*****************************************************************
10/22/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.253
*****************************************************************
   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 MENAFN: Iraq war junk gets dumped in India.  
2 UK Independent: reveals how the Prime Minister's 'highly personalise
3 Persian Journal: The future of the nuclear talks with Iran 
4 Persian Journal: "The Game" that Iran mullahs love to play 
5 Las Vegas SUN: U.S. Aims to Revive N. Korea Nuke Talks
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North Korea sets out 3 demands for talks
7 Xinhuanet: US claims to be ready for early six-party talks   
8 US: State Dept: No Direct Bargaining with North Korea, Powell Says
9 AFP: North Korea eases tough stance against US in nuclear talks
10 US: [du-list] Moving Hill  and  "radioactive vulcanoes" - Bush
11 UN Nuclear Agency Warns That Computer System Is Out Of Date
12 Guardian Unlimited: Brazil Reacts Angrily to Report on Nukes
13 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear options
14 UK Independent: We must, with regret, accept Hugh Montefiore's resig
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 US: NRC: Connecticut Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant, Exempt
16 UK Herald: BE delists ahead of today’s meeting   
17 The Herald: Nuclear body sets up in Highlands   
18 Bellona: Cracked reactor lid not to hinder lifetime extension of rea
19 Deutsche Welle: France Forges Ahead with Nuclear Power 
20 US: TheChamplainChannel.com: Public Hearing Sought On Vermont Yankee
21 Guardian Unlimited: EDF to build nuclear prototype
22 National Post: N.B. nuclear plant back in operation following unplan
23 ThisisLondon: British Energy 'will meet deadline' 
24 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy mutiny fails
25 AFP: Portugal mulls nuclear energy to reduce oil dependence: report
26 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meet
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
27 [DU-WATCH] depleted uranium
28 [du-list] 109 italian soldiers dead so far from du in iraq
29 Bellona: “Harmless amounts of plutonium” seized in Kyrgyzstan
30 Bellona: Russian Audit Chamber to make extra audit of Murmansk 
31 Bellona: Canada to help Zvezdochka shipyard to dismantle submarines,
32 Xinhuanet: Russia denies reported lease of nuclear submarine to Indi
33 US: Cincinnati Enquirer: Will they be paid before they die? 
34 US: amarillo.com: Radiation workshop planned for teachers 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
35 [NukeNet] Radioactive Volcanoes At Yucca Mt?
36 Arizona Republic: Federal facility boon for EV firm
37 US: AP Wire: L.A. and environmentalists sue over nuclear cleanup
38 Japan Times: Atomic commission votes to continue policy of reprocess
39 US: AO: Company plans bid for storage of federal uranium waste
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
40 SU: U.N. nuclear watchdog leader ElBaradei to speak about nonprolife
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
41 Hanford Radwaste Initiative
42 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
43 The Daily Californian: Responses on Lab Bidding Differ - 
44 DOE: Communication, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
45 [du-list] DU in the news - 22nd Oct 04
46 [du-list] DU in the news - 22 Oct.04  (Part Deux,  ex. yahoo,
47 DN: Couple has traveled widely to amass samples from hydrogen to ura
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 MENAFN: Iraq war junk gets dumped in India.  

Middle East North Africa . Financial Network
 
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:49:16 PM EST 

By INDRAJIT BASU, UPI Business Correspondent 

CALCUTTA, India, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Sept. 30 was just another day 
for Santosh Khushwaha and Lal Chand, two metal scrap melting 
workers at Bhushan Steel, a medium-sized steel products maker 
near Delhi in India. Till about afternoon that is, after which 
both their lives changed forever. 

A loud explosion in the scrap yard they were working knocked them 
unconscious and when they woke up they found themselves in a 
hospital with pieces of shrapnel in their bodies. Ten others in 
the same scrap yard were killed by the explosion with eight dying 
on the spot, not knowing what hit them. Another 11 sustained 
injuries, which later proved fatal for two. 

Although in a poor country like India such incidents hardly 
attract the kind of uproar this one did -- because hundreds die 
every year from similar industrial accidents that go unnoticed -- 
this incident let lose a wave of panic. That's because the hunt 
for reason behind this blast led to a startling revelation; the 
blast was not an ordinary industrial mishap but was caused by an 
exploding shell while handling a consignment of imported scrap of 
war junks. 

Perennially starved of feed stock, Indian steel mills have found 
plenty of cheap fodder in Iraqi war junk. But along with mangled 
pipes and twisted rods, India has also become the favorite 
dumping ground for dangerous war debris. 

Subsequent investigations also revealed the extent of such 
imports, which is clear from the fact that a dozen projectiles or 
shells were found dumped by the roadside of a highway near Delhi. 
Many more were recovered from various other parts of the country, 
which was a result of illegal importers getting rid of such 
debris following a police crackdown. 

The ammunition in scrap has its roots in the industry's 
insatiable demand for steel. The Indian steel industry can be 
divided into two basic categories: integrated big factories and 
small steel factories. It is the latter that depend heavily on 
scrap for their feed stock. 

Currently, three largest steel plants have a capacity to produce 
over 20 million tons a year, while 200 odd smaller steel 
factories command a further 15 million tons. In about 10 years 
India is projected to build up a steelmaking capacity of about 90 
million tons. 

Nevertheless, with more than 2 million tons likely to be imported 
this year alone, India is no stranger to scrap imports -- nor to 
explosive scrap, for that matter. A cache of explosive scrap from 
Iraq was confiscated in 1995. Between 1995 and 2001 several other 
consignments have been detected from countries such as Somalia 
and Iran. 

But over the past year, two things happened that changed the way 
the scrap business is conducted, making the entire process much 
more incendiary. One, the price of scrap increased dramatically 
because of high demand, to $240 to $250 per ton against the $100 
level a year ago. Second, the war in Iraq made available a whole 
lot of junk that could be accessed at much cheaper rates than the 
skyrocketing prices of conventional junk. 

"Loose metal scrap is one-fourth the price of processed scrap and 
that is why India has emerged as one of the favorite 
destinations," said Siddarth Kak, of Central Board of Excise 
Customs. 

Which is why, say industry sources, although the provisional 
authority in Iraq imposed restrictions on scrap exports this 
year, traders have carried on, taking advantage of the lack of 
security in India. They add that since such imports are, as a 
rule, not permitted from war-ravaged countries such as Iraq, 
imports follow a circuitous route: scrap is first bought in bulk 
by dealers who take them to dumping yards of Dubai and Iran 
before exporting them to the country. All it takes is a 
declaration from the exporter certifying the consignment is fit 
for "normal factory" use. The scrap is offloaded at Indian ports 
and then transported onward. 

"As the certificates stating the country of origin declare the 
scrap originated from Iran or Dubai, there isn't much that we can 
do," said a customs officer. 

However, the Bhushan incident has rattled the Indian government 
sufficiently that officials have vowed to further tighten the 
scrap-import policy to filter out hazardous material is in the 
offing. 

Authorities have announced that soon imports of metal scrap 
originating from Iran, Afghanistan and Somalia will be stopped 
altogether. 

The Home Ministry has also ordered a nationwide inspection of 
iron and steel factories and formed a co-ordination group 
comprising the Intelligence Bureau, Customs and the Directorate 
General of Foreign Trade. The Ministry said import of metal scrap 
originating from war zones will now be subject to "100 percent 
inspection of unshredded and uncompacted materials" and will also 
need a certificate from exporters declaring the material is 
"safe." In addition, Finance Ministry officials have sought the 
help of forensic experts to probe major import consignments. 

But many say such safeguards are hardly a deterrent. And critics 
add that there is also the worry of depleted uranium shells used 
by United States aircraft and tanks to attack Iraqi tanks during 
the war. 

"The worrying thought is that these could find their way into 
scrap exports from Iraq soon," said VP Malik, a defense expert. 
"The recoveries till date could just be the tip of the iceberg. 

-- Copyright 2004 by United Press International. All rights 
reserved. --

*****************************************************************
 2 UK Independent: reveals how the Prime Minister's 'highly personalised'
decision-making process cut out dissent and accelerated the UK's
march into battle
 
23 October 2004

By September 2002, I was feeling increasingly sure that the US 
and Tony Blair were determined to attack Iraq. By then I was 
starting to cancel my travel commitments and to ensure I read all 
the intelligence on Iraq. Because the Department for 
International Development was engaged in foreign policy, we had 
access to all the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) briefings 
that were circulated in Whitehall, unlike most other cabinet 
ministers. I had regular visits from senior intelligence 
officials, and they listened carefully to our explanations of why 
we did not find their Africa briefings very useful. As my anxiety 
mounted, I decided I should ask the SIS for a full briefing on 
the situation in Iraq. 

Very unusually, the message came back that they could not do so 
because No 10 would not allow it. Why the attempt to restrict 
access? I think it reflects the fact that Tony Blair and his 
entourage were running the whole policy in a very informal and 
personal way and wanted to keep knowledge to themselves in order 
to keep control. 

There is a prestigious cabinet committee called Defence and 
Overseas Policy (DOP) which is meant to supervise strategy on 
major foreign policy issues. It brings together all the expertise 
across government to deal with foreign policy crises. For the 
Iraq crisis, DOP never met. I cannot emphasise strongly enough 
how Tony Blair's highly personalised system of decision-making is 
a significant part of the explanation of the lack of properly 
considered policy and thus of the disaster in Iraq. 

The other important issue that follows from briefing I received 
from senior figures in the intelligence services, both when I met 
them and through the written intelligence, is this. 

It was clear that they were convinced that Saddam Hussein was 
dedicated to the possession of chemical and biological weapons 
and would acquire nuclear weapons if he could, though they made 
clear this would take at least five years. They also believed 
that he had hidden programmes and probably materials across Iraq. 
But they never suggested that something new had happened that 
created a risk that had to be dealt with urgently. It is a matter 
of record that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear programme and had had 
chemical and biological programmes, some of which were dismantled 
by the UN weapons inspectors prior to their withdrawal in 1998. 

Hans Blix [the UN weapons inspector] also dismantled 70 ballistic 
missiles with a range greater than that allowed in the Security 
Council resolutions passed at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Our 
agencies, who told me they had much better information from Iraq 
than did the US, were clear that Saddam Hussein was dedicated to 
having WMD and was hiding material from the UN. But the 
exaggeration of the immediacy of the threat came from the 
political spin put on the intelligence and not from the 
intelligence itself. 

The notorious 45-minute claim originated from one source only and 
was played up strongly in the media - no doubt with Alastair 
Campbell's guidance. The Butler report said it should not have 
been used as it was. 

I conclude that the story later broadcast on the Today programme 
by Andrew Gilligan (on 29 May 2003, long after Baghdad had 
fallen) was basically true; and that the constant pressure from 
No 10 to strengthen the dossier and the words used by Blair in 
the Commons suggesting a "clear and present danger" - that the 
Butler report questions - do amount to an exaggeration of the 
intelligence to an extent that the public was misled. 

The No 10 line after the Butler report was to constantly repeat 
that Lord Butler was not questioning the Prime Minister's good 
faith. Maybe so, but I am afraid it is clear that the Prime 
Minister did knowingly mislead. My conclusion is that Alastair 
Campbell launched his attack on Gilligan in order to divert 
attention away from the question of whether the country had been 
deceived in the rush to war. 

By the beginning of 2003, I was embroiled in preparations for the 
possible humanitarian consequences of war. One of these, and the 
most difficult for the international humanitarian system to 
prepare for, was that chemical and biological weapons might be 
used in fighting, including fighting around Baghdad and other 
urban areas. I realised that, in order to prepare for possible 
humanitarian consequences, I needed to know more about how the 
war was to be fought. I therefore asked Defence Intelligence for 
an assessment of the risk of the use of chemical and biological 
weapons during the fighting. Clearly the military had to make 
such an assessment in order to protect the troops. We needed to 
understand the risk to Iraqi civilians. 

The paper - when it arrived - said there was not a high risk of 
the use of chemical and biological weapons but if there was 
prolonged fighting around Baghdad there would be a risk. Our 
medical advice was that there was no preventative action we could 
take and no antidote. 

The UN made it clear that if such weapons were used they would 
withdraw their staff. We in turn made it clear to our military 
that, if this happened, they would have to care for civilian 
casualties. Thus at the same time as media spin was suggesting 
that there was a high risk from these weapons, our advice from 
the experts was that their use was unlikely. 

Later on, when war was inevitable, I asked my SIS contact what 
was to be done if chemical and biological weapons were used and 
civilians harmed. He said that now Blix was back, they would be 
more thoroughly hidden and use was extremely unlikely. 

I was asked in June 2003, when giving evidence to the Foreign 
Affairs Committee inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq, 
whether I thought the Prime Minister had deceived me, the Cabinet 
and Parliament deliberately, or on the basis of wrong 
information. I said then that the Prime Minister "must have 
concluded that it was honourable and desirable to back the US in 
military action in Iraq, and that it was therefore honourable for 
him to persuade us through the various ruses and devices he used 
to get us there, so I presume he saw it as an honourable 
deception". This argument mirrors the claims of good faith made 
by the No 10 machine after the Butler report made clear that the 
intelligence on Iraq had been misused and exaggerated in prime 
ministerial statements to the House of Commons, and in the 
notorious dossier of September 2002. 

Butler said at his press conference that "we have no reason, 
found no evidence, to question the Prime Minister's good faith". 
We were thereafter constantly told that whatever Butler said did 
not matter, because there was "good faith". The Prime Minister 
himself said that the Butler report showed that government and 
intelligence services acted "in good faith". 

He went on to tell the House of Commons: "For any mistakes made, 
as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full 
responsibility, but I cannot honestly say that I believe that 
getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the 
wider world, are better and safer places without him." 

The question we must all address is whether it is acceptable for 
the Prime Minister to deceive us in the making of war and the 
taking and sacrificing of human life because he personally 
believed it was the right thing to do. Do we want to live under a 
constitutional system that allows decisions to be made in this 
highly personalised way? 

And although the Prime Minister constantly insists that his 
policy has been beneficial because it has removed Saddam Hussein 
from power, there are few serious people who accept that the 
region and the wider world are better and safer as a consequence 
of the war and its aftermath. 

Abridged extract from "An Honourable Deception?" (Simon & 
Schuster, 2004) published on 1 November, priced £15. © Clare 
Short 2004                 


UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 3 Persian Journal: The future of the nuclear talks with Iran 

    [http://www.iranian.ws/]      
Opinion 
 Oct 21st, 2004 - 23:43:43 

  [editors@persian-journal.com] 
    
It is very interesting to see the recent efforts by the world to 
stop Iran from being another Nuclear Pain In The Neck regime and 
the stubbornness of the Mullahs in Tehran to go ahead with it no 
matter what. I wonder how long more does it take for the rest of 
the world to realize that mullah regime is playing a very well 
engineered hide and seek game? 

Lets see what are the existing facts and look a bit closer into 
the current final deterrent factor for the world to stop the 
bearded clergymen in Iran going Nuke!
 
The undeniable facts:
 
I_ Mullahs absolutely hate both Israel and the USA and the only 
reasons they have not attacked these counties till now are the 
elements of fear and lack of enough nuclear might.
 
II_ Hence they have been working very quietly on their nuclear 
programmes for the past two decades until someone blew the 
whistle on them. (Only God knows where they would have been right 
now if they have not been exposed like that).
 
III_ They are now capable of reaching targets as far as the Heart 
of Europe with their Shahab3 ballistic missiles. (This seems to 
be only the beginning as they are about to send their satellites 
into orbit so that they can guide their missiles into the other 
continents with more accuracy.
 
IV_ Their past/existing brutality is well known to everyone and 
there is very strong evidence out there about the Mullahs' direct 
human-right abuse towards their own people.
 
V_ Thanks to the oil price keep going upwards the bloodthirsty 
Mullahs have now plenty of cash in their hands to expand their 
Dark Military Ambitions. 

VI_ Like the rest of the world they have looked at the North 
Korea, Pakistan and India, seeing the possibility of being a 
nuclear power actually attracts more respect from the big powers 
than any actual condemnation. For sure we can keep adding to the 
above list yet it would be re-stating the obvious!
 
Now, what is the proposed decisive/final deterrent factor to stop 
and scare the Mullahs off?
 
Unfortunately there is only one fact in here and that is, we are 
keep hopelessly trying to convince them we shall send them to the 
UN Security Council and that there would be a remote possibility 
of having an economic sanction over there - so, a really big deal 
to them. This threat would be as effective as telling them; Bad 
Boys, stop playing with your nuclear toys or else we shall tell 
your mums on you! 

Is this really our final deterrent factor to stop a seriously mad 
regime acquiring the "Destructive Atomic Capability"?
 
Who are we kidding here? For sure it is not them!.
 
© Iranian.ws
*****************************************************************
 4 Persian Journal: "The Game" that Iran mullahs love to play 

    [http://www.iranian.ws/]      
  
 Oct 22nd, 2004 - 12:55:18 

EU, Mullahs Meet Again Next Week on Nuclear Offer 

French, British and German officials meet Iranian negotiators on 
Wednesday to discuss a European offer of nuclear technology if 
Tehran ends its uranium enrichment program, diplomats said on 
Friday. 

"The meeting is planned for Wednesday in Vienna," a senior 
diplomat close to the talks told Reuters. 

Senior officials from the four countries met on Thursday to 
discuss the European proposal, which Iranian officials said they 
would be studying closely. 

"It is just at the initial stage. The matter has to be considered 
on both sides," Sirius Naseri, a member of the Iranian 
delegation, told reporters after Thursday's meeting. "What has 
been agreed is that we will continue the dialogue." 

If Iran rejects the EU offer, diplomats say most European nations 
will back U.S. demands that Tehran be reported to the U.N. 
Security Council for possible economic sanctions when the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on Nov. 25. 

No breakthroughs are expected at next week's talks and Western 
diplomats said they did not expect Iran was ready to accept the 
offer.
 

© Iranian.ws
*****************************************************************
 5 Las Vegas SUN: U.S. Aims to Revive N. Korea Nuke Talks

 By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

On a trip to East Asia, Secretary of State Colin Powell intends
to work out a strategy with Japan, China and South Korea on how
to convince North Korea it is not under threat of attack. 

The aim is to revive negotiations to curb North Korea's nuclear
weapons programs. Six-way talks including the United States and
both South and North Korea were to have been resumed in
September but North Korea refused to attend because it said the
Bush administration has not abandoned its "hostile" policy
toward the North. 

"It's a nice little cover line that they use," Powell said on
Fox News Radio's "Tony Snow Show" before leaving Friday for East
Asia. He said he would be discussing with U.S. friends in the
region a strategy for bringing North Korea back to the table. 

"We are essentially in a discussion, a debate, negotiation" as
to what North Korea might get in exchange for halting
development of weapons-grade uranium, Powell said. 

North Korea says it wants security guarantees and economic aid
in exchange for dealing with other countries' fears about its
nuclear activities. The United States wants an immediate halt to
nuclear activities and renewed international inspections. South
Korea and Japan have offered fuel oil to the impoverished
country as an incentive. 

During the Clinton administration, North Korea agreed to stop
its plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for 500 metric
tons of heavy oil annually from the United States and help for
its energy programs from Japan and South Korea. 

The aid was stopped after the Americans said North Korea had
admitted to having a uranium-based nuclear program. 

At the Pentagon on Friday, South Korea's defense chief endorsed
the six-nation formula, which the United States insisted on,
rather than direct U.S.-North Korean talks. Besides the United
States, the two Koreas and Japan, China and Russia are
participants in the suspended talks. 

"The Korean government has never considered bilateral meetings
or talks between North Korea and the United States," Defense
Minister Yoon Kwang Ung told a news conference. Nevertheless, he
said, "if that were to happen, I would assume there should be
close consultations between Washington and Seoul." 

Appearing with Yoon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
the Bush administration's goal is to find a diplomatic solution
to the North Korean nuclear problem, "and that process is under
way." 

President Bush has said the multilateral approach is the only
way to deal with North Korea. Democratic challenger John Kerry
says he would open bilateral talks, while simultaneously
pursuing the six-party approach, to resolve U.S. objections to
the North's nuclear ambitions. 

"President Bush has made it clear that we are not interested in
invading North Korea," Powell said Friday. "We want to help the
North Korean people. But that help will only come when they
have, in a way that is fully verifiable, gotten rid of their
nuclear weapons programs." 

At all three stops on Powell's East Asia tour, he plans to
compare notes on the possibility of resuming six-country
discussions on ending the stalemate over Pyongyang's weapons
programs. 

The negotiating process was set back recently when North Korea
refused to attend a new round of six-party discussions after
initially agreeing to do so. 

"It was a marvelous act of misdirection, and the North Koreans
said, `Gosh, if we got them to pay for it once, let's do it
again and see if we can get them to pay for it again," Powell
said on the radio. 

There has been widespread speculation that North Korea wants to
hold off on resuming discussions until after the U.S. election
in hopes that President Bush will be defeated. 

That may explain, Powell said, North Korea's unhurried behavior.
He said he told Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun and his colleagues
last June they can expect the "same president" for the next four
years. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North Korea sets out 3 demands for talks
 
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com]

  October 23, 2004 ¤Ñ North Korea's Foreign Ministry made public
yesterday three conditions for the resumption of the six-party
negotiations aimed at ending Pyeongyang's nuclear arms
development. The talks, which were scheduled to resume last
month were canceled when North Korean officials refused to
attend.

 The ministry said North Korea would attend the talks only if
Washington drops its "hostile" policies. It also demanded the
U.S. compensate them for freezing its nuclear programs, and that
South Korea fully disclose past nuclear activities during the
talks. Pyeongyang also said that it would not be pressured into
attending the talks. 

Separately, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington
would not negotiate directly with the North. Mr. Powell said he
would discuss resuming the talks in Seoul on a visit set for
Tuesday.   

Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 7 Xinhuanet: US claims to be ready for early six-party talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-23 05:17:53   

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States remains 
ready to resume six-party talks which deals with the nuclear 
issues on the Korean peninsular, deputy spokesman of the State 
Department Adams Ereli said here on Friday. 

    "We remain committed to six-party talks as the best way 
forwardin dealing with the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear 
programs," Ereli said at a regular news briefing. 

    The US also "remain ready to resume talks at the earliest 
possible date without any preconditions," Ereli added. 

    The six-party talks, sponsored and presided by China, has by 
far hosted three rounds of talks which also involves the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the US, South 
Korea,Japan and Russia. 

    The talks was designed to resolve the nuclear confrontation 
between the DPRK and the United States. 

    A fourth round, scheduled for September, failed to be held 
due to the DPRK's refusal to attend. 

    Also on Friday, the DPRK blamed the US for delaying the 
six-party talks, attributing the present deadlock of the talks to 
"itsgroundwork was destroyed by the US and because South Korea's 
nuclear issue surfaced." 

    Pyongyang has been accusing Washington of taking hostile 
policytowards the DPRK, and of applying "double standards" over 
South Korea's nuclear issue. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 State Dept: No Direct Bargaining with North Korea, Powell Says
 
U.S. Dept. of State

[http://www.state.gov]   

The Bush administration will not bargain directly with North 
Korea, says Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. 

In an October 19 interview with reporters from The Far Eastern 
Economic Review, Powell said the countries involved in the 
six-party talks -- North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia 
and the United States -- remain committed to a nuclear-free 
Korean peninsula. 

"We'll have to be patient," the secretary said. "We will not 
change our policy. We will not get into a direct, bargain 
basement negotiation with the North Koreans because the other 
nations have as great a responsibility and equity as we do." 

Powell noted that North Korea has "a long and well-understood 
history of negotiating. And as long as they think there is always 
something more coming, they will see if they can hold out for 
something more . . . ." He called direct negotiations a potential 
trap in which the United States would be pressured by the North 
Koreans to "buy back" from North Korea "something they're not 
supposed to have in the first place . . . ." 

The Bush administration, the secretary said, is "quite confident" 
that North Korea was indeed "moving in the direction of enriched 
uranium." 

"The intelligence community cannot tell you whether or not there 
are more weapons or not," Powell said, but he said the assumption 
is that Pyongyang may have one or two nuclear devices. 

Powell acknowledged North Korean concerns for its own security 
but said security assurances can only be offered with complete 
removal of nuclear programs from the peninsula. "We're trying to 
persuade them that they have not gained either security or a 
better road into the future with this kind of program," he said. 

Powell pointed out the president's oft-stated interest in the 
welfare of the North Korean people as well as the country's 
security. 

"The president has said, 'We're not going to attack. We're not 
going to invade. We have no hostile intent towards you. We take 
no option off the table.' But we're trying to solve this 
diplomatically, and I still think we can," the secretary said. 

Regarding China and Taiwan, Powell said the U.S. "one-China 
policy" has served all sides "very, very well for a very long 
period of time," adding that the Bush administration has "made it 
very, very clear that we do not support (Taiwan's) independence." 

Taiwan's independence, the secretary said, "would not serve the 
interests of the region" and "any movement in that direction of a 
serious nature will, has the potential for creating a real crisis 
in the region, and nobody benefits from that." 

Powell lauded the good cooperative relationship that has, for 
over four years, existed between the United States and China. "In 
issue after issue, time after time, we have been able to work 
through these matters with the Chinese," he said. "When we are 
unhappy about something, we tell them," Powell said, noting that 
the Chinese have been equally straightforward. 

Powell, who will be visiting South Korea, China and Japan October 
22-26, said the "readjustment" of the U.S. military "footprint" 
in the region, including U.S. forces now stationed on Okinawa, 
would be a priority topic for discussion. He called the 
U.S.-Japan alliance "absolutely superb." 

Japan, he said, "is playing an appropriate role on the world 
stage," noting that the country is an economic and military power 
and a regional leader. Powell lauded Japan's participation in the 
Proliferation Security Initiative, its sending troops to Iraq, 
and its financial contributions to international endeavors, 
including hosting donors' conferences. 

"Japan is playing a role that is commensurate with Japan's 
position in the world," he said, predicting that Japan will be 
playing "a more important role internationally in the years 
ahead." 

Following is the transcript, as released by the U.S Department of 
State October 21 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
October 21, 2004 

INTERVIEW 

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell By Murray Hiebert and Susan
Lawrence of The Far Eastern Economic Review 

October 19, 2004
Washington, D.C.
(10:00 a.m. EDT) 

MR. HIEBERT: So, you're on your way to Asia? 

SECRETARY POWELL: I am. 

MR. HIEBERT: This is our patch. Susan and I both love it. We've
spent a lot of time. 

SECRETARY POWELL: As do I. I've lived there; I've fought there. 

MR. HIEBERT: That's right. I heard you before the first; your
press conference before you took your first trip to Vietnam. It
was a very moving time. 

SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. 

MR. HIEBERT: Well, so, you're going there ten days before the
elections. Is there something -- has there been a new
development or a new policy initiative that's prompting you to
go now? 

SECRETARY POWELL: No. There's no connection between my trip and
the election. I haven't been to China in a year and this will be
the fifth trip to China in four years. And I think it's
important for me to get to that part of the world on a regular
basis. And we have so many issues to discuss in China and Japan
and in Tokyo. 

And in Tokyo I have a new colleague. A new foreign minister took
over a couple of weeks ago. I've already met him. He's been
here. He wanted to come. He came immediately the week of his
appointment, and I kind of want to reciprocate to show the
Japanese people the depth and strength of our relationship. And
also to reinforce to the Chinese leadership and the Chinese
people the importance of the relationship. 

And in both Japan and South Korea it will give me a chance to
express appreciation for their contribution of troops to Iraq,
as well as the significant contributions both of those nations
have made to Afghan reconstruction efforts and Iraqi
reconstruction efforts. 

And in Korea there are also the issues with respect to our
redeployment plans coming up, and, of course, the six-party
talks. There are meetings that are under way or have taken place
within this time period between senior Chinese leaders and North
Korean leaders. And so as we get toward November, this is a good
time to kind of review the bidding on where we are on six-party,
sort of, talks and what the plan might be to get to the next
round of six-party talks in due course. 

We have economic issues, of course, with all of these three
countries as well. And we'll raise all of those. We are
cooperating very closely on Proliferation Security Initiative
activities, so I always have a pretty full agenda in the Asian
theater, and this was a good time for me to go out and talk to
people on the ground, as opposed to just phone calls or
receiving them here. 

I met all of these ministers in the UN in September, and I
promised them all I would be over to see them, and now I've got
to go. And I look forward to going. I enjoy visiting all three
of these countries. It's remarkable to see the changes that have
taken place in all of them in one way or another, but especially
in Korea and in China. 

In the 25 or 30-odd years that I have been involved in Asia in
one way or another, to see South Korea grow into a mature
democracy and something of a -- more than something -- a real
economic dynamo, and to contrast it to North Korea, and to see
what's happened in China since my first visit 32 years ago. 

I went in for the first time right after Nixon as a young Army
Lieutenant Colonel, as a White House fellow. And to see what's
happened to China over the last 32 years has been just
remarkable. I went in right after the Cultural, a few years
after the Cultural Revolution was over. But the vestiges of it
were still there. And we could talk to people who had been put
in, put away or put out in the countryside, or the other things
they did during that period. And to see how the Chinese have
adjusted to the reality of the late-20th and 21st century world
and how they're continuing to act in a way that creates a better
relationship with the United States and the rest of the world,
and I'm particularly proud of our relationship with China
because it is based on respect for each other's position. No
clichÃ© to capture the relationship, it's too complex. I've said
this many times. 

We agree in so many areas. We cooperate in so many areas. When
we have disagreements, we talk through those disagreements. And
when we think they have taken actions that are not in our best
interest, we respond to them, whether it's sanctioning Chinese
companies or remaining steadfast concerning the EU arms embargo
with China, which we think should remain in place. 

This is a reflection of a mature relationship, one that does not
sort of go like this, but is a mature relationship that has gone
upwards since 2 April of 2001,* if I've got the date right --
I'm sure you'll correct it if I don't -- when the planes
collided and everybody thought, "That's it. We're into a deep
freeze, a right wing deep freeze." Quite the contrary, we came
out of that in two weeks' time and we've been on the upswing
ever since and, of course, with Japan, one of our strongest
friends and partners and allies in Asia. But I'll stop there.
You get the drift. There's a lot to talk about, a lot to do. 

MR. HIEBERT: We thought with might start with North Korea, which
is -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: Sure. 

MR. HIEBERT: One of the -- an observation one can easily make is
that the situation has deteriorated in the last three years with
the Intelligence Estimates going from one to two nukes to six or
eight nukes. 

And if you listen to think-tankers around town who work on
Korea, one of the things they observe is that it's difficult,
one of the reasons it's -- there's several reasons why it's
difficult to deal with, but on the U.S. side it's difficult to
deal with because of splits in views on how to deal with the,
between -- to say it very simply, I mean, between those who want
to put a lot of pressure on it and those who want to do maybe
pressure, plus engage. 

And I'm wondering how that looks to you. Has that, do you think
that's been a stumbling block to dealing with this? 

SECRETARY POWELL: Let's test the proposition to see if it's
accurate. 

There are think tanks all over the place, and there are experts
all over the place, and there are those who spent a great deal
of their recent career putting in place the Agreed Framework and
have a certain commitment to the Agreed Framework. But the fact
of the matter is that things had deteriorated before this
Administration came in, but they didn't know it. 

The assumption was that the Agreed Framework had capped the
North Koreans at one or two -- it didn't grow. And we never were
sure, and we're not -- no one's ever seen these weapons. But the
best Intelligence Estimate is that they probably have one or
two. And they thought it was capped at that point. And it was
capped. Yongbyon was capped and the plutonium weapons were
capped. But what was unknown to the previous Administration, and
what was unknown to us for the first year or so until the
intelligence became absolutely clear was that the North Koreans
were cheating and that they had started to develop enriched
uranium techniques and technology and acquiring the wherewithal
to move in that direction. 

So the Agreed Framework was not achieving, ultimately, its
intended purpose. And when we saw that, we didn't shrink from
that reality. We faced the North Koreans with it, and they
acknowledged it. Now, they have said many things since then: "We
didn't acknowledge it; we don't have it; yes, we do." We're
quite confident that they were moving in the direction of
enriched uranium. And it's not an ambiguous intelligence
picture. 

And so what we decided to do was not to get ourselves trapped
into a -- another direct negotiation with the North Koreans,
where we're essentially trying to buy back something they're not
supposed to have in the first place and find ourselves in that
same position. And we reached out to North Korea's neighbors and
said; "This is as much a problem for you as it is for us. In
fact, perhaps, it's an even bigger problem. And therefore, we
should work as partners in resolving this issue." And that's
what we've been doing with the six party framework; we started
at three and then went to six, as you know. 

People are saying, "Yeah, but it hasn't been solved yet." Well,
the Agreed Framework didn't get solved in a year, either. It
takes time. But what we have achieved is all six parties, to
include the North Koreans, saying that our goal is a
denuclearized peninsula, to include the North Koreans. 

The North Koreans, of course, have said that they have certain
requirements and conditions with respect to their security, with
respect to what they keep calling our hostile policy and with
respect to what benefits they will receive from denuclearizing
the peninsula and ending their program. 

What we have said is we can talk about all of that and we can
provide answers for all of these issues and questions, but there
has to be a complete denuclearization in a verifiable way that
makes this problem go away, once and for all. 

And so far, notwithstanding the views of experts, we are keeping
all six parties in this framework. And I think it was yesterday
the North Koreans even indicated that they were willing to
continue the discussions. And so we'll have to be patient. We
will not change our policy. We will not get into a direct,
bargain basement negotiation with the North Koreans because the
other nations have as great a responsibility and equity as we
do. And we'll see where this leads. 

Now, you started out by saying it is a situation that's
deteriorated. The situation has changed, certainly. We are not
sure what they have done with all of the rods at Yongbyon. The
intelligence community cannot tell you whether or not there are
more weapons or not. They are making assumptions and they are
doing the best that they can, you know, with a country that does
not exactly post this stuff on their website. So they're doing
the best they can. But they really do not know, and cannot come
to a definitive answer, and there's no reason they should be
able to come to a definitive answer as to what exactly the North
Koreans have done. And I don't know either. So we continue to
say they have, probably, one to two. And they may have more as a
result of breaking the seals open in Yongbyon. But I don't know,
and I don't know how many more. 

The point I make to people I discuss this with and I've made to
the North Koreans when I have spoken to their foreign minister
is, "Fine. What does this do for you? We're not threatened. It's
a threat to the region and it could be a threat to us
ultimately, but what will you do with this?" 

Now, we're concerned that they might try to proliferate it and
we're trying to persuade them that they have not gained either
security or a better road into the future with this kind of
program. And that's the message we will continue to give them
and they either will or will not come to a similar conclusion,
but that's up to them. 

Now, the other part of your question said was, "Well, you've got
all these different points of view within the Administration:
Those who want to put more pressure, those who want to put less
pressure, those who want to negotiate, those who don't want to
negotiate within the six party framework. It's all terribly
interesting. 

All I know is what the President has decided. And he's the only
one I'd listen to. And he's, he's decided this. He's decided it
repeatedly over the last year that we would try to solve this
diplomatically. No option is off the table. We do want pressure
put on North Korea to solve the problem, and we're using
diplomatic pressure and diplomatic encouragement. 

And so there are voices out in think-tank-land that make many
statements about this, that and the other, and it's great fun to
play the parlor game in Washington as to who's where. All I know
is what the President has decided and whatever I am executing in
the name of the President. 

MR. HIEBERT: Could I just, one brief -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: And I don't still find any of my senior
colleagues in the Administration saying anything differently. 

MR. HIEBERT: Just to follow up briefly -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: It doesn't mean we don't have discussions
about these matters. 

MR. HIEBERT: Aha. To follow up, one of the things that also
people will note is that part of the reason that, a second part
of why North Korea hasn't come around is because the pressure
from -- Beijing and South Korea really don't want to put too
much pressure on them, and the enticements from the U.S.
offering that South Korea and China can do stuff, the carrot
stuff, haven't been sweet enough. 

Do you think, I mean, they didn't come to the last round of
talks. Do you think that -- when that was hoped for in October
-- do you think that it's time for a new initiative to -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: We have a, we put a new initiative in. 

MR. HIEBERT: The one in June? 

SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. I put down a new initiative. It was by
Assistant Secretary Kelly who was well received by our partners.
And it was seen as a responsible step toward the resolution of
this issue. 

What we can't do is lean back and wait for the North Koreans to
say, "Well, we don't like that one. Give us another one," or,
"Put something else on the table." They have a long and
well-understood history of negotiating. And as long as they
think there is always something more coming, they will see if
they can hold out for something more. 

Maybe they think there's going to be a change in Administration.
I told the foreign minister in June I thought that he was
probably -- he probably needs to come to the realization that:
one, the President has told me to work all the way through the
election; and then, we have another four years to work on this
problem -- same President. He didn't smile, but all of his
colleagues did. 

The fact of the matter is that, they know what's there. The
Chinese and -- oh, excuse me, the South Koreans and the Japanese
are prepared to provide some immediate, upfront assistance and
support to the North Koreans. And we have made it clear for two
years now that we are looking at a significant move with respect
to North Korea, with respect to how we might be able to help
them. But it's only going to be in the context of a complete
removal, in a verifiable manner, of this capability, and only
after steps have been taken in that direction that make it clear
that they are serious and that there will be no way to get -- to
go backwards. 

Then, they will find, that as the President has said that the
United States stands ready to assist. The President very often
talks about his concern about the welfare of the Korean people,
the North Korean people. And when you see some of the things
happening: the price of rice going up, other things that have
been happening in North Korea, their industrial base not being
used, there's a lack of power -- they can't do much until they
solve their power problem. 

These problems are more pressing to them than any concerns they
have about, should be more pressing to them -- I mean, not to
put words in their mouth -- should be more pressing to them than
concerns about the United States attacking and invading. 

The President has said, "We're not going to attack. We're not
going to invade. We have no hostile intent towards you. We take
no option off the table." But we're trying to solve this
diplomatically, and I still think we can. 

MS. LAWRENCE: I'm going to as a couple of China-related
questions. Okay, the -- yeah. Taiwan, the United States in the
last four years has done a lot of refereeing of disputes between
the mainland and Taiwan. 

SECRETARY POWELL: The last four years. 

MS. LAWRENCE: Well, you have personally been involved in a lot
of refereeing of disputes between the two. Latest thing: We've
got, you know, Chen Shuibian's October 10th speech calling for
dialogue with Beijing. At the same time, the Taiwanese Foreign
Minister is saying that they can only -- the two sides can only
sit down if China acknowledges Taiwan as a country. China,
predictably, says Taiwan is not sincere. 

SECRETARY POWELL: What was that last one? 

MS. LAWRENCE: That Mark Chen, the Foreign Minister, the same
time that President Chen came out with his speech saying "Let's
have dialogue," Mark Chen, I think, on the same day, sat down
with The Washington Post and said, "We can only sit down
together if the PRC acknowledges us as a country, just as the
PRC is a country." So the Chinese predictably say Taiwan is not
very sincere about this stuff. 

I'm just wondering how does U.S. policy handle the cross-Strait
challenge for the long term and, I guess, and also just on this
trip to China now. Are you carrying any assurances to China this
time on Taiwan beyond the one-China policy? 

SECRETARY POWELL: No. The one, our one-China policy has served
all of our interests very, very well for a very long period of
time. Our one-China policy has allowed us to build a good
relationship with China. It has also allowed us to have a good
relationship with Taiwan. It has provided stability in that part
of the world because everybody understood what this meant. 

It has permitted Taiwan to grow very significantly as an
economic matter, and also provided the ability to them to become
a functioning democracy within that system. And our one-China
policy is intact based on the Three CommuniquÃ©s, well known to
you, and also with full understanding of the responsibilities
that we have under our law, under the Taiwan Relations Act, to
make sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself. 

Now, throughout the long history of the one-China policy, our
one-China policy, there has been to-ing and fro-ing. And from
time to time, people try to penetrate the very useful ambiguity
that is built into this policy. But the ambiguity has served us
all, and very, very well; and the policy is intact. 

And the only additional point I would put on the policy is
something that the President said last December that in response
to certain churnings about independence, we made it very, very
clear that we do not support independence. And I can raise my
voice higher or lower on the word support, but I think you get
the message. We do not support independence. It would not serve
the interests of the region and it would -- any movement in that
direction of a serious nature will, has the potential for
creating a real crisis in the region, and nobody benefits from
that. 

Many Taiwanese are in China doing business, as you well know, a
huge number. There's enormous economic activity that is taking
place across the Straits, as you are well aware. And so there
are forces in Taiwan that would want to move toward
independence. We do not support that effort; we do not support
those forces. We believe our one-China policy has served us well
and remains intact. 

We follow very carefully the speeches that Chen Shuibian gives.
And when we believe that there may be a misunderstanding of our
policy, we communicate that back to them so there is no
misunderstanding of our policy. And that's what I will
reinforce. 

There is no conversation that takes place and no phone call that
takes place that does not include a restatement of our policy,
and a restatement of their -- 

MS. LAWRENCE: And you think it's enough to keep a lid on this
situation for the foreseeable future? 

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I mean, there are so many benefits that
are flowing from this policy over the years and yea verily unto
this day, that the last thing anyone should want to see would be
any action on either side that disrupts the situation, this
equilibrium. And so we have tried to speak evenly to both sides
not to take actions, which would put this policy at risk or
create a crisis in the region, either by excessive buildups on
the mainland or by excessive rhetoric or reaction on Taiwan. 

MS. LAWRENCE: Okay. I was curious. You were talking about your
experiences in China over the last 32 years, of visits and so
on. There's been a lot of talk that Chinese diplomacy has had a
sort of qualitative change in the last few years, it's become
more sophisticated perhaps, maybe witness China's courting of
the EU over the lifting of the arms embargo, that they've been
quite successful in lining up friends on that score. You may
wish to interpret -- (laughter) -- but I want to get your -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: It's still there. 

MS. LAWRENCE: -- your personal experience of diplomacy with
China over the last four years, your relationship with Foreign
Minister Li Zhaoxing. I just wonder if you could reflect a
little bit on what might have changed. 

SECRETARY POWELL: I think it's become -- yeah, I think they are
becoming more sophisticated in the practice of diplomacy, but
I'm not surprised or shocked; they've got a 5,000-year history
of diplomacy, far longer than ours. And they are very good at
reading situations and adjusting to those situations, and they
know that it is in their interest to have good economic
relations and good political relations with those nations that
are important, either from a trading standpoint or a security
standpoint. 

And so I can give you -- and I can tell you about this
anecdotally. When we had the plane collision in early April of
2001, we had a couple of days, the first couple of days were
very confused when we couldn't get direct answers out of the
Chinese Government as to where our plane was, how our crew was,
and we weren't sure who we could be talking to or should be
talking to about it. 

But then, about four days into the crisis, as it was called, the
incident, they gave us a signal as to how it could possibly be
solved. It was sort of an obscure message that said you ought to
look at a certain agreement we have. I forget what it was called
now. Richard could pull it out if you really need it. But there
was some agreement that was years old about how to deal with
problems that came up in our -- I think it was in our
military-to-military relationship. And they said you ought to
read that. (Laughter.) 

So we did. I went and I said, "What is it? Get it. Got it." We
got it and we pored through it, and sitting in my office we
said, "Look, there's a little thing in there about how you deal
with problems like this, or problems. Not problems like this.
Nobody ever expected a problem like this one. How you have a
group that works on issues like this that come along. 

And so we grabbed that, and then for the next nine days or so we
went back and forth on how to use that, and we went back and
forth on the language that would be needed to resolve this. And
what was fascinating is that it was as much a public relations
problem in China as it was in the United States. And, in fact,
they were having to respond to it much more aggressively than I
had to here, because they lost a pilot. They had a dead pilot
and they had a grieving widow who was on television all the
time, which you know how that is these days. 

But to think, this is the People's Republic of China that had a
public opinion that had to be taken into account by the
political leadership. It doesn't sound that remarkable now, but
it's remarkable over the 32 years of my experience. And we had
to help them deal with that as they were helping us deal with
our public relations and political demands and constraints, and
we had to do it in a way that we both were able to, you know,
work our way through this and nobody loses. 

And it took us about 13 days, maybe 14, I don't quite remember,
but we found just the right language, how to say you're sorry
without apologizing. Does that sound familiar? Has sort of a
contemporary ring to it. How to say you're sorry and how many
verys did you put in front of sorry. It got down to that. And
then finally it was resolved. 

Now, after it was resolved and our crew came home, everything
calmed down. In my subsequent phone calls with the Chinese
Foreign Minister and in my next visit over there -- I can't
remember if I went with the President or a separate visit, it
fails me -- but my Foreign Minister colleague at that time, Mr.
Tang, we had our usual formal meetings and then we went off one
afternoon off to a corner of a conference room, and we talked
about what had happened. 

And we essentially said here's how we going to keep something
like that from happening again, and that is, "No matter how
difficult it is for you, when I call you, you've got to take the
call." And he said, "We will." And I said, "And anytime you call
me, no matter where it is, when it is, I'll take the call,
because you and I have to figure out how to solve these kinds of
problems and our two bureaucracies have to figure out how to
solve these problems. And if we can't talk to each other and if
we don't have a level of confidence and trust built up, we can't
solve the problem." 

We worked on it very hard and in crisis after crisis -- I didn't
mean to put it that way. In issue after issue over the last four
years, I've never had a problem communicating with them or
getting an answer from them, and it was always a straight
answer: We don't agree with what you're doing on a particular
issue, let's say Iraq, but we won't veto. We don't think you're
right, but we won't stand in your way, is the way they would put
it. So they were very direct. 

When we had the India-Pakistan challenge of two years ago, you
know, in a previous generation China would have been all into
that, worrying about their equity because they have a border
problem, too. Never. They only wanted to know how they could
play a helpful role as we got India and Pakistan to stand down
from the mobilization that had taken place. 

And in issue after issue, time after time, we have been able to
work through these matters with the Chinese. We were able to
work through the six-party talks. Initially, they just wanted to
convene and sit there. We said no, no, no, you've got to be a
partner. And they have been. And now they are completely bought
into it. You know, they have as much equity, political equity,
in this as we do to make sure something happens. 

And the North Koreans have found that their situation becomes
more complicated because it's not just a matter of doing
something that might be offensive to the United States by their
actions, they do things that are offensive to China and Japan. 

So forgive me for the long answer, but the answer is yes, they
have become more sophisticated, more understanding of the way
our system works, and we have tried to demonstrate and I have
tried to demonstrate a greater understanding of how their system
works. We watched their transition to President Hu and we
watched carefully as President Hu went about his business and
then President Jiang Zemin has changed his role in the political
society. 

When we are unhappy about something, we tell them. We sanction
Chinese companies. And they know we don't like the lifting of
the EU arms embargo possibility. And we talk about it openly,
and when I have Minister Li on the phone or when we're together,
as we are very frequently, we talk about it quite openly. And
notwithstanding the premise of your opening statement, it hasn't
gone yet. 

MR. HIEBERT: Okay, fair enough. 

SECRETARY POWELL: Gee, I've been running my mouth a little bit,
so if you want to take a few more minutes. 

MR. HIEBERT: Yeah. Why don't we just ask a quick Japan question
also? The troop redeployment -- how is that going to affect
Japan? Because troops are drawing down in Asia, does that mean
more might stay in Japan because of those guys leaving South
Korea? And where are we at now in terms of the negotiations? How
do you expect this to be hammered out? 

SECRETARY POWELL: We are in the closest negotiation. I can't
tell you specifically where we are. It's handled by not only my
guys but by the military, my friends over in the Pentagon, Don's
teams. 

But we do need a readjustment of the footprint and the Japanese
have a political imperative to reduce the footprint in Okinawa,
and the footprint is being changed in South Korea. And so I
can't tell you how it will play out, whether there will be more,
less or the same in Japan. And it would be -- I would be off the
mark in predicting how it's going to turn out. 

Some of the ideas that Don and his guys have really have to be
discussed with the Japanese and thought through. You know some
of the ideas about Northeast Asia commands and things of that
nature. And no decisions have been put in stone until we've had
full discussions with both the Japanese and the Koreans, and
also analyzed it in terms of how it would be seen by others in
the region, China especially, the Philippines, Australia and
others. 

MS. LAWRENCE: Just very quickly, actually. Back on the China
issue, the Chinese nationals in Guantanamo Bay. The Chinese
diplomats here seem very worked up about this. How do you
explain to China why their nationals who might be ready for
release aren't returned to China when everybody else's nationals
do get returned to them? 

SECRETARY POWELL: Not everybody yet. There's a particular
problem with this group and they're still being reviewed by the
Pentagon, and we have to be sure that they are not put in a
situation that would be inconsistent, we believe, with our
obligations to comply with international law and consistent with
Geneva Convention, and we haven't been able to work out a
solution yet that we're comfortable with. 

Now, I'm fiddling with this a bit because it really is over at
the Pentagon for resolution. 

MS. LAWRENCE: I see. It's not a State decision when they go. 

SECRETARY POWELL: We can help the Pentagon with that, but we
haven't been able to yet. And we're trying to help the Pentagon
with it, but the actual status of the Uighurs I really don't
want to comment on because I don't know enough about it because
of all the review procedures that are underway at the Pentagon
now and down at Guantanamo under Secretary of the Navy England. 

MR. HIEBERT: On Japan, one of the things the Bush Administration
talks a lot about is how good relations have become. The
Japanese have given an awful lot in terms of the stuff they
didn't use to do -- the ships in the Indian Ocean and the troops
now in Iraq. The thing that I've -- what did Japan get out of
this, other than, you know, less giatsu? 

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think it was a matter of you have
given to the United States and therefore we owe you something.
What we have with each other is an absolutely superb alliance
and relationship. 

I think what Japan is doing is playing an appropriate role on
the world stage. It is one of the industrialized nations. It has
a significant military capability. It is a regional leader and a
regional power. And I'm very pleased that Prime Minister Koizumi
and the Japanese people and the Japanese Diet are willing not
just to talk about things but are willing to get involved --
with the Proliferation Security Initiative, with sending troops
to Iraq, and with respect to the financial contribution, as well
as hosting donors conferences. I mean, another donors conference
just passed a week -- last week -- suggests that Japan is
playing a role that is commensurate with Japan's position in the
world. They're not doing it just because the Americans ask them
to do it, but because they think it's the right thing to do as
an important player and one of the G-8 industrialized nations
and a nation that will be playing a more important role
internationally in the years ahead. 

Okay? Enough for an article? 

MR. HIEBERT: Great. Thank you very much. 

MR. HIEBERT: One question, can we just ask you as you get up -- 

SECRETARY POWELL: This is always the one that nails me.
(Laughter.) Yeah, there it is. I knew it. 

MR. HIEBERT: -- (inaudible) if you're going to stay (inaudible)
-- 

SECRETARY POWELL: And what do your Asian leaders say? 

MS. LAWRENCE: What do they say? 

SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. 

MS. LAWRENCE: They'd like you to stay. 

MS. LAWRENCE: They would like you to stay. 

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. (Laughter.) 

[http://usinfo.state.gov/about/private.htm]  |  WEBMASTER    
[Embassy of the United States]   
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: North Korea eases tough stance against US in nuclear talks

[http://www.spacewar.com/]

SEOUL (AFP) Oct 22, 2004

 North Korea on Friday eased its tough stance against the United 
States, saying it is willing to resume stalled six-way talks on 
its nuclear weapons if Washington is ready to consider its 
demands.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman demanded Washington 
drop its hostile policy towards Pyongyang and provide rewards for 
having frozen its nuclear activities.

The resumption of talks depended on whether Washington was "ready 
to fully consider" Pyongyang's demands, he said in a statement 
published by Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

"(North Korea) is approaching the six-party talks strictly in its 
interests. In other words, it will attend the talks if they prove 
helpful to it as it realized them to settle the nuclear issue."

The spokesman also demanded South Korea's past nuclear 
experiments be discussed "before anything else" at the six-nation 
talks.

Seoul revealed in September that its scientists secretly enriched 
a tiny amount of plutonium in 1982 and uranium in 2000 just for 
scientific research. It opposes bringing its own nuclear issue to 
the six-way talks.

The North's statement followed a three-day trip by North Korea's 
second-ranking leader Kim Yong-Nam to China this week.

North Korea took park in three inconclusive rounds of the talks 
which also involved the United States, South Korea, Russia, China 
and Japan.

But the Stalinist country boycotted a fourth round of six-party 
talks scheduled to open in September.

The nuclear stand-off flared in October 2002 when Washington 
accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons program based on 
enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.

North Korea has offered to freeze its nuclear activities in 
return for various concessions including its removal from the 
list of terrorism sponsors.

Washington says North Korea must offer to scrap its nuclear 
weapons drive before concessions can be discussed.

 All rights reserved. © 2004 Agence France-Presse 
[http://www.afp.com/] . Sections of the information displayed on 
*****************************************************************
 10 [du-list] Moving Hill  and  "radioactive vulcanoes" - Bush
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:46:27 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1333145,00.html

  Bush faces nuclear fallout in Nevada over £60bn mountain of radioactive 
waste

Dan Glaister in Las Vegas
Friday October 22, 2004
The Guardian

Roadworks slow progress along the strip in Las Vegas. In the distance, 
poking between the mock Eiffel Tower and the mock pyramid at Luxor, cranes 
stand out against the autumn sky, building the next phase of America's 
seemingly permanent boom town.
But 95 miles north-east of this city, the powerhouse of Nevada with 36 
million visitors a year, lies another construction site.

Yucca Mountain, projected to cost around $60bn (£32.8bn), has been chosen 
by the Bush administration to be the nation's nuclear waste repository, set 
to hold the existing 40,000 tons of waste produced to date by the country's 
nuclear power stations.

"This material is the deadliest substance known to mankind," said Peggy 
Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a local group that has 
campaigned against the repository. "It's one million times more radioactive 
when it comes out of the reactor core than when it went in."

In February 2002, just over a year after taking office, President Bush 
recommended the Yucca Mountain site to Congress. But many voters remembered 
that, as a candidate in September 2000, Mr Bush promised not to approve the 
site until it had been "deemed scientifically safe", a formulation that is 
credited with helping him win the state.

Four years on, and with the project stalled by legal challenges to its 
scientific justification, those words may come back to haunt the president 
in what has become a swing state. A recent poll showed that Yucca Mountain 
was the top issue for 3% of registered voters. "Given what's going on in 
this country, 3% is huge," said Ms Maze Johnson.

The polls in Nevada have ranged between a 10% lead for Mr Bush to a 1% lead 
for Mr Kerry. In 2000 Mr Bush won the state by 3.5%, or 22,000 votes, but 
Nevada has changed since then. The fastest-growing state in the US in 2003, 
its population has risen by 300,000 in the past four years to reach 2.4 
million. For this election, there will be 1.1 million registered voters, 
66,000 of them Hispanics, who traditionally lean toward the Democratic 
party. The increase in population means that Nevada now contributes five 
votes to the electoral college, one more than in 2000. Accordingly, the 
state has become an increasingly important and hard-fought battleground in 
this year's electoral race.
"In 2000 there was no campaign here; the Democrats conceded," said David 
Damore, assistant professor of political science at the University of 
Nevada at Las Vegas. "But this year there's been a strong effort to get new 
voters registered. The electorate looks very different to the way it did 
four years ago."

While voters in the state are likely to be swayed by the same big issues as 
the rest of the country - the economy, the war in Iraq - Nevada is one 
swing state where the debate about the environment, thanks to Yucca 
Mountain, is being aired.

John Kerry has been swift to side with opponents of the plan. In an article 
published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in May, Mr Kerry accused Bush of 
"placing the profits of the nuclear power industry above the safety of 
Nevada families ... I voted against the plan to dispose of waste at Yucca 
Mountain," he wrote, "and as president I will fight against it."

Republicans chose to use the Yucca Mountain issue as an opportunity to 
depict Mr Kerry as a "flip-flopper", pointing out that he had voted in 
favour of a 1987 bill, nicknamed the Screw Nevada bill, which authorised 
consideration of Yucca Mountain as the nation's repository for nuclear waste.

In August Mr Kerry defended his position, saying: "Back in 1987 the idea of 
a national repository seemed like a reasonable thing ... [but] the more I 
have looked at the issue, the more I have learned about it, the less safe, 
the less comfortable I am with the possibility."

Also in August, Mr Bush told a rally in Las Vegas: "I said I would make a 
decision based upon [sound] science, not politics ... and that's exactly 
what I did."

Ms Maze Johnson said: "The president called it sound science. I call it 
botched science. We're not partisan, but Kerry has been with us when we've 
needed his vote, which isn't easy for someone from the north-east."

The north-east of the US is home to the bulk of the country's nuclear 
energy industry. At present nuclear waste is stored on site: across the US, 
161 million people live within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste.

Local residents and politicians are keen to see it moved as far away as 
possible, and the sparsely-populated deserts of Nevada seemed as good an 
idea as any. Those opposed to the repository are also concerned about the 
transport of waste. It is, critics say, a disaster waiting to happen, 
mobile Chernobyls offering the perfect terrorist target.

"We are a one-industry state," said Ms Johnson, referring to Nevada's 
dependence on tourism. "If something stopped people coming, what would that 
do to the economy?"

At the Yucca Mountain Information Centre, videos and wallcharts trumpet the 
efforts to ensure that the site is safe.

No mention is made of the native American name for the mountain, Moving 
Hill, nor scientists' nickname for it, Old Leaky. Nor is there space for a 
Geological Society of America report which warned that should moisture 
enter the mountain where nuclear waste is stored in bundles of rods, 
"radioactive volcanoes could form on the surface".


Full coverage
US elections 2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 11 UN Nuclear Agency Warns That Computer System Is Out Of Date
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:00:40 -0400

 
X-Sender-Hostname: mx1.un.org
 
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES NUCLEAR 

UN NUCLEAR AGENCY WARNS THAT COMPUTER SYSTEM IS OUT OF DATE
New York, Oct 22 2004  6:00PM
Calling on United Nations Member States for special contributions, 
the UN’s nuclear weapons watchdog today warned that its late 1970s 
computer system is now too old to help its inspectors do an efficient 
job and needs to be updated. 

"Extracting information can take hours and days, making timely analysis 
of relevant safeguards data difficult and expensive," said 
the International Atomic Energy Agency’s <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/safeg_computer.html">(IAEA) 
Livio Costantini. 
"We need to prepare for new data to be included when drawing safeguards 
conclusions, such as open source, imagery, and import and 
export information. 

"A major overhaul of the system is needed to allow inspectors immediate, 
secure online access to safeguards information." 

Under agreements with more than 140 countries, IAEA inspectors must 
verify that safeguarded nuclear material and nuclear developments 
are not used for military purposes. 

The agency estimated its computer system’s extra-budgetary funding 
needs at $10 million, after receiving contributions towards the 
overhaul from the United Kingdom and the United States. 

"Failure to replace the hardware and software, and to integrate fully 
all the information system components will carry large risks," 
the Vienna-based Agency warned in a statement. 
 2004-10-22 00:00:00.000 

________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Brazil Reacts Angrily to Report on Nukes
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday October 23, 2004 12:46 AM

AP Photo RIO104 

By MICHAEL ASTOR 

Associated Press Writer 

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - Brazil on Friday denounced a U.S. 
magazine report saying Brazil's uranium enrichment plant will 
give it the potential to build nuclear warheads. 

In its latest issue, Science magazine said that Brazil's uranium 
enrichment plant in Resende, about 60 miles northwest of Rio de 
Janeiro, will be able to refine enough uranium to build up to six 
nuclear warheads. 

The report said that at its ``announced capacity'' the plant will 
be able to enrich enough uranium ``to make five to six 
implosion-type warheads per year. By 2010, as capacity rises, it 
could make enough every year for 26 to 31 and by 2014 enough for 
53 to 63.'' 

But the president of Brazil's National Nuclear Energy Commission, 
Odair Dias Goncalves, called the magazine's arguments 
``frivolous.'' 

``They can only be the result of misinformation or motivated by 
shadowy interests,'' he said. ``Both motives are incompatible 
with the tradition of such a prestigious magazine like Science.'' 

The magazine report, ``Brazil's Nuclear Puzzle,'' was written by 
two writers from the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. 

Goncalves said the Resende plant was designed to enrich uranium 
to low levels for fuel to generate nuclear power plants. 

For nuclear warheads, he said, the uranium has to be enriched to 
90 percent, ``and we simply do not have the technology for 
that.'' 

The article acknowledged Brazil's commitment to enrich uranium to 
only 3.5 percent, ``which would be too weak to fuel a bomb.'' 

But, it warns, ``If Brazil should change its mind, its stockpile 
of uranium already enriched to 3.5 percent or 5 percent will have 
received more than half the work needed to bring it to weapon 
grade.'' 

``This confers what is known as 'breakout capability' - the power 
to make nuclear weapons before the world can react.'' 

The Science and Technology Ministry rejected that argument, 
saying that to accept it would be to acknowledge that no country 
has the right to have access to nuclear technology. 

The article was published days after inspectors of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency visited Resende, where they 
were allowed to see the tubing and valves leading to the 
centrifuges. 

They were not, however, allowed to see all the centrifuges. 

Brazil claims the plant's advanced technology could be stolen by 
other countries if outsiders were allowed to view it. 

Brazil has proposed that the agency inspect the valves and tubes 
leading to and from the centrifuges but not view the equipment 
completely. 

After the inspectors' visit, Brazilian officials expressed 
optimism they would reach agreement with the IAEA. 

Brazil's reluctance to grant the IAEA full visual access to the 
centrifuges is an attempt ``to hide the origin of the 
centrifuges,'' the Science report said. 

``In December 1996, Brazil arrested Karl-Heinz Schaab, a former 
employee of Germany's MAN Technologie AG, a firm that developed 
centrifuges for the European enrichment consortium called 
Urenco,'' the report said. ``German authorities wanted Schaab 
extradited to prosecute him for selling centrifuge blueprints to 
Iraq. There is evidence that Schaab and other experts were 
helping Brazil as well.''        
  
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear options
 
Iran 
		 	
Friday October 22, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
No one knows exactly how Iran will react to the latest European 
proposals for reining in its nuclear ambitions and no one should 
underestimate the importance of its response. Britain, France and 
Germany - the EU3 - did the sensible thing yesterday when they 
set out their stall in Vienna. Their tempting idea is that the 
Islamic Republic will be helped to generate nuclear power if it 
agrees to stop enriching uranium, which can be used to make 
nuclear weapons. The United States is unhappy with this strategy 
of inducements. But with the American presidential election 
imminent and the Europeans desperately conscious of the shadow of 
Iraq, it is right to explore every diplomatic avenue. If there is 
no progress, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's 
nuclear watchdog, will pass the dossier to the security council 
next month to consider "further steps", including the possible 
imposition of economic sanctions. It is hard to imagine that 
there will be a united international response at that point. 

Iran maintains that its nuclear programme, a symbol of modernity 
and national pride, is for power generation and not for military 
purposes. It insists too that it is open to talks, but will never 
give up uranium enrichment - a process which can be used to 
produce fuel for nuclear reactors or material for atomic bombs. 
This is a murky area - though the US and Britain must be aware 
that their record on intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction will not inspire confidence that they are well 
informed about Iran. The studiously neutral IAEA has uncovered 
previously hidden activities that could well be related to a 
clandestine Iranian weapons programme. Crucially, though, it has 
found no "smoking gun". 

President George Bush famously included Iran in his "axis of 
evil" in the state of the union address in 2002, citing its 
support for the Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad 
groups, as well as its nuclear ambitions and a fundamentalist 
regime which began life by overthrowing the Shah and humiliating 
America back in 1979. But the view from Tehran looks fairly 
ominous these days: two of Iran's neighbours - Russia and 
Pakistan - are nuclear powers. Israel has a formidable if 
undeclared nuclear arsenal and has hinted heavily that it might 
launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it 
did against Saddam Hussein's French-built reactor in 1981. 
American forces are next door in Iraq and Afghanistan - hardly a 
recipe for studied calm among the hawks around President Ali 
Khamenei. You do not need a Farsi edition of Clausewitz to work 
out that a nuclear weapon might be a useful protection against 
efforts at regime change in Tehran - a thought surely reflected 
in Wednesday's launch of a new long-range ballistic missile. 

Looking back a year or so ago, Iran looked like the case that 
could prove that European policies of engagement and persuasion 
would succeed where American sabre-rattling failed. The EU's 
strategic doctrine placed heavy emphasis on "effective 
multilateralism" (without referring to Mr Bush's disastrous 
unilateralism). The mission was important enough to unite London, 
Paris and Berlin, divided over Iraq, to try their luck with Iran. 
But barring some last minute surprise from Tehran, they seem to 
have failed. Understandably enough, the world is deeply 
preoccupied with Iraq, but the crisis brewing next door could be 
extremely serious. Nothing much will happen this side of November 
2, though after that - especially with a re-elected President 
Bush - all bets will be off. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty 
has already been rocked by India and Pakistan acquiring nuclear 
weapons. Another breach could kill it off. That means that 
keeping the Iranian genie inside its bottle is a matter of global 
importance. 
	
[UP] 
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 14 UK Independent: We must, with regret, accept Hugh Montefiore's resignation 
as a trustee of Friends of the Earth
 
23 October 2004

The global threat posed by climate change is a serious issue, and 
there is an urgent need to look at how we respond to it in the 
UK. Yesterday, the former Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, 
reopened the debate, putting forward his view that the nature of 
the danger is such that the UK must resort to nuclear power to 
cut emissions of carbon dioxide. 

Friends of the Earth has looked very carefully at this issue, and 
after consideration of the facts concluded that nuclear power 
does not at the current time provide an adequate or appropriate 
solution. This view is based very much on a careful evaluation of 
the options we have to fight climate change. 

As the former bishop states, the dangers of global warming are 
greater than any other facing the planet. We need to urgently 
reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle this threat. 
Friends of the Earth has modelled how these reductions could be 
made. Our evidence shows that the Government's target of a 20 per 
cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 can be 
achieved through modest reductions in demand for electricity, 
reductions in emissions from transport and from industry, 
Government support for renewable technologies and market 
intervention to clean up emissions from coal. In the longer term, 
the Royal Commission has shown that Britain can cut its emissions 
by 60 per cent by 2050 without recourse to nuclear power. 

Non-nuclear alternatives are preferable because, contrary to 
Bishop Montefiore's claims, nuclear power is not "a reliable, 
safe, cheap, almost limitless form of pollution-free energy". 
Nuclear generation is polluting. It produces radioactive waste 
which remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. 

Nuclear power also results in the radioactive pollution of the 
natural environment. Radioactive material is discharged into our 
oceans, and pollutes our atmosphere. The long-term impacts of 
this on marine life, on wild-life and on human health will be 
felt by generations to come. 

Nor is nuclear power cheap. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' 
money has been spent propping up the nuclear industry, including 
the cost of managing radioactive waste. It does not offer any 
financial benefits when compared with the development of 
renewable energy. 

What is more, nuclear power is not neutral in terms of emissions 
of carbon dioxide. Research carried out for the European 
Commission, looking at the overall impacts of building and 
operation, suggests that new nuclear power stations would produce 
around 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power. 

Nuclear power currently generates about one quarter of our 
electricity, and overall electricity generation is responsible 
for less than a third of the UK's emissions of carbon dioxide. If 
we doubled the amount of nuclear power so that it provided 44 per 
cent of our electricity needs, we would reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions by no more than 8 per cent. 

Our efforts to tackle global warming must be based on an overall 
assessment of all the sources of emissions and not just emissions 
of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power may offer small savings in terms 
of electricity, but it is costly, dangerous and polluting, and as 
such is an inadequate solution to the problems we face. 

What is more, the technology used to generate nuclear power is 
intrinsically linked to nuclear weapons. That is why the UK 
originally embarked on a nuclear power programme. Indeed, in 
recent years a number of countries have used nuclear power as a 
springboard for producing nuclear weapons. 

The threat of global warming requires international action. If 
one country decides nuclear power is a suitable solution to 
climate change, we must accept other countries may also demand 
this technology. This would raise the risks of nuclear 
proliferation - at a time when concerns about international 
terrorism have never been higher. 

On the basis of a careful evaluation of this evidence, Friends of 
the Earth concluded that it is right to continue to oppose new 
developments of nuclear power. That is why we feel we must, with 
regret, accept Hugh Montefiore's resignation as a trustee of 
Friends of the Earth. Nuclear power is not the solution, and 
Friends of the Earth will continue to campaign against it for the 
foreseeable future. 

The writer is executive director of Friends of the Earth 	      
    


UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: Connecticut Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant, Exemption 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23665 
[Federal Register: October 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 204)] 
[Notices] [Page 62099-62100] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22oc04-117]                         
 
From Certain Low-Level Waste Shipment Tracking Requirements in 10 
CFR Part 20 Appendix G 1.0 Background The Connecticut Yankee 
Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) is the licensee and holder of 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 issued for Haddam Neck 
Plant (HNP), located in East Hampton, Connecticut.
 
The HNP is a permanently shutdown nuclear reactor facility. 
Beginning in 2003, the amount of radioactive waste shipped from 
the site significantly increased. The majority of the radioactive 
waste generated by the site is related to HNP decommissioning 
activities. Inherent to the decommissioning process, large 
volumes of slightly contaminated concrete rubble and debris are 
generated that require shipment for disposal in offsite low-level 
radioactive waste burial sites.
 
Due primarily to the volume of radioactive waste, CYAPCO has 
encountered an increase in the number of routine shipments that 
take longer than 20 days from transfer to the shipper to receipt 
acknowledgment from the burial site. Each shipment with receipt 
notifications greater than 20 days requires a special 
investigation and report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) which the licensee believes to be burdensome and 
unnecessary to meet the intent of the regulation.
 
2.0 Request/Action In a letter to the Commission dated June 1, 
2004, CYAPCO requested an exemption from the requirements in 10 
CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, to investigate and file a 
report to the NRC if shipments of low-level radioactive waste are 
not acknowledged by the intended recipient within 20 days after 
transfer to the shipper. This exemption would extend the time 
period that can elapse during shipments of low- level radioactive 
waste before CYAPCO is required to investigate and file a report 
to the NRC from 20 days to
 
[[Page 62100]] 35 days. The exemption would be limited to truck, 
combination truck/ rail shipping and potential future combination 
barge/rail shipping methods. The exemption request is based on a 
statistical analysis of the historical data of low-level 
radioactive waste shipment times from the licensee's site to the 
disposal site.
 
3.0 Discussion The proposed action would grant an exemption to 
extend the 20-day investigation and reporting requirements for 
shipments of low-level radioactive waste to 35 days. Beginning in 
2003, CYAPCO has made over 40 shipments of low-level radioactive 
waste as part of the decommissioning efforts at the facility. MHF 
Logistical Solutions is the rail broker company used by CYAPCO to 
perform these shipments. MHF Logistical Solutions has a tracking 
system that monitors the progress of the shipments from their 
originating point at HNP to their final destination at Envirocare 
of Utah, Inc. The shipments are made by either truck or 
combination truck/rail and, according to CYAPCO, the 
transportation time alone takes over 21 days on average, with one 
shipment taking 25 days.
 
In addition, administrative procedures at Envirocare and mail 
delivery can add up to 4 additional days. Based on historical 
data and estimates of the remaining waste at HNP, CYAPCO could 
have to perform over 400 investigations and reports to the NRC 
during the next 3 years if the 20-day notification criteria is 
maintained. The licensee affirms that the low-level radioactive 
waste shipments will always be tracked throughout transportation 
until they arrive at their intended destination. CYAPCO believes 
that the need to investigate, trace, and report to the NRC on the 
shipment of low-level radioactive waste packages not reaching 
their destination within 20 days does not serve the underlying 
purpose of the rule and is not necessary. As a result, CYAPCO 
states that granting this exemption will not result in an undue 
hazard to life or property.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the Commission may, upon application 
by a licensee or upon its own initiative, grant an exemption from 
the requirements of regulations in 10 CFR part 20 if it 
determines the exemption is authorized by law and would not 
result in undue hazard to life or property. There are no 
provisions in the Atomic Energy Act (or in any other Federal 
statute) that impose a requirement to investigate and report on 
low-level radioactive waste shipments that have not been 
acknowledged by the recipient within 20 days of transfer.
 
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there is no statutory 
prohibition on the issuance of the requested exemption and the 
Commission is authorized to grant the exemption by law.
 
The Commission acknowledges that based on the statistical 
analysis of low-level radioactive waste shipments from the HNP 
site, the need to investigate and report on shipments that take 
longer than 20 days could result in an excessive administrative 
burden on the licensee.
 
The Commission asserts that the underlying purpose of the rule is 
to investigate a late shipment that may be lost, misdirected, or 
diverted. Because of the oversight and monitoring of radioactive 
waste shipments throughout the entire journey from HNP to the 
disposal site, it is unlikely that a shipment could be lost, 
misdirected, or diverted without the knowledge of the carrier or 
CYAPCO. Furthermore, by extending the elapsed time for receipt 
acknowledgment to 35 days before requiring investigations and 
reporting, a reasonable upper limit on shipment duration (based 
on historical analysis) is still maintained if a breakdown of 
normal tracking systems were to occur.
 
Consequently, the Commission finds that there is no hazard to 
life or property by extending the investigation and reporting 
time for low-level radioactive waste shipments from 20 days to 35 
days for truck, combination truck/rail, or potential future 
combination barge/rail shipments. Therefore, the Commission 
concludes that the underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 20, Appendix 
G, Section III.E will be met. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the 
Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the 
exemption requested by CYAPCO in its January 26, 2004, letter is 
authorized by law and will not result in undue hazards to life or 
property. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants CYAPCO an 
exemption to extend the 20-day investigation and reporting 
requirements for shipments of low-level radioactive waste, as 
required by 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, to 35 
days. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, the Commission has determined 
that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the human environment as documented in 
Federal Register notice 69 FR 59971 (October 6, 2004).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of October, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management 
and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23665 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 UK Herald: BE delists ahead of today’s meeting   
 
     Web Issue 2120     October 22 2004      
    
  BEN GRIFFITHS     October 22 2004   
    
  SHARES in nuclear power generator British Energy were delisted
from the stock market yesterday ahead of a life-saving financial
restructuring which will leave shareholders with less than 3% of
the company.

 The heavily-indebted group, which is expected to relist in its
new guise sometime in January, is today holding an
extraordin-ary general meeting at Hampden Park conference
centre, Glasgow. The meeting was requisitioned by Polygon, a
rebel shareholder and US hedge fund, and has threatened to
derail the restructuring.

 The UK's biggest electricity producer has warned it faces
insolvency if shareholders do not support an agreement with
creditors. About 215,000 priv-ate investors still hold a stake
in the group, many having acquired shares in the former
state-owned group when it was privatised in 1996.

 East Kilbride-based British Energy is trying to push through a
£5bn restructuring plan having been brought close to bankruptcy
in 2002 by falling wholesale electricity prices. It delisted in
an effort to pre-empt the risk of shareholders voting down the
terms of the arrangement.

 Bondholders will be the winners under the agreement while
shareholders will be left with very little. British Energy's
creditors agreed a deal last October which will see the company
swap 92.5% of diluted equity in return for cancelling £1.3bn of
debt.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
[http://www.pressnow.co.uk/] :: About Us :: Terms of Use      
*****************************************************************
 17 The Herald: Nuclear body sets up in Highlands   
 
Web Issue 2120     October 22 2004      

  Herald [http://www.sundayherald.com/] 

    
  DAVID ROSS, Highland Correspondent     October 22 2004   
    
  THERE was a warm welcome in the north yesterday to news that
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) plans to establish
its Scottish regional headquarters in Caithness.

 The NDA will assume responsibility for the long-term
decommissioning of Dounreay and the other 19 sites operated by
UK Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd in
April. It is a programme which could cost £48bn.

 Dr Ian Roxburgh, the new NDA chief executive, attended a
"stakeholder workshop" in Thurso yesterday, where he confirmed
NDA officials were looking at properties in the county for its
new regional base. Between six and 15 management jobs would be
based in the new office.

 Highland Council had suggested that Wick would particularly
benefit from housing the new headquarters. 
David Flear, chairman of the council's Caithness area committee,
who attended the workshop and has been urging the NDA to
establish a presence in Caithness, said last night: "They are
looking at a number of properties in the county and we eagerly
await their decision.

 "Clearly Wick would benefit greatly from accommodating this
prestigious office and I have made the view of the council known
to senior NDA representatives."

 The NDA will next month announce the site of its national
headquarters in Cumbria. It will also set up two regional bases
in England.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
[http://www.pressnow.co.uk/] :: About Us :: Terms of Use      
*****************************************************************
 18 Bellona: Cracked reactor lid not to hinder lifetime extension of reactor
unit at Novovoronezh NPP
 
Cracks have been discovered in the reactor lid of the 
Novovoronezh nuclear power plant in South Russia, a 
representative of Russia’s nuclear agency Rosenergoatom told the 
Interfax news agency on October 6. 

2004-10-22 17:31

The discovered fault caused the delay of the running in of the 
fifth energy block, initially scheduled for September 2004, till 
January 2005. 

“The reason behind the delay was the discovery of cracks in the 
welded seams of the reactor lid of the fifth block,” a 
representative of Rosenergoatom has said. Experts hold that the 
cracks had appeared due to a production defect. The 30 years 
lifetime of the fifth block expires in 2010, but Russian experts 
say that it may be prolonged for another 20-year period. 

At present, only the third block of Novovoronezh power plant is 
working. The first and the second blocks have been shut down for 
good and the fourth and the fifth blocks are undergoing repairs. 
  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] 
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 19 Deutsche Welle: France Forges Ahead with Nuclear Power 

http://dw-world.de/

22.10.2004                                                                           
 		     	 
France wants to build a new generation of reactors                                                                                  

Flamanville on Normandy's Atlantic Coast is already home to one 
nuclear facility, and it's about to get another. Paris plans to 
start building the first of a new generation of nuclear plants in 
2007.
 
Well above the European average, France derives almost 80 percent 
of its electricity from its 58 nuclear reactors. The country's 
first atomic power station began operating near Colmar, close to 
the German border, in 1977. Now, almost thirty years on, France 
has had to decide whether  to replace its ageing nuclear plants 
or follow in Germany's footsteps. 

  [Das Atomkraftwerk Stade an der Elbe, undatierte Aufnahme. Der 
zweitgrÃ¶ÃŸte deutsche Stromversorger E.ON hat am 10.10.2000 die 
vorzeitige Stilllegung des Reaktors als erstem deutschen 
Atomkraftwerk nach den EnergiekonsensgesprÃ¤chen fÃ¼r 2003 
bekannt gegeben.]   

In 2000, Germany became the first leading economic power 
officially to announce plans to phase out use of nuclear energy. 
The country's second-largest plant, at Stade on the Elbe 
(pictured), was the first to go. 
  
But France has taken an entirely different approach. 
  
The German factor 
  
Experts say the new French reactors, known as the European 
Pressurized Water Reactor, are more efficient, safer and 
environmentally sound than the current models. Much to the 
chagrin of Berlin's environmentalist Greens, German company 
Siemens and French firm AREVA have been developing the EPR 
prototype since 1992. 
  
But the decision to go ahead with the project in Flamanville 
announced Thursday is good news for the joint Siemens-AREVA 
subsidiary Framatome in Erlangen, Germany, which employs some 
1,600 staff. 

 "It will have a positive effect on the region's job market," 
said company spokesman Christian Wilson Friday. 
  
Cheaper, stronger, better? 
  
The plant, expected to cost at least â‚¬3 billion ($3.8 billion), 
"will help guarantee European independence over the next few 
decades" said Pierre Gadonneix, president of ElectricitÃ© de 
France. Energy supply is a serious concern in a country with 
limited domestic energy resources and therefore reliant on 
imports. It's one reason why the government has traditionally 
supported investment in nuclear power. 
  
EDF pointed out that the 2nd generation reactors could generate 
1600 megawatts of electricity, compared to 900 for current 
reactors, need less regular recharging and have a life-span of 60 
years. The company also claims that they would be able to 
withstand the impact of an aircraft flown by terrorists. 
  
The center-right government, meanwhile, argues that EPR is the 
most strategic response to the rising cost of oil. 
  
Swimming against the eco-tide 
  
Critics of the plan, however, argue that investing in nuclear 
power has had its day. 
  
"This technology is obselete for political reasons that have no 
connection with a rational, properly thought-out energy policy," 
said a statement by the French office of environmental group 
Greenpeace. 
  
Surveys also show that a growing percentage of the French 
population would like to see an end to use of nuclear power. 
 


  [Finance Minister Nikolas Sarkozy of France answers questions 
while arriving at the start of the informal European Union 
Finance Ministers meeting in The Hague, The Netherlands, Friday 
Sept 10, 2004.  (AP Photo/Fred Ernst)]   
    

Flamanville as site of the new plant was chosen by Prime Minister 
Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy (photo) 
because the region supports use of nuclear energy. The 
alternative location, Penly near Dieppe, was ruled out in 
reaction to local protests.DW Staff (jp) [de:mehr]                                               

*****************************************************************
 20 TheChamplainChannel.com: Public Hearing Sought On Vermont Yankee Power Increase

POSTED: 9:39 am EDT October 22, 					 					2004

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. -- Is the plan to boost power by 20 percent at 
Vermont Yankee safe?

 Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are hearing from 
the state and an anti-nuclear group that want a full public 
hearing on the possible power increase. The NRC's judges will 
decide if such a hearing is needed.

"They're raising impossible barriers to the public getting a full 
hearing on issues of concern," said Raymond Shadis, of the New 
England Coalition. "It's a tough process. It's very close to 
being a kangaroo court."

 Vermont Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien was not as 
critical of the NRC as Shadis, but he agreed a hearing is needed.

"It's not about that this plant ought to be shut down, but if 
this is going forward, we have to be satisfied on certain 
points," O'Brien said. 

Have a comment about this story? E-mail our newsroom 
[newstips@thechamplainchannel.com] . Copyright 2004 by 
TheChamplainChannel.com [planews@ibsys.com] . All rights 

*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: EDF to build nuclear prototype
 
David Gow in Brussels
Friday October 22, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
Europe's nuclear power industry yesterday won an important boost 
when Electricité de France, the state-owned French electricity 
group, announced it would build a prototype 3bn next-generation 
plant on the Normandy coast. 

France, which depends on nuclear power for 80% of its energy, is 
to build a new atomic reactor which EDF says is safer, cheaper 
and more environmentally friendly than those in use. 

The French decision to go ahead with the European Pressurised 
Water Reactor (EPR) comes as Britain, spurred by Tony Blair, is 
rethinking the nuclear option in the face of soaring oil prices, 
dwindling North Sea oil and gas reserves and slow progress in 
developing renewables. 

In a move that horrified anti-nuclear campaigners Pierre 
Gadonneix, chairman of EDF, said the group would seek swift 
planning permission for the first EPR it plans to build at 
Flamanville, south-west of Cherbourg. 

It will be built on the same site as an existing nuclear plant.
 	
Graphics
The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf)
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf] 
Nuclear map of Britain
US nuclear map

Useful links
British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] 
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] 
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] 
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] 
HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] 
UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] 
National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] 
Friends of the Earth
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc
lear/index.html] 
World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] 
World Nuclear Transport Institute [http://www.wnti.co.uk] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 22 National Post: N.B. nuclear plant back in operation following unplanned outage 

Maritimes - 

canada.com network
 		 		
NATIONAL POST]     [[Maritimes]] Canadian Press   

October 22, 2004

FREDERICTON -- The Point Lepreau nuclear power plant was back 
on-line Friday following an unplanned outage. 

The generating station was returned to service following a 
maintenance outage that began October 2. 

During the outage one of the station's automatic shutdown systems 
was repaired along with piping in the conventional, non-nuclear 
part of the station. 

The bill for replacement power during the shutdown is expected to 
top $14 million. 

The last time the plant was offline for more than a few days for 
unscheduled maintenance was in 2001 when it was out of service 
for 40 days to repair a heavy-water leak. 

Last May, NB Power spent more than $20 million during a 
month-long planned shutdown at the nuclear reactor. 

Point Lepreau regularly supplies up to 30 per cent of New 
Brunswick's electricity. © Canadian Press 2004 

*****************************************************************
 23 ThisisLondon: British Energy 'will meet deadline' 
 
[http://www.thisislondon.co.uk

22 October 2004 

BRITISH Energy, the nuclear generator, claimed it is on schedule 
to complete a controversial financial restructuring in time for a 
deadline of 31 January 2005.

In a statement ahead of an extraordinary general meeting at which 
shareholders are expected to back the restructuring, the company 
said it may nonetheless be forced to extend that deadline.

'No decision has been taken at this time,' it said.

Faced with bankruptcy, British Energy, which produces 20% of 
Britain's electricity, was forced to strike a deal with creditors 
under which they will take control of around 97.5% of its equity.

Under the terms of that agreement, if the company fails to 
complete the restructuring by next January the deal could be 
scrapped.

Shareholders, angered by what they claimed were harsh terms, had 
threatened to use that loophole to their advantage and force the 
company to renegotiate terms.

But leading investor Polygon Investment Partners LLP last month 
abandoned its fight to scupper the restructuring. 

*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy mutiny fails
 
Adam Jay
Friday October 22, 2004 		
 		
Rebel British Energy shareholders today failed in their bid to 
derail the embattled nuclear group's £5bn restructuring plan, as 
resolutions designed to stymie a key deal with creditors were 
thrown out.

The company, which almost collapsed two years ago, received an 
emergency handout from the government and entered into a creditor 
restructuring agreement, which is due to expire next January. 

A proposed final debt-for-equity restructuring plan strongly 
favours bondholders, leaving shareholders with just 2.5% of the 
equity in the company, with warrants for a further 5%.

Some shareholders wanted a better deal, and today attempted to 
strike out the creditor agreement. But had their resolutions gone 
through, creditors would no doubt have forced through a 
restructuring under which shareholders would have been left with 
nothing.

With that in mind, Polygon Investment Partners - which together 
with US fund manager Brandes co-authored the resolutions - agreed 
at the end of last month to vote against its own proposals at 
today's extraordinary general meeting. 

Polygon, a London-based hedge fund with a 5.6% stake, said at the 
time that there was "no commercial logic in proceeding with the 
egm or supporting the proposed resolutions".

British Energy, the owner of the Sizewell B plant, said this 
afternoon that "all the resolutions at its extraordinary general 
meeting were voted down by shareholders". 

It added: "The directors welcome this result and continue to 
believe that the agreed restructuring is in the best interests of 
the company and its shareholders as a whole".

British Energy shares de-listed yesterday, and the company is due 
to re-list in its new guise by January. A separate egm will be 
called by the end of the year for shareholders to vote on the 
restructuring.
 	
 	
        Special report The nuclear industry

Graphics The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf) 
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09 
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf] Nuclear map of Britain US nuclear map

Useful links British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/] 
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/] British 
Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] 
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/] HSE nuclear 
glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic 
energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological 
Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] Friends of the Earth 
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc 
lear/index.html] World Nuclear Association 
[http://www.uilondon.org/] World Nuclear Transport Institute 
[http://www.wnti.co.uk] 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: Portugal mulls nuclear energy to reduce oil dependence: report

   [http://www.spacewar.com/]  [http://www.spacewar.com/]
 
LISBON (AFP) Oct 22, 2004

 Portugal's centre-right government is considering nuclear energy 
and the revival of a giant dam project to reduce the nation's 
high dependency on oil, daily newspaper Publico reported Friday.

The proposals are included in a government report outlining 
options for Portugal's energy future which was presented to 
cabinet ministers at their weekly meeting Thursday, the newspaper 
said.

Portugal currently does not produce any nuclear energy. The 
country is one of the most oil-dependent members of the European 
Union along with Spain, Ireland and Greece.

At the end of Thurday's cabinet meeting, government spokesman 
Nuno Morais Sarmento told reporters that the report, drawn up in 
the wake of the sharp rise in oil prices, had been tabled but a 
final decision as to what path to take would only be made over 
the next few weeks.

The report has not been made public but Publico said it also 
recommended that work on a giant dam in northern Portugal at Foz 
Coa, which was abandoned after pre-historic cave art was found in 
the region which would be submerged, should go ahead.

Earlier this week France announced it will build the first of a 
new generation of pressurised water nuclear plants.

 All rights reserved. © 2004  [http://www.afp.com/] . Sections of 
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting
 
                        FR Doc 04-23663 
[Federal Register: October 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 204)] 
[Notices] [Page 62100] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22oc04-118]                         
 
on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on 
November 3, 2004, Room T-2B1, 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 the internal personnel rules and 
practices of the ACRS, 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, November 3, 2004--11:45 a.m.--1 p.m. The Subcommittee 
will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The 
Subcommittee will 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. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) 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 18, 2004.
 
John H. Flack, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23663 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 27 [DU-WATCH] depleted uranium
 
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:26:22 -0500 (CDT)

 
Depleted Uranium, the new panacea
The Arms Maker's choice with a half-life of only 4.5 billion
years. 
Workers in DU must wear exposure suits and respirators
Just a creative use of atomic leftovers.

Dense, hard, it punches through armor like tissue,
Vaporizes and fragments into dust and tiny chunks.
Dust to be breathed and chunks to be imbedded
As shrapnel or become buried in earth.

Battle tested in Desert Storm and Kosovo,
Now everyone is making them, and selling them,
To armies around the globe, eager for the latest thing.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi desert and Kosovo are laden with tons.

Pay no attention to the sick and the dying.
The Government says it is anything but DU.
Agent Orange was all in the mind, too.
Birth defects and cancer are coincidence in Govspeak.

A hundred or a thousand years from now,
When Hussein and Imperial America are long forgotten,
Or are but spooky tales told around the campfire, 
As a new civilization tries to grow,

Peasants, trying to coax food from the ground will stir up clouds of 
dust.
They, their children and their animals will slowly sicken and die,
And they will know not why.
Just collateral damage from a weapon long ago.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 28 [du-list] 109 italian soldiers dead so far from du in iraq
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:47:18 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

109 Italian Soldiers Dead So
Far From DU In Iraq
10-20-4

ROME, Italy (AGI) - According to the Italian Military
Health Observatory a
total of 109 Italian soldiers have died thus far due
to exposure to
depleted uranium.

The observatory stressed the fact that 41 pct of
active personnel
casualties relate to disease. According to Domenico
Leggiero at the
Military Health Observatory, "The total of 109
casualties exceeds the total
number of persons dying as a consequence of road
accidents. Anyone denying
the significance of such data is purely acting out of
ill faith, and the
truth is that our soldiers are dying out there due to
a lack of adequate
protection against depleted uranium".

Leggiero pointed out the fact that the Senate has to
date failed to
establish a probe committee on this matter: "it is
proof of a worrying lack
of oversight on matters which are frankly dramatic".

Members of the Observatory have petitioned a urgent
hearing "in order to
study effective prevention and safeguard measures
aimed at reducing the
death-toll amongst our serving soldiers".

http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200410191947-1213-R
T1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! 
Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 Bellona: “Harmless amounts of plutonium” seized in Kyrgyzstan
 
Suspect material recently seized September 21 by Kyrgyz police 
turned out to contain only harmless amounts of plutonium, a UN 
official has told BBC News Online. 

2004-10-19 16:57

Initial reports spoke of two men being arrested on suspicion of 
trying to sell "plutonium containers" near the ex-Soviet 
republic's capital, Bishkek. But a spokesperson for the UN's 
nuclear watchdog said the containers were 55 old-fashioned Soviet 
smoke detectors. Such detectors contain a few micrograms of 
plutonium but are quite harmless. 

According to BBC News Online, Melissa Fleming, a spokesperson for 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, told the 
BBC on September 30 that Kyrgyz officials had confirmed the 
containers were stolen smoke detectors of a type produced 20 to 
30 years ago in the USSR. The containers did not, she said, pose 
a threat "from the point of view of nuclear proliferation", and 
Kyrgyzstan did not appear to be any more dangerous than other 
countries in this respect. However, Ms Fleming added that the 
fact that there were clearly people who believed they could find 
buyers for plutonium on the black market continued to cause 
concern. 

The IAEA was calling for tighter controls over potential 
"ingredients" for illegal nuclear weapons, she said. The World 
Nuclear Association notes that a type of smoke detector commonly 
available in many countries uses the radiation from a small 
amount of radioactive material to detect the presence of smoke or 
heat sources. "Ion chamber" smoke detectors, as they are known, 
are popular because they are inexpensive and are sensitive to a 
wider range of fire conditions than other designs, the WNA adds, 
reported BBC News Online. 
  

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] 
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 30 Bellona: Russian Audit Chamber to make extra audit of Murmansk 
Shipping Company this year

The Murmansk Shipping Company (MSC) is accused of ”illegal usage 
of nuclear icebreaker fleet in private purposes”. 

2004-10-20 16:23

On September 24, the working schedule of the Russian Audit 
Chamber for the last quarter of 2004 has been approved. It is 
mentioned in the official statement that the results of the final 
audit will be examined next year. After the May session of the 
Audit Chamber the MSC management reacted against the decision 
about ”illegal usage of nuclear icebreaker fleet in private 
purposes”, trying this decision in court without success. 

The MSC General Director Alexander Medvedev said to RBC Daily in 
July that it was clear that the results of the audit would be 
against Murmansk Shipping Company as it was an unplanned and 
groundless action. He was surprised that the authorities were not 
interested in the nuclear icebreakers in the 90s when they were 
unprofitable and scarcely financed by the state, but now when the 
icebreakers started to bring profits, the MSC is accused of 
mishandling state money. 

Since 1993 the MCS had been trying to get rid of the nuclear 
icebreakers 
[http://www.bellona.org/en/international/russia/icebreakers/8493. 
html] , as they were a burden for the company and badly supported 
by the state budget. Today the state is ready to operate its 
property, nuclear icebreakers, without MSC. Exactly when they 
became profitable and oil tankers traffic increased dramatically 
in the region. Murmansk Shipping Company, however, would like to 
keep control over the “former burden”.
   
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] 
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 31 Bellona: Canada to help Zvezdochka shipyard to dismantle submarines,
France – to burn radioactive waste
 
In the end of September the navy shipyard Zvezdochka received a 
retired submarine of Victor-I class. 

2004-10-21 17:18

Canada will sponsor the dismantlement of this multipurpose 
nuclear submarine, the shipyard’s press secretary Natalya 
Scherbinina told ITAR-TASS. The navy tugged the submarine to the 
shipyard. The shipyard is soon expecting the second ”Canadian” 
submarine. Total three submarines will be scrapped with the help 
of Canada in the frames of the Global Partnership program signed 
by G8 countries in 2002. Canada allocates total $18m for 
dismantling of all three submarines. 

Besides, the French delegation visited Zvezdochka in the end of 
September. The representatives of the group Technicatom examined 
the necessity for reconstruction of the facility for low-level 
radioactive waste burning. The document on further co-operation 
was signed as a result of the visit. The French party is ready to 
sign a contract with Zvezdochka on reconstruction of this 
facility immediately after the agreement on technical assistance 
between Russia and France is signed. 
  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] 
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 32 Xinhuanet: Russia denies reported lease of nuclear submarine to India   
  
www.xinhuanet.com
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-22 18:45:46   

    MOSCOW, Oct. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- Russian Defense Minister 
Sergei Ivanov on Friday refuted reports that his country would 
lease a nuclear submarine to India, Russian news agencies 
reported. 

    Ivanov said there were discussions with India on military 
deliveries earlier this year, but "there was no talk of leasing 
any submarines,'' the Interfax reported. 

    It was reported on Thursday that the Indian navy will take a 
lease on a Russian Akula-class nuclear submarine for 10 years 

    The reports said the submarine, capable of firing both 
nuclear and conventional missiles, is under construction at 
eastern Russia's Amur shipyard and could be finished by 2007. 

    Ivanov denied the reports, saying his talks with the Indian 
side were only about the possibility of upgrading and repairing 
electric diesel submarines that Russia had delivered to India. 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 Cincinnati Enquirer: Will they be paid before they die? 

   [http://www.cincinnati.com]       
    
  Friday, October 22, 2004 

By Dan Klepal Enquirer staff writer
	 
George Bassitt of Hamilton worked at Fernald as a chemical
operator for 37 years and suffers numerous health problems he
traces to the plant. Now retired, he has written countless
letters to government officials seeking help. He said he is
doubtful that promises of speedier action on health claims will
actually happen. 

The Enquirer/GLENN HARTONG   

CROSBY TWP. - One by one, George Bassitt's friends are dying. 
They are casualties, he says, of the Cold War - years after the 
fall of the Berlin Wall. 

Bassitt, 75, is one of about 7,000 men and women who worked at 
the Fernald plant in northwest Hamilton County, a place where the 
federal government melted raw ore in acid baths to get at the 
uranium inside. From 1952 until 1989, the uranium produced at 
Fernald helped fuel the country's nuclear weapons program. 

A chemical operator for 37 years, Bassitt routinely worked over 
radioactive uranium, acids and other hazardous chemicals, usually 
with nothing more than a pair of gloves and coveralls for 
protection. 

Bassitt, of Hamilton, is one of more than 1,100 retired Fernald 
workers who have filed claims with the federal government, hoping 
to receive cash for the cancer, respiratory ailments, lost wages 
and disabilities they say resulted from their work. 

Three years after compensation programs were created, more than 
70 percent of the Fernald claims are languishing in a 
bureaucratic maze. Fewer than 100 have been paid. The rest have 
been denied or recommended for denial. 

"They're taking too long," Bassitt said. "Anybody who stood over 
that stuff, breathing it every day, they should be paid." 

WORKERS' CLAIMS 
  
  Here's a look at the number of compensation claims filed by 
retired Fernald workers, or their family members, since 2001. 
Multiple family members can file separate claims on behalf of one 
retired worker. • Number of claims: 1,165 • Number paid: 93 • 
Amount: $11.1 million • Average paid per claim: $119,354 Source: 
U.S. Department of Labor
   
Government officials acknowledge they have been slow to process 
the claims, particularly those from Fernald workers. That is 
about to change, they say, for two reasons: 

• A "site profile," designed to help determine how much radiation 
workers were exposed to at Fernald, was completed this spring. 
That study is necessary so Department of Labor officials can use 
a mathematical formula to determine if there is a 50-percent 
chance or better that the ailment was caused by their work. The 
program offers a lump sum payment of $150,000 and lifetime 
medical coverage. 

• A second compensation program, meant to pay workers for lost 
wages and disabilities, was transferred Oct. 8 from the 
Department of Energy to the Department of Labor. Politicians, 
including Sens. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, 
became frustrated with the Department of Energy after that agency 
spent $95 million to administer the program over three years but 
approved only 31 claims from more than 25,000 filed nationwide. 

Moving the program under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction 
should speed the process, officials say. 

"Operationally, it was an absolute disaster," Bunning said. 
"Labor has much more experience handling illness claims, so we'll 
get good and prompt findings with them." 

Bassitt isn't so sure. He worked in every building at the 
sprawling 1,050-acre Fernald site during his career. 

He suffers from a variety of respiratory ailments and has lost 25 
percent of his lung capacity. He's had a heart attack and a 
stroke, lost a gallbladder and a kidney, and has undergone 
open-heart surgery. 

But Bassitt is lucky. Unlike many of his peers, he doesn't suffer 
from cancer. 

The federal government admitted in 1988 that contamination at 
Fernald was a health threat, to both workers and nearby 
residents. 

Kevin Clausing, a Department of Energy employee, is manager at a 
Portsmouth resource center where retired workers from Ohio's 
three uranium plants can get information or help in filing their 
claims. There are 10 such resource centers around the country. 

He believes recent developments will help the retired Fernald 
workers. A year ago, 17 Fernald claims had been paid. Today that 
number is 90. Two months ago, $8 million had been paid to former 
workers. Now, the total paid out is $11.8 million. 

"The cases are moving now," he said. "I understand the 
frustration and the skepticism. The question that comes is: Can 
you honestly say - based on the information provided by the 
Department of Energy about what types of materials were used at 
the plant, how many accidents there were, and how many releases 
took place - the (site profile) is fair? 

"I don't know that anybody can answer that." 

Count Rose Marie Waterman among the skeptical. 

The 54-year-old White Oak resident was one of the few women to 
work in the Fernald production area. Her job for two years in the 
1980s was to compile an inventory of materials in all of the 
Fernald plants and log them into a computer. Her work took her to 
every building at the site. 

Diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2001, Waterman is 
appealing the denial of one claim and awaiting word on another. 
She said the government got the facts of her case wrong in 
explaining why she was denied. She believes chemotherapy has led 
to problems with her limbs and major organs. She blames the 
Department of Energy for not telling her she was exposed to 
radiation while working at Fernald. That information would have 
changed her doctor's approach to treating the cancer. 

Waterman says it's hard to muster the strength to battle the 
federal government while she's also battling cancer. 

"I can appreciate the hope everyone seems to have in Labor taking 
over the program, but they've been offering hope to us on a plate 
for three years," she said. "To ask a very sick person to rebuff 
the federal government - I've got to be an attorney, a fact 
finder and make my own case - that's a little far-fetched. ... 
"Stress is one of the worst things for a cancer patient. I'm not 
going to be around much longer unless I get some real help." 

E-mail  [dklepal@enquirer.com] 

 [http://cincinnati.com/copyright] 1995-2004. 
*****************************************************************
 34 amarillo.com: Radiation workshop planned for teachers 

10/22/04
 	 
[Amarillo Globe News] 
   	 	
Students are not the only ones preparing for the state's Texas 
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test. 

Today, secondary science educators will participate in a workshop 
about radiation and radioactivity sponsored by the Texas 
Panhandle Chapter of the Health Physics Society and BWXT Pantex.

 The workshop will be from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Region 16 
Education Service Center, 5800 Bell St. Interactive activities 
for the teachers are planned for 9:30 to 10:15 a.m. and 11:45 
a.m. to 12:45 p.m.

 The workshop will help teachers better prepare students for the 
science section on the test through a series of lectures, 
demonstrations and hands-on lab experiments taught by BWXT Pantex 
employees, many of whom are members of the Health Physics 
Society.

 The teachers will learn how to teach students about the natural 
and man-made radiation, its beneficial uses for medical 
treatment, the commercial use of nuclear power for energy, and 
more.

 The teachers will receive a radioactivity instrument for lab 
use, a workbook, presentation material and videos to show their 
students.

[http://www.amarillo.com/]  				 			   		 	
*****************************************************************
 35 [NukeNet] Radioactive Volcanoes At Yucca Mt?
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:46:10 -0700

 
<x-flowed>


   Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org


    Nor is there space for a Geological Society of
America report which warned that should moisture
enter the mountain where nuclear waste is stored
in bundles of rods, "radioactive volcanoes could
form on the surface".  http://www.google.com




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1333145,00.html
   Bush faces nuclear fallout in Nevada over £60bn
mountain of radioactive waste

Dan Glaister in Las Vegas
Friday October 22, 2004
The Guardian

Roadworks slow progress along the strip in Las
Vegas. In the distance, poking between the mock
Eiffel Tower and the mock pyramid at Luxor, cranes
stand out against the autumn sky, building the
next phase of America's seemingly permanent boom
town.
But 95 miles north-east of this city, the
powerhouse of Nevada with 36 million visitors a
year, lies another construction site.

Yucca Mountain, projected to cost around $60bn
(£32.8bn), has been chosen by the Bush
administration to be the nation's nuclear waste
repository, set to hold the existing 40,000 tons
of waste produced to date by the country's nuclear
power stations.

"This material is the deadliest substance known to
mankind," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive
director of Citizen Alert, a local group that has
campaigned against the repository. "It's one
million times more radioactive when it comes out
of the reactor core than when it went in."

In February 2002, just over a year after taking
office, President Bush recommended the Yucca
Mountain site to Congress. But many voters
remembered that, as a candidate in September 2000,
Mr Bush promised not to approve the site until it
had been "deemed scientifically safe", a
formulation that is credited with helping him win
the state.

Four years on, and with the project stalled by
legal challenges to its scientific justification,
those words may come back to haunt the president
in what has become a swing state. A recent poll
showed that Yucca Mountain was the top issue for
3% of registered voters. "Given what's going on in
this country, 3% is huge," said Ms Maze Johnson.


The polls in Nevada have ranged between a 10% lead
for Mr Bush to a 1% lead for Mr Kerry. In 2000 Mr
Bush won the state by 3.5%, or 22,000 votes, but
Nevada has changed since then. The fastest-growing
state in the US in 2003, its population has risen
by 300,000 in the past four years to reach 2.4
million. For this election, there will be 1.1
million registered voters, 66,000 of them
Hispanics, who traditionally lean toward the
Democratic party. The increase in population means
that Nevada now contributes five votes to the
electoral college, one more than in 2000.
Accordingly, the state has become an increasingly
important and hard-fought battleground in this
year's electoral race.

"In 2000 there was no campaign here; the Democrats
conceded," said David Damore, assistant professor
of political science at the University of Nevada
at Las Vegas. "But this year there's been a strong
effort to get new voters registered. The
electorate looks very different to the way it did
four years ago."

While voters in the state are likely to be swayed
by the same big issues as the rest of the
country - the economy, the war in Iraq - Nevada is
one swing state where the debate about the
environment, thanks to Yucca Mountain, is being
aired.

John Kerry has been swift to side with opponents
of the plan. In an article published in the Las
Vegas Review-Journal in May, Mr Kerry accused Bush
of "placing the profits of the nuclear power
industry above the safety of Nevada families ... I
voted against the plan to dispose of waste at
Yucca Mountain," he wrote, "and as president I
will fight against it."

Republicans chose to use the Yucca Mountain issue
as an opportunity to depict Mr Kerry as a
"flip-flopper", pointing out that he had voted in
favour of a 1987 bill, nicknamed the Screw Nevada
bill, which authorised consideration of Yucca
Mountain as the nation's repository for nuclear
waste.

In August Mr Kerry defended his position, saying:
"Back in 1987 the idea of a national repository
seemed like a reasonable thing ... [but] the more
I have looked at the issue, the more I have
learned about it, the less safe, the less
comfortable I am with the possibility."

Also in August, Mr Bush told a rally in Las Vegas:
"I said I would make a decision based upon [sound]
science, not politics ... and that's exactly what
I did."

Ms Maze Johnson said: "The president called it
sound science. I call it botched science. We're
not partisan, but Kerry has been with us when
we've needed his vote, which isn't easy for
someone from the north-east."

The north-east of the US is home to the bulk of
the country's nuclear energy industry. At present
nuclear waste is stored on site: across the US,
161 million people live within 75 miles of
temporarily stored nuclear waste.

Local residents and politicians are keen to see it
moved as far away as possible, and the
sparsely-populated deserts of Nevada seemed as
good an idea as any. Those opposed to the
repository are also concerned about the transport
of waste. It is, critics say, a disaster waiting
to happen, mobile Chernobyls offering the perfect
terrorist target.

"We are a one-industry state," said Ms Johnson,
referring to Nevada's dependence on tourism. "If
something stopped people coming, what would that
do to the economy?"

At the Yucca Mountain Information Centre, videos
and wallcharts trumpet the efforts to ensure that
the site is safe.

No mention is made of the native American name for
the mountain, Moving Hill, nor scientists'
nickname for it, Old Leaky. Nor is there space for
a Geological Society of America report which
warned that should moisture enter the mountain
where nuclear waste is stored in bundles of rods,
"radioactive volcanoes could form on the surface".





_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 36 Arizona Republic: Federal facility boon for EV firm
 
[azcentral.com]     

Stephanie Paterik Oct. 22, 2004 12:00 AM                                           

The federal government's controversial plan to dump nuclear waste 
at Nevada's Yucca Mountain has spurred lawsuits, political jabs - 
and a $1 million deal for a local company.

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is constructing an 
administrative courthouse to accommodate the anticipated 
licensing hearings, in which the Energy Department will seek 
permission to build the Yucca Mountain repository. ExhibitOne, in 
Chandler and moving to Ahwatukee Foothills next month, snagged a 
subcontract to install cutting edge courtroom technology in the 
building. 

"It's going to be a very high-profile case, and it's going to go 
on for a long time," President Kevin Sandler said. 

The Las Vegas building could become one of the most high-tech 
facilities of its kind, with four 60-inch flat screen monitors 
for displaying exhibits and documents. Videoconferencing will 
allow key players from around the country to testify without 
getting on a plane. And audio and video of the hearings will be 
piped to about 10 conference rooms and offices.

 

The high-tech courtroom will be completed and used for Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission hearings. The advanced technology also is 
starting to find its way into traditional courtrooms.

 PEC Solutions, the Fairfax, Va., company that won the primary 
information technology contract for the building, hired 
ExhibitOne.

Copyright © 2004, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 AP Wire: L.A. and environmentalists sue over nuclear cleanup

| 10/22/2004 | 

[http://maps.SanLuisObispo.com/
  
SLO TRIBUNE 

TIM MOLLOY

 Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - The city and two environmental groups are suing the 
Department of Energy for allegedly failing to adequately clean up 
the site of a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959. 

The department only plans to clean up 1 percent of the soil 
contaminated with chemicals and radioactivity at the 2,800-acre 
Santa Susana Field Laboratory site. The lawsuit filed Thursday 
claims the federal government has no plans to deal with the rest 
before opening the land for potential home development. 

Los Angeles decided to join the environmental groups, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council and the Committee to Bridge the Gap, 
because the site is so close to the city's edge. It is located in 
southeastern Ventura County about 30 miles northwest of downtown. 

"Studies have shown that there is groundwater and surface 
contamination, and contamination doesn't recognize borders, and 
doesn't stop at the city lines," said Frank Mateljan, a spokesman 
for the Los Angeles city attorney's office. 

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges 
violations of several environmental laws. It seeks a thorough 
environmental review and cleanup of the site. 

A call to an Energy Department spokesperson was not immediately 
returned Thursday. 

The suit contends the area was contaminated by the 1959 partial 
meltdown as well as decades of rocket testing at the site by 
Rocketdyne. 

The lawsuit contends that the Energy Department's cleanup plan 
would allow concentrations of radioactive materials 10,000 times 
higher than the federal Environmental Protection Agency's 
standards. 

Nuclear operations were shut down at the site 15 years ago, but 
rocket testing continues. 

The state has estimated that more than 1.73 million gallons of 
toxic trichloroethylene was dumped on the grounds and 500,000 
gallons are saturated in bedrock beneath the lab. 

Rocketdyne is now a division of Boeing Co., which has a contract 
with the Energy Department contract to clean up the site. Boeing 
is not named in the suit. 

"We're committed to cleaning up the site in a thorough and timely 
manner," Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said. 

The site would be cleaned to a level where it would be safe for 
people to live, Beck said.   

*****************************************************************
 38 Japan Times: Atomic commission votes to continue policy of reprocessing spent
nuke fuel

  Saturday, October 23, 2004   
             
 The Atomic Energy Commission's draft for a new nuclear policy 
plan advocates maintaining the current policy of reprocessing 
spent nuclear fuel.

 According to the draft, unveiled Friday, reprocessing is 
"superior" to burial due to potential advantages in terms of 
energy security and environmental protection.

 Burying the spent fuel, however, is far more economical.

 The commission released a new estimate that reprocessing all 
spent nuclear fuel would cost 42.9 trillion yen, while burying it 
would cost between 30 trillion yen and 38.6 trillion yen. The 
estimate was based on predicted power generation between 2002 and 
2059.

 It was the first time for the panel to calculate and release a 
total cost estimate. The commission had previously only disclosed 
cost in terms of per kilowatt of power generation.

 The draft, prepared by the panel's secretariat, was presented 
during the day's meeting of the commission, which is working to 
revise the nation's long-term nuclear policy.

 The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had estimated it 
would cost about 19 trillion yen over a 40-year period to 
reprocess spent nuclear fuel at a plant in Aomori Prefecture. The 
panel's estimate is higher because it includes expenses for 
processing nuclear fuel and waste.

 In drafting the plan, the secretariat compared the merits and 
demerits of both burying and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

 The officials said reprocessing spent fuel is "superior in a 
comprehensive manner" from perspectives such as energy security 
and potential application to the environment.

 The draft claims that the policy of reprocessing spent nuclear 
fuel has helped establish a relationship of trust with people 
living around reprocessing plants and an international reputation 
for Japan's technologies. Such achievements have "great worth to 
be maintained," it says.

 It also claims that Japan might not be able to maintain nuclear 
power reactors as its national key power source if the government 
changes the current policy.

 The Japan Times: Oct. 23, 2004 (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 39 AO: Company plans bid for storage of federal uranium waste
 
 [http://www.oaoa.com] 
   
Friday, 22 October 2004   

American Online   
  
c /o Odessa American 222 E. 4th Street P.O. Box 2952 Odessa, TX 79760
 
Copyright © 1999-2004 Odessa American. All rights reserved. 
  
By Ruth Campbell 

 Waste Control Specialists has applied to the Department of State 
Health Services to amend its license so it can store uranium 
tailings from a former U.S. Department of Energy uranium 
processing plant in Fernald, Ohio.
                        
The Department of Energy wants to move the waste by the end of 
2006, said Gary Stegner, public affairs officer for the 
Department of Energy. 

Jeff Wagner, public affairs officer for Fluor Fernald, the 
company charged with cleaning up the Fernald site, said a request 
for proposals will be mailed out the first part of November and a 
contract should be awarded by Jan. 20, 2005.
                        
Shipping would start sometime in early 2005 — around February or                     
March, Wagner said. 
                        
Waste Control Specialists, which has a site in Andrews County, 
has a license to store low-level radioactive waste and is 
applying to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to 
dispose of low-level radioactive waste.
                        
Waste Control Specialists already stores waste similar to the 
waste at Fernald at its site, Reggie Bashur, a company consultant 
said. “The site and storage of the material will be fully 
protective of human health and the environment,” Bashur said. 
                        
Andrews business people and city and county officials wrote to 
U.S. Secretary of Energy Spence Abraham expressing support for 
Waste Control Specialists taking the Fernald waste. 
                        

“The citizens of Andrews are very familiar with the nature of the 
business activities conducted at the WCS facility and understand 
that the facility is ideally situated for the safe and secure 
storage of radioactive materials due to the isolated location, 
arid climate, lack of surface and groundwater and superior 
geology,” the letter says. 

“Additionally, all activities conducted at the WCS facility are 
strictly regulated by the environmental and radiation control 
agencies of the State of Texas and federal government,” the 
letter said. 
                        
The waste would come from Fernald’s three silos, built in the 
early 1950s near Cincinnati, Ohio. Originally, the Department of 
Energy was going to send the silo waste to the Nevada Test Site, 
Stegner said. But the State of Nevada has threatened to sue DOE 
if silo waste is sent there, so DOE is considering other options. 
                        
The material is being moved because it would pose a public health 
threat if the silos collapsed and people were directly exposed to 
the material for long periods of time, according to information 
from Fluor Fernald, the company charged with cleaning up the 
Fernaldsite. The current location is also above a sole-source 
drinking water aquifer and within 25 miles of millions of people, 
the information says. 
                        
The silos are concrete structures 80 feet in diameter and 30 feet 
high. The silos contain material left after the processing of 
naturally occurring uranium to produce uranium metal. 
                        
Material left after the processing of uranium ore is regulated by 
the State of Texas under an authorization from the U.S. 
Regulatory Commission. The original ore was rich in uranium, and 
as a result, the material left behind “has relatively higher 
concentrations of naturally occurring radionulides than found in 
average ores,” according to information from Fluor Fernald. 

Silos 1 and 2 contain about 8,000 cubic yards of silty clay-like 
material from the processing ore from the Belgian Congo in the 
early 1950s, Fluor’s information says. 
                        
Margot Clarke, outreach coordinator for the Lone Star Chapter of 
the Sierra Club in Austin, said Belgian Congo Pitch Blend is 65 
percent uranium.
                        
The material was processed at Fernald and at a facility in St. 
Louis. The residues were stored because the African Metals Corp., 
which owned the material, wanted to save them for additional 
processing that never happened, the information says. 
                        
Clarke said the Fernald waste is known as 11e.2. “It’s mine 
tailings from the most potent uranium in the world … much, much 
stronger than anything else,” Clarke said. 
                        
Silo 3 contains 5,100 cubic yards of powder-like residues from 
the processing of Canadian and U.S. ores from the 50s. The 
material has been calcinated —burned — to reduce its volume, the 
information says. 
                        
If granted, the amended license would allow Waste Control 
Specialists to increase the quantity of waste it can take from 
250,000 cubic feet to 1.5 million cubic feet, said Richard 
Ratliff, radiation program officer for the Division of Regulatory 
Services in the Department of Health Services in Austin.
                        
The increased quantity would be the equivalent of about 7,000 
Department of Energy containers made of stainless steel and 
standing 6 feet around and 6 1/2 feet tall, Ratliff said. 
                        
Sue Walpole, public affairs officer with Fluor Fernald, said the 
company was given authority to look for other sites to send the 
waste. She said about 85 percent of the waste would stay at 
Fernald and be disposed of on-site.
                        
Stegner said two sets of requests for proposals will be taken — 
one for waste from the Fernald plant and the other for waste 
Fernald stored.
                        
For transport, material in Silos 1 and 2 will be placed into 
transfer storage tanks, treated with a concrete grout, placed in 
one-half-inch steel sealed containers six feet in diameter and 
six-and-a-half feet high. The containers would be shipped by 
truck or rail.
                        
Radiation risks from the material are “being eliminated” through 
treatment and packaging, the information says. The containers 
have been drop tested to ensure their integrity in a 
transportation accident. 
                        
Material in Silo 3 will be removed and conditioned with water and 
chemicals to make it “soil-like” and “eliminate its 
dispersability.” After that, the material would be placed in 
Department of Transportation approved containers and shipped by 
truck or train to the Nevada Test Site. 
                     
Clarke said the State of Utah took legislative action to stop the 
company, Envirocare, from taking the waste. 
                        
“Once the DOE gets that stuff out of Ohio, … it’s going to be 
nearly impossible for us to change our minds,” Clarke said. 
                        
Meanwhile, Clarke said the Sierra Club is working to close the 
“compact loophole,” which allows waste from other states to be 
stored in Texas. 
                        
The Waste Control site, once it’s licensed, would store federal 
and compact waste from Texas and Vermont. Clarke said the 
loophole in the compact law allows the yet-to-be appointed 
six-member Compact Commission to vote to take waste from anyone.
                        
Clarke said Nevada has already proposed sending their interstate 
compact waste to Texas, as has Nebraska, which was supposed to be 
the host state for waste from Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.   

*****************************************************************
 40 SU: U.N. nuclear watchdog leader ElBaradei to speak about nonproliferation 

[http://www.stanford.edu]   
    
October 22, 2004   
 
BY SHARAN L. DANIEL 

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA), will deliver the 2004 Drell Lecture, 
sponsored by the Center for International Security and 
Cooperation (CISAC), at 4 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 4, in Kresge 
Auditorium. His lecture, "Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms 
Control: The Road Ahead," is free and open to the public. 

ElBaradei also will address the legal aspects of nuclear 
nonproliferation in a second lecture, "Legal Issues in Nuclear 
Nonproliferation and Global Security," at 4 p.m. Friday, Nov. 5, 
in Room 180 of the Law School. This event, which is free and open 
to the public, is sponsored by Stanford Law School, Stanford 
International Law Society and Stanford Law Society of Silicon 
Valley. 

As head of the IAEA, ElBaradei oversees international inspections 
enforcing provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT) and related arms control agreements. Prior to the U.S.-led 
invasion of Iraq in spring 2003, ElBaradei and Hans Blix, former 
chief of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and 
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the IAEA group charged with 
carrying out U.N. Security Council-mandated inspections in Iraq, 
reported progress with the inspections. As IAEA inspectors 
evacuated from Iraq on March 19, 2003, ElBaradei continued to 
urge completion of the U.N. Security Council inspection process. 

More recently, IAEA reprimands of Iran have made headlines, with 
the agency's board of governors scheduled to revisit Iran's 
compliance with NPT provisions shortly after ElBaradei's visit to 
Stanford. On Sept. 13, 2004, the IAEA issued a deadline of Nov. 
25 for Iran to report fully on its nuclear program. For more than 
a year, the United States has advocated referral of Iran's case 
to the U.N. Security Council, after inspections revealed evidence 
of covert Iranian nuclear research. 

Before assuming the IAEA's top job on Dec. 1, 1997, ElBaradei 
held a number of high-level policy positions, including that of 
IAEA legal adviser. A diplomat and scholar, ElBaradei works 
closely with international organizations, particularly in the 
fields of peace, security and law. 

CISAC's Drell Lecture traditionally addresses a critical national 
or international security issue that has important scientific or 
technical dimensions. The lecture is named for Sidney Drell, 
CISAC's founding science co-director. Albert (BS '49, Engr '49) 
and Cicely (AB '52) Wheelon endowed the lectureship. 

[http://cisac.stanford.edu/] Stanford Law School 
[http://www.law.stanford.edu/]   
*****************************************************************
 41 Hanford Radwaste Initiative
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:24:07 -0500 (CDT)

 
http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2004/10/08/news/news03.txt
By Sebastian Moraga Herald staff writer Opponents call I-297
unnecessary, supporters dub it a possible boost for economy

Initiative 297 is proving as explosive as the material it plans to
oversee.

The initiative set to tighten up laws regarding the clean-up of
radioactive waste at the Hanford site has encountered strong backers
and sharp opposition throughout the state.

Environmental groups tend to support it, calling it a possible boost
for the economy and the environment. Opponents doubt it will pass
muster in courts and if it does, they call it an unnecessary measure,
as they believe that most of what the initiative would do is already
being done by existing guidelines.

Bob Cooper, press manager of the Yes on I-297 campaign, backed by
environmental advocacy group Heart of America Northwest, said that
the situation regarding nuclear waste has become serious enough
that an initiative such as I-297 is not only needed but imperative.

"Hanford is the most contaminated site in America and the Western
Hemisphere," he said, adding that according to data, dumping of
nuclear waste on unlined soil trenches has continued, with more
than a million gallons leaking from underground tanks, seeping into
the Columbia River.

Not only that, Cooper said, but the government plants to continue
shipping out waste to Hanford.

What I-297 does, he said, is it states that no more nuclear waste
can be taken there until it is cleaned up.

The clean-up of the Hanford site has taken decades due to federal
government inaction, Cooper said. "It is time for the state to step
in and get the job done," he added.

States have the right to say "no more" to the federal government,
Cooper said, if the state has a contaminated site. This stipulation
tends to be one of the biggest misconceptions about the whole
situation, he added.

"One of the main misconceptions is that the state cannot tell the
federal government what to do," he said. "But the federal law says
the states have the right to say no more waste at a contaminated
site.

If it passes, Cooper expects I-297 to do several things. First it
expects to drive the point across of no more waste at Hanford until
federal law standards are met.

Second, it delineates that the tanks need to be emptied. Cooper
accused the federal government of planning to leave 10 percent of
the radioactive waste in the tanks at Hanford and then call it a
day.

"I-297 says you can't do that." At the same time, the initiative
will demand a clean-up of the soil and the groundwater.

All these sound like major tasks, and Cooper knows it. "It will
probably take decades because it is one large mess,'' he said. "But
just because it is difficult it does not mean the job does not need
to be done."

Several businesses organizations such as the Association of Washington
Businesses and the Tri-Cities Industrial Development Council have
openly opposed I-297. Cooper said the opposition from business is
due to the amount of money in play.

"Companies that clean the tanks get between one and two million
dollars," he said. "Under I-297, they still get their payment but
they have to meet a more stringent standard.

"They actually have to clean up the tank," he added.

Despite the opposition, Cooper is optimistic that I-297 will pass
muster among the voters.

"I-297 protects jobs saying the clean-up has to be continued," he
said. "It's good for the economy, for jobs, for the environment and
the right thing to do."

Carl Adrian, the president of TRIDEC, said I-297 would result in
exactly the opposite outcome.

Adrian said that if it passes, I-297 would "certainly" face a court
challenge, as it preempts the Toxic Energy Act or the Interstate
Commerce clause in the Constitution.

If it goes to court, Adrian said, there are two possible outcomes,
the initiative being found legal or illegal. In case of the former,
he said, states such as New Mexico and Nevada will adopt similar
measures, and "that is where 90 percent of the Hanford waste is
supposed to go," he said.

He added, "So we end up with more waste here."

In case of the latter, the time spent by the initiative in court
wastes state money and creates a significant delay in clean-up
efforts, Adrian said.

The Department of Energy, Adrian said, has a plan to export 90
percent of the waste at Hanford. However, if that plan is put in
limbo, the government will be less inclined to go forth with
clean-ups, as the destination of the waste will be unknown.

Adrian described I-297 in three major points: preventing waste from
being imported to Hanford until the clean-up is complete, creating
a citizens advisory group and levying a surcharge on the clean-ups.

First, he said, Hanford has had an advisory board for years, hence
creating another one is unnecessary.

Regarding the levy, Adrian called it a small percentage that generates
a significant amount of money. Although he said he did not object
to that, nor to the fact that funds would be available to environmental
advocacy groups, he did object to the fact that one of those groups,
Heart of America, stands to be one of the beneficiaries.

Regarding the prevention of the waste being imported until the
clean-up is complete, Adrian said the initiative does no more than
what the existing laws do right now. Its positive impact on the
economy is also relative, he added.

"If it passes or it doesn't, if the clean-up is delayed, the impact
in the economy will be as light reduction in employment," he said.
"But it will be here longer."

*****************************************************************
 42 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23677 
[Federal Register: October 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 204)] 
[Notices] [Page 62040] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22oc04-42]                         
 
River AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah 
River. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Monday, November 15, 2004 1 p.m.-5:15 p.m. Tuesday, 
November 16, 2004 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Augusta Towers Hotel & Conference Center, 2651 
Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, GA 30909.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project 
Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, 
P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda Monday, November 15, 2004 1 p.m.--Combined 
Committee Session 5:15 p.m.--Executive Committee Meeting 6 
p.m.--Adjourn Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:30 a.m.--Approval of 
Minutes; Agency Updates 8:45 a.m.--Public Comment Session 9 
a.m.--Chair and Facilitator Update 9:30 a.m.--Waste Management 
Committee Report 11 a.m.--Waste Management/Nuclear Materials 
Committee Report 11:45 a.m.--Public Comments 12 p.m.--Lunch Break 
1 p.m.--Administrative Committee Report 1:45 p.m.--Bylaws 
Amendment Proposal; Vice-chair Election; Presentation of 
Candidates 2 p.m.--Facility Disposition and Site Remediation 
Committee Report 3 p.m.--Nuclear Materials Committee Report 3:40 
p.m.--Strategic & Legacy Management Committee Report 3:50 
p.m.--Public Comments 4 p.m.--Adjourn Public Participation: The 
meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make the oral 
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri 
Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. 
Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in 
the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public 
comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available 
by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy, Savannah 
River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by 
calling her at (803) 952-7886.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on October 19, 2004.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23677 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 43 The Daily Californian: Responses on Lab Bidding Differ - 

   [http://www.dailycal.org/]       
  
By URS CIPOLAT Friday, October 22, 2004

        Should the UC Regents bid to renew UC’s contracts with 
the U.S. Department of Education to manage the Los Alamos and 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories? A recent electronic 
survey conducted among UC lecturers and librarians says that they 
should not. 

        I was among the 58 percent of survey participants who 
asked the regents not to bid. 34 percent of my colleagues were in 
favor of submitting bids, while 8 percent could not make up their 
minds. These results stand in stark contrast with a nearly 
identical survey conducted among UC professors, of whom 67 
percent favored and only 21 percent opposed UC bids. 

        What explains the big difference of opinion between UC 
lecturers and librarians, on the one hand, and professors, on the 
other? 

        Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” comes to mind, and 
Frodo’s inner struggle between his conscience and his desire for 
power. Frodo is entrusted with the Ring, which gives its holder 
enormous powers. These powers, however, consume his soul. Keeping 
the Ring could ultimately lead to the destruction of Middle 
Earth. Frodo faces two choices: either follow his conscience and 
throw the Ring into Mount Doom, or give in to his desire for 
power, keep the Ring, and perish. Frodo hesitates. In the end, it 
is only thanks to the moral purity of his simple helper, Sam, 
that he finds the strength to rid himself of the treacherous 
Ring. 

        A closer look at the two opinion polls reveals an 
interesting fact. While the lecturer survey emphasized that the 
two labs are the cradle of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, 
the professor survey did not. Instead, it stressed 
science-related aspects of UC’s collaboration with the labs. The 
term “nuclear weapons” cannot be found in the professor survey, 
while it is used frequently in the lecturer survey. 

        I am not suggesting that either of the two surveys tried 
to manipulate its audience. What I’m suggesting is that the 
professors favored UC collaboration with the weapons labs so 
strongly because the moral issues relating to this partnership 
were not touched upon in their survey. 

        But here comes Sam, reminding Frodo of these moral 
issues: 

        First, UC is a university. Its central mission is 
educating people in the humanist tradition, not destroying them. 
UC can no longer allow itself to be co-opted into being complicit 
in the creation of weapons of mass destruction. 

        Second, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass murder. They 
cannot discriminate between combatants and civilians. They kill 
indiscriminately—men, women and children. That’s why their use 
and threat to use, under international law, is prohibited. By 
allowing many of the 16,000 UC employees at the labs to maintain 
the existing and develop new “usable” nuclear weapons, UC is 
violating international law. 

        Third, all weapons of mass destruction activities are 
immoral. We cannot tolerate them in Iraq, nor in North Korea, nor 
in Iran, nor at home. The U.N. Security Council, in its recent 
Resolution 1540, asked all countries to criminalize WMD 
activities. UC and its employees at the labs are running the risk 
of facing criminal prosecution in foreign countries if they do 
not stop their WMD related work. 

	Throw the Ring, Sam says. 

Urs Cipolat is an interdisciplinary studies field lecturer at UC 
Berkeley. Respond at opinion@dailycal.org. 

  
 (c) 2004 Berkeley, California dailycal@dailycal.org  
*****************************************************************
 44 DOE: Communication, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
 
                        FR Doc 04-23617 
[Federal Register: October 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 204)] 
[Notices] [Page 62050-62051] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22oc04-56]                         
 
Mailstop E-29, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 
telephone 1-888-422-8737 or (404)498-0261.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These toxicological profiles were 
developed by ATSDR for hazardous substances at Department of 
Energy (DOE) waste sites under Section 104(i)(3) and (5) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR 
to prepare toxicological profiles for hazardous substances that 
are most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National 
Priorities List (NPL) and that pose the most significant 
potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the 
EPA. The current ATSDR priority list of hazardous substances at 
DOE NPL sites was announced in the Federal Register on July 24, 
1996 (61 FR 38451).
 
Notices (66 FR 53610) and (66 FR 41243) announcing the 
availability of the draft toxicological profiles for public
 
[[Page 62051]] review and comment were published in the Federal 
Register on October 23, 2001, and August 7, 2001, with notice of 
a 90-day public comment period for each profile, starting from 
the actual release date. Following the close of the comment 
period, chemical-specific comments were addressed, and, where 
appropriate, changes were incorporated into each profile. The 
public comments and other data submitted in response to the 
Federal Register notices bear the docket control number ATSDR- 
174 and ATSDR-171. This material is available for public 
inspection at the Division of Toxicology, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, 
Georgia, (not a mailing address) between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
 
Availability This notice announces the availability of one update 
and four new final toxicological profiles, comprising the 2nd set 
developed for the Department of Energy, prepared by ATSDR. The 
following toxicological profiles are now available through the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information 
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 
22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847. There is a charge for these 
profiles as determined by NTIS.
 
Second Set of DOE Profiles 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Toxicological profile            NTIS order No. CAS No.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- 1. Americium..........................       
PB2004-104396 7440-35-9 2. Cesium.............................       
PB2004-104397 7440-46-2 3. Cobalt (Update)....................       
PB2004-104398 7440-48-4 4. Iodine.............................       
PB2004-104399 7553-56-2 5. Strontium..........................       
PB2004-104400 7440-35-9 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Georgi Jones, Director, Office of Policy, Planning, and 
Evaluation, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
 
[FR Doc. 04-23617 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-70-P

 
*****************************************************************
 45 [du-list] DU in the news - 22nd Oct 04
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:46:03 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

Depleted uranium once used in weapons
Joongang Ilbo - Seoul,South Korea
... Korea United said yesterday that the Korea Atomic Energy Research 
Institute had produced anti-tank shells in the 1980s made from depleted 
uranium, alloyed with ...


S.Korean munitions violated nuclear accord -group
Reuters AlertNet - London,England,UK
SEOUL, Oct 21 (Reuters) - South Korea produced anti-tank munitions in the 
1980s using depleted uranium imported for non-military use and failed to 
make ...


Discussion centers on US war crimes
Penn State Digital Collegian - University Park,PA,USA
... Paul Simpson, a State College resident, local physician and State 
College Peace Center member, discussed his research of depleted uranium, 
which is used in war ...

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]






[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>
*****************************************************************
 46 [du-list] DU in the news - 22 Oct.04  (Part Deux,  ex. yahoo,
 
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:46:22 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

(these items did not appear in the "google "news" alert."

       Photo Archives (ID&PW=trial2004)
       Kyodo News Thu, 21 Oct 2004 6:58 PM PDT
       VIENNA, Oct. 22, Kyodo - South Korea manufactured depleted uranium 
shells in the 1980s without immediately reporting this to the U.N. nuclear 
agency, diplomatic sources close to the agency said Thursday.




       Police to arrest peace activist over alleged illegal medicine
       Kyodo via Yahoo! Asia News Thu, 21 Oct 2004 7:28 PM PDT
       The police plan to arrest a peace activist on suspicion of selling 
unapproved medicine, police sources said Friday.



       Kyodo news summary
       Kyodo via Yahoo! Asia News Thu, 21 Oct 2004 6:35 PM PDT
       ---------- Japan, U.S. uniformed officers to hold realignment talks



       Senator's Mount Shasta visit a first
       Mount Shasta News Thu, 21 Oct 2004 9:58 AM PDT
       Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer came to Mount Shasta October 13th 
and, by audience consensus, Boxer is the first United States Senator to 
ever visit the city.


[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>
*****************************************************************
 47 DN: Couple has traveled widely to amass samples from hydrogen to uranium 

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Local News
 
07:18 AM CDT on Monday, October 18, 2004 

By Alexandra Witze / The Dallas Morning News 

Some couples collect Christmas ornaments or antique furniture. 
The Marshalls collect chemical elements. In their townhouse in 
Denton, chemistry professor Dr. Jim Marshall and his wife, 
Virginia, have compiled perhaps the worlds only collection of 
every element from hydrogen (atomic number 1) to uranium (atomic 
number 92). DMN/Jim Mahoney University of North Texas chemistry 
professor Dr. Jim Marshall and his wife, Virginia, have spent 
years collecting samples of all of the chemical elements from the 
locations where the elements were originally discovered. The 
element samples are on display at their home in Denton. 

Not content with that, they have also traveled to most of the 
places where each element was discovered, bringing back a sample 
of the original minerals. 
z Shelf after shelf, the collection brims with chemical history. 
The elements span the ancient, used by alchemists in their search 
to transmute other substances to gold, to the modern, created in 
high-tech laboratories in the past few decades. 

Theres the metal scandium, more common in the sun than on the 
Earth, and gallium, which melts in the hand into a shimmering 
silvery pool. Theres a slab of rare tantalum, heavier than lead, 
and a vial of armor-penetrating uranium shards from the tip of a 
Gulf War missile. 

And every element has a story. 

Every summer for the past six years, the Marshalls have 
crisscrossed Europe, traveling to the original laboratory, mine 
or other location where the elements were discovered. 

In Paris, they uncovered a basic chemistry error that had, for 
many years, denied credit to the true discoverer of vanadium. In 
Romania, they tracked down the 200-year-old mine that was the 
source of the first known tellurium. In Germany, they found an 
obscure research paper that suggested radons discoverer was not 
who scientists thought it was. 

The Southwest region of the American Chemical Society recently 
honored the Marshalls for their radon sleuthing. But more 
important than public acclaim, they say, is the chance to bring 
chemistrys offbeat stories to students. A traveling version of 
the elements collection  minus the radioactive ones  always 
sits ready for classroom show-and-tell. 

Marshall, a chemistry professor at the University of North Texas, 
started the collection when working at Motorola in Fort Worth 
during the 1980s. There, he enlisted the help of vendors and 
co-workers who often had interesting materials cross their desks. 

Many chemistry buffs have element collections, but they usually 
lack the radioactive elements, says Marshall. His set includes 
samples given to him by friends, including a chunk of promethium 
from a nuclear reactor at Tennessees Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. 

Geiger counters help him keep track of radioactivity levels in 
his living room. Radon, a highly radioactive gas, is the most 
dangerous part of his collection, but good ventilation clears it 
out regularly, he says. 

"I used to get uranium in little bottles in the mail," he says. 
"Times are different now." 

Marshall has a license to possess elements heavier than uranium  
all of which are radioactive  but he hasnt bought any yet 
because they are expensive. Elements from number 93 (neptunium) 
to the as-yet-unnamed element 116 are almost all artificial 
creations, existing mostly in research laboratories. 

Careful handling DMN/Jim Mahoney Marshall holds a sample of 
copper, which occurs in North America in the state of Michigan. 

Other elements also have to be handled carefully. White 
phosphorus has to be submerged in water to keep it from bursting 
into flame. 

Housekeeping suffers. 

"Im afraid to dust because I dont know what will blow up," says 
Mrs. Marshall, who goes by the name Jenny. 

When Marshall finished collecting the elements, he wasnt ready 
to stop. In 1999, he and Jenny went to Paris on their honeymoon. 
She asked if she could see some of the places where the elements 
were discovered. And what started as a summerlong jaunt turned 
into a yearslong obsession. 

Equipped with historical maps and GPS devices to find their way, 
the Marshalls have worked their way across most of Europe. He 
carries magnets, Geiger counters and other paraphernalia for 
testing minerals. She carries a camera and computer to document 
the hunt. 

The experience awoke in them the true depth of chemical history. 

"Its amazing to let the centuries seep into you," says Marshall. 
"It makes the hairs rise on the back of your neck as you realize 
this is where history was made." 

In Scotland, they went to the spot where a local parson, hunting 
ducks, stumbled across an unusual rock that turned out to contain 
the first known strontium. In Germany, they tracked down the 
place where indium was first isolated  now a bathroom at the 
Freiberg Academy. 

In Sweden, the Marshalls visited the Stockholm laboratory of 
famed chemist Jons Jacob Berzelius, where he isolated selenium 
and many other elements. In Paris, they found that a former 
mining school, where chromium and beryllium were discovered, is 
now a childrens clothing shop. 

Because most of the elements were first isolated in Europe, the 
Marshalls have concentrated their efforts there. There are some 
exceptions. Zinc came first from Iran; chromium from Russia. 
Platinum appears in sands along the coast of South America. 

Discovered by pros 

In most cases, professional chemists discovered the elements, 
sometimes after a long quest to explain why a particular 
substance did not behave the way it should. 

"You have to be alert so that when you stumble across something, 
you immediately recognize its something new," says Marshall. 

Its not always clear who should get credit for a new element. 
The 2001 play Oxygen, co-written by a Nobel-winning chemist and 
the inventor of the birth control pill, tackled these issues 
surrounding the discovery of oxygen. Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm 
Scheele made oxygen first; Englishman Joseph Priestley published 
on it first and the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier was 
the first to understand the significance of the discovery. 

Through their sleuthing, the Marshalls have helped decipher 
vanadiums checkered history. 

In 1801, mineralogist Andres Manuel del Rio said he had a new 
element from rocks from a Mexican mine. But the German explorer 
Alexander von Humboldt, who visited del Rio in Mexico City, 
thought he had only rediscovered chromium. An analysis by a 
French chemist suggested the same, and del Rio retracted his 
claim. 

Only in 1830, when two Europeans rediscovered the same element 
and pronounced it different from chromium, was del Rio 
vindicated, says Lyman Caswell, a retired chemist from Texas 
Womans University. 

In recent tests, done in their kitchen sink, the Marshalls 
re-created the French analysis. They found that the chemist 
misjudged the colors of chemicals made with chromium and with 
vanadium, thus confusing the two. 

Credit where due 

Similarly, Marshall helped clarify the discovery of radon by 
unearthing a long-overlooked paper by German chemist Friedrich 
Ernst Dorn. 

Reading the original paper, Marshall found that Dorn had not 
discovered radon after all; his experiments essentially repeated 
the work of New Zealander Ernest Rutherford from a few years 
earlier. (Rutherford, his career apparently unaffected, went on 
to discover the atomic nucleus and win a Nobel Prize.) 

The Marshalls are finished traveling for now. They are writing a 
book about their journeys and compiling a CD of photographs and 
videos. 

After 92 elements, their favorite remains radium. Marie and 
Pierre Curie discovered radium in 1898 as they investigated why 
pitchblende, an ore of uranium, was more radioactive than uranium 
alone. 

From 10 tons of pitchblende the Curies eventually isolated a 
single speck of radium. Soon the new element became all the rage. 
Radium clocks lit up the night with their eerie, luminescent 
glow. People ingested radium salts and radium-laced water to 
invigorate themselves, oblivious to the danger. 

And it all traced back to a Paris laboratory and a 
husband-and-wife team, brought to life a century later by the 
Marshalls. 

This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by 
the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, 
but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. More 

[http://subscribe.dallasnews.com]     

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************