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/home.html]     

September 23, 2004    

By KATHERINE SHRADER
 				   		     		     		  <img
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Iraqi scientist-turned-author says the most 
significant pieces of his country's dormant nuclear program were 
buried under a lotus tree in his backyard, untouched for more 
than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. 

But their existence, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi writes in a new book, is 
evidence that the international community should remain vigilant 
as other countries try to replicate Iraq's successes before the 
1991 Gulf War to develop components necessary for a nuclear 
weapon. 

In The Bomb in My Garden, Obeidi details fallen Iraqi leader 
Saddam Hussein's furious, and then abandoned, quest for a nuclear 
bomb. 

"Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the 
story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a 
red flag to the international community," Obeidi writes with his 
co-author Kurt Pitzer. 

The Associated Press obtained an advance copy of the book, to be 
released Sunday. 

Obeidi details his research through nearly a quarter-century 
under Saddam, including the designs for key components and 
prototypes for nuclear production, buried in a plastic drum next 
to his rose garden. Probably just two of Saddam's most trusted 
deputies knew the whereabouts of the research, he says. 

While only the former president knows fully why he didn't restart 
his nuclear program, Obeidi believes Saddam may have realized the 
scope of the massive undertaking. 

United Nations inspectors had dismantled the program, removed the 
enriched uranium stockpiles and exposed Iraq's international 
network of suppliers. And Saddam was making a mint off the UN's 
oil-for-food program, while increasing his control over a 
population reliant on him for basics such as flour, Obeidi says. 
To get caught importing components needed to produce a nuclear 
weapon, the scientist says, would have ended the program. 

Yet Saddam kept his Iraq Atomic Energy Commission running, 
apparently without weapons programs, as late as 2003. 

"All we had left was the knowledge in our heads and the documents 
buried in my garden," Obeidi writes. 

In an upcoming report, U.S. weapons inspectors with the Iraq 
Survey Group are expected to conclude that Saddam had intentions 
of reinvigorating his weapon's programs, but no stockpiles of 
weapons of mass destruction. 

Obeidi, 60, was the creator of Iraq's centrifuge, a key component 
in one method of enriching bomb-grade uranium. He considers it 
the most dangerous piece of nuclear technology because related 
advances make it possible to conceal uranium enrichment programs 
inside one warehouse. 

Obeidi and his colleagues were able to travel the world in the 
1980s, collecting centrifuge research and components for their 
work from scholars and private companies in the United States, 
Germany, Switzerland, France, England and elsewhere. Then, Saddam 
had yet to become an enemy to the West. 

By the late 1980s, Iraq was making breakthroughs. However, the 
international help dried up as Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 
1990. The UN arrived after Saddam's 1991 defeat, intent on taking 
apart his weapons programs. 

To hide signs of uranium enrichment then, Obeidi describes a 
massive demolition and reconstruction program he led to remove 
everything from the top soil to the coffee makers at his former 
centrifuge lab. 

After the 2003 invasion, Obeidi attempted to take the nuclear 
secrets buried in his garden to U.S. authorities. He describes 
disorganization as the CIA and military intelligence wound up 
fighting over him. 

Only after extensive negotiations involving former United Nations 
weapons inspector David Albright, who was in Washington, did 
Obeidi turn over all of his information. 

Today, the U.S. government has brought he and eight family 
members to the East Coast. For security, the family's location is 
not disclosed. 
		 		   	 	 
 CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc [http://www.netgraphe.com] .
All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: The case for impeachment
 
[http://www.guardian.co.uk

There is no doubt Blair misled parliament over the war
		
Dan Plesch
Wednesday September 22, 2004
 [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
The attempt to impeach the prime minister for his misconduct over 
the Iraq war highlights the value of using the history of our 
democracy as a living instrument to preserve freedom today. The 
idea - first floated in these pages in January and led by Plaid 
Cymru MP Adam Price - is now supported by his own party, the SNP, 
the Green party and 20 individual MPs. Matrix Chambers is today 
giving us their legal opinion on the initiative. Sceptics sneer 
that the proposal is unrealistic, but the case for it is growing 
ever stronger. 

First, Tony Blair made many statements relating to the Iraq war 
that we now know were contradicted by the very sources - such as 
reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee - he claimed to 
rely on. The list runs to 40 pages in the report I prepared with 
Glen Rangwala, the WMD expert, for Adam Price. 

Second, any reasonable person would conclude that some or all of 
his statements were misleading. Third, there is a clear 
constitutional standard requiring ministers to resign for such 
conduct. 

Fourth, the pre-Iraq standard of resignation was applied to the 
MPs Beverley Hughes and Peter Mandelson. Hughes resigned because 
she forgot she had received one letter. Mandelson resigned first 
because he did not give proper information to his civil servants 
about a private loan, and again because there was a dispute about 
whether or not he had made a phone call to another minister. A 
reasonable person would conclude that the prime minister's 
misleading statements are far more numerous and serious than the 
above. 

Fifth, Blair remains in office, refusing any examination of his 
conduct. Sixth, if he gets away with it, a new constitutional 
precedent will have been established, namely that misleading the 
country is acceptable. Seventh, constitutional authorities such 
as Erskine May describe how impeachment can be used as a last 
resort.

But is it practical? Surely, the massive Labour majority will 
protect Blair. How soon people forget that on university top-up 
fees that majority was down to five.

It seems likely that Price and his colleagues will want a 
substantial period of public debate and a review of the 
parliamentary procedure before formally initiating a debate. The 
likelihood is that Blair's misconduct and potential impeachment 
will be discussed through the party conference season and deep 
into the winter. Over this time the campaign will grow.

The impeachment campaign has attracted widespread media support. 
Price and his colleagues have managed to put impeachment on the 
political agenda after a century and a half. 

A month ago, bringing impeachment back to Britain seemed a 
romantic dream on a par with the beauty queen's proverbial 
aspiration for world peace. Perhaps realising our dream is easier 
than we think. 

·  [http://www.danplesch.net] is the author of The Beauty Queen's 
Guide to World Peace 

 [http://www.impeachblair.org] 
	
 	

   Useful link  

 [http://www.impeachblair.org] 

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: Iran warns Israel against strike
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 23 September, 2004
 
[General view of reactor being built in Bushehr] 
Iran now expects to start up its first nuclear reactor in 2006                                                            

Iran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel 
uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities. 

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that 
the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" 
bombs. 

Israel urged the United Nations Security Council to take action 
to stop Iran's nuclear programme. 

The US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear 
weapons, a charge Iran denies. 

Iran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to 
suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear 
programme was for peaceful purposes only. 

Nuclear 'nightmare' 

According to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech 
bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can 
penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls. 

In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it 
believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. 

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with 
the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late. 

"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to 
move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an 
end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN 
Secretary General Kofi Annan. 

"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the 
Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their 
plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide 
it." 

However, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to 
world peace. 

"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all 
countries." 

When questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr 
Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will 
be reacted by us most severely". 



*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhuanet: Iranian nuclear deadlock racks all parties   
 
  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-24 05:51:19   

   TEHRAN, Sept. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- The UN nuclear watchdog's 
latest resolution on Iran was followed by Tehran's cautiously 
resolute rejection and ushered in the most sensitive period of 
the issue. 

   A looming deadlock is racking all parties concerned: Iran, the 
United States, the European Union (EU) and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

   The resolution, adopted on Sept. 18, urges Iran to suspend all 
of its nuclear activities and fully cooperate with the inspectors 
to clear up related issues. It also schedules a further 
discussion in late November. 

   Washington was somewhat satisfied with the resolution even 
though it can not satiate the superpower's ambition of strangling 
Iran's nuclear activities. 

   However, it would be surely difficult for the United States to 
persuade the international community to impose harsher measures 
on Iran. 

   In fact, Iran's bid for the right of peaceful nuclear 
exploitation is undeniable. 

   The promise of peaceful use of nuclear energy has been 
repeated Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Seyed Ali 
Khamenei, who assured that seeking nuclear weapons contradicts 
Islamic doctrines. 

   Furthermore, the IAEA inspectors have not found any evidence 
to show Iran is developing atomic weapons secretly since they 
started harsh supervision on the country's nuclear sites in last 
December. 

   What is more nightmarish is that should Iran shut the door of 
cooperation, the United States would have a lot to bother and 
could not help probing into what's really going on behind the 
curtains. 

   Although Iranian President Mohammad Khatami vowed that Iran 
would not seek nuclear weapons even without supervision, many 
analysts have pointed out that if the unwelcome prospect 
happened, Washington would have no efficient way to prevent 
Tehran from doing so. 

   For Iran, what the IAEA requests has exceeded Tehran's utmost 
of compromise for the first time. 

   The rising conservatives have been accusing Khatami's cabinet 
of being too weak. 

   They complained that the confidence-building measures taken by 
the government failed to be rewarded, and Iran's voluntary moves, 
including suspension of uranium enrichment and centrifuge 
assembly, have been taken for granted. 

   Angered by such diplomatic setbacks, some extremists have 
advocated withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 
safeguards, which, by the way, have not been approved by the 
conservative-dominated Majlis (Parliament). 

   Taking the recent conservative trend and next year's 
presidential election into account, one can not help but worry 
about the possibility that Iran's retreat may be accelerated. 

   The EU must be the most unwilling to see Iran turning to 
conservative. 

   As a crucial broker of Iran's nuclear issue, the EU has 
succeeded in encouraging Iran to become more transparent on the 
nuclear issue, which helps the two sides to built a good 
friendship and would predict a promising economic cooperation. 

   But the goodwill was marred by the fact that the EU yielded to 
the US pressure twice on the IAEA Board of Governors' meetings in 
June and September. 

   Most Iranians argued that the dependence on the EU is a wrong 
decision. Some even felt that Iran was deceived by the EU. 

   Similarly, the IAEA also hates the possible aggravation of 
Iran's case, for the impasse within the nuclear watchdog's 
framework would weaken its influence to some degree. 

   The Iranian nuclear issue racks every party concerned. But, 
unfortunately, there has been no proposal of compromise so far 
that can be accepted by all, mainly the United States and Iran. 
Enditem (by Zhang Shengping, Chen Wendi)   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 6 Straits Times: Bombs or bribes no answer to Iran nuke threat - 

  SEPT 24, 2004	FRI   
    
By Henry Sokolski                                                                                                                                           

LAST weekend, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency called 
on Teheran to freeze its efforts to produce nuclear fuel, since 
this will enable Iran to come within days of having a nuclear 
arsenal. On Wednesday, however, Iranian President Mohammad 
Khatami said the world must recognise Iran's right to enrich 
uranium to fuel its power stations.                                                                                                                                                     
 	   	 		 			   		 		
  Iran says 'no' to nuke freeze: President Khatami says world 
must recognise Iran's right to enrich uranium to fuel its power 
stations despite calls by the United nations for a freeze. -- 
REUTERS                 

At stake is the future of any hope of keeping the Middle East 
from following Iran's nuclear example.                                                                                                                                          

Unfortunately, when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambition, 
everyone, both hawks and doves, Europeans and Americans, still 
believes there is some way to keep Iran from coming within a few 
weeks of having a nuclear bomb. Iran, however, is no more than 12 
to 36 months from acquiring nuclear arms and seems dead set on 
securing an option to do so.                                                                                                          

Still, most experts don't perceive the urgency. President George 
W. Bush's detractors insist that by simply dealing directly with 
Teheran, the United States can resolve it by offering it a 
reliable supply of fresh reactor fuel in exchange for a pledge to 
refrain from making its own (and thereby coming within days of 
making a bomb). Never mind Iran's defiance of a year-old nuclear 
enrichment freeze agreement that has humiliated Britain, France 
and Germany. A new US president, according to Mr Bush's 
opponents, can reverse these trends.                                                                                                     

White House officials, meanwhile, insist Iran, having repeatedly 
violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), should be 
hauled before the Security Council to make sure it doesn't get 
the bomb. Judging from the Security Council's inability to ensure 
Saddam Hussein's compliance with international weapons 
inspections, one can't be too hopeful.                                                                                                   

This, then, gives rise to the hawkish solution: bombing (with or 
without UN approval). Israeli or US attack on Iran's nuclear 
plants, this group insists, is the only hope. This will at least 
delay its programme a few years. However, lasting results will 
require overthrowing the current regime - an endeavour still 
under way in Afghanistan and Iraq.                                                                                                       

If there is no sure way to stop Iran, what should the 
international community do? The answer: Tackle the most worrisome 
preventable problems. This would clearly exclude getting Iran to 
keep its nuclear materials and capabilities out of the hands of 
terrorists. This scenario is not only unlikely (Teheran's mullahs 
are unlikely to allow it), but clearly beyond the scope of 
international powers.                                                                                                       

What, then, deserves greater attention? The one thing even worse 
than a nuclear-ready Iran: an entire Middle East cast in Iran's 
nuclear mould. Earlier this year, senior Saudi officials 
announced their interest in acquiring or 'leasing' nuclear 
weapons from China or Pakistan - a legal move under the NPT, so 
long as the weapons remain under Chinese or Pakistani 'control'. 
Egypt, having revealed plans to develop a large nuclear 
desalination plant, also recently received sensitive nuclear 
technology from Libya. Syria, meanwhile, is believed to be 
experimenting with uranium enrichment centrifuges. Algeria is in 
the midst of upgrading its second large research reactor 
facility.                                                                                                        

If these states continue to pursue their nuclear dreams (spurred 
by Iran's example), can Iraq, with its considerable number of 
nuclear scientists and engineers, be expected to stand by? And 
what of Turkey, whose private sector was recently revealed to be 
part of Pakistani proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan's network? Will 
nuclear agitation in its south and its repeated rejection by the 
European Union cause Turkey to reconsider its non-nuclear status? 
What can be done?                                                                                                        

First, the international community must challenge Iran's claim 
that its nuclear activities are peaceful and protected under the 
NPT. No nation that sits on as much oil and gas as Iran has a 
legitimate need to generate nuclear electricity. Consider: Had 
Iran openly solicited proposals to provide electrical generating 
capacity, all the non-nuclear bids would have come in at a 
fraction of the cost of building nuclear power reactors and fuel 
production plants.                                                                                                       

Second, the US and its allies should build on France's recent 
proposal that the UN Security Council adopt country-neutral rules 
for dealing with NPT violators. These rules should stipulate that 
countries which reject inspections and withdraw from the NPT 
(something Iran has threatened to do) without first addressing 
their previous violations must surrender and dismantle their 
nuclear capabilities (especially large research and power 
reactors and bulk handling facilities) to come back into 
compliance.                                                                                                         

They would also stipulate that nations not found to be in full 
compliance will no longer receive nuclear assistance from any 
other country (for example, Russian assistance to Iran to 
complete its reactor at Bushehr, which has been the 'peaceful' 
justification of Iran's most dangerous nuclear activities) until 
the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors 
unanimously issues a clean bill of health.                                                                                                       

Surely, if France can support such rules, so can Europe, the US 
and its allies. If these nations unite, Russia will likely 
follow, particularly if it receives a reward. (One might start 
with the cost-free nuclear cooperative agreement Moscow has 
sought for so many years from the US.)                                                                                                   

Finally, the US and its allies need to pace themselves. In the 
end, the only sure path to non-proliferation is more moderate 
self-rule and increased arms restraint backed by US and allied 
military resolve and economic cooperation. Iran's current rulers 
will have to go. Until then, bombing or bribing Teheran should be 
put aside in favour of tightening and enforcing the rules to keep 
others from following Iran's example.                                                                                                       


+ The writer is executive director of the Non-Proliferation 
Policy Education Centre in Washington, DC. Rights: YaleGlobal 
Online                                                                                                          
 			     			   			 				 			 				   			 				 			   			     		 	 	
The Straits Times print edition today. In it you get 
*****************************************************************
 7 Dar Al Hayat: The Iranian Nuclear File 
 
english.daralhayat.com | 02:57 GMT - 24/09/2004   

Mohamad Sadiq Al Husseini      Al-Hayat      2004/09/23
 
Who gives guarantees to whom? Who trusts or does not trust whom? 
Who did not keep the promises he made to whom? 

Is it really a crisis of guarantees as diplomats and politicians 
have been saying for the past 18 months, or is it a crisis of 
lost trust between all parties? 

This is the core question that transformed the Iranian nuclear 
file, which will seem to be the most controversial issue in the 
diplomatic Iranian-European dialogue sharply loaded with U.S. 
insurgence, from now until November 25, 2004. 

In fact, Iran wants a guarantee from the U.S. through Europe that 
it (i.e. Washington) will not hinder its legitimate right to 
develop its nuclear project for peaceful means, provided that it 
offers all the necessary guarantees for the international 
community, that it will not develop it for armament ends. 

In return, the U.S. wants guarantees through Europe, that Tehran 
would stop all its nuclear activities, even the peaceful ones, in 
order to offer them to Israel, until it reaches an agreement with 
Europe on how to deal with Tehran concerning its new nuclear 
power that broke the monopoly of superpowers regarding the 
nuclear technology. 

Because trust is already lost between Tehran and Washington, and 
Europe is playing the role of the opportunist mediator unable to 
take a decision and incapable of learning from the experience of 
the bad Iraqi scenario, the Iranian nuclear issue will remain 
subject to instability, secrets, and open diplomatic compromises, 
and will always depend on the balance of power that allows or 
does not allow Washington to escalate its stances toward Tehran. 

As for Tehran, it took a decision and said it is almost reached a 
self-reliance stage in the nuclear issue, according to the 
Secretary of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security 
Hassan Rouhani. Hence, it is establishing a dialogue, 
maneuvering, and negotiating for the mere reason of easing the 
international ambiance because it believes that dialogue is the 
soundest way to gain international recognition. 

The decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
recorded half a defeat for Washington and half a victory for 
Tehran. 

Europe has harvested so far, but it still doubts and mistrusts 
both parties, while Baradei, who should have been the most 
concerned with the file, remains the weakest element. 

Only the strong and transparent relationship between the Iranian 
leadership and the Iranian decision makers and active political 
forces are able to drive the nuclear file to the safe side. 

Iranian officials say that they do not trust the American 
administration as a guarantee for keeping their nuclear activity, 
but say that negotiations are not impossible, provided they 
encompass equal chances. 

It seems they are trying to snatch these circumstances through 
comprehension and construction with Europe. 

In parallel, they say that Europe has no stable viewpoint and is 
maneuvering in a very opportunist way that is pushing them to 
lose their trust. On the other hand, Tehran asserts that it will 
not give up dialogue as principle of its foreign policy, 
especially that it does not want the international community to 
worry about its true intentions about insisting on possessing 
nuclear technology for peaceful means. 

However, those who know the hidden aspects of the issue know that 
the international community, especially the U.S., does not trust 
Tehran's true intentions albeit it is asserting now that they are 
peaceful. 

Who can gather all these contradictions? This is what the nuclear 
diplomacy team, presided by Hassan Rouhani, is trying to do. 
Would it succeed? We will have an answer to this in the few 
coming months according to the internal, regional, and maybe 
international results that would turn Iran into an active and 
efficient international party that will have an impact on a whole 
decade at least, or will be a new victim in the game of the 
nations led by the imperial U.S. administration. 

*Mr. Al Husseini is a writer specialized in Iranian affairs. 
                                
                                
The Iranian Nuclear File Mohamad Sadiq Al Husseini      Al-Hayat      
2004/09/23
 



Who gives guarantees to whom? Who trusts or does not trust whom? 
Who did not keep the promises he made to whom? 

Is it really a crisis of guarantees as diplomats and politicians 
have been saying for the past 18 months, or is it a crisis of 
lost trust between all parties? 

This is the core question that transformed the Iranian nuclear 
file, which will seem to be the most controversial issue in the 
diplomatic Iranian-European dialogue sharply loaded with U.S. 
insurgence, from now until November 25, 2004. 

In fact, Iran wants a guarantee from the U.S. through Europe that 
it (i.e. Washington) will not hinder its legitimate right to 
develop its nuclear project for peaceful means, provided that it 
offers all the necessary guarantees for the international 
community, that it will not develop it for armament ends. 

In return, the U.S. wants guarantees through Europe, that Tehran 
would stop all its nuclear activities, even the peaceful ones, in 
order to offer them to Israel, until it reaches an agreement with 
Europe on how to deal with Tehran concerning its new nuclear 
power that broke the monopoly of superpowers regarding the 
nuclear technology. 

Because trust is already lost between Tehran and Washington, and 
Europe is playing the role of the opportunist mediator unable to 
take a decision and incapable of learning from the experience of 
the bad Iraqi scenario, the Iranian nuclear issue will remain 
subject to instability, secrets, and open diplomatic compromises, 
and will always depend on the balance of power that allows or 
does not allow Washington to escalate its stances toward Tehran. 

As for Tehran, it took a decision and said it is almost reached a 
self-reliance stage in the nuclear issue, according to the 
Secretary of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security 
Hassan Rouhani. Hence, it is establishing a dialogue, 
maneuvering, and negotiating for the mere reason of easing the 
international ambiance because it believes that dialogue is the 
soundest way to gain international recognition. 

The decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
recorded half a defeat for Washington and half a victory for 
Tehran. 

Europe has harvested so far, but it still doubts and mistrusts 
both parties, while Baradei, who should have been the most 
concerned with the file, remains the weakest element. 

Only the strong and transparent relationship between the Iranian 
leadership and the Iranian decision makers and active political 
forces are able to drive the nuclear file to the safe side. 

Iranian officials say that they do not trust the American 
administration as a guarantee for keeping their nuclear activity, 
but say that negotiations are not impossible, provided they 
encompass equal chances. 

It seems they are trying to snatch these circumstances through 
comprehension and construction with Europe. 

In parallel, they say that Europe has no stable viewpoint and is 
maneuvering in a very opportunist way that is pushing them to 
lose their trust. On the other hand, Tehran asserts that it will 
not give up dialogue as principle of its foreign policy, 
especially that it does not want the international community to 
worry about its true intentions about insisting on possessing 
nuclear technology for peaceful means. 

However, those who know the hidden aspects of the issue know that 
the international community, especially the U.S., does not trust 
Tehran's true intentions albeit it is asserting now that they are 
peaceful. 

Who can gather all these contradictions? This is what the nuclear 
diplomacy team, presided by Hassan Rouhani, is trying to do. 
Would it succeed? We will have an answer to this in the few 
coming months according to the internal, regional, and maybe 
international results that would turn Iran into an active and 
efficient international party that will have an impact on a whole 
decade at least, or will be a new victim in the game of the 
nations led by the imperial U.S. administration. 

*Mr. Al Husseini is a writer specialized in Iranian affairs.    
        
  © 2004 Media Communications Group 
[http://www.knowledgeview.co.uk] 
*****************************************************************
 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Threatens to Turn Japan into "Nuclear Sea of Fire" 
 
      Updated Sep.23,2004 21:30 KST   
 


  North Korea threatened on Thursday that "If the United States
ignites a nuclear war in this part of the world, then U.S. bases
in Japan would serve as a detonating fuse that would plunge
Japan into a nuclear sea of fire." North Korea's main daily
Rodong Sinmun added in an article, "If it wants to maintain
peace and live safely, Japan should not become an appendage of
the war strategy of American imperialism." 

"The danger of a nuclear war in Northeast Asia continues to
escalate as a result of the United States' scheme to realign its
military presence in the Asian Pacific region," the article
asserted. "U.S. troops and bases in Japan are a cause of
calamity, inviting war to Japan." 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 



*****************************************************************
 9 JoongAng Daily: Ex-leader denies atom research report
   

TOKYO ¡ª Following an interview with former President Kim
Young-sam, a Japanese newspaper reported yesterday that he said
past presidents must have known about Korea's nuclear
experiments. 
Mr. Kim, president from 1993 to 1998, denied the report
yesterday.

 Yesterday's Mainichi Shimbun said Mr. Kim claimed, "The past
presidents of Korea could not have been unaware of nuclear
experiments during their tenures." 
The newspaper said Mr. Kim spoke to its Seoul correspondent
Wednesday.

 According to the newspaper, Mr. Kim suggested that he himself
was aware of nuclear research while in office. "The Korea Atomic
Energy Research Institute had diverse research projects in a
queue. I had to know about them for reasons of governmental
budget distribution," the Mainichi quoted Mr. Kim as saying.

"For nuclear research, a great number of personnel and costs are
necessary. [Experiments] could not have taken place [under the
authorization] of the researchers themselves."

 The government, responding to international criticism
concerning unreported nuclear experiments, has said it was
unaware of the experiments, and claimed they were conducted by
unsupervised scientists.

 Mr. Kim's office issued a statement yesterday saying, "The
report is untrue. Mr. Kim told the newspaper he knew nothing
about Korea's past experiments." The office said there was a
miscommunication between the correspondent and Mr. Kim. 
But the Mainichi reporter contacted by the JoongAng Ilbo
repeatedly said, "What is reported is true."
 
by Yeh Young-june, Lee Young-jong iamfine@joongang.co.kr>   

  2004.09.23       

[http://joongangdaily.joins.com/faq.html]    		 		

*****************************************************************
 10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North is called able to test
 
September 24, 2004 KST 00:52 (GMT+9)

  North Korea has been prepared since 1993 to conduct
underground nuclear tests, Hwang Jang-yop, the highest-ranking
North Korean defector, told National Assembly lawmakers
yesterday.

 "When I was working as the secretary of international affairs,
a Soviet official warned me personally to stop any nuclear arms
development, and I briefed Kim Jong-il, chairman of the National
Defense Commission, about it," said Mr. Hwang, former secretary
of North Korea's Workers' Party. "Mr. Kim ordered me to ignore
the warning."

 Speaking before the National Assembly's unification study
group, led by the Grand National Party, Mr. Hwang said North
Korea had carefully kept information about its nuclear programs
from China and the Soviet Union. In 1996, North Korea succeeded
in manufacturing enriched uranium with the help of another
country, Mr. Hwang said. 

In February 1997, while on a visit to China, Mr. Hwang defected
to South Korea. Accompanied by his aide, Kim Dok-hong, Mr. Hwang
sought asylum at the South Korean Embassy in Beijing. He was the
architect of North Korea's self-reliance ideology and in charge
of the secretive communist country's political and international
affairs before his defection. 


by Park So-young, Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>   

  2004.09.23       

[http://joongangdaily.joins.com/faq.html]    		 		
*****************************************************************
 11 Japan Times: Look for a larger Russian role in Korea

  Thursday, September 23, 2004   

 By LYUDMILA YUSHINA and JOHN BARRY KOTCH
 Special to The Japan Times

 SEOUL-- With the six-party talks in the deep freeze, South 
Korean President Roh Moo Hyun is looking east to help break the 
ice. In his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 
Moscow this week Roh is expected to both press Putin to play a 
more active diplomatic role in resolving the nuclear standoff 
with North Korea, and deepen bilateral economic relations.

 While China has won plaudits from the United States and others 
for convening and hosting the six-party talks in a display of 
masterful diplomatic intermediation, concrete results thus far 
have been meager. By contrast, Putin, having held three previous 
summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, is best positioned 
among the leaders of the six parties to help bridge the divide 
between Pyongyang and its interlocutors.

 Ironically, although more economically dependent on Beijing, 
Pyongyang may have greater confidence in Moscow diplomatically. 
Personal chemistry and mind-set is important here but so is 
realpolitik.

 There are many conflicting elements in Chinese policy toward 
North Korea ranging from refugees to the price of rice. Russia, 
however, aims at a solid balance between the North and its 
southern rival, and has the greater freedom of maneuver. 
Furthermore, as the supplier of nuclear reactors and components 
to the North in the 1980s, Moscow's insistence that Pyongyang 
adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a precondition 
for receiving such assistance gives it a degree of political 
leverage and moral high ground that others lack.

 Most importantly, as the world's second-ranking nuclear power, 
Moscow is best positioned to broker a deal. If Pyongyang is 
really serious about resolving the nuclear impasse, could it have 
a better partner? And if it is not, Putin would be unlikely to 
put his prestige on the line.

 South Korea and Russia have much to discuss on the economic 
front, both bilaterally and regionally. The restoration of 
diplomatic relations a decade ago was premised in part on 
grandiose expectations of mutual economic gain -- of a booming 
Korean investment in a revitalized Russia and the latter as a 
bulk raw materials and energy supplier to South Korea. But these 
hopes were never realized. While South Korean products ranging 
from autos to cell phones to washing machines remain highly 
prized by Russian consumers, trade volume is flat compared with a 
decade ago.

 The more immediate need, however, is to upgrade relations 
between Russia and the Korean Peninsula as a whole. Russia and 
South Korea enclose the North like bookends, yet both are 
committed to opening it up.

 Indeed, Moscow's energy initiatives for refurbishing the North 
Korean electric grid and upgrading its railroad system, rolling 
stock and infrastructure to connect to Russia's Trans-Siberian 
railway are the counterpoint to the soon-to-be-inaugurated rail 
and road corridors that run from the South through the DMZ to the 
North's Kaesong Industrial Park. 

But despite their commitment to regional integration, Seoul and 
Moscow are being held hostage to Pyongyang's decision-making 
regarding the nuclear standoff and North-South cooperation. 

The vast oil and natural-gas resources of the Russian Far East 
could free the entire Northeast Asian region from energy 
dependency on extra-regional sources -- if the Peninsula's 
security dilemma can be peacefully and expeditiously resolved.

 More broadly, the confluence of security and economics are 
driving Russia and South Korea, former Cold War adversaries, into 
the same camp, while at the summit itself Washington and 
Pyongyang will not only be closely following developments but 
will be very much present in the discussions taking place. 

Seoul, however, no longer automatically does Washington's 
bidding. It has hewed an independent line at the six-party talks, 
favoring greater incentives to secure North Korea's cooperation 
than Washington was willing to support. Nor is Pyongyang the 
Soviet satellite of yore, if it ever was. 

Still, neither Seoul nor Moscow is in a position to move 
Washington or Pyongyang in a diplomatic direction that they do 
not want to go. The test of success will be the ability of the 
two presidents to lay out a path to move nuclear diplomacy 
forward on the Peninsula and to realize the region's economic 
potential.

 Lyudmila Yushina is a professor of Russian studies at Hanyang 
University's Graduate School of International Studies in Seoul. 
John Barry Kotch is a visiting fellow at Cambridge University's 
Center of International Studies. 

The Japan Times: Sept. 23, 2004 (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Times: Seoul Invites NK to Attend Pugwash 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

 The government acknowledged Thursday that it is seeking to 
invite North Korean officials including Kim Song, the son of 
high-ranking Workers¡¯ Party official Kim Yong-sun, to an 
international conference on disarmament in Seoul next month. 

``It is true that we¡¯ve invited North Korean officials while 
preparing for the Pugwash conference,¡¯¡¯ Rhee Bong-jo, vice 
unification minister, said at a news briefing. ``But we¡¯ve not 
yet received any official reaction from the North.¡¯¡¯

 The 54th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs to be 
held at a hotel in Seoul Oct. 4-9 will tackle the subject of 
bridging a divided world through enhanced international 
cooperation and disarmament.

 Local news media reported that Pyongyang will likely dispatch a 
17-member delegation to the conference, but the Unification 
Ministry in Seoul said its attendance has not been confirmed. 

Kim Song, 43, is currently vice chairman of the Pyongyang 
International Information Center of New Technology and Economy, a 
non-government organization established in 2003.

 He is considered a high-flying political figure who is ready to 
succeed his late father¡¯s role of mapping out Pyongyang¡¯s 
strategies in dealing with Seoul. His father, who died in a 
traffic accident last October, was formerly secretary of the 
powerful Workers¡¯ Party Central Committee for South Korean 
Affairs.

 Diplomatic sources in Seoul expect that a meeting between North 
Korean officials and their U.S. counterparts will be held to talk 
about the stalled six-party talks. 

Former President Kim Dae-jung is scheduled to address the plenary 
session of the annual conference on Oct. 8 and U.S. Ambassador to 
Seoul Christopher Hill will give a lecture, according to 
organizers in Seoul.

 The Pugwash Conference take its name from the location of the 
first meeting, which was held in 1957 in the village of Pugwash, 
Nova Scotia, Canada. The stimulus for that gathering was a 
manifesto, issued in 1955 by Bertrand Russell and Albert 
Einstein, calling upon scientists worldwide to discuss the threat 
posed to civilization by the advent of thermonuclear weapons.

 More than 200 officials, including Morris Strong, a special 
envoy of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to the North, and 
Ralph A. Cossa, president of a U.S. think-tank Pacific Forum CSIS 
in Honolulu and a columnist for The Korea Times, will attend the 
six-day event. 

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of U.N.¡¯s nuclear watchdog, 
will also attend the sessions. In addition, he is expected to 
consult with South Korean officials on the country¡¯s past 
nuclear experiments, which are currently under the investigation.

 Pyongyang has a branch office of the Pugwash Conference. The 
North has reportedly agreed to host a Pugwash workshop on East 
Asian security in Pyongyang early next year. 

im@koreatimes.co.kr 09-23-2004 17:36         
        
*****************************************************************
 13 [southnews] US to sell Israel bunker-buster bombs
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:35:29 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ 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/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, 
which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded 
ballistic missiles as a warning against attack.

The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced 
concrete, are among "smart" munitions being sold to Israel under 
America's military aid programme.

_________________________________

US to sell Israel bunker-buster bombs

By Jerusalem
September 22, 2004

The US plans to sell Israel $139 million ($A200 million) worth of 
air-launched bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" able to penetrate 
Iran's underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources said 
yesterday.

The newspaper Haaretz quoted a Pentagon report as saying the procurement 
sought "to maintain Israel's qualitative advantage and advance US 
strategic and tactical interests". The US embassy in Israel had no 
comment, referring queries to Washington. Israel's Defence Ministry also 
declined to comment.

But an Israeli security source who confirmed the story said: "This is 
not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker 
busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria."

Haaretz quoted Israeli sources as saying the sale, including 4500 other 
guided munitions, was not expected to go through until after the US 
elections in November.

Earlier this month Haaretz said Israel sought to obtain the US-made, 
one-tonne "bunker- buster" bombs for a possible strike against arch-foe 
Iran's nuclear program, which Israel considers a strategic threat.

Tehran denies hostile designs, saying its nuclear program is for 
peaceful purposes.

- Reuters
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651323300.html?oneclick=true

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: Notice of Availability of Interim Staff Guidance Documents for 
 
                        FR Doc 04-21344 
[Federal Register: September 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 184)] 
[Notices] [Page 57101] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23se04-116] [[Page 57101]]
 
Fuel Cycle Facilities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilkins Smith, Project Manager, 
Technical Support Group, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20005-0001. 
Telephone: (301) 415- 5788; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: 
wrs@nrc.gov [wrs@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) plans to issue Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 
documents for fuel cycle facilities. These ISG documents provide 
clarifying guidance to the NRC staff when reviewing licensee 
integrated safety assessments, license applications or amendment 
requests or other related licensing activities for fuel cycle 
facilities under subpart H of 10 CFR part 70. The NRC is 
soliciting public comments on the ISG documents which will be 
considered in the final versions or subsequent revisions.
 
II. Summary The purpose of this notice is to provide the public 
an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Interim Staff 
Guidance documents for fuel cycle facilities. Interim Staff 
Guidance--01 provides guidance to NRC staff relative to methods 
for qualitative evaluation of likelihood in the context of a 
review of a license application or amendment request under 10 CFR 
part 70, subpart H. Interim Staff Guidance-02 provides guidance 
to NRC staff relative to accident sequences that have 
consequences below 10 CFR 70.61 performance requirements. Interim 
Staff Guidance--03 provides guidance to NRC staff relative to 
relationships between 10 CFR part 70, subpart H, nuclear 
criticality safety performance requirements and the double 
contingency principle.
 
Interim Staff Guidance--05 provides guidance to NRC staff 
relative to additional reporting requirements of 10 CFR 70.74. 
Interim Staff Guidance--06 provides guidance to NRC staff 
relative to correcting performance deficiencies and implementing 
corrective measures.
 
Interim Staff Guidance--07 provides guidance to NRC staff 
relative to rules of engagement for the integrated safety 
analysis.
 
III. Further Information Documents related to this action 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, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession 
numbers for the documents related to this notice are provided in 
the following table. 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] . 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
-------

 
ADAMS Interim Staff Guidance accession

 
number 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Interim Staff Guidance--01............................. 
ML042460008 Interim Staff 
Guidance--02............................. ML042610008 Interim 
Staff Guidance--03............................. ML042460011 
Interim Staff Guidance--05............................. 
ML042460012 Interim Staff 
Guidance--06............................. ML042460014 Interim 
Staff Guidance--07............................. ML042460015 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- These documents may also be viewed electronically on the 
public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Comments 
and questions should be directed to the NRC contact listed below 
by October 25, 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. Wilkins Smith, Project Manager, Technical Support Group, 
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20005-0001. Comments can also be 
submitted by telephone, fax, or e-mail which are as follows: 
Telephone: (301) 415-5788; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: 
wrs@nrc.gov [wrs@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 
17th day of September, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Melanie A. Galloway, Chief, Technical Support Group, Division of 
Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-21344 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 15 Washington Times: Nuclear attack protection
 
                       September 23, 2004

By Curt Weldon
 				 			 			
In the three years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
Congress has gone to great lengths to better secure our nation 
from terrorism. Federal air marshals have been deployed on 
passenger planes, security standards have been imposed on ports, 
millions of dollars have been dispensed to first responders, and 
an entirely new department of government has been created. 
However, a potential nuclear attack on the United States has not 
received the attention it warrants or the resources it requires. 
		
A nuclear attack on our nation would produce unparalleled
devastation and suffering here. It is estimated a 12-1/2 kiloton
nuclear weapon  which could fit in a small crate  used against
New York City could kill 250,000 innocent people; another
700,000 would suffer from radiation sickness. 

    An attack would create widespread chaos as people fled the
deadly cloud of radiation. The pulse from a strike would take
down communication systems, cyber networks, and the other
electronic control systems that make our lives function. Our
already stretched health-care infrastructure would be
overwhelmed immediately. After- ward, a broad swath of a
once-vibrant urban area would be rendered uninhabitable for
years. 

    A nuclear attack against the United States is a real and
potential threat. Respected researchers from Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government and the Monterey
Institute, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, have recently
written reports predicting and depicting the home-front threat
of nuclear terrorism. The news services provide fresh
disclosures literally every day on this increased risk. North
Korea and Iran are the latest but certainly not the only flash
points of concern. Lack of security around nuclear weapons in
the former Soviet Union continues to be documented. Reports of
suitcase-sized nuclear weapons sold on the black market are
often cited, as well as al Qaeda claiming access to various
capabilities. The knowledge necessary to build a nuclear weapon
can be found on-line and in libraries around the world. Readily
available shielding technologies make smuggling a weapon into
the United States a low-risk proposition. 

    America needs to deny terrorists access to these materials
and the knowledge necessary to turn them into weapons of mass
destruction. And all nations must disrupt the terrorist networks
and deny them funding needed to carry out such an attack.
However, in addition to reducing risk of an attack, the United
States needs to be ready to respond if our best efforts fail. 

    And, with the enactment of Project BioShield, the government
has the mechanism available to spur investment in
next-generation medical counter-measures against the nuclear
threat. Why, then, is the government not acting more rapidly to
employ a mechanism to encourage the development and delivery of
effective new medical countermeasures against a nuclear threat?
This is proceeding too slowly. Other threats require attention
but they simply do not present the same risk. 

    Why isn't development of drug candidates fast-tracked
immediately by the government, especially now that BioShield has
been enacted? To get that answer, Rep, Darrell Issa, California
Republican, and I introduced the Radioprotectant Procurement Act
of 2004 (H.R. 5000), asking for accelerated identification and
development of available medical countermeasures against nuclear
and radiological threats. 

    If the government acts now, we might have a safe, effective
nuclear antidote deployed as early as next year. Failure to do
so now, before a terrorist can use a nuclear weapon against us,
unacceptably risks millions of American lives. 
     
    Curt Weldon, a Republican member of the U.S. House of
Representatives from Pennsylvania, is vice chairman of the House
Armed Services Member and serves on the Select Committee for
Homeland Security. 
     
site contents copyright © 2004 News World Communications,
*****************************************************************
 16 Michigan Daily: 113 Years of Editorial Freedom - Bush, Kerry 
surprisingly similar on energy policies
 
[http://www.michigandaily.com

                                           
Sep. 23, 2004                                                                                                                    Advanced
 		
By Justin Miller, Daily Staff Reporter                  
Elections '04

For all of the differences the presidential candidates have, 
their stances on many energy policies are quite similar. Each 
campaign says the key difference lies primarily in the leadership 
qualities of their candidates. 

John Kerry understands the problems that we face today, oil 
prices are rising, gas and energy prices are rising. Bush has 
refused to act because hes in the pockets of the oil industry and 
the nuclear industry. In not showing leadership, hes financially 
burdening Americans and making us less safe, said Rodell 
Mollineau, Michigan spokesman for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. 

But Mike Catanzaro, who works in the policy division of the 
Bush-Cheney campaign, said Kerry has the wrong energy policy and 
failed to show up for a vote on the Bush energy bill, which 
included a provision to drill in the Alaskan Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. 

When push came to shove, it had a number of provisions on 
conservation in it and he chose not to show up, Catanzaro said. 

While each campaign claims its candidate is the better leader, 
both Bush and Kerry outline many similar environmental programs. 

Both candidates, for example, want to expand the infrastructure 
to transport natural gas and use natural gas resources in the 
Gulf of Mexico, without drilling off the shore of Florida. 

Bush and Kerry share even closer similarities in their plans for 
renewable fuels. They would requiring the United States to use 
five billion gallons of ethanol or biodiesel in motor fuels by 
2012. 

John Kerry and John Edwards want to make sure that the cars of 
the future are made in America by the (United Auto Workers) and 
the auto industry. Theyre going to provide $10 billion dollars to 
rebuild their plants, to build plants, said Anyone in the market 
for a fuel-efficient vehicle under Bushs plan would receive a 
$4,000 tax credit to help purchase the car. In addition, Bush 
would continue his five-year, $1.7 initiative to spur the 
development of hydrogen fuel cells. Kerry would create a Hydrogen 
Institute to develop a new hydrogen economy by 2020. 

When the candidates are not discussing how to produce energy, 
they are promoting conservation. 

Kerry says he wants to help reduce the electric bill by 20 
percent for the federal government, hospitals, universities, 
homes and corporations by 2020. 

The Bush plan does not emphasize a timeline so much as it does 
proposals. 

There are over 100 recommendations in the National Energy Policy 
that deal with energy conservation. Low income households will be 
helped to weatherize their homes to help reduce their energy 
costs, Catanzaro said. 

When Bush and Kerry talk about creating energy, not just 
conserving it, they agree that clean coal technology should be 
used, while Bush goes a step-farther  endorsing the resurrection 
of nuclear power. 

Bush and Kerry differ on the way to make such technology cheaper. 
Kerry would spend $10 billion to help companies build clean coal 
plants. Bush would devote a fifth of the money to the same ends, 
but try to create a market solution to draw the coal industry 
into making changes. 

More controversial than clean coal technology is the possible 
resurrection of nuclear power plants in the U.S. 

Currently 20 percent of all U.S. electricity comes from nuclear 
power. In France that number is as 78 percent. New nuclear power 
stations are expensive because of the high cost of licensing, 
certification and inspection for each plant. 

The Department of Energy is working pretty intensively on trying 
to streamline the certification process. (The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission) will still have a strong role in overseeing safety in 
nuclear power plants, Catanzaro said. 

Technology changes over the years have led the Bush 
administration to believe some of the regulations are outmoded. 

What (the NRC) is looking at is a new design for plants. Its a 
smaller plant that we believe should not be subjected to the old 
regulatory processes of the past. We believe we can continue to 
maintain safety over time, Catanzaro added. 

The Kerry energy plan is ambivalent on nuclear energy, saying 
only that Nuclear power can play an essential role in providing 
affordable energy while reducing the risk of climate change. 
However, key challenges such as nuclear waste disposal, nuclear 
nonproliferation, and plant security must be met. 

Support for new plants rose to 42 percent in a 2001 ABC 
News/Washington Post poll  twice the approval rating they had 
among Americans in 1986, the year of the Chernobyl nuclear 
disaster occurred. 

One of the biggest things is getting Yucca Mountain up. We can do 
this in an environmentally safe manner, Catanzaro said. 

The current proposal by Bush would place the nuclear waste stored 
on the land of the 104 U.S. nuclear power stations inside Yucca 
Mountain, Nev. 

In the 2000 both Vice President Al Gore and Bush made no effort 
at trying to block the Yucca repository. 

However, Kerry has continued his opposition to the Yucca 
repository, banding together with both senators from Nevada to 
vote against the 2002 bill. 

In 1987, Kerry blocked the Yucca project when it first came up in 
Congress.    

© 2004 The Michigan Daily. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 In Bid To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, UN Agency Tracks Illicit Trafficking
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:04:57 -0400

 
X-Sender-Hostname: mx3.un.org
 
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES

IN BID TO PREVENT NUCLEAR TERRORISM, UN AGENCY TRACKS ILLICIT TRAFFICKING
New York, Sep 23 2004 10:00AM
Stepping up its efforts to prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism, 
the United Nations atomic watchdog agency says that as of today 
close to 60 new potentially illicit trafficking incidents have 
been reported just since the beginning of the year. 

These include possible cases of unauthorized acquisition, provision, 
possession, use, transfer or disposal of nuclear material and 
other radioactive material.

Participants to the 48th International Atomic Energy Agency <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/iaea_database.html">(IAEA) 
General 
Conference being held in Vienna this week have received an 
overview of how the Agency’s Illicit Trafficking Database, comprising 
information confirmed by states on illicit trafficking in 
nuclear and other radioactive materials, helps strengthen nuclear 
security. 

In a report to the Agency’s Board of Governors last week, IAEA Director-General 
Mohamed ElBaradei warned that although preventive 
efforts continue to accelerate and expand, “clearly, the circumstances 
that first led to a plan for protection against nuclear and 
radiological terrorism have not diminished.” 

Some 540 illicit incidents spanning the past decade were reported 
through December, 2003, but “as of today, the number is closer to 
600, subject to fuller review and confirmation,” the IAEA said 
in a news release. 

Several hundred additional incidents, reported in open sources but 
not confirmed by states, are also tracked in the IAEA database 
but not included in the confirmed statistics. Of the 540 confirmed 
cases as of December, 182 involved nuclear material, 330 radioactive 
material other than nuclear, 23 both nuclear and other radioactive 

The database includes reported incidents from the 80 participating 
Member States. Non-participating States are urged to join the Database 
in order to enhance the programme. 
 2004-09-23 00:00:00.000 

________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
 18 UPI: Brazil, UN nuclear talks melt down - 

(United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  September 23, 2004 			   

Brasilia, Brazil, Sep. 23 (UPI) -- Talks between Brazil and the 
United Nations regarding inspections of a Brazilian nuclear 
facility hit a snag, with the two sides disagreeing on the terms. 

The snag in negotiations contradicts earlier reports South 
America's largest producer of uranium and the international body 
were on the same page for U.N. inspections originally set for 
next month. 

The United Nation's nuclear agency, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, or IAEA, wants to be sure Brazil is in compliance 
with international accords for refining uranium so that it cannot 
be used for the production of nuclear weapons. 

In April, Brazil was accused of refusing to allow U.N. nuclear 
inspectors to examine the Rio facility. 

The plant is legal under international treaties, but is still 
subject to U.N. inspection. IAEA inspectors were prevented from 
seeing certain portions of the plant, the Post reported.

 Brazilian officials said the inspections were unnecessary and 
intrusive since Brazil formally abstained from nuclear weapon 
development in the 1990s. 

However, Brazil has granted inspectors permission to view some 
parts of the plant but not others, citing concerns about 
protecting Brazilian technology secrets.

[UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 19 Interfax:: Russia, EU discuss increasing uranium supplies - Rosatom

Interfax.com [http://www.interfax.com]     Text version

Sep 23 2004 4:13PM
 
MOSCOW. Sept 23 (Interfax) - Russia is holding talks with the
European Union to increase supplies of uranium to the European
market, Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) chief Alexander
Rumyantsev told Interfax. 

"Talks are already underway on this issue," he said. 

Asked about the possibility of increasing supplies of uranium,
he said that Russia will be able to do this without affecting
supplies to the domestic market. 

A Rosatom expert told Interfax earlier that Russia has
sufficient uranium supplies for its nuclear power needs for the
next several decades. "Current uranium reserves and production
volumes make it possible to say that in the near future Russian
atomic energy companies will not experience a shortage of this
material," he said.     

© 1991-2004 Interfax
 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 20 BBC: Brazil nuclear talks 'not over'
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 23 September, 2004
 
[The Resende nuclear plant in Brazil which will be inspected by 
UN officials in October]                           

Brazil said it feared industrial espionage                                                            

The United Nations nuclear agency has denied Brazilian statements 
that a deal has been reached to inspect a nuclear plant. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency said it would send experts 
to Brazil in October to look at possible solutions. 

The IAEA wants to check Brazil is not breaking international 
agreements on the spread of a chemical, which can be used to make 
nuclear bombs. 

Brazil has opposed the check, saying it must protect its nuclear 
technology. 

Monitoring cameras 

"We've made some progress but... we remain in discussions with 
Brazilian authorities on this issue," IAEA spokesman Mark 
Gwozdecky told correspondents. 

"You can interpret that how you like, but we remain in 
discussions and... a team of experts will be arriving on 18 
October in Brazil to look at possible verification approaches." 

Brazil had said earlier on Thursday the two sides agreed the IAEA 
would inspect pipes at the plant, without looking at the machines 
themselves. 

But a Western diplomat close to the negotiations said the IAEA 
would probably request that monitoring cameras be put in place. 

US diplomats had said Brazil's refusal to allow inspections would 
send a bad signal at a time of concern about the nuclear 
programmes of Iran and North Korea. 

The plant in question is new and located in the town of Resende. 

Brazil's constitution prevents the nation from owning nuclear 
weapons. It decided to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions in 
1990. 



*****************************************************************
 21 Haaretz: The nuclear sum game
 
Homepage [http://www.haaretz.com]          

  News Updates    Thu., September 23, 2004 Tishrei 8, 5765   
    
  By Reuven Pedatzur [rpedatzur@haaretz.co.il]   	 
    
  Israel would make a great mistake if it tried to eliminate 
Iran's nuclear program by force. It would have no chance - the 
nuclear facilities are dispersed, and most buried deep 
underground.   
  
What does the recent explosion close to the North Korea-China 
border have to do with the proliferation of nuclear arms in the 
Middle East? Events of the past few weeks in the Korean 
peninsula, Iran and Vienna have once again made it clear that 
when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear arms around the 
world, there is a law of connections. 

Nuclear activity in North Korea has an immediate effect on the 
decisions of policymakers in Tehran, Seoul, Tokyo and even 
Jerusalem. 

A failure to restrain the nuclear programs of North Korea and 
Iran, as might be expected if the IAEA (International Atomic 
Energy Agency) in Vienna continues to treat them with kid gloves, 
is likely to lead to a negative chain reaction. This would have 
the end-result of additional states joining the nuclear club and 
the collapse of the global nuclear proliferation inspection 
regime. 

While the attempt to stop North Korea's nuclear program is 
apparently doomed to failure, mainly due to the lack of 
determination by European states and successive American 
administrations, it is still not to late to succeed with Iran. 
The problem is that failure in Korea has direct repercussions on 
the ability to deny Iran nuclear arms. 

The CIA says North Korea has at least one nuclear bomb and, as is 
made clear by the responses to the recent explosion - and it 
matters not that it wasn't nuclear - the international community 
has essentially come to terms with it.

This could turn out to be a critical error that will do great 
harm to the global strategy. Evidence of the acceleration of 
nuclear proliferation that may be expected in the wake of North 
Korea's procurement of nuclear capability was received only a few 
days before the explosion, when South Korea admitted it had 
separated plutonium in the 1980s and enriched uranium in 2000, in 
violation of treaties it had signed. 

The prospect of South Korea deciding to develop a nuclear bomb is 
only a first step, argue Robert Einhorn, Mitchell Reiss and Kurt 
Campbell in a new book. The authors, all of them experts on the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Clinton 
administration, allege that the failure to prevent North Korea's 
nuclear armament could also lead to Iranian nuclear armament, and 
in turn to that of Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and 
Syria.

Their assessment is based on the assumption that the neighbors of 
a nuclear North Korea will want to have nuclear deterrence. The 
acceptance of a nuclear North Korea encourages the Iranians, who 
continue to mock the IAEA, and are secretly advancing toward the 
bomb. 

The attempt by the Americans to have the issue moved to the 
Security Council, where sanctions could be imposed on Iran, 
failed once more last week, when the IAEA board of governors, led 
by Britain, Germany, Russia and France, adopted a soft resolution 
that calls on Iran to stop its uranium enrichment, and determines 
that the matter will be reexamined in November. The Europeans are 
still not convinced that Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. 

A nuclear Iran would not leave Turkey apathetic, and there are 
concerns that it would take actions to procure nuclear arms. 
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which view Iran as a threat to regional 
stability, might follow suit. Syria is likely to take steps in 
the same direction, on the assumption that it could get Iranian 
assistance. 

Yet in spite of the negative repercussions such a development 
would have on the Middle East, Israel would be making a mistake 
if it decided to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program with 
military force. 

This would have no chance, both because Iran's nuclear facilities 
are dispersed and most of them are buried deep underground, and 
because there is no information on many of them. 

Israel should leave the job to the United States, in the hope 
that the Europeans will come to their senses and understand the 
danger to world peace posed by a nuclear Iran.           

[feedback@haaretz.co.il] 
  
  © Copyright  Haaretz. All rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 22 Haaretz: Israel to host atomic monitors
 
Homepage [http://www.haaretz.com]          

., September 24, 2004 Tishrei 9, 5765   
    
  By Yossi Melman [ymelman@haaretz.co.il]   	 
  
Israel signed an agreement yesterday that allows experts from the 
commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 
Organization (CTBTO) to carry out inspections and collect data in 
its territory. The agreement was signed by the director-general 
of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, and the 
executive secretary of the CTBTO, Wolfgang Hoffmann, at a 
ceremony at the organization's headquarters in Vienna.

The agreement grants CTBTO the necessary legal authority to carry 
out work at International Monitoring System (IMS) facilities in 
Israel's territory. Two such monitoring stations - out of a total 
of 300 around the world - have been set up in Israel, and the the 
data they collect will be sent to the CTBTO's headquarters. The 
data is meant to reveal incidents of nuclear testing, be they 
underground or in the atmosphere. The monitoring stations also 
collect seismic and environmental data that can be used for other 
scientific research on natural and climatic phenomena.

The agreement is a follow-up to the more general CTBTO treaty 
that Israel signed in 1996. Like the United States and 10 other 
countries, including Egypt, Israel has not ratified that treaty. 
Yesterday's agreement has no connection to the nuclear research 
facility in Dimona, which remains off-limits to international 
inspection.

An international conference on a nuclear-free Middle East is 
scheduled to take place in January 2005, under the auspices of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency. The purpose of the 
conference is primarily academic. Israel has, however, threatened 
to boycott the gathering if a resolution proposed by the Arab 
world on "the threat posed by Israel's nuclear capabilities," 
materializes this week at a gathering of the IAEA.            


[feedback@haaretz.co.il] 
  
  Home [http://www.haaretz.com]
*****************************************************************
 23 Xinhuanet: IAEA's new Board of Governors elected   
 
  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-24 02:29:35   

    VIENNA, Sept. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- The 48th General Conference 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held elections 
Thursday, installing new member states to the agency's Board of 
Governors. 

    The newly constituted board for 2004-2005 now includes the 
following 35 states: Algeria, Argentina Australia, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, 
India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, 
Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, 
Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tunisia, Britain, the 
United States, Venezuela, Vietnam and Yemen. 

    The IAEA is an intergovernmental organization linked to the 
United Nations that promotes the safe and peaceful use of nuclear 
technology. One of its main tasks is to monitor the 
implementation of the 1968 Unclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT), which is designed to keep all nations except the United 
States, Britain, France, Russia and China from developing or 
acquiring nuclear weapons. 

    The Board of Governors of the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog of 
the UN, is the policy-making body of the agency. It is appointed 
by the IAEA's General Conference, made up of representatives of 
all the agency's member states. 

    It meets annually, usually in September, to consider and 
approve the agency's program and budget. Enditem      
  
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 24 Hi Pakistan: Seven nations hit out at nuclear powers     --> 
 
September 24 2004     
 
PARIS: The foreign ministers of seven nations from Ireland to 
South Africa on Wednesday hit out at the world’s nuclear powers 
for failing to heed international disarmament and 
non-proliferation agreements. "The non-proliferation treaty 
cannot be complied with a la carte," the foreign ministers of 
Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and 
Sweden, said in a commentary published in the International 
Herald Tribune.

"In 2000, the nuclear powers made an unequivocal undertaking to 
eliminate their nuclear arsenals," the ministers noted, 
lamenting: "Since then, however, very little progress has been 
made." "Instead of destroying their nuclear warheads, the United 
States and Russia store them," the ministers deplored.

"Instead of working toward the entry into force of the nuclear 
test-ban treaty, the United States, which was the first country 
to sign the treaty, has withdrawn its support. And China delays 
its ratification process year after year.

"Some even entertain the notion that nuclear weapons may be used 
pre-emptively against non-nuclear weapons states," the ministers 
continued in the commentary, entitled "Non-proliferation and 
disarmament go hand in hand". The seven officials urged all 
nations party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to 
"comply with their commitments" and called for the treaty to "be 
made universal". They called for the nuclear test-ban treaty to 
come into force, and said restraints should be imposed on India, 
Pakistan and Israel.

Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States are the five 
internationally recognized nuclear states. The same countries are 
also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with 
veto power. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. Israel 
refuses to confirm it has a nuclear arsenal but is estimated to 
possess some 200 warheads. None of the three states has signed 
the NPT.

The international community has expressed mounting concern that 
Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons technology. 
Brazil’s Celso Amorim, Egypt’s Ahmed Abul Gheit, Ireland’s Brian 
Cowen, Mexico’s Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista, New Zealand’s Phil 
Goff, South Africa’s Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Sweden’s Laila 
Freivalds signed the commentary.

 					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 Arab Monitor: Israel upgrades to become atomic power in the Mediterranean 
 
  Anno: 2004  

Vienna, 23 September - At the opening of the session of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammad Bou Taleb, 
Moroccos Energy and Mining Minister denounced Israels behaviour 
as constituting a serious obstacle to the establishment of a zone 
freed of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Bou 
Taleb expressed deep disapointment of his country over Israels 
refuse to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit its 
atomic facilities and activities to IAEA-control. The words of 
Bou Talab were spoken against the backdrop of the contemporaneous 
threats handed out by the Israel, the USA and the European Union 
to Teheran, that all means might be employed against Iran if it 
does not renounce its right to develop an uranium enrichment 
cycle. 

Taking into account that Germany's government has decided to 
supply Israel with the naval equipment necessary to employ the 
whole of its nuclear armament in free mobility throughout the 
whole Mediterranean and the adjacent sees, potentially encircling 
the Arabian Peninsular and reaching out to Iran from the Persian 
Gulf, Bou Talebs call on all States to cooperate with the IAEA in 
order to defend the lofty principles set by IAEAs statute of 
Atoms for Peace and to prevent all misuse of nuclear energy, 
acquires a sinister meaning.   
	     
                [Stampa questo articolo]  Stampa questo articolo 
[Invia questo articolo]  Invia questo articolo [Commenta questo 
articolo]  Commenta questo articolo       

*****************************************************************
 26 The Herald: British Energy rescue plan wins EC approval   
 
Web Issue 2100     

  BEN GRIFFITHS     September 23 2004   
    
  BRITISH Energy, the troubled nuclear power generator,
yesterday won approval from the European Commission for its
life-saving restructuring plan which will allow up to £4bn in
state aid for the company.

 The UK's biggest power producer, which generates 20% of the
nation's electricity, agreed last October to give bondholders
more than 90% of the restructured group's equity in a £1.3bn
debt-for-equity swap deal.

 Having been hammered by falling wholesale electricity prices,
British Energy was taken to the brink of insolvency in 2002
before being bailed out by the government.

 In a statement, Adrian Montague, the chairman of British
Energy, gave the news a cautious welcome. He said: "We have
taken a major step forward but many significant uncertainties
still remain."

 He added: "The compensatory measures are stringent but
workable, and the decision allows us to continue with our core
objective of rebuilding the company, operationally and
financially."

 Some shareholders, including US investors Polygon and Brandes,
had opposed the rescue deal, lobbying the EC to consider a
restructuring that would involve less state aid, but creditors
insisted the current plan was binding.
   
*****************************************************************
 27 BBC: British Energy seeks to delist
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 23 September, 2004
 
[British Energy's falling share price (Thomson Financial)]                                                                                             

British Energy wants to delist from the stock market so it can 
stop rebel shareholders from derailing its £5bn restructuring 
plan. 

The firm said it needs to delist so it can secure a deal with 
creditors. 

Rebel shareholders have opposed its restructuring plans and 
nearly forced the company into administration. 

British Energy was once one of the UK's largest listed companies 
but last year's low power prices hit the nuclear energy company's 
finances hard. 

The firm's shares fell sharply but recovered slightly to end the 
day down 16%, or three pence, at 15.25p. 

'Dismayed' 

The nuclear generator said it wants to delist from the UK stock 
exchange by 21 October and also wants to cancel its US stock 
market listing. 

Once it has delisted, and hindered the rebellion by two 
shareholders, it will have a meeting on 22 October. In a ruling 
on Thursday, a US court stopped the company from preventing this 
meeting. 

What next for shareholders                      

Sep 24 Shareholders get official notice of British Energy's 
intention to delist       Oct 20: Shareholders must decide 
whether to sell or keep shares by this date        Oct 21: 
Trading in British Energy shares is likely to end         Oct 22: 
Shareholders get a chance to air their grievances at 
extraordinary general meeting           

"We have taken the decision to seek delisting with great 
reluctance but it is necessary to safeguard the interests of 
British Energy," said chairman Adrian Montague. 

The rebel shareholders are still expected to push for a vote on 
the delisting at the meeting even though it will be largely 
irrelevant since British Energy will have already quit the stock 
market by then. 

One of the disgruntled shareholders, Polygon Investment Partners, 
said: "We are dismayed at what we see as the complete disregard 
this move shows for the company's shareholders. 

"Polygon reserves its rights against both the company, and 
personally against each of its directors in this matter." 

Shareholder row 

British Energy has become embroiled in an increasingly bitter 
battle with two leading shareholders over its restructuring 
plans. 

Under the terms of an agreement British Energy struck last year, 
the firm's creditors agreed to waive £1.3bn in debt in return for 
control of the company. 

Existing shareholders would however receive only 2.5% of the 
shares of the restructured firm and they argue that the deal 
undervalues the company because power prices have risen since 
then. 

Polygon and Brandes Investment Partners, which own 10% of the 
generator's shares between them, have opposed the proposals. 

They want better terms for shareholders and want to vote on 
British Energy's plan to delist. 

Voting rights? 

But British Energy has said that if there was a vote on delisting 
and shareholders voted against it, it would scupper the 
creditors' agreement. 

[Nuclear reactor]                                                              
If f any reason British Energy is unable to implement the agreed 
restructuring it may be unable to meet its financial obligations
		
British Energy 
	 	 	
See British Energy's share price

[http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/s 
hares/3/25428/intraday.stm]                             

Breaching the agreement could also threaten continued government 
financial support for the firm, British Energy believes. 

On Wednesday, British Energy received EU approval for its 
restructuring plan, which is being partly financed by an 
estimated £3.5bn of state aid. 

Ultimately, if the creditor agreement fails, the company could be 
forced into insolvency, hence British Energy's reluctance to 
allow shareholders to vote. 

The irony for shareholders is that if the delisting was to take 
place in six months time, then British Energy would not be able 
to ignore their demand for a vote. 

Under new regulations to be introduced by Financial Services 
Authority before the end of the year, companies would have to 
seek shareholder approval before they withdraw from the stock 
market. 

	 

Hard choices 

Investors now face a choice of selling their shares before 21 
October or retaining their holdings in what will become a private 
company. 

Once the firm leaves the stock market, it will become more 
difficult for investors to buy and sell their shares and the 
value of their investment is unlikely to change greatly. 

Although financial insitutions control 70% of British Energy's 
shares, 215,000 private investors still have a stake in the 
company's future. 

Most of these investors bought shares in the company when it was 
privatised in 1996. 

Five years ago, British Energy shares were worth more than £7 
each, giving the company a market value of more than £1bn. 





*****************************************************************
 28 UK Independent: British Energy carries out threat to delist its shares
 
By Michael Harrison Business Editor
 
24 September 2004

Rebel shareholders in British Energy reacted furiously yesterday 
after the board carried out its threat to delist the shares in 
order to force through a £3.4bn rescue of the troubled nuclear 
generator. 

Polygon Investments, the US hedge fund that is leading attempts 
to block the refinancing, claimed that despite the company's move 
it could still block the deal, which will see creditors take 
control of 97.5 per cent of the business. 

However, a BE spokesman said it was confident that this would not 
be the case and would set out the reasons why when it issues the 
circular to shareholders today convening the extraordinary 
meeting demanded by Polygon. 

BE's chairman, Adrian Montague, said the board had taken the 
decision to delist with "great reluctance" but concluded it was 
necessary to protect the company's interests. It is understood 
that in the past 48 hours a number of bondholders have hardened 
their stance, warning that they would demand immediate repayment 
of their debt if the restructuring agreement failed, pushing the 
company into insolvency. 

Polygon said in a statement: "We are astounded at the total 
disregard that British Energy is showing to shareholders. We are 
pressing ahead with the EGM we have requested. This will give 
shareholders an opportunity to prevent BE from making disposals 
without shareholder consultation whether the company is listed or 
not." 

The hedge fund has tabled a resolution which would give 
shareholders the power to block the disposal of assets without 
their approval. It needs 75 per cent support to win the vote. 

But a BE spokesman maintained that once the shares were delisted, 
the board would be free to complete the creditor restructuring 
agreement, which involves a £1.3bn debt-for-equity swap with 
bondholders. 

BE shareholders will still be asked to approve the restructuring 
at a second EGM but if they fail to give it their backing then 
they will be left with no stake in the company at all when its 
shares are re-listed, he added. 

BE shares fell 16 per cent to 15.25p yesterday, valuing the 
company at £95m as the conviction grew that the rebel investors 
had failed to obtain a better deal for ordinary shareholders. BE, 
one of the last companies to be privatised by the Conservatives, 
still has about 230,000 small shareholders who between them own 
20 per cent of the company. 

Bondholders in BE welcomed the company's move. Andrew Wilkinson 
of Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft, the law firm representing the 
creditor's committee, said it represented "the only viable 
alternative to insolvency".                


UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: Commission backs £5bn British Energy deal
 
David Gow in Brussels
Thursday September 23, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
British Energy, the nuclear generator, yesterday welcomed a 
decision by the European commission to approve a 
government-backed £5bn rescue plan. 

Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, also welcomed the decision. 
Two years ago the company stood on the brink of insolvency. 

The approval, overturning an initial ruling that the state aid 
was unlawful, is a blow to Polygon, the hedge fund demanding a 
drastic revision of the plan to give a bigger stake in BE to 
shareholders. 

Polygon, which unsuccessfully sought commission backing, faces a 
US court injunction against its requisition of an extraordinary 
meeting to approve an alternative rescue plan. 

The rescue was denounced by green campaigners as "squandering 
billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on an unsafe energy 
system". 

Mario Monti, the competition commissioner, said the decision 
paved the way for British Energy's survival. "It takes full 
account of comments made by BE's competitors and the need to 
ensure security of supply at all times." 

BE, which supplies a fifth of Britain's power, has agreed to 
ringfence its eight nuclear plants, which are to get up to £4bn 
in government aid over 80 years to cover their decommissioning, 
and cheaper fuel and reprocessing contracts with British Nuclear 
Fuels in a separate deal worth some £1.2bn. 

The group, originally kept afloat by a £650m government loan, 
will also set up two divisions to run the coal-fired plant at 
Eggborough, north Yorkshire, and to operate its direct sales to 
big commercial customers; the move prevents any use of state aid 
to cross-subsidise these businesses.
 	
 	
        Special report The nuclear industry

Graphics The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf) 
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09 
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf] Nuclear map of Britain US nuclear map

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

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 30 ONN. Ohio News Now: Nuclear agency review finds need to make reforms

September 23, 2004   

CLEVELAND -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not always 
learned from mistakes and needs to make reforms, according to a 
summary of a report detailing problems at the agency.

The NRC pledged to re-examine its responses to past incidents at 
three nuclear plants after inspectors found corrosion on the 
reactor at the Davis-Besse plant along Lake Erie in northwest 
Ohio in March 2002.

Leaking boric acid had almost eaten through a 6-inch-thick steel 
cap; repairs cost $600 million and the plant was closed for two 
years.

Senior NRC officials are still reviewing the final draft of the 
report, but The Plain Dealer obtained a copy of a summary.

The conclusions are similar to those from a May report by the 
General Accounting Office, which said government inspectors 
miscalculated the risk to the public when it let the Davis-Besse 
plant continue to operate while NRC inspectors suspected it had 
reactor leaks.

"The conclusions ... are that changes need to be made in how the 
agency internalizes lessons learned," NRC spokesman Scott Burnell 
said Wednesday.

The report had an original February deadline, and is now five 
months past its revised deadline.

"It was a serious, in-depth review," Burnell said. "They went 
back to the 1990s and 1980s. The more you looked at, the more you 
needed to look. It became a question of, do you want a serious 
final product, or do you want to meet the target date?"

The NRC's attempt to evaluate whether it is repeating past 
regulatory mistakes involved reviewing incidents at New York's 
Indian Point reactor, the Millstone plant in Connecticut, and the 
South Texas Project in Wadsworth, Texas.

"In terms of good government, I'm glad that the NRC is now 
agreeing with the GAO's recommendations," Jim Wells, who 
supervised the congressional review, said Wednesday.

                                                        Copyright 
2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not 
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.                                     
*****************************************************************
 31 ThisisLondon: British Energy decides to delist 
 
thisislondon.co.uk

Robert Lea, Evening Standard 
23 September 2004 

AROUND 230,000 last-generation 'Sid' investors look set to be all 
but wiped out after British Energy took the nuclear option and 
said it is to delist its shares.

Under unparalleled attack from US hedge fund Polygon and 
institutional shareholder Brandes, BE said it had no choice but 
to railroad through its restructuring and leave the stock market.

Shares in BE, the final major privatisation of the last 
Conservative Government, are set to be delisted on 21 October. 
After a Marconi-style reconstruction, it aims then to relist a 
reconstituted BE by the end of next January.

 The nuclear generator, the largest producer of electricity for 
the UK market, said that unless investors agreed to a £1.5bn 
debt-for-equity swap, leaving current shareholders with just 2.5% 
of the company, creditors and bondholders are likely to put it 
into administration.

But Polygon immediately hit back, saying it still plans to force 
an extraordinary meeting to get the delisting plan ruled illegal 
and to reverse the board's proposed restructuring.

'We are astounded the company has shown this complete disregard 
for shareholders,' said a Polygon spokesman.

 Polygon says existing shareholders will miss out on recovery in 
the electricity market because of the restructuring, which only 
yesterday got the green light from the European Union.

BE shares, which had recently touched 24 3/4p on hopes that 
existing shareholders would get a better deal, plunged 5 1/4p to 
13p. 

*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: Denial of petition 

[Docket No. PRM-50-78]
 
                        FR Doc 04-21337 
[Federal Register: September 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 184)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 56958-56961] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23se04-13]                         
 

 
Robert H. Leyse; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
 
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Robert H. Leyse 
(PRM-50-78). The petitioner requested that the NRC's regulations 
governing domestic licensing of production and utilization 
facilities and associated guidance be amended to address the 
impact of fouling on the performance of all heat exchange 
surfaces in a nuclear power plant. The petitioner further stated 
that the fouling of heat transfer surfaces is not adequately 
considered in licensing and compliance inspections, testing 
programs, and computer codes used for nuclear power facilities.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public 
comments received, and the NRC's letter of denial to the 
petitioner may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's 
Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Public File Area O1F21, Rockville, Maryland. 
These documents are also available electronically at the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 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 Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides 
text and image files of NRC's public documents. For further 
information contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209 or 
(301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim A. Reed, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone (301) 415-1462, e-mail 
TAR@nrc.gov [TAR@nrc.gov] .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The petition for rulemaking 
designated PRM-50-78 was received by the NRC on September 9, 
2002. A notice of receipt of the petition and request for public 
comment was published in the Federal Register (FR) on October 31, 
2002 (67 FR 66347). The public comment period closed January 16, 
2003. Four letters of public comment were received in response to 
the Federal Register notice.
 
The Petition In PRM-50-78, the petitioner, Mr. Robert H. Leyse, 
requested that regulations be developed to require addressing the 
impact of fouling on the performance of all significant heat 
transfer surfaces in nuclear power plants (NPPs). The requested 
rule changes would also require that fouling impact be addressed 
in NRC-funded test programs and NRC- produced computer codes that 
are used to assess cooling and heat exchanger performance. The 
petitioner contended that fouling of heat exchange surfaces is 
not adequately considered in the licensing and compliance 
inspection of NPPs, for example, licensing bases and technical 
specifications do not specifically limit fouling on fuel 
elements. The petitioner also requested that regulations be added 
to require publicly available performance reports on these 
surfaces, including records of mechanical degradation, and 
cleaning procedures and their effectiveness.
 
In addition, the petitioner contended that fouling would restrict 
fuel element cooling and that axial growth beyond design limits 
would cause fuel rods to bow, and contact other fuel rods and 
control rod guide tubes. The petitioner claimed that this would 
lead to a safety problem. In addition, the petitioner proposed 
that the rules should require investigating grossly off-normal 
performance of heat exchange equipment. For example, the 
petitioner stated that fouling of steam generator tubes should be 
investigated because it has occasionally reduced heat transfer 
effectiveness to force operation at below-normal secondary side 
pressure, creating a safety issue.
 
Public Comments on the Petition Four letters of public comment 
were received on PRM-50-78.
 
Two were from the petitioner, who noted in support of his 
petition that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 
did not address fouling of heat exchange surfaces during a 
meeting with Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in October 
2002 and that one of the numerous heat transfer tests done for 
the NRC by Westinghouse (FLECHT Run 9573) resulted in tube 
failure. In addition, the petitioner noted that five additional 
ACRS subcommittee meetings did not address fouling issues.
 
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) opposed the petition, noting 
that current reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 
require reporting any event or condition that could interfere 
with a safety function of any system needed to shutdown that 
plant and maintain it in a safe condition, remove residual heat, 
control radiological material, or mitigate accident consequences.
 
The Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (STARS) group, a 
consortium of nuclear utilities, opposed the petition noting that 
these same concerns were previously addressed by industry 
organizations in comments on PRM-50-73, PRM-50-73A, and 
PRM-50-76. In the STARS group's view, this latest petition 
restates the same concern in a different context, without 
presenting any further evidence to provide a basis for revising 
the regulations. The STARS group believes that the requested 
additional reporting burden would not be justified by the 
unproven and questionable scenarios presented in the petition.
 
NRC Technical Evaluation The NRC reviewed each of the 
petitioner's requests and concluded that none of the requests 
justified the initiation of rulemaking. The NRC's responses to 
each of the petitioners' requests are as follows: 1. Regulations 
are needed to address the impact of fouling on the performance of 
heat exchange surfaces throughout licensed nuclear power plants. 
The petitioner stated that this included fuel elements, steam 
generators, condensers, fan coolers, etc.
 
The NRC disagrees with the petitioner's assertion. The 
petitioner's assertion that regulations are needed to address the 
impact of fouling on fuel
 
[[Page 56959]] elements was addressed previously in a Federal 
Register notice of denial of PRM-50-73 and PRM-50-73A (also 
submitted by the petitioner) published at 68 FR 41963 on July 16, 
2003. The petitioner did not submit any new information or 
provide any additional considerations that would cause the NRC to 
reconsider the denial of PRM-50-73 and PRM- 50-73A.
 
In regard to other heat exchange surfaces, regulations and 
guidance addressing fouling effects on heat exchanger performance 
already exist for the primary and secondary sides of NPPs.
 
Specifically: 10 CFR 50.65 requires licensees to monitor 
performance parameters or to demonstrate that monitoring is not 
needed, and to provide preventive maintenance sufficient to 
ensure that all safety related structures, systems, or components 
(e.g., heat exchangers important to safety) are capable of 
fulfilling their intended functions.
 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 14 (or plant- specific 
principal design criteria in the plant design basis for plants 
issued construction permits before the effective date of 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix A), requires that the reactor coolant pressure 
boundary heat exchangers critical to safety (e.g., steam 
generators) be designed and tested to ensure an extremely low 
probability of abnormal leakage that might be caused by fouling 
or other factors. Steam generator tube performance is closely 
monitored by inspection as detailed in plant technical 
specifications. Technical specifications vary from plant to 
plant, but each pressurized-water reactor (PWR) plant has 
requirements to monitor steam generator tube performance.
 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 44 (and equivalent 
plant-specific criteria for pre-General Design Criteria (GDC) 
plants), requires provision of a cooling system to transfer heat 
from structures, systems, and components to an ultimate heat sink 
under normal operating and accident conditions. This heat 
transfer function is accomplished by structures and components 
(including heat exchangers) in key safety systems such as the 
residual heat removal and essential service water systems.
 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 45 and 46 (and equivalent 
plant-specific criteria for pre-GDC plants), require the 
capability by design to perform inspection and testing of cooling 
water systems to ensure integrity and adequate performance. The 
technical specifications for each plant define limiting 
conditions for operation (LCO) for systems that mitigate design 
basis transients and accidents. The operability requirements for 
those systems defined in LCOs include the adequate performance of 
heat exchangers needed for the systems to perform their safety 
functions. The specific LCOs vary by plant type and format of the 
plant-specific technical specifications.
 
However, each plant does have requirements related to 
safety-significant heat removal systems such as residual heat 
removal and safety-related service water. For a typical boiling 
water reactor, the LCOs include but are not limited to LCOs 3.4.9 
and 3.4.10 for residual heat removal, LCO 3.5.1 for emergency 
core cooling, LCO 3.6.5.5 for drywell air temperature, LCO 3.7.1 
for standby service water and ultimate heat sink, LCO 3.7.2 for 
high pressure core spray service water, and LCO 3.8.1 for diesel 
generators. Degradation of a heat exchanger that renders a system 
covered by an LCO inoperable would require completion of required 
actions, possibly including a shutdown of the affected unit, 
within the required completion times. The administrative 
requirements defined within all plants' technical specifications 
also require licensees to establish and maintain various 
procedures related to the operation and testing of plant 
requirement. A partial list of the required procedures is 
provided in Regulatory Guide 1.33, ``Quality Assurance Program 
Requirements (Operation).'' The NRC routinely performs 
inspections of licensees' programs for implementing the required 
procedures.
 
Generic Letter (GL) 89-13, ``Service Water System Problems 
Affecting Safety-Related Equipment,'' July 18, 1989, recommended 
that licensees initiate test programs to verify heat transfer 
capability of all safety-related heat exchangers cooled by 
service water and routine inspection and maintenance programs to 
ensure serviceability of safety- related systems supplied by 
service water. Generic Letter 89-13 specifies that a continuing 
program for periodic retesting should address the effects of 
fouling, and licensees monitor parameters such as coolant flow, 
temperature, and pressure indicative of acceptable heat exchanger 
performance.
 
The NRC oversees the licensees' testing and maintenance programs 
via the inspection and assessment procedures included in the 
reactor oversight process. The NRC inspection procedure IP 
71111.07, ``Heat Sink Performance,'' defines the current sampling 
and review process for NRC inspectors assessing licensees' 
programs for the testing and maintenance of safety-significant 
heat exchangers.
 
Standard Review Plan (SRP) 4.2 describes the NRC review of 
thermal margins, effects of corrosion products, and hydraulic 
loads. This review also addresses postulated fuel failure 
resulting from overheating of fuel cladding.
 
SRP 4.2 also describes the NRC review of licensee fuel design 
analyses to ensure that dimensional changes due to thermal or 
irradiation effects (such as fuel rod bowing or growth) are 
addressed.
 
Thus, the NRC believes that additional regulations are not needed 
to address the impact of fouling on the performance of heat 
exchange surfaces throughout licensed nuclear power plants.
 
2. Fouling of heat exchange surfaces in reactors has the 
potential to cause significant safety problems.
 
The NRC acknowledges that, left undetected, excessive fouling of 
key heat exchange surfaces, or other problems that challenge the 
safety function of those heat exchangers, could represent a 
significant safety problem. The classification of the important 
heat exchangers as safety- related equipment, and the resultant 
requirements associated with their design and maintenance, 
demonstrates their importance. The NRC determined, for example, 
that the clogging of service water heat exchangers could have 
caused safety significant problems in the past and as a result 
issued several generic communications culminating in Generic 
Letter 89-13, ``Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety- 
Related Equipment,'' July 18, 1989. The NRC believes that the 
current regulatory requirements for the testing and maintenance 
of heat exchangers (as described in GL 89-13 along with 
recommendations for meeting the requirements) are adequate to 
identify and correct potential safety significant problems in 
safety-related heat exchangers. Consequently, the NRC has 
determined that no new regulations are required to address this 
issue. The NRC will continue to monitor the implementation of GL 
89-13 and will take appropriate action if adverse trends are 
observed.
 
3. NRC regulations must require publicly available reporting on 
the performance of heat exchange surfaces, including records of 
mechanical degradation of heat transfer assemblies, and cleaning 
procedures and their effectiveness.
 
The NRC believes that it is not necessary to report the routine 
operational matters involving heat
 
[[Page 56960]] exchanger degradation and cleaning which the 
petitioner proposes. The NRC is interested in system performance 
degradation when the situation might lead to a loss of safety 
function and regulations requiring such reporting already exist. 
10 CFR 50.72, ``Immediate notification requirements for operating 
nuclear power reactors,'' and 10 CFR 50.73, ``Licensee event 
report system,'' require licensees to report on performance of 
any safety system in the primary or secondary sides of reactors 
if an event occurs that might compromise safe operating 
conditions, such as a deviation from plant technical 
specifications pertaining to residual heat removal systems.
 
Specifically, section 50.72(b)(3)(ii) requires reporting to the 
NRC within eight hours any event or condition that results in: 
(1) the condition of the nuclear power plant, including its 
principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded, or (2) the 
nuclear power plant being in an unanalyzed condition that 
significantly degrades plant safety. In addition, section 
50.72(b)(3)(v) requires eight hour reporting of any event or 
condition that at the time of discovery could have prevented 
fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems 
needed to: (1) Shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition, (2) remove residual heat, (3) control the 
release of radioactive material, and (4) mitigate the 
consequences of an accident. Section 50.73 (a)(2)(i)(B) requires 
submittal of a Licensee Event Report (LER) within sixty days 
regarding any operation or condition prohibited by the plants' 
Technical Specifications, such as failure of a covered heat 
exchanger, and 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(A) requires an LER for any event 
or condition that resulted in the condition of the nuclear power 
plant, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously 
degraded. The NRC believes that existing reporting requirements 
adequately address degradation of performance of heat exchange 
surfaces in nuclear power plants.
 
4. NRC regulations must address the need for investigating the 
grossly off-normal performance of heat exchange equipment in 
NPPs.
 
The NRC believes that the existing structure of regulations, 
technical specifications, reporting requirements, and licensee 
programs subject to NRC inspection provides the necessary 
confidence that plant safety systems, including heat exchangers, 
are properly designed and maintained. A discussion of the 
existing structure of requirements and programs is provided in 
the NRC response to the petitioner's first request. An additional 
regulatory requirement related directly to the need for 
investigating the degradation of heat exchange equipment and to 
take those actions necessary to ensure that the performance of 
the equipment will support its safety function is provided by, 
Criterion XVI, ``Corrective Action,'' of Appendix B to 10 CFR 
Part 50.
 
This regulation requires that conditions adverse to quality, such 
as a significant degradation of a heat exchanger that is 
important to safety, be promptly identified and corrected. The 
NRC ensures compliance with these requirements by routinely 
performing inspections of licensees' programs for identifying and 
correcting problems.
 
5. Severe fouling of nuclear fuel elements leads to axial growth 
of the fuel rods beyond design limits as the operating 
temperature of the fuel rods becomes greater than allowed for in 
design. This would cause fuel rods to bow and contact adjacent 
rods and control rod guide tubes, interfering with coolant flow.
 
The NRC believes that pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling 
water reactor (BWR) fuel bundle designs provide ample space for 
fuel pins to expand in the axial direction. A PWR fuel pin is 
neither supported at the bottom nor at the top; instead, spacers 
are used to hold the fuel pins together. Designed space both at 
the bottom and at the top of fuel bundles permits fuel pins to 
expand thermally without touching any other structures. A BWR 
fuel bundle is normally seated at the bottom and there is no 
restriction to prevent thermal expansion into the upper plenum. 
Expansion springs are sometimes used between fuel pins to allow 
nonuniform axial expansion within a fuel bundle. For these 
reasons, the NRC considers it unlikely that a fuel pin will bow 
enough to contact adjacent rods and control rod tubes and 
interfere with coolant flow. SRP 4.2 requires the NRC to review 
licensee fuel design analysis to confirm that dimensional changes 
due to thermal or irradiation effects such as fuel pin bowing or 
axial growth are adequately addressed.
 
6. Fouling of heat-transfer surfaces is generally not adequately 
considered in the licensing and compliance inspections of NPPs.
 
The NRC believes that the effects of fouling of heat transfer 
surfaces are adequately addressed in the following NRC licensing 
and compliance inspection program elements: The NRC conducts an 
extensive review of the licensee's design of key safety systems, 
structures, and components, including heat exchangers in the 
primary and secondary sides of a plant.
 
NRC staff analyses of all key safety systems, including heat 
exchangers, are performed during development of NRC safety 
evaluation reports (SERs) pertaining to a license application. As 
previously discussed, various regulatory requirements such as 10 
CFR 50.65, Appendix B to Part 50, and plant technical 
specifications require that licensees maintain, test and restore 
equipment such that the safety functions are maintained 
consistent with the licensing of the plant. These processes are 
subject to NRC inspection to ensure that the requirements are 
met.
 
Inspections of safety systems, structures, and components, 
including safety-significant heat exchangers, are designed to 
determine compliance with Appendix A to Part 50, ``General Design 
Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.'' Specifically, in the Reactor 
Oversight Program, Inspection Procedure 71111.07, ``Heat Sink 
Performance,'' requires that a sample of safety significant heat 
exchangers (e.g., for the residual heat removal, component 
cooling water, emergency core cooling systems) be inspected both 
annually for specific performance issues and biennially for an 
intense review of heat transfer characteristics.
 
7. The NRC must require by rule the inclusion of fouling 
considerations in NRC-funded heat transfer test programs and in 
the several heat exchanger computer programs produced by the NRC.
 
The NRC believes that these requirements do not need to be 
included by regulation.
 
NRC-funded computer codes used to audit emergency core cooling 
system (ECCS) performance are capable of considering the impact 
of fouling on the performance of fuel element surfaces, and these 
codes have been used for that purpose when warranted.
 
Ongoing experimental and analytical test programs (e.g., Argonne 
National Laboratory study on fuel cladding performance) in the 
NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) are investigating 
transient and operational oxidation models, including effects of 
significant pre-oxidation.
 
Calculations were performed by RES to support the evaluation of 
this petition using NRC computer codes. These calculations showed 
that fouling and excess pre-oxidation would not have a 
significant effect on reflood heat transfer capability.
 
The NRC fuel performance code FRAPCON-3 can calculate enhanced 
oxidation from crud buildup on fuel element surfaces.
 
 
[[Page 56961]] The RELAP and TRACE codes use the FRAPCON 
information to calculate transient effects.
 
The NRC has evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the 
rulemaking requested by the petitioner with respect to the five 
performance goals set out by the Commission in the Strategic Plan 
for Fiscal years 2004-2009 announced on August 12, 2004.
 
1. Maintaining Safety: The NRC believes that the requested 
rulemaking would not make a significant contribution to 
maintaining safety because current regulations, regulatory 
guidance and practices already provide for monitoring, detecting, 
and correcting possible fouling effects on heat exchanger 
performance. In addition, no data or evidence was provided by the 
petitioner to suggest that fouling of heat exchanger surfaces 
created any significant safety problems.
 
2. Ensure Secure Use and Management of Radioactive Material: The 
petitioner has not established, nor has the NRC found the 
existence of, any safety issues regarding the performance of heat 
exchange surfaces that would compromise the secure use of 
licensed radioactive material.
 
3. Ensuring Openness in the NRC Regulatory Process: The 
Administrative Procedures Act provides that any interested person 
has the right to petition an agency for issuance, amendment, or 
repeal of a rule. This statute expands on the ``right to 
petition'' provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution. 
The NRC implements this statute through 10 CFR 2.802, Petition 
for rulemaking, using guidance provided in NUREG-BR-0053, 
Revision 5, U.S. NRC Regulations Handbook, to ensure that the 
regulatory process takes place in an open manner.
 
4. Improving Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Realism: The proposed 
revisions would not improve efficiency, effectiveness, and 
realism because licensees and the NRC would be required to 
generate additional and unnecessary information as part of the 
evaluation of numerous heat exchanger surfaces throughout the 
nuclear power plant. Revising the regulations to be more specific 
about effects of fouling on heat exchanger performance would 
require an expenditure of NRC resources with little or no added 
safety benefit.
 
5. Ensure Excellence in NRC Management: The petitioner's request 
to revise the regulations to address the impact of fouling on all 
heat exchange surfaces in a nuclear power plant is not applicable 
to the strategic goal of continuous improvement in NRC management 
effectiveness.
 
Reasons for Denial The Commission is denying the petition for 
rulemaking (PRM-50-78).
 
The NRC regulation and oversight of nuclear power plants includes 
the establishment of regulations, the issuance of operating 
licenses and technical specifications, and continual inspections 
and technical reviews of licensee programs and plant performance. 
When viewed in total, these regulatory requirements and related 
oversight practices provide confidence in the safety of operating 
nuclear power plants. The NRC's finding that no rulemaking is 
required, is based on the determination that the existing 
structure of regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 50.65, Appendix A and B to 
part 50), technical specifications, and licensee programs subject 
to NRC inspection provides confidence that plant safety features, 
including heat exchangers, are properly designed and maintained 
in order to fulfill their intended function.
 
The Commission concludes that the integration of the various 
requirements and related NRC oversight functions provide 
reasonable assurance that systems important to safety, such as 
heat exchangers, will perform their intended functions. The 
addition of specific requirements to a regulation to address heat 
exchanger performance is not necessary.
 
For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-78.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of September, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. 04-21337 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 33 [NYTr] A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:45:19 -0500 (CDT)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 

sent by Francis A. Boyle - Sept 23, 2004

His Excellency Michel Barnier
Foreign Minister
French Republic
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
FRANCE
FAX: 33-1-43-17-4275

Dear Excellency:

The Republic of Freedonia presents its compliments to the French
Republic. I have the honor to draw to your attention the Protocol for
the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 17 June 1925, for
which the Government of the French Republic serves as the depositary.

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use in war of asphyxiating,
poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids materials or
devices, as well as the use of bacteriological methods of warfare.
Freedonia believes that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 already prohibits
the use in war of depleted uranium, uranium ammunition, uranium
armor-plate and all other uranium weapons. Freedonia respectfully
requests your Excellency to circulate this communication to the other
High Contacting Parties to the Geneva Protocol of 1925.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of our highest consideration.

Francis A. Boyle
Foreign Minister
Republic of Freedonia

21 September 2004

[you just need to get every Foreign Minister in the world to do the
same. -FAB]

       
                                *
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/

To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr

=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
================================================================= 
*****************************************************************
 34 MUST SEE- Kucinich slide show on depleted uranium weaponry
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:24:06 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

<http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html>http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html

Dear Friends,

Thanks to Jean Hudon for this helpful link in [earthrainbownetwork] Hybrid 
Series #25 (PART 1): Straining to Keep up With a Growing Infoglut:  Free 
subscription to such compilations by sending a blank email to 
<mailto:earthrainbownetwork-subscribe@lists.riseup.net>earthrainbownetwork-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

I'm so thankful for Dennis, a leader who keeps sanity, concerns for peace 
and survival, at the top of his list.  As far as I know, he is the only 
political leader who has come out against depleted uranium.

The slide show takes a while to load, but is well worth the wait.  It is 
divided into 2 parts- the first educational, the second, graphic pictures 
of the medical consequences of depleted uranium weaponry.   The viewer is 
given a warning that the material in part 2 is disturbing, and the choice 
of leaving the site or pressing the "continue" button- very considerate.

In the name of the Teacher,   Carol Wolman

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 35 [progchat_action] Can I Buy My Son A Gas Mask?
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:51:27 -0500 (CDT)

 
Please distribute to your list. - Bob

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bob Nichols info-radiation-wars@cox.net

Can I Buy My Son A Gas Mask?

Poisonous Uranium Gas in Iraq from American Weapons.

by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner

QUESTION: "Can a gas mask shield against this [uranium] dust in
Iraq and can I provide my son with one is the question. ... I have
been hearing a lot about this and it is terrifying." - Soldier's
Mom

I get asked this question a lot. Parents of sons and daughters, or
wives, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and friends want to
help out Uncle Sam and their loved one. They want to contribute to
help buy the right gas mask to keep the soldier from breathing
poisonous and radioactive uranium gas while fighting in Iraq.

The truthful answer is "No, there is nothing you can buy. You son
or daughter will have to take their chances in Iraq, just like
everybody else.

No amount of money will change the answer. What you want does not
exist."

This is the worst part of my work of writing about uranium munitions.

Anybody who's in Iraq and breathing is just as likely as the next
person to get a whiff of poisonous uranium gas. Any dose at all is
bad.

The higher the dose, the worse it is. Detached, dry, clinical,
declassified Army memos written in 1943 talk about death occurring
in three days from a heavy dose. It is like going into battle and
your own side is using an invisible, odorless, tasteless poison gas
against you and the enemy.

Which, in fact, is exactly what the US Military is doing. It's
called Uranium Oxide Gas, vapor, and aerosols. That's right. That
date, 1943, is no typo. The US Military has known about this for
61 years.

Welcome to the big city where all the Pentagon suits lie about
uranium oxide! I don't expect them to stop now. This practice of
using uranium oxide is flat out wrong and they all, from President
Bush on down, richly deserve a long time in Leavenworth Federal
Penitentiary.

Did you know the uranium penetrator bombs are patented? Private
contractors make a buck every time the 2000 pound penetrator bombs
with 1100 pounds of radioactive uranium explode. The explosion forms
poisonous uranium oxide gas. A few larger particles become radioactive
shrapnel cutting everybody and everything to pieces. This goes for
anti-tank rounds, too.

This metal, that is straight out of Hell, then burns somewhere north
of 3000 degrees. Experts talk about 6000 degrees, even 10,000
degrees. Temperatures that hot don't last long and are hard to
measure.

When asked this question about gas masks famed former Lawrence
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab scientist Leuren Moret stated "The
answer is that there is no protection possible to prevent exposure
to DU* from the battlefield - and that means the global pollution
also is now spread around the world."

Scientist Moret added "Go to my "Letter to Congressman McDermott"

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03.htm
It has the diagram for the penetration of HEPA filters by particles
in the range of 0.1 micron.  DU* goes through everything - filters,
skin, protective clothing ... there is no possible way to protect
people from exposure."

Moret concluded "However, High Efficiency Particulate Airfilters
(HEPA) do protect more than other types of filters because they are
used in nuclear facilities and designed for that.  They are still
'transparent' to nanoparticles (0.1 microns and smaller) which means
some get through."

The highly respected Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., a Major in the Medical
Service Corp and former Director of the US Army Depleted Uranium
Project says "Another deliberately ignored problem is that the gas
mask filters will not remove the very small and very dangerous
particles that are released during chemical, biological, and
radiological incidents.  This is a hazard ... when our troops breathe
in the dust of depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive component
of our own weapons.

Dr. Rokke continued "Citizens who see through the smokescreens of
political rhetoric and a sanitized image of war must speak up and
demand action. That is our obligation based on a heritage of freedom.
A freedom won by the legendary Minutemen, citizen-soldiers, of
Concord and Lexington." Dr Rokke first spoke this call to action
on October 2, 2003. His words are even more true now.

So what is a mother or dad, loved one, or friend to do? Try like
crazy to talk them out of enlisting before they sign up. If that
is just not going to happen, pray that God protects them while they
are alive and breathing in Iraq. Nothing else works.

Of course, you could make sure they read this article and know what
their total option package is. Whatever, there are no good choices
in this no good war.

As Major Doug Rokke urges "speak up and demand action. That is our
obligation based on a heritage of freedom."

*Depleted Uranium is the result of a step in the process of creating
enriched uranium for nuclear power plant reactor cores and thermonuclear
bombs, commonly called Hydrogen Bombs and Neutron Bombs. The uranium
impurity used in bombs and reactor cores is about .711 of one percent
of natural uranium, a tiny amount. Like iodine in salt, except it
kills everything. Processing natural uranium removes about half of
the bomb making material. It is then called Depleted Uranium by the
powers that be, because it can no longer be used to make H-Bombs;
but, it is used to make uranium bullets, shells, and bombs instead.
The Depleted Uranium is fully 88% as radioactive in total radiation
as the original uranium. There are an estimated 1.5 Billion Pounds
of Depleted Uranium at U.S. Nuclear Weapons Labs and related
facilities (Bomb Factories) in the US. The word depleted does not
mean the uranium is safe or OK to use, it means it has been processed,
that's all. Perhaps a less deceptive name would be "12% depleted
uranium." The familiar 60% depleted uranium figure refers to what
is called "Alpha" radiation only. - Bob Nichols

My name is Bob Nichols and I write in a state trapped in the Middle
Ages - Oklahoma - where 20% of the people can not even read. Feel
free to contact me at info-radiation-wars@cox.net for more information.
Copyright 2004, Bob Nichols. All rights reserved. Permission for
reposting is allowed provided the complete text and attribution are
kept intact. Bob Nichols writes in Oklahoma City and is a 2004 -
2005 Project Censored Award winner. He occasionally a contributing
writer for DissidentVoice.org, LiberalSlant.com, DemocraticUnderground.com,
OnlineJournal.com, AmericaHeldHostage.com, and other online dot com
publications. Mr. Nichols is a contributor to The Oklahoma Observer
newspaper.

Works referenced in the preparation of this article.

1. Nichols - "There Are No Words"

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm 2. Nichols -
"My God! My Country Is Using Poison Gas In Iraq"

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Nichols0807.htm 3. Russell
Hoffman "Poison Fire, USA"

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf 4. Moret - Depleted
uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets
http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml 5. World
Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference:

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference 6. International Criminal
Tribunal for Afghanistan written opinion of Judge N. Bhagwat: also
at http://www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc 7. Gsponer
and Hurni "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles
Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The
Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons"

http://www.inesap.org/publ_tech01.htm 8. Christopher Bollyn, American
Free Press, Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq,
Humanity http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html
9. Scientist Moret added "Go to my "Letter to Congressman McDermott"

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03.htm
[End]

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

------------------------ 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/XgSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

progchat_action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 36 [DU-WATCH] The big story at  McAlester is the one your missing
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:23:45 -0700

 
<x-flowed>



Bilalana,

I want to personally thank you for your courageous and pioneering work in
the uncovering not only the horror of the enormous amounts of the minimum
95% U238 DU at the McAlester Plant; but, the other
eight Army Ammunition Plants, as well.

You discovered the "smoking gun", it was a simple matter to write up the
links between 22 Million pounds of uranium (DU) in McAlester to acute
hemolytic anemia to the unfolding tragedies in Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan


All in all a stunning bit of forensic investigation. This will take years to
completely play out. It seems clear that a part of the world's gratitude for
ending this monstrously over heated fascist war machine, if we are
successful at all, is due to your bravery and willingness to speak truth to
power.

It is our job to now press on and not let the wondrously capable spin
doctors at the involved US departments and businesses merely use this as a
public sensitization ordeal to wind up with enforced and continued use of
4th generation nuclear weapons.

Let's finish the job.

Regards,

Bob Nichols







-------Original Message-------

From: du-watch@yahoogroups.com
Date: 09/22/04 18:22:31
To: du-watch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DU-WATCH] The big story at McAlester is the one your missing ...

I think its high time Jack C-J and his friends Dan Fahey and Charles
S-M kissed some feet. They refused to eat crow a month ago. Now they
look even more foolish. Many other cowards shied away from the field
evidence. Here we have in the DoD's own literature, admission that
high explosive DU rounds are in the US arsehole (opps, I mean
arsenal)

I posted the McAlester list of DU munitions a couple of weeks ago.
Now Bob N and others post it without realising what they are looking
at. I waited and I waited, but no one picked up on it; not a great
testimonial to the brains of this here anti-DU community.

What is interesting is not the fact that McAlester handles DU or
just how much it handles. It is a little more interesting that is
both assembles and diassembles DU rounds. Meaning that there is
obselescence and probably decay (literal and figurative) in the
stockpile of DU rounds ... particularly those with high explosive
components, no doubt as these materials degrade with time.
What increases in interest it that the list shows close to a dozen
different munitions with DU, many of which have been referred to by
ex-military and by field researchers but with no official admission.
Most interesting is the clear without doubt admission of DU rounds
(penetrators) and mines (frag munitions), using HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

Any idea folks of the ballastic effects, particle size, % of
aerosolization of a round, fraction made airborne, loft of the plume
when blowing up uranium?





[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 37 [du-list] McALESTER: McAAP 2000 Lb Bomb Makers Get Hemolytic
 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:25:34 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bob Nichols, Jr.
Oklahoma City
info-radiation-wars@cox.net

Oklahoma Base Has 22 Million Pounds of Uranium for Arms
Oklahoma 2000 Lb Bomb Makers
Have Acute Hemolytic Anemia

by Bob Nichols

Project Censored Award Winner

(Oklahoma City) Sept. 22, 2004 Twenty three or more of the bomb makers at
the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant have caught "acute hemolytic anemia."
See the McAlester News Capital-Democrat news stories below or link to the
paper in McAlester Ok.

All the sickened production employees worked on the 2000 Pound Penetrator
Bomb (Bunker Busters) line.

http://www.demookie.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11030

  It is also possible that they have radiation poisoning from handling,
ingesting, swallowing, breathing, and being exposed to Uranium oxide,
uranium, and other forms of the deadly metal in the air. The base is
licensed to keep up to 22,000,000 Pounds of Uranium stored on base  for
munitions according to the Plant's NRC license. (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)

  Read the NRC license it here:

http://www.osc.army.mil/dm/DMWWEB/Lic%20pdf%20etc/1-DU%20RENEWAL%20PACKAGE
pdf

It is possible the production employees have contacted acute hemolytic
anemia from the powerful bunker busting bombs.

  In 60 years of making thousands or even millions of bombs at McAlester,
though, this is the first time people have caught acute hemolytic anemia on
the job, according to Mark Hughes, spokesman for the McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant.

  Many experts, who prefer to remain anonymous, believe it is also possible
the sometimes fatal disease is radiation induced acute hemolytic anemia.

Radiation from the millions of pounds of uranium on the base for weapons
production. If so, straightforward US Army orders command medical care for
all affected citizens of McAlester and for environmental cleanup.

Below is a list of some of the Pentagon's Uranium Munitions that are
assembled or disassembled at the rural McAlester, Oklahoma Bomb Plant.

  The US Military is using uranium munitions in Iraq distributed as
radioactive and poisonous uranium bullets, shells, bombs, and missiles. The
US has acknowledged ever this since the 1991 Persian Gulf War when 320 tons
of uranium were used as weapons.

  The uranium munitions explode and burn with an astonishing ferocity when
anything is hit. Uranium aerosols, gas, and dust have made large portions of
Iraq uninhabitable.



The use of radioactive and poisonous uranium as a weapon is commonly seen as
a war crime. In this case, that would be a crime committed by President
George Bush and the Bush Administration in the United States. The Nuremburg
War Crimes Trials of Nazi Germany apply.



Almost all Americans know what uranium is and know it is used to make
nuclear weapons. Now the it is used for bullets, shells, and bombs, too.
Karen Parker, noted humanitarian and war crimes lawyer says "In any case,
the four point legal test [for illegal weapons] is completely intelligible
to everyone. It is:"



"1. You can't make it [uranium dust] stop moving in dust, wind, etc."



"2. You can't make it [uranium] stop being radioactive when the "war" is
over. It keeps right on ticking."



"3. Making children sick three years after the war is over is not an
acceptable military operation -- children are not the enemy and when the war
is over, the weapons have to stop.  Having soldiers get sick after the war
is over and all "bad stuff" is supposed to stop is not OK."



"4. Radioactive materials pollute."



The McAAP spokesman had not provided requested information by press time.
More to follow.

McAlester's sick workers have more than TNT to worry about



U.S Ordnance That Contain Uranium

DODIC Munition Nomenclature



A675 CARTRIDGE, 20 MM LINKED, DS, MK 159-1,

A676 CARTRIDGE, 20 MM LINKED, DS, MK 149-2

A986 CARTRIDGE, 25 MM , APFSDS-T, M919

A983 CARTRIDGE, 25 MM , API, PGU-20/U

B103 CARTRIDGE, 30 MM , API-T/HEI, PGU-14/B & PGU-13/B

C523 CARTRIDGE, 105 MM APFSDS-T M774, W/M13 TRACER

C524 CARTRIDGE, 105 MM , APFSDS-T, M833

C543 CARTRIDGE, 105 MM , APFSDS-T, M900

C786 CARTRIDGE, 120 MM , APFSDS-T, M829

C380 CARTRIDGE, 120 MM , APFSDS-T, M829A1

D501 PROJECTILE, 155 MM APERS, M692, W/O FZ, W/M67 APERS MINES ADAM-L,

D502 PROJECTILE, 155 MM APERS, M692, W/O FZ, W/M67 APERS MINES ADAM-L,

K152 MINE, AP, PDM M86

[End]

Copyright 2004, Bob Nichols, Jr. All rights reserved. Permission for 
reposting is allowed provided the complete text and attribution are kept 
intact. Bob Nichols writes in Oklahoma City and is a 2004 - 2005 Project 
Censored Award winner.

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




------------------------ 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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: Radiac Research Corporation, Brooklyn, NY; Notice of Issuance of 
 
                        FR Doc 04-21341 
[Federal Register: September 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 184)] 
[Notices] [Page 57100] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23se04-115]                         
 
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given 
that by petition dated November 4, 2003, Michael Gerrard of 
Arnold and Porter, representing Neighbors Against Garbage (the 
Petitioners), filed a Petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The Petitioners requested 
that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately 
revoke, suspend or modify the New York State Department of Labor 
(NYDOL) license held by Radiac Research Corporation under the 
NRC's authority pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 
as amended to protect the common defense and security.
 
The basis for this request was that Radiac's radioactive waste 
storage operation adjoining the Radiac hazardous waste transfer 
and storage operation in Brooklyn, New York represented a 
significant risk to the common defense and security.
 
In a letter dated December 17, 2003, the NRC informed the 
Petitioners that the request for immediate action was denied 
because the limits on types and activity of radioactive material 
that Radiac was authorized to possess were below the levels of 
concern. The letter added that the issues identified in the 
petition would be reviewed under 10 CFR 2.206 and that this 
review would be conducted by the Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).
 
The Petitioner and the Licensee both participated in a meeting 
with the NMSS Petition Review Board (PRB) on February 20, 2004. 
At this meeting, the Petitioner provided additional information 
concerning the bases for the Petition, and the Licensee provided 
additional information concerning their response to the Petition. 
A concerned citizen and a representative of the Honorable Nydia 
M. Vel[aacute]zquez, US. House of Representatives, provided 
statements. Two other concerned citizens present at the public 
meeting later provided written statements via e-mail on February 
27, 2004. The written presentations of the parties, as well as 
the transcript of this meeting, have been treated as a supplement 
to the Petition and are available in the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of the NRC's public documents. These documents may be 
accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html] . The 
ADAMS Accession Numbers for the packages containing all the 
publicly available documents regarding this petition are 
ML041040731 and ML041240485. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or 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] . In a letter dated December 10, 2003, addressed to 
the Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Chairman, NRC, the Honorable Nydia M. 
Vel[aacute]zquez, U.S. House of Representatives, requested the 
NRC to investigate the risk of an accident or terrorist event at 
the Radiac facility.
 
By letter dated February 10, 2004, Chairman Nils J. Diaz informed 
Congresswoman Vel[aacute]zquez that the NRC is reviewing similar 
common defense and security issues identified in the Neighbors 
Against Garbage 2.206 petition and that she would be informed of 
the results of that review.
 
In a letter dated February 19, 2004, addressed to the Honorable 
Nils J. Diaz, Chairman, NRC, Mr. Vincent V. Abate, Chairman, 
Community Board No. 1, representing Brooklyn, New York, presented 
information pertinent to the Petition. By letter dated March 30, 
2004, the PRB informed Mr. Abate that the information would be 
considered as a supplement to the Petition.
 
In letters dated February 27, 2004, the Petitioner and Licensee 
provided supplemental information concerning the petition. In the 
Licensee's letter was a request to reject the petition based on 
procedural issues. In a letter dated April 27, 2004, the NRC 
staff informed the Petitioner and the Licensee that the 
Licensee's request to reject the petition was denied, that the 
PRB accepted the petition for review because it satisfied the 
criteria under 10 CFR 2.206 and Management Directive 8.11, and 
that the NRC staff would review the technical merits of the 
petition.
 
In a letter dated March 18, 2004, the Licensee provided 
supplemental information concerning the petition. In a letter 
dated, April 12, 2004, the Petitioner provided supplemental 
information concerning the petition.
 
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the 
Petitioners and to the licensee for comment on June 14, 2004.
 
The Petitioners responded with comments on July 15, 2004. The 
licensee did not provide comments. The comments and the NRC 
staff's response to them are Enclosures to this Director's 
Decision.
 
The NMSS Office Director has denied the request of the Petitioner 
to revoke, suspend, or modify the NYDOL license held by Radiac 
Research Corporation under the NRC's authority to protect the 
common defense and security. The reasons for the decisions are 
explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 
[DD-04-04], the complete text of which is available in ADAMS for 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS public access component 
on the NRC's 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] , under the ``Public 
Involvement'' icon.
 
A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the 
Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As 
provided for by this regulation, the Director's Decision will 
constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the 
date of the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion, 
institutes a review of the Director's Decision within that time.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of September 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-21341 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 39 NRC: Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Sump 
 
                        FR Doc 04-21343 
[Federal Register: September 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 184)] 
[Notices] [Page 57101-57102] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23se04-117]                         
 
Recirculation at Pressurized-Water Reactors; Issue AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of issuance.
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued 
Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02 to all holders of operating licenses 
for pressurized-water reactors (PWRs), except those who have 
permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has 
been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. The generic 
letter asks licensees of pressurized water nuclear power reactors 
to perform an evaluation and provide information that enables the 
NRC staff to verify whether licensees can demonstrate that their 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and containment spray system 
(CSS) are capable of performing their intended post-accident 
mitigating functions following a design basis accident requiring 
recirculation operation. The primary objective is to ensure that 
licensees are in compliance with the licensing and design bases 
requirements of their facilities with respect to the ECCS having 
the capability to provide long-term cooling of the reactor core 
following a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) as specified in the 
NRC regulations in title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations 
section 50.46, 10 CFR 50.46.
 
DATES: This generic letter was issued on September 13, 2004.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Not applicable.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cullison, NRR, 
301-415-1212 or by e-mail:  [dgc@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Generic Letter 2004-02 may be examined 
and/ or copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and is accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site, 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
.
 
The ADAMS Accession No. for the generic letter is ML042360586.
 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 
1-800-397-4209, or by e- mail to  [pdr@nrc.gov] .
 
[[Page 57102]] Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of 
September, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Francis M. Costello, Acting Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, 
Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 04-21343 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 40  Guardian Unlimited: Gulf war uranium tests too late for many, say veterans
 
MoD accused of dragging feet over uranium test for Gulf war 
veterans 
		 	
Ministry's offer of new check condemned as 'too little, too late'               
 		
Lee Glendinning
Friday September 24, 2004
 [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association has accused 
the Ministry of Defence of deliberately dragging its feet in 
waiting 14 years to implement a screening test to detect uranium 
in the bodies of Gulf war soldiers. 

After the announcement by the MoD that a new test would be 
offered to 500 military and civilian personnel who served in the 
Gulf war, veterans are saying that the procedure is too little, 
too late for the thousands who have suffered unexplained 
ill-health for years. 

Many veterans who had been exposed to radiation from battlefield 
shells believe they may have levels of depleted uranium in their 
bodies that can no longer be detected, and that may have caused 
kidney failure or leukaemia. 

The MoD set up an independent committee of scientists and 
veterans' representatives in 2001 - the Depleted Uranium 
Oversight Board - to develop a screening process. 

Three years later, they are ready to take applications from those 
who served in the Gulf area between August 1990 and July 31 1991. 
The test will also be made available to those who served in 
Kosovo from August 5 1994. The results will take three months to 
come back. 

The four clinics at which testing will be done are St Thomas' 
hospital in London, the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Southmead 
Hospital in Bristol and the University of North Tees in 
Stockton-on-Tees. 

But the head of the National Gulf Veterans and Families 
Association, Ray Bristow, who was also a veterans' representative 
on the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, told the Guardian that 
he believed the MoD had deliberately delayed testing. 

"It's nothing more than hogwash," he said. "Hundreds of thousands 
of people could be gravely ill." 

Mr Bristow was himself tested in 1998, after first hearing about 
the condition on a television programme. 

"I was showing exposure to over 100 times the safe limit. The 
doctor told me it was a bit late in the day to be tested, and 
eight to ten years after exposure it would be very difficult to 
test for depleted uranium. 

"We asked for the test to be done in 1996 and they [the MoD] 
dragged their feet - I believe on purpose, to ensure enough time 
had passed where little chance of detecting anything was 
available." 

The MoD said yesterday that depleted uranium was not considered 
an issue until 2001, when it was highlighted in the media, and 
even then the Royal Society concluded that only a small number of 
soldiers could have faced a high risk of contamination. 

"Before 2001, there was a full medical assessment available to 
veterans which could detect depleted uranium," a spokeswoman 
said. "At the moment there are no known health side-effects from 
depleted uranium." 

Professor David Coggon, of the Medical Research Council's 
environmental epidemiology unit at Southampton University, said 
that even after a long time, this new test would be able to 
detect sufficiently low levels of depleted uranium. He was 
satisfied with the "level of accuracy and sensitivity". 

However, Mr Bristow said that a veteran would need therapy within 
two years of being contaminated to have a good chance of 
recovery. 

"Now they are offering this, 14 years later," he said. "It's a 
national disgrace. It's inhuman." 
	
 	
        Special reports The military Iraq Medicine and health

Useful links [http://www.mod.uk/] [http://www.ngvfa.com/] 
[http://www.geocities.com/ukgulfwarhelp/] 
[http://www.gulfweb.org/] [http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 41 AxisofLogic: U.S. Military: Uranium Casualties
 	 	 
 [http://www.axisoflogic.com

 By Ron Chepsiuk
 Sep 23, 2004, 12:09

Action on warfare’s new silent killer has been slow and
inconsistent
 
Members of the 42nd Military Police Company of the New York 
National Guard remember the place in Iraq where they were 
stationed as a hellhole. “The place was filthy; most of the 
windows were broken; dirt, grease, and bird droppings were 
everywhere,” Sergeant Agustin Matos later recalled. “I wouldn’t 
house a city prisoner in that place.” There were also the 
frequent sandstorms, blowing dust right into the area where Matos 
and his fellow company members were based. Sergeant Hector Vega, 
a retired postal worker from the Bronx who had served in the 
National Guard for 27 years, said the smoke “was so thick, you 
could see it.” 

Both Matos and Vega survived the war and returned to the US, but 
all hasn’t been well since then. They and other members of their 
company now suffer from a variety of maladies: nausea, dizziness, 
shortness of breath, fatigue, joint pain, and excessive 
urination, for starters. 

The soldiers repeatedly asked to be tested, but the army refused. 
Eventually, they contacted the New York Daily News with their 
story. Early this year, the newspaper asked Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a 
former Army doctor and medical expert, to conduct laboratory 
tests. His conclusion: four soldiers “almost certainly” inhaled 
radioactive dust from exploded US shells manufactured with 
depleted uranium (DU). 

The investigation caught the attention of Sen. Hillary Clinton, 
who chastised the US Defense Department for not screening 
soldiers returning from duty in Iraq. “We can’t have people 
coming back with undiagnosed illnesses,” she said. “We have to 
have before and after testing programs for the soldiers.” Under 
fire, the Pentagon reversed its decision and began to test some 
soldiers from the 42nd who had returned home. 

However, it’s already a bit late — and not just for the soldiers 
of the 42nd. Over at least 13 years, and possibly longer, 
military personnel from the US and other countries have served in 
wars where DU was used. An extremely dense metal used in armor 
penetrating shells and to strengthen tank armor, DU is what’s 
left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium so 
fuel can be produced for nuclear reactors. Military contractors 
like to use it because it’s cheap; so cheap, in fact, that 
governments often make it available for free. 

Those who defend its use claim that most of the element’s 
radioactive qualities have been removed before use. However, 
mounting evidence suggests that DU can pose serious health risks. 

The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) reports that 15 
countries have DU in their military arsenal. In addition to the 
US, they include the UK, France, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Russia, 
Egypt, Bahrain, Thailand, Iraq, Pakistan, Taiwan, Kuwait, and 
Israel. The US has had DU ammunition since the 1950s, but 
allegedly didn’t use it until the Gulf War. DU has since been 
used in Bosnia (1995), Yugoslavia (1999), and Iraq. 

Ignored Warnings 

In July 2004, RAI, Italy’s national television station, reported 
that 27-year-old Luca Sepe, a veteran of the Yugoslavian 
conflict, was the “27th Italian victim” of the DU bombings there. 
It is estimated that another 267 Balkan veterans from Italy have 
cancer. At this point, there is no solid proof that Italian 
soldiers died from exposure to DU. One reason is that, as in the 
US and other countries using DU, the Italian government has 
blocked investigation of those illnesses and deaths. 

In a report about what it labels “Balkan Syndrome,” the 
International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) has noted 
that the “Italian Minister of Defense refuses to give 
compensation to [the Italian soldiers’] families, let alone to 
admit that depleted uranium has played a role in these cases. 
Hardly any information is given to soldiers currently on missions 
abroad about the risks they are facing, and whoever complains is 
treated as a traitor and marginalized.” 

In the 1991 Gulf War, DU was mainly used against Iraqi forces in 
the desert. In the recent Iraq War, the Pentagon used its 
radioactive arsenal in suburban areas. According to Pentagon and 
UN statistics, the US used between 1100 and 2200 tons of shells 
containing DU during March and April 2003. 

Parts of spent DU shells and DU-contaminated debris can be found 
today strewn on the streets of Iraq’s urban areas. Contaminated 
sites have been identified, but many of them have yet to be 
cleaned up. This has created a potential health hazard for many 
Iraqis. The ICBUW reports that “to minimize the risk of exposure, 
foreign troops have been instructed to stay away from potentially 
contaminated areas as much as possible, or, at least, to wear 
respiratory protection and gloves when it is necessary to enter 
such sites.” 

In May 2003, Scott Peterson, an Iraq-based staff writer for the 
Christian Science Monitor, took Geiger counter readings at 
several sites in Baghdad. His readings in some places registered 
more than 1000 times the normal radiation levels. Three months 
later, the Seattle Post Intelligencer newspaper reported elevated 
radiation levels at six sites located between Basra and Baghdad. 

Soon after the war, the expert analysis of the World Health 
Organization and other leading scientific organizations led to 
warnings that children who come into contact with DU-contaminated 
shells faced health risks. Even earlier than that, in February 
2003, the scholarly, peer-reviewed Journal of Environmental 
Radioactivity reported, “Children playing with soil may be 
identified as the critical population group, with inhalation 
and/or ingestion of contaminated soil as the critical pathway.” 

Studies Disputed & Delayed 

For more than a decade, the US military has denied that DU poses 
any health risks and has even tried to suppress the growing 
evidence that it’s a toxic killer that should be banned. As Ed 
Ericson wrote in the May-June 2003 issue of E: The Environmental 
Magazine, the Pentagon “has cashiered or attempted to discredit 
its own experts, ignored their advice, impeached scientific 
research into DU’s health effects and assembled a disinformation 
campaign to confuse the issue.” 

The stonewalling began in 1991, after US and British military 
forces fired about 350 tons of DU at Iraqi tanks and other 
targets. After the war, Iraqi doctors began reporting increases 
in cancer and birth defects rates in southern Iraq. As suspicions 
deepened that DU may have caused the problems, the Pentagon 
called the charge unsubstantiated. While Saddam Hussein was still 
in power, Iraqi medical researchers sought to present their 
findings at international conferences. They were prevented by the 
economic embargo. 

The US military insists that studies from the Gulf War reveal no 
long-term problems from DU. Only soldiers who had shrapnel wounds 
from DU or who were inside tanks shot by DU shells and 
accidentally breathed radioactive dust were at risk, it claims. 
This would exclude any of the soldiers from the 42nd who became 
sick since their Iraq tours. Yet, independent organizations say 
other studies contradict these assertions. In April 2003, for 
example, the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific 
organization, said that some soldiers could suffer from “kidney 
damage and an increased risk of lung cancer,” depending on their 
level of DU exposure. 

The problem is that no thorough studies of DU’s long-term effects 
have been done. In effect, scientists have just begun to measure 
how much uranium is actually released when uranium-tipped 
ammunition hits its targets. Without these studies, the amount of 
uranium dust to which soldiers are exposed can’t be determined. 

In the absence of studies and definitive findings, the US and 
Britain have avoided the issue, resisting pressure to 
decontaminate DU affected areas in Iraq and implement a 
moratorium on its military use. In one of the few modest steps in 
the right direction, Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott introduced the 
Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act of 2003. The bill calls for 
studies of DU’s health effects, requires the Environmental 
Protection Agency to identify US sites where DU munitions have 
been used in test firing, and recommends study of the water, 
vegetation, and soil at these locations for possible 
contamination. The bill also requires the cleanup of contaminated 
areas. 

This May, the Depleted Uranium Screening and Testing Act of 2004 
was introduced in the House. It would require the Pentagon to 
identify and test those members of the US armed forces who were 
exposed to DU during military service. Meanwhile, the US General 
Accounting Office has undertaken a study of the health of 
veterans exposed to DU in the 1991 Gulf War, as well as the 
policies of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veteran Affairs in identifying and treating exposed vets. 

Germany, one of the strongest critics of the Iraq War, is sending 
in a team of environmental experts under the auspices of the UN. 
The group will evaluate the policies of Saddam Hussein, the UN 
embargo, and the impact of the two invasions on Iraq’s natural 
resources. The US and British governments have given their 
blessing. “That is significant because they will also face some 
critical questions, such as the impact of using depleted uranium 
munitions,” Germany’s Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin told 
the press. 

Such initiatives, however, fall short of what is needed. A good 
start would be to acknowledge that the illnesses and deaths of 
soldiers and civilians from radioactive poison may fit the 
definition of a war crime.  

Ron Chepesiuk, a Rock Hill, SC-based journalist is the author of 
The Bullet or the Bribe: Taking Down Colombia’s Cali Drug Cartel. 

LINKS: 

Nukewatch, the Wisconsin-based environmental and peace action 
group, provides a comprehensive section on DU, with overview and 
links to resources and recent articles, at 
http://www.nukewatch.com [http://www.nukewatch.com/] . The Low 
Level Radiation Campaign, at www.llrc.org [http://www.llrc.org/] 
, features a search engine accessing articles on radiation in 
Iraq. Important recent writing includes “Radiation in Iraq Equals 
250,000 Nagasaki Bombs,” by Bob Nichols, at 
www.dissidentvoice.org [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/] ; 
“Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,” by Leuren 
Moret, at http://globalresearch.ca [http://globalresearch.ca/] ; 
and Tareq Delwani on Jordan’s potential ban of Iraqi scrap metal 
due to uranium contamination, at http://www.islamonline.net 
[http://www.islamonline.net/] . 

http://www.towardfreedom.com/sep04/uranium_casualties.htm 
[http://www.towardfreedom.com/sep04/uranium_casualties.htm] 

*****************************************************************
 42 Arizona Daily Sun: County launches preemptive strike against nuke testing
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
://www.azdailysun.com

By SETH MULLER Sun Staff Reporter 09/23/2004

County supervisors officially voiced their oppostion to the 
possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing in southern 
Nevada. 

The Coconino County Board of Supervisors' resolution, which was 
passed Tuesday, comes after the county's health board approved it 
last month. The county plans to forward the resolution to 
congressional members U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Flagstaff, and 
Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl. 

"Congress has allocated the money in readying the test site," 
said Barbara Worgess, the county's health director, in an earlier 
interview. She referenced a reported lifting of the ban on 
nuclear weapons research and $34 million in authorized spending 
the would allow the site to be readied in 18 months' time. 

The greater concern of the county is that a resumption of nuclear 
testing would bring health risks to the region in the form of 
radiation carried downwind from the site, located northwest of 
Las Vegas. Prevailing winds would bring impacts to much of 
Coconino County, according to Worgess. 

Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Deb Hill said that county 
officials primarily would want a "community conversation" before 
congressional members who represent residents in the county would 
consider a vote that would allow for a resumption of testing. 

"We're asking them not to make the decision without coming to us 
first," Hill said. "We are one of the original downwind counties, 
and we don't want to be a downwind county again ... It absolutely 
could happen." 

Reports from the U.S. Department of Energy, which manages the 
test site, show that no plans have been implemented to ready for 
such activity. "The policy continues to be that the United States 
has no intention to start underground testing."                                  

Nevada Nuclear Test Site. 

He explained that the Department of Energy must "maintain a 
capability to resume testing within 24 to 36 months," but no 
orders or suggestions have been given to start preparation of the 
site. 

According to the Department of Energy, no approved congressional 
measures, aside from the authorized funding approval in November, 
would allow the site to become ready within an 18-month time 
frame. 

Some reports have suggested the federal government is interested 
in testing a small, burrowing "bunker buster" nuclear weapon that 
could be used in the war on terror. Morgan said that discussion 
has surfaced to test the bunker buster's shell. 

"We might see some kind of activities where that hardened shell 
is tested, but it will not involve the nuclear package," he said. 

Despite federal reports that nuclear testing is not currently in 
any planning phases, Coconino County has joined Mohave County and 
Kane County, Utah, both which have signed off on decrees that 
object to the resumption of testing. 

The concerns are, in part, tied to past events related to nuclear 
testing. 

Radioactive fallout was recorded during testing in Nevada 
stemming from the more than 900 nuclear weapons tests conducted 
between 1951 and 1992. It resulted in the federal government 
downwinders program that has paid $700 million to 10,000 
radiation victims that suffered health problems connected to the 
testing, according to the county resolution. 

Even underground tests in the 1970s reportedly released 
radioactive material. The Shot Baneberry, detonated in 1970, was 
buried 900 feet below ground but radioactive debris erupted 
10,000 feet into the air. But most fallout was associated with 
above-ground testing. 

In Congress, Renzi voted for the energy and water appropriations 
bill that funds the potential for accelerating the preparation of 
the test site. However, the bill also contained the funding for 
Flagstaff's Rio de Flag flood mitigation project. A vote in favor 
secured money for Rio de Flag. 

The perceived idea that nuclear testing could resurface has 
prompted legislation seeking to regulate it. Introduced by 
Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah in March, the Safety for 
Americans from Nuclear Weapons Testing Act calls for greater 
accountability from the federal government should testing 
reoccur. 

Reporter Seth Muller can be reached at 913-8607 or at 
smuller@azdailysun.com. 

On the Web 

http://www.nv.doe.gov/ 

http://co.coconino.az.us 					 					 				 				 				 				 				
				 				 			   		 		
 Site last updated: 09/23/2004, 01:47 PM
 © 2000-2004 Arizona Daily Sun
*****************************************************************
 43 SFBV: US troops have no protection from America’s poisonous uranium
gas in Iraq 

San Francisco Bay View - National Black Newspaper of the Year
 
9/22/04 

Home [http://www.sfbayview.com] 

Can I buy my son a gas mask?
 
by Bob Nichols 

Project Censored Award Winner 

  An employee of the Department of Energy inventories and 
repackages depleted uranium cores for shipment. Photo: DOE   

A soldier’s mom asks: “Can a gas mask shield against this 
(uranium) dust in Iraq, and can I provide my son with one is the 
question. ... I have been hearing a lot about this and it is 
terrifying.” 

I get asked this question a lot. Parents of sons and daughters 
stationed in Iraq - or their wives, sisters, brothers, uncles and 
aunts and friends – want to help out Uncle Sam and their loved 
ones. They want to contribute to help buy the right gas mask to 
keep the soldier from breathing poisonous and radioactive uranium 
gas. 

The truthful answer is “No, there is nothing you can buy. Your 
sons and daughters will have to take their chances in Iraq, just 
like everybody else. No amount of money will change the answer. 
What you want does not exist.” 


    
  The dark, star-like image in this photograph - magnified 500 
times - shows tracks radiating from a “hot,” or radioactive, 
particle lodged in the lung tissue of an ape. The alpha tracks 
shown above were captured over a two-day period. Photo: Lawrence 
Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., September 1982   



This is the worst part of my work of writing about uranium 
munitions. Anybody who’s in Iraq and breathing is just as likely 
as the next person to get a whiff of poisonous uranium gas. Any 
dose at all is bad. 

The higher the dose, the worse it is. Detached, dry, clinical, 
declassified Army memos written in 1943 talk about death 
occurring in three days from a heavy dose. It is like going into 
battle with your own side using an invisible, odorless, tasteless 
poison gas against both the enemy and you. 

That, in fact, is exactly what the U.S. military is doing. It’s 
called uranium oxide gas, vapor and aerosols. That’s right. That 
date, 1943, is no typo. The U.S. military has known how poisonous 
this gas is for 61 years. 

Welcome to the big city where all the Pentagon suits lie about 
uranium oxide! I don’t expect them to stop now. This practice of 
using uranium oxide is flat out wrong and they all, from 
President Bush on down, richly deserve a long term in Leavenworth 
Federal Penitentiary. 

Did you know the uranium penetrator bombs are patented? Private 
contractors make a buck every time the 2,000-pound penetrator 
bombs, containing 1,100 pounds of radioactive uranium, explode. 
The explosion forms poisonous uranium oxide gas. A few larger 
particles become radioactive shrapnel, cutting everybody and 
everything to pieces. This goes for anti-tank rounds, too. 

This metal, which is straight out of Hell, then burns somewhere 
north of 3,000 degrees. Experts talk about 6,000 degrees, even 
10,000 degrees. Temperatures that hot don’t last long and are 
hard to measure. 

When asked this question about gas masks, famed former Lawrence 
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab scientist Leuren Moret stated, “The 
answer is that there is no protection possible to prevent 
exposure to DU* from the battlefield - and that means the global 
pollution also is now spread around the world.” 

Scientist Moret added, “Go to my ‘Letter to Congressman 
McDermott’ at 
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03 
.htm. It has the diagram for the penetration of HEPA filters by 
particles in the range of 0.1 micron. DU* goes through everything 
- filters, skin, protective clothing. There is no possible way to 
protect people from exposure. 

“However,” Moret concluded, “High Efficiency Particulate 
Airfilters (HEPA) do protect more than other types of filters 
because they are used in nuclear facilities and designed for 
that. They are still ‘transparent’ to nanoparticles (0.1 microns 
and smaller), which means some get through.” 

The highly respected Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., a major in the 
Medical Service Corps and former director of the U.S. Army 
Depleted Uranium Project, says, “Another deliberately ignored 
problem is that the gas mask filters will not remove the very 
small and very dangerous particles that are released during 
chemical, biological and radiological incidents. This is a hazard 
... when our troops breathe in the dust of depleted uranium, a 
toxic and radioactive component of our own weapons.” 

Dr. Rokke continued, “Citizens who see through the smokescreens 
of political rhetoric and a sanitized image of war must speak up 
and demand action. That is our obligation based on a heritage of 
freedom. A freedom won by the legendary Minutemen, 
citizen-soldiers of Concord and Lexington.” Dr. Rokke first 
voiced this call to action on Oct. 2, 2003. His words are even 
more true now. 

So what is a mother or dad, loved one or friend to do? Try like 
crazy to talk them out of enlisting before they sign up. If that 
is just not going to happen, pray that God protects them while 
they are alive and breathing in Iraq. Nothing else works. 

Of course, you could make sure they read this article and know 
what their total option package is. Whatever they decide, there 
are no good choices in this no-good war. 

As Major Doug Rokke urges, “Speak up and demand action. That is 
our obligation based on a heritage of freedom.” 

*What is Depleted Uranium (DU)? 

DU is the result of a step in the process of creating enriched 
uranium for nuclear power plant reactor cores and thermonuclear 
bombs, commonly called hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs. The 
uranium impurity used in bombs and reactor cores is about .711 of 
one percent of natural uranium - a tiny amount, like iodine in 
salt, except it kills everything. Processing natural uranium 
removes about half of the bomb making material. 

It is then called Depleted Uranium by the powers that be, because 
it can no longer be used to make H-bombs. But it is used to make 
uranium bullets, shells and bombs instead. The Depleted Uranium 
is fully 88 percent as radioactive in total radiation as the 
original uranium. 

There are an estimated 1.5 billion pounds of Depleted Uranium at 
U.S. nuclear weapons labs and related facilities – bomb factories 
- in the U.S. The word “depleted” does not mean the uranium is 
safe or OK to use. It means it has been processed; that’s all. 
Perhaps a less deceptive name would be “12 percent depleted 
uranium.” The familiar 60 percent depleted uranium figure refers 
to what is called “alpha” radiation only. 

References 

1. “There Are No Words” by Bob Nichols, 
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm. 

2. “My God! My Country Is Using Poison Gas in Iraq” by Bob 
Nichols, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Nichols0807.htm. 

3. “Poison Fire, USA” by Russell Hoffman, 
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf. 

4. “Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets” 
by Leuren Moret, 
http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. 

5. World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, 
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference. 

6. International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, written 
opinion of Judge N. Bhagwat, 
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribuna 
l10mar04.htm and 
http://www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc. 

7. “Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of 
Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the 
Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons” by André Gsponer, 
Jean-Pierre Hurni, http://www.inesap.org/publ_tech01.htm. 

8. “Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq, 
Humanity” by Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, 
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html. 

9. “Letter from Leuren Moret to Congressman McDermott,” 
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03 
.htm. 

© Copyright 2004, Bob Nichols. All rights reserved. Bob Nichols, 
of Oklahoma City, is a 2004-2005 Project Censored Award winner. 
Email him at info-radiation-wars@cox.net for more information.  
    
San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street 
San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 
671-0316 Email: <font color="#FFFFFF">editor@sfbayview.com</font> 
[editor@sfbayview.com]   
*****************************************************************
 44 Herald Sun: War disease tests 

launchTime: 22-09-2004-->                                                                                      

[http://www.heraldsun.com.au]      

BRITAIN will test thousands of 1991 Gulf War veterans who have 
suffered from unexplained ailments for possible presence of 
depleted uranium in their bodies, a report said yesterday.

Four clinics will undertake the tests in a fresh attempt to 
explain Gulf War Syndrome, The Times newspaper said. 

Both British and US forces in the conflict used armour-piercing 
rounds tipped with depleted uranium, and veterans' groups have 
long argued that radioactive dust from their strikes could have 
caused illnesses. 

But previous British tests have failed to establish a link, 
although some of the research has been condemned as unreliable, 
The Times said. 

David Coggan, the scientist overseeing the program, said the 
tests would be able to detect any amounts of depleted uranium in 
veterans' urine sufficient to cause ill-health. 

About 5000 British troops have complained of a range of maladies 
after taking part in the Gulf War. Common symptoms include 
neurological problems, headaches, depression, weakness, joint and 
muscle pain, rashes and shortness of breath. - AFP 
		 
  privacy      terms      © Herald and Weekly Times   

*****************************************************************
 45 New Zealand News: Troops returning from Iraq to be offered radiation checks
 	 	 	 	 	
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/]    								 								

23.09.2004
 										1.00pm 
The 61 New Zealand defence engineers and tradespeople who spent 
time in Iraq will be offered medical checks if they think they 
were exposed to depleted uranium. 

The second defence contingent is due back in New Zealand on 
Saturday after two deployments which began in September last 
year. 

They were based in Basra where they helped rebuild schools, 
hospitals and health clinics, police stations, law courts, 
government buildings. 

The mixture of army, navy and air force tradesmen and women also 
helped restore power supplies, rebuilt bridges and provided 
humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. 

However, Defence Force spokeswoman, Commander Sandra McKie said 
in a statement today the returning soldiers would all be offered 
medical checks if they thought they were exposed to depleted 
uranium munitions. 

Depleted uranium is a heavy, slightly radioactive metal that is 
used in weapons and armour plating and results in an extremely 
hard metal which performs far better than other competing 
material. 

The American Defence Department (DOD) has said depleted uranium 
needs to be fired (as a munition) or "cooked off" in fires or 
explosions to be harmful to troops. 

Even then it posed an extremely low radiological threat provided 
it remained outside the body, said the American DOD. 

If it was taken into the body as metal fragments or dust-like 
particles, it may pose a long term health hazard if the amount 
was large. 

Cdr McKie said all troops being sent to areas where depleted 
uranium may have been used had been briefed on the potential 
risk. 

She said the deployment to Iraq cost $10 million but the troops 
were not there as part of the occupying force and were not 
involved in security operations. 

She said Iraq was still a difficult and challenging environment 
and there was a security risk to the New Zealand troops. 

"It was necessary for them to be able to protect themselves." 

The troops carried arms when they left their British camp base at 
Basra but if the threat level escalated they did not leave the 
base. 

The troops will be welcomed home by Prime Minister Helen Clark, 
Defence Minister Mark Burton, and Vice Chief of Defence Force, 
Air Vice Marshal David Bamfield at the Ohakea Air Force Base on 
Saturday night. 

It was highly unlikely New Zealand would send any more troops to 
Iraq because the country "is just too difficult and too 
dangerous," Miss Clark told National Radio yesterday. 

"We can see with the tragic recent hostage-takings and beheadings 
played on the internet that Iraq just isn't a place for civilians 
at the present time." 

- NZPA 

© Copyright 2004, New Zealand Herald                  
Privacy Policy [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/privacypolicy/] 
*****************************************************************
 46 L.A. Daily News: Agency proposal rejected Court invalidates water plan
 
Article Published: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 -

By Eugene Tong and Patricia Farrell Aidem
Staff Writers

SANTA CLARITA -- A water plan for the Santa Clarita Valley that 
relies on tainted well sources in times of drought was 
invalidated Wednesday by the state Court of Appeal.

 The 5th District appellate court invalidated the 2000 Urban 
Water Management Plan approved by the Castaic Lake Water Agency, 
which manages state water in Santa Clarita, and local water 
retailers because it did not adequately address perchlorate 
contamination in local groundwater supplies.

 The plan also is necessary to developers in the fast-growing 
valley who must ensure a water supply before obtaining 
construction permits.

 "This is a long time coming," said Joan Dunn, a member of the 
Newhall County Water District board, which is seeking to change 
the plan. "We tried to get the information out that the urban 
water management plan is erroneous. But they didn't listen to us. 
At least now they can't say we're crazy." 

Wednesday's ruling favored Friends of the Santa Clara River and 
the Sierra Club, who had sued, saying the water plan included 
Santa Clarita's tainted groundwater supply as backup in case 
state supplies were limited by drought. A plume of perchlorate, a 
byproduct of rocket fuel that has been linked to thyroid 
disorders, has been identified in the local groundwater, 
prompting officials to cap four municipal wells. Studies 
continue, but it could be years before the water is purified.

 The water plan failed to assess the reliability of the supply in 
Santa Clarita's two groundwater pools, a shallow aquifer that 
roughly follows the Santa Clara River and the deep Saugus 
Formation.

 "If there is a dry stretch, the districts plan to take more 
water from the Saugus Formation," the justices wrote. "If the 
perchlorate contamination impairs the supply of water taken from 
the Saugus Formation in dry years, the districts plan to restore 
full production capacity by treating the contaminated water. 
While the treatment facilities are being built, the districts 
have no plan to cover the reduction in water available from the 
Saugus Formation."

 The CLWA issued a statement late Wednesday saying only that some 
of the groundwater supply is contaminated and that a plan is 
being developed to pump water from just those areas without 
risking the further spread of perchlorate.

 The chemical is believed to have seeped into the groundwater 
from a defunct munitions plant that operated for about 80 years 
in Saugus. Whittaker-Bermite was the most recent defense 
contractor there and is expected to help finance the cleanup. The 
water agencies also said in a joint statement that they were 
making progress on a plan for a process to remove the perchlorate 
from the water.

 Nevertheless the appellate panel ordered the CLWA, its Santa 
Clarita Water Division and the Valencia Water Company to pay the 
plaintiffs more legal fees. Earlier, Kern County Superior Court 
Judge Richard J. Oberholzer had ruled that the plaintiffs must 
pay the water agencies more than $55,000 for their court costs.

 "I'm the only guy that voted against it," said Ed Dunn, a former 
CLWA board member who served on the panel when the 2000 water 
plan was drafted. "It was just a bunch of creative writing, is 
what it is. It was just not a good, honest plan."

 "You can't include polluted water because it's not usable right 
now," said Joan Dunn, who is married to Ed Dunn. "To hear the 
court say, 'Well, they didn't say how they were going to take 
care of the problem,' it's wonderful."

 The appellate court returned the matter to the Superior Court, 
ordering it to vacate the water agencies' approval of the 2000 
Urban Water Management Plan.

 The water plan projects a 20-year supply for the Santa Clarita 
Valley from a variety of sources, including entitlements from the 
state Water Project, the Saugus and alluvial aquifers, recycling 
and stored groundwater.

 Last year, Oberholzer ruled that there was enough water to 
supply about 2,000 new homes in the Santa Clarita Valley each 
year for the next 20 years, upholding the findings of the Urban 
Water Management Plan. Valencia Water is owned by the region's 
largest developer, The Newhall Land and Farming Company.

 The ruling had removed the uncertainty swirling around several 
large development projects that are counting on the CLWA to 
provide water for the new homes, including Newhall Land's 
21,600-home Newhall Ranch. 

Staff Writer Susan Abram contributed to this story. 

Susan Abram, (661) 257-5257 susan.abram@dailynews.com 
[susan.abram@dailynews.com] 

Copyright © 2004 Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles 
*****************************************************************
 47 Interfax: 20 radioactive burial sites found in Belarus

Interfax.com [http://www.interfax.com]

Sep 23 2004 4:17PM
 
MINSK/VIENNA. Sept 23 (Interfax) - The burial sites of roughly
20 derelict radiation sources have been discovered in Belarus,
the country's Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Sychev said in a
speech at the 48th session of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) general conference in Vienna. 

"Investigation into two of these sites proved their actual
radiation threat," Sychev said. 

Currently, "funds are being searched for to continue
investigations and for the development of a prototype project
for removing these sources from unsanctioned storage," he said. 

Belarus is counting on help from the IAEA for the solution of
this problem, he said. 

"Today it is obvious that reaching safety when using nuclear
fuel and radioactive waste is only possible with the
participation of all countries in the Joint Convention on the
Safety of Spent Fuel Management," Sychev said. 

He urged the countries that have not signed the convention to do
so.     

© 1991-2004 Interfax
 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 48 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Oversight of Yucca is in jeopardy

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 The federal money that the state of Nevada has been receiving
for the oversight of the Yucca Mountain project has been
dwindling away in recent years. Last year the state had sought
$5 million from Congress, but it was given only $1 million. On
Tuesday the state experienced another setback, as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission -- the federal agency that will decide on
the Energy Department's application to build a nuclear waste
dump in Nevada -- rejected the state's request for a $13.75
million grant. The state wanted the money to perform oversight
work, such as $2 million to analyze the dump's performance and
$1.8 million for further studies of how nuclear waste containers
could corrode inside a repository. The latter issue -- the
potential corrosion of the containers -- continues to vex
scientists and offers enough uncertainty, we believe, to doom
the pr oject.

 The federal government -- whether it's Congress or the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission -- should be providing Nevada with the
necessary funding to carry out proper oversight of the Yucca
Mountain project. The federal government's shortcuts and
failures to look out on the behalf of Nevadans are legion with
respect to determining whether Yucca Mountain can safely store
nuclear waste. Just this summer the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the federal government's proposed radiation
standard for Yucca Mountain didn't meet the legal requirements
to protect public safety, a legal blow to the project that
ultimately could prevent nuclear waste from ever coming here.
We're not optimistic, though, that Congress will step up and
provide us with the money to be the watchdog on Yucca Mountain
that the federal government has been unwilling to be. It's
essential th en that Gov. Kenny Guinn and the next session of
the Nevada Legislature set aside enough state funds to provide
the needed ! oversight of one of the gravest threats to Nevada's
future. 

*****************************************************************
 49 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Sandoval missed chance on Yucca

Who said the following?

 "Nevada has recently enjoyed important legal victories, but it
is incumbent upon everyone in the fight against Yucca Mountain
to remain steadfast in our commitment to work together and prove
to the world that the project poses unacceptable risks. The
final battle over Yucca, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
will prove that a safe repository cannot be built in the porous
volcanic rock that constitutes Yucca Mountain. If the project
has not collapsed by then, this final battle will expose it for
being the ill-considered project that it is."

 If you said Brian Sandoval, Nevada's attorney general, in his
Sept. 12 article in the Sun headlined, "Yucca project to fail
regardless of politics," you would be right.

 But why, then, did Sandoval not take advantage of his speaking
opportunity at the Republican National Convention to express
these convictions?

 He had the opportunity to tell the delegates how wrong the
party's platform and president are. He let us down. One has to
question Sandoval's commitment to ending this deadly project. Is
he merely playing politics while protecting his political flank
here in Nevada and in the White House?

 There is only one way to ensure we are kept safe from Yucca.
Choose the presidential candidate who is committed to ending
this deadly project. 

RICHARD MILLER

 

*****************************************************************
 50 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Eject Bush to stop nuke dump

The Yucca Mountain project is being forced on us because
billions of dollars have already been spent studying the site
over the last 20 years and the clock is ticking on temporary
storage facilities. Additionally, the Bush administration is for
ramping up the nuclear power industry in this country and
therefore needs a permanent storage solution.

 These are not good enough reasons to build a permanent nuclear
waste storage facility in a seismically active area. Every
Nevadan should look at the U.S. Geological Service's Web page
(http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm
[http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm] ) and see the
real-time seismic activity in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain.
The toxicity level of the waste slated for this site is in the
"immediately fatal" category. Scientists, engineers and our own
legislators are gravely concerned about the risk to our state,
but our president is not. He doesn't consult nonpartisan experts
on these matters; he gets his decision-making information from
loyalist ideologues committed to his version of the conservative
agenda.

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, for example, author of the
recommendation the president used to approve the Yucca Mountain
project, is neither a scientist nor an engineer. He is a
conservative lawyer who has spent 10 years of his career as
chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and co-chairman of the
National Republican Congressional Committee.

 If we give the Bush administration another opportunity to force
its pro-nuclear agenda, no doubt the consequences will be
disastrous for Nevada. 

MARG DILLON Reno

 

*****************************************************************
 51 RGJ: Application for nuclear waste grant is rejected
 
  ||| Home [http://www.rgj.com/] |         ||| List of
	   	 	   
Associated Press
[online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS
9/22/2004 09:24 pm 

Jay Kurowski [jkurowsk@rgj.com] /RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 

LAS VEGAS — Nevada has been turned down for a $13.75 million 
nuclear waste grant, potentially threatening the state’s legal 
and science campaigns against the Yucca Mountain Project.

After learning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had rejected the 
application, the state’s nuclear waste manager said Tuesday he 
might seek $1 million in supplemental funds from the state Board 
of Examiners and the Legislature later this year to stay afloat.

“I guess we’re going to sit tight and see what happens and then 
make a decision whether to go to the Legislature or not,” said 
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear 
Projects. “We can limp along here for now. We’re probably OK 
until November or December.”

Loux said the impact is difficult to measure because the Energy 
Department also is facing uncertainties due to a budget impasse 
in Congress and a legal ruling this summer that invalidated a key 
radiation safety standard. 

Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 52 UK Independent: British nuclear waste to be sent to central Asia
 
By Charles Arthur Technology Editor
 
23 September 2004

British nuclear Fuels plans to ship 1,800 tons of radioactive 
materials to Kyrgyzstan for reprocessing, in a scheme that has 
been condemned as "a back-door route to dump British nuclear 
waste on an impoverished former Soviet republic". 

The company defended the decision, which will recover 90 tons of 
reactor-grade uranium while, in effect, removing 10,600 drums of 
slightly radioactive waste from its Springfields reactor plant 
near Preston, in north-west England, for disposal in a uranium 
mine in the central Asian country. 

The plan was condemned by activists who pointed out that it would 
be simpler, and cheaper, to buy fresh uranium directly from the 
mine. 

A spokesman for BNFL Springfields said it was "economically 
viable to process these residues and extract the uranium, and a 
benefit is it will reduce the store on site". He said British 
Energy, which runs the Magnox power stations which would need the 
fuel, would buy the extracted uranium. 

Pete Roche, a consultant to the environmental pressure group 
Greenpeace said it was "morally objectionable" to send British 
nuclear products abroad "any way you look at it".                  


UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 53 Nevada Appeal: Nevada loses nuclear waste grant
               
Associated Press
September 23, 2004
 						
 LAS VEGAS - Nevada has been turned down for a $13.75 million 
nuclear waste grant, potentially threatening the state's legal 
and science campaigns against the Yucca Mountain Project.

After learning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had rejected the 
application, the state's nuclear waste manager said Tuesday he 
may seek $1 million in supplemental funds from the state Board of 
Examiners and the Legislature later this year to stay afloat.

"I guess we're going to sit tight and see what happens, and then 
make a decision whether to go to the Legislature or not," said 
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear 
Projects. "We can limp along here for now. We're probably OK 
until November or December."

Loux said the impact is difficult to measure because the Energy 
Department also is facing uncertainties due to a budget impasse 
in Congress and a legal ruling this summer that invalidated a key 
radiation safety standard.

DOE delays on the Yucca project could buy time for the state 
until Congress acts or federal courts hear a pending lawsuit that 
seeks additional government funding, Loux said.

The financial setback comes when the state needs additional money 
the most. It has increased spending on lawyers, technical experts 
and research to prepare for Yucca Mountain license hearings 
before the NRC.

State officials had projected they would spend about $10 million 
a year for the next four years or more to mount an aggressive 
challenge.

The state recently renewed a $6 million contract with Egan, 
Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Cynkar, of McLean, Va., to represent the 
state during Yucca licensing, an amount that also funds major 
technical consultants.

To finance its repository research, Nevada has relied on an 
appropriation from Congress each year. But lawmakers allocated 
only $1 million for 2004, about 80 percent less than the state 
requested.

No money has yet been set aside for 2005.

The NRC turned down Nevada's grant request in a 43-page opinion 
issued Thursday that was received by the state Tuesday.

The agency said federal laws restricted its ability to give 
Nevada the money it sought. Even if the request could be honored, 
the grant would have forced cutbacks in other programs, it said.

All contents © Copyright 2004 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 
580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701                         
*****************************************************************
 54 Boston.com: Pollutant discovered in treated waste water
 
Boston Globe
    
New theories arise over source of contaminant
 
By Joyce Pellino Crane, Globe Correspondent  |  September 23,
2004 

Extremely high levels of perchlorate have been found in water 
flowing out of waste-water treatment plants in Billerica and 
Lowell, but officials aren't sure how the chemical got there and 
whether it is linked to the presence of the pollutant in 
Tewksbury's drinking water. 

The state announced last week that results from a round of 
samples taken a week earlier along the Concord River showed water 
leaving Billerica's waste-water treatment plant had a perchlorate 
level 158 times the limit recommended by state guidelines. 
Earlier in the month, test results showed the water flowing out 
of the Lowell Regional Wastewater Treatment Utility into the 
Merrimack River contained perchlorate levels about 20 times the 
recommended limit. 

"This is the first time that we're aware of, that perchlorate has 
been found in waste-water treatment plants" anywhere in the 
country, said Ed Kunce, deputy commissioner for the state 
Department of Environmental Protection. 

Kunce said he is conferring with environmental representatives 
from about 40 states, as the state investigates the cause and 
measures the effects of the chemical. Alarm over the chemical 
compound arose two years ago after it was discovered in high 
levels in the drinking water of communities hosting the 
Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod. The state last 
January initiated emergency guidelines for measuring the 
substance. 

A waste-water treatment plant takes in raw sewage that has been 
channeled through underground pipes, removes the solid wastes, 
and filters and disinfects the water so it can return in a 
purified form to the river. The cleaning process is critical 
because several communities draw their drinking water from the 
rivers. 

Billerica gets its water from the Concord River, and its 
drinking-water facility is upstream from the waste-water 
treatment plant. Water from Billerica's waste-water plant flows 
toward Lowell on the Concord River. Sewage cleaned at Lowell's 
waste-water treatment plant is then released into the Merrimack 
River and flows toward Tewksbury, which gets its drinking water 
from the river. 

State officials have conducted two rounds of tests in this region 
since late August, after Tewksbury's drinking water was found to 
have higher levels of perchlorate than recommended by state 
guidelines. That prompted the Department of Environmental 
Protection to search for the source. 

Test results have found no perchlorate in Lowell's or Billerica's 
drinking water. But in the Department of Environmental 
Protection's first round of tests last month, water samples taken 
where the Concord and Merrimack rivers converge, in Lowell under 
the Route 133 bridge, registered perchlorate at 3.24 parts per 
billion of water. In addition, the Lowell plant registered 
perchlorate levels ranging from 18 to 21.9 parts per billion as 
the waste water left the facility. However, there was no trace of 
perchlorate coming into the Lowell plant.   


- A similar result occurred in Billerica. In this latest round of 
tests, the point at which treated water leaves the pipes at 
Billerica's waste-water treatment plant showed perchlorate levels 
at 158 parts per billion.

The state recommends that perchlorate not exceed 1 part per 
billion and requires communities to alert the public when the 
level is higher and to take steps to reduce it. According to the 
state's environmental website, levels above 18 parts per billion 
pose a health risk.

Perchlorate is found in such things as explosives, fireworks, air 
bag inflators, certain fertilizers, and leather-tanning 
chemicals. The US Environmental Protection Agency says the 
chemical can affect the function of the thyroid gland, which 
regulates the body's metabolism and development in children. 
Children under age 12, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and 
people with hypothyroidism are most susceptible to the chemical's 
effects.

With the latest round of tests showing high perchlorate levels in 
Billerica's waste-water treatment, theories about the causes are 
surfacing.

Among state environmental officials, those theories include 
speculation that the treatment process itself is creating 
perchlorate in the plant, through filtration, aeration, and 
biological treatment, Kunce said.

Another theory suggests the chemical is forming naturally inside 
sewers, when chlorine for washing clothes is added to the waste 
water.

"Perchlorate is a simple compound of four oxygen molecules and 
one chloride molecule," he said. "There's a lot of chlorine and 
oxygen in waste water, and the theory is that it is forming in 
the waste water."

It's also possible the chemicals used to disinfect the waste 
water are mixing with each other to create perchlorate, or that 
industrial plants are legally discharging chemicals that release 
perchlorate, which dissolves in the water, said Kunce.

Kunce expects to oversee more testing as he and his colleagues 
attempt to unravel the mystery of perchlorate and the causes of 
Tewksbury's troubles, he said.

Tewksbury's drinking water has averaged levels of perchlorate 
that range between 2 and 3 parts per billion from a series of 11 
samples taken since August. But he emphasized that even 
pinpointing Tewksbury's source of perchlorate to one of the 
waste-water treatment plants wouldn't immediately bring down the 
perchlorate concentration to acceptable levels, because the very 
systems designed to sanitize the water could be the root cause, 
and there are no alternative ways of cleaning sewage.

"We're not going to tell people in Lowell to stop flushing 
toilets," Kunce said.

Joyce Pellino Crane can be reached at crane@globe.com. 
*****************************************************************
 55 Boston.com: Superfund cleanup set for two sites
 
2001. Davis Bushnell September 23, 2004 --> 
 CONCORD, TEWKSBURY 
 
Superfund cleanup set for 2 properties
 
By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent  |  September 23, 2004 

Field work is scheduled to begin next month at two of the 
region's most contaminated sites, Starmet Corp. in West Concord 
and the former Rocco's Landfill in Tewksbury. Both properties 
were placed on the US Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund 
list in June 2001. 

The EPA recently approved work plans featuring extensive water 
and soil samplings at the two sites. Once a determination of the 
extent of contamination has been made sometime next year, a 
process to look into possible health risks can begin, officials 
said. 

The federal agency and the state Department of Environmental 
Protection will hold a public information meeting Tuesday on the 
Starmet field work, which is expected to begin Oct. 4. The 
meeting will start at 7 p.m. in the main hearing room of the 
Concord Town House, 22 Monument Square. 

A similar meeting is expected to be held in Tewksbury in October 
or November on the work plan for the old Rocco's Landfill, now 
known as the Sutton Brook Disposal Area, said Donald McElroy, the 
EPA's remedial manager for the property. 

In another development concerning the Starmet site, the 
environmental protection department is preparing to solicit bids 
for the removal of more than 3,700 barrels of depleted uranium 
stored in various buildings on the 46-acre property. Requests for 
proposals could ''possibly" go out next month, department 
spokesman Joseph Ferson said. If that happens, the project would 
probably get started early next year, he said. 

The US Army has agreed to pay for the removal of the barrels, 
which contain low levels of radioactive material. Starmet's 
predecessor, Nuclear Metals Inc., produced uranium-tipped bullets 
for the Army in the 1970s, 1980s, and late 1990s. 

Members of activist groups, meanwhile, who are monitoring the two 
Superfund sites, say they're generally pleased with the field 
work plans. 

''The work that is about to begin is an important benchmark in 
the long process to clean up the [Starmet] site," said James West 
of Concord, technical assistance coordinator for the Citizens 
Research and Environmental Watch group. ''We hope that as many 
residents as possible will attend the Sept. 28 meeting to find 
out more about the project." 

Susan Sinclair of Wilmington, president of the Townspeople 
Organized Against Illness and Contamination group, said she and 
other members are ''happy" that plans for the 100-acre Sutton 
Brook area have jelled ''so that field work can start soon." 

Overseeing the investigative work at Starmet is de maximis Inc. 
of Weatogue, Conn. The firm is handling the field work for the 
five parties cited by the EPA in June 2003 for being responsible 
for the property's contamination. Besides the Army, they are the 
US Department of Energy, Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley, Calif.; 
Textron Inc. of Providence, and MONY Life Insurance Co. of New 
York City. 

The project coordinator for de maximis, Bruce Thompson, said his 
firm, along with subcontractors, will be working nonstop during 
October and November, collecting water and soil samples ''across 
the site. Three drilling rigs will be operating at one time." 

Based on the results of operations this fall, a second sampling 
phase will get underway next spring, he said, adding that a 
risk-assessment program could begin next summer. A remedial plan 
for the property is targeted for 2008 or 2009. 

The Tewksbury project could also have two investigative phases, 
the first one this fall and next winter, the second in the 
spring, when contamination findings are likely to be revealed in 
detail, said McElroy of the EPA. 

Woodard & Curran, an Andover environmental consulting firm, will 
conduct these investigations. The firm is working on behalf of 25 
parties ''potentially responsible" for the contamination of the 
former landfill, which was closed in 1982. The parties include 
the town of Tewksbury, Raytheon Co., and the Gillette Co. 

The sampling work and risk-assessment phases may not be completed 
until 2006 or later, McElroy said, emphasizing that it is always 
difficult to come up with precise timetables for Superfund site 
cleanups because of variables such as additional sampling work 
and funds needed for remedial action. [ /]  © Copyright 2004 

Globe Newspaper Company.
*****************************************************************
 56 Austin Chronicle: News: Nuke Waste: Get It While It's Hot!
 
 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004: NEWS: NUKE WASTE: GET IT WHILE IT'S

 BY WELLS DUNBAR 

        Prepare yourself for a long and convoluted journey, from 
the corridors of the State Capitol to the tiny West Texas oil 
boom-town-gone-bust of Andrews, and from the uranium mines of the 
Congo to the prairies of Nebraska. All are landmarks along the 
path of the state's new economic race: to import as much 
radioactive waste into Texas as your governor and his business 
buddies see fit. 

        When dealing with "low-level" (yet still extremely 
dangerous) radioactive waste, mostly from nuclear power plants, 
states often form compacts – agreements wherein one state plays 
host to the other's unwanted waste in exchange for compensation. 
This system was authorized by Congress back in 1980, with the 
intent that regions would find convenient sites close to home for 
centralized waste disposal. But in practice, the system has led 
to plans to ship nuclear material from sea to shining sea – 
Texas' compact partners are Vermont and Maine. Under the terms of 
the existing Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, 
however, the Lone Star State would only import from New England 
the equivalent of 20% of our own generated waste volume over 50 
years. (Vermont has one active, and Maine one decommissioned, 
nuclear power plant; Texas has two active plants.) 

        Yet tucked away in the Texas agreement is a provision 
granting the state's Compact Commission authority to import as 
much low-level radioactive waste as it likes from others outside 
our own compact, thus making a mockery of these caps. According 
to a briefing document from the office of the Governor, "Party 
states are limited in the volume of waste they can ship to Texas. 
Agreements made with a person, state, regional body, or group of 
states are not subject to the 20 percent limitation." So when the 
state of Nebraska found itself reamed to the tune of $151 million 
in fines for bungling its host-state role in its own compact with 
its Midwestern neighbors, Gov. Rick Perry's phone started 
ringing. 

	But let's back up a little bit ... 

        The 78th Texas Legislature saw a massive paradigm shaft 
... er, shift, as the newly minority Dems had to pick their 
battles with the zealous Republican majority. Payback was on the 
agenda – both against the Ds and for the GOP's benefactors. As 
Colin Leyden, legislative director for state Rep. Lon Burnam, 
D-Fort Worth, tells it, this climate brewed the "perfect storm" 
for faithful GOP donors like Harold Simmons and his Waste Control 
Specialists. From 1997 to 2000, Simmons' campaign contributions 
included $209,900 to Gov. Perry and $66,000 to George W. Bush, 
who "halted plans to build a state-run nuclear dump" – thus 
clearing the way for WCS' private-sector dump project in Andrews 
to take its place, according to Texans for Public Justice's Lobby 
Watch. (The state-managed facility proposed for Sierra Blanca, in 
the Trans-Pecos, had itself been an object of controversy for 
years.) 

        "You had new leadership try to pass a whole bunch of 
major legislation in Texas," recalls Leyden, and with the Dems 
tending to the home fires, House Bill 1567 "just slipped right 
through." With it, "WCS is making a play to become the main dump 
in the country." HB 1567 was cloaked in a star-spangled veil of 
national security, and thanks to millions of lobbying dollars, 
the claim was hammered home that, if left at its current sites 
(typically the plants themselves), radioactive material was a 
prime terror target. Even Texas Association of Business CEO Bill 
Hammond got in on the act, claiming – just days before being 
cited for contempt for refusing to disclose documents relating to 
the TAB's very financing of the GOP takeover – that to not 
"develop a safe and secure disposal facility ... leaves open the 
possibility of terrorists using these radioactive materials for a 
'dirty bomb.'" 

        But in fact, HB 1567 runs the risk of creating far more 
victims of nuclear catastrophe than it purported to protect – 
like all 22 million people in Texas. When signed into law by 
Perry last year, the bill privatized the compact's storage 
options, clearing the playing field for well-connected WCS, whose 
own best interest is to import as much radioactive waste into 
Texas as possible. With Nebraska's compact waste from several 
states and fines adding up to one hell of a hot potato, the 
Huskers recently contacted Perry "about facilitating an agreement 
between the Texas Compact Commission" and themselves. Also 
included in a summary of the conference call is the reminder that 
"No legislative action would be needed." All that's required is a 
majority vote by the Commission – whose members, yet to be named, 
will be selected by Perry himself. 

        In addition to the current permits for its Andrews site 
to hold not only compact waste but federal waste from the U.S. 
Department of Energy, WCS recently applied for an 11(e)(2) 
permit, allowing it to house the deadly leftovers of uranium ore 
enrichment, of which tons are scattered across the country, some 
predating the Manhattan Project. As if that weren't enough, The 
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reports that Louisiana Energy Services 
is considering locating a brand new uranium-enrichment center in 
Eunice, N.M., across the state line from Andrews. 

        "Many members stood up on the floor of the House, going, 
'No, no, no, we're not going to be taking waste from all these 
other states,'" intoned Leyden. From the looks of it, that's 
about as far from the truth as Andrews is from the Congo. 

[http://www.austinchronicle.com

Copyright © 1995-2004 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights
*****************************************************************
 57 IRIN: KYRGYZSTAN: Not ready to import nuclear fuel for 
reprocessing - OCHA IRIN
 
24 September 2004   
    
©  IRIN [http://www.irinnews.org] 

Kyrgyzstan has plenty of nuclear waste of its own to deal with, 
much of it exposed and vulnerable landslides - like this uranium 
dump in the southern town of Mailu - Suu  


ANKARA, 23 Sep 2004 (IRIN) - Controversial plans to ship 1,800 mt 
of British radioactive material to Kyrgyzstan for reprocessing 
have not been agreed by the authorities in Bishkek, a government 
official told IRIN on Thursday. "Nobody, neither a legal entity 
nor a real person, has applied to us for a licence to import this 
uranium waste," Emil Akmatov, a spokesman for the Kyrgyz Ministry 
of Environment and Emergencies, said.

British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), an international company owned 
by the UK government, has defended the decision, which will 
recover 90 mt of reactor-grade uranium while, in effect, removing 
10,600 drums of low-level radioactive waste from its Springfields 
reactor plant near Preston, in northwest England, for disposal in 
a uranium mine in the Central Asian country. 

The plan has been condemned by activists who argue the 
impoverished former Soviet republic does not have the resources 
or expertise to safely reprocess nuclear waste. "Kyrgyzstan 
already has problems with uranium tailing storage facilities, 
especially in [the southern town of] Mailu-Suu, which are in a 
critical condition because of a lack of funding since the 
break-up of the Soviet Union. Importing more waste to fund this 
clean-up sets a very bad precedent for finding solutions to 
environmental problems across the globe," Pete Roche, a nuclear 
consultant to Greenpeace UK, told IRIN from London.

In February, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Nikolay Tanaev said that the 
government wouldn't allow radioactive waste into the country. 
"The country first needs to solve problems regarding its own 
uranium waste sites," he said. His comments came after a series 
of public protests at government plans to process uranium from 
Germany. 

There are a number of radioactive waste dumps in the country - a 
legacy of the Soviet era - that need to rehabilitated, with the 
ones in the southern town of Mailu-Suu being particularly 
vulnerable to floods and possible landslides.

BNFL plans to send the radioactive waste to the Kara Balta 
uranium mining and processing facility in northern Kyrgyzstan, 60 
km west of the capital, Bishkek. Kara Balta is one of the few 
plants capable of separating the uranium from the waste, 
according to BNFL. The uranium will be extracted with acid and 
returned to the UK for reuse, while the remains will be disposed 
of down disused uranium mining facilities.

The scheme has also been opposed by a coalition of social and 
environmental groups in Kyrgyzstan. "We are against this nuclear 
waste being brought here, it wont solve any economic problems and 
it's bad for Kyrgyzstan's development," Viacheslav Charskiy, head 
of Agat, a environmental NGO based in Bishkek, told IRIN. Other 
activists said they were concerned that while the government 
publicly opposes the proposal, the lure of hard currency may 
override environmental concerns.

. All materials copyright © UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2004   
*****************************************************************
 58 KLAS: DOE Imposes "New" Yucca Rules


September 23, 2004   

  Adam White, Photojournalist

For the last 20 years, the DOE has provided Clark County with
millions of dollars. But now 20 years later, the DOE is cracking
down on exactly what that money can be used for.
   
  Brian Allen, Reporter

(Sept. 22) -- Clark County is crying foul as the Department of
Energy imposes new rules concerning the Yucca Mountain project.
County leaders say they didn't see this coming. For the last 20
years, the DOE has provided Clark County with millions of
dollars: money to be used to prepare for the Yucca Mountain
project. But now 20 years later, the DOE is cracking down on
exactly what that money can be used for; triggering a "new" war
of words. 

County leaders want to know why such a dramatic change and why
now?  "I believe the Department of Energy would rather have a
smoother license application process." Irene Navis is the
county's Yucca coordinator and was blindsided by the changes. 

Change number one: the county can't use it's DOE money to
prepare and file paperwork as part of the repository's licensing
process; leaving the county on the outside looking in without a
voice as the process continues. "We're relegated to just the
average public citizen who wants to understand what's happening
after the fact or maybe they read it in the newspaper." 

Change number two: the county can't use its DOE money to study
nuclear waste transportation. County officials can attend DOE
transportation meetings but can't offer opinions or analysis.
"All of those impacts related to property values, public safety,
impacts to government services that has always been the context
under which we have been studying transportation." 

Clark County Commission Chairman Chip Maxfield sent a letter to
the DOE saying he has "significant areas of concern", that the
changes are "an attempt to marginalize" the county's role in
Yucca Mountain, and doing so would impact the "health and safety
of Nevada residents." 

Yucca opponents, like Judy Treichel, say the DOE isn't playing
fair. "If they had a good site it should be able to stand up to
any sort of scrutiny. It should be able to answer all the hard
questions and it should be able to follow every single rule." 

The Department of Energy says these changes really aren't
changes at all. The rules have always been on the books but
never enforced. We asked Alan Benson with the DOE in Las Vegas,
if the rules weren't enforced in the past why are they being
enforced now? Benson says -- because they are the rules.   

2004 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 Concord Journal: Citizen involvement needed at Starmet Superfund site

TownOnline.com - Opinion &Letters
 
[http://www2.townonline.com/concord/opinion/view.bg?articleid=905

By Mark Roberts

Thursday, September 23, 2004It has not been in the paper much
recently, so you may have forgotten that one of the nation's
worst Superfund sites is located near Acton off Route 62. The
Nuclear Metals, Inc. Superfund Site, is located on a 46-acre
parcel located at 2229 Main St. in West Concord. In 1958, NMI
began manufacture of depleted uranium products, primarily as
penetrators for armor piercing ammunition. 

They also manufactured metal powders for medical applications, 
photocopiers, and specialty metal products, such as beryllium 
tubing used in the aerospace industry. From 1958 to 1985, NMI 
discharged radioactive and other hazardous waste including 
depleted uranium, zirconium; magnesium; beryllium, 
1,1,1-trichloroethane and other solvents into an unlined large 
pit in the ground. NMI's activities also resulted in burying 
drums of radioactive waste in at least two areas and creating a 
landfill with radioactive and other hazardous wastes.

     On Oct. 1, 1997, NMI was renamed Starmet Corporation. In May 
2001, Starmet transported 1,700 drums containing depleted uranium 
from its South Carolina facility to the site, to facilitate its 
planned sale of that facility. Starmet also had approximately 
2,000 drums and other containers of depleted uranium and 
beryllium wastes stored inside buildings at the site. Starmet was 
ordered to remove the 3,700 drums of waste material, but could 
not comply because of bankruptcy. After negotiations, the U.S. 
Army has agreed to fund the removal of the 3,700 drums under the 
supervision of the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

     In June 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency also 
negotiated an agreement with five potentially responsible parties 
including: the U.S. Army, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Whittaker 
Corporation, MONY Life Insurance Co., and Textron, Incorporated, 
for the performance of an investigation and cleanup feasibility 
report costing an estimated $8 million. The site has been divided 
into 18 separate areas, each of which will be investigated and 
cleaned up. The Concord annual Town Meeting of 2003 passed a 
resolution that the site shall be cleaned up for all uses 
allowable under the current zoning, including residential. This 
remedial investigation is just the first step in a multi-year 
process which will be required before the NMI Superfund Site is 
finally cleaned up.

     EPA recognizes that the interests of the public are 
represented by a citizens' group, CREW (Citizens Research and 
Environmental Watch), and the town of Concord through its 2229 
Main St. Advisory Committee. CREW is a volunteer citizens group, 
which has been involved actively since 1989 in seeking a cleanup 
of the toxic and radioactively contaminated property, working 
closely with oversight agencies. Grants from the government and 
private foundations have enabled CREW hire consultants to assist 
the oversight agencies with cleanup plans. The 2229 Main St. 
Advisory Committee was appointed in 2001 to advise the selectmen 
on issues concerning the Superfund process after the NMI Site was 
designated a Superfund Site. The Committee meets monthly at 141 
Keyes Road, Concord.

     In December 2003, de maximis, the project coordinator for 
the non-government responsible parties, submitted a draft Work 
Plan, an eight-volume report which provided the complete detail 
of the proposed investigation and cleanup study. In a 70 page 
report, CREW member professionals and the environmental 
consultant, GeoInsight Inc., submitted hundreds of comments to 
improve the Plan. The comments involved historic information, the 
number, type and location of samples being taken, and provided 
information showing that the proposed model of the flow of ground 
water and radioactive and hazardous contaminants in ground water 
was flawed and needed to be revised. This advice, as well as that 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Mass. Department of 
Environmental Protection and the 2229 Main St. Committee, was 
used to amend the plan. There is no question that the plan to 
investigate and propose cleanup remedies is substantially better 
now thanks to the advice of all the above. EPA and de maximus 
have set up an expanded public involvement process with CREW and 
the 2229 Main St. Committee by having periodic meetings with them 
about the technical aspects of the remedial investigation, so the 
interests of, and the contributions from, the public and Concord 
are heard on a regular basis.

     It is only through continued public involvement and 
oversight that the Starmet Superfund Site will be cleaned up in a 
manner consistent with the goals of the residents of Concord, 
that the site be cleaned up once and for all and will not be a 
permanent blight in town. There are two things that every Concord 
resident can do to monitor the investigation and cleanup. The 
first is to regularly check the official Web site set up by de 
maximus, which will be updated periodically as the investigation/ 
cleanup goes forward. The Web site address is 
http://www.nmisite.org.

     The second thing you can do is to attend the public meetings 
held by the EPA, the next one of which is scheduled for Sept. 28 
at 7:30 p.m. in the Concord Town House Hearing Room on Monument 
Square. The EPA will be discussing whether emergency removal 
actions are required to address the buried drums, holding basin, 
the waste landfill and/or the facility buildings without waiting 
for the completion of the entire remedial investigation/ 
feasibility study process that will take years. All residents of 
Concord are encouraged to attend to learn what is going to be 
going on over the next few months, what health and safety 
measures are going to implemented to ensure that the 
investigation does not release contaminants into the environment, 
and to demonstrate to the EPA that Concord takes the Starmet 
cleanup seriously and wants this Site cleanup as quickly and 
completely as possible. Hope to see you there.

      Mark Roberts is a resident of Concord, CREW Member and
environmental attorney.

© Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive

*****************************************************************
 60 Whitehaven News: NDA BOSS TELLS NUCLEAR STAFF: YOUR JOBS ARE SAFE 

By Alan Irving

THE man heading the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has assured 
thousands of Sellafield workers that their jobs are safe once the 
NDA takes over ownership of the site next April.

Seven thousand BNFL jobs and several hundred on the UKAEA payroll 
would be affected if Britain’s big two nuclear operators lose out 
to foreign rivals once the lucrative work is put out to 
competitive tendering.

But Sir Anthony Cleaver, the NDA’s chairman, said that even if 
bids are accepted by rival companies to run the site there is no 
reason why the bulk of the highly-paid jobs cannot be 
transferred.

“The arrival of the NDA should give the present workforce no 
concern at all,” he stressed.

Sir Anthony, who has considerable experience of the nuclear 
industry as former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, which 
along with BNFL currently operate Sellafield, went on: “At the 
end of the day most of the people on the site are going to be the 
same but the question is: ‘Are there skills we can bring in to 
enable them to do the job more easily, effectively and faster’?’

“That’s what we are trying to achieve, so the objective is to 
ensure that BNFL and the UKAEA have every opportunity to compete. 
There is no bias against them.

“I don’t think anybody has ever envisaged that thousands of new 
workers would move in. As far as the bulk of the workforce are 
concerned they will essentially be the same but there would be 
changes at the top, at site management level. 

“BNFL and the AEA themselves have changed in moving staff from 
one role to another from time to time. I don’t see the NDA coming 
in as anything more dramatic than that.” 

He admitted that staff transfers could take place but this would 
be done under TUPEE to protect earnings, pensions and working 
conditions.

Although some of the nuclear unions are not happy about future 
work being put out to contract and possibly jeopardising jobs and 
safety, Sir Anthony explained: “We are charged with making sure 
it is all done safely but at the same time more speedily wherever 
possible. In decommissioning Sellafield, the total liabilities 
are so huge that the taxpayer is entitled to expect, and the 
Treasury certainly expects, that they get value for money. We 
have to look at other approaches and bringing in other ways in 
which we can do the work.”

However, when pressed whether there was any danger of profits 
being put before safety, Sir Anthony pledged: “Safety has to come 
first. I don’t think there is any compromise. There has to be a 
relationship between the site licence holder (or holders) and 
whatever sub-contractors they employ as well as with the 
regulators, who are not terribly interested in the financial side 
of things, quite properly.”

Asked how the present jobs could be guaranteed when any new site 
licence holder might want to ship in many of their own workers, 
Sir Anthony said: “The contracts will include socio-economic 
impacts requiring companies to say how they will operate and this 
is something we will have to take into account. 

“It’s all a bit different from a lot of people being thrown out 
of work in a few months, we have time to look at the training 
needs and understand the impacts and what can be done to help.” 

In addition, he added: “Part of our responsibility will be to 
ensure that when it comes to the stage of awarding any new 
contracts we will be insisting that the continuation of monies 
into the community will be built into that contracts.

“We have to be aware of the issues of the local community. It 
would be totally irresponsible not to be aware of that and to 
find ways of working together, it has to be a partnership. Some 
of the things we are talking about will go on for decades, 
probably for a century, so we are going to need skills and it 
affects the whole of the education system. I understand there are 
some quite exciting plans in that context.” 

On concerns that any new Thorp reprocessing business will have to 
be approved first by the Government, Sir Anthony said: “I don’t 
see the NDA dealing at that level. Ours will be a decommissioning 
but part of our funding comes from the proceeds of Thorp, the 
continued operation of the Magnox stations so we have a direct 
interest in those operations being successful. 

“I can’t comment on the likelihood of getting new contracts for 
Thorp etc so if we put that to one side, assuming it doesn’t 
happen, then there is the business of building up on 
decommissioning, there’s a huge amount of work to be done. I 
can’t forecast what will happen in a hundred years time but we 
can look forward for a 10-year period and see how we can optimise 
that for everybody’s benefit. This is certainly the biggest site 
in the UK and unquestionably the most complex.”

[http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 61 UPI: Efforts to end nuclear testing intensify - 

(United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  September 23, 2004 			   

New York, NY, Sep. 23 (UPI) -- Test ban treaty countries at the 
United Nations Thursday called on more nuclear states to join 
their commitment to end testing. 

In a statement, 42 foreign ministers bid nations to ratify the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that currently has 116 
signatories.

 The treaty cannot enter into force until 12 key states sign on, 
including the United States, Iran, China, North Korea, Israel, 
India and Pakistan. At the time of the treaty's adoption in 1996, 
the commitment of these nations was judged essential because they 
all possessed nuclear power or research reactors.

 "There is a very strong feeling among countries in the world 
that the threat of nuclear weapons and proliferation has not been 
adequately met," said Finland's Foreign Minister Errki Toumioja, 
citing as major concern the possibility that nuclear weapons can 
fall into the hands of terrorists.

[UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 62 BBC: Nuclear weapons: Can they be stopped?
 
  Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 September, 2004
 
By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent   

Nuclear technology is now so widespread that it is only political 
will which stops many countries from making nuclear weapons. 

[Preliminary installation of a turbo generator at Iran's Bushehr 
nuclear power plant] Iran denies it wants to build nuclear 
weapons                                                           

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN's nuclear regulatory body the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said recently that 40 
countries could make the bomb if they wanted to. 

The reason for this is that the technology legally used to enrich 
uranium to make fuel for nuclear power can easily be developed to 
make material for nuclear weapons. 

A country could do this in secret or withdraw from the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and do it anyway. 

This is the Achilles' heel of the NPT - an agreement designed to 
stop the spread of nuclear weapons while allowing countries 
access to nuclear power. 

But if even only one or two of them go nuclear, or are thought to 
be doing so, it could bring tension and even war into their 
regions. 

We are determined to u every resource at our disposal US Under 
Secretary John Bolton          

The United States has not ruled out the use of military action to 
prevent proliferation. 

The US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
Security John Bolton wrote in the Financial Times earlier this 
month: 

"We are determined to use every resource at our disposal - using 
diplomacy regularly, economic pressure when it makes a 
difference, active law enforcement when appropriate and military 
force when we must." 

Such a policy can be expected to continue under a second Bush 
administration. A President Kerry would probably be more cautious 
about the use of force. 

Take Iran and North Korea, the two countries currently in the 
frame. 

Iran 

Iran says that it intends to enrich uranium to make fuel, 
claiming its right to do so. It is defying a demand from the IAEA 
for it to suspend its plan and await fuller inspections. 

The US and others, including Britain, demand that Iran abandon 
enrichment altogether on the grounds that it cannot be trusted. 

If Israel thought that Iran was using its enrichment capability 
to build a bomb, which Iran says it is not, it might attack 
Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel will certainly not give Iran 
the benefit of any doubt. 

Only this week, reports emerged that the US was supplying Israel 
with 500 "bunker-busting" bombs which would be useful in any such 
attack. Israel has already started a diplomatic and media 
campaign to publicise its fears of Iranian intentions. 

North Korea 

North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT and is said by British 
Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell, who visited the country 
recently, to have produced possibly two nuclear devices already. 
Talks have so far failed to make it change its mind. 

[Anti-US demonstrators in Pyongyang]                            
North Korea says it needs nuclear weapons to check US aggression                                                            

"A North Korean nuclear weapon could tip Japan and South Korea 
into making their own," said Dr Gary Samore, Senior Fellow for 
Non-Proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic 
Studies in London and a former official in the Clinton 
administration. 

It would also force a second Bush administration to decide 
whether to keep talking, to reluctantly accept a nuclear North 
Korea and impose sanctions, or try to destroy its nuclear plants. 

The risk of that is great. It could start a general war on the 
Korean peninsula. 

Tightening the Treaty 

There is a move afoot to tighten the NPT which is reviewed every 
five years. The next review is in 2005. 

Libya is now held up as example of how a rogue nuclear state can 
be brought back into the international fold          
	 	   	
The Bush administration has proposed a number of Treaty 
amendments, the most important of which would stop the spread of 
enrichment technology. 

"The first proposal would close the loophole in the Treaty that 
allows states such as Iran and North Korea to pursue fissile 
material for nuclear weapons under peaceful cover. 

"Enrichment and reprocessing plants would be limited to those 
states that now possess them," John Bolton told a nuclear 
conference earlier this year. 

Another proposal would prevent the sale of nuclear fuel to 
countries without a rigorous inspection regime. 

However, Washington is not relying on the NPT being made to work 
more effectively. 

"Counter-proliferation" 

It has initiated a much more active campaign which it calls 
"counter-proliferation." 

Statistically, the treaty doing OK Dr Gary Samore          

It has formed the "Proliferation Security Initiative" with 
like-minded countries. 

Sometimes called an "action not an organisation", the PSI is 
aimed at disrupting the sale and shipments of nuclear components, 
if necessary by interceptions at sea. 

The US has also got the Security Council to pass Resolution 1540 
which insists that member states tighten procedures to try to 
stop what are called "non state actors" i.e. rogue scientists 
from selling their wares and expertise. 

The A Q Khan network 

One such rogue scientist was Dr A Q Khan, the "father " of the 
Pakistani bomb, who was found to be transferring his expertise, 
certainly to Libya and possibly to Iran. 

[Pakistani nuclear-capable missiles]                            
Pakistan began its nuclear programme in the 1970s                                                                

An interception of some his equipment on the way to Libya took 
place last year when a charter ship was diverted to an Italian 
port. 

Libya subsequently renounced its secret nuclear programme and has 
been rewarded by the lifting of sanctions. 

Libya is now held up as an example of how a rogue nuclear state 
can be brought back into the international fold. 

NPT flaws 

Non-nuclear and strongly anti-nuclear countries like New Zealand 
point to two further flaws in the NPT. 

They complain that the nuclear powers accepted as such under the 
NPT (the US, Soviet Union (now Russia), China, Britain and 
France) have not worked for total nuclear disarmament as they are 
supposed to and as they re-committed themselves to at the last 
NPT review meeting in 2000. 

This leads to claims that the NPT is a club used by the powerful, 
especially the US, to keep down the weak. 

The other flaw is that a number of nuclear powers are not members 
of the NPT. These are Israel, India and Pakistan. They are 
therefore free of restrictions. Iran for one says that this 
unfair and that Israel should be forced to give up its nuclear 
weapons. 

Israel in turn claims that it is in special peril. 

India and Pakistan argue that if the US and others have weapons 
for defence and proclaim the value of the nuclear deterrence, 
then so should they. 

However, the failure to bring them into the NPT has tempted 
others to join them outside. North Korea has done so. 

And successes 

However, there have been non-proliferation successes. 

South Africa and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. The whole 
of South America remains nuclear-free. 

"The number of countries in the NPT which have pursued nuclear 
weapons is very small. Libya has given up. North Korea has left. 
That leaves the question of Iran, " said Dr Samore. 

"Statistically, the treaty is doing OK," he said. 



*****************************************************************
 63 BBC: Brazil allows nuclear inspection
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 23 September, 2004
 
[The Resende nuclear plant in Brazil which will be inspected by 
UN officials in October] Brazil said it feared industrial 
espionage                                                            

Brazil has ended a row with the International Atomic Energy 
Agency by allowing it to inspect a new uranium enrichment plant. 

The UN body wanted to check that Brazil was not breaking 
international accords on the spread of a chemical, which can be 
used to make nuclear bombs. 

Brazil had argued it needed to protect its nuclear technology. 

The two sides agreed the IAEA would inspect pipes at the plant, 
without looking at the machines themselves. 

US diplomats had said Brazil's refusal to allow inspections would 
send a bad signal at a time of concern about the nuclear 
programmes of Iran and North Korea. 

The IAEA inspection of the Brazilian plant in the town of Resende 
will take place in October. 

Brazil's constitution prevents the nation from owning nuclear 
weapons. It decided to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions in 
1990. 



*****************************************************************
 64 Guardian Unlimited: Los Alamos Scientist Says He Was One Fired
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday September 24, 2004 1:16 AM

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - A senior scientist at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory says he is one of two employees being fired over an 
accident this summer in which an intern was injured by a laser. 

Laser expert David A. Cremers said Thursday was scheduled to be 
his last day of work at the nuclear lab. 

Four workers were fired and one will resign under pressure for 
their roles in security and safety scandals this summer, 
officials announced last week. 

Three workers will leave the lab in connection with the discovery 
of missing computer disks that prompted a virtual shutdown of the 
lab; the other two were involved in the laser accident, officials 
said. 

Cremers refused to name the other colleague fired in the accident 
July 14, when an intern burned a hole in the retina of her left 
eye after looking into a laser that was supposed to be turned 
off. 

``I'm certainly contesting it and trying to get it reversed or 
reduced,'' Cremers told the Santa Fe New Mexican. 

A report released by the lab this week said a lack of proper 
training and unsafe work practices were to blame. The report said 
neither the intern nor her supervisor was wearing safety glasses, 
and the supervisor didn't check the status of the laser 
beforehand. 

Cremers, who has been at the lab 23 years, ``modeled unsafe 
behavior,'' according to the report. 

Cremers said he and others facing discipline have hired 
attorneys. ``I take a lot of exception with a lot of the 
conclusions of the report,'' he said. ``I think that they're 
unsubstantiated and not accurate.'' 

Employees have 30 days to file grievances. 
  
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs 
 
                        FR Doc 04-21384 
[Federal Register: September 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 184)] 
[Notices] [Page 57024] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23se04-51]                         
 
Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB) Chairs. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, October 7, 2004, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Friday, 
October 8, 2004, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, 
Richland, WA 99352, Phone: (509) 946-7611.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Vivari, Program Management 
Specialist (EM30.1), Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5143.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the EMSSAB is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda Thursday, October 7, 2004: 8:30 a.m.--Welcome; 
introductions; meeting expectations (Waisley; Lowe, Mabie).
 
8:45 a.m.--Round Robin 1: Top Three Issues for Each Site-Specific 
Advisory Board.
 
10 a.m.--Break. 10:15 a.m.--Round Robin 2: Site-Specific Advisory 
Boards' Organizational Challenges.
 
11:30 a.m.--Potential National Stakeholders Workshop. 11:45 
a.m.--Public comment period. Noon--Lunch.
 
1 p.m.--Hanford's Role in the Department of Energy's Complex and 
How Stakeholders Influence That Role.
 
1:45 p.m.--Round Robin 3: Current Developments Related to 
Interdependencies Among Department of Energy Sites for Waste 
Disposition.
 
2:30 p.m.--Break. 2:45 p.m.--Hanford Panel: Perspectives on 
Shipping and Receiving Waste at Hanford.
 
3:45 p.m.--Facilitated discussion--Vulnerabilities of the Current 
Waste Disposition Plan and Ramification for All Intersite 
Transfers.
 
4:30 p.m.--Public comment period. 4:45 p.m.--Next steps. Friday, 
October 8, 2004: 8:30 a.m.--Opening. 8:45 a.m.--Department of 
Energy headquarters organizational changes, fiscal year 2005 
budget, and the outlook for fiscal year 2006/ Waisley.
 
9:15 a.m.--Potential National Stakeholders Workshop (continued).
 
9:45 a.m.--Break. 10 a.m.--Panel discussion--Ongoing Transition 
from Environmental Management to Legacy Management at Rocky Flats 
and Fernald.
 
10:30 a.m.--Facilitated discussion. 11:30 a.m.--Public comment 
period. 11:45 a.m.--Meeting wrap-up. Public Participation: The 
meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before 
or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral 
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jay Vivari 
at the address above or by telephone at (202) 586-5143. Requests 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. 
The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at 
the end of the meeting.
 
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday 
except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by 
calling Jay Vivari at (202) 586-5143.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on September 16, 2004.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-21384 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 66 Oakland Tribune: UC considers unleashing labs
 
Article Last Updated: Thursday, September 23, 200
 
Regents weigh pros, cons of maintaining 61-year reign
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
 SAN FRANCISCO -- In World War II, the Army gave the University
of California a job in the New Mexico desert so secret that the
school's governing regents could not be told. One university
executive whispered that scientists were building a death ray. 

It's taken 61 years, but on Wednesday regents began their most
serious debate yet on whether America's largest research
university should keep its monopoly on inventing U.S.
thermonuclear explosives. 

At that assignment California's scientists excelled: They
devised dozens of A-bombs and H-bombs, from multi-megaton
monsters to backpack demolitions, nuclear torpedoes to atomic
hand grenades and ultra-compact ICBM warheads. 

It took two secret cities of Soviet scientists to rival the
university's products for efficient lethality. University
officials cast the weapons work as "a public service to the
nation." The federal government was so satisfied it never asked
anyone else to apply -- until now. 



After years of safety, security and operating problems, Congress
and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham are entertaining new
bidders for running Los Alamos lab in New Mexico and Lawrence
Livermore in California. And while many university regents are
drawn by the research collaborations, prestige and national
security mystique of running two nuclear weapons labs, some are
questioning the benefits of tying the university so closely to
classified H-bomb work and searing public criticism of its
failings in nuclear safety and security. 

"If we think somebody can do a better job, we should step
aside," said regent David Lee. "If someone can do a better job,
they should tell us." 

Board Chairman Gerald Parsky and Regent Judy Hopkinson said
regents must be sure that "very serious" safety and security
weaknesses at Los Alamos are fixed. 

"Unless they have been corrected, it will be very difficult for
us to bid, let alone secure it," Parsky said. 

Federal officials say it could be months before the bidding
starts, leaving the university time to weigh a bid. 

Top university advisers praised the quality and direction of the
labs' work. The UC President's Council on the National
Laboratories urged the university to bid on the two weapons-lab
contracts, as well as a third contract for Lawrence Berkeley
lab, an unclassified research facility on university land and
run by the university. 

The three labs' scientists are deeply loyal to the University of
California, said council Chairman William Friend, and routinely
claim a large share of scientific awards, most recently five of
the U.S. Energy's Department seven coveted E.O. Lawrence awards
for creative research. 

"You owe it to those 20,000 university employees," Friend said,
to keep the university running the labs "as powerhouses of the
nation." 

Regents also heard from two leading scholars on the labs from
different sides of the debate. 

William Kastenberg, professor of nuclear engineering at
University of California, Berkeley, said the issue centers
around whether an academic institution should be in the business
of making weapons and whether the work at the labs falls within
the core mission of the university. 

In his opinion, it does. 

He urged regents to look at the labs as more than just weapons
factories. The scientific research, study opportunities for
students and the prestige that the lab's work offers to the
university are unparalleled, he said. Further, the labs play an
important part in national security, he said. 

"The university's mission in terms of service, research and
students is well-served," Kastenberg said. 

Walter Kohn, emeritus physics professor from UC Santa Barbara
and a 1998 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, countered that the
university should be dedicated to the highest scientific
pursuits, and those should not include creating weapons of mass
destruction. 

"Academic and military cultures are fundamentally incompatible,"
Kohn said. "UC management (of the weapons labs) raises questions
in the minds of students and faculty about university
integrity." 

The record does not bear out that UC is the best manager, Kohn 

said, alluding to managerial troubles that have beset the labs,
especially Los Alamos, in past years. 

Several students and community activists asked regents to get UC
out of the nuclear weapons business. 

UC Berkeley junior Chelsea Collonge, a member of the student-led
Coalition to Demilitarize UC, urged regents not to enter the
competition to retain management of Los Alamos National
Laboratory. 

"We understand it's a public service, but what's going on is the
design of more dangerous weapons," Collonge said. 

"We want you to demand science in the public interest and not
science of mass destruction," said Loulina Miles, a UC Santa
Cruz alumna. 

Regent and media mogul Norman Pattiz was applauded by
disarmament activists for suggesting that the university steer
lab research to global warming and energy independence, rather
than new H-bombs. 

"Isn't it possible for the University of California to take its
weight and say, 'This is the direction we ought to be going
in'?" Pattiz asked. 

UC President Robert Dynes acknowledged to reporters that he
faced similar questions years ago when the university tapped him
for advice on its weapons labs and their classified research. He
leaned toward saying no, he said. 

"I finally realized those laboratories were going to exist
anyway, and I would rather have some influence over those
decisions rather than be a bystander," he said.

 Contact Ian Hoffman at  [ihoffman@angnewspapers.com] . 
*****************************************************************
 67 santa fe new mexican: Top LANL scientist to appeal his firing
 
 Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:25 pm   

[http://www.santafenewmexican.com/

Diana Heil | The New Mexican

 Los Alamos National Laboratory senior scientist David A. Cremers 
said Wednesday that he is being fired as of 5 p.m. today, but 
that he plans to appeal.

Cremers said he is one of four top scientists in the lab's 
Chemistry Division being disciplined in connection with a laser 
accident that pierced a hole in the eye of a student intern in 
July.

"I'm certainly contesting it and trying to get it reversed or 
reduced," Cremers said in a telephone interview from his Santa Fe 
home.

Earlier this week, the nuclear-weapons lab announced it had 
finished its internal investigation into the accident, as well as 
into computer disks that turned up missing during an inventory of 
high-security materials. The lab said two employees were being 
forced to leave as a result of the accident. However, the lab 
didnt identify the employees by name or position.

Cremers, who according to the labs Web site has more awards for 
research and development than any other lab employee, wouldnt 
say which other employee in his division is being asked to leave 
the lab. However, he said two additional employees in his 
division face lesser discipline.

All three of the others facing action as a result of the 
accident, he said, are high-level managers and award-winning 
members of the Chemistry Division. He identified those employees 
as Thomas J. Meyer, associate director for strategic research; 
Alfred Sattelberger, a division leader who has been with the lab 
since 1984; and Otis Pete Peterson, an acting group leader who 
has been with the lab since 1979.

Peterson was elected in 2002 as a fellow in the Optical Society 
of America for his contributions to the advancement of laser 
technology.

Sattelberger, in 2002, was elected a fellow of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, a prestigious group 
of more than 10,000 of the nations leading researchers.

When contacted by telephone Wednesday, Sattelberger and Peterson 
declined to make public statements. Meyer could not be reached.

But Cremers said hes not the only one who has hired an attorney.

Cremers case is linked to a laser accident that apparently 
caused permanent eye damage to a student intern working in 
Cremers lab when he was present.

The lab this week posted a 90-page investigation report on the 
incident on its Web site.

I take a lot of exception with a lot of the conclusions of the 
report, Cremers said. I think that theyre unsubstantiated and 
not accurate.

Cremers, who has mentored more than 30 students in his 23 years 
at the lab, modeled unsafe behavior, according to the report. 
He and students often did not wear eye protection consistently, 
according to the report, and work wasnt stopped immediately 
after the accident.

The laser incident wasnt the first at Los Alamos. However, 
according to Cremers, no Los Alamos employee has ever been 
punished to this degree over such an incident.

Employees have 30 days to file grievances, said his attorney, Dan 
Cron.

Actually, Los Alamos has a very good safety record, so I dont 
know why upper management is going ballistic, Cremers said.

The July accident, which left the student with permanent damage 
resulting in blurred vision, isnt the only source of personnel 
turmoil at the lab.

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.

Over the summer, the lab put 23 workers on paid leave while 
investigating them. Now, only 10 employees will return to the 
office unblemished  with no findings of wrongdoing.

The rest were either punished or fired, except one employee who 
is still under investigation.

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.  
				 			   
  Privacy Policy | ©2004, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights
*****************************************************************
 68 Tri-City Herald: FFTF dismantle options debated 

This story was published Thursday, September 23rd, 2004 

By Annette Cary Herald staff writer 

An air of disappointment that the Department of Energy is 
considering how Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility should be 
dismantled permeated a public hearing Wednesday night in 
Richland. 

The research reactor should be restarted, said Robert Beach of 
Kennewick, "but that has proved to be impossible with the present 
organization of DOE." 

Because the reactor is to be decommissioned, he asked that DOE 
not take the cheaper and easier route and leave the reactor 
entombed as an additional waste site outside Hanford's central 
plateau. 

Cleanup plans for Hanford call for shrinking the nuclear 
reservation by cleaning up contamination from its outer 
boundaries inward to the central plateau where radioactive waste 
is being permanently buried. FFTF is southeast of the central 
plateau. 

"When you make a decision to throw $1 billion away, is the 
additional cost to do it right of consequence?" Beach asked. 

DOE already has started work to permanently shut down the 
reactor, which operated from 1982-92. Republican and Democratic 
administrations concluded the United States had no financially 
viable use for the reactor. 

Sodium has been drained from the reactor's secondary cooling 
loops and work is under way to drain more sodium from its primary 
cooling loops. When a hole is drilled into a lower separation 
plate to drain the sodium at the bottom of the reactor vessel and 
sodium is removed, DOE will consider the reactor no longer 
capable of a restart. 

But supporters of a restart know that even before that as sodium 
is drained, the cost of restarting the reactor becomes 
increasingly, and likely prohibitively, expensive. 

As the shut down work continues, DOE is preparing for the next 
step, dismantling the reactor. That requires an environmental 
study, and plans for it were discussed at the Wednesday meeting 
attended by about 50 people. 

DOE is considering entombing the reactor, which would include 
removing the dome of the reactor above ground and then grouting 
and leaving in place radioactively contaminated components below 
ground, including the reactor vessel, equipment and piping. 

A second option would be removing both the dome and the 
underground components to leave a cleaner site. 

As in all environmental studies, DOE also will consider taking no 
action. 

"This does not mean doing nothing," cautioned Doug Chapin of 
DOE's Richland FFTF Project Office. Shutdown activities such as 
the sodium drain would continue, but the reactor would be 
maintained in a safe long-term surveillance and maintenance 
condition for the foreseeable future. 

If DOE decides on entombment or removal, radioactively 
contaminated sodium would have to be treated. 

DOE could do that by building a processing system at Hanford or 
by shipping it to the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory, which has a processing system. The 
transportation route would take the waste through Oregon to 
Idaho. 

The sodium would be converted to sodium hydroxide. It likely 
would be reused at Hanford to help stabilize Hanford's 
underground tank wastes, either before or during the process of 
turning it into a glasslike product for permanent disposal. 
Stored in the underground tanks are 53 million gallons of waste 
left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the 
nation's nuclear weapons program. 

FFTF also has sodium filters so contaminated they must be 
remotely handled in hot cells to protect workers and some fuel 
that is considered sodium bonded. If those are sent to the Idaho 
facility, they would not be returned to Hanford. 

Much of the public comment at the Wednesday meeting was about 
DOE's work to shut down the reactor before an environmental study 
has been completed on dismantling it. 

Jim Curtis of West Richland, who worked at Hanford for 35 years 
before his retirement, said that's not the practice that was 
followed during his years at the nuclear reservation. 

Ralph Johnson of Kennewick called for an investigation by the 
inspector general's offices of DOE and the Justice Department 
into whether the best use was being made of government property 
and into the accelerated deactivation process. 

West Richland Councilman Ken Dobbin said the environmental study 
should consider five Department of Energy reports in the last 
five years that have talked about the need for a reactor such as 
FFTF for research for nuclear energy reactors, research for a 
radioactive waste reduction process or production of isotopes for 
new medicines and other uses. 

Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver also spoke, pointing out 
that Idaho and Tennessee had saved reactors "grossly inferior to 
FFTF" because their congressional delegation fought for them. 

FFTF has not had that kind of support from Washington senators, 
he said. 

"Political muscle has driven this reactor and political muscle 
can save it," he said. 

DOE will accept comments on the decommissioning study of FFTF 
until Oct. 8. They may be e-mailed to Douglas_H_Chapin@rl.gov or 
mailed to Douglas Chapin, DOE, P.O. Box 550 MS: A3-04, Richland, 
WA 99352. 

© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 69 Sf Chronicle: SAN FRANCISCO / UC needs 'industrial partner' for lab bid 
Regents advised to share responsibility with private firm
 
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer 
[kdavidson@sfchronicle.com]         Thursday, September 23, 2004 

The University of California should seek an "industrial partner" 
to share its responsibilities for managing two nuclear weapons 
labs, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, a top advisory panel 
told the UC Board of Regents at its meeting Wednesday in San 
Francisco. 

Should the regents try to renew UC's Los Alamos contract in a 
forthcoming competition sponsored by the U.S. Energy Department, 
"an industrial partner would be necessary to be successful in the 
competition," William L. Friend, chair of the UC President's 
Council on National Laboratories, told the regents. 

A partnership, he said, could "bring some discipline to the (Los 
Alamos) operation" -- making a UC bid for Los Alamos more 
attractive to the Energy Department. 

UC President Robert Dynes said later that UC officials have 
already been holding "exploratory discussions" with a number of 
possible industrial partners. 

Dynes gave no names, but S. Robert Foley, UC vice president for 
laboratory administration, mentioned recent but abortive 
discussions with the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin during the 
meeting. 

"We went quite far down the road with Lockheed Martin" in 
discussing such a partnership, Foley noted. "We had a number of 
meetings ... but they backed away." 

UC has also held "chit chats" about possible alliances with other 
firms, Foley said. He also said he doesn't expect the U.S. Energy 
Department to issue contract proposals for the forthcoming Los 
Alamos competition until around January, several months later 
than was generally expected. 

Friend, who retired in 1998 as executive vice president and 
director of Bechtel Group Inc., said an industrial partnership 
would allow UC to spend more time supervising the scientific 
research at Los Alamos while the partner could assume many of the 
day-to-day responsibilities -- for example, financial management 
and security guards. 

Los Alamos staffers have been repeatedly attacked and 
investigated for their mishandling of classified data and 
finances. Years of on-again, off- again scandals over UC 
management of the labs peaked last week, when Los Alamos Director 
George "Pete" Nanos fired four staffers and forced another into 
retirement. 

The current Los Alamos contract expires in September 2005, and 
the controversy has raised doubts about whether UC could win the 
forthcoming competition for the next contract. 

Earlier in the meeting, in a regents-sponsored debate over the 
future of the labs, Walter Kohn, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist 
at UC Santa Barbara, pleaded with UC to skip the forthcoming 
contract competition and to end its tie to the New Mexico nuclear 
weapons lab. 

Kohn said that after six decades in the nuclear weapons business, 
UC should get out of it and divert its brainpower to preparing 
California and the nation for global warming and future energy 
shortages -- which, he suggested, are bigger threats than 
terrorism. 

Nuclear weapons work "is wholly incompatible with the (UC's self- 
proclaimed) criteria for public service," Kohn said during his 
otherwise amiable confrontation with a UC Berkeley professor of 
nuclear engineering, William E. Kastenberg. The regents invited 
both men to discuss the pros and cons of competing for the next 
Los Alamos contract. 

Kohn also suggested that UC might be violating an international 
treaty against nuclear proliferation by operating Los Alamos, 
where scientists are designing "smaller and, quote, more 
'useable' nuclear weapons." By engaging in nuclear weapons work, 
UC "lends a misleading cloak of academic respectability" to 
strategic notions such as "preemptive strike," in which a nation 
would launch nuclear weapons at a foe ostensibly to prevent being 
attacked first, he said. 

Instead, UC should be planning for future energy shortages and 
global warming crises, Kohn said. He cited solar-electric energy 
as a research area worth new emphasis, although "there's still 
lot of work that needs to be done" to make solar power 
economically competitive with other major energy sources. 

"(British Prime Minister) Tony Blair has just declared ... 
climate change is the most severe problem we're facing today -- 
more serious even than the threat of terrorism," noted Kohn, who 
shared the 1998 Nobel Prize in chemistry and founded UCSB's famed 
Institute of Theoretical Physics. 

In his much briefer address, Kastenberg urged the regents to seek 
to renew the Los Alamos contract. He stressed the advantages of 
having the nation's nuclear weapons complex in the hands of the 
most scientifically expert personnel possible, such as those 
found at UC. 

Kastenberg also cited the appeal and value of the nuclear labs' 
facilities and equipment -- which "are unparalleled in the world" 
-- for teaching students. 

Alluding to the Los Alamos scandals, Kastenberg acknowledged that 
"our (UC's) reputation is at stake due to the events of the last 
two years." But UC is best positioned to run the labs, "given our 
prestige, reputation, experience." 

Regent Jodi Anderson briefly expressed interest in Kohn's point 
about a possible violation of international law and suggested 
that the regents discuss the matter on a future occasion. 

Afterward, asked about Kohn's remarks, UC President Dynes 
acknowledged that, three decades ago, he felt personally uneasy 
when Los Alamos officials invited him to advise them on science 
and technology issues. But after a while, he changed his mind and 
decided "I would rather have some influence over the decisions 
(about what happens at Los Alamos) than be a bystander," he said 
Wednesday. 

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com 
[kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] . 

[graphical line] 

Page B - 1 

	 


  [Buy The San Francisco Chronicle]     Get 50% off home delivery 
of the Chronicle for 12 weeks!   

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ

*****************************************************************
 70 Austin Chronicle: News: UT Idles on Los Alamos
 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004: NEWS: UT IDLES ON LOS ALAMOS

 BY WELLS DUNBAR 

        With defense behemoth Lockheed Martin balking at the 
incredible effort required to manage Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, and Texas A University taking a markedly cooler 
stance toward the project, you'd think the University of Texas 
would rethink its bid to manage the troubled New Mexico facility. 
Perhaps they are – but as of late, they've been remarkably mum. 

        A recent spate of firings and resignations for 
security-related infractions underscores the problems at Los 
Alamos, the birthplace of Fat Man and Little Boy – the bombs that 
destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite its age, Los Alamos is 
still very active in the refurbishment of aging nuclear weapons 
and the development of lower-payload so-called "bunker buster" 
nukes. 

        The lab has been managed by the University of California 
since its creation, but chronic safety and security problems led 
the U.S. Department of Energy to open up bidding on the contract 
to interested parties last year. Since then, many groups have 
dropped out or have seen their interest wane. It's not hard to 
see why – NPR reported this week on administrators' "plan to 
remove weapons-grade nuclear materials from a section of the lab 
after determining the area to be too prone to security lapses." 
But UT's interest is harder to gauge. An Associated Press article 
in The Albuquerque Tribune last month reported that "the 
University of Texas system says it is rapidly losing interest." 
However, a subsequent AP report – after both A and Lockheed 
Martin backed away – held that UT was still "interested (and) 
will continue to consider a bid." John Pruett of UT Watch, a 
campus activist group, says, "There's still questions about how 
much they could gain." Pruett expects the talks to regain 
momentum once the Department of Energy's formal request for 
proposals is issued in the coming months. Ultimately, he 
suggests, if UT "has any involvement, it will be smaller than 
what they had initially hoped for." 

        While UT fiddles, opponents of the bid are turning up the 
heat. Austin's Iconmedia, the brainchild of local 
activists/documentarians Stefan Wray and Pam Thompson, is 
currently in post-production on The WMDs Are in New Mexico!, a 
documentary about Los Alamos. Interviewing activists and lab 
workers alike, Wray found "all these groups ... that have their 
own niche" in opposing the lab, focusing on general and specific 
environmental and social dangers. More info on the documentary, 
including video clips, is available at www.iconmedia.org 
[http://www.iconmedia.org/] . 


[http://www.austinchronicle.com

Copyright © 1995-2004 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************