*****************************************************************
10/18/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.249
*****************************************************************
   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 Sun News: Experts: Few positive choices left in Iraq
2 UK Independent: No10 did not tell truth about Iraq, says diplomat wh
3 ITAR-TASS: Iraq has no information on equipment from nuclear facilit
4 Las Vegas SUN: N. Korea's No. 2 Encourages Nuke Dialogue
5 Korea Herald: N.K. group may discuss 6-party talks   
6 UPI: Japanese official says N.Korea has nukes - 
7 BBC: N Korea envoy visits China
8 Xinhuanet: DPRK seeks peace in Korean Peninsula: Kim   
9 US: [CWATCHDOG] BREAKING PC REPORT - Bush Leaves Country Vulnerable
10 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Our choices for Congress
11 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Forcing the door open
12 US: yaledailynews.com: It's up to us to begin fighting dirty energy
13 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Arrive in Brazil
14 BBC: War syndrome 'will not be solved'
15 BBC: Brazil set for nuclear inspection
16 UPI: Brazil and U.N. reach uranium agreement -
17 MercoPress: Nuclear plant inspectors in Brazil. 
18 Ananova: Britain 'Set For Winters Of Blackouts' 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
19 US: NRC: EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilit
20 BBC: TUC hosts nuclear power debate
21 BBC: Union expects winter power crisis
22 C&EN: NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE FUTURE
23 Slovak Spectator: Rusko's proposal would have Slovakia renege on its
24 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Framatome Nuclear Fuel Plant Officials Oct
25 Expressindia: There's a new in our nuclear
26 International Herald Tribune: Nuclear comeback stokes terror fears
27 AU ABC: Lateline: Blair leaves option of nuclear power open
28 Sofia Morning News: EU Cash for Bulgaria's Nuke Safety
29 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Procedures for Meeting
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
30 [du-list] Scrap of Mass Destruction version 2
31 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
32 SA News24: Concern over ship's cargo
33 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and
34 NRC: USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant); Notice of Receipt of 
35 Nevada Appeal: Opinion Kerry offers more hope for Nevada
36 US: BYU NewsNet - Nuclear waste: a hot topic for Utah's gubernatoria
37 Casper Trib: New nuke waste dump in Utah gets preliminary approval
38 Japan Times: Panel leaning toward reprocessing spent nuke fuel
39 US: mainetoday: Maine finds stockpiles of hazardous chemicals at sch
40 US: KPHO Phoenix: Company Yields to Neighborhood Pressure, Agrees to
41 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
42 Las Vegas SUN: President's daughters make campaign stop in southern 
43 chillicothegazette.com: Kerry speaks of Piketon plant, national secu
44 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: I-297 would restrict new Hanford waste
45 Seattle Times: Opinion: Hanford cleanup effort shows Gregoire's pers
46 Tri-City Herald: Opinions U.S. Senate: Murray 
47 C&EN: Radioactive Waste To Be Left In Tanks
48 Rocky Mountain News: Flats deer hunt raises concerns
49 DOE: International Energy Agency Meetings
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
50 [du-list] DU in the news 19th Oct 04
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Sun News: Experts: Few positive choices left in Iraq

| 10/18/2004 | 

WAR
 
By Ken Dilanian

 Washington Bureau

THE SERIES

After nearly 19 months of combat, more than 1,000 American 
soldiers dead and $119 billion spent, the central question about 
Iraq isn't whether it will become a beacon of democracy in the 
Middle East but whether the United States can prevent it from 
becoming a black hole of instability. 

The answer may depend on whether Americans are willing to stomach 
what many military analysts think will be a guerrilla war for 
years to come. 

That's true no matter who wins the presidency in November and 
whether an Iraqi election takes place in January, a cross section 
of foreign policy experts said. 

Iraq's increasingly lethal insurgency has stymied reconstruction 
and turned large swaths of the country into no-go zones for 
U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi forces. No major power has hinted 
that it's willing to send more troops. Germany has ruled that 
out, and two members of the U.S.-led coalition, Italy and Poland, 
have talked of withdrawing their soldiers, though neither has yet 
decided to do so. 

With little prospect of a decisive military victory and even less 
chance of recruiting significant international help, that leaves 
the next president with the same unpleasant options: 

Continue fighting the insurgency and trying to rebuild the 
country with roughly the same number of American troops, in the 
hope that elections in January will turn the political tide 
against the insurgents and that newly trained Iraqi police and 
security forces can learn to defeat them. 

Send thousands more American troops to Iraq in hopes of defeating 
the insurgency, sealing the country's borders and buying time for 
a new Iraqi government to get on its feet. But escalation would 
further strain America's active, National Guard and reserve 
forces and risk turning even more Iraqis against the U.S.-led 
coalition. 

Begin withdrawing American troops and handing the country over to 
a new government and its newly trained police and security 
forces. But Iraq's defense minister recently told Knight Ridder 
that American troops could be needed for as many as 15 more years 
and that a precipitous withdrawal could plunge the country into 
chaos or even civil war. 

"The unpalatable options are either to make things worse slowly, 
by keeping our troops there, or to make things worse quickly, by 
withdrawing them," said James Dobbins, a nation-building expert 
who was President Bush's envoy to Afghanistan. The presence of 
U.S. troops fuels the insurgency by inflaming Iraqi nationalism, 
but their absence would mean chaos, he said. 

"I think it may, in the end, be possible to have an Iraqi regime 
that is broadly representative and nonabusive, but it's going to 
be a long, hard slog." 

Years of instability 

Other experts, including former U.S. generals and scholars who 
have studied Iraq's history, agree the options are bleak. 

The only real choice, Dobbins and others say, is for the United 
States to continue to fight the insurgents while working to train 
a competent Iraqi security force that can pave the way for an 
orderly American withdrawal. That could take from two to 10 
years, they said. 

Moreover, few experts say the end result of a protracted war will 
match the Bush administration's original vision for Iraq: a 
democratic model that could invite reform in the rest of the 
Middle East. 

The best the United States can hope for in the end is probably an 
authoritarian, Western-friendly "semidemocracy," said Yoni 
Fighel, a retired Israeli colonel who was a military governor in 
the West Bank from 1987 to 1996. 

A worse possibility, from the American point of view, is an 
Islamic fundamentalist government similar to Iran's and hostile 
to American interests. 

And the worst-case scenario, experts say, would be an abrupt 
withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos. Such an Iraq, torn by civil 
strife and filled with unguarded weapons stockpiles, quickly 
would become an exporter of terrorism and a nightmare for its 
neighbors. 

A senior Bush administration official, speaking on condition of 
anonymity, said there will be continued instability even after 
January's elections. But he said he was heartened by the fact 
that, as the insurgency grows stronger, Iraq's political figures 
are jockeying in a political process that hasn't turned bloody. 

Yet some experts say that, even if Americans and Iraqis do 
wrestle the country into stability over the course of years, the 
stark failures of the occupation and the damage they've done to 
U.S. credibility rank as a major foreign policy debacle. 

"It's not Vietnam - yet; but it is a huge blow to the U.S. 
ability to project power abroad," said Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert 
at Queen Mary University in London. "The Bush doctrine died on 
the outskirts of Baghdad." 

That doctrine threatened pre-emptive war against rogue states 
that harbored terrorists or biological, chemical or nuclear 
weapons. But two alleged state sponsors of terror that Bush 
wanted to deter by toppling Saddam Hussein - Iran and Syria - now 
can be confident that America doesn't have the troop strength to 
invade them, Dodge said. 

What's next in Iraq? 

The United States is planning a broader offensive against 
insurgents in major Sunni Muslim cities such as Fallujah before 
the January Iraqi elections. "Get the Sunni triangle under 
control, and most of the rest of the country will go along," the 
senior administration official said. 

The Pentagon has scheduled troop rotations through October 2006, 
and nearly all experts say the United States will be forced to 
maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq for at least another two 
years. The main disagreement is whether the American force of 
138,000 should be expanded or whether it's too late for that. 

Some experts disagree that more troops is the way to go, noting 
that the coalition presence has become a toxic affront to most 
Iraqis. 

A few international voices want to see the United States set a 
date for withdrawal. That's the prevailing sentiment in Jordan. 

The United States lost credibility by failing to bring security 
or freedom to Iraq and not forming a more solid international 
coalition, said Taher Masri, a former prime minister and official 
with the Arab League. Jordanians also worry that the United 
States will set up permanent military bases in Iraq, he said. 

Radwan Abdullah, a prominent political consultant in Jordan said: 
"The United States has to concede the occupation has failed and 
turn power over to international powers like the U.N. If you 
remove the target of American occupation, the main reason for the 
insurgency will go." 

Then Iraqis can take over responsibility for preventing terrorism 
in their own country, he said. 

Many American officials and analysts agree that the United States 
now needs to pour maximum resources into training Iraqi soldiers 
and police. 

Washington Bureau writers Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, Jonathan S. 
Landay and Warren P. Strobel contributed to this report.   

*****************************************************************
 2 UK Independent: No10 did not tell truth about Iraq, says diplomat who quit
 
By Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor
 
18 October 2004

 	 

A high-flying diplomat who helped frame the Government arguments
that laid the groundwork for the Iraq war, has resigned because
Downing Street "did not tell the whole truth" about the Iraqi
threat. 

Carne Ross, a former first secretary to Britain's UN mission
between 1998 and mid-2002 in charge of Iraq issues, had resigned
a month ago just as he was about to take up a senior post in
London. 

Asked about his reasons, 38-year-old Mr Ross told The
Independent yesterday: "I had lost trust in a Government that I
believe did not tell the whole truth about the alleged threat
posed by Iraq before the war." 

He also highlighted the Government's failure to "fully pursue
available alternatives to invasion", a reference to the option
of allowing the UN weapons inspections to continue. But the
diplomat, who had taken a year's sabbatical before going on to
serve until last month as chief strategist to the UN mission in
Kosovo, refused to comment further. 

Mr Ross is the second senior Iraq expert from the Foreign Office
to resign over the war. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a deputy head in
the legal department, left in March 2003. Other prominent
officials including the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, have said the war was
illegal. Mr Ross's position reflects the unease about the
prosecution of the war among those who knew there was no new
evidence that Saddam Hussein represented a direct threat to
Britain. 

The Butler report into the intelligence that led to the war and
the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group, which reported 10 days
ago that there had been no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
has heightened the sense of unease. 

Mr Ross's boss, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who served the Government
loyally at the United Nations before becoming Britain's senior
envoy to Iraq, has said the inspectors should have been allowed
to complete their work. Sir Jeremy has retired from the
diplomatic service. 	           


UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 3 ITAR-TASS: Iraq has no information on equipment from nuclear facilities
 	 	 	 
18.10.2004, 11.03

AL-KUWAIT, October 18 (Itar-Tass) - The Iraqi ministry of science 
and technologies does not possess any information on where the 
materials and equipment, that could be used for the creation of 
nuclear weapons, could disappear from Baghdad. This is stated in 
a message of the ministry, sent in reply to the corresponding 
inquiry of Secretary-General of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei, the KUNA news agency reports. 
The message said that the Iraqi authorities knew nothing about 
the whereabouts of the equipment, “which was stolen from the 
Iraqi nuclear facilities of Tuvaisa and Al-Vardiya.” 

ElBaradei’s letter, circulated at the U.N. Security Council last 
Monday, expressed concern on behalf IAEA over the large-scale and 
obviously systematic dismantling efforts at the facilities, which 
were initially included in the Iraqi nuclear programme. It 
stressed that the facilities had been kept under permanent 
observation and control of IAEA prior to the evacuation of IAEA 
experts from Iraq in March 2003 several days before the beginning 
of a U.S. combat operation in that country. 

The Iraqi ministry assured IAEA that the remaining equipment and 
materials had been taken under tight control, and no such cases 
would take place in Iraq any more. [ border=] [ border=]   
       
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, 
*****************************************************************
 4 Las Vegas SUN: N. Korea's No. 2 Encourages Nuke Dialogue
 
 By JOE McDONALD ASSOCIATED PRESS 

BEIJING (AP) - 

North Korea's No. 2 leader said Monday that his country still
wants to settle the dispute over its nuclear program through
dialogue, as China tried to cajole the North back into stalled
six-nation talks, calling for flexibility by all sides. 

Kim Yong Nam began a visit to Beijing on Monday amid of flurry
of efforts to restart the talks on Washington's demand for the
North to give up its nuclear ambitions. Participants missed a
September deadline for holding a new round after the North
refused to take part. 

"The situation of the Korean Peninsula is still complicated, but
the North Korean side would like to find a peaceful solution of
the nuclear issue through dialogue," state television quoted Kim
as telling his Chinese counterpart, Wu Bangguo. 

The report didn't say, however, whether Kim was referring to the
six-nation talks, which also include host China, South Korea,
Japan and Russia. 

The United States is pressing the North to give up its nuclear
program and allow international inspections. The North wants aid
in exchange. Japan and South Korea have offered fuel, but it
isn't clear whether that would satisfy the North, which has
demanded security guarantees and is believed to be hoping for
diplomatic relations with Washington. 

Wu told Kim that settling the dispute was the "common wish" of
the international community, state television said. 

"Although the process of the talks has at present encountered
some problems, I believe the talks can go on if every party
shows sincerity, patience and flexibility," Wu was quoted as
saying during the meeting at the Great Hall of the People, the
seat of China's legislature. 

The newscast did not give any more details of their talks. 

Kim is also scheduled to meet Chinese president Hu Jintao this
week. 

Secretary of State Colin Powell is due to visit Japan, China and
South Korea next weekend in a possible attempt to arrange a new
round of talks. But it appears increasingly unlikely that it
will take place before the U.S. presidential election in
November. 

China's ambassador for the nuclear dispute, Ning Fukui, visited
South Korea last week to discuss ways to restart the talks. He
later traveled to Washington, where he met senior U.S.
officials. 

Kim is head of the Presidium of North Korea's parliament, second
in line behind North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. Kim Yong Nam
acts as his country's ceremonial head of state. 

China is North Korea's last major ally and biggest aid donor,
but has told other governments that it has only limited
influence over Kim Jong Il's isolated dictatorship. 

Also Monday, Kim Yong Nam visited Beijing's Zhongguancun
district, the center of China's high-tech industry, and toured a
4-year-old government enterprise set up to foster development of
new technology companies. 

The North Korean leader received a briefing on the company and
the surrounding technology park, located in an area that Beijing
has dubbed "China's Silicon Valley." 

China has hosted a series of such visits by Kim Jong Il and
other North Korean leaders to study Chinese economic reforms in
hopes that the North might try to revive its decrepit centrally
planned economy by allowing similar changes. 

North Korea has set up a fledgling software industry, which held
a trade show in Beijing in 2002, though it isn't clear how
effective it has been at developing marketable products. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 5 Korea Herald: N.K. group may discuss 6-party talks   
 
2004.10.18
 
[http://www.voiceware.co.kr]                       

During a visit to Beijing beginning today, North Korea's No. 2 
leader will likely explain the North's position on the stalled 
six-party talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear 
issue, some analysts here say.

 In addition, the delegation is expected to renew an invitation 
for Chinese President Hu Jintao to visit Pyongyang, an idea North 
Korean leader Kim Jong-il suggested during a visit to Beijing in 
April.

 Other than that, the main agenda item on the trip will likely be 
consolidation of bilateral ties with China, which has just 
undergone a leadership transition, the analysts say.

 In part, the trip also returns a visit to Pyongyang in September 
by senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, led by Li 
Changchoon, they said.

 The North Korean delegation is being led by Kim Yong-nam, 
president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, 
Pyongyang's rubber-stamp parliament.

It is expected to meet President Hu, Premier Wen Jiabao, and the 
chairman of the National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo.

 The three-day visit comes as Pyongyang has been criticized over 
its refusal to participate in a fourth round of the six-nation 
talks that was scheduled for September. The meetings are aimed at 
discussing ways to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program in 
return for economic assistance and possible diplomatic 
recognition. 

The analysts said that though the visit will not make headway 
toward resolving North Korea's nuclear ambitions, Pyongyang might 
feel the need to articulate what its position will be after the 
Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election. It may also wish to assure 
Beijing that Pyongyang will return to the dialogue following the 
election.

 "As Li probably asked the North to make some compromise in its 
position on its nuclear weapons program after the U.S. poll, the 
North would explain its position to Beijing," said Prof. Woo 
Seong-ji at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National 
Security.

 During the September visit to North Korea, Li was unsuccessful 
in efforts to persuade the North to salvage the six-party talks.

 Some analysts said Kim might try to help the communist country's 
only major ally to save face, by expressing a favorable position 
on the multilateral talks in return for China's economic 
assistance.

 But others say the visit may be primarily a chance for the North 
to strengthen its ties with China, which just completed 
stabilizing its leadership. 

"North Korea would want to solidify bilateral relations, as China 
remains the only country to depend on when it feels outside 
pressure over nuclear issues and missile development," said 
professor Koh Yu-hwan who teaches North Korean studies at Dongguk 
University. 

"China, which regards peace on the peninsula as a prerequisite to 
its own security and economic development, would advise North 
Korea not to worsen the situation over missiles and nuclear 
weapons programs," Koh said.

 Park Young-ho, a researcher at the state-run Korea Institute for 
National Unification, said the visit is more like a courtesy call 
on the Chinese government in appreciation for its economic help 
and its recent move to bolster patrols along the North Korean 
border to stop North Korean defections.

 Some analysts say it's unrealistic to link the North Korean 
delegation's visit to a possible breakthrough in the nuclear 
standoff.

 "Parliamentary leader Kim Yong-nam is not the right person to 
discuss a policy issue such as the nuclear or missile talks," 
said a former ambassador to China on the condition of anonymity.

 Professor Ryoo Kihl-jae at Khyungnam University's Graduate 
School of North Korean Studies also says Kim's position isn't 
appropriate for that kind of a result. 

He said Kim, 79, is more of a faithful butler to Kim Jong-il, 
different from First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Suk-ju and Vice 
Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon, who were engaged in actual 
negotiations over the nuclear issue.

 (smjoo@heraldm.com)

 By Joo Sang-min 




2004.10.18
 
  
    
    
    
  


   [http://www.heraldcampus.co.kr/Premium/]           
    
    

  
    
    
    
    

      
    

      
  


    

  



*****************************************************************
 6 UPI: Japanese official says N.Korea has nukes - 

(United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  October 18, 2004 			   

Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- A Japanese official, after stating 
that North Korea had developed a plutonium-based nuclear weapon, 
said Monday Pyongyang might not be ready to launch it. 

Speaking at a press conference Monday, Chief Cabinet Secretary 
Hiroyuki Hosada commented that Pyongyang "might not be at the 
stage of loading a nuke onto a missile yet."

 Over the weekend, Hosada claimed that Pyongyang had already 
completed the development of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon 
with the help of Pakistan, the Sankei Shimbun reported. It was 
the first statement by a Japanese official confirming Pyongyang's 
claim to have developed such a weapon.

 Hosada reiterated the government's insistence that it would seek 
complete, verifiable and irreversible scrapping of the North's 
nuclear program.

 He added that Japan might consider taking the matter to the U.N. 
Security Council if the six-party talks, including the United 
States, China, South Korea and Russia, failed to achieve a 
breakthrough with North Korea.

[UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 7 BBC: N Korea envoy visits China
 
  Last Updated: Monday, 18 October, 2004
 
		 		 		 
[Kim Yong-nam (archive)]                                

Kim Yong-nam formally heads North Korea's parliament                                                          

North Korea's second most senior leader, Kim Yong-nam, is in 
China for a rare visit expected to focus on the North's nuclear 
programme. 

His visit comes amid a flurry of efforts to restart stalled 
six-party talks aimed at addressing the crisis. 

US Secretary of State Colin Powell is to visit Japan, China and 
South Korea for talks on the issue later this week. 

But analysts believe there is unlikely to be much progress before 
the US presidential election in November. 

The six-party talks were launched last August with great fanfare, 
but more than a year on this process has stalled. 

The fourth round of talks had been scheduled for September but 
North Korea boycotted the meeting, citing as reasons South 
Korea's controversial nuclear experiments and what Pyongyang 
called Washington's "hostile policy" towards it. 

A BBC correspondent in Beijing, Louisa Lim, says China's leaders 
will be pushing Mr Kim to return to the negotiating table. 

China is the North's main ally and its biggest aid donor, 
although it says it has limited influence over the North Korean 
leadership. 

There is speculation that Pyongyang also wants to wait and see 
who will win the US presidential election. 

President George's Bush challenger, John Kerry, has a very 
different approach to the North Korean nuclear crisis - 
advocating bilateral talks rather than just the six-party 
approach. 

During his three-day visit, Mr Kim is also scheduled to visit a 
science park in Beijing. Western diplomats say economic reform 
will also be high on the agenda, amid concerns that Pyongyang is 
not wholly committed to pushing forward its reform process. 





*****************************************************************
 8 Xinhuanet: DPRK seeks peace in Korean Peninsula: Kim   

  www.xinhuanet.com
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-19 00:26:22   

Wu Ba ngguo (R), chairman of the Standing Committee of China's 
National People's Congress, shakes hands with Kim Yong Nam (L), 
president of Presidium of Supreme People's Assembly of Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), at the Great Hall of the 
People in Beijing, China Oct. 18, 2004. (Xinhua Photo) 

Wu Bangguo (L), chairman of the Standing Committee of China's 
National People's Congress, accompanies Kim Yong Nam (R), 
president of Presidium of Supreme People's Assembly of Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea in reviewing a guard of honor of the 
three services at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China 
Oct. 18, 2004. (Xinhua Photo) 

   BEIJING, Oct. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea (DPRK) will continue to seek peaceful 
settlement of the nuclear issue through dialogues though the 
situation remains complicated in the Korean Peninsular, DPRK's 
top legislator Kim Yong Nam said here Monday.  

   Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of Supreme People's 
Assembly of the DPRK, made the remark during talks with Wu 
Bangguo,chairman of the Standing Committee of the National 
People's Congress. 

   Wu said it is the common aspiration of the 
internationalcommunity to maintain the momentum of talks on the 
nuclear issueand seek solution to substantial issues. 

   On the difficulties facing the peaceful talks, Wu said that as 
long as all parties concerned are patient, sincere and 
flexible,the difficulties will be overcome. 

   The peaceful talks could be and should be continued, Wu said.
  

    Kim Yong Nam arrived here Monday morning for an official 
goodwill visit to China at the invitation of the Standing 
Committee of the National People's Congress and the State 
Council.Enditem 

Chinese top legislator makes 4-point proposal on Sino-DPRK ties 

    BEIJING, Oct. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- China's top legislator Wu 
Bangguo Monday put forward a four-point proposal to further the 
relationship between China and the Democratic People's Republic 
Korea (DPRK). 

    The proposal includes: mutual respect and equality based on 
the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, maintaining 
high-level contacts for timely exchange of views on majors 
issues, promoting cooperation for the benefit of the two 
countries and peoples, and enhancing coordination in 
international and regional affairs to create a peaceful 
environmental. 

    China is willing work with the DPRK to further the friendly 
relations, Wu, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National 
People's Congress, said during talks with Kim Yong Nam, president 
of the Presidium of Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK, who 
arrived here Monday morning for an official goodwill visit to 
China. 

    Wu welcomed Kim Yong Nam's visit, saying the friendship 
between China and the DPRK has stood the test of the changeable 
situation since the two countries established diplomatic ties 55 
years ago. The growing friendship has promote the socialist cause 
in both countries, safeguarded their fundamental interests and 
contributed to regional peace and stability. 

    Kim Yong Nam said that the traditional friendship between the 
DPRK and China has been strengthened in the new century, and the 
DPRK is willing to work with China to increase high-level 
contactsand expand economic and trade cooperation. 

    Wu also briefed Kim Yong Nam on a decision of the Chinese 
government to offer aid to the DPRK. Enditem
                                
[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/19/content_2107843_1.h 

*****************************************************************
 9 [CWATCHDOG] BREAKING PC REPORT - Bush Leaves Country Vulnerable
 
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:36:52 -0500 (CDT)

 
Bush Administration Leaves Chemical and Nuclear Plants, HazMat, Ports
and Water Systems Vulnerable to Terrorists

Bush Aversion to Regulation and Allegiance to Campaign Contributors Has
Blocked Progress on Homeland Security, New Report Shows

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Bush administration has consistently ignored or
opposed commonsense measures to protect Americans from potentially
catastrophic terrorist attacks - an inaction that reflects officials'
aversion to regulating private industry and allegiance to key campaign
contributors, a new Public Citizen report shows.

The report, Homeland Unsecured: The Bush Administration's Hostility to
Regulation and Ties to Industry Leave America Vulnerable, details how
the Bush administration has failed to harden our defenses against
terrorism and secure the most vulnerable, high-impact targets. The
report is based on an analysis of five key areas - chemical plants,
nuclear plants, hazardous material transport, ports and water systems.
The report is available at www.HomelandUnsecured.org

"Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush has made
protection of the American people from terrorism the rhetorical
centerpiece of his presidency," said Public Citizen President Joan
Claybrook. "Yet this administration has failed to use its executive
powers or support legislation to mandate regulatory requirements that
should be taken. Bush has abdicated his responsibility to protect
America from the risk of terrorist attacks because he is fundamentally
hostile to regulation of private industry and is loath to cross his big
money campaign contributors."

             Eighty-five percent of the nation's critical
infrastructure is controlled by the private sector.  However, the Bush
administration has been notoriously hostile toward the reasonable
regulation of private industry, including the industries mentioned in
this report. It has blocked efforts to create rules to strengthen
security at chemical and nuclear plants, make the transportation of
hazardous materials more secure, ensure the safety of the drinking water
supply or secure the nation's ports.

The report suggests that this is in part because industries
representing the five homeland security areas examined in this study
collectively have:

* Raised at least $19.9 million for the Bush campaigns, the
Republican National Committee or the Bush inauguration since the 2000
cycle.
* Provided 10 Rangers and 20 Pioneers - individuals who raise at
least $200,000 and $100,000, respectively - to the Bush presidential
campaigns.
* Spent at least $201 million lobbying the White House, executive
branch agencies and Congress from 2002 through June 2004.

Among the report's other findings:

* Chemical plants
A strike at one or more of the 15,000 chemical plants across the United
States could cause thousands, even millions, of injuries and deaths. But
the Bush administration and the chemical industry have blocked
legislation that would require chemical plants to shift to safer
chemicals and technologies, and blocked Environmental Protection Agency
efforts to compel security improvements via the Clean Air Act.

* Nuclear plants
Twenty-seven state attorneys generals warned Congress in October 2002
that the consequences of a catastrophic attack against one of the
country's 103 nuclear power plants "are simply incalculable." The plants
were not designed to withstand the impact of aircraft crashes or
explosive forces, and the government does not require nuclear plants to
be secure from an aircraft attack. Radioactive waste is stored in
standing pools or dry casks, making it vulnerable, and the plants have
grossly inadequate security. But the Bush administration and the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have resisted congressional efforts
for additional security regulation. In fact, the NRC proposed weakening
fire safety regulations, which would make it harder for a reactor to be
safely shut down in the event of a terrorist attack.

* Hazardous materials transport
The trains and trucks that carry tens of millions of tons of toxic
chemicals and other hazardous materials annually on our highways make
tempting terrorist targets. More than half of the nation's 60,000 rail
tank cars carrying hazardous materials are too old to meet current
industry standards and thus are more likely than newer cars to break
open after derailing. A weapon as simple as the legal, widely available
50-caliber rifle has the potential to inflict serious damage on a train
car or truck carrying lethal materials, by penetrating tanks and causing
an explosion or derailment. Despite the risk, though, there are
insufficient checks on where trucks carrying hazardous materials may
drive; insufficient oversight and tracking of the types, amounts and
locations of trucks moving these lethal loads; and insufficient controls
on the issuance of commercial licenses for drivers of trucks carrying
hazardous materials. Legislation to assess rail security has been
blocked by members of the president's party, and other safety proposals
have been dropped because of industry opposition.

* Port security
Every year, 8,100 foreign cargo ships make 50,000 visits to the United
States. International sea transport is an attractive terrorist target
because there are millions of shipping containers, hundreds of ports and
dozens of methods to damage infrastructure, disrupt the world economy,
undermine our military readiness and harm Americans.  Just 4 to 6
percent of shipping containers are inspected today.  Inspectors are not
adequately trained. And innovative pilot security programs have not been
implemented. At least one important security initiative has been adopted
since 9/11, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, but
new security measures and proposed funding put forward by the Bush
administration fall far short of what is needed.
* Drinking water systems
Few acts of sabotage against the public could be more insidious than
delivering poison into a family's home through tap water. The water
distribution network-the pumping stations, storage tanks and pipes that
might cover thousands of miles within a metropolitan area-provides
countless opportunities to introduce biological, chemical or
radiological contaminants. But there is no funding mechanism for the
federal government to provide direct grants to cities to upgrade water
security, and the private water utility industry's campaign to take over
public water systems is getting a push from the Bush administration.
This could make securing our water supply even more difficult because
private water companies, like chemical companies, nuclear power
companies and other industries, will resist strong security standards
mandated by the government.

The terrorist threat is particularly acute in Washington, D.C., where
8,500 rail cars carrying hazardous materials travel through the city
each year. Ninety-ton rail cars that regularly pass within four blocks
of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., contain enough
chlorine to potentially injure or kill 100,000 people within 30 minutes
and could endanger 2.4 million people.

The D.C. Council considered a bill requiring the rerouting of hazardous
material-carrying trains away from the city, but it was postponed
because the federal government promised to study the matter. In May
2004, though, a Transportation Security Administration official told
Congress that the federal government intended to continue allowing
trains and hazardous materials to pass close to the Capitol.

"A year of hearings, meetings and entreaties to the Bush administration
has failed to persuade them to take obvious action to protect the safety
of Washington residents," said D.C. Councilmember Kathy Patterson. "I am
urging my colleagues to move ahead with our legislative remedy, and urge
other communities to follow suit."

Added Rick Hind, legislative director of the Toxics Campaign at
Greenpeace USA, "The good news is that threats to chemical plants and
train shipments are preventable. In fact, the most serious threats can
actually be eliminated thanks to safer available chemicals and safer
rail routes. The bad news is that the Bush administration would rather
listen to the Dow and Exxon lobbyists than take action to prevent a
disaster."

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization
based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit
www.citizen.org.

------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about this, and the other issues Public
Citizen works on, please visit our website at
http://www.citizen.org/

If you have received this message in error, please accept
our apologies. To unsubscribe, reply to this message and
change the subject to "unsubscribe CWATCHDOG".
*****************************************************************
 10 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Our choices for Congress
 
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 WEEKEND EDITION: October 17, 2004

 Harry Reid, a moderate Democrat, has been an outstanding U.S.
senator for Nevada since he was first elected in 1986. He has
championed the needs of working people, and if it hadn't been
for Reid's unwavering opposition to burying nuclear waste in
Nevada, the Yucca Mountain project very likely would have been a
done deal by now. Instead, Reid's influence has given our state
a fighting chance to stop Yucca Mountain. We can't afford to
lose Reid, who is the assistant minority leader of the U.S.
Senate and the most powerful Nevadan we've ever had in Congress.
The Sun endorses Harry Reid.

 In the most fiercely contested congressional race in Nevada,
Democrat Tom Gallagher is trying to unseat Republican Jon Porter
in Congressional District 3, which includes part of Southern
Nevada. When Porter was elected in 2002 he said he would be an
independent voice, but instead he has been a rubber stamp for
Republican leaders, almost always voting with them. It's also
disturbing that Porter, like so many other top Republicans in
this state, says that there isn't any difference between John
Kerry and George Bush on Yucca Mountain. Even a schoolchild
would understand that Bush, a Republican, has put nuclear waste
on a fast track to Yucca Mountain while Kerry, a Democrat, has
fought the dump and would, if elected, do all that he could to
stop it. For Porter, fealty to his party and the president have
clouded his judgment on Yucca Mountain.

 Gallagher has been a successful executive in the gaming
industry and we're fortunate that he's willing to bring his
expertise in problem-solving to Washington. He has sensible
ideas, such as passing a real prescription drug benefit for
seniors that doesn't benefit the insurance companies and drug
makers. That stands in stark contrast to Porter, who supported
the president's prescription drug plan, which actually makes it
illegal for the federal government to buy drugs in bulk,
resulting in seniors having to pay far more than they should.
And on Yucca Mountain, the biggest federal issue facing this
state, Gallagher clearly understands how important it is to do
everything in his power to prevent it from happening. The Sun
endorses Tom Gallagher.

 Rep. Shelley Berkley, another moderate Democrat from Nevada,
has been a great representative for Congressional District 1,
which includes part of Southern Nevada. She has been an
effective advocate on behalf of Las Vegas, working to get more
funding for local schools and trying to find ways to lower
health care costs. The Sun endorses Shelley Berkley.

 Rep. Jim Gibbons, a conservative Republican, represents
Congressional District 2, which includes all of Northern Nevada
and a part of Southern Nevada. We don't always see eye-to-eye
with Gibbons on the issues, but he has been effective in
satisfying the needs of his constituents, especially those in
rural areas who might otherwise go neglected. The Sun endorses
Jim Gibbons.

 





*****************************************************************
 11 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Forcing the door open

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 It's bad enough that the federal government wants to use Yucca
Mountain as a burial site for the nation's high-level nuclear
waste -- take the politics out of this plan and it would fail
every scientific test. But to meet in secret about anything
concerning Yucca Mountain, especially here in our own state, is
almost as bad. Yet that's what's been happening as elected
officials from the city of Caliente and Nye, Esmeralda and
Lincoln counties met repeatedly this year to discuss an aspect
of the Energy Department's transportation plan.

 Transportation is one of the more dangerous aspects of the
Yucca Mountain plan. Deadly waste would be hauled thousands of
miles across the country for decades, inviting irreparable
disaster. The final leg of the trip from nuclear power plants to
Yucca Mountain would be via a proposed rail line from rural
Caliente, 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

 In April this newspaper and the Nevada Press Association filed
a complaint with the state attorney general's office after we
learned that the elected officials were discussing this proposal
-- behind closed doors. This month, the office agreed that the
meetings violated the state open meeting law and cited the group
for a "pattern of deception, privacy, exclusion and
non-disclosure." A proposed settlement would have the group
reconsider its past agenda items in public, and a spokesman for
the group said its members will comply.

 The state of Nevada has sued the Energy Department over this
proposed rail line on the grounds that federal environmental
policies are not being followed. All discussion of it should be
held in public. The attorney general's office said it "stands
ready to litigate this case" if the group meets again in
private. We hope the group's members got the message.

 

*****************************************************************
 12 yaledailynews.com: It's up to us to begin fighting dirty energy

Published Monday, October 18, 2004

Considering the heated presidential campaigning that has been 
raging full force recently, it's no wonder that one of the 
nation's cable channels has been breaking ratings records lately. 
What may come as a surprise, however, is that it's not Fox News 
or CNN that's been enjoying skyrocketing viewership -- it's the 
Weather Channel. According to the Associated Press, the Weather 
Channel's third-quarter ratings this year were 43 percent higher 
than in 2003, a spike that's attributed to the unusually severe 
hurricane season this fall.

 Five major storm systems in the span of six weeks may be a 
windfall for TV ratings, but for those affected directly by the 
storms, it's a different matter entirely, with a death toll 
topping 140 in the United States alone. Scientists debate the 
strength of the correlation between global warming and this 
year's hurricane season, but the United Nations International 
Strategy for Disaster Reduction reports that over 150,000 people 
die every year from the adverse effects of global warming, which 
include intensified storm surges and floods resulting from higher 
sea levels. Even the Bush White House, notorious for its 
lackluster environmental record, has acknowledged that global 
warming is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 Global warming deserves particular attention from the United 
States. We're currently responsible for about a quarter of the 
world's greenhouse gas emissions, making our nation a major 
culprit in the trend of global warming. However, President Bush 
has done little to improve our nation's oil-dependent energy 
policy. His Clear Skies program, for example, weakens the 
protections provided by our current Clean Air Act; in fact, 
according to the projections of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the plan would actually increase the amount of coal power 
companies burn by 79 million tons over the next two decades.

 Our government spends billions of dollars yearly subsidizing 
coal, oil, and nuclear energy industries -- and it shows. 
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, over 90 
percent of the electricity produced in the United States comes 
from fossil fuels and uranium. By comparison, government support 
for viable clean energy sources such as solar and wind power is 
lamentably disproportionate. Environmental concerns aside, the 
rising price of oil -- and our continued dependence on it -- 
burdens working Americans and leads to economic stagnation. 
Investing in clean energy sources will lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil (we currently consume a full 25 percent of the 
world's diminishing oil supply) and help fuel the economy (pun 
intended) by creating new jobs.

 Our own university, like its alumnus, President Bush, is party 
to the national addiction to dirty energy. Not only does Yale get 
the majority of its power from fossil fuels, but its inefficient 
buildings consume an astronomical 722 million kilowatt-hours. 
Compare that to the energy efficiency at Stanford, which consumes 
43 percent less kilowatt-hours than Yale despite having a student 
body 30 percent larger than ours. Last year, the Yale Climate 
Initiative, a project run by students at the School of Forestry 
and Environmental Studies, developed a series of recommendations 
to improve Yale's energy efficiency. Yale recently created an 
energy task force, a commendable first step in addressing the 
issue, but it's important that we encourage the university to 
continue its efforts. A more efficient university energy policy 
could save money, save energy and help Yale become a leader in 
the movement to national independence from dirty energy.

 In a world in which wind power is the world's fastest-growing 
source of energy, the Kyoto Protocol is fast becoming a reality, 
and the rest of the industrialized world is looking to clean 
energy alternatives, our generation must step up and address the 
issue of our reliance on dirty energy. Energy Action, a coalition 
of 17 student environmental and progressive networks across North 
America, is declaring Oct. 19 Energy Independence Day. Hundreds 
of campuses nationwide will be participating in this landmark day 
of action, which takes place just two weeks before our national 
elections. At the core of the action is the signing of a 
Declaration of Independence from Dirty Energy, in which the youth 
of the United States challenge all candidates for elected office 
and the leaders of our institutions to establish a plan for a 
complete transition beyond dirty energy. Sign on to the 
declaration at www.energyaction.net and make your voice heard. If 
we don't take important steps to improve our nation's energy 
policies now, our generation will pay the price.

Ann Marie Gaul is a sophomore in Davenport College. She is a 
member of the Yale Student Environmental Coalition and the 
Climate Campaign.

Copyright © 1995-2004 Yale Daily News Publishing Company, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Arrive in Brazil
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Tuesday October 19, 2004 12:31 AM

AP Photo RIO104 

By MICHAEL ASTOR 

Associated Press Writer 

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - A top Brazilian official said 
Monday that United Nations nuclear inspectors were no longer 
insisting on unrestricted access to the country's uranium 
enrichment facilities. 

Odair Goncalves Dias, president of Brazil's National Nuclear 
Energy Commission, said he hoped the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's new position would help resolve a dispute over the 
country's plans to enrich uranium. 

``The agency has agreed that it is possible to put safeguards in 
place without total and unrestricted access,'' Dias said at news 
conference here. 

The comments from Dias were the first official confirmation of 
such an agreement between the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and 
Brazil, which has for months rejected calls to allow inspectors 
to conduct a full visual inspection of the centrifuges at the 
nuclear facility in Resende. 

Three high-level IAEA inspectors arrived Monday in Rio de Janeiro 
and planned to visit the plant in Resende, about 60 miles 
northwest of Rio, on Tuesday. Dias said the IAEA inspectors would 
not comment during to the press during their visit, as is 
customary. 

Uranium enriched to low levels is used for fuel to generate 
power. More highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium can be used in 
nuclear warheads. Brazil denies it is building such arms. 

Brazil had cited fears that the Resende plant's advanced 
technology could be stolen by other countries if outsiders were 
allowed to view it. 

Brazil says it has developed new electromagnetic technology that 
reduces friction in the centrifuges and makes them 30 percent 
more efficient than those used in other countries. 

Some analysts have suggested, however, that Brazil will not allow 
inspectors full access because it purchased the technology on the 
nuclear black market - a charge the government denies. 

Dias said he expects the inspectors to approve the alternative 
inspection system and send another team shortly to approve the 
plant's design - a move that would allow Brazil to begin 
enriching uranium. 

Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos told the Folha de 
Sao Paulo newspaper that Brazil and the IAEA were working on an 
alternative inspection plan that would assure inspectors that no 
enriched uranium is being diverted abroad or refined to 
weapons-grade levels. 

``We want the IAEA safeguards,'' Campos said in an exclusive 
interview published Monday. ``We want to facilitate their work, 
but we want to do so in an alternative manner - something that 
wasn't our previous proposal, nor full visual inspection.'' 

At a September meeting in the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, 
Austria, Brazil proposed that the agency could inspect the tubes 
leading to and from the centrifuge, but not the centrifuges 
themselves, Campos said. 

The weekly news magazine Veja, citing an unidentified government 
official, said the new Brazilian proposal would allow inspectors 
a partial view by slightly lowering the six-foot panels that 
surround the centrifuges. 
  
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 14 BBC: War syndrome 'will not be solved'
 
  Last Updated: Monday, 18 October, 2004
 
		 		 		 
[A British tank and crew in the desert]                                 

Some 6,000 Gulf veterans have suffered from various complaints                       
			   		

The causes of "Gulf war syndrome" are still not known and 
probably never will be, experts believe. 

Some 6,000 veterans have suffered unexplained poor health since 
the 1991 war, including depression and tumours. 

But weeks before an inquiry is due to report and after a leak of 
a US probe said chemicals were to blame, UK experts said the 
cause was a mystery. 

And Simon Wessely, director of the Gulf War Research Unit, 
claimed scientists may never understand the problem. 



He said: "It is 14 years since the war and we have learnt a fair 
amount since then. 

He added: "There are huge areas that remain unclear and I am 
afraid I suspect they will always remain unclear." 

Illnesses 

Prof Wessely, who is also professor of epidemiological psychiatry 
at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, said he could not 
comment on reports that a US inquiry had found the syndrome did 
exist and was caused by toxic chemicals. 

Prof Wessely refuses to use the term syndrome but accepts the 
veterans have experienced a higher number of illnesses. 

He said: "I am completely certain that there is no single cause." 

The Ministry of Defence, which does not recognise the syndrome as 
a medical condition, saying the symptoms are too varied to be 
considered part of a wider syndrome, has also refused to comment 
on the US findings. 

Controversy has surrounded so-called Gulf war syndrome since 
veterans began to experience more ill health than military 
personnel who had served in previous and subsequent conflicts. 

[Rockets containing sarin set for destruction] Personnel received 
vaccines against biological weapons threats                                                                 

While veterans have not experienced more heart disease or cancer, 
the levels of general ill health, including mood swings, memory 
loss, lack of concentration and night sweats, have been 20% 
higher. 

Some have blamed the high number of vaccines and medication given 
to the armed forces to protect them against a variety of 
illnesses, including anthrax. 

Others have suggested it was caused by chemicals, such as 
pesticides and nerve agents, or exposure to depleted uranium 
which was used in weapons. 

Vaccines 

But UK researchers have dismissed the theories. 

Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the Royal Society working 
group on depleted uranium munitions, said the exposure would have 
been "too low". 

And Professor Mark Peakman, from Guy's, King's and St Thomas's 
School of Medicine, who has done research on the effect of 
vaccines, said he did not believe the multiple vaccines 
administered were to blame either. 

However, he admitted the theory that    vaccines and chemicals 
interacted in some way "still lurks". 

Shaun Rusling, vice chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and 
Families Association, accused the scientists of having "cold 
hearts" and "closed minds". 

"The US has been far more advanced at looking in to this. The 
clinical scientific evidence is irrefutable. 

"The US study said it wasn't caused by the stress of fighting the 
war but the chemicals we came into contact with. 

"It is disgusting the British government and scientists don't 
admit this." 

The Gulf war syndrome inquiry, funded by anonymous donors and 
headed by former judge Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is due to unveil 
its findings in the next few weeks. 







*****************************************************************
 15 BBC: Brazil set for nuclear inspection
 
  Last Updated: Monday, 18 October, 2004
 
By Steve Kingstone BBC Sao Paulo correspondent   

[The Resende nuclear plant in Brazil which will be inspected by 
UN officials in October]                           

Brazil insists some of the plant is off-limits to inspection                                                                

Inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog are due to 
begin a visit to Brazil on Monday to examine the country's plans 
to enrich uranium. 

The Brazilian government says its plant at Resende, near Rio de 
Janeiro, is designed solely to generate energy. 

But the International Energy Agency (IAEA) team will need to be 
satisfied that none of the nuclear material is being diverted 
into weapons production. 

This is not the first time Brazil has ventured into nuclear 
territory. 

The country's interest in nuclear technology stretches back more 
than half a century. 

The defining decade was the 1970s, when Brazil's then military 
rulers set up the first nuclear power plant. 

They tried to move in secret beyond energy and into weapons 
production, with little practical success, according to 
independent experts. 

Today the government's energy programme is more open to scrutiny 
by the academic community. 

New openness 

And things are very different from the secretive past, according 
to Alejandro de Toledo of Sao Paulo University. 

"The nuclear energy programme in Brazil was closed to the very 
small circle in the government and the academic world had no 
access to it," he said. 

"Nowadays the Brazil government wants the real collaboration of 
the academic world, of the university, with the atomic energy 
commission. This ensures that the programme will be more 
transparent." 

But despite the new openness, the IAEA will find that some of 
today's technology is off-limits. 

The Brazilian government says the centrifuge responsible for 
enrichment is too commercially sensitive to be shown in full. 

The agency is used to access negotiations of this kind but it has 
strict criteria for what the inspectors must see to give Brazil 
the green light to move forward. 



*****************************************************************
 16 UPI: Brazil and U.N. reach uranium agreement -

 (United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  October 18, 2004 			   

Brasilia, Brazil, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- U.N. nuclear inspectors and 
Brazil reached an understanding Monday about criteria for 
inspections of a uranium enrichment facility in Rio de Janeiro 
state. 

Brazil agreed to show more of the Resende facility in Tuesday's 
inspection, while the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency 
dropped its quest for unrestricted access to the entire facility, 
according to Odair Goncalves, president of Brazil's National 
Commission of Nuclear Energy.

 The IAEA and Brazil have been clashing for months over terms of 
the inspections.

 Under international law, the plant cannot begin to process 
uranium until it passes IAEA inspection. Brazil has the world's 
fourth largest reserves of the raw material used in nuclear power 
plants and weaponry.

 Brazil was accused of refusing to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors 
to examine the Rio facility in February and March of this year.

 The plant is legal under international treaties, but is still 
subject to U.N. inspections. IAEA inspectors have been prevented 
from seeing certain portions of the plant.

[UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 17 MercoPress: Nuclear plant inspectors in Brazil. 
 
[MercoPress - www.mercopress.com]   
              
- Tuesday, 19 October

The announcement of the visit comes after Brazil tentatively 
agreed to the IAEA inspection after months of squabbling over 
technology that could be stolen if experts from other countries 
have access to the Resende centrifuges, close to Rio do Janeiro. 

Earlier in the year Science and Technology minister Eduardo 
Campos said that Brazil had spent over a billion US dollars and 
years of research in developing uranium enrichment technology. 

“Brazilian centrifuges are 30% more efficient because of an 
electromagnetic device designed by our engineers and we have to 
protect this technology”, insisted Mr. Campos. 

The deal reached with IAEA will allow inspectors to verify that 
the uranium is neither being enriched to weapons grade level or 
diverted to other sites. 

Diplomats have said the IAEA is not much concerned about Brazil 
trying to make nuclear weapons but is interested in knowing how 
the country which ran a secret nuclear military program before 
ending it in the eighties actually acquired the technology. 

Press reports also claim that Brazil’s reluctance to give IAEA 
inspectors full access is more linked to covering up illicit 
purchases than showing the centrifuges. 

Brazil is determined to have enriched uranium to fuel its two 
nuclear power plants, Angra I and II which generate 5% of the 
country’s electricity. Besides Brazil has the sixth largest 
uranium reserves and currently must ship the ore out of the 
country to be processed into fuel. Brazil also strongly rejects 
any intent of building nuclear weapons. 

Fin del Texto - Mercosur - Tuesday, 19 October 

Volver a la página principal...     
        
MERCOPRESS is a news agency concentrating in Mercosur countries 
which operates from Montevideo, Uruguay, and includes in its area 
of influence the South Atlantic and insular territories. © 
1997-2001 Mercopress - E-mail: admin@mercopress.com 
[admin@mercopress.com] - Web technical help: 
webmaster@mercopress.com [webmaster@mercopress.com]       
 
*****************************************************************
 18 Ananova: Britain 'Set For Winters Of Blackouts' 

A winter of power blackouts and price rises could hit Britain 
because industry is facing a looming crisis, says one of the 
biggest trade unions.Amicus said power cuts were possible in 
large parts of the country because of serious problems in 
generating capacity.            

However, its claims have been denied by both industry regulator 
OFGEM and the Government.               

Colder winters triggered by global warming and new European 
directives aimed at curbing carbon emissions will make the 
problem even worse, the Government has been told.The closure of 
magnox nuclear power stations will also hit the ability to 
generate power.Leaders of Amicus and the National Union of 
Mineworkers plan to meet Chancellor Gordon Brown to discuss their 
fears.Amicus general secretary Derek Simpson said: "Dire 
consequences could follow if the action Amicus is demanding is 
not taken."We could be suffering routine blackouts in the next 
few years and the sort of energy price hikes we have seen in 
recent weeks because of the increasing reliance on foreign 
supplies from unstable countries."The Government needs to act to 
encourage coal fire generating plant owners to equip their power 
stations to reduce carbon emissions and comply with new EU 
directives."Mr Simpson said publicly funded research was needed 
to develop clean coal technology as part of a long-term UK energy 
policy.          

But a spokesman for OFGEM said official forecasts had shown there 
was more power available this year than 12 months ago.            

A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman accused the union of 
"scaremongering" and said there was a good outlook for 
electricity supplies in the UK this winter.             

 		 Story filed: 06:53 Monday 18th October 2004 --> 		   	 
 
Ananova Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23240 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61419-61420] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-107]                         
 
Draft for Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of availability of ``EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA 
Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Draft Report for 
Comment,'' and request for public comment.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing 
the availability of NUREG/CR-6850, ``EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA 
Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities Volume 1 and 2, Draft 
for Public Comment.''
 
DATES: Comments on this document should be submitted by December 
17, 2004. Comments received after that date will be considered to 
the extent practicable. To ensure efficient and complete comment 
resolution, comments should include references to the section, 
page, and line numbers of the document to which the comment 
applies, if possible.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to 
submit written comments to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 
Hand-deliver comments attention to Michael Lesar, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal 
workdays. Comments may also be sent electronically to 
NRCREP@nrc.gov [NRCREP@nrc.gov] . This document is available at 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
under Accession No. ML042800183 and ML042800196; on the NRC Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/ 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti 
ons/nuregs/] docs4comment.html; and at the NRC Public Document 
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. The PDR's mailing 
address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 
415-4737 or (800) 397-4205; fax (301) 415-3548; e-mail 
PDR@NRC.GOV [PDR@NRC.GOV] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 
J.S. Hyslop, Probability Risk Assessment Branch, Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone (301) 415-6354, e-mail 
jsh2@nrc.gov [jsh2@nrc.gov] , or Mark H. Salley, Probability Risk 
Assessment Branch,
 
[[Page 61420]] Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone 
(301) 415-2840, e-mail mxs3@nrc.gov [ mxs3@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Draft NUREG/CR-6850, ``EPRI/NRC-RES 
Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities'' The purpose 
of EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities 
Draft Report for Comment (NUREG/CR-6850) is to provide 
state-of-the-art methods, tools, and data for the conduct of fire 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). This methodology was 
developed under the program, the Fire Risk Requantification 
Study, which was conducted as a joint activity between EPRI and 
RES under the terms of an EPRI/RES Memorandum of Understanding on 
Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research and accompanying Fire Risk 
Addendum. Licensee applications and U.S. NRC review guidance with 
respect to many regulatory activities such as the risk-informed, 
performance-based fire protection rule (endorsing NFPA 805) will 
benefit for more robust methods. This research addresses the full 
breadth of FRA technical issues for power operations, and 
includes consideration of large early release frequency. The 
current scope excludes low power/shutdown operations, spent fuel 
pool accidents, sabotage, and PRA level 3 estimates of 
consequence. While the primary objective of the project was to 
consolidate existing research from EPRI and NRC in 
state-of-the-art methods, the newly documented methods represent 
a significant advancement in many areas over previously 
documented methods.
 
The NRC is seeking public comment in order to receive feedback 
from the widest range of interested parties and to ensure that 
all information relevant to developing this document is available 
to the NRC staff. This document is issued for comment only and is 
not intended for interim use. The NRC will review public comments 
received on the document, incorporate suggested changes as 
necessary, and issue the final NUREG/CR-6850 for use.
 
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 8th day of October 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Mark A. Cunningham, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Risk 
Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23240 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 BBC: TUC hosts nuclear power debate
 
  Last Updated: Monday, 18 October, 2004
 
[British Energy]                                

The TUC says policy makers need to face up to tough choices                                                             

More nuclear power stations may need to be built in Wales as the 
UK's gas and oil stocks diminish, trade unionists have been told 
in Cardiff on Monday. 

The Wales TUC is staging a conference in the city to address the 
future energy needs of the nation. 

Speakers have warned that failure to act now could spell disaster 
for workers, communities and businesses. 

But Friends of the Earth Cymru says Wales' energy needs can be 
met through renewable sources. 

There is increasing dou about whether renewable energy generation 
such as wind farms can meet our future energy needs Derek Walker, 
TUC       
              

The conference, entitled 'Could the Lights Go Out in Wales?' is 
being supported by npower and the Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear 
Energy (TUSNE). 

Speaking ahead of the gathering at Cardiff's Angel Hotel, Derek 
Walker, the Wales TUC's head of policy and campaigns, said the 
aim was to outline the tough choices facing policy makers. 

"The UK will soon become a net importer of gas and oil," he said. 

"However, the sources of gas and oil will be from some of the 
world's most unstable countries where security of supply and 
price may not be guaranteed." 

Energy deficit 

Mr Walker said there needed to be a diverse energy supply and, at 
this stage, nuclear energy should not be discounted as part of 
the solution. 

"Global energy demand is likely to double over the next 50 
years," he added. 

"There is increasing doubt about whether renewable energy 
generation such as wind farms can meet our future energy needs, 
resulting in a potential energy deficit. 

"Decisions on just how we fill that deficit will need to be made 
quickly and this conference will be a major contributor to that 
debate." 

Among those taking part on Monday will be Malcolm Grimston, 
senior research fellow at the Royal Institute of International 
Affairs, who has argued the case for replacing the UK's retiring 
nuclear plants. 

He said nuclear power currently accounts for just under 25% of 
the electricity generated in the UK and most nuclear stations 
will reach the end of their lives in the next 20 years or less. 

Off-shore wind farms 

"Unless replacements are ordered soon, the proportion of 
electricity generated in nuclear stations may fall to just 3% by 
2020," he said. 

But Neil Crumpton of Friends of the Earth Cymru told the Politics 
Show on BBC1 on Sunday renewable energy could meet all of Wales' 
electricity needs in the future. 

"We can produce about 30% of Wales electricity by 2012 just with 
existing policies and off-shore wind farms in Liverpool Bay," he 
said. 

"We have tidal lagoons in the Seven Estuary and Liverpool Bay 
than could generate more (electricity) than Wales consumes." 





*****************************************************************
 21 BBC: Union expects winter power crisis
 
  Last Updated: Monday, 18 October, 2004
 
		 		 		 
[Power station]                                 

Many UK power stations are nearing the end of their working lives                                                          

Britain faces winters of blackouts and energy price hikes because 
of a looming crisis in generating capacity, a power and 
engineering industry union warns. 

Amicus says Britain risks becoming dependent on foreign gas 
imports from unstable countries. 

It says the government must invest more in coal, renewable and 
nuclear energy if it is to maintain power supplies. 

But the government said the outlook for power supplies this 
winter was good and accused the union of "scaremongering". 

BBC industry correspondent Patrick Bartlett said Britain had 
become increasingly reliant on gas for its power. 

"But with the country's gas reserves now running down, Amicus 
says we risk becoming dependent on imports from unstable 
countries," he said. 

	

	
                                                                We 
could be suffering routi blackouts in the next few years Amicus 
General Secretary Derek Simpson          

                 "As recent supply problems have shown, a gas 
shortage could lead to big rises in energy bills." 

CBI chief Digby Jones told the BBC's Today programme rising power 
costs, such as a 75% rise in oil costs over 18 months, were 
already having a "huge impact on manufacturing". 

Amicus says power supply problems are compounded by new EU 
regulations controlling carbon emissions, which it believes could 
mean an end to coal-generated power in Britain by 2008. 

Colder winters brought on by global warming and the closure of 
older magnox nuclear plants will make things worse, it says. 

Amicus and the National Union of Mineworkers plan to meet with 
Chancellor Gordon Brown to discuss concerns. 

They want urgent investment in "clean-burn coal technology". 

Supporters of nuclear powe like Amicus, regularly claim the 
lights could go out at any moment Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace 
director    

And it wants more pressure on power companies to ensure 
coal-fired stations meet new EU requirements and more investment 
in designing and constructing new power stations. 

General secretary Derek Simpson said: "We could be suffering 
routine blackouts in the next few years and the sort of energy 
price hikes we have seen in recent weeks because of the 
increasing reliance on foreign supplies from unstable countries." 

But a spokesman for energy regulator Ofgem said it was predicted 
there would be more power available this year than 12 months ago. 

And Greenpeace UK director Stephen Tindale said the solution was 
to be found in more investment in energy efficiency and renewable 
energy. 

He said: "Supporters of nuclear power, like Amicus, regularly 
claim the lights could go out at any moment. 

"But their real fear is that government support for nuclear power 
might be switched off." 





*****************************************************************
 22 C&EN: NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE FUTURE
      
[The Newsmagazine of the Chemical World] 

October 18, 2004 Vol. 82, Iss. 42 View Current Issue            
 									
NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE FUTURE

Enhanced safety, improved economics, and simpler designs are the 
keynotes of the next generations of nuclear energy systems                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
 										     										  
MICHAEL FREEMANTLE, C LONDON  
										      									 									
New generations of nuclear energy systems are now in various 
stages of planning and development. The new reactors will feature 
so-called passive safety systems that do not require human 
intervention in the case of an accident. Some will operate at 
sufficiently high temperatures to produce hydrogen from water as 
well as electricity. Experts say the new systems will be more 
economical to build, operate, and maintain than current 
generations of nuclear reactors.                                                                                        

EVOLUTIONARY Four advanced boiling-water reactors, such as this 
one at the Lungmen Power Station, Taiwan, are under construction 
in Japan and Taiwan. TAIWAN POWER COMPANY PHOTO                                                                                                        
												 												
These new types of reactors are often described as "evolutionary" 
or "revolutionary." The evolutionary systems, known as generation 
III and III+ systems, have designs that evolved from the 
generation II fleet of reactors that were built in the 1970s and 
1980s and continue to operate today. Generation III systems were 
developed in the 1990s and feature enhanced safety systems. They 
are more economical to build, operate, and maintain than the 
previous generation; two are currently in operation and another 
four are under construction. Generation III+ systems are evolving 
from the generation III systems but are not yet operational. They 
are actively under development and being considered in several 
countries for deployment over the next decade or so.                                                                                      

"Many current plants around the world have been in operation for 
several decades and will be decommissioned over the next 10 years 
or so," says Sue Ion, executive director of technology at British 
Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) [http://www.bnfl.com/] . "Evolutionary 
designs are intended to replace existing nuclear plants and to 
prevent sizable increases in carbon dioxide emissions in the 
future. The revolutionary designs aim to deliver safe, 
competitive, and sustainable energy in the longer term."                                                                                  

The revolutionary designs, known as generation IV systems, have 
revolutionary reactor and fuel cycle systems. They are being 
developed in parallel with the evolutionary generation III+ 
designs.                                                                                        

Six new designs were identified for further study by the 
Generation IV International Forum (GIF) [http://gif.inel.gov/] , 
which was initiated in 2000 by a group of nine countries: 
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South 
Korea, the U.K., and the U.S. Switzerland became a member of the 
forum in February 2002, and the European Atomic Energy Community 
joined in July 2003. The technologies were selected following the 
evaluation of 100 or so different nuclear energy concepts by more 
than 100 expert scientists and engineers from more than a dozen 
countries.                                                                                        

"Generation IV is an international initiative aimed at developing 
nuclear energy systems that can supply future worldwide needs for 
electricity, hydrogen, and other products," observes Hussein S. 
Khalil, director of the Nuclear Engineering Division 
[http://www.ne.anl.gov/] at Argonne National Laboratory, in 
Illinois, and a member of the Generation IV Roadmap Project. 
"These systems are to be deployable no later than 2030 for 
providing competitively priced and reliable energy products while 
satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, waste, proliferation, 
and physical protection concerns."?                                                                                      

At present, 441 nuclear power reactors operate in 31 countries, 
producing over 363 billion W of electricity worldwide, according 
to the World Nuclear Association [http://www.world-nuclear.org/] 
. Another 30 reactors are under construction, and some 24 
countries--including six that do not currently operate nuclear 
reactors--are planning or proposing to build an additional 104 
reactors.                                                                                       

Nuclear energy may also be expanded toward the production of 
nonelectricity energy services such as hydrogen production, water 
desalination, and district heating, Khalil points out.
											

The 103 nuclear reactors currently in operation in the U.S. 
generate over 97 billion W of electricity--about 20% of the 
country's electricity.                                                                                  

"In the U.S., improved efficiency has in the past decade yielded 
the equivalent of some 20 new nuclear power plants," Khalil 
notes. "In 2001, the average operating cost of the 103 U.S. 
nuclear power plants was 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour, second 
only to hydroelectric power among baseload generation options." 
Baseload is the portion of electricity generated that remains 
continuous and does not vary over 24 hours. 

Experts say the new systems will be more economical to build,
operate, and maintain than current generations of nuclear
reactors. 											 											

FORECASTS INDICATE that the U.S. will need about 335 billion W of 
new generating capacity by 2025, according to the U.S. Department 
of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science &amp; 
Technology [http://www.ne.doe.gov/] . This growth would require 
building and commissioning an average of 50 to 60 new power 
plants per year over the next two decades.                                                                                        

Western European countries generate around 35% of their 
electricity from nuclear power--more than from any other source. 
France and Belgium produce 78% and 55%, respectively, of their 
electricity from nuclear power. However, only one European Union 
country, Finland, is planning to build a nuclear reactor. France 
is considering the possibility of building a new generation of 
nuclear power plants. Belgium, Germany, Holland, and Sweden are 
planning to phase out existing plants. Austria, Denmark, and 
Ireland have stated policies against nuclear energy. Italy is 
dismantling its four plants following a vote against nuclear 
power in a 1987 referendum. Spain, which currently operates nine 
reactors, has a moratorium on constructing new plants. The U.K. 
is keeping its nuclear options open.                                                                                    

Russia has six nuclear plants under construction and is proposing 
to build eight more. China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan 
have extensive civil nuclear power programs: 17 reactors are 
being built, and another 70 are planned or proposed.                                                                                       

Ion points out that the U.K. pioneered the world's first 
commercial-scale nuclear reactors, Magnox reactors, in the 1950s. 
Magnox reactors employ natural uranium metal, which contains 0.7% 
of the fissile isotope uranium-235 and around 99.2% uranium-238. 
The fuel is encapsulated in an alloy of magnesium and aluminum. A 
graphite moderator surrounding the fuel slows down neutrons 
released by fission of uranium-235 so that they can collide with 
other uranium-235 nuclei, causing more fission and a nuclear 
chain reaction. Control rods made of boron steel, a 
neutron-absorbing material, are inserted into or withdrawn from 
the core to control the rate of reaction or to halt the reaction. 
Gaseous carbon dioxide is used as a coolant to transfer heat 
generated by the nuclear chain reaction in the reactor core to a 
steam turbine that generates electricity.
											

A total of 26 Magnox reactors were built in the U.K. Eight remain 
in operation, but they will be decommissioned by 2010. Nuclear 
reactors such as the Magnox reactors that were operational before 
the 1970s and made use of natural uranium are known as generation 
I reactors.                                                                                         

The generation II reactors of the 1970s and 1980s constitute most 
of the plants currently operating, notes Per F. Peterson 
[http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/peterson.htm] , 
professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, 
Berkeley. Almost 60% of these reactors are pressurized water 
reactors (PWRs), in which the pressurized water serves as a 
moderator and coolant. The fuel, ceramic uranium dioxide, is 
typically encased in long zirconium alloy tubes. The uranium-235 
is enriched from its original 0.7% abundance to 3.5–5.0%.                                                                                                                                                                                  

TEST RIG This model of a power conversion system for the pebble 
bed modular reactor was designed and built by the Faculty of 
Engineering, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 
PBMR (PTY) LTD. PHOTO
														   													 													
THE SECOND most common type of reactor is the boiling-water 
reactor (BWR). Currently more than 90 of these are operating 
throughout the world. BWRs "are similar to pressurized water 
reactors, except that the coolant water is allowed to boil, and 
steam passes from the top of the reactor directly to the 
turbine," Ion explains.                                                                                         

PWRs and BWRs are known as light-water reactors. The 33 CANDU 
(Canada deuterium uranium) pressurized water reactors currently 
in operation in Canada, on the other hand, employ heavy water 
(D2O) as a moderator and coolant. The reactors use natural 
uranium (0.7% U-235) dioxide as a fuel rather than enriched UO2.
											

The second generation of reactors in the U.K. are advanced 
gas-cooled reactors (AGRs). Like Magnox reactors, they use 
graphite as a moderator and CO2 as a coolant. The AGR fuel is 
enriched uranium (2.5–3.5% U-235) oxide pellets encased in 
stainless steel tubes that allow the reactors to operate at 
higher temperatures than the Magnox reactors.                                                                                   

The Russian-designed RBMK reactors are boiling-water reactors 
with graphite moderators. The reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear 
Plant in Ukraine that disintegrated in a steam explosion in April 
1986 was an RBMK reactor.                                                                                         

Reactors that use water or graphite as moderators to slow 
neutrons and sustain the fission chain reaction are known as 
thermal reactors. "Light atoms, such as hydrogen, deuterium, and 
carbon, slow neutrons down to thermal energies (below 1 eV)," Ion 
explains. "At these energies, the probability of a collision 
between a neutron and the fissile U-235 nucleus is around two 
orders of magnitude higher than that for the high-energy neutrons 
that are generated by fission."                                                                                        

In contrast, fast neutron reactors do not have a moderator and 
use fast neutrons directly to generate power. When configured to 
produce more fissile material than they consume, they are known 
as fast breeder reactors. The fuel rods contain a mixture of UO2 
and plutonium dioxide. The coolants are liquid metals, usually 
sodium. The extra energy of fast neutrons increases the 
probability of fission occurring. "Fertile" isotopes, like U-238 
in natural uranium, capture some of the neutrons, creating 
fissile isotopes such as Pu-239. Fast reactors can therefore use 
depleted uranium (uranium that has less than 0.7% of U-235) as a 
fuel.                                                                                   

"Fertile isotopes do not undergo fission but can instead capture 
neutrons and transmute into an isotope of another element which 
can undergo fission," explains Tim J. Abram, manager of advanced 
reactor systems at BNFL.                                                                                        

Several countries, including China, India, and Japan, have R&D 
fast breeder reactor programs. A fast breeder reactor in Russia 
has supplied electricity to the grid since 1981.                                                                                        

The first generation III system, a General Electric-designed 
advanced BWR, started operating in 1996 at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 
Nuclear Power Station in Japan, and another is now in operation. 
Two more are under construction in Japan and another two in 
Taiwan. The designs were certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) in the 1990s.
											 												
Ion BNFL PHOTO Khalil PHOTO 
COURTESY OF H. S. KHALIL
														   														   															
Magwood 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
IN MANY PARTS of the world, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, 
the overriding public concern relating to the future development 
of nuclear power plants is the issue of safety.                                                                                         

"Attaining safe energy is the most technologically important nut 
to crack if we are to achieve a sustainable high-technology 
civilization," comments Terrence J. Collins 
[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/collins/] , chemistry professor 
at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. "I think nuclear is 
the wrong way to go because it can never be safe," he says. "Yes, 
we can do it, but all we need is one serious accident or a 
sabotage incident, and the public will insist on another 
direction. All the invested effort will be wasted."                                                                                     

Even so, a vast amount of effort is going into enhancing the 
safety of advanced generation III+ reactor designs that are now 
evolving and the revolutionary generation IV technologies. They 
all incorporate what is known as passive safety systems.
											

"There are three primary goals for the safety of nuclear 
reactors," Peterson points out. The first is reactivity control, 
which is the process of stopping the fission reactions. Peterson 
notes that all Western power reactors incorporate reactivity 
control as an intrinsic feature of their designs. The Chernobyl 
reactor that caused the accident in 1986, on the other hand, did 
not, and instead relied on operating procedures, which were 
violated.                                                                                       

The second safety goal is to reliably remove decay heat, which is 
the heat generated by radioactive decay of the fission products 
that continue to be produced even after fission reactions stop. 
Decay heat, if not removed, can result in overheating and damage 
to the fuel. Failure to adequately remove decay heat contributed 
to the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in March 1979.                                                                                     

The third goal is to provide multiple barriers to contain the 
radioactive material. The barriers include the fuel cladding, the 
reactor vessel, and the containment building.                                                                                       

Generation I and II reactor safety systems are "active" because 
they rely on active electrical and mechanical control of 
equipment such as sensors, valves, pumps, accumulators, heat 
exchangers, and backup power supplies. The multiple parallel 
redundancies that are built into the designs add to the 
complexity of the systems and the construction and maintenance 
costs.                                                                                  

"In current nuclear power plants, decay heat removal under 
accident--loss-of-coolant--conditions is performed by active 
safety systems that consist of redundant and diverse sets of 
equipment capable of pumping water in to cool the reactor core," 
Peterson says. "Power for this equipment comes from redundant and 
diverse sources including large emergency diesel generators.
											

"In passive safety systems, decay heat removal occurs primarily 
by gravity-driven flows, using a combination of convection and 
phase change to remove and transport heat out of the reactor 
containment," he continues. Typically, the only power required to 
activate the systems is battery power to open valves and maintain 
power to instrumentation and control systems.
											

ONE EXAMPLE of an advanced reactor with passive safety systems is 
the economic simplified boiling-water reactor (ESBWR), which was 
developed by General Electric from its advanced boiling-water 
reactor design.                                                                                   

 												
                                                                  
                                        [8237cover_Citadel]                                                                                                               
												 												
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
      IMPACT RESISTANT The pebble bed modular reactor building is 
designed to withstand significant external forces such as 
aircraft impacts, explosions, or tornadoes. The reactor pressure 
vessel (left) and power conversion unit (right) are housed in a 
reinforced concrete structure.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
IMAGE COURTESY OF PBMR (PTY) LTD.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
												 												
 													     													     												 											

                                                                  
                      "ESBWR is particularly interesting because 
it is the first light-water reactor design where the most 
important safety-related parameters for a large-break 
loss-of-coolant accident--the peak temperature of the metal 
cladding of the fuel and the peak pressure reached in the 
containment building--can be calculated on the back of an 
envelope," Peterson says. ESBWR is at the preapplication stage 
for NRC design certification.
											

"GE continues to be committed to the nuclear industry," comments 
Andrew C. White, president and chief executive officer of GE 
Energy [http://www.gepower.com/home/index.htm] 's nuclear 
business. "As the sole remaining U.S.-owned nuclear vendor, we 
are enthusiastic about the potential for construction of new 
nuclear power plants both in the U.S. and globally. There is no 
other large, single-generation source for energy that is 
economic, reliable, and safe, while also helping to protect our 
air quality."                                                                                   

The Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor has also been 
submitted to NRC for full design certification. Westinghouse 
Electric, which is wholly owned by BNFL, built the first PWR in 
1957.                                                                                   

AP1000 features advanced passive safety systems. The reactor has 
a modular design that will reduce construction times to as little 
as three years from the time the concrete is first poured to the 
time that fuel is loaded into the core, the company claims. 
AP1000 is capable of running on a full mixed oxide (MOX) core if 
required. MOX fuel consists of both uranium and plutonium oxides. 
It contains about 5% plutonium, which is the main fissile 
component of the fuel.                                                                                     

Ion points out that AP1000 has fewer components than conventional 
PWRs. For example, compared with a conventional 1,000-MW PWR, 
AP1000 has 50% fewer valves, 35% fewer pumps, 80% less pipe, and 
85% less cable.                                                                                  

"Compared with the Sizewell B PWR [in England], the building 
volume of the AP1000 is about half in terms of concrete," she 
says. "And because of simplification of the design compared with 
conventional PWRs, we are able to significantly reduce the outage 
times and therefore the running costs of the reactor. The reactor 
can be on-line at full power for well over 90% of the time."                                                                                  

AP1000 and ESBWR are two of the eight evolutionary reactor design 
candidates considered by the Near-Term Deployment Group, which 
was organized by DOE as part of its Nuclear Power 2010 program 
[http://www.ne.doe.gov/planning/NucPwr2010.html] . The program, 
which was unveiled by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham in 
February 2002, aims to build new nuclear power plants in the U.S. 
by the end of the decade. The 2010 program expects that the 
advanced reactor designs will produce electricity in the range of 
$1,000 to $1,200 per kilowatt of electricity.
											

THE CANDIDATES comprise three PWRs, three BWRs, and two 
high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTRs).                                                                                    

"One of the limitations of current light-water reactor technology 
is that the maximum temperature that can be achieved is about 350 
°C," Ion explains. "This means that the thermal efficiency that 
can be achieved is limited."                                                                                    

The pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR), which is currently planned 
for commercial operation in South Africa by around 2010, is an 
HTR. It uses helium as a coolant and graphite as a moderator. The 
South African government designated the PBMR project as a 
national strategic project. Current investors are Eskom, South 
Africa's power utility; the Industrial Development Corp. of South 
Africa; and BNFL.                                                                                        

"While a PWR operates at coolant temperatures of typically 340 
°C, the PBMR is designed to achieve at least 900 °C," Ion 
continues. "This higher temperature will give a thermal 
efficiency of up to 44%, which translates into roughly one-third 
more output than a conventional PWR."                                                                                   

A PBMR reactor is essentially a large hopper filled with graphite 
pebbles, about 60 mm in diameter, each filled with thousands of 
UO2 fuel particles with diameters of less than 1 mm. Each fuel 
particle is coated with two layers of pyrolytic carbon, silicon 
carbide, and porous carbon. The coatings retains the gaseous 
fission products.                                                                                   

"Heat generated by nuclear fission in the reactor is transferred 
to helium that passes through the bed," Abram explains. "Helium 
is an inert gas, so it doesn't react with any of the components 
inside the reactor core. The helium moves on to compressors and, 
eventually, to a gas turbine that converts the thermal energy 
into electricity. The modular design means that the components 
are factory-made, so plants are quicker to assemble," he adds. 
The PBMR module can be used to generate power in a stand-alone 
mode or as part of a power plant that consists of up to 10 units.                                                                                  

The PBMR sets new standards in safety, not only through its 
design, according to Ion. The silicon carbide layer not only 
protects the fuel during storage and fission but also makes it 
extremely difficult for anyone to divert the fuel elsewhere, she 
says.                                                                                   

All six revolutionary nuclear reactor technology concepts 
identified for development by GIF operate at higher temperatures 
than the generation II and III reactors currently in operation. 
The new systems range from a supercritical-water-cooled reactor 
(SCWR), which operates at 510–550 °C, to a helium-cooled 
very-high-temperature gas reactor (VHTR), which has an operating 
temperature of 1,000 °C. SCWR is the only one of the six 
generation IV technologies that is cooled by water.                                                                                     

"The SCWR system uses a high-temperature, high-pressure, 
water-cooled reactor that operates above the thermodynamic 
critical point of water to achieve a thermal efficiency 
approaching 44%," Khalil notes.                                                                                         

Three of the six generation IV concepts are fast reactor systems 
that are cooled either by helium gas, lead, or sodium. All use 
depleted uranium as a fuel.                                                                                     

PRESSURIZED WATER The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, as shown in 
this artist's impression, has a construction time of about three 
years. BNFL IMAGE                                                                                                                                                                                                      
												
A key aspect of these designs is how they deal with the 
high-level waste from fission reactions. This waste includes 
heavy nuclides--actinides such neptunium, americium, and 
curium--that remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of 
years. The helium-, lead-, and sodium-cooled fast reactors are 
designed to have closed fuel cycles. The actinides are separated 
from the spent fuel and returned to the fission reactors.
											

The generation IV molten salt reactor also has a closed fuel 
cycle. The reactor is described as an epithermal reactor because 
the neutrons generated in the reactor have energies just above 
those of thermal neutrons. Uranium fuel is dissolved in a sodium 
fluoride salt that circulates through graphite channels to 
moderate the energies of the neutrons. Fission products are 
removed continuously, and the actinides are fully recycled. 
Plutonium and other actinides can also be added to the reactor 
along with depleted uranium.                                                                                    

SCWR is designed to be a thermal reactor in the intermediate 
term, using enriched UO2 as a fuel with a once-through fuel 
cycle. However, the ultimate goal is to build it as a fast 
neutron reactor with full actinide recycling.                                                                                   

VHTR has an open fuel cycle. It will employ enriched UO2 as a 
fuel, possibly in the form of the pebbles coated with a graphite 
moderator like those required for PBMR.                                                                                         

"The once-through cycle is the most uranium resource-intensive 
and generates the most nuclear waste," Khalil explains. "However, 
the amounts of waste produced are still quite small in both 
volume and mass compared with other energy technologies, and 
existing uranium resources are believed to be sufficient to 
support a once-through cycle well into this century.                                                                                    

"In the longer term, uranium resource availability could also 
become a limiting factor," he continues. "A challenge to 
long-term, widespread deployment of generation IV nuclear energy 
systems is to ensure they operate using fuel cycles that minimize 
the production of long-lived radioactive wastes while conserving 
uranium resources."                                                                                  

VHTR, helium- and lead-cooled fast reactors, and the molten salt 
reactor are all designed to generate electricity and also to 
operate at sufficiently high temperatures to produce hydrogen by 
thermochemical water cracking. At present, about 97% of hydrogen 
is produced from fossil fuels by steam reformation of methane. 
Around 3% is produced by electrolysis of water, but the 
electricity costs for the process are relatively high.
											

"The direct thermal decomposition of water is impractical, as it 
requires temperatures in excess of 2,500 °C," Abram says.
											

THERMOCHEMICAL hydrogen production, on the other hand, can be 
achieved at temperatures of less than 900 °C. One such process is 
the sulfur-iodine cycle, in which sulfur dioxide and iodine are 
added to water, resulting in an exothermic reaction that creates 
sulfuric acid and hydrogen iodide. At 450 °C, the HI decomposes 
to iodine (which is recycled) and hydrogen. Sulfuric acid 
decomposes at 850 °C, forming sulfur dioxide (which is recycled), 
water, and oxygen.                                                                                   

"The only feeds to the process are water and high-temperature 
heat, typically 900 °C, and the only products are hydrogen, 
oxygen, and low-grade heat," Abram explains. "Nuclear power is 
particularly well suited to hydrogen production by such a process 
because of its near-zero emissions."                                                                                    

DOE, although supporting research on several generation IV 
reactor concepts, is giving priority to VHTR technology, notes 
William D. Magwood IV, director of the DOE Office of Nuclear 
Energy and chairman of the GIF policy group. The technology is 
known as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP).                                                                                      

"The NGNP would be able to make both electricity and hydrogen at 
very high levels of efficiency," Magwood says. "It would be 
deployable in modules that will better fit the highly 
competitive, deregulated market environment in the U.S. and would 
be extraordinarily safe, proliferation-resistant, and 
waste-minimizing.                                                                                       

"The base concept of the NGNP is that of a very-high-temperature, 
gas-cooled reactor system coupled with an advanced, 
high-efficiency turbine generator and an even more advanced 
thermochemical hydrogen production system," he continues. "We 
have very high expectations for this technology."
											

Within DOE's fiscal-year 2005 budget request of $30.5 million for 
the generation IV program, $19.3 million is budgeted for NGNP 
activities. The NGNP 2005 effort will be focused primarily on 
continuing concept design activities and on R&D activities 
related to fuels and structural materials for use at high 
temperature and high levels of radiation.                                                                                       

Khalil points out that the six generation IV systems exhibit 
diverse characteristics and benefits. In the long term, he 
suggests, it is unlikely that one particular reactor system will 
be the preferred means to meet all the generation IV goals and 
system applications. "Rather, a combination of reactor types is 
likely to be employed, forming a nuclear energy fleet in which 
each reactor type is used in the role that it fills best," he 
says.                                                                                   

The DOE strategy for nuclear energy is to deploy the first U.S. 
advanced light-water reactor with an evolutionary generation III+ 
design some time between 2010 and 2020. The aim is then to deploy 
the first commercial generation IV thermal reactor during the 
next decade and commercial generation IV fast reactors during the 
period of 2040–50.                                                                                                                                                                
									 									
Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 
0009-2347 Copyright © 2004                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
*****************************************************************
 23 Slovak Spectator: Rusko's proposal would have Slovakia renege on its EU 
accession agreement Nuclear blocks' fate hinges on EU

Slovakia's English Language Newspaper

  Volume 10, Number 40
     
Slovakia's English language newspaper     October 18 - 25,2004   

   [http://www.relo.sk]     

 
By Beata Balogová Spectator staff 

NUCLEAR reactors are a point of contention.photo: TASR
  

 ECONOMY Minister Pavol Rusko wants to change the country's
nuclear plans. He proposes that that two blocks of a nuclear
power plant in Jaslovské Bohunice should be shut down
simultaneously in 2008, instead of decommissioning one reactor
in 2006 and the other in 2008. 

Rusko claims that shutting the blocks down at the same time is a
safer option than decommissioning them in subsequent years. The
V1 reactors are located 65 kilometres northeast of Bratislava. 

"Two-stage decommissioning might increase the risks by as much
as 100 percent," Rusko told the press on October 11. 

The economy minister says that expert opinion support him. 

He cited a detailed study by Relko, a firm widely recognised for
evaluating the safety of nuclear power plants. The study
outlines the potential risks of two-stage decommissioning. 

As part of its accession agreements, Slovakia has promised the
European Union to close down one of the two blocks of the
Jaslovské Bohunice V1 plant in 2006, and the second V1 block in
2008. The V2 plant will continue operating, while the A1 block
broke in 1977 and has not functioned since. 

Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan said that reaching consensus with
the European Union about simultaneous decommissioning in 2008
would be a complicated and laborious process. 

"It cannot be ruled out in advance, but it is a very sensitive
issue, especially for some surrounding countries," said Kukan,
according to the news wire SITA. 

Commissioner Ján Fige¾ of the European Commission said that
persuading 24 EU nations to delay decommissioning of V1 by two
years seems to him to be a complicated task. 

Rusko, however, remains adamant. 

"I cannot see the smallest reason why EU countries would oppose
[the simultaneous decommissioning]. If the EU was serious about
the V1 decommissioning, and if it requested this step from the
Slovak Republic for safety reasons, then it should have no
problem with what I am proposing," Rusko said October 11. 

Earlier this year, Slovakia's environmentally conscious
neighbour, Austria, restated its opposition to nuclear energy
and expressed concerns about the efficiency of nuclear waste
management in Eastern Europe. 

Austria's statement was a direct reaction to Rusko, who said
that Slovenské elektrárne, Slovakia's state-run power producer,
should be sold to an investor intent on completing two blocks of
a nuclear power plant in Mochovce. 

The European Commission indicated that any changes to Slovakia's
decommissioning plans would jeopardise the EU financial
compensation package set aside for the task, since upholding the
agreement on the Jaslovské Bohunice V1 plant is one of the
conditions for receiving compensation. 

Under the agreement, Slovakia is guaranteed a sum of Sk16.7
billion (€410 million) in compensation, which it can draw from
until the end of 2013. 

The ruling coalition parties will discuss Rusko's proposal this
month. 

The head of Slovakia's Nuclear Supervision Authority, Marta
Žiaková, told the daily SME October 12 that the nuclear power
plant was constructed as a two-block plant, and although joint
decommissioning would be more advantageous, her company has
already made preparations for the two-phase decommissioning. 

However, Žiaková believes that it is necessary to take measures
that reduce potential safety risks. 

The financial daily, Hospodárske noviny, quoted Žiaková as
saying, "The [safety risks] to the nation can be proved. We have
seen the [Relko] study and the risks [associated with a
two-stage decommissioning effort] really do increase." 

A member of the board of directors of Slovenské elektrárne,
Ignác Pòaèek, told the news wire SITA that shutting down one
block while maintaining operations at the other block is not a
threat to security. He agrees, however, that it could present an
increased risk. 

Pòaèek said the increased risks are associated with refuelling
the second reactor while the first one is shut down. Although
there is always a risk with refuelling, the risk would double
during the two-year period, from 2006 to 2008, when only one
block would be operational. Pòaèek based his statements on the
Relko study. 

In late September, Minister Rusko set up a team to draft several
options for the V1 decommissioning. After picking the best
alternative, the minister will submit it to the cabinet, which
will have the final say on the V1 shutdown process. 

Rusko wants the cabinet to come to an agreement by the end of
October, and charge the prime minister with initiating talks
with his EU counterparts. 

Opposition party Smer has been opposed to the decommissioning of
the V1 nuclear power plant since the beginning. 

"Smer has always considered the cabinet's obligation to turn off
the V1 plant in Jaslovské Bohunice as unjustified in terms of
safety, and as harmful to Slovakia's economy and the country's
energy sufficiency," the party said in a statement for the
press. 

Greenpeace, the international environmental organisation, claims
that the V1 plant should have been closed down in 1999.
Stretching the reactor's lifespan to 2006 is, according to the
group, already an enormous compromise. 

Greenpeace spokesman, Juraj Rizman, told The Slovak Spectator
that he is sceptical of Rusko's motives. 

"We do not think it is a professional problem, but rather a
political trick to keep the first block of V1 alive until 2008,"
he said. 

Rizman encouraged Slovakia to uphold its obligations to the
European Union and its neighbours. 

"The Slovak government should not yield to lobby pressures and
hysteria evoked by some politicians," Rizman told The Spectator. 

Mikuláš Huba of the Society for Sustainable Development agrees
with Rizman. He told The Slovak Spectator that Rusko's ploy
represents an abuse of power for political gain. 

"If Rusko is convinced that the blocks need to be shut down
simultaneously, and if he cares so much about the safety of the
process, why not propose switching both blocks off in 2006?"
Huba said. 
[10/18/2004] 

   Copyright © 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC to Meet with Framatome Nuclear Fuel Plant Officials October 
28 to Discuss Facility Safety Performance

Region II - 2004-053 - 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, 
Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov   

  No. II-04-053                         October 18, 2004 CONTACT:     
Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     
E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov [opa2@nrc.gov]   

CENTEREDHEADING 
  
  Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with 
officials of the Framatome ANP-Richland commercial nuclear fuel 
plant in Richland, Wash., on October 28 to discuss the agencys 
latest review of the facilitys safety performance. 

        The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. in Conference Room 5 
at the facility site located at 2101 Horn Rapids Road in 
Richland, and is open to observation by the public. NRC officials 
will be available before the close of the meeting to answer 
questions from interested observers. 

        The NRC review evaluates Framatome safety performance in 
the major areas of safety operations, radiological controls, 
facility support and special topics and covers the period from 
May 1, 2002, through July 31, 2004. 

        The review found that Framatome had continued to conduct 
its activities safely. The NRC staff, however, found that 
improvement was still needed in both communication of criticality 
safety information to workers and control of criticality safety 
documentation. In addition, some deficiencies in the facilitys 
emergency preparedness program were identified. However, the NRC 
said that a July 2004 emergency exercise demonstrated that those 
deficiencies had been resolved. 

        The NRC will continue to monitor Framatome performance in 
these and other areas during the next 12 to 24 months through the 
normal NRC inspection program. 

        A copy of the NRC letter to Framatome which outlines 
details of the review is available by contacting OPA2@nrc.gov 
[OPA2@nrc.gov] or from the NRC web site by going to 
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html and entering 
ML042800257 as the search term.   

Privacy Policy |        Site Disclaimer Last revised 
Monday, October 18, 2004      
*****************************************************************
 25 Expressindia: There's a new in our nuclear
 
Tuesday, October 19, 2004           
 
[http://www.indianexpress.com/archive.html]    
    
Read between the PM’s lines on nuclear diplomacy, a window has 
opened  

C. RAJA MOHAN                             

As a responsible nuclear power, India is ready to work with 
like-minded countries in strengthening the global 
non-proliferation system. That was the clear message from Prime 
Minister Manmohan Singh at his recent joint press conference with 
the visiting German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. Manmohan 
Singh’s innovative approach, which opens up very interesting 
possibilities for our nuclear diplomacy, has been long overdue. 
For far too long India had marginalised itself in the global 
nuclear debate. 

The burden of its righteous but tiresome song was simple: it’s 
opposed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1970 (NPT), 
which decreed only five nations can legally possess nuclear 
weapons. India had little else to offer except a broad slogan on 
global nuclear disarmament. Demonstrating a new national 
confidence, the PM is now declaring that India is prepared to 
engage in developing a more credible non-proliferation system. It 
is no longer carping at the world nuclear order; it wants to help 
manage it. 



  ['Advertisement' border='0']   
    

In response to a question from a German journalist on whether 
India would sign the NPT some day, the PM said: “We are a nuclear 
power but we are a responsible nuclear power. We act with 
restraint. We have a no first use doctrine in place. Also, we 
have an impeccable record of export control so that any 
unauthorised use of this sensitive nuclear material can be 
effectively prevented.” He went on to say, “We ourselves are 
victims of the gaps that exist in the present non-proliferation 
arrangements...We have seen, for example, the clandestine export 
of nuclear material in our region. So we are also committed to 
work with like-minded countries to strengthen the 
non-proliferation regime to prevent unauthorised proliferation.” 

On the question of joining the NPT, he said, “I do not know 
whether the circumstances are right for us right now to sign 
that. But we are voluntarily fulfilling all the commitments that 
go with a responsible nuclear power acting with due restraint.” 
This signals that India sees itself in full compliance with the 
obligations of a nuclear weapon power under the NPT. If the 
treaty were to be amended to include India as a nuclear weapon 
power, it would have little objection to joining the NPT. But if 
such circumstances were unlikely to materialise, then India will 
have to stay outside the NPT. 

Rejecting the NPT in the present form does not mean that India 
has no interest in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. As the PM pointed out, India has been a victim of 
the loopholes in the global non-proliferation order. In other 
words, India is no longer criticising the NPT for its 
“discriminatory” character. Our argument about “discrimination” 
has long lost credibility. When the entire world apart from 
India, Pakistan and Israel have joined it, to talk about the 
NPT’s unjust character impresses no one except those at home who 
have learnt the nuclear mantra by rote. 

In any case no major power — except the EU — is pressing India to 
sign the NPT. The nuclear fundamentalists of the Democratic 
Party, including Senator Kerry, often state that India should 
sign the NPT if it wants a seat at the high table of the 
international system. China, Russia, France and Great Britain 
have, to different degrees, reconciled to the fact that India is 
a nuclear weapon power outside the NPT. The Bush administration 
is exploring a nuclear bargain with India. The just concluded 
phase one of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership initiative 
is an important step in the long process of Indo-US nuclear 
reconciliation outside the NPT. 

The only countries that want India to sign the NPT as a 
non-nuclear weapon power are our friends in the third world. At 
various conferences they press for the “universalisation of the 
NPT”. Many potential medium powers in the developing world who 
have given up their nuclear option under pressure from the 
international system do not like to see India, Pakistan and 
Israel get away with their nuclear capabilities. It is precisely 
these nations, that some in India seek to impress with the slogan 
that the NPT is discriminatory and that New Delhi seeks complete 
abolition of nuclear weapons. 

The real problem for India lies in the fact that the NPT is 
ineffective. It has not been able to prevent China from exporting 
nuclear and missile technologies to Pakistan. It has not stopped 
countries like North Korea from clandestine cooperation with 
Pakistan. It has not prevented many others from attempting to 
cheat on their obligations under the NPT after having signed it. 
Further proliferation, India is now saying, profoundly affects 
its security. Having reaffirmed India’s role as a responsible 
nuclear weapon power, the PM has underlined the political will in 
New Delhi to “strengthen the non-proliferation regime to prevent 
unauthorised proliferation”. 

The US and many other great powers now privately acknowledge that 
the NPT is no longer capable of preventing proliferation. While 
they will not bury the NPT, they are looking to build a range of 
new structures outside the treaty. It is in this context that the 
PM’s proclaimed readiness to work with like-minded countries to 
plug the gaps in the non-proliferation regime assumes 
significance. He is positioning India to negotiate purposefully 
on the terms under which it could join the new global 
non-proliferation initiatives. These include the Container 
Security Initiative (CSI) and the Proliferation Security 
Initiative (PSI). Unlike past treaties that focused on 
declaratory commitments, these initiatives deal with the real 
world of proliferation and seek to prevent the spread of weapons 
of mass destruction to irresponsible regimes and international 
terrorist groups. They combine the on-going global war on terror 
with renewed efforts to curb proliferation. 

Many traditionalists in India, paralysed by past rhetoric, view 
these new initiatives with suspicion. By failing to conduct its 
first atomic test before the NPT came into force, India pushed 
itself into nuclear isolation for nearly three decades. If it 
does not actively seek to become part of the new global nuclear 
arrangements, India will once again find itself outside the door. 
Getting on board the new global non-proliferation arrangements 
should, therefore, be at the top of India’s diplomatic agenda. 
Meanwhile, the Indian nuclear discourse must unlearn the old 
shibboleths about the NPT and CTBT and begin to focus on the new 
acronyms like the CSI and PSI, where the real action is.

© 2004: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All 
*****************************************************************
 26 International Herald Tribune: Nuclear comeback stokes terror fears
 
[http://www.iht.com

By Katrin Bennhold] 

Monday, October 18, 2004                                                                                                

With uncertainties increasing about supplies of natural gas and 
oil, nuclear energy is making a powerful global comeback, 
prompting concerns about atomic terrorism in the post-Sept. 11 
era.. 

A number of countries around the world, from China to Finland and 
the United States, are gearing up to build new reactors as demand 
for electricity grows. Governments are also viewing nuclear power 
as a way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, given 
intensifying concern over global warming.. 

But the prospect of an atomic renaissance is raising the 
uncomfortable question of whether an expansion of nuclear power 
is compatible with the fight against terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.. 

"Neither politics nor technology has an answer to this question 
right now," Gerard Stoudman, director of the Geneva Center for 
Security Policy, said in an interview at a recent international 
conference on homeland security.. 

"It's really bad timing," said Alain Marsaud, president of the 
domestic security group in the French Parliament.. 

"We're coming to the end of the economic use of fossil fuels at a 
time when terrorists are trying to get their hands on nuclear 
material or target nuclear infrastructure," Marsaud said in an 
interview at the conference, which was held in Geneva. "If the 
world is condemned to use more nuclear power, it will be a real 
challenge.". With 439 reactors operating in 31 countries around 
the world, nuclear power accounts for about 16 percent of global 
power production today, according to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency. And with demand for electricity expected to 
increase almost fivefold over the next five decades, the agency 
says reactor capacity could quadruple by 2050.. 

The Far East is projected to lead worldwide growth over the next 
two decades, more than doubling its output..

Experts at the UN energy agency cite three risks in the expansion 
of nuclear power: theft by terrorists of weapons-grade plutonium 
stripped out from radioactive waste during reprocessing; an 
attack on a nuclear installation or transport convoy; and, as 
suspected with Iran and North Korea, an attempt by countries 
developing a nuclear power sector to build weapons with the same 
technology. . 

"If you have more nuclear material in the world, you have a 
higher proliferation risk - it's a truism," said Alan McDonald, a 
nuclear expert at the agency. But with demand for electricity 
increasing across the globe, he added, nuclear energy remains 
important despite the risks..

Signaling the nuclear revival, 31 reactors are currently under 
construction worldwide. China plans to add 32 nuclear power 
plants to its existing 11 by 2020, while India, currently with 14 
plants, aims to triple its reactor capacity over the next eight 
years.. Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Romania and Argentina are 
all in the process of adding to nuclear capacity as well. .

Finland recently commissioned the first new plant in Western 
Europe since 1999. France - the biggest per-capita user of 
nuclear energy in the world - is planning to build one shortly 
(the site has not yet been chosen), and British officials are 
softening their language on nuclear energy.. 

Loyola de Palacio, the European Union's departing energy 
commissioner, said last month that the EU would have to retain 
the option of building up its nuclear capacity. "With the 
challenge of climate change, the EU cannot avoid nuclear energy 
for the foreseeable future," she said.. Even in the United 
States, where no new reactor has been built since the partial 
meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the 
nuclear industry is stirring - not least because of encouraging 
noises from the Bush administration.. Twenty-six U.S. plants have 
received 20-year extensions of their operating licenses and 18 
others have applied for extensions at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, after the administration streamlined the relicensing 
process..

Three plant operators, Exelon, Dominion and Entergy, have asked 
the commission to approve sites for future reactors, although no 
concrete plans for building them have been announced yet. And 
Westinghouse, architect of nearly half of the world's nuclear 
power plants, had its design for a plant known as the "advanced 
reactor" approved by the commission on Sept. 13. . 

The industry, said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear 
Energy Institute, America's nuclear industry group, is at the 
starting gate.. "We are positioning ourselves for the fact that 
over the next decade our country will need a lot more 
electricity," Kerekes said. The goal for the industry, he said, 
is to raise its share of American electricity generation from the 
current 20 percent to 24 percent over the next 15 years. 

If natural gas prices keep rising, it will become economical to 
pay the hefty price - about $3 billion each - of building new 
nuclear plants, he said.. The risk of terrorists targeting 
nuclear infrastructure was made plain on Sept. 11, 2001. Since 
then, Western policy makers, from President George W. Bush to the 
EU's security chief, Javier Solana, have explicitly made the 
fight against nuclear terrorism a priority. Bush has said that 
Americans' "highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring 
weapons of mass destruction." His Democratic challenger in next 
month's presidential election, Senator John Kerry, put it this 
way in a speech in June: "No material. 

No bomb. No terrorism." . At nuclear plants in many countries, 
9/11 has led to stricter security requirements. In the United 
States since the terror attacks, plant owners will have spent an 
extra $1 billion by the end of this year on more restrictive 
access controls, heavily armed guards, additional training for 
their security personnel and vehicle checks in an enlarged 
perimeter around the reactors to avoid truck bombs.. 

According to Wolfgang Kröger, a nuclear engineer and vice 
president of the International Risk and Governance Council, an 
independent foundation with headquarters in Geneva, the danger of 
terrorists targeting nuclear infrastructure or transport vehicles 
has been played up by opponents. "There are a lot of much simpler 
ways to do damage and kill people," he argues.. 

But with most of the projected growth in nuclear power taking 
place in the developing world, where safety measures may not 
match the same standards, concerns are growing. . Perhaps the 
greatest worry circulating in national defense departments and 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels is the 
development of nuclear weapons on the back of civilian energy 
programs. . 

This dilemma goes to the heart of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty, of which the International Atomic Energy Agency is the 
guardian. In addition to nuclear disarmament, the treaty commits 
its 184 signatories to police and control the proliferation of 
nuclear material and at the same time obliges nuclear powers to 
offer nuclear technology to others for electricity generation. . 

But as one senior diplomat at NATO put it: "You cannot 
artificially separate the civilian from the military aspect - 
everyone here is aware of that. As such, you also cannot separate 
the debate on nuclear proliferation from the debate on 
alternative sources of energy.". Every state that has sought to 
develop a nuclear weapons program since the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970 has done so on 
the back of civilian power or nuclear research programs - from 
Israel to India and Pakistan and, according to its government, 
North Korea. . 

The motivation for building nuclear weapons has increased with 
the spread of nuclear power, as countries view neighbors' 
stockpiles of civilian material with suspicion. To justify its 
weapons program, North Korea cites the five tons of radioactive 
material now stockpiled in Japan.. The International Atomic 
Energy Agency wants to curb proliferation by securing the nuclear 
fuel cycle with a process called fuel leasing, McDonald said. 

Rather than exporting enrichment or reprocessing technology to 
newcomers, the agency maintains, nuclear powers should export 
lightly enriched uranium, which cannot be used to make a bomb, 
and subsequently take back the radioactive waste, which contains 
plutonium.. But opponents say the proposal is flawed for two 
reasons: It would lead to the regular transport of radioactive 
material across the globe, potentially tempting terrorists. 

And it risks meeting public opposition in Europe, where the issue 
of radioactive waste has been one of the main reasons for public 
skepticism toward nuclear energy.. "These solutions don't stand 
up in the real world," said Mike Townsley, director of 
communications for Greenpeace International. "You'd get shipments 
crisscrossing the planet every week, and I think you'll find that 
people in the U.K. or Russia would not tolerate an influx of 
radioactive waste.''.                                                                      
 			 				
Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved [webhelp@iht.com]  | Terms of 
Use | Contributor Policy                         
*****************************************************************
 27 AU ABC: Lateline: Blair leaves option of nuclear power open

18/10/2004: 

"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
[http://www.abc.net.au/]

[lateline@your.abc.net.au]    
                                
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline
 
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT LOCATION: 
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1222552.htm 

Reporter: Philip Williams
  
TONY JONES: Well, Sydney's water crisis is being partially blamed 
on the impact of global warming and climate change, problems that 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned recently are the 
greatest long-term challenges facing the planet.

Tony Blair says that Britain would have to take some very 
difficult decisions and kept open the option of building a new 
generation of nuclear power stations.

He said he had fought long and hard to make sure the nuclear 
option is not closed off.

Prime Minister Blair has been influenced by environmental 
scientists like Professor James Lovelock, the man known to many 
as 'the father of the environmental movement'.

For years, Professor Lovelock has maintained that the world would 
have to consider a radical shift from coal to nuclear power 
stations.

As you'll hear in a moment, he now says the world has no other 
choice if it wants to reverse the effects of global warming.

But first here's Philip Williams in London.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Crumbling ice caps, dying forests, raging 
weather.

If you believe global warming is a reality, and that a clumsy 
human hand is to blame, then you and governments around the world 
are wondering what to do about it.

The sustainable solutions look attractive.

In countries like Denmark wind power is seen as a real solution - 
expensive, but not costing the planet dearly in greenhouse 
gasses.

In sun-soaked countries, true believers look to solar or a 
combination of any of the green alternatives, like nuclear power.

That rather controversial addition is courtesy of this man, 
Professor James Lovelock, a committed and globally acknowledged 
environmentalist famous for his work on the ozone layer and the 
Gaia theory.

He says the only practical solution to eliminating greenhouse 
gases is to switch to the safest of all proven technologies - 
nuclear.

BRIAN WILSON, FORMER BRITISH ENERGY MINISTER: I think it's a 
great step forward that such an eminent green guru has actually 
come out and faced up to this ethical dilemma which the 
environmental movement cannot delay indefinitely.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: With just over 20 per cent of Britain's 
electricity needs generated by nuclear power, the government is 
at a crossroads.

Ultimately it will come down to a political decision and the 
picture here is a little confused because while Tony Blair is a 
strong supporter of renewable energy, he's also a very much 
keeping the nuclear option alive.

Appearing before a committee of MPs in July, the British leader 
said: "I have fought long and hard, both within my party and 
outside, "to make sure that the nuclear option is not closed 
off."

"We cannot remove it from the agenda "if you are serious about 
the issue of climate change."

STEVEN TINDALE, GREENPEACE UK: We need to get serious which means 
we have to put serious amounts of money into renewables.

If we start going down the nuclear route again all the money will 
go there and it'll be throwing good money after bad.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Steven Tindale from Greenpeace says a government 
white paper has given the alternative power sources five years to 
prove themselves or he fears James Lovelock's nuclear solution 
may win the day in Britain and beyond.

STEVEN TINDALE: So the fact that James Lovelock remains committed 
to the nuclear dream is not a surprise to any one.

Most people are waking up from that dream and realising that it 
was, in fact, a bit of a nightmare.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: No matter whose right, the solution will need to 
be played out on a far bigger stage than the British Isles, with 
around 1 per cent of the world's population, the debate may be 
fierce, the results a drop in the ocean.

Philip Williams, Lateline.   

[http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] 
*****************************************************************
 28 Sofia Morning News: EU Cash for Bulgaria's Nuke Safety
 	 	 	 	 	 	
[Sofia News Agency]                                                           

novinite.com

Business: 18 October 2004, Monday.

Bulgaria will receive EUR 7.9 M for boosting the safety of its 
only nuclear power plant in Kozloduy under the EU PHARE 
programme.
 
Phare Steering Committee in Brussels approved the projects under 
Phare - 2004 Financial Memorandum on nuclear safety. The 
memorandum might be signed officially by the end of the year, 
Finance Ministry said Monday.
 
Six projects, worth the total of EUR 7.09 M are funded within the 
frames of a single programme for the first time.
 
The projects plan the improvement of Kozloduy N-plant security, 
the construction of radioactive wastes processing plant and depot 
at Novi Khan.[ width=] 

  NOVINITE.COM
   
  novinite.com  Forum  Google  Tourism  Business                
 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Procedures for Meetings
 
                        FR Doc 04-23236 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61416-61417] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-103]                         
 
Background This notice describes procedures to be followed with 
respect to meetings conducted pursuant to the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) 
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). These procedures are 
set forth so that they may be incorporated by reference in future 
notices for individual meetings.
 
The ACNW advises the NRC on technical issues related to nuclear 
materials and waste management. The bases of ACNW reviews include 
10 CFR parts 20, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72 and other applicable 
regulations and legislative mandates, such as the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act as amended, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 
and amendments, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 
Act, as amended. The Committee's reports become a part of the 
public record.
 
The ACNW meetings are normally open to the public and provide 
opportunities for oral or written statements from members of the 
public to be considered as part of the Committee's information 
gathering process. The meetings are not adjudicatory hearings 
such as those conducted by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel as part of the Commission's licensing process. ACNW 
meetings are conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act.
 
General Rules Regarding ACNW Full Committee Meetings An agenda 
will be published in the Federal Register for each full Committee 
meeting and is available on the Internet at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti 
ons/] (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/ agendas). There may be a need 
to make changes to the agenda to facilitate the conduct of the 
meeting. The Chairman of the Committee is empowered to conduct 
the meeting in a manner that, in his/her judgment, will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business, including making 
provisions to continue the discussion of matters not completed on 
the scheduled day during another meeting. Persons planning to 
attend a meeting may contact the Designated Federal Official 
(DFO) specified in the individual Federal Register Notice prior 
to the meeting to be advised of any changes to the agenda that 
may have occurred.
 
The following requirements shall apply to public participation in 
ACNW meetings: (a) Persons who plan to make oral statements 
and/or submit written comments at the meeting should provide 35 
copies to the DFO at the beginning of the meeting. Persons who 
cannot attend the meeting but wishing to submit written comments 
regarding the agenda items may do so by sending a readily 
reproducible copy addressed to the DFO specified in the Federal 
Register Notice for the individual meeting in care of the 
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments should be in the 
possession of the DFO five days prior to the meeting to allow 
time for reproduction and distribution. Comments should be 
limited to topics being considered by the Committee.
 
(b) Persons desiring to make oral statements at the meeting 
should make a request to do so to the DFO. If possible, the 
request should be made five days before the meeting, identifying 
the topics to be discussed and the amount of time needed for 
presentation so that orderly arrangements can be made. The 
Committee will hear oral statements on topics being reviewed at 
an appropriate time during the meeting as scheduled by the 
Chairman.
 
(c) Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the 
agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and 
the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by 
contacting the DFO specified in the individual Federal Register 
Notice.
 
(d) The use of still, motion picture, and television cameras will 
be permitted at the discretion of the Chairman and subject to the 
condition that the use of such equipment will not interfere with 
the conduct of the meeting. The DFO will have to be notified 
prior to the meeting and will authorize the use of such equipment 
after consultation with the Chairman. The use of such equipment 
will be restricted as is necessary to protect proprietary or 
privileged information that may be in documents, folders, etc., 
in the meeting room. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
 
(e) A transcript will be kept for certain open portions of the 
meeting and will be available in the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR), One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852-2738. A copy of the certified minutes of the 
meeting will be available at the same location three months 
following the meeting. Copies may be obtained upon payment of 
appropriate reproduction charges. ACNW meeting agenda, 
transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC 
Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] , by calling 
the PDR at 1-800-394-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records 
System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is 
accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti 
ons/]  (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
 
(f) Video teleconferencing service is available for observing 
open sessions of some ACNW meetings. Those wishing
 
[[Page 61417]] to use this service for observing ACNW meetings 
should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audio Visual Technician, 
(301-415-8066) between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time at 
least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of 
this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this 
service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for 
providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish 
the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video 
teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
 
ACNW Working Group Meetings From time to time the ACNW may 
sponsor an in-depth meeting on a specific technical issue to 
understand staff expectations and review work in progress. Such 
meetings are called Working Group meetings. These Working Group 
meetings will also be conducted in accordance with the procedures 
noted above for the ACNW full Committee meetings, as appropriate. 
When Working Group meetings are held at locations other than at 
NRC facilities, reproduction facilities may not be available at a 
reasonable cost. Accordingly, 25 additional copies (total of 50 
copies) of the materials to be used during the meeting should be 
provided for distribution at such meetings.
 
Special Provisions When Proprietary Sessions are to be Held If it 
is necessary to hold closed sessions for the purpose of 
discussing matters involving proprietary information, persons 
with agreements permitting access to such information may attend 
those portions of the ACNW meetings where this material is being 
discussed upon confirmation that such agreements are effective 
and related to the material being discussed.
 
The DFO should be informed of such an agreement at least five 
working days prior to the meeting so that it can be confirmed, 
and a determination can be made regarding the applicability of 
the agreement to the material that will be discussed during the 
meeting. The minimum information provided should include 
information regarding the date of the agreement, the scope of 
material included in the agreement, the project or projects 
involved, and the names and titles of the persons signing the 
agreement. Additional information may be requested to identify 
the specific agreement involved. A copy of the executed agreement 
should be provided to the DFO prior to the beginning of the 
meeting for admittance to the closed session.
 
Dated: October 12, 2004.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23236 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 30 [du-list] Scrap of Mass Destruction version 2
 
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:39:43 -0700

 
<x-flowed>


Hi everyone,

Here is a re-post of the article I posted a few days back.
Thanks for the feedback, I have made a few changes, adding a couple of 
footnotes.
The main change is a ten-fold reduction in the estimate for quantities of 
DU used in the 2003 war.
I had taken the original figure of 2000 from various Internet journalist 
sources, but now believe this is an unproven estimate, and have used 
instead only the quantity the US military admit to using.
As before, any criticisms or feedback welcome, and please feel free to 
distribute/copy if you desire.

Scrap of Mass Destruction




According to CPA spokesman Sam Whitfield1, over 3,000 tanks and armoured 
vehicles littered Iraq following the march 2003 invasion. Some of these 
remained from the 1991 Gulf war, including many along the "highway of 
death" the road from Kuwait to Basra where US forces massacred the 
retreating Iraqi Army.

This and other sources of war scrap have since been exported from Iraq in 
large quantities, an estimated 130,0002 tonnes of scrap metal went to 
Jordan, only a "small part"3 of the total exported to Iraq's other 
neighbors, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

As many as a hundred trucks a day have been reported at scrapyards in the 
north of Amman, in Jordan.

Some shipments of this scrap have been turned back at the border after 
registering high levels of radiation, but the majority of trucks are never 
properly examined, as recent events in India have revealed4, when a live 
missile in a cargo of Iraqi scrap exploded and killed 10 workers. 
Subsequent investigation by the Indian authorities revealed more live 
shells and other UXO (Unexploded Ordinance), and exposed the 
ineffectiveness of existing checks on this trade.5

The high value of scrap metal in the world market has driven this huge 
export of war debris, and created a thriving smuggling industry. As prices 
over the last few years have double then tripled, and further rises are 
expected, there is a lot of money to be made from this legacy of war.

But when scrap metal workers in Jordan reported symptoms of radiation 
poisoning6, a committee of 10 government ministries recommended banning the 
import of this scrap. They are not alone in their concerns. Peoples 
Deputies in the Egyptian parliament have called for a similar ban7, also 
citing concerns about radioactive contamination. The United Arab Emirates 
have already put a ban in place, and are spending millions upgrading their 
radiation detection facilities at major ports and scrapyards.

In the wake of the missile explosion and UXO discoveries in India, that 
country looks set to ban the import of certain types of scrap, and to 
tighten its safety checks, a move that is predicted to add another $50 per 
ton to the price of scrap metal.8

The reason behind this growing sense of fear, is that the armoured military 
vehicles from Iraq's battlefields are often radioactive and chemically 
toxic. The Americans used "depleted" Uranium-tipped weapons in the two wars 
against Iraq, and according to US government statements they fired an 
estimated 350 tons in 1991 and another estimated 140 tons9 in the 2003 war.

It is possible that more was used, but a figure of 2000 tons that it widely 
quoted does not appear to have any documentary support. Indeed the US 
military has denied10 that any of its cruise missiles or guided bombs used 
in the Iraq war contained Uranium, which is where the 2000 ton estimate 
came from. Nevertheless, 200 tons is a huge quantity when discussing a 
substance that can be deadly even if it is only a single speck of dust. 
This "depleted" Uranium, nuclear waste in layman's terms, is estimated to 
be about 70% as radioactive as normal Uranium, though some of it is 
contaminated with post-reactor waste, and consequently much more 
radioactive due to the exotic isotopes it contains.

The Americans used it for its hard, dense and pyrophoric qualities, which 
make it ideal as an armour-penetrating weapon. They claim its radioactivity 
is so weak as to be harmless, and its chemical toxicity, which is worse 
than lead, to be similarly harmless.

Upon impact with tanks, it burns and creates a cloud of radioactive and 
toxic dust, most of which disperses into the air and ground - contaminating 
the environment of Iraq forever. Some remains inside the destroyed tank 
either as a layer of fine black dust, or as splinters and fragments of the 
metal itself.

Geiger counter readings11 taken from burnt-out tanks in Iraq revealed high 
levels of radioactivity.

The radioactive and toxic dust and debris from tons of nuclear waste is 
mainly dispersed over southern Iraq, in the vicinity of Basra, site of 
major tank battles during the 1991 war, and in the cities and suburbs of 
Iraq, but it is spreading fast.

Huge sandstorms during the height of the Invasion will have dispersed some 
of this radioactive fallout throughout the middle-east. Like the fallout 
from atmospheric testing, it is thought this will slowly spread across the 
planet, causing cancers worldwide.

Many Iraqi doctors have reported a huge increase in birth deformities, 
cancers in children, and symptoms of radiation poisoning.12 Some estimates 
claim as many as 44% of Iraqis will now get cancer.13

If you find it hard to accept that we could possibly have committed a war 
crime on this scale, then please, research the subject yourself. Now that 
you know this, please consider joining the campaign to ban the use of these 
radioactive weapons, and in the short-term, to ban the export of scrap 
metal from Iraq. Please contact your local media, your local government 
representative, and tell all your friends and family. If Bush and Blair are 
re-elected, further wars using radioactive weapons are highly likely.










1http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5045

In the Scrapyards of Jordan, Signs of a looted Iraq


2http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/08/iraq.scrap.ap/

Iraqi missile parts trade exposed


3http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Iraq_WMD.asp

More US claims on Iraq WMD rebutted


4http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/879401.cms

Scrap bomb trail leads to Iraq


5http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/876069.cms

Intelligence Bureau calls for scanners at ports


6http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-06/16/article06.shtml

Jordan considers ban on Iraqi scrap imports


7http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/c2967a97-8fb8-4334-9bdb-3978d435375e.html

IAEA concerned over dismantaling of Iraqi Nuclear sites


8http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=36180

Scrap import restrictions will push up steel prices


9http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dissgw.html

Statements at a press conference by Micheal Kilpatrick


10http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dissgw.html

Letter to Senator Kyl, From Glenn F Larmartin Director of Defence System


11http://www.tacomapjh.org/ondepleteduranium.ht

On Depleted Uranium


12http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,411366,00.html

Letter from Iraq: The Childrens ward


13http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/Iraq/duiraq.html

New Internationalist Magazine




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[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>
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc 04-23239 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61417-61418] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-104]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Shaw 
Environmental, Inc.'s Facility in Lawrenceville, New Jersey 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny M. Johansen, Nuclear 
Materials Safety Branch 2, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 
19406, telephone (610) 337-5071, fax (610) 337-5269; or by 
e-mail:  [jmj@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
issuing a license amendment to Shaw Environmental, Inc. for 
Materials License No. 29- 28575-01, to authorize release of its 
facility in Lawrenceville, New Jersey for unrestricted use. NRC 
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this 
action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. 
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
 
The amendment will be issued following the publication of this 
Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the 
release of the licensee's Lawrenceville, New Jersey facility for 
unrestricted use. Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) was authorized 
by NRC from August 14, 2003 to use radioactive materials for 
research and development purposes at the site. Shaw assumed 
responsibility for License 29-28575-01 from Envirogen, Inc., who 
was authorized by the NRC from January 29, 1991 to use 
radioactive materials for research and development purposes at 
the site until its assets were acquired and the license 
transferred to Shaw on August 14, 2003, by Amendment No. 8 of the 
license. On July 12, 2004, Shaw requested that NRC release the 
facility for unrestricted use. Shaw has conducted surveys of the 
facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that 
the site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 
10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Shaw will continue 
licensed activities at another location, as authorized by the 
license.
 
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license 
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the 
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by 
Shaw. Based on the its reviews, the staff has determined that 
there are no additional remediation activities necessary to 
complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the 
impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and 
concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the 
requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding of No 
Significant Impact is appropriate.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the 
EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to 
release the facility for unrestricted use.
 
The NRC staff has evaluated Shaw Environmental, Inc.''s request 
and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the 
completed action complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 
CFR part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts 
from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by 
NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License 
Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, 
ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC 
has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are 
expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the action.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for the license amendment and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the 
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at 
[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
 
[[Page 61418]] this Notice are: The Environmental Assessment 
(ML042520538), and Letter dated July 12, 2004 transmitting Final 
Status Survey Report (ML041970459). Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to  [pdr@nrc.gov] . These documents may be viewed 
electronically at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 
The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except on Federal holidays.
 
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 5th day of October, 
2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
John D. Kinneman, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 2, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23239 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 32 SA News24: Concern over ship's cargo
           
[http://www.news24.com

Cape Town - There is good reason to be concerned about the cargo 
of the vessel BBC China, which went aground on rocks off the Wild 
Coast at the weekend, the Democratic Alliance warned on Monday. 

"Only a year ago, the BBC China - en route to Libya at the time - 
was found to be carrying several containers filled with the parts 
of sophisticated centrifuges intended for the use in the building 
of uranium enrichment plants. 

"These were listed on the ship's manifest as 'used machine 
parts'," DA environment spokesperson Gareth Morgan said. 

The vessel was also the subject of a search by the US coast guard 
in Honolulu harbour, in February this year, after a crew member 
had indicated to officials there might be hazardous material 
aboard. 

"Although ultimately cleared at the time, this ship needs to be 
treated with caution." 

Hazardous materials 

Morgan called on Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van 
Schalkwyk to declare "whether there are any hazardous materials 
aboard the BBC China". 

"There has already been a spillage of oil from the ship... but 
considering (the BBC China's) chequered history... the effect of 
the oil spill could be less significant than potential 
contamination of the marine environment from the contents or 
remnants of previous contents on the ship." 

The exploits of the BBC China had featured in a major speech 
delivered by US President George Bush in February this year, and 
had formed the basis of questions put to British foreign 
secretary Jack Straw. 

"The ship is currently off the pristine Pondoland coast in the 
vicinity of a recently declared Marine Protected Area. 

"Apart from this being a significant local tourist destination, 
many locals sustain themselves from harvesting marine resources 
along this coast, and have the right to be assured that this 
ecosystem is not contaminated. 

"In this National marine week, the minister would do well to 
consider whether ships with histories such as the BBC China's, 
should be travelling anywhere close to our marine protected 
areas," Morgan said. 

Van Schalkwyk's office was not immediately available for comment. 

Cargo 

According to media reports earlier on Monday - quoting SA 
maritime safety authority head Captain Bill Dernier - the 
hazardous cargo aboard the BBC China comprises "small quantities 
of paint, batteries and bottles of compressed carbon dioxide". 
z Dernier said the vessel also had 58 tons of heavy fuel oil, 60 
tons of gas oil and eight tons of lubrication oil on board. 

It is understood the BBC China was en route to Dar-es-Salaam at 
the time she went aground on Saturday night. 

Salvors are reportedly planning to first remove all oil from the 
vessel before launching an attempt to pull her off the rocks.
				

 Edited by Elmarie Jack 			 

*****************************************************************
 33 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23237 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61419] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-106]                         
 
Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACNW will hold a Planning and 
Procedures meeting on October 20, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and 
practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004--8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. The Committee 
will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The 
purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, 
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: October 8, 2004.
 
John H. Flack, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, 
ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23237 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant); Notice of Receipt of 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23238 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61411-61416] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-102]                         
 
Application for License; Notice of Availability of Applicant's 
Environmental Report; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
License; and Notice of Hearing and Commission Order 
Commissioners: Nils J. Diaz, Chairman, Edward McGaffigan, Jr. and 
Jeffrey S. Merrifield. I. Receipt of Application and Availability 
of Documents Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) received on August 
23, 2004, an application, safety analysis report, and 
environmental report from USEC, Inc. (hereinafter USEC), for a 
license to possess and use source, byproduct, and special nuclear 
material and to enrich natural uranium to a maximum of 10 percent 
U-235 by the gas centrifuge process. The plant, to be known as 
the American Centrifuge Plant, would be located in Piketon, Ohio. 
USEC, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Copies of USEC's 
application, safety analysis report, and environmental report 
(except for portions thereof subject to withholding from public 
inspection in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Availability of 
Public Records) are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. These documents 
are also available for review and copying using any of the 
following methods: (1) Enter the NRC's Gas Centrifuge Enrichment 
Facility Licensing Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/gas-centrifuge.html#c 
orrespondence 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fa 
c/gas-centrifuge.html#correspondence] ; (2) enter the NRC's 
Agency wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) 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] 
, where the accession numbers for USEC's application (including 
USEC's safety analysis report and USEC's environmental report) is 
ML042800551 (3) contact the PDR by calling (800) 397-4209, faxing 
a request to (301) 415-3548, or sending a request by electronic 
mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Hard copies of the documents 
are available from the PDR for a fee.
 
The NRC has now accepted USEC's application for docketing and 
accordingly is providing this notice of hearing and notice of 
opportunity to intervene on USEC's application for a license to 
construct and operate a centrifuge enrichment facility. Pursuant 
to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (Act) the NRC staff 
will prepare a safety evaluation report (SER) after reviewing the 
application and making findings concerning the public health and 
safety and common defense and security. In addition, pursuant to 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, NRC will complete an 
environmental evaluation and prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) before the hearing on the issuance of a license 
is completed. The preparation of the EIS will be the subject of a 
separate notice in the Federal Register.
 
When available, the NRC staff's safety evaluation and its EIS 
(except for portions thereof subject to withholding from public 
inspection in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390) will also be placed 
in the PDR and in ADAMS. Copies of correspondence between the NRC 
and USEC, and transcripts of prehearing conferences and hearings 
(except for portions thereof subject to withholding from public 
inspection in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390) similarly will be 
made available to the public.
 
If following the hearing, the Commission is satisfied that USEC 
has complied with the Commission's regulations and the 
requirements of this Notice and Commission Order and the 
Commission finds that the application satisfies the applicable 
standards set forth in 10 CFR 30.33, 40.32, and 70.23, a single 
license will be issued authorizing (1) the receipt, possession, 
use, delivery, and transfer of byproduct (e.g., calibration 
sources), source and special nuclear material in the American 
Centrifuge Plant; and (2) the construction and operation of the 
American Centrifuge Plant. Prior to commencement of operations of 
the American Centrifuge Plant, if it is licensed, in accordance 
with section 193(c) of the Act and 10 CFR 70.32(k), NRC will 
verify through inspection that the facility has been constructed 
in accordance with the requirements of the license for such 
construction and operation. The inspection findings will be 
published in the Federal Register.
 
II. Notice of Hearing A. Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.23a and section 
193 of the Act, as amended by the Solar, Wind, Waste, and 
Geothermal Power Production Incentives Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 
101-575), a hearing will be conducted according to the rules of 
procedure in 10 CFR part 2, Subparts A, C, G, and to the extent 
that classified information becomes involved, Subpart I.
 
The hearing will be held under the authority of sections 53, 63, 
189, 191, and 193 of the Act. The applicant and NRC staff shall 
be parties to the proceeding.
 
B. Pursuant to 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, the hearing shall be 
conducted by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) 
appointed by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel. Notice as to the membership of the 
Board will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.
 
C. The matters of fact and law to be considered are whether the 
application satisfies the standards set forth in this Notice and 
Commission Order and the applicable standards in 10 CFR 30.33, 
40.32, and 70.23, and whether the requirements of 10 CFR part 51 
have been met.
 
D. If this proceeding is not a contested proceeding, as defined 
by 10 CFR 2.4, the Board will determine the following, without 
conducting a de novo evaluation of the application: (1) Whether 
the application and record of the proceeding contain sufficient 
information and whether the NRC staff's review of the application 
has been adequate to support findings to be made by the Director 
of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, with 
respect to the matters set forth in paragraph C of this section, 
and (2) whether the review conducted by the NRC staff pursuant to 
10 CFR part 51 has been adequate.
 
E. Regardless of whether the proceeding is contested or 
uncontested, the Board will, in its initial decision, in 
accordance with subpart A of 10 CFR part 51: Determine whether 
the requirements of sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and 
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been complied with in the 
proceeding; independently consider
 
[[Page 61412]] the final balance among conflicting factors 
contained in the record of proceeding with a view to determining 
the appropriate action to be taken; and determine whether a 
license should be issued, denied, or conditioned to protect the 
environment.
 
F. If the proceeding becomes a contested proceeding, the Board 
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on admitted 
contentions. With respect to matters set forth in paragraph C of 
this section but not covered by admitted contentions, the Board 
will make the determinations set forth in paragraph D without 
conducting a de novo evaluation of the application.
 
G. By December 17, 2004, any person whose interest may be 
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a 
party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to 
intervene. Petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.309. Interested 
persons should consult 10 CFR part 2, section 2.309, which is 
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD (or call the 
PDR at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737). NRC regulations are 
also accessible electronically from the NRC's Electronic Reading 
Room on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] . If a petition for 
leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission 
will issue an order determining standing and refer petitions from 
persons with the requisite standing to the Board for further 
processing in the proceeding.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition must provide the name, 
address, and telephone number of the petitioner and specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of 
the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) 
the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the 
proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
 
A petition for leave to intervene must also include a 
specification of the contentions that the petitioner seeks to 
have litigated in the hearing. For each contention, the 
petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law 
or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief 
explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each 
contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material 
to the findings the NRC must make to support the granting of a 
license in response to USEC's application. The petition must also 
include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinions which support the position of the petitioner and on 
which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with 
references to the specific sources and documents on which the 
petitioner intends to rely. Finally, the petition must provide 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including 
references to specific portions of the application that the 
petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, 
or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to 
contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the 
identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the 
petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one that, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that 
person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to 
present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for 
cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, 
policies, and procedures. The Board will set the time and place 
for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the 
respective notices will be published in the Federal Register.
 
A petition for leave to intervene and proffered contentions must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited 
delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov [HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov] ; or 
(4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the petition for 
leave to intervene and proffered contentions should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov 
[OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov] . A copy of the petition for leave to 
intervene and proffered contentions should also be sent to Donald 
J. Silverman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, the attorney for the 
applicant.
 
Non-timely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, and supplemental petitions will not be entertained 
absent a determination by the Commission or the Board that the 
petition should be granted, based upon a balancing of the factors 
specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). H. A State, county, 
municipality, federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agencies 
thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate 
as an interested entity under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The petition 
should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest 
in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the 
Commission by December 17, 2004. The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in paragraph G, above, 
for petitions submitted under 10 CFR 2.309, except that State and 
federally-recognized Indian tribes do not need to address the 
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is 
located within its boundaries. The entities listed above could 
also seek to participate in a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 
10 CFR 2.315(c). I. Any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to this proceeding may request 
permission to make a limited appearance pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited 
appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on 
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. 
A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or 
at any prehearing conference, subject to such limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the Board. Persons desiring to 
make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary 
of the Commission by December 17, 2004.
 
 
[[Page 61413]] III. Commission Guidance A. Presiding Officer 
Determination of Contentions The presiding officer shall issue a 
decision on the admissibility of contentions no later than sixty 
(60) days after the petitions and contentions are referred to the 
Board.
 
B. Novel Legal Issues If rulings on petitions, on admissibility 
of contentions or the admitted contentions themselves, raise 
novel legal or policy questions, the Commission will provide 
early guidance and direction on the treatment and resolution of 
such issues. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Board to 
promptly certify to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.319(l) and 2.323(f) all novel legal or policy issues that would 
benefit from early Commission consideration should such issues 
arise in this proceeding.
 
C. Discovery Management (1) All parties, except the NRC staff, 
shall make the mandatory disclosures required by 10 CFR 2.704 
within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of the order 
admitting that contention.
 
(2) The presiding officer, consistent with fairness to all 
parties, should narrow the issues requiring discovery and limit 
discovery to no more than one round for admitted contentions.
 
(3) All discovery against the Staff shall be governed by 10 CFR 
2.336(b) and 2.709. The Staff shall comply with 10 CFR 2.336(b) 
no later than 30 days after the Board order admitting contentions 
and shall update the information at the same time as the issuance 
of the SER or the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
 
Discovery under 10 CFR 2.709 shall not commence until the 
issuance of the particular document, i.e., SER or EIS, unless the 
Board, in its discretion, finds that commencing discovery against 
the Staff on safety issues before the SER is issued, or on 
environmental issues before the FEIS is issued will expedite the 
hearing without adversely impacting the Staff's ability to 
complete its evaluation in a timely manner.
 
(4) No later than 30 days before the commencement of the hearing 
at which an issue is to be presented, all parties other than the 
Staff shall make the pretrial disclosures required by 10 CFR 
2.704(c). D. Hearing Schedule In the interest of providing a fair 
hearing, avoiding unnecessary delays in NRC's review and hearing 
process, and producing an informed adjudicatory record that 
supports the licensing determination to be made in this 
proceeding, the Commission expects that both the Board and NRC 
staff, as well as the applicant and other parties to this 
proceeding, will follow the applicable requirements contained in 
10 CFR part 2 and guidance in the Commission's Statement of 
Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 
18 (1998) [63 FR 41872 (August 5, 1998)] to the extent that such 
guidance is not inconsistent with specific guidance in this 
Order. The guidance in the Statement of Policy on Conduct of 
Adjudicatory Proceedings is intended to improve the management 
and the timely completion of the proceeding and addresses hearing 
schedules, parties' obligations, contentions and discovery 
management. In addition, the Commission is providing the 
following direction for this proceeding: (1) The Commission 
directs the Board to set a schedule for the hearing in this 
proceeding consistent with this order that establishes as a goal 
the issuance of a final Commission decision on the pending 
application within two-and-one-half years (30 months) from the 
date that the application was received. Formal discovery against 
the Staff shall be suspended until after the Staff completes its 
final SER and EIS in accordance with the direction provided in 
paragraph C.(3) above.
 
(2) The evidentiary hearing with respect to issues should 
commence promptly after completion of the final Staff documents 
(SER or EIS) unless the Board, in its discretion, finds that 
starting the hearing with respect to one or more safety issues 
prior to issuance of the final SER\1\ (or one or more 
environmental contentions directed to the applicant's 
Environmental Report) will expedite the proceeding without 
adversely impacting the Staff's ability to complete its 
evaluations in a timely manner.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ The Commission believes that, in the appropriate 
circumstances, allowing discovery or an evidentiary hearing with 
respect to safety-related issues to proceed before the final SER 
is issued will serve to further the Commission's objective, as 
reflected in the Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory 
Proceedings, CLI-98-12, supra, to ensure a fair, prompt, and 
efficient resolution of contested issues. For example, it may be 
appropriate for the Board to permit discovery against the staff 
and/ or the commencement of an evidentiary hearing with respect 
to safety issues prior to the issuance of the final SER in cases 
where the applicant has responded to the Staff's ``open items'' 
and there is an appreciable lag time until the issuance of the 
final SER, or in cases where the initial SER identifies only a 
few open items.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- (3) The Commission also believes that issuing a 
decision on the pending application within about two-and-one-half 
years may be reasonably achieved under the rules of practice 
contained in 10 CFR part 2 and the enhancements directed by this 
order. We do not expect the Board to sacrifice fairness and sound 
decision-making to expedite any hearing granted on this 
application. We do expect the Board to use the techniques 
specified in this order and in the Commission's policy statement 
on the conduct of adjudicatory proceedings (CLI-98-12, supra) to 
ensure prompt and efficient resolution of contested issues.
 
See also Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 
CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981).
 
(4) If this is a contested proceeding, the Board should adopt the 
following milestones, in developing a schedule, for conclusion of 
significant steps in the adjudicatory proceeding.\2\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \2\ This schedule assumes that the SER and FEIS are 
issued essentially at the same time. If these documents are not 
to be issued very close in time, the Board should adopt separate 
schedules but concurrently running for the safety and 
environmental reviews consistent with the timeframes herein for 
each document.
 
Within 10 days of Commission's order     Persons found to have 
standing determining standing.                    or entities 
participating under 10 CFR 2.309(d) may submit a motion for order 
reconsideration (see below, at Section IV.B).* Within 20 days of 
Commission's order     Persons found to have standing determining 
standing.                    or entities participating under 10 
CFR 2.309(d) may respond to any motion for reconsideration.
 
Within 60 days of Commission's order     ASLB decision on 
admissibility determining standing and referring       of 
contentions.
 
petitions and contentions to the ASLB.
 
Within 30 days of the ASLB decision      Staff prepares hearing 
file.
 
determining admission of contentions.
 
Within 90 days of the ASLB decision      Completion of discovery 
on determining admission of contentions.    admitted contentions, 
except against the Staff (including contentions on environmental 
issues arising under NEPA).
 
 
[[Page 61414]] Within 110 days of the ASLB decision     Deadline 
for summary determining admission of contentions.    disposition 
motions on admitted contentions.** Within 150 days of the ASLB 
decision     ASLB decision on summary determining admission of 
contentions.    disposition motions on admitted contentions.
 
Date of issuance of final SER/EIS......  Staff updates hearing 
file.
 
Within 20 days of the issuance of the    Motions to amend 
contentions; final SER/EIS.                           motions for 
late-filed contentions.
 
Within 40 days of the issuance of the    Completion of answers 
and final SER/EIS.                           replies to motions 
for amended and late-filed contentions.
 
Within 50 days of the issuance of the    ASLB decision on 
admissibility final SER/EIS.                           of 
late-filed contentions; deadline for summary disposition motions 
on remaining admitted contentions.*** Within 80 days of the 
issuance of the    Completion of discovery on late- final 
SER/EIS.                           filed contentions; ASLB 
decision on summary disposition motions on remaining contentions.
 
Within 90 days of the issuance of the    Direct testimony filed 
on final SER/EIS.                           remaining contentions 
and any amended or admitted late-filed contentions.
 
Within 100 days of the issuance of the   Cross-examination plans 
filed final SER/EIS.                           on remaining 
contentions and any amended or admitted late- filed contentions.
 
Within 105 days of the issuance of the   Evidentiary hearing 
begins on final SER/EIS.                           remaining 
contentions and any amended or admitted late-filed contentions.
 
Within 135 days of the issuance of the   Completions of 
evidentiary final SER/EIS.                           hearing on 
remaining contentions and any amended or admitted late-filed of 
final contentions.
 
Within 180 days of the issuance of the   Completion of findings 
and final SER/EIS.                           replies. Within 240 
days of the issuance of the   ASLB's initial decision.
 
final SER/EIS.
 
* Motions for reconsideration do not stay this schedule.
 
** The schedule presumes that a prehearing conference order would 
establish the deadline for filing of summary disposition motions 
20 days after close of discovery, consistent with 10 CFR 
2.710(a), answers to be filed 10 days after filing of any motion, 
replies to be filed 10 days after any answer, and the Board to 
issue a decision on any summary disposition motion 20 days 
thereafter.
 
*** No summary disposition motions on late-filed contentions are 
contemplated.
 
To meet these milestones, the Board should direct the 
participants to serve all filings by electronic mail (in order to 
be considered timely, such filings must be received by the Board 
and parties no later than midnight eastern time on the date due, 
unless otherwise designated by the Board), followed by conforming 
hard copies that may be sent by regular mail. If participants do 
not have access to electronic mail, the Board should adopt other 
expedited methods of service, such as express mail, which would 
ensure receipt on the due date (``in-hand''). If pleadings are 
filed by electronic mail, or other expedited methods of service 
which would ensure receipt on the due date, the additional period 
provided in our regulations for responding to filings served by 
first-class mail or express delivery shall not be applicable.
 
See 10 CFR 2.306. In addition, to avoid unnecessary delays in the 
proceeding, the Board should not grant requests for extensions of 
time absent unavoidable and extreme circumstances. Although 
summary disposition motions are included in the schedule above, 
the Board shall not entertain motions for summary disposition 
under 10 CFR 2.710, unless the Board finds that such motions are 
likely to expedite the proceeding. Unless otherwise justified, 
the Board shall provide for the simultaneous filing of answers to 
proposed contentions, responsive pleadings, proposed findings of 
fact, and other similar submittals.
 
(5) Parties are obligated in their filings before the Board and 
the Commission to ensure that their arguments and assertions are 
supported by appropriate and accurate references to legal 
authority and factual basis, including, as appropriate, citation 
to the record.
 
Failure to do so may result in material being stricken from the 
record or, in extreme circumstances, in a party being dismissed 
from the proceeding.
 
(6) The Commission directs the Board to inform the Commission 
promptly, in writing, if the Board determines that any single 
milestone could be missed by more than 30 days. The Board must 
include an explanation of why the milestone cannot be met and the 
measures the Board will take to mitigate the failure to achieve 
the milestone and restore the proceeding to the overall schedule.
 
E. Commission Oversight As in any proceeding, the Commission 
retains its inherent supervisory authority over the proceeding to 
provide additional guidance to the Board and participants and to 
resolve any matter in controversy itself.
 
IV. Applicable Requirements A. The Commission will license and 
regulate byproduct, source, and special nuclear material at the 
American Centrifuge Plant in accordance with the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended. Section 274c.(1) of the Act was amended 
by Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992) to require the 
Commission to retain authority and responsibility for the 
regulation of uranium enrichment facilities. Therefore, in 
compliance with law, the Commission will be the sole licensing 
and regulatory authority with respect to byproduct, source, and 
special nuclear material for the American Centrifuge Plant, and 
with respect to the control and use of any equipment or device in 
connection therewith.
 
Many rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I are applicable to 
the licensing of a person to receive, possess, use, transfer, 
deliver, and process byproduct, source and special nuclear 
material in the quantities that would be possessed at the 
American Centrifuge Plant. These include 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 21, 
30, 40, 51, 70, 71, 73, 74, 95, 140, 170, and 171 for the 
licensing and regulation of byproduct, source, and special 
nuclear material, including requirements for notices to workers, 
reporting of defects, radiation protection, waste disposal, 
decommissioning funding, and insurance.
 
With respect to these regulations, the Commission notes that this 
is the third proceeding involving the licensing of an enrichment 
facility. The Commission issued a number of decisions in an 
earlier proceeding regarding a proposed site in Homer, Louisiana. 
These final decisions, Louisiana Energy Services (Clairborne 
Enrichment Center), CLI-92-7, 35 NRC 93 (1992); Louisiana Energy 
Services (Clairborne Enrichment Center), CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 294 
(1997); and Louisiana Energy Services (Clairborne Enrichment 
Center), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998); resolve a number of issues 
concerning uranium enrichment licensing and may be relied upon as 
precedent.
 
Consistent with the Act, and the Commission's regulations, the
 
[[Page 61415]] Commission is providing the following direction 
for licensing uranium enrichment facilities: 1. Environmental 
Issues (a) General: 10 CFR part 51 governs the preparation of an 
environmental report and an EIS for a materials license. USEC's 
environmental report and the NRC staff's associated EIS are to 
include a statement on the alternatives to the proposed action, 
including a discussion of the no-action alternative.
 
(b) Treatment of depleted uranium hexafluoride tails: As to the 
treatment of the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride 
tails (depleted tails) in these environmental documents, unless 
USEC demonstrates a use for uranium in the depleted tails as a 
potential resource, the depleted tails will be considered waste. 
An approach for disposition of tails that is consistent with 
section 3113 of the USEC Privatization Act constitutes a 
``plausible strategy'' for disposition of the USEC depleted 
tails. The Commission is considering matters of law applicable to 
disposition of tails which may be dispositive of matters arising 
in a USEC proceeding. See Louisiana Energy Services (National 
Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, slip op. at 5 (Aug. 18, 2004). 
The NRC staff may consider the DOE EIS in preparing the staff's 
EIS. Alternatives for the disposition of depleted uranium tails 
will need to be addressed in these documents. As part of the 
licensing process, USEC must also address the health, safety, and 
security issues associated with the storage of depleted uranium 
tails on site pending removal of the tails from the site for 
disposal or DOE dispositioning.
 
2. Financial Qualifications Review of financial qualifications 
for enrichment facility license applications is governed by 10 
CFR part 70. In Louisiana Energy Services (Clairborne Enrichment 
Center), CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 294, 309 (1997) the Commission held 
that the 10 CFR part 70 financial criteria, 10 CFR 70.22(a)(8) 
and 70.23(a)(5), could be met by conditioning the LES license to 
require funding commitments to be in place prior to construction 
and operation. The specific license condition approved in that 
proceeding, which addressed a minimum equity contribution of 30% 
from the parents and affiliates of LES partners prior to 
construction of the associated capacity and having in place long 
term enrichment contracts with prices sufficient to cover both 
construction and operating costs, including a return on 
investment, for the entire term of the contracts prior to 
constructing or operating the facility is one way to satisfy the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 70.
 
3. Antitrust Review The USEC enrichment facility is subject to 
sections 53 and 63 of the Act, and is not a production and 
utilization facility licensed under section 103. Consequently, 
the NRC does not have antitrust responsibilities for USEC similar 
to the antitrust responsibilities under section 105 of the Act. 
The NRC will not entertain or consider antitrust issues in 
connection with the USEC application in this proceeding.
 
4. Foreign Ownership Section 193(f) of the Act addresses foreign 
ownership, control and domination of enrichment facilities with 
regard to USEC and its successors. The requirements of section 
193(f) are incorporated in 10 CFR 70.40. 5. Creditor Requirements 
Pursuant to section 184 of the Act, the creditor regulations in 
10 CFR 50.81 shall apply to the creation of creditor interests in 
equipment, devices, or important parts thereof, capable of 
separating the isotopes of uranium or enriching uranium in the 
isotope U-235. In addition, the creditor regulations in 10 CFR 
70.44 shall apply to the creation of creditor interests in 
special nuclear material.
 
These creditor regulations may be augmented by license conditions 
as necessary to allow ownership arrangements (such as sale and 
leaseback) not covered by 10 CFR 50.81, provided it can be found 
that such arrangements are not inimical to the common defense and 
security of the United States.
 
6. Classified Information All matters of classification of 
information related to the design, construction, operation, and 
safeguarding of the American Centrifuge Plant shall be governed 
by classification guidance in ``DOE Classification Guide for 
Isotope Separation by the Gas Centrifuge Process (CG-IGC-1)'' 
(June 2002) and any later versions. Any person producing such 
information must adhere to the criteria in CG-IGC-1. All 
decisions on questions of classification or declassification of 
information shall be made by appropriate classification officials 
in the NRC and are not subject to de novo review in this 
proceeding.
 
7. Access to Classified Information Portions of USEC's 
application for a license are classified Restricted Data or 
National Security Information. Persons needing access to those 
portions of the application will be required to have the 
appropriate security clearance for the level of classified 
information to which access is required. Access requirements 
apply equally to intervenors, their witnesses and counsel, 
employees of the applicant, its witnesses and counsel, NRC 
personnel, and others.
 
Any person who believes that he or she will have a need for 
access to classified information for the purpose of this 
licensing proceeding, including the hearing, should immediately 
contact the NRC, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Washington, DC 20555, for information on the clearance process. 
Telephone calls may be made to Linda Marshall, Licensing 
Assistant, Special Projects Branch.
 
Telephone: (301) 415-8129.
 
8. Obtaining NRC Security Facility Approval and for Safeguarding 
Classified Information Received or Developed Pursuant to 10 CFR 
Part 95 Any person who requires possession of classified 
information in connection with the licensing proceeding may 
process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle classified 
information only in a location for which facility security 
approval has been obtained from the NRC's Division of Nuclear 
Security (NSIR), Washington, DC 20555. Telephone calls may be 
made to A. Lynn Silvious, Chief, Information Security Section. 
Telephone: (301) 415-2214.
 
B. Reconsideration The above guidance does not foreclose the 
applicant, any person admitted as a party to the hearing, or an 
entity participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) from litigating 
material factual issues necessary for resolution of contentions 
in this proceeding. Persons found by the Commission to have 
standing and entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) as of 
the date of the Commission's order on standing may also move the 
Commission to reconsider any portion of Section IV of this Notice 
and Commission Order where there is no clear Commission precedent 
or unambiguously governing statutes or regulations.
 
Any motion to reconsider must be filed within 10 days after the 
Commission's order on standing. The motion must contain all 
technical or other arguments to support the motion. Other persons 
granted standing and entities participating under 10 CFR 
2.315(c), including the applicant and the NRC staff, may respond 
to motions for reconsideration within 20 days of the Commission's 
Order.
 
Motions will be ruled upon by the Commission. A motion for 
reconsideration does not stay the schedule set out above in 
section III.D.(4). However, if the Commission grants a motion for 
reconsideration, it will, as necessary, provide direction on 
adjusting the hearing schedule.
 
 
[[Page 61416]] V. Pending Energy Legislation The Energy Policy 
Act of 2003, H.R. 6, is currently pending in Congress. H.R. 6, as 
currently constituted, contains provisions that address the 
manner in which certain issues are to be dealt with and a 
schedule for overall Commission consideration of an application 
for licensing an uranium enrichment facility. In the event that 
H.R. 6 is enacted, the Commission may need to issue an additional 
order to conform guidance and schedules for the USEC application 
to any new statutory requirements.
 
VI. Notice of Intent Regarding Classified Information As noted 
above, a hearing on this application will be governed by 10 CFR 
part 2, subparts A, C, G, and to the extent classified material 
becomes involved, subpart I. Subpart I requires in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.907 that the NRC staff file a notice of intent if, 
at the time of publication of Notice of Hearing, it appears that 
it will be impracticable for the staff to avoid the introduction 
of Restricted Data or National Security Information into a 
proceeding. The applicant has submitted portions of its 
application that are classified.
 
The Commission notes that, since the entire application becomes 
part of the record of the proceeding, the NRC staff has found it 
impracticable for it to avoid the introduction of Restricted Data 
of National Security Information into the proceeding.
 
It is so ordered.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October, 2004.
 
For the Commission.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23238 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 Nevada Appeal: Opinion Kerry offers more hope for Nevada
              
Nevada Appeal editorial board
October 17, 2004

 If the war in Iraq is the defining issue of the 2004 
presidential election, then President George W. Bush gains no 
advantage over his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry. And on 
the domestic front, Kerry offers more hope and vision for the 
average American.

We believe Kerry should be the next president of the United 
States. We urge voters to elect him.

First, the war: Bush's response to Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist 
attacks was strong and decisive - a policy of taking the "war on 
terrorism" off U.S. soil and aggressively pursuing terrorists 
with military troops. The invasion of Afghanistan sent that 
message loud and clear.

But then the U.S. invaded Iraq, a war designed to change the 
regime of a dictatorship and install democracy in an Islamic 
country. The goal of deposing and capturing Saddam Hussein was 
met, but the cause of fighting global terrorism was mislaid. 
That's why Kerry calls it the "wrong war."

Now the U.S. is left with a costly, protracted occupation of a 
foreign country. Parallels to Vietnam should not be taken 
lightly. Kerry, the decorated veteran of that war who came home 
to protest it vociferously, far better understands the deep 
divisions it created in this country. He also understands the 
necessity of fighting a global war on terrorism with the broadest 
coalition of nations possible.

At home, Bush has consistently favored the rich and powerful over 
the poor and weak.

Job loss has been unprecedented. Energy policy was written by the 
energy industry. Environmental issues, just when we thought they 
were reaching a reasonable balance of common sense and common 
use, have been yanked back toward exploitation and away from 
public access.

Many credit Bush's No Child Left Behind reforms as his biggest 
domestic success, yet we are no fans of top-down federal 
education mandates.

His tax cuts are nice for the middle class, a windfall for the 
very rich. Yet Bush has done nothing to curb federal spending, 
piling up record deficits.

We admit it is easier to build a case against Bush than for 
Kerry, whose liberal record in the Senate is troubling.

Yet Kerry's presidential campaign offers a deficit-reduction 
plan, wider health-care coverage through employers, a sounder 
approach to Social Security, and an end to tax breaks sending 
industry jobs overseas. He plans to fully fund No Child Left 
Behind - still a federal mandate, but this time with money behind 
it.

Finally, as Nevadans we find it impossible to endorse the 
president who decided Yucca Mountain is a scientifically sound 
repository for the nation's nuclear waste. While this is not a 
deciding issue nationally, it is a significant mark in Kerry's 
column for Nevadans.

Adding up the pluses and minuses, Kerry comes out the winner. We 
think that's where he should be on Election Day.

 						 					   				 			

 			 			
 		   		     	 	
 		   			

 				
 			
All contents © Copyright 2004 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 
*****************************************************************
 36 BYU NewsNet - Nuclear waste: a hot topic for Utah's gubernatorial candidates
 
By Mike Hohmann         Daily Universe Staff Reporter - 18 Oct 2004

        With Utah gubernatorial elections well under way, the 
disposal of nuclear waste sits heavily on the agenda for the 
running candidates.

        Two of the prominent candidates in the race said they do 
not think the nation's excess nuclear waste should be disposed of 
in Utah. 

        "We should not be the nation's dumping ground," said 
Jason Chaffetz, campaign manager for candidate Jon Huntsman Jr. 
"We didn't produce it. We shouldn't have to be the ones to store 
it."

        The Scott Matheson campaign has the same opinion as the 
Hunstman campaign.

        "We want to promote Utah as a great place to live and do 
business," said Mike Zuhl, Matheson's campaign manager. "We don't 
want to have a reputation as a repository for nuclear waste."

        The candidates were referring to the nuclear waste 
disposal solution from Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a group of 
eight commercial power companies.

        Bruce Whitehead, public affairs consultant for PFS, said 
power facilities across the nation are running out of room to 
store their nuclear waste and need a national storage facility to 
be able to keep producing the nation's power. A permanent 
solution involves land in the Yucca Mountain area of Nevada. PFS 
proposed a temporary solution to the nuclear waste with a site in 
Utah.

        In 1997, the PFS signed a lease agreement with the 
leaders of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes to temporarily store 
nuclear waste on Goshute land in Tooele County. PFS would store 
excess waste from power companies for 20 years on Goshute land, 
with the option to renew the contract for another 20 years.

        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction 
over the licensing of nuclear waste facility sites and has not 
yet approved the agreement. PFS must show that the facility "can 
meet all regulations designed to ensure the safety of people and 
the environment."

        Whitehead said he expects PFS to receive the license near 
the beginning of 2005. After that, it would take 18 to 24 months 
to build the facility before hazardous material would ever be 
shipped. 

He said he does not expect the Utah facility to house the nuclear 
waste for an extended period of time.

        "The Utah project will be a parking lot waiting for Yucca 
Mountain to open," Whitehead said. "Then, everything we have at 
the Skull Valley site would be transferred to Yucca Mountain for 
permanent storage."

        The PFS Web site addresses transportation concerns: "In 
more than 40 years of shipping spent fuel [in the U.S.], and with 
nearly 3,000 shipments, there has never been an accident that 
resulted in the loss of any radioactive material from a container 
or a radiation-related injury to a member of the public."

        Nevertheless, Chaffetz said Utah citizens should be 
concerned about the transportation of radioactive nuclear waste 
across Utah soil.

        "No matter how safe you try to be, that is a real issue," 
he said.

 	But according to Zuhl, accidents can happen.

 "Whether it is by truck or by train, there is the potential for 
an accident, which could have potentially devastating 
consequences," Zuhl said. 

        Many companies have performed tests on the stability of 
the transportation casks of nuclear waste. In a simulation of a 
train wreck that destroyed the train, the cask came out with "a 
few dents and scratches, but nothing to penetrate into the 
canister area," Whitehead said.

        Whitehead explained that each storage cask in the Skull 
Valley area would weigh approximately 180 tons. The 20-foot tall 
casks will have an extensive safety containment system.

        From the outside, a three-fourths-inch stainless steel 
outer casing would line the cask, while 27 inches of reinforced 
concrete is just inside that. On the interior of the concrete, a 
2-inch thick stainless steel liner would surround the canister.

        "If you were to stand eight solid hours ... hugging that 
storage cask, you would receive about the same amount of 
radiation that you would have gotten in the doctor's office from 
a chest x-ray," Whitehead said. 

Copyright, BYU NewsNet                                                           
*****************************************************************
 37 Casper Trib: New nuke waste dump in Utah gets preliminary approval
 
Casper, Wyoming - Monday, October 18, 2004    
  
[http://www.trib.com

Monday, October 18, 2004 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A waste business run by the former 
president of Envirocare has been given preliminary approval for a 
new radioactive dump in Utah.

The state's Division of Radiation Control has given siting 
approval to Charles Judd's Cedar Mountain Environmental company 
for a possible landfill in Tooele County. Cedar Mountain is 
plotting its dump adjacent to one run by Judd's former employer.

"This is a huge step forward for our operations in western Utah," 
Judd said in a statement.

However, Judd said the company hadn't yet decided what types of 
waste would be accepted at the facility. 

Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of 
Utah, said Judd still faces many hurdles, noting that the company 
must gain a license from the division and the approval of Tooele 
County, the Legislature and the governor before any new waste 
disposal facility could be opened.

"This indicates that once again, Utah is being targeted as a 
dumping ground because of our history of nuclear waste facilities 
in the state," he said.

Judd said he understands that more hurdles must be cleared, but 
intends "to aggressively pursue the required steps for proper 
approval." 

  Copyright © 2004 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee 
Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated   
*****************************************************************
 38 Japan Times: Panel leaning toward reprocessing spent nuke fuel
    
  Monday, October 18, 2004   

 The government commission reviewing the nation's long-term 
atomic energy plan has come up with a proposal to maintain the 
current policy of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, panel sources 
said Sunday.

 If adopted during Friday's meeting of the Atomic Energy 
Commission to draw up a new atomic energy plan, it would give the 
green light for the new plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, to 
start tests using uranium this year and begin operations in 2006.

 Amid heated criticism that it is more economical to bury the 
spent fuel, a majority of commission members have concluded that 
reprocessing is the better option considering energy security and 
the environment, the sources said.

 The conclusion will be presented at the meeting as a proposal 
from the secretariat.

 Commission members who are critical of the reprocessing policy 
are also expected to submit various alternate policy proposals 
for discussion, according to he sources.

 Since June, the commission evaluated four scenarios: 
reprocessing all spent fuel, reprocessing some of the fuel, 
burying all spent fuel underground without processing, and 
storing the fuel while deciding on a policy later.

 The option of reprocessing has an advantage given the research 
that has been done so far. For burial or storage, there is the 
possibility of having to shut down nuclear reactors when spent 
fuel cannot be removed due to difficulty in finding a disposal 
site, the sources said.

 However, some 200 tons of spent nuclear fuel will be left 
untouched every year under the Rokkasho plant's reprocessing 
capacity. The proposal leaves open the option of direct burial of 
some of the spent fuel or the current plan of building another 
reprocessing facility.

 From an economic standpoint, electricity costs would be 600 yen 
to 840 yen lower per household if spent fuel is buried instead of 
reprocessed. However, the panel's proponents of reprocessing say 
the extra cost would be acceptable, according to the sources.

 But even if the government can overcome opposition and continue 
its policy to reprocess spent fuel, the plan still faces various 
obstacles as a result of past accidents at nuclear facilities.

 The development of a fast-breeder nuclear reactor, which is 
essential to maximize the advantage of reprocessing spent fuel, 
has been suspended since a 1995 sodium coolant leak at the Monju 
experimental plant in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture.

 Moreover, the plan of full-fledged operations of using 
reprocessed fuel in light- water reactors around 2010 is also not 
proceeding as it is difficult to gain the support of local 
residents following a spate of nuclear-related scandals and 
accidents.

 There are also concerns of whether the reprocessing plant, at a 
scale which Japan has had no experience in operating before, can 
be operated safely.

 The Japan Times: Oct. 18, 2004 (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 39 mainetoday: Maine finds stockpiles of hazardous chemicals at schools
 Many schools do not inventory their chemicals and lack money
for disposal, the state finds. --> 

  Monday, October 18, 2004 

By MEREDITH GOAD, Portland Press Herald Writer

   --> --> A two-year program originally designed to get mercury 
out of Maine schools has uncovered stockpiles of potentially 
dangerous chemicals, including agents used in chemical warfare, 
that could cost millions to clean up. Would you support a state 
referendum funding the cleanup of hazardous materials from 
Maine's schools? 

Yes, cleanup should be funded by state taxpayers No, cleanup 
should be funded by individual municipalities No, taxes are too 
high, current program is working

This survey is not scientific. The results are a snapshot of what 
readers who choose to take the poll are thinking. It is designed 
to allow readers to interact with the news of the day, and is not 
intended to be used for reference purposes. 

See the results of past questions from the past seven days and 
find out about how the poll works, check 
[http://news.mainetoday.com/qod/] .

MORE

 QUESTIONS TO ASK

 Does my school have a chemical hygiene plan?

 Does my school have a current chemical inventory?

 Does my school share that inventory with the local fire
department?

 

CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

 Must have a current chemical inventory.

 Must have a chemical hygiene plan and chemical hygiene officer.

 Must have a chemical purchasing policy.

 May not have more than a two-year supply of any hazardous
chemical. If it is more than two years old, the school is
technically out of compliance.

 Must follow state and federal disposal rules for hazardous
waste.

 Source: Maine Department of Environmental Protection

 
A two-year program originally designed to get mercury out of 
Maine schools has uncovered stockpiles of potentially dangerous 
chemicals, including agents used in chemical warfare, that could 
cost millions to clean up. 

So far, 6,500 pounds and more than 1,000 gallons of hazardous 
waste have been removed from science labs, maintenance 
departments, art and vocational classrooms, and nurses' stations 
in 80 Maine schools. 

More than 700 pounds of mercury have been removed, making Maine 
schools the second-largest source of mercury in the state. Only 
the defunct Holtrachem chemical plant in Orrington has a larger 
mercury stockpile. 

The clean-out program, run by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection, has discovered radioactive materials in 
more than a dozen schools. Many schools are still hanging onto 
old stores of shock-sensitive chemicals, such as picric acid, 
that have deteriorated and could explode if moved. 

Ann Pistell of the DEP, who coordinated the program until it ran 
out of funding this year, recalled finding a container of 
shock-sensitive material in one school "that, had someone moved 
it down the shelf, could have blown up the classroom." 

"There are other materials we've taken out that could have blown 
up more than a classroom," she said. 

Among the most disturbing findings, Pistell says, were old 
lecture bottles of bromine and chlorine - chemicals used to make 
mustard gas - that were tucked away in "a host of schools." 

Had one of the bottles developed a slow leak, it could have 
killed people in the adjoining classroom, she says. A 
catastrophic failure "would have killed instantly a substantial 
number of people in the school," she said. 

The state sponsored a limited school chemical clean-out in the 
1990s, but the program was voluntary and did not include any 
training for teachers. The results of the DEP project, which 
represent just 18 percent of Maine's schools, show there's still 
a lot of work to be done. 

Last year, the state included $500,000 in an environmental bond 
issue to jump-start a system-wide cleanup. That bond failed, but 
the DEP plans to try again this year by proposing another bond 
issue or perhaps a specialized fee, such as a user fee, on 
certain products. 

"We will come up with a funding source somehow for this," DEP 
Commissioner Dawn Gallagher said. 

Gallagher said, however, that doing chemical clean-outs at every 
school that needs it will likely cost much more than $500,000. 

"I think that's only a beginning, frankly," she said. "I think 
it's going to be several million dollars." 

Jon Hinck, toxics project director for the Natural Resources 
Council of Maine, said that seeing the results of the DEP's 
school mercury project "opened our eyes to a pressing issue." 

He said what Pistell found in the 80 schools she's helped so far 
shows "that this really shouldn't be left to languish as we 
sometimes do with policy matters." He said his organization has 
decided to take up the issue immediately and talk to legislators. 
The group also plans to do some direct outreach to schools to 
teach faculty and students about chemical hazards. 


+ The first year of the state's mercury clean-out, contractors 
removed an average of 12 pounds of mercury from each school. In 
order to participate, schools had to agree to send a science 
teacher to a training workshop on chemical management. 

In return, the DEP paid transportation costs, paid for the 
disposal of the mercury, and reimbursed schools the cost of a 
substitute teacher on the day of the training workshop. 

The schools that participated found mercury in old thermometers, 
wall barometers, blood pressure cuffs stored in the school 
nurse's office, and in old bottles of mercuric compounds. At one 
school, elemental mercury sat in an open paper cup, in an 
unventilated room. 

In addition, there were elevated levels of mercury vapors in 
schools where, over the years, mercury had been disposed of by 
pouring it down the sink. 


+ The second year, the program was expanded to include other 
hazardous wastes. Schools were asked to designate at least $500 
to cleaning out the worst materials found in their buildings. 

The change came about because of what Pistell was finding on her 
trips into Maine schools. 

Some schools didn't have acid cabinets, or stored materials next 
to each other inappropriately. In a drawer that hadn't been 
opened in decades, a contractor found bottles of pesticides and 
oils that were at least 30 to 40 years old. The materials had 
historic value, Pistell said, but she couldn't keep them "because 
those were very nasty pesticides - toxic like you wouldn't 
believe." 

In a middle school, she found nitric acid and sulfuric acid 
within 2 feet of a child's desk, unsecured. Another school had 
stored a gas can in an unsecured area of the science room, and in 
the drawer next to it was a stash of matches. 

In one school, Pistell says, there were so many problems she felt 
unsafe just being there, and considered walking out. Acids, which 
can eat through metal, were stored in an unlocked metal cabinet 
in a room that was unlocked. 

"I was afraid everything was going to cascade down on the floor, 
and then they would have had to evacuate the building," she said. 

Michael Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health 
Strategy Center in Bangor, said that old stashes of elemental 
mercury are relatively safe as long as the container is not 
broken. He says he is more concerned about the fire and safety 
hazards, and potential for acute poisonings, posed by the other 
hazardous wastes Pistell found. 

LIMITED BUDGETS 

Why do schools end up with such large stockpiles of chemicals? 
Limited school budgets for hazardous waste disposal and a lack of 
safety training for teachers are a big part of the problem. 

Sometimes schools accept donations of chemicals from industry 
that they don't really need, and those supplies build. Other 
schools have a "spend it or lose it" policy regarding their 
budget, or buy chemicals in bulk to save money. 

That's what happened at Central Aroostook Junior and Senior High 
in Mars Hill. The school first held a massive chemical clean-out 
about eight or nine years ago, at a cost of $8,000, according to 
Roger Shaw, superintendent for the school district. 

When the state offered its free mercury cleanup, the school 
wanted to make sure everything was gone. In the process of 
working with Pistell, the school discovered that it had a much 
larger store of chemicals than it needed. 

"Being a small school, we ordered as economically as we could, 
and sometimes it's easier and cheaper to get a quart than a 
pint," Shaw said. 

The school sent its chemistry teacher to training, and worked 
with a contractor to remove its unnecessary chemicals. It also 
got rid of some radioactive material, and some old fluorescent 
lighting that contained PCBs. Ultimately, there were three 
cleanups at the school during the past 12 months, at a total cost 
of $6,000. 

It was a lot of money for a small school, but Shaw considers it 
money well spent. He believes it sets a good example for the 
students, and actually saves money in the long run. 

"One thing among many that I've learned over the years is that 
you can delay, you can delay, and you can delay, and it ends up 
costing you more," he said. 

EASY TO BACKSLIDE 

The Mars Hill school is not unique. Without regular attention to 
chemical management and training of staff, it's easy to 
backslide. Sometimes, even after a clean-out, a teacher holds 
onto materials that should be removed. 

South Portland schools had already undergone a mercury clean-out 
when, just before school started this year, a science teacher at 
Memorial Middle School discovered a vial of mercury and a broken 
piece of equipment that had mercury in it. 

"We had eliminated mercury, and these were a couple of things 
that had been tucked away somewhere," said Wendy Houlihan, South 
Portland superintendent of schools. 

The vial of mercury was placed in a locked cabinet with other 
chemicals the school earmarked for disposal. All of the chemicals 
were recently removed at a cost of $9,000 to the school. 

Houlihan says the schools are changing the way they do chemical 
management. The high school science teacher has been put in 
charge of chemical hygiene, and chemical hygiene plans for all 
the secondary schools are in development. 

Pistell says she has calculated that some schools have enough 
chemicals on their shelves to last for 100 years, even though 
under Department of Education rules they're only supposed to keep 
a two-year supply. 

Department of Education rules also require that every school have 
a chemical hygiene plan and do an annual chemical inventory, but 
the requirements are not enforced, Pistell says. When she started 
this work two years ago, she found just two schools with a 
chemical hygiene plan, and couldn't find one that had done a 
chemical inventory. 

"If there's ever an accident, the first responders are going to 
want to see what they're dealing with," she said. "You need that 
inventory. It's a requirement of law." 

Dale Siulinski, an industrial hygienist at the Maine Department 
of Labor, conducts workshops with Pistell. He says many school 
employees express concern that if they allow the DEP or his 
agency's inspectors in, they will face fines that will take money 
away from kids' education. 

Just last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined 
Maine's community college system $238,225 for hazardous waste 
violations. The most serious violation, according to EPA 
officials, was at Eastern Maine Community College in Bangor, 
where inspectors found several containers of unstable and 
explosive picric acid near a teaching classroom. 

Siulinski says that in the case of his agency, penalties often 
are not assessed if the school agrees to put the money toward 
chemical disposal. 

"They scream poverty," he said, "but at the same time I think it 
may only be expensive for them now because they've let it go for 
so long." 

SEEKING FUNDING 

Schools nationwide have struggled with this issue, cobbling 
together funding wherever they can for chemical disposal. 

The EPA has provided some limited help in the past through 
education and regional workshops. This year, for the first time, 
the agency is providing a small amount of funding - just $25,000 
per region - to support local clean-out programs. In the 
Northeast, that money already has been awarded to the Rhode 
Island Department of Health, according to Joan Jouzaitis of the 
EPA's regional office in Boston. 

Jouzaitis says states are just starting to use legislation to 
deal with the problem. Last year, for example, Rhode Island 
banned certain chemicals in schools. 

"In Iowa, the insurance provider is partnering with the state 
agency," she said. "They're looking at the angle of decreased 
potential number of incidents, and therefore these are safer 
insurance risks." 

Other states are dealing with the issue through supplemental 
environmental projects in hazardous waste enforcement cases. In 
these cases, a violator pays a partial fine, then the rest of the 
financial penalty goes toward cleaning up a school. 

Here in Maine, more school clean-outs will have to wait until 
state officials figure out how to fund them. 

"I have 20 schools that want to participate that have mercury 
ready to clean out," Pistell said. "I have a long list of people 
from various school districts that have been asking for more 
workshops, and unfortunately, right now I'm saying no." 

Staff Writer Meredith Goad can be contacted at 791 - 6324 or at: 
[mgoad@pressherald.com] 

*****************************************************************
 40 KPHO Phoenix: Company Yields to Neighborhood Pressure, Agrees to Clean-up 
Contamination

October 18, 2004   

UPCO Agrees to Clean Up Contamination   

Phoenix defense manufacturer Goodrich UPCO has agreed to clean up 
contaminated soil and groundwater found at its plant in north 
Phoenix last year. 

That plant is located near Central and Happy Valley Road. 

Well water tested in the area found perchlorates, which are used 
to make explosives. Too much perchlorate can prevent thyroid 
glands from taking up iodide and that could mess up a person's 
metabolism and could cause developmental problems in children. 

It could take months for the company to determine the extent of 
the contamination and to make plans to get rid of it, but the 
agreement for them to clean up the neighborhood is a victory for 
the people who live there. 

Goodrich says they want to continue to operate a safe and 
successful business and continue to be a good, responsible 
corporate citizen. Goodrich, which makes ejectors seats for 
military aircraft, wants to expand its operations in the north 
valley. Some neighbors are skeptical and are already working on 
another campaign to stop that from happening. 

The company's request goes before the Phoenix city council on 
December 15.   

   [http://www.worldnow.com]     All content © Copyright 2001 -
2004 WorldNow and News 5. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 41 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                        FR Doc 04-23235 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61418-61419] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-105]                         
 
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 
154th meeting on October 19-21, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The Working Group Meeting scheduled 
for October 19, 2004 will be held in the NRC Auditorium.
 
The Working Group Chairman will state the Working Group Meeting 
(WGM) objectives and provide a technical session overview.
 
Invited experts will also be introduced at this time. The 
purposes of the WGM are: (1) To develop the information necessary 
to provide a letter report to the Commission; (2) to understand 
the technical bases for the draft June 2004 ICRP recommendations; 
(3) to review these recommendations against current NRC 
regulations and practice; and (4) to identify aspects of the ICRP 
recommendations that may warrant further study.
 
The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, October 19, 
2004--NRC Auditorium 8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The ACNW Chairman will open the meeting with brief 
opening remarks.
 
8:40 a.m.-9:10 a.m.: NRC Staff Overview of June 2004 ICRP 
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will hear a presentation 
and a hold discussion with a representative of the NRC staff 
regarding an overview of the June 2004 draft ICRP 
recommendations.
 
9:10 a.m.-10 a.m.: Biological Aspects of Radiation Protection 
(Open)--The Committee will hear a presentation and hold a 
discussion with an expert familiar with the radiation biology 
foundations of the ICRP recommendations. The emphasis of this 
presentation is on the extension of previous knowledge based on 
ongoing studies of radiation exposure cohorts.
 
10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Update on ICRP Recommendations regarding 
Quantities Used in Radiation Protection (Open)--The Committee 
will hear a presentation and hold a discussion with a 
representative of ORNL regarding radiation and tissue weighting 
factors and applications of factors for external exposure. The 
focus of this presentation will be on the new values derived and 
what has changed significantly since 1990.
 
11:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Public Comments (Open)--Attendees to be 
provided an opportunity to make comments relevant to the purposes 
and objectives of the Working Group.
 
1 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Individual Protection (Selection of 
Constraints) (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations and 
hold discussions with the panel of representatives from the NRC 
staff, EPA, CRCPD and the Mayo Clinic focused on the draft ICRP 
recommendations regarding limits and constraints. This technical 
session will focus on selection of constraints and limits and how 
such selections have been implemented and developed in the 
radiation protection practices in the United States. The thrust 
of this panel will be a discussion as to whether the 2004 draft 
recommendations imply significant change.
 
3 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Public Comments (Open)--Attendees to be 
provided an opportunity to make relevant comments consistent with 
the purposes and objectives of the Working Group.
 
3:45 p.m.-5 p.m.: Optimization of Protection (Open)--The 
Committee will hear presentations and hold discussions with a 
representative of the NRC staff and a member of the ACRS 
regarding the optimization of protection in the June 2004 draft 
ICRP recommendations and how these principles are related to the 
current practices of ALARA in NRC regulated activities.
 
5 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Public Comments (Open)--Attendees to be 
provided an opportunity to make comments relevant to the purposes 
and objectives of the Working Group.
 
5:30 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Closing Comments (Open)--The Working Group 
Chairman will summarize the results of the Working Group and 
discuss possible follow-up activities.
 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10 a.m.-10:05 a.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the 
conduct of today's sessions.
 
10:05 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Update on the Status of the License 
Termination Rule (LTR) (Open)--The Committee will receive an 
update by a representative of the NRC staff on the status of 
activities involving the LTR.
 
1 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Consolidated Issue Resolution Status Report 
(Open)--The Committee will receive an update from a 
representative of the NRC staff on the current status of the 
Consolidated Issue Resolution Status Report.
 
2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: ACNW 2005 Action Plan (Open)--The ACNW 
Committee will continue its discussion of potential topics for 
inclusion in the 2005 Action Plan.
 
Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks 
by the ACNW Chairman (Open)-- The Chairman will make opening 
remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:35 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss potential ACNW reports on matters 
discussed during this meeting. It may also discuss possible 
reports on matters discussed during prior meetings.
 
11:45 a.m.-12 Noon: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities 
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during 
previous meetings, as time and availability of information 
permit.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2003 (68 FR 
59643). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written 
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson, (Telephone 
301-415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. e.t., as far in 
advance as
 
[[Page 61419]] practicable so that appropriate arrangements can 
be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for 
such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television 
cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions 
of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information 
regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be 
obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In 
view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may 
be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the 
conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify 
Mr. Howard J. Larson as to their particular needs. Further 
information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting 
has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the 
time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Howard 
J. Larson.
 
ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are 
available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov 
[pdr@nrc.gov] , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from 
the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's 
document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti 
ons/] (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
 
Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW 
Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 
p.m. e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The 
availability of video teleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
Dated: October 12, 2004.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23235 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 42 Las Vegas SUN: President's daughters make campaign stop in southern Nevada
 
Today: October 18, 2004 at 14:43:36 PDT 
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) - President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna
and Barbara Bush, opened a discussion about their father's
leadership and the role women play in his administration during
a campaign stop Monday in southern Nevada. 

"The key point was the trustworthiness of the president," said
Nevada Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt, a Republican who served as
moderator for an hour-long "W Stands for Women" panel. 

The twins and President Bush's sister, Dorothy Bush Koch, were
joined on the panel by the administration's domestic policy
adviser, Margaret Spellings, Federal Aviation Administration
chief Marion Blakey and Nancy Brinker, former ambassador to
Hungary. 

"The president has proven himself," Hunt said. "He's consistent,
steady and he doesn't deviate from his strategy and beliefs." 

State Democratic party spokesman Jon Summers called the
president "consistently wrong" on issues important to Nevada,
including the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and health
care. 

Monday's event focusing on women's issues drew about 70 people
to a recreation center in Henderson, said Tracey Schmidt, a Bush
campaign spokeswoman. 

After the stop, the panelists headed to Beaverton, Ore., for a
similar event. 

--- 

On the Net: 

Bush campaign: http://www.georgewbush.com
[http://www.georgewbush.com] 

Kerry campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com
[http://www.johnkerry.com] 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 43 chillicothegazette.com: Kerry speaks of Piketon plant, national security -
 
Sunday, October 17, 2004   

 On the road again: The Kerry interview

 By DANIEL PRAZER Gazette Staff Writer 
  
After Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry bought a 
hunting license in Buchanan, I was one of three reporters who 
were allowed to move from one of many press buses to John Kerry's 
coach. 

Kerry walked onto the bus and threw his license on the table. "A 
$140 duck," he said, joking about his trip to hunt duck next week 
in northern Ohio, then sat down with us to talk about his plans 
for America. 

The following are the questions I asked Kerry. The questions and 
responses are edited only for clarity and space. To read the 
transcript of the full 23-minute interview, go to 
www.chillicothegazette.com [http://www.chillicothegazette.com] 
and click on the "Election 2004" logo. 

Prazer: We're going down toward the uranium enrichment plant. 

Kerry: Piketon. 

Prazer: You've pledged your support as far as making sure that 
gets funded, but for the people who have already been laid off, 
how does the work force transition fit into that. It hasn't been 
fully funded as much as -- 

Kerry: I'm for fully funding it. Bush promised to and didn't. I 
mean here's another broken promise. How many broken promises do 
you need to have before people begin to say something's wrong 
here? Bush promised he wasn't going to create a deficit. He did. 
He promised he wasn't going to cut into Social Security. He did. 
He promised he was going to fund No Child Left Behind. He didn't. 
He promised that he was going to plan carefully and have allies 
at our side in Iraq. He didn't. And he promised Piketon he was 
going to provide the money for the enrichment conversion as well 
as for the legacy costs, and he hasn't. How many times do you 
have to have a broken promise? 

I don't know. Look. I wrote a long letter to Congressman (Ted) 
Strickland (D-Lisbon) in which I laid out precisely what my plans 
are. And anybody who knows me in Congress knows when I said I'm 
going to do something, I do it. My word is good. We're going to 
fund the enrichment conversion component, the hexaflouride piece. 
We're going to fund the transitional cost for the work, etc., and 
the construction of the new facility. We have to do that. 

Prazer: There's a competing firm now trying to put a similar 
facility in New Mexico right now. With the two companies 
competing, do you have a sense on how that fits into the Megatons 
to Megawatts program, bringing in the highly enriched uranium, in 
from Russia, and downblending it? 

Kerry: I can't tell you precisely what the demand side on that 
is, relative to the Russian piece. I would assume, because the 
Bush plans are currently to contain the Russian material and 
process it over 13 years, my plan is to do it over four years, 
which means we're going to be greatly accelerating the need and 
demand. 

So before we deal with the new plant, we've got a facility here 
that's already got the issues of cleanup, contamination, etc. 
It's got a promise of a new facility, and I'm going to keep that 
promise. 

Prazer: How does that fit into the national security? You've 
mentioned a lot of times you think the greatest threat is -- 

Kerry: I think it's critical, absolutely critical, and I'm going 
to spare no effort and no dollar to make sure we secure nuclear 
material as fast as possible. I think it is, as I said in the 
debate, it's the most serious security problem we face, is the 
potential of weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong 
hands. And the fastest, (former Sen. Sam) Nunn (D-Georgia) and 
(Sen. Richard) Lugar (R-Indiana) put together the Nunn-Lugar 
threat reduction plan. Bush has underfunded it. I mean, ask them 
how frustrated they are. We could have been containing these 
materials over the last few years. Do you know that less loose 
fissionable material has been contained in Russia in the two 
years after 9/11 than in the two years before 9/11? Just to tell 
you how unserious this administration has been. We've got to get 
to work, folks. We've got to get serious here. We've got to put 
somebody in charge who knows how to have accountability and get 
the job done. 

Originally published Sunday, October 17, 2004
*****************************************************************
 44 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: I-297 would restrict new Hanford waste
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com]     


Monday, October 18, 2004 

 Backers seek thorough cleanup; foes call proposal 'unnecessary' 

By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Supporters of Initiative 297 state their case simply: Nuclear 
waste is bad, and it's really bad to have it leaking into the 
soil and groundwater near the state's largest river. 

If passed by a majority of voters, I-297 will stop the federal 
government from importing and dumping new radioactive and 
chemically dangerous waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation 
until existing messes are cleaned up. 

The measure on the Nov. 2 ballot also includes rules to prevent 
the government from ducking the thorough cleanup of giant 
underground waste tanks that have leaked harmful chemicals into 
the ground at the sprawling Eastern Washington site. 

"It's in everyone's interest to do more cleanup, as the 
initiative would ensure," said Gerald Pollet, executive director 
of the Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest and 
leader of the Yes on I-297 campaign. 

Opponents say regulators already have the authority to control 
the waste dumping -- and lately they've been more aggressive 
about asserting their power. Over the past two years, the state 
Ecology Department has issued orders and slapped the federal 
government with a $270,000 fine for sloppy waste-handling 
practices. 

The law would be redundant, spurring costly court challenges, 
critics say, and accomplish little beyond providing employment 
for nuclear cleanup advocates. 

They accuse I-297 supporters of taking a hard-line, 
one-size-fits-all approach to cleanup, despite the fact that the 
waste at Hanford is not uniformly dangerous. 

"This is an unnecessary law," said Wanda Munn, a retired Hanford 
engineer and critic of the measure. "Most thinking people are 
concerned about the number of laws we have because it makes 
government so cumbersome." 

"It's a troubling initiative," said another I-297 opponent, 
Michael Fox, a nuclear scientist from Richland. "These people 
have made a living scaring the hell out of the public." 



    
    

State officials already are in the midst of a legal battle with 
the U.S. Department of Energy, the agency in charge of the 
Hanford cleanup, challenging the shipment of waste to the site 
and the underlying decision that Hanford is a suitable location 
as the final resting place for thousands of truckloads of garbage 
from cleanup projects nationwide. 

And the Energy Department has already started retrieving some of 
the waste buried in unlined, dirt burial grounds. 

The initiative takes the added step of linking cleanup of buried 
waste with the importing of dangerous trash -- a connection that 
Attorney General Christine Gregoire, a candidate for governor, 
said she supported last summer. 

"There should be no more shipments to Hanford until waste 
improperly stored at the site is cleaned up," Gregoire said in 
June. 

Her office is handling the waste-related lawsuit with the Energy 
Department and she has not expressed an opinion on I-297. 

The initiative also addresses the 177 underground tanks holding 
millions of gallons of radioactive material left over from 
plutonium production at Hanford, dating from World War II to the 
end of the Cold War. The Energy Department is still determining 
how much waste will be removed from the tanks and how the 
surrounding soil -- 67 of the tanks have leaked up to 1.5 million 
gallons of waste -- will be cleaned. 

Watchdog groups are concerned by efforts to reclassify some of 
the waste, lowering the cleanup standards. The department has 
also hinted at leaving more waste in the tanks than was 
originally planned. 

A $2 billion-a-year cleanup under way at Hanford has involved 
sending nuclear waste to a facility in New Mexico. In return, 
Hanford has received trash from other Energy Department cleanup 
projects. The out-of-state waste includes radioactive and 
chemically dangerous waste -- referred to as mixed low-level 
waste. 

Opponents of I-297 argue that prohibiting that waste from coming 
in could jeopardize the ability to rid Hanford of its demons. 

The initiative also would: 


+ Ban the use of unlined trenches for waste burial (a practice 
the Energy Department stopped last summer at Hanford). 


+ Require groundwater monitoring near existing unlined trenches. 


+ Create public advisory boards with representation from tribes, 
health and environmental groups and local governments. 


+ Allow civil suits to be filed to force compliance with the 
initiative. 


+ Require waste sites to disclose projected cleanup and disposal 
costs, and budget requests and appropriations. 

The Yes on I-297 campaign has raised $685,000 in cash and in-kind 
donations, with more than $600,000 of that coming from Heart of 
America Northwest. 

There is no organized opposition campaign. 

Munn questions I-297's requirement for advisory boards, calling 
it "a lifetime employment guarantee for a wide range of people." 

Supporters counter that the existing Hanford Advisory Board, a 
diverse group that oversees all aspects of cleanup, would satisfy 
the requirement. Pollet is on the board; Munn is an alternate. 
P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or 
lisastiffler@seattlepi.com. 

  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
*****************************************************************
 45 Seattle Times: Opinion: Hanford cleanup effort shows Gregoire's persistent side
 	
Monday, October 18, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
 			 			 			 			
Kate Riley / Times staff columnist

Seattle Times editorial columnist [kriley@seattletimes.com]                               
     
Gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire is known as a 
scrapper, never shying away from taking to court those who 
victimize the public — whether energy market manipulators, 
pyramid schemers or identity thieves. 

While Gregoire might have been the state's top lawyer for 12 
years, she does have a reputation for collaboration even with her 
foes. Yes, she is known nationwide as the lead attorney general 
on the landmark multi-state tobacco lawsuit yielding about $4.5 
billion for Washington. How about that? New revenue without a tax 
increase. 

But a decision she made years ago not to litigate can be linked 
to another major Gregoire achievement: a landmark agreement with 
the federal government to clean up the Hanford nuclear 
reservation in south-central Washington. 

Now before your eyes glaze over at the mention of the most 
daunting environmental cleanup effort in the nation, consider 
that the two candidates vying to succeed Gregoire as attorney 
general both cite continuing her Hanford vigilance as a top 
priority. 

Gregoire's role has been monumental. Fifteen years ago, Gregoire 
was the state's ecology director trying to find a way to ensure 
the Department of Energy would clean up the nation's nuclear 
defense waste that accumulated at Hanford over 45 years. 

Her federal sparring partner was then-Hanford manager Mike 
Lawrence. As the Energy Department was shutting down the last of 
Hanford's defense reactors, he remembers a critical meeting in 
1988 with Gregoire and then-Gov. Booth Gardner. The state was 
considering a "friendly lawsuit" to give cleanup negotiations 
with the feds the force of the courts. Lawrence warned the 
federal government would likely consider such a lawsuit anything 
but friendly, fight it and turn off money for cleanup. 

Gregoire conceded his point and began working with him on an 
agreement between the state, the Energy Department and the 
federal Environmental Protection Agency. The Tri-Party Agreement, 
signed May 15, 1989, was a landmark and became a model for 
agreements at other nuclear sites. 

"If she had pushed the lawsuit, we would have lost years on the 
cleanup," Lawrence says. "There were good days and bad days (in 
the negotiations), but she always listened and was fair and 
reasonable." 

The result was a durable but flexible tool the state has used to 
prod the feds. Cleanup has been fraught with difficulty, 
technological challenges and sometimes federal defiance. But 
construction of a plant to turn the nuclear waste into stable 
glass logs — something Gregoire sought 15 years ago — is well 
under way. 

Gregoire lowers the boom when she needs to. Six years ago, she 
sued the Clinton administration when the Energy Department failed 
to begin pumping liquid radioactive waste out of 149 aging 
single-shell tanks, some of which were leaking. Within months, 
Gregoire had a federal agreement with quantifiable deadlines for 
when the waste would be pumped into safer, double-shell tanks. 

But more significantly, Gregoire returned to Hanford recently for 
a celebration of the fruits of that legal dustup. All of the 
pumpable waste — about 3 million gallons — is now in safer 
keeping. 

The friendliness of the federal-state celebration in August is 
not lost on Lawrence, who left the Energy Department in 1990. 
"That the regulated and the regulators can come together to 
celebrate meeting that milestone is a real achievement." 

The work at Hanford is far from over. The Bush administration has 
been particularly defiant, and Gregoire is in court on another 
important issue. 

No question her opponent, former state Sen. Dino Rossi, shares 
Gregoire's high standards for cleanup. But in a Times interview, 
he suggested his friendly relationship with the Bush 
administration might actually advance Hanford cleanup. True 
enough, Bush and Rossi are on a first-name basis. But I'm 
skeptical Bush would halt Energy's increasing attempts to 
unilaterally lessen cleanup obligations, based on friendship. 

Case in point: At the administration's behest, the 
Republican-controlled Congress just approved legislation 
permitting the Energy Department to leave radioactive sludge in 
underground tanks at South Carolina and Idaho sites rather than 
clean it up. And the governors of both those states are 
Republican, like Rossi. 

There has been talk the feds might try the same thing at Hanford, 
too. Because of her history of success and persistence on 
Hanford's case, a Gov. Gregoire would be a formidable foe. 

Kate Riley's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The 
Times. Her e-mail address is 

[http://www.seattletimes.com/stop] 

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
 46 Tri-City Herald: Opinions U.S. Senate: Murray 

This story was published Sunday, October 17th, 2004 

Republican George Nethercutt says it's time to elect a U.S. 
senator from Eastern Washington. 

In our minds, we already have one. We think she ought to be 
re-elected to a third term. 

It's not her east-side roots that give Democratic Sen. Patty 
Murray claim to this part of the state, but her record of serving 
Mid-Columbia interests during 12 years in the Senate. 

That's not to say she doesn't have ties to this side of the 
Cascades. She does -- college at Washington State University in 
Pullman, summer job at Sacajawea State Park in Pasco, and a 
family history that first intersected with Washington when her 
grandfather moved to Kennewick in 1916. 

But we're more impressed with Murray's efforts in the other 
Washington, where she's proved an able senator for our half of 
the state. 

That's meant fighting for adequate funding for Hanford cleanup, 
blocking the Veterans Affairs' attempt to close its facility in 
Walla Walla, working to bring the HAMMER training facility to 
Richland, securing funds for the Hanford Reach Interpretive 
Center and more. 

Yes, she was born in Bothel and has a west-side Democrat's 
sensibilities that don't always mesh with the more conservative 
voters who populate our region. 

But when it comes to what's best for Washington, Murray's clear 
about where she stands. 

That independence is demonstrated in her willingness to reach 
across the aisle and work with U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings on issues 
critical to the Mid-Columbia, such as extending the schedule for 
moving Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers out of 
Hanford's 300 Area. 

We see that independent streak in Murray's support for a nuclear 
waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. She ends up bucking 
environmentalists and national Democratic leaders on that issue 
because the national dump is critical to Hanford cleanup. 

Nethercutt's ideology is more in sync with the core beliefs of 
Eastern Washington, but there is much convenience to his views 
and not enough pragmatism. 

We're uncomfortable about which side he'll chose when what's 
right for Washington is at odds with Republican Party leaders. 
Besides, we can't help but be skeptical about his adherence to 
the values he espouses. 

When conservatives were battling an entrenched congressional 
delegation, Nethercutt was all about term limits. He's since 
reformed his views on the issue. And now that trial lawyers are 
the new bogeyman, Nethercutt describes himself as a "reformed" 
lawyer. 

Contrasted with Murray's consistent support for the programs and 
issues important to the Mid-Columbia's future, it's no contest. 

The Herald editorial board recommends voters return Patty Murray 
to the U.S. Senate. 

© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 47 C&EN: Radioactive Waste To Be Left In Tanks
      
[The Newsmagazine of the Chemical World] 

October 18, Volume 82, Number 42 p. 12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 										     										   											 												
REMEDIATION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Radioactive Waste To Be
Left In Tanks 										   										      									 									
 										     										  
[http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biojwj.html] >                                                                                     
										     									 									
Congress has given the  [http://www.energy.gov] the go-ahead to 
leave some high-level radioactive waste in huge underground tanks 
at contaminated former nuclear weapons sites in South Carolina 
and Idaho.                                                                                     

The provision, included in the defense authorization bill, 
redefines the radioactive tank sludge remaining after high-level 
radioactive liquid wastes are removed in those two states. The 
waste sludge need no longer be vitrified and buried in a 
repository, like high-level radioactive waste.                                                                                  

DOE pushed for the provision after losing a court case when it 
proposed covering the waste in grout and leaving it in the tanks 
to speed cleanups and lower costs. Although small in volume, the 
sludge is highly radioactive, say opponents voicing concerns 
about groundwater contamination. When DOE lost in court to the 
[http://www.nrdc.org/] , which was supported by South Carolina, 
Washington state, and Idaho, the department turned to Congress to 
modify the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.                                                                                         

In all, DOE oversees 100 million gal of radioactive waste in 250 
underground tanks at DOE sites in Washington, South Carolina, 
Idaho, and New York.                                                                                    

The provision does not apply to the largest tank location, DOE's 
Hanford Site in Washington, whose congressional delegation 
opposed the measure. South Carolina officials were split.
											

The effort to modify the law was led by Sen. 
[http://lgraham.senate.gov/] (R-S.C.). Rep. 
[http://www.house.gov/spratt/] (D-S.C.) directed the opposition. 
Spratt added provisions requiring  [http://www.nrc.gov/] 
oversight and a  [http://www.nas.edu/] study.                                                                             
										      									 									
Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2004                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

*****************************************************************
 48 Rocky Mountain News: Flats deer hunt raises concerns

Two animals test positive for traces of radioactive elements

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News October 18, 2004

To eat or not to eat - that is the question hunters may face one 
day if they are allowed to hunt deer at the Rocky Flats National 
Wildlife Refuge. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering a controlled 
hunt for youth hunters and disabled adults a few weekends a year 
to help manage the number of deer on the 6,500-acre former 
nuclear weapons plant, south of Boulder. 

 Mark Sattelberg, a senior contaminants biologist for the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service at Rocky Flats, said last week that 
there are about 140 mule deer and 12 white-tails that permanently 
stay on the site. 

To ensure that eating venison from the site would be safe, the 
service randomly culled 26 deer from the buffer zone around the 
weapons production area earlier this year. Tests were conducted 
for radioactive contaminations in the livers, kidneys, muscle, 
lungs and bones, Sattelberg said. 

"Twenty-four came back clean, but we found trace levels of 
americium and uranium in two of the animals," he said. Both 
uranium and americium are radioactive elements. 

"People rarely eat the kidneys, but they might eat the liver," 
Sattelberg said. "We also checked all of the animals for chronic 
wasting disease, and they were negative." 

For Erin Hamby, coordinator of the Rocky Flats Collective of the 
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center in Boulder, no risk is 
worth it. 

"Any amount of radiation is dangerous, and since the scientists 
can't say there is 'no harm,' they say it is 'low risk,' " Hamby 
said. 

"Even at extremely low levels, one microscopic speck of 
radioactive material could be dangerous . . . the standards are 
set for average, healthy, adult males, and this program would be 
set for vulnerable people." 

Sattelberg said it will be sometime around 2012 before the ground 
will be turned over for a wildlife refuge and paths and other 
improvements can be made. 

"Once that is done and people are allowed in, any hunt with 
probably be archery or use of shotguns only, and conducted on 
weekends when the general public would not be allowed in," he 
said. 

gerhardtg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5202 

*****************************************************************
 49 DOE: International Energy Agency Meetings
 
                        FR Doc 04-23228 
[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)] 
[Notices] [Page 61358-61360] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18oc04-39]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
 
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International 
Energy Agency (IEA) will meet during the week of October 25-29, 
2004, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France in 
connection with a Training Session for new Standing Group on 
Emergency Questions (SEQ) Participants and Selected non-IEA 
Member Countries, a Non-Member Countries Disruption Simulation 
Exercise, a meeting of key participants in a Disruption 
Simulation Exercise (ERE3), ERE3, and a meeting of the SEQ.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant 
General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585, 202-586- 6738.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 
252(c)(1)(A)(I) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(I)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings 
is provided: A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to 
the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the 
headquarters of the IEA, 9 rue de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration, 
Paris, France, commencing on October 25, 2004, at 2:15 p.m.. The 
purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives 
of U.S. company members of the IAB at: (1) The IEA's Training 
Session for New Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) 
Participants and Selected IEA Non-Member Countries to be held on 
October 25, 2004, commencing at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of the 
meeting is to educate new delegates to the IEA's SEQ and 
representatives of selected IEA non-Member countries about the 
IEA and its emergency response procedures.
 
(2) The IEA's Non-Member Countries Disruption Simulation Exercise 
to be held on October 26, 2004, beginning at 9 a.m. and 
concluding at 3 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to 
familiarize and train delegates from countries that are not IEA 
Members in IEA emergency response procedures by reacting to a 
hypothetical oil supply disruption scenario.
 
(3) A meeting with key participants in the IEA's Disruption 
Simulation Exercise to be held on October 26, 2004, from 
approximately 4:30-6 p.m. The purpose of this preparatory meeting 
is to familiarize key participants in ERE3 with the IEA, the 
purpose and objectives of ERE3, and their roles in the exercise.
 
(4) The IEA's Disruption Simulation Exercise (ERE3) to be held on 
October 27-28, 2004, commencing at 9 a.m. on October 27 and again 
at 9 a.m. on October 28. The purpose of ERE3 is to train IEA 
government delegates in the use of IEA emergency response 
procedures by reacting to a hypothetical oil supply disruption 
scenario. The purpose of the IAB meeting is to collect the 
reactions and assessments of IAB participants in ERE3, in 
preparation for the IAB Chairman's report on ERE3 to the IEA's 
SEQ meeting on October 29, 2004.
 
(5) A meeting of the IAB to be held on October 29, 2004, 
commencing at 9 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit 
attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB 
at a meeting of the IEA's SEQ at the same time and location.
 
I. Training Session for New SEQ Participants and Selected IEA 
Non- Member Countries (Monday, October 25, 2004, 2:15 p.m.) The 
Agenda for the meeting is under the control of the IEA.
 
It is expected that the IEA will adopt the following Agenda: 1. 
Welcome to the IEA. 2. Opening Session Address. 3. Introduction 
to the IEA Emergency Policies and Objectives. 4. How the Global 
Oil Market Works. 5. IEA Energy Statistics and Oil Data Systems. 
6. IEA Emergency System, Procedures and Measures. 7. The Role of 
Industry in the IEA Emergency Planning and Procedures.
 
8. The Emergency Response Oil Disruption Simulation Exercise. 9. 
Closing Remarks. II. IEA Non-Member Countries Disruption 
Simulation Exercise (Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 9 a.m.-3 p.m.) 
The Agenda for the meeting is under the control of the IEA.
 
While the meeting is anticipated to involve break-out sessions, 
the individual subgroups will not include multiple IAB or 
Reporting Company representatives. It is expected that the IEA 
will adopt the following Agenda: 1. Plenary Session I Welcome 
Address by the IEA Deputy Executive Director.
 
Introduction by the SEQ Chairman.
 
Introduction of Simulation and Logistics of the Exercise by the 
Head of the IEA's Emergency Planning and Preparedness Division.
 
Rules are defined and simulation is initiated by the exercise 
Facilitator.
 
2. Break-Out Groups Session Discuss specific questions on market 
analysis.
 
Role of governments during an oil supply disruption.
 
Discuss what actions, if any, should be taken.
 
3. Plenary Session II Presentation of the Break-Out Group 
Discussions.
 
 
[[Page 61359]] Reactions from the IEA Experts on Fundamentals and 
Possible Media Reaction.
 
Discussion of the Impacts of Actions taken by Governments on the 
Market.
 
Facilitator's Summary of the Key Conclusions.
 
4. Plenary Session III Open discussion--Critique and Conclusions 
Drawn from the Exercise.
 
Chairman's Summary of the Exercise, Conclusions, and 
Recommendations.
 
III. Meeting of Key Participants in ERE3 (Tuesday, October 26, 
2004, approximately 4:30-6 p.m.) The Agenda for the meeting is 
under the control of the IEA.
 
It is anticipated that the Agenda will consist of a review of the 
ERE3 schedule and briefings on the anticipated roles to be played 
in the exercise by key participants, e.g., those representing the 
media, producing countries, and the oil market.
 
IV.A IEA Industry Advisory Board Meeting (Thursday, October 28, 
2004, following the conclusion of ERE3) The Agenda for the IAB 
meeting is as follows: 1. Welcome, Review of Agenda, and 
Introductions. 2. Review of ERE3. 3. Update on Expiration of 
European Community Exemption for IAB Activities.
 
4. Closing and Review of Meetings of Interest to IAB Members. 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) International Stockholding 
Conference, November 29-December 2, 2004, Houston, TX.
 
SEQ and IAB Meeting, March 15-17, 2005, Paris.
 
SEQ and IAB Meeting, June 21-22, 2005, Paris.
 
SEQ and IAB Meeting, November 15-17, 2005, Paris.
 
IV.B IEA Disruption Simulation Exercise (ERE3) (Wednesday October 
27, 2004-Thursday October 28, 2004) The Agenda for ERE3 is under 
the control of the IEA. While ERE3 will involve break-out 
sessions, the individual subgroups will not include multiple IAB 
or Reporting Company representatives. It is expected that the IEA 
will adopt the following Agenda: Stage 1. October 27 morning 1. 
Plenary Session Welcome Address by the IEA Deputy Executive 
Director.
 
Introduction by the SEQ Chairman.
 
Introduction of the Logistics of the Exercise by the Head of the 
IEA's Emergency Planning and Preparedness Division.
 
Exercise Starts.
 
Rules are defined by the exercise Facilitator.
 
Stage 1 event is presented.
 
Brief analysis of market impact by the IEA.
 
2. Break-Out Groups Session Respond to specific questions on 
market analysis and IEA decision-making.
 
Role of governments during an oil supply disruption.
 
Discuss what actions, if any, should be taken.
 
3. Plenary Session Presentation of the Break-Out Group 
Discussions.
 
Presentation of team reports.
 
Reactions of the Market Group, Producers Group, and Media Group.
 
Discussion of the recommendations.
 
Discussion of the impacts of actions taken by governments on the 
market.
 
Facilitator's summary of Stage 1 session.
 
Stage 2. October 27 afternoon 1. Plenary Session Introduction by 
the SEQ Chairman.
 
Exercise initiated by the Facilitator.
 
Stage 2 event is presented.
 
Brief analysis of market impact by the IEA.
 
2. Break-Out Groups Session Respond to specific questions on 
market analysis and IEA decision-making.
 
Role of governments during an oil supply disruption.
 
Discuss what actions, if any, should be taken.
 
3. Plenary Session Presentation of the Break-Out Group 
Discussions.
 
Presentation of team reports.
 
Reactions of the Market Group, Producers Group, and Media Group.
 
Discussion of the recommendations.
 
Discussion of the impacts of actions taken by governments on the 
market.
 
Facilitator's summary of Stage 2 session.
 
SEQ Chairman's summary of the day.
 
Stage 3. October 28 1. Plenary Session Introduction by the SEQ 
Chairman.
 
Exercise initiated by the Facilitator.
 
Stage 3 event is presented.
 
Brief analysis of market impact by the IEA.
 
2. Break-Out Groups Session. Respond to specific questions on 
market analysis and IEA decision-making.
 
Role of governments during an oil supply disruption.
 
Discuss what actions, if any, should be taken.
 
3. Plenary Session Presentation of the Break-Out Group 
Discussions.
 
Presentation of team reports.
 
Reactions of the Market Group, Producers Group, and Media Group.
 
Discussion of the recommendations.
 
Discussion of the impacts of actions taken by governments on the 
market.
 
Facilitator's summary of Stage 2 session.
 
4. Plenary Session--Critique and Conclusions Presentation by the 
Facilitator of the initial assessments of the exercise.
 
Initial conclusions by the Market Group, Producers Group, and 
Media Group.
 
Discussion of the types and magnitudes of the recommended 
responses.
 
Discussion of the decision-making process.
 
Chairman's initial summary of the exercise and recommendations.
 
V. Standing Group on Emergency Questions Meeting (Friday, October 
29, 2004, 9 a.m.) The Agenda of the meeting is under the control 
of the SEQ.
 
It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda: 1. 
Adoption of the Agenda. 2. Approval of the Summary Record of the 
111th Meeting. 3. Program of Work. --The SEQ Program of Work for 
2005-2006.
 
4. Update on Compliance with International Energy Program 
Stockholding Commitments.
 
--Reports by Non-Complying Member Countries.
 
5. The Current Oil Market Situation and Emergency Preparedness.
 
--Discussion of Present Oil Market and Emergency Preparedness.
 
6. Emergency Response Exercise 3. --Results of the Exercise in 
Capitals.
 
--Summary and Preliminary Conclusions of the Third Emergency 
Response Simulation Exercise.
 
7. Report on Current Activities of the IAB. 8. Policy and Other 
Developments in Member Countries.
 
[[Page 61360]] --Reporting Member Country Developments to the IA 
Secretariat.
 
9. Emergency Response Activities. --Report on Preparations for 
the Upcoming MOS/JODI Meeting of Statisticians and Data Contacts.
 
--Progress Report on the Proposed MOS Addendum on Bilateral Stock 
Tickets.
 
--Oil Demand Restraint in the Transport Sector: An Analysis of 
Potential Fuel Savings.
 
10. Activities with Non-Member Countries and International 
Organizations.
 
--Participation of Non-Member Countries in ERE3 Training and 
Simulation Exercise.
 
--Report on ZORD Conference on Compulsory Oil Stocks.
 
--Situation and Developing Capabilities in Southeast Europe, 
Slovenia, Sept. 2004. --Report on KZZZ Conference on Extended 
European Union-extended Security, Budapest, November 3-5, 2004.
 
11. Other Documents for Information. --Emergency Reserve 
Situation of IEA Member Countries on July 1, 2004.
 
--Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on July 
1, 2004.
 
--Monthly Oil Statistics: July 2004.
 
--Base Period Final Consumption: 3Q2003-2Q2004.
 
--Quarterly Oil Forecast.
 
--Update of Emergency Contacts List.
 
12. Other Business. --ERE3 Exercise with Governing Board, 
December 7, 2004.
 
--Dates of Next Meetings.
 
--March 15-17, 2005.
 
--June 21-22, 2005.
 
--November 15-17, 2005.
 
--Changes in the Secretariat and Delegations.
 
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of 
the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and 
their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's SEQ; 
representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, 
the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, 
Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and 
invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, October 12, 2004.
 
Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International 
and National Security Programs.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23228 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 50 [du-list] DU in the news 19th Oct 04
 
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:39:56 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

 >
 > BBC News, Mon, 18 Oct 2004 5:30 AM PDT
 > War syndrome 'will not be solved'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/public/-/1/hi/health/3753132.stm
 > Experts say the causes of 'Gulf war syndrome' will probably never be
known.
 >
 > PRWeb, Mon, 18 Oct 2004 0:09 AM PDT
 > DanceswithBulls.com Highlights Nuclear Solutions Inc.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/10/prwebxml168337.php
 > Important Events that will bring considerable market recognition to
Nuclear Solutions Inc. - NSOL.OB [PRWEB Oct 18, 2004]
 >
 > See more news stories that match your keyword at:
 > http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=depleted+uranium
 >




------------------------ 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>
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************