*****************************************************************
03/01/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.47
*****************************************************************
   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 Iran Denies UN Nuclear Watchdog A Second Visit To Military Complex
2 LA Times: The Force Bush Won't Use on Iran 
3 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog outlining nuclear worries over Iran, North 
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, North Korea Focus of IAEA Attention
5 Taipei Times: US, Japan send China a message By Lin Cheng-yi ªL¥¿¸q
6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kim Jong-il 'Admitted Having Nukes'
7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Must Correct 'Misperceptions' of N.K
8 Xinhua: China urges more sincerity, flexibility for six-party talks 
9 Korea Times : Pyongyang's Tactics 
10 Korea Times: North Korea Sets Four Conditions for Nuke Talks 
11 US: [southnews] Bye-Bye, NPT; Hello, Mushroom Cloud
12 Japan Times: U.S.-RUSSIA SUMMITS Waltzing around the issues
13 People 2, Elite 0: Straight Goods
14 PRAVDA.Ru: US specialists to inspect Russian civil and military nucl
15 Japan Times: Japan says no to IAEA's antiproliferation proposal
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 US: Survey Finds PA Violating Nuclear Laws
17 US: [CMEP] North Anna ESP Comments/Anti-PFS Letter
18 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $55,000 Fine for Discrimination Against Perry
19 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut; Establishment of Atomic Safet
20 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
21 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
22 US: NRC: Note to Editors: NRC/Constellation Meeting Postponed
23 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Westinghouse bids for China nuclear work
24 US: NRC: NRC Invites the Public to Submit Nominations for the Adviso
25 ninemsn: Experts hear nuclear licence application
26 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet March 
27 ITAR-TASS: World Association of Nuclear Operators officials to visit
28 US: Newsday.com: Getting back NY's power over power plants
29 US: NRC: NRC Issues Licenses Allowing Westinghouse to Export Nuclear
30 US: NRC: News Release - 2005-038 - NRC Renews License for Dry-Cask
31 US: NRC: NRC Expects Strong Attendance at 17th Annual Regulatory Inf
32 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Seabrook Station
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 US: What the Union of Concerned Scientists Thinks About DU
34 US: [du-list] "Poison DUst"-- documentary
35 US: Bradenton Herald: Expanded eligibility for beryllium tests
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
36 US: Fort Morgan Times: Health board filled, opposes nuclear waste
37 US: The Australian: WMC expands uranium mine 
38 The Australian: Treaty ruins uranium safeguards 
39 US: AP Wire: Experts: Waste should stay at old sites
40 US: American Statesman: Lawmaker wants limit on radioactive wastes
41 US: [deseretnews.com]: N-risks are acceptable
42 US: Las Vegas RJ: Utah governor seeks help against nuclear site 
43 Bellona: Iran, Russia ink deal for Bushehr fuel that includes SNF re
44 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Divide and conquer
45 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Western congressmen want government to move A
46 IPS: RENEWABLES: New Dispute Blows Through Wind Energy
47 US: Express-News: Nuclear waste measure would plug loophole 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
48 Scoop: NZ leads on nuclear-free stance
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
49 DOE: Office of Science; DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
50 WQAD: Former editor of nuclear weapons issues publication dies
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Iran Denies UN Nuclear Watchdog A Second Visit To Military Complex
 
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:00:51 -0500

 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com
 
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CT_OFFER_2,
	FROM_ORG,SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

IRAN DENIES UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG A SECOND VISIT TO MILITARY COMPLEX
New York, Mar  1 2005  4:00PM
Iran has turned down a request by the United Nations nuclear watchdog 
agency to make a second visit to the Parchin military site, 
which has been linked in allegations to nuclear weapons testing, 
a senior agency official said today.

Iran allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/board_briefing.html">IAEA) 
inspectors 
to visit the site in January in the interests of transparency following 
the allegations, but the visit was limited to only one of 
four areas identified as being of potential interest and to only 
five buildings in that area, said IAEA Deputy Director General and 
Head of the Department of Safeguards, Pierre Goldschmidt.

But when the IAEA requested to visit "another area of particular 
interest" before the end of February, Iran indicated that "the expectation 
of the Safeguards Department in visiting specified zone 
and points in Parchin Complex are fulfilled and thus there is no 
justification for any additional visit," he <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/DDGs/2005/goldschmidt01032005.html">told 
the 
Agency's Board of Governors in Vienna.

He noted that the Agency was given free access to those buildings 
singled out in the earlier visit and to their surroundings and was 
permitted to take environmental samples.

"As a result of its limited scope visit to Parchin, the Agency is 
able to inform the Board that it saw no relevant dual use equipment 
or materials in the location visited," Mr. Goldschmidt said, 
referring to materials that can be used either for peaceful purposes 
of producing energy or for making weapons. "The Agency is awaiting 
the results of environmental sampling analysis to ascertain 
whether any nuclear material had been used in the area visited."

The Parchin incident is the latest wrinkle in a saga that began two 
years ago when it became clear that Iran had for many years concealed 
its nuclear activities in breach of its legal obligations 
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran has consistently 
denied it is seeking nuclear weapons, insisting its programme 
is purely for energy generation.

<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n002.html">Addressing 
the Board yesterday IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei 
called on Iran to provide "full transparency" on all its 
nuclear activities, noting that information on some outstanding 
issues was still pending, while progress has been made on others. 
He has previously stated that he is not in a position to conclude 
that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in 
the country.

In another development, Iran showed the Agency in January a handwritten 
document reflecting an offer said to have been made in 1987 
by a foreign intermediary relating to centrifuge technology acquisition 
– a step in producing enriched uranium which can be used 
in weapons production. The document suggests that the offer included, 
among other items, materials for 2000 centrifuge machines, 
Mr. Goldschmidt said.

Iran stated that only some of the items had been delivered, and that 
all of them had been declared to the IAEA. This information is 
still being assessed and the Agency has requested that all documentation 
relevant to the offer be made available to it.
 2005-03-01 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
*****************************************************************
 2 LA Times: The Force Bush Won't Use on Iran 

  [Los Angeles Times - latimes.com]

  March 1, 2005     E-mail story   Print   Most E-Mailed   

Robert Scheer:

U.S. policy toward Iran is now a big, dangerous mess.
President Bush again has backed us into a corner with his
confrontational framing of every dispute as one of pristine
virtue versus stark evil, putting us out of sync with our allies
in Europe and probably giving the ayatollahs in Tehran a public
relations boost at home.

 In his State of the Union address, Bush singled out Iran as
"the world's primary state sponsor of terror … pursuing nuclear
weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and
deserve." For weeks we heard ominous warnings of war with Iran.
Then, last week, Bush scoffed at the idea that we were going to
bomb Iran as "ridiculous," even as he menacingly noted that "all
options are on the table." Meanwhile, Europe continued to
negotiate constructively with Iran to find a peaceful solution
and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 The sad fact, however, is that Bush's irrational policies and
rhetoric have left the mostly fundamentalist leaders of Iran
defending a more logical position than that of our own
government on three counts.

 First, it is our government that has long proclaimed the
wonders of something called "the peaceful uses of atomic energy"
to counterbalance the horror of having unleashed the power of
the atomic bomb on Japanese civilians in World War II. In
asserting its right to build nuclear power plants, Tehran is
emulating the United States. The pact signed on Sunday in which
Russia will supply the fuel for an Iranian nuclear power plant
but Tehran will return spent fuel would seem to remove the
threat that Iran's now fully constructed Bushehr plant will be
producing nuclear weapons material.

 Second, the U.S. has been woefully uncaring about nuclear
proliferation except when it proves politically convenient, as
with the false prewar claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq might be
close to acquiring or producing nuclear weapons. 

Another example came after 9/11, when Washington dropped
anti-proliferation sanctions against Pakistan while Bush focused
his wrath on Iraq. Ironically, it was back in 1987, when the
U.S. was backing Hussein in his war with Iran, that Pakistan's
top scientist first made overtures to sell nuclear technology to
the ayatollahs in Tehran. 

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's scandalous campaign to
sell nuclear materials and knowledge to unstable countries such
as North Korea and Libya, as well as Iran, was overlooked by
successive U.S. administrations. Apparently, it was deemed too
awkward to irritate our "allies" in Islamabad who helped us arm
the mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and, after
9/11, were enlisted to bring some of those same mujahedin to
justice, including Osama bin Laden.

 Even after the appalling extent of Khan's sales ring was
exposed in 2003, little was done. The Pakistan government
pardoned Khan and won't allow him to be interviewed by
outsiders. Intelligence reports indicate that his black market
mob may be operating again.

 Finally, how can the president continue to escalate the
rhetoric against Iran given that his invasion of neighboring
Iraq has handed control of the country to Shiites trained in
Tehran, like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, as well as Kurds who
have enjoyed significant Iranian support over the years?

 So, tangled history aside, what should the U.S. do now about a
repressive and potentially threatening government in Iran? The
one thing Bush strangely has refused to do throughout the world:
practice the principles of capitalism.

 The model for such a policy, which emphasizes normal trade
relations even with regimes that have religious and political
obsessions different from our own, was most successfully
employed by Richard Nixon in his famous opening to "Red" China,
as well as in the detente period that should properly be
credited with the ultimate fall of the Soviet empire.

 The most powerful liberalizing forces the U.S. wields are not
military, but economic and cultural. Though not as macho as
trying to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun,
normalization offers a better prospect of accomplishing that
end, while saving billions of dollars and priceless lives. 

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog outlining nuclear worries over Iran, North Korea

Tuesday March 1, 11:07 PM 

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency was preparing to urge North
Korea to return to six-party talks and hear a report on Iran's
ambitions as it discussed concerns over the possible spread of
nuclear weapons.
 
The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board
of governors was working on a resolution, presented as a summary
by the board chairman, urging North Korea to return to six-party
talks, diplomats said.
 
The summary was being drafted by five of those states which are
on the board -- China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the
United States.
 
The five differ about how tough the statement should be.
 
"Do you condemn North Korea for allegedly having nuclear weapons
or just ask them nicely to return to talks," said a Western
diplomat, who asked not to be named.
 
IAEA chief ElBaradei had Monday said North Korea's recent
declaration "that it possesses nuclear weapons is a matter of
utmost concern."
 
North Korea kicked IAEA inspectors out in December 2002 and
withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 
It now says it has atomic weapons and has withdrawn from the
six-party talks on its nuclear program.
 
On Iran, IAEA deputy director for verification Pierre
Goldschmidt is to report to the board Tuesday to say that Tehran
has not yet allowed IAEA experts to follow up on inspections of
Iran's Parchin military facility, where Washington charges
Tehran is simulating testing of atomic weapons, diplomats said.
 
The IAEA is also looking into other new matters, such as tunnels
being built that could hide nuclear material or equipment, and
has still not resolved two lingering major questions -- that of
Iran's research into sophisticated centrifuges that enrich
uranium, which can be weapons-grade, and highly enriched uranium
contamination found in Iran.
 
The United States charges that Iran has a clandestine nuclear
weapons program and wants the IAEA to bring Tehran before the UN
Security Council for possible sanctions.
 
But ElBaradei says that while Iran hid sensitive nuclear
activity for almost two decades, "the jury is still out" on
whether Tehran is trying to develop atomic weapons.
 
ElBaradei said Iran has told the IAEA about a letter offering
weapons technology it received in 1987 from a black market ring
run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.
 
ElBaradei said "the offer was extensive" but Iran said "they did
not obviously take these people up on the entirety of this offer
but that is the kind of information we need."
 
A nuclear expert, who asked not to be named, said the letter
covered both how to manufacture centrifuges that are used in
enriching uranium and how to convert a uranium gas, uranium
hexafluoride, into uranium metal, which is used as the explosive
core of atomic bombs.
 
The expert said the Iranians may have turned down buying from
the Khan network but then have used the letter as a "shopping
list" to get parts for a weapons network on their own.
 
ElBaradei said the IAEA was also continuing to verify "Iran's
voluntary suspension" of nuclear fuel cycle activities as Tehran
attempts to trade this in for economic and security benefits in
negotiations with the European Union.
 
The European Union backed Russia Monday after Moscow struck a
landmark deal to help Iran power up the Islamic state's first
nuclear reactor, despite US protests that this is part of the
cover for weapons development.
 
Iran is determined to resume uranium enrichment activities in
order to produce nuclear fuel for 20 reactors it plans to build,
Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said Tuesday in Tehran.
 
But the EU has been trying to persuade Tehran to permanently
abandon its capacity to produce enriched uranium, which can be
directed to both civil and military uses.
 
Meanwhile, US officials said President George W. Bush returned
from his European trip last week with proposals from US allies
for bringing Washington into the negotiation process, as US
backing is essential if Iran is to be offered membership in the
World Trade Organization (WTO), for example.
 
   Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, North Korea Focus of IAEA Attention
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Tuesday March 1, 2005 8:16 AM

AP Photo VIE150 

By ANDREA DUDIKOVA 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - As the chief of the U.N. atomic watchdog
scolded Iran for delays in divulging nuclear information, the
United States suggested it was considering joining Europe in
offering Tehran economic incentives in exchange for abandoning
its nuclear fuel program. 

Any such move would be a major shift in U.S. policy. During
President Bush's trip to Europe last week, leaders there urged
him to join them in offering such carrots on the grounds that a
united front would be more effective than a continuing
U.S.-Europe split over how to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear
ambitions. 

Bush has said that Tehran should not be rewarded, alleging past
covert nuclear activities violated terms of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. 

However, as the trip progressed, the U.S. president seemed to
exhibit more flexibility, and White House spokesman Scott
McClellan said Monday that Bush ``is thinking through some of
the ideas that were discussed.'' 

Diplomats from EU countries familiar with Bush's meetings in
Brussels suggested the president appeared to undergo a change of
attitude during his discussions there. 

``The Americans decided to give the Europeans time to see if
these negotiations would bring fruit,'' one told The Associated
Press, demanding anonymity. ``They are into another mode.'' 

While Iran says it wants the technology only to generate power,
Washington argues it wants to do so only because the process can
also produce weapons-grade material for nuclear warheads. 

Iran has suspended work on its enrichment program pending
negotiations with France, Germany and Britain. But it has
repeatedly said the freeze is short-term, despite European hopes
that it will fully scrapping its plans. 

Addressing the International Atomic Energy Agency's board on
Iran, agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei said Tehran had to
overcome a ``confidence deficit'' created by past cover-ups of
activities that could be used to make weapons. 

In a new revelation of Tehran's past covert activities,
diplomats told The Associated Press on the weekend that Iran had
been provided as early as 1987 with a written list by members of
the nuclear black market network that contained all it needed to
set up its enrichment program. They said the Iranians had handed
the agency the list only recently. 

Alluding to such delays in fully revealing past illicit
activities, ElBaradei spoke of a ``confidence deficit,'' saying
only better cooperation on the part of Tehran will ``build the
necessary confidence'' to dispel world concerns about Iran's
nuclear aspirations. 

After two years of stormy board sessions, much the past overt
tension over how to deal with Iran at the Vienna-based IAEA was
absent at the start of the meeting as the U.N. nuclear watchdog
awaited the result of European negotiating efforts. 

The board's hands are even more tied on North Korea, the other
country of concern, because it quit the agency more than two
years ago. Still the meeting was expected to urge the North -
which claims to have nuclear weapons - to substitute new
negotiations for threats. 

----- 

On the Net:www.iaea.org 	 
  
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 5 Taipei Times: US, Japan send China a message By Lin Cheng-yi ªL¥¿¸q

www.taipeitimes.com

Tuesday, Mar 01, 2005,Page 8 

On Dec. 10, Japan approved defense guidelines for the next 10
years -- the National Defense Program Guideline for Fiscal Year
2005 and After. Regarding China and Taiwan, the document
particularly noted that "China continues to modernize its
nuclear forces and missile capabilities as well as its naval and
air forces. It is also expanding its area of operation at sea.
We will have to remain attentive to its future actions."

 A month before the guideline was approved, a Chinese
nuclear-powered submarine was discovered in Japan's waters south
of Okinawa. Disputes between China and Japan have also included
oil pipelines in Siberia, the exploration of natural-gas fields
in the East China Sea and the sovereignty of the Tiaoyutai
Islands (known in Japan as the Senkaku Islands). Their conflicts
of interest have gradually been coming to the surface.

 The US-Japan security alliance has taken North Korea's threat
to Japan as a focus. The Japanese government has always been
reluctant to publicly acknowledge China as a threat, or to take
it as an potential enemy due to its growing strength. However,
behind Japan's enthusiastic discussion of the North Korean
threat, it cannot ignore another security concern: a possible
crisis in the Taiwan Strait brought by Taiwan and China.

 For China, US-Japan cooperation on security is probably not
less significant than North Korea's nuclear threat. Washington
is Beijing's biggest rival. However, China in reality must still
yield to the US hegemony, since its power is still developing.
But Japan is another story.

 On Feb. 19, the US-Japan Security Consultative Committee, a
deputy-ministerial-level forum, further listed the Taiwan Strait
as a "common strategic objective" in this region. The statement
was made on the basis of the previous Defense Policy Review
Initiative.

 This adds a new variable to Japan's reluctance to acknowledge
China as a threat, and the tense Sino-Japanese relationship that
exists today. 

As US President George W. Bush starts his second term, his
administration has defined Japan as "an equal partner in a
mature relationship." Apart from security and diplomacy, the
scope of the alliance also includes global and cross-border
issues, as well as economic and financial cooperation. This is
very different from the US-defined "sincere, constructive and
cooperative" Sino-US relationship. 

In a US-dominated deputy-ministerial-level security meeting in
late November last year, both the US and Japan said they
believed that China plans to strengthen its military forces to
prevent interference from other countries if a cross-strait war
breaks out. They therefore see it as important to discourage
this from happening -- through the expansion of US capabilities
in the West Pacific Ocean. 

This strategy of dissuasion is different from that of
deterrence, as dissuasion attempts to dissolve China's hostile
rise mainly through military and diplomatic means. 

With the Security Consultative Committee having acknowledged
peace in the Strait as a common objective, Japan's existing
definition of "peripheral affairs" based on situations rather
than locations may subtly change, as the Strait is not only a
neighboring area but also related to Japan's security.

 As CIA Director Porter Goss said before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, "Beijing's military modernization and
build-up could tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait
... Improved Chinese capabilities threaten US forces in the
region."

 As China's national strength grows, the US and Japan are unable
to avoid this question: What strategic benefits can they obtain
from Taiwan? Once it is in the hands of an unfriendly country,
how will this affect their political, military and economic
interests? 

In response to the committee's interference regarding the
situation in the Strait, China will inevitably take more action
against Japan, in addition to its long-standing actions against
the US. The US and Japan, meanwhile, have made every effort to
stop the EU from lifting its arms embargo on China. 

At a time when Beijing is actively moving to pass an
"anti-secession" law, Washington and Tokyo's new and clearly
stated strategic attitude is better than any concrete military
action.

Lin Cheng-yi is director of the Institute of International
Relations at National Chengchi University.

 	TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG 
This story has been viewed 950 times.     

Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kim Jong-il 'Admitted Having Nukes'
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Mar.1,2005 18:16 KST   
 
leader Kim Jong-il admitted his country has nuclear weapons in a
meeting with Wang Jiarui, the head of the Chinese Communist
Party's liaison department, on Feb 10. 

Kim claimed his country must produce nuclear weapons to defend
itself against "hostile" U.S. policies, the agency said quoting
a source close to six-party talks on North Korean nuclear
disarmament. But Kim did not say how many atomic weapons it
produced and when, Kyodo added. 

In a separate report from Beijing on Tuesday quoting diplomatic
sources, Kyodo said Kim set out four conditions for returning to
the six-party talks - a security guarantee from Washington, an
explanation why the Bush administration describes the North as
an "outpost of tyranny," an assurance that it will negotiate
with the North on an equal footing, and "credible conditions." 

That would make a swift resumption of the talks ever more
unlikely since South Korea, the U.S. and Japan are asking North
Korea to return to the negotiating table unconditionally, while
China has urged the U.S to put forward concrete offers, the news
agency reported. 

Sources said that although the North Korean leader did not
explain what was meant by "credible conditions," he might have
had in mind energy aid in return for dismantling nuclear
weapons, it added. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Must Correct 'Misperceptions' of N.K. Act
: Think Tank
 
   Updated Mar.1,2005 20:57 KST   
 
issued a report urging Washington to correct what it says are
misunderstandings of the U.S. North Korean Human Rights Act
(NKHRA) by the South Korean government and ruling party. 

In a Feb. 10 report entitled, ¡°Spotlight on the North Korean
Human Rights Act: Correcting Misperceptions,¡± Heritage
Foundation policy analyst Balbina Y. Hwang said that despite the
fact that both houses of the U.S. Congress passed the NKHRA
unanimously with the object of improving the human rights
situation in North Korea, it was suprisingly within South Korea
that the most vocal criticism of the law is found. 

¡°Some members of South Korea¡¯s ruling Uri Party were
indignant, claiming that the new law would increase tensions on
the Korean peninsula and damage relations between South Korea
and North Korea,¡± the report said. It said this showed that
many people in South Korea who felt this way misunderstood the
purpose of the law. 

¡°The act is intended to make it easier for the United States to
assist North Korean refugees, and it links any future aid to
Pyongyang to progress in addressing human rights concerns,"
Hwang wrote, insisting the act "contains no hidden agenda for
overt regime change or overthrow of the Kim Jong Il
government.¡± 

The report says the U.S. must not lose sight of the task of
improving the situation for millions of suffering North Korean
citizens as it pushes for a diplomatic way to achieve North
Korean nuclear disarmament. "From a long term and comprehensive
perspective, the North Korean human rights situation could
become a barrier to peace and stability on the Korean
Peninsula," it adds. 

The report says the U.S. government and Congress must work to
set straight the misunderstandings surrounding the NKHRA if the
bill is to have any effect. It says the South Korean government,
which avoids open mention of Pyongyang's human rights abuses,
must instead lead efforts to alleviate the pain of North
Koreans. 

Hwang wrote that just as the U.S. supported democracy, human
rights and the growth of the market economy in South Korea,
South Korea needed to do the same in the North. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 8 Xinhua: China urges more sincerity, flexibility for six-party talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-03-01 20:18:44   

    BEIJING, March 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesmanLiu Jianchao Tuesday urged all parties concerned to
show their sincerity and flexibility to the resumption of the
six-party talks on the Korean Peninsular nuclear issue. 

    At a regular press conference here, Liu said to continue the
talks is a common aspiration of the participants and the
international community as well. 

    The talks, involving China, the Democratic People's Republic
ofKorea, the United States, the Republic of Korea, Russia and
Japan,started in August 2003 with the aim of the settlement of
the nuclear issue through dialogue. The second and third rounds
of talks were held in the Chinese capital of Beijing
respectively in February and June last year. 

    Liu noted that consensus had been reached and substantial
results made in the previous talks. But the talks are now
confronted with some difficulties caused by many factors. 

    He urged all parties concerned to continue their efforts to
promote the talks. 

    A DPRK statement said in early February it wanted the
six-partytalks but it was compelled to suspend its participation
in the talks for an indefinite period, which aroused deep
concern from all parties concerned. 

    A DPRK leader told senior Chinese official Wang Jiarui
during his visit to the DPRK in February that it would return to
the negotiating table if the conditions were met for the next
round oftalks. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
 Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea Times : Pyongyang's Tactics 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

 Japanese Paper's Report Draws Concern   
      
The international community is having a difficult time
determining when the six-party dialogue will be resumed. Since
the U.S. presidential election in December, North Korea has
continued to stall on the issue.

 To the consternation of the world, the North declared on Feb.
10 that it had already produced nuclear warheads and would stay
away from the six-party negotiations for an indefinite period
because of the United States¡¯ unchanged hostility. But the
surprise statement is interpreted as being further blackmail
aimed at winning more concessions from the U.S. and other
participants in the dialogue before the North returns to the
forum. The North Korean leader told China¡¯s special envoy, who
recently visited Pyongyang, that his country would take part in
the multilateral negotiations when certain ``conditions¡¯¡¯ were
met. It is reported that Kim wants Washington to give the North
a security guarantee.

 On Saturday, three parties _ South Korea, the U.S. and Japan _
held discussions, after which they called on the North to
immediately return to the negotiating table without any
conditions. Then a Japanese newspaper said that Pyongyang had
told Seoul it would take part in the nuclear negotiations in
June. Sankei Shimbun reported on Monday that the North conveyed
its intentions to Seoul through ``informal¡¯¡¯ channels before
the consultation meeting in Seoul. The paper said that the North
informed Seoul of its position lest the South take a hard-line
policy in the tripartite meeting. Citing sources in the Japanese
government, the paper said the North might disclose its
willingness to return to the negotiating table sometime this
month. The paper also said that the North planned to conclude
the six-party dialogue in October, three years after the current
nuclear standoff between Pyongyang and Washington started.

 As anticipated, the government immediately rejected the report,
saying that it doesn¡¯t have any dialogue channels with
Pyongyang at present. Despite the government¡¯s denial, many
experts on North Korean affairs suspect that Pyongyang might
have told Seoul of its determination to take part in the
dialogue. Their suppositions are based on the government¡¯s
repeated assertions that it would continue inter-Korean economic
projects and humanitarian aid to the North, brushing aside
objections from the U.S.

 Regardless of whether the Japanese paper¡¯s report is true or
not, the North should stop playing with the six-party
negotiations. An early, peaceful resolution to the nuclear
crisis through the multilateral forum would be in the North¡¯s
best interests. 

03-01-2005 16:41         

*****************************************************************
 10 Korea Times: North Korea Sets Four Conditions for Nuke Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter

 North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has presented four conditions 
for returning to the six-party talks on his nuclear weapons 
program, including a demand for a security guarantee from the 
United States, according to a Japanese news agency Tuesday.

 Kim told Wang Jiarui, a high-profile Chinese official who 
visited Pyongyang last month, that he wants Washington to give 
the reasons why it labeled his country as an ``outpost of 
tyranny,'' the Kyodo News Agency reported, citing unnamed 
diplomatic sources.

 In addition to the aforementioned conditions, the report said he 
made another pair of requests such as Washington's pledge that it 
would negotiate with Pyongyang on an equal basis and a sincere 
attitude that could be trusted by North Koreans.

 During a three-and-a-half-hour meeting with the Chinese envoy on 
Feb. 21, the North Korean leader was quoted as saying his country 
would go to the discussion table when there are ``mature 
conditions'' for the six-party dialogue.

 Officials in Seoul, who had been briefed by Beijing on the 
outcome of Wang's trip, said the ``conditions'' seemed to refer 
to more abstract demands such as a U.S. pledge of ``no hostile 
intent,'' rather than ``material rewards'' for simply rejoining 
the talks.

 Last Saturday, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan held a strategy 
session in Seoul to devise ways to lure North Korea back to the 
bargaining table as soon as possible. The U.S. and its Asian 
allies reached a consensus, according to sources, that they could 
allow the North more opportunities to have bilateral talks with 
the U.S. within the six-party formula.

 Beijing, which virtually has the sole channel to talk with 
Pyongyang, will send its chief nuclear negotiator, Vice Foreign 
Minister Wu Dawei, to Seoul today to learn more about Saturday's 
tripartite session before contacting North Korea again.

 North Korea and the U.S. held negotiations for three times from 
August 2003 to June 2004 along with South Korea, China, Japan and 
Russia. But no clear breakthrough has been found yet to resolve 
the 28-month-long nuclear standoff.

 Citing the U.S. ``hostile'' policies, which they argue is aimed 
at toppling the Kim Jong-il regime, North Korea has refused to 
hold a fourth round of talks. In a surprise announcement on Feb. 
10, the North claimed it already possesses nuclear weapons.

 Most officials and experts view Kim's remarks, made at his 
meeting with the Chinese envoy about two weeks after the 
announcement, as an indication that his country would eventually 
come back to the disarmament talks sometime in the near future.

 But others predict it will take some more time for North Korea 
to return to the bargaining table as it has not yet listened to 
the U.S., which has so far avoided giving the North the three 
words it yearns for: no hostile intent.

 The U.S. put dictators and corrupt officials on notice on 
Monday, using its annual report on global human rights practices 
to focus the spotlight on the continuing abuses in Cuba, China, 
North Korea and Myanmar.

 Senior U.S. officials, presenting the 2004 report, once again 
emphasized the theme of advancing democracy and freedom that was 
struck by President George W. Bush in his second inaugural 
address and State of the Union speech. 03-01-2005 18:22         
  
*****************************************************************
 11 [southnews] Bye-Bye, NPT; Hello, Mushroom Cloud
 
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:59:23 -0600 (CST)

 
..Maybe that's why the worst-kept secret in Washington is that we  in
cahoots with our "ally" Israel  are planning to "take out" those
safeguarded facilities in June...

Bye-Bye, NPT; Hello, Mushroom Cloud

by Gordon Prather

February 28, 2005

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran
is simply ridiculous," President Bush said as he emerged from talks
with European Union leaders.

Ridiculous?

Let's hope so.

For, according to Sirus Naseri, a senior member of Iran's delegation
to the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose Board of Governors
meets next week in Vienna:

"To even imply that a nuclear-weapon state would attack [IAEA]
Safeguarded facilities of a non-nuclear-weapon state pokes a hole
right in the heart of the Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], and it
deserves to be rejected severely."

And, of course, Naseri is right. It was bad enough back in 1981
when the Israelis  not a party to the NPT  attacked and destroyed
Osiraq, a French-supplied safeguarded research reactor in Iraq.

The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the military
attack by Israel, which it considered to be "in clear violation of
the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international
conduct."

Furthermore, the attack was "a serious threat to the entire safeguards
regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the
foundation of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

You see, the IAEA was made the international safeguardsinspectorate
by Article III of the NPT.

The key to preventing nuke proliferation is the international control
of the production, processing, transformation, and disposition of
certain nuclear materials. In return for a promise not to acquire
or seek to acquire nukes, the NPT recognizes the "inalienable right"
of all signatories to enjoy the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy.
But all NPT-proscribed nuclear materials  as well as the facilities
in which they are stored, processed, transformed, or consumed  have
to be made subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

In the event the IAEA discovers nuclear materials and/or activities
that should have been declared but were not, it reports that failure
to the IAEA Board of Governors. In the event the IAEA discovers the
"diversion"

of nuclear materials  a violation of the NPT  the IAEA Board may
refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible action.

More than a year ago, Iran voluntarily signed an Additional Protocol
to its Safeguards Agreement, vastly expanding the authority of IAEA
inspectors to go anywhere and see anything. Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei reported to the IAEA Board of Governors at their last
meeting that after a year-long exhaustive and intrusive inspection,
he had found no evidence that Iran has ever attempted to acquire
nukes or the makings thereof.

Hence, there are no violations of the NPT to report to the Security
Council.

Well, the neo-crazies have gone ballistic. That's twice  first Iraq
and now Iran  ElBaradei has given the lie to their charges that
Islamic states had clandestine nuclear weapons programs in violation
of the NPT.

But Bush is determined to get the "nuclear crisis" in Iran before
the Security Council, somehow, so that he can get another ambiguous
resolution that he could then use to justify an attack  by the U.S.
or Israel  on Iran's safeguarded facilities.

So what conceivable rationale could Bush manufacture?

Well, later in the U.S.-EU news conference Bush made this claim:

"The reason we're having these discussions is because [the Iranians]
were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying
they wouldn't enrich uranium. These discussions are occurring because
they have breached a contract with the international community.
They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us."

Bush manufactured all that. The EU-Iran agreement  which is being
monitored by the IAEA  is not a treaty. In any case, the Iranians
were not "caught" enriching uranium. As best the IAEA can determine,
the Iranians have yet to enrich any uranium. The Iranians merely
agreed to suspend for six months or so any attempt to do so. They
did not initially  agree to suspend the manufacture of gas centrifuges
for enriching uranium. However, as a "confidence-building measure,"
they voluntarily agreed a few months ago to suspend those activities,
too.

But if the Europeans don't live up to their end of the agreement
and Bush is determined to see that they won't or can't  the Iranians
have announced that they intend to resume  probably in June  all
the IAEA-safeguarded activities they have currently suspended.

Maybe that's why the worst-kept secret in Washington is that we  in
cahoots with our "ally" Israel  are planning to "take out" those
safeguarded facilities in June.

So bye-bye, NPT. Hello, mushroom-shaped clouds.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4992

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.

Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lGEjbB/6WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 12 Japan Times: U.S.-RUSSIA SUMMITS Waltzing around the issues

  Tuesday, March 1, 2005   

THE VIEW FROM MOSCOW


 By CONSTANTINE PLESHAKOV

 MOSCOW -- Summits have gone to the dogs. Gone are the days when
a meeting of two presidents could change the world overnight,
redrafting borders, changing governments and ensuring peace or
war.

 Probably, the last meaningful Russian-American summit occurred
in 1989 when Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President George H.W.
Bush met on Malta: The Soviet leader agreed to withdraw from
Eastern Europe, thus leaving it to become a potential U.S.
sphere of influence.

 Since then, the White House and the Kremlin have done a slow
diplomatic waltz -- consequential in that it has secured some
sort of partnership between them, but not solving real issues
and rarely addressing them seriously.

 The talks last Thursday between Russian President Vladimir
Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush in Bratislava, Slovakia,
followed the same pattern. Bush gently scolded Putin for
cracking down on democracy in Russia; Putin mildly snarled back.
Russia will keep selling arms to Syria and nuclear technology to
Iran, although both Middle Eastern countries are on Bush's
blacklist.

 U.S. officials said they were glad Putin declared that he
didn't want Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers. But
he would have been utterly crazy to say otherwise: Both Iran and
North Korea sit right on Russia's borders.

 Putin's promise to keep the Russian military arsenal out of the
hands of terrorists was preposterous. The surge in organized
crime that has devastated Russia the past 15 years would not
have been possible if tens of thousands of weapons had not been
sold to the mob by corrupt army officers. Worse, the Chechen
terrorists and guerrillas that Russia has been fighting for more
than 10 years did not get their weapons from Osama bin Laden or
al-Qaeda but from Russian armed forces warehouses.

 Despite little progress or mutual understanding, the summit
ended with Bush announcing that he still trusted "Vladimir."
It's hard to say why Bush likes Putin so much. Maybe it's
because Putin was one of the few world leaders who greeted him
warmly in 2001, when others sneered at the American president's
provincialism and lack of sophistication. Think of it as like
summer camp: The guy who befriends you on the first day while
others haze you remains your friend even after you realize later
that he is a bully, too.

 It is debatable whether Bush really cares about Putin's
authoritarian streak -- or the authoritarianism of any other
ally, for that matter. One of the most pampered friends of the
White House, Saudi Arabia, is as undemocratic as Saddam
Hussein's Iraq was, yet Bush maintains good relations with the
Saudi royal family.

 In all likelihood, Putin will remain Bush's friend for the same
reason the Saudis have: oil. Not only is Russia a leading energy
exporter, but American companies have generously invested in
Russia's economy. Which poses a problem. Putin's recent assault
on domestic monopolies, some of which have been placed under
state control, has caused understandable nervousness among
American investors and casts doubts on Russia's reliability as a
partner in general. Still, there is no evidence that this matter
was addressed seriously in Bratislava.

 Another big problem is Ukraine. Having met with the new
Ukrainian leader, Viktor Yushchenko -- who two months earlier
had taken advantage of a second election, following street riots
and rallies, to wrestle away the presidency -- Bush promised
that the new Ukraine could join the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization if made democratic change permanent.

 In the context of Russian-American relations, that statement
was tantamount to Russia's promising to send troops into Canada,
for Russia regards Ukraine as its Slavic twin, a little brother
hardly entitled to full sovereignty.

 The eastward expansion of NATO, which seemed largely a symbolic
gesture only 10 years ago when Russia seemed to have settled on
the democratic path of development, has acquired new meaning.
With the Kremlin growing progressively authoritarian
domestically and assertive internationally, it is not
inconceivable that one day the alliance may have to protect its
new, post-Soviet members from Russia's aggression.

 In that event, protecting small Baltic states like Estonia will
be hard enough, but providing a security umbrella for Ukraine --
vast, strategically paramount and containing a 40 percent
Russian minority -- looks nightmarish.

 With Russia's standing in world affairs, Western Europe and the
United States are likely to play down Putin's domestic
crackdowns on democracy even as they court him. However, the
Russian president is growing testy with both Europe and America
because, despite all the tokens of friendship offered, Russia's
sphere of influence keeps shrinking.

 A year ago, the West supported a popular revolt in Georgia that
brought an anti-Russian party to power. Now Putin is losing
Ukraine. Extremists in Russia argue that foreign policy is
faring worse under Putin than under his predecessor, the
laid-back, hard-drinking Boris Yeltsin.

 The post-summit press conference ended in an ugly way. Bush had
kept a tense smile on his face (while Putin was just plain
tense) until a Russian journalist asked Bush whether some
journalists in the U.S. are being persecuted. It was a stupid
question intended as a snub, and sounded as bellicose as
questions asked by Soviet journalists during the Cold War days.
No doubt Putin, or someone from his entourage, orchestrated the
rebuke.

 Constantine Pleshakov, a former member of the Moscow Academy of
Sciences, is a freelance journalist. 

The Japan Times: March 1, 2005
*****************************************************************
 13 People 2, Elite 0: Straight Goods
 
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:01:46 -0600 (CST)

 
from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=113

People 2, Elite 0

Ordinary Canadians kept Canada out of Iraq and missile defense.

Dateline: Sunday, February 27, 2005

by Mel Watkins

Missing your hockey scores? Try The Canadian People 2, The Canadian 
Corporate Elite 0 in the continuing game of standing up to Washington.

403dde.jpgWe ordinary Canadians spoke truth to power, first on the Iraq war 
and now on missile defense. Saying No to power, which doesn't like to be 
spoken to that way, is no small achievement. It takes guts. It is 
sufficient unto itself. It is not a negative act, but a powerful assertion. 
Throwing sand in the machinery of the military-industrial complex is no 
gesture; it is an honourable attempt to slow the lurch of war....

whole article at: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=113

Penney Kome, author and journalist
http://penneykome.ca
Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com 

[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of 403dde.jpg"; x-mac-type="4A504547"; x-mac-creator="4A565752]
*****************************************************************
 14 PRAVDA.Ru: US specialists to inspect Russian civil and military nuclear objects - 

  03/01/2005 13:16   
  
The text of the document contained a sensational statement,
which said that Moscow virtually gave a green light to US-led
inspections 

The joint US-Russian statement about cooperation in the nuclear
security does not stipulate the control of the States over
Russian nuclear objects, the State Duma deputy, former Security
Council Secretary, Andrei Kokoshin believes. "It does not go
about any kind of control over this or that security object in
Russia," the deputy told reporters. According to the Russian
politician, there are certain figures and political forces in
the USA, which would like to control Russian nuclear objects,
though. "However, the US administration expressed its
understanding of the fact that the Russian leadership, which
firmly stands for Russia's national interests, will never give
up the nation's sovereign rights in this field," Andrei Kokoshin
said.

The above-mentioned document on cooperation particularly says
that the protection of Russian and American nuclear objects
meets all modern requirements. In addition, Russia and the USA
are supposed to increase the level of nuclear security in the
countries, where it needs to be improved, the agreement says.

The two countries must play the leading role in the
international community in the solution of the vital problem,
RIA Novosti reports. 

The deputy released such comments in connection with a recent
publication in The Kommersant newspaper. According to the
article in the Kommersant, the official website of the Russian
president, kremlin.ru has recently published the text of the
joint US-Russian statement on cooperation in the nuclear
security. The agreement was signed during the Putin-Bush summit
in Bratislava. The text of the document contained a sensational
statement, which said that Moscow virtually gave a green light
to US-led inspections of most important Russian nuclear objects,
including military ones. 

The text of the document has been published on the official
websites of the White House and the Kremlin, but the Russian and
the English variants did not prove to be identical. There was a
certain paragraph in the text, which was missing in the English
version of the agreement. The paragraph said that American
specialists would start inspecting all Russian civil and
military nuclear objects during the current year, the Kommersant
wrote. 

It is not clear, why such an important paragraph could not be
found in the English version of the document. US officials
probably thought that it would not be correct to advertise
Russia's consent to grant US inspectors access to its nuclear
objects. It is not ruled out that there was a certain
arrangement on the matter too. The Russian Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov stated in Bratislava that there would be no mutual
attendance of nuclear objects conducted. The minister added that
the document was specifically about the information exchange
about systems, technology and the defense of those objects. 

On the other hand, there is no reason to explain the "secret
paragraph's" presence on the Kremlin website. Probably, it was a
mistake, which unveiled the information that originally was not
supposed to be exposed to the public eye, the Kommersant
newspaper wrote.   
  
Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)
 
Pravda.Ru   
    
  L1999-2002 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in
whole or in part, reference to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The
opinions and views of the authors do not always coinside with
the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.   
*****************************************************************
 15 Japan Times: Japan says no to IAEA's antiproliferation proposal

  Tuesday, March 1, 2005   


 VIENNA (Kyodo) Japan has notified the International Atomic
Energy Agency of its opposition to the IAEA chief's proposal for
freezing nuclear fuel cycle development work for five years as a
way to prevent proliferation, diplomatic sources said Sunday.

 Tokyo opposes the proposal by Mohamed ElBaradei, director
general of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, because of the negative
impact it would have on Japan's atomic fuel cycle work at a
nuclear fuel-reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture,
the sources said.

 Other countries, including Iran, have also expressed opposition
to the measure, claiming it ignores their rights to use nuclear
fuel for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.

 ElBaradei has called for the freeze to prevent development of
atomic weapons from nuclear fuel, including enriched uranium and
plutonium. He has also emphasized the need to establish an
international management regime for spent nuclear fuel.

 The IAEA chief is expected to propose the freeze formally at a
meeting in May to review the NPT.

 ElBaradei has told Japan he will call on all IAEA member
nations to accept the freeze, but suggested Japan and some other
developed nations may effectively be exempted from the measure,
saying it would be introduced on a voluntary basis, the sources
said.

 Japan, however, will oppose the measure because it believes
that if it does not, it would have to observe the rule as a
country that has always fully cooperated with the IAEA, they
said.

 One of the sources said Japan may have to suspend the operation
at the Rokkasho spent nuclear fuel-reprocessing plant if the
freeze takes effect.

 A governmental commission has concluded that reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel is a better option for Japan than burying it,
although experts have said it is more economical to bury spent
nuclear fuel.

 The Japan Times: March 1, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 16 Survey Finds PA Violating Nuclear Laws
 
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:02:23 -0800

 
<x-flowed>



                                        PRESS RELEASE:

                                          March 2, 2005
Contact: Eric J. Epstein
(717)-541-1101
ericpstein@comcast.net



Survey of Day Care Centers around Three Mile Island
                 Indicates Pennsylvania is in Violation of
                     Federal Licenses Regulations


                    Nuclear Licenses Could Be Pulled

     Harrisburg, PA. -  The EFMR Monitoring Group* released the results of a
two-month study of day care centers located within the ten mile Emergency
Planning Zone (EPZ) of Three Mile Island.

   The Study¹s principal author, Eric Epstein, stated, ³The results of this
survey show that child care facilities located in Pennsylvania are not
receiving required emergency support services leaving them unprepared to
handle a nuclear accident or terrorist attack.²

   Epstein noted, ³Specifically, the Commonwealth has failed to provide
emergency transportation and notification services as required under the
Radiological Emergency Protective Measures outlined in 10 CFR 50.47 E
(Condition of Licenses).² These emergency services are to be provided by
the state as a condition to have a nuclear power license.²

   Epstein added, ³This Day Care Survey is further evidence that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in violation of federal law which
continues to leave our youngest and most vulnerable population without
radiological emergency planning. This is in direct violation of the law
and could result in the loss of the five nuclear power licenses in
Pennsylvania.²

    The results of the Survey were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency on February 22, 2005.

       Conclusions From Day Care Survey

ˆ     The state does not review plans or coordinate transportation as
required by law;

ˆ      Few state and local entities provide for or coordinate transportation
as required by law;

ˆ      In some instances, transportation for day care children is only
available after other populations have been moved;

ˆ      Many facilities assume they can evacuate to the same locations as
public schools and incorrectly presume those schools will provide
transportation;

ˆ     Many facilities depend on the phone book for planning even though
these are general plans are for the regular population and not designed to
handle special populations such as schools and day care centers;

ˆ     Frequent expressions of exasperation and frustration included:
³Who do we contact?², ³Where do we go², and ³How do we get
there?²;

ˆ     Several facilities were unaware that they were within the ten
mile even though the state is required to integrate them into the state
plan for certification;

ˆ    Emergency planning is a recent development for day care centers
even though the law has required it since 1986 under GM EV-2
³ProtectiveActions for School Children²;

ˆ     Numerous sites were confused by the separate regulations the
Rendell administration promulgated in 2003 requiring all day-care
facilities to have an emergency plan in place by July 1, 2004.  Senate
Bill 922 passed in July 2004 exempting non profits from compliance.


_____

*    The EFMR Monitoring group, a nonpartisan community based
organization established in 1992. EFMR monitors radiation levels
at Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations,
invests in community development, and sponsors remote robotics
research   www.efmr.org



</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\Survey_Report.pdf"
*****************************************************************
 17 [CMEP] North Anna ESP Comments/Anti-PFS Letter
 
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:36:42 -0600 (CST)

 
*** Please forward widely ***

March 1, 2005

This e-mail contains two items:

(1) NOTICE -- Public Citizen has submitted its comments to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on its draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Early Site Permit (ESP) proffered by Dominion
for its North Anna Nuclear Power Station in Virginia.

(2) ACTION ALERT -- Organizations: endorse a letter urging the NRC to
reject the license application of Private Fuel Storage (PFS) for a
high-level nuclear waste dump in Utah.

==========

PUBLIC CITIZEN COMMENTS ON NRC'S ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF NORTH ANNA
ESP

Public Citizen has submitted its comments to the NRC on its draft EIS
for the ESP proffered by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC for its North
Anna Nuclear Power Station in Virginia.  You may view the comments on
our Web site in PDF format here:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/CommentsDEISNorthAnna.pdf

==========

!!! A C T I O N    A L E R T !!!

ORGANIZATIONS: SIGN-ON to Letter Urging NRC to Reject License
Application for Nuke Dump in Utah

Dear Friends,

Below is a sign-on letter drafted by the Nuclear Information Resource
Service (NIRS), Public Citizen, and The Shundahai Network. It is in
response to last week's decision by the NRC's Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board to approve the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) license to
move forward with the high-level nuclear waste dump proposed for the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
This is a pivotal time in what, up to now, has been nearly an eight-year
ordeal since the original PFS agreement was signed. Now the PFS license
application goes before the five-member NRC commission for final
approval.

The Commission will be hearing appeals to the Licensing Board's
recommendation. Now is the critical time to raise our voices loud and
clear. This dump proposal is unacceptable. It is neither safe, sound,
nor just.

The letter below, urging the NRC Commissioners to reject the PFS
license application, will be sent to the NRC Commissioners in early
March. Please review the letter and forward it to your networks.

ORGANIZATIONS: You can sign on to this letter by sending your name, THE
ORGANIZATION YOU REPRESENT, city and state to kevin@nirs.org by 5 pm,
Thursday, March 3. Again, thanks for all your help and commitment.

In peace,

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource

Service, Washington, D.C.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy
and Environment Program, Washington, D.C.

Pete Litster, Executive Director, The Shundahai Network

==========

[LETTER]

Nuclear Information and Resource Service * Public Citizen * Shundahai
Network

March, 2005

Re: Private Fuel Storage, LLC application for commercial irradiated
nuclear
fuel "interim" storage site at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian
Reservation
in Utah

Dear Commissioners Diaz, Jaczko, Lyons, McGaffigan and Merrifield,

As national, regional, and local environmental and public interest
organizations, we urge you not to approve the license application by
Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) to open an "interim storage site" for
commercial irradiated nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian
Reservation in Utah.

Given recent approvals for on-site dry cask storage at a growing
number of reactors, and the fact that true consolidation of waste
is not possible as long as nuclear utilities continue to produce it,
the need for PFS is far from clear. The proposal is also plagued by
many problems, and its location poses unacceptable risks. The facility

has no contingency plan for faulty containers, the storage/transport
containers are of questionable structural integrity, and there is an
increasing risk that PFS could well become de facto permanent storage.

The plan also raises serious transportation safety concerns, and is
beset
with environmental justice
violations.

In short, the proposal is neither safe, sound, nor just.

Skull Valley is not an appropriate site for storing irradiated nuclear

fuel. The adjacent complex of Hill Air Force Base and the Utah Test and

Training Range (UTTR) represents one of the biggest and busiest bombing

ranges in the country, with thousands of over-flights annually posing
the
risk of accidental crashes into PFS. The stray missile which struck the

scientific research station on the reservation in the 1990's, and the
Genesis satellite crash into the UTTR last September, for instance,
show
the potential dangers of storing 44,000 tons of highly radioactive
waste
next to such active military facilities.

PFS also plans no pool or hot cell on-site, and thus would lack any
waste
repacking capability in the event of an emergency. If storage casks
fail
for any reason - human error during shipping or handling, natural
disaster,
accident, act of sabotage, faulty casks, or gradual corrosion - it
would be
difficult to adequately address the problem and prevent radioactivity
from
leaking into the soil, water, and air.

Oscar Shirani, former Commonwealth Edison/Exelon lead quality assurance

inspector and nuclear safety whistleblower, has questioned the
structural
integrity of the Holtec casks proposed for PFS. He cites numerous major

quality assurance violations in the manufacture of the
storage/transport
containers. Cask defects would not only raise the risk of irradiated
fuel
degradation and increased container vulnerability during storage at
Skull Valley, but also of a potentially catastrophic radioactivity
release
during transport due to a severe accident or terrorist attack.

As it is, PFS's transportation plan, or lack thereof, is very
disconcerting. PFS would dramatically increase unnecessary
transportation
and handling of high-level waste. Despite PFS's assurances that it is
only
"interim" storage, its lack of waste repackaging contingencies and
DOE's
reluctance to accept PFS wastes at Yucca Mountain, as discussed below,
all
combine to raise the specter of irradiated nuclear fuel eventually
being
sent back thousands of miles to the reactors from which it originated.
This
would multiply the distances high-level waste is shipped, and escalate
the
risks of public and worker exposure, severe accidents, and terrorist
attacks. It would also increase further stress and damage to the
irradiated
nuclear fuel, making future handling, transport, and long term
isolation
from the environment much more troublesome.

It is ironic that NRC would consider granting PFS an operating license,
and
thus permission to begin shipments, even before its Package Performance

Study (PPS) is completed, a point raised by a number of our
organizations
during the public comment period on the PPS. Rushing the process, and
using
casks with only minimal testing and planning, is of concern to many
communities along the transportation routes.

John Parkyn, PFS chairman and CEO, has publicly stated that PFS would
train
emergency responders along the routes to Skull Valley, however, PFS has
not
yet demonstrated the financial or technical capability to deliver on
that
promise. On February 7, at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fiscal Year
2006
budget unveiling, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
director
Margaret Chu stated that Nuclear Waste Policy Act section 180(c)
funding to
states for emergency response preparation would not even begin until
five
years before high-level radioactive waste shipments to Yucca Mountain.
If
the U.S. federal government requires such a long advance time, how
could
PFS privately provide such training before shipments would begin as
early
as 2007? Given the the reduced investment into the PFS consortium by
member companies such as American Electric Power/Indiana-Michigan Power

and Southern California Edison, it is unlikely PFS could meet its basic

commitments, let alone pay for emergency responder training and
equipment all across the U.S.

The "interim" nature of the project is also questionable. Assurances
have
been given by PFS (and NRC staff in the proposal's Environmental Impact

Statement) that irradiated fuel would remain at Skull Valley for no
more
than 40 years before transfer to Nevada for permanent burial. Last
October,
however, U.S. Energy Department Yucca Mountain Project transport
director
Gary Lanthrum told the Salt Lake Tribune that the Yucca Mountain
Project
would simply not accept irradiated nuclear fuel from PFS, as that would

violate the terms of DOE's Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent
Nuclear
Fuel, which requires DOE to only accept uncanistered fuel directly from

nuclear utilities at reactor sites. Since PFS would not meet these
requirements, it could very well lead to de facto permanent "disposal"
of
4,000 casks of high-level radioactive waste above ground in Skull
Valley.

For NRC to approve PFS at this time by assuming that Yucca Mountain
would
take the wastes after 40 years contradicts Gary Lanthum's statement,
and
also suggests that NRC is predisposed to approve DOE's Yucca Mountain
license application even before the proceedings have begun.

This is very troubling and ignores ongoing, serious uncertainties
surrounding the Yucca Mountain Project's future. In addition, even if
the
Yucca Mountain repository does open, it is technically and legally
limited
to 63,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel. DOE
projects
that the total amount of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel generated
in
the U.S. will double to over 105,000 metric tons in the decades to
come.
This means that even if Yucca Mountain opens, PFS could very well turn
into
the de facto permanent overflow zone for excess waste.

Finally, on its face, the storage or disposal of highly radioactive
waste
on a tiny, poverty-stricken Native American community that did not even

benefit from the nuclear generated electricity also raises significant

environmental justice concerns. The existing leadership crisis at Skull

Valley only exacerbates such concerns. There is a long-running dispute
over
the legitimacy of the tribal leadership that supports PFS. The disputed

Tribal Chairman, Leon Bear -- the primary proponent for PFS -- has been

indicted on federal charges of embezzlement of tribal funds as well as
tax
evasion. Tribal members who oppose PFS claim they have been severely
intimidated and harassed, and allege that irregularities such as
bribery
and extortion have been used to secure support for PFS within the
tribe.

These are very shaky foundations upon which to build dry cask storage
for
44,000 tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, nearly 80% of what
currently exists in the U.S. The Skull Valley Goshute Indian community

seems to have suffered significantly from the PFS proposal long before
the
first shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel has even arrived.

We urge you to deny the PFS license request. Storing irradiated nuclear

fuel at the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation is not a safe, sound, nor
just
solution to our country's high-level radioactive waste problem.

Sincerely,

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource

Service, Washington, D.C.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy
and Environment Program, Washington, D.C.

Pete Litster, Executive Director, The Shundahai Network, Salt Lake
City, Utah

**********
If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the message.

Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG.

To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/

-Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: NRC Proposes $55,000 Fine for Discrimination Against Perry
 
News Release - Region III - 2005-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region III
  No. III-05-007           February 28, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000
fine against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company for a
violation of employee protection requirements at the Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, located at Perry, Ohio. 

The fine stems from a 2000 incident involving three painters
employed by Williams Power Corporation, a contractor at the
plant, and their management. The workers contacted a Perry
maintenance supervisor and ombudsman with concerns about the
directions they received from their supervisor that would
violate a plant procedure for painting in the Fuel Handling
Building. Immediately afterwards, the site superintendent for
Williams Power threatened the painters with termination if they
did not volunteer for a layoff. As a result, two painters were
laid off and the third was forced to resign. 

An investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations concluded
that raising this issue with FirstEnergy was a contributing
factor in the layoff of the three painters by the contractor.
The NRCs regulations protect the right of workers at nuclear
power plants to voice safety concerns without fear of reprisal. 

NRC Regional Administrator James Caldwell, in notifying the
utility of the proposed fine, said this action by the NRC should
emphasize the need for prompt identification of violations and
the importance of a workforce that is free of employment
discrimination. 

In a separate action by the NRC, the Williams Power supervisor
has been barred from NRC-licensed activities for three years for
deliberately providing false information during the NRCs
investigation associated with the discrimination against the
three workers. The NRCs Office of Investigations referred the
case to the U.S. Department of Justice; the supervisor was
subsequently charged with providing false information to the NRC
and pleaded guilty to the felony charge in July 2004. 

A Notice of Violation has also been issued to Williams Power
Corporation for descrimination against the three workers and for
deliberately providing false information during the NRCs
investigation. It requires the company to provide written
statements addressing the reasons for these violations, steps
taken to correct the problems and the results achieved;
corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations;
and the date when full compliance will be achieved. 

FirstEnergy has taken corrective actions including a site survey
of the safety conscious work environment; revising bid
specifications and contracts to include added references to
employee protection and safety conscious work environment;
including safety conscious work environment into ongoing
supervisor training; and establishing a special department to
provide oversight of the employee concerns program. Additionally
Williams Power Corporation established a written policy
statement that it would not tolerate employment discrimination. 

The notices to the utility and Williams Power Corp. on the
enforcement actions will be available online at
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html
 and from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs. 

The utility has until March 28 to pay the fine or to protest it.
If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC
staff, the utility may request a hearing.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut; Establishment of Atomic Safety and 
 
                         FR Doc 05-3864 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 39)] 
[Notices] [Page 9983] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr05-117]                         
 
Licensing Board [Docket No. 50-336 and 50-423; ASLBP No. 
05-837-01-LR] Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated 
December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 
28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 
2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is 
hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being 
established to preside over the following proceeding: Dominion 
Nuclear Connecticut (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 
3) Pursuant to a March 8, 2004 notice of opportunity for hearing 
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 11,897 (Mar. 12, 2004)), 
a Licensing Board is being established to conduct a proceeding on 
the February 1, 2005 petition for late intervention of Suffolk 
County, New York, regarding the January 22, 2004 Dominion Nuclear 
Connecticut applications for renewal of the Millstone Units 2 and 
3 operating licenses.
 
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: 
Michael C. Farrar, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
 
Alan S. Rosenthal, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Dr. Peter S. Lam, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. 
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of February 2005.
 
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel.
 
[FR Doc. 05-3864 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
 
                         FR Doc 05-3865 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 39)] 
[Notices] [Page 9983-9985] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr05-118]                         
 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to the Salem 
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem) for 
operation in Salem County, New Jersey. The proposed revision 
would modify the Technical Specification (TS) definition of 
OPERABILITY with respect to requirements for availability of 
normal and emergency power. Additionally, the proposed revision 
would modify the required actions for shutdown power TSs.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a
 
[[Page 9984]] margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), 
the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. 
Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? 
Response: No.
 
The likelihood of an event is not significantly increased since 
the proposed changes do not alter the types of equipment required 
to be OPERABLE to supply the minimum required diversity of AC 
[alternating current] power. Also, the probability of occurrence 
or the consequences for an accident is not significantly 
increased by the proposed changes since the minimum configuration 
of equipment required by [an] individual TS will remain 
available. Further, the proposed changes do not alter the way any 
structure, system or component (SSC) functions, do not 
significantly modify the manner in which the plant is operated, 
and do not significantly alter equipment out-of-service time. The 
change to the difference between 1 hour under LCO [limiting 
condition for operation] 3.0.3 and 4 hours under LCO 3.8.1.1 
Action b is not significant since the likelihood of a Design 
Basis Event (DBE) combined with a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) 
during the additional 3 hours is so low as to be not significant. 
The allowance for one EDG [emergency diesel generator] to supply 
all required features in Modes 5 & 6 is not operationally or 
safety significant since all required features will continue to 
have required backup power. Further, no changes to the design of 
structures, systems, or components (SSC) are made and there are 
no effects on accident mitigation.
 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident or malfunction in the Salem Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) is not created. The allowable outage time 
is consistent with requirements of Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications and does not introduce any new of different 
failure from any previously evaluated or change the manner in 
which safety systems are operated. The associated system and 
equipment configurations are no different from those previously 
evaluated. Therefore a different accident is not created. In 
addition, the proposed changes cannot initiate an accident. 
Further, the proposed changes do not change the design function 
or operation of any SSCs.
 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The proposed changes continue to provide assurance that an event 
coincident with failure of an associated diesel generator or 
offsite power circuit will not result in complete loss of safety 
function of critical required redundant systems or equipment. In 
addition, the proposed changes do not change the margin of safety 
since no SSCs are changed. The results of accident analysis 
remain unchanged by the proposed [changes].
 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should 
circumstances change during the notice period such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or 
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, 
provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for 
opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects 
that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 
or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are 
problems in accessing the document, contact the Public Document 
Room Reference staff at 1-800- 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a hearing or petition for 
leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or 
an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the 
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the 
Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following factors: (1) The name, 
address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) 
the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made 
party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
 
[[Page 9985]] Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or 
controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief 
explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support 
the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in 
proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also 
provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends 
to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition 
must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or 
fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one 
which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies 
these requirements with respect to at least one contention will 
not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present 
evidence and cross- examine witnesses.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held.
 
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue 
the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding 
the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place 
after issuance of the amendment.
 
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First-class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (3) 
e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile 
transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, the 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for 
hearing should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415- 3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jeffrie J. 
Keenan, Esquire, PO Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038, attorney 
for the licensee.
 
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing 
will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, 
the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be 
granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this 
action, see the application for amendment dated July 23, 2004, 
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, 
located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd 
day of February 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Daniel S. Collins, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-3865 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                         FR Doc 05-3978 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 39)] 
[Notices] [Page 9985-9986] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr05-119]                         
 
agency holding the meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
date: Weeks of February 28, March 7, 14, 21, 28, April 4, 2005.
 
place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
status: Public and closed.
 
matters to be considered: Week of February 28, 2005 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the week of February 28, 2005.
 
Week of March 7, 2005--Tentative Monday, March 7, 2005 9:55 a.m. 
Affirmation Session (Tentative) (Public Meeting) a. Final Rule: 
Medical Use of Byproduct Material--Recognition of Specialty 
Boards (Tentative).
 
10 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards Programs, Performance, and Plans--Materials Safety 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Shamica Walker, (301) 415-5142).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of March 14, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:30 
a.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) 
(Public Meeting) (Contact: John Larkins, (301) 415-7360).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of March 21, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the week of March 21, 2005.
 
Week of March 28, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:30 
a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 
(NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) 
(Contact: Robert Caldwell, (301) 415-1243).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of 
April 4, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, April 5, 2005 9:30 a.m. 
Briefing on Office of Research (RES) Programs, Performance, and 
Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Alix Dvorak, (301) 415-6601).
 
 
[[Page 9986]] This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of New Site 
and Reactor Licensing (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steven Bloom, 
(301) 415-1313).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Thursday, April 7, 2005 1:30 p.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee 
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John 
Larkins, (301) 415-7360).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: 
Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
 
* * * * * additional information: The Commission meeting, 
``Briefing on Nuclear Fuel Performance,'' originally scheduled at 
1 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2005, was rescheduled at 10:30 
a.m. on the same day due to inclement weather. An archived 
webcast of this meeting will be available at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule 
can be found on the Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
August Spector, at (301) 415-7080, TDD: (301) 415- 2100, or by 
e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 ((301) 415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: February 24, 2005.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-3978 Filed 2-25-05; 10:19 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Note to Editors: NRC/Constellation Meeting Postponed
 
News Release - Region I - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-009                          
February 28, 2005 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil 
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: 
opa1@nrc.gov  
  

A planned meeting between officials from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and Constellation Energy Group to discuss a license 
renewal inspection conducted at Nine Mile Point has been 
postponed. A new date has not been set. 

The meeting had been scheduled for March 3 to discuss the NRCs
inspection of the aging management program for Units 1 and 2 of
the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant. The inspection is part
of the NRC review of a license renewal application for the
plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y. The meeting is postponed
because the NRC has not completed its inspection activities.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 23 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Westinghouse bids for China nuclear work
 
Project could result in 5,000 jobs
 
Tuesday, March 01, 2005 By Jim McKay, 
 
Westinghouse Electric Co. formally presented a bid yesterday to
build four huge nuclear reactors in China, a move that could
create a significant amount of work and jobs in Western
Pennsylvania if the Monroeville company is chosen.

 Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said the contracts with
China would "create or sustain" about 5,000 jobs at Westinghouse
and its U.S. suppliers. Westinghouse also would initially supply
the fuel.

 And, if China goes forward with its plan to accept a
standardized design and build more plants beyond the first four,
the deal could mean many years of business. "This has good
long-term implications," Gilbert said.

 The local jobs would, in general, be related to the design and
manufacture of instrumentation and control systems that would be
built in the United States by Westinghouse or its suppliers.

 Since 1998 Westinghouse has been a unit of British-owned BNFL,
formerly British Nuclear Fuel.

 Gilbert said the jobs would be a mix of engineering, technical
and manufacturing work. "A lot of this stuff is assembly-line
production work," he said.

 The reactor vessel and steam generators -- both large parts of
the project -- would be built outside the United States. In the
case of steam generators, Gilbert said there were no U.S.
suppliers available.

 The Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corp. in Cheswick, for
example, has bid to manufacture advanced reactor coolant pumps,
mechanical systems used to position nuclear fuel in the
reactors, as well as valves and some instrumentation and control
products.

 "Quite honestly, if Westinghouse is successful and follows
through with an agreement, here at Cheswick it would be a very
large and important piece of business," said Joseph Kuzuch. "It
would create quite a few jobs."

 The Cheswick firm, a Navy contractor formerly part of the now
defunct Westinghouse Electric Corp., built critical function
pumps for the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered submarine.

 The reactor design submitted by Westinghouse is called the
AP-1000, a reference to its advanced passive safety features
that require fewer active parts than previous designs and less
human interaction if a shutdown is required.

 The pumps that Curtiss-Wright would build would have no seals
and therefore would be less likely to leak into the environment
than other pump designs. The company has been working with
Westinghouse on the project for about seven years.

 The AP-1000 was designed in Monroeville, and further
China-specific designs that would be necessary during
construction would occur there, Gilbert said.

 The new AP-1000 design received critical approval last fall
from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission but has yet to be
constructed anywhere in the world.

 Instrument and control equipment would come from a Westinghouse
site on Route 286 in Monroeville. The nuclear fuel rods would be
manufactured by Westinghouse in Blairsville. Storage tanks would
come from vendors in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

 Westinghouse estimates that one-half of the work required to
produce the plants would take place in the United States,
Gilbert said.

 The nuclear giant's bid is backed by a preliminary credit
pledge of nearly $5 billion from the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, the largest commitment ever made by the nation's
official export credit agency.

 The Ex-Im bank, which granted preliminary financing approval in
mid-February, is basing its support on the work that would be
done in the United States, said spokesman Phil Cogan.

 It is not uncommon for the Ex-Im Bank to back a project
undertaken by the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign-owned company,
Cogan said yesterday, responding to reports of some criticism
about its involvement with a British-based firm. "We do that
frequently, and it is not unusual," he added.

 the Ex-Im bank will consider finalizing the financing if
Westinghouse receives a contract from China.

 While the bank can make direct loans, it frequently guarantees
repayment of loans from commercial lenders in areas where the
commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept
political or economic risks. Its goal is to support U.S. exports
and create domestic jobs.

 A $5 billion guarantee would be nearly three times the size of
the bank's largest previous -- a $1.7 billion insurance industry
transaction in the mid-1980s.

 Cogan, the bank spokesman, said Congress was notified of any
transaction over $100 million and would be given opportunity to
comment on the Westinghouse proposal if the company wins the
business from China and submits a formal loan application.

 Aggressive competition is expected from other companies in
other countries.

 A French firm, Areva, and its joint venture partner,
German-based Siemens, are thought to be contenders along with
Westinghouse. Russian and Canadian companies also have expressed
interest in the project.

 Vice President Dick Cheney, in a visit to China last spring,
pushed Westinghouse by name in discussions with officials there
about the booming country's desire for new nuclear plants.

 A decision is expected to be made later this year.

 Cogan said the Ex-Im Bank participation would help Westinghouse
compete with other foreign companies that will have credit
backing from their own governments. He said the bank's
involvement helps "level the playing field."

 Any cost of the project to U.S. taxpayers would depend on the
success of the project. If the loans are paid back on time with
expected fees, the project could generate a profit for the bank.

 "It's important for people to understand this is not a grant,"
Cogan said. "We're not a grant-making agency. We're not giving
anybody $5 billion. This would be in the form of direct loans or
loan guarantees that would be paid back."

 
(Jim McKay can be reached at jmckay@post-gazette.comor
412-263-1322.) 			 
	 	 	 		 	 			 			 			
Copyright ©1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC Invites the Public to Submit Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
 
News Release - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-035     February 25, 
2005   

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking qualified
candidates for its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS), which provides the NRC with independent expert advice on
the safety of existing and proposed nuclear facilities, and the
adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. The ACRS also
provides advice related to the integration of safety and
security at commercial reactors. 

At present, the committee is focusing on risk-informed and
performance-based regulatory approaches; license renewal
applications; risk-informed revisions of the commissions
regulations in Part 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations; power
uprates; transient and accident analysis codes; materials
degradation issues; use of mixed oxide and high burn up fuels;
and advanced reactor designs. 

ACRS members are drawn from a variety of engineering and
scientific disciplines, and serve a four-year term with the
possibility of reappointment for an additional two terms. At
this time, the NRC is seeking individuals with at least 10 years
of experience in thermal hydraulics, materials and metallurgy,
and/or nuclear plant operations. Candidates should have a
demonstrated record of accomplishments in nuclear reactor
safety; those with pertinent graduate-level education will
receive additional consideration. It is the NRCs policy to
select the best qualified applicant for the job, regardless of
race, gender, age, religion, or any other non-merit factor.
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, the NRC seeks candidates with varying views and
of diverse background so that ACRS membership is balanced. 

Conflict-of-interest regulations restrict the participation of
members actively involved in regulated aspects of the nuclear
industry, so the degree and nature of any such involvement will
be weighed. Each qualified candidates financial interests must
be reconciled with federal and NRC rules and regulations prior
to final appointment. This might require divestiture of
securities issued by nuclear industry entities, or the
discontinuance of industry-funded research contracts or grants.
A security background investigation for a Q clearance (or the
transfer of an up-to-date Q clearance) is also required. 

Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to
devote from 80 to 100 days per year to ACRS business. A resumé
describing the educational and professional background of the
applicant including any special accomplishments, professional
references, current address and telephone number should be
included. Resumés must be submitted by June 6, 2005, to Sherry
Meador, Executive Secretary, ACRS/ACNW, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or by
e-mail to sam@nrc.gov.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, February 28, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 25 ninemsn: Experts hear nuclear licence application
 
NINEMSN.NEWS

13:51 AEDT Tue Mar 1 2005

A team of international nuclear safety experts has begun
reviewing Australia's application for a licence to operate its
new nuclear reactor in Sydney's south.

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief
executive Dr John Loy said that the four-member team was
reviewing the licence application for operation of the
replacement research reactor (the Open Pool Australian
Light-water research reactor) nearing completion at Lucas
Heights.

The peer review team has been assembled under the auspices of
the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Dr Loy said he expected the team would provide a valuable
contribution to the licence application review process being
undertaken by ARPANSA.

"The review team will spend the next two weeks in Australia
analysing the application," Dr Loy said in a statement.

"They will advise the CEO on international best practice in
radiation protection and nuclear safety in relation to elements
of the safety analysis report submitted in support of the
application for authorisation to operate the reactor."

<img alt="" border="0"
src="http://direct.ninemsn.com.au/scripts/accipiter/nserver/CAT=N
EWS/SITE=NINEMSN.NEWS/AREA=SCI_TECH/LOC=TOP/AAMSZ=MEDIUM">Dr Loy
said he planned to make the review team's report public after he
received it.

The review team members come from the IAEA, Hungary, South
Africa and the Netherlands.


Â©AAP 2005

© 1997- 2005 ninemsn Pty Ltd - All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet March 3-5 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-036     February 25, 2005   
  

Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting March 3-5 in
Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the draft Safety
Evaluation Report related to the North Anna, Va., Early Site
Permit application. The committee will also discuss a revised
draft of an NRC technical report, Estimating Loss-of-Coolant
Accident Frequencies Through the Elicitation Process, and a
proposed rulemaking package for using risk insights in revising
the NRCs regulations on Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core
Cooling Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting will
run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. on Thursday and Friday, and from
8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. A complete agenda is available
on the NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. 

Individuals with questions or those wanting to make public
statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 27 ITAR-TASS: World Association of Nuclear Operators officials to visit 
the Kalininskaya KNPS in Tver region

01.03.2005, 07.10

UDOMLYA, Tver Region, March 1 (Itar-Tass) - Officials of the
World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) are to visit the
Kalininskaya nuclear power station (KNPS) in Tver Region on
Tuesday. These will be Lucas Mampaya, director of WANO
coordinating centre, Yves Canaff, director of the WANO Paris
Centre, and Farit Tukhvetov, director of the WANO Moscow Centre. 

WANO officials' interest in the KNPS is not fortuitous. The WANO
has been most attentively watching the development of the
nuclear power industry in Russia, particularly the construction
of new power units. A third power unit was brought into
operation at the KNPS in December last year. The VVER -1,000
reactor design has incorporated the best technologies of the
domestic nuclear power industry, and more than 600 newest
technical solutions. It is planned to build a 4th power unit at
the KNPS for it to come into operation in five years' time. 

The WANO officials' trip is to be made within the framework of
the WANO regional centres' conference on the implementation of
WANO programme for partner inspections. The WANO brings together
all nuclear power stations of the world -- about 440 nuclear
power units in 32 countries. They generate up to17 percent of
the world's entire amount of electric power. The mission of the
WANO is to enhance to the maximum the safety and reliability of
the operation of the NPS. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 28 Newsday.com: Getting back NY's power over power plants

Opinion 

Newsday.com      

BY CARL L. MARCELLINO

Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset)is chairman of the State Senate's 
Environmental Conservation Committee.
 	 	
March 1, 2005

When I asked Broadwater Energy whether New York State has a say 
in the siting and operation of a liquefied natural gas 
importation facility in Long Island Sound, it told me no.

When I asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
representative the same question, the answer was: I don't know,
I am not an attorney.

These were the unsettling answers during a public hearing I held
with Assemb.Thomas DiNapoli (D-Great Neck), chairman of the
Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation regarding the
Broadwater proposal.

In fact, despite what was said at the hearing, according to a
declaratory order that FERC issued in March 2004, it is the sole
regulatory authority for the siting and construction of
liquefied natural gas import terminals in the United States.The
people of California challenged FERC in court because they felt
it was wrong to have their voices stifled by face-less
Washington bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people
living next to these facilities, and I agree.

In an effort to stop other states from exerting their rights
over their waters, some congressmen put language into the 2005
federal budget that clarified FERC's jurisdiction on the siting
of new liquefied natural gas facilities.When it was im-plied
that this action did not have the full effect of the law, a bill
was introduced that would ban any state from requiring per-mits
or other forms of authorization with respect to siting or
op-eration of liquefied natural gas import terminals.This bill
is troubling because energy companies are proposing to build at
least 24 liquefied natural gas marine terminal facilities
affecting at least 14 states.

On Feb.17, I formally asked the New York State attorney general
to issue a decision on what New York State's rights are
concerning the siting and operation of a liquefied natural gas
facility.The issue is not whether we need more energy on Long
Island or even if this is a realistic or responsible plan. It is
a more fundamental and, ul-timately, more important ques-tion:
Will New York State have to sit idly by while Washing-ton, D.C.,
bureaucrats and corporate lawyers make decisions with blatant
disregard for the wishes and needs of the state that is directly
affected by their actions?

We have all read stories and seen news reports detailing the
Broadwater Energy proposal that would place an 10-story-high and
four-"football-fields"-long liquefied natural gas facility in
the middle of Long Island Sound.We have all heard the local
officials and environ-mental advocates clamoring for this
proposal to be dropped. What no one really knows is: Will the
voices that raise the objections be heard?

The time is now to ensure that our rights are heard and that we
are part of the deci-sion-making process of the siting of
liquefied natural gas facilities.Unless actions are taken
immediately, our state's rights will slowly be strangled by the
federal bureaucracy that appears to only answer to energy
companies.

The attorney general must investigate our options under current
law.We need to know if the State Legislature should take action
or if it must be our federal representatives.Or is our only
option a lawsuit to en-sure that New Yorkers' voices are heard?

Today, we are concerned about Broadwater Energy.However, it is
only a matter of time until other multinational corporations
decide to do something similar.For instance, could the same laws
extend to the siting of nuclear power plants off Long Island
Sound? New Yorkers must be the ones to decide how our natural
resources are protected and how we fulfill our own energy needs.

As Patrick Henry said, "The liberties of the people never were,
nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers
may be concealed from them." New York State cannot protect our
quality of life while bureaucrats at FERC are attacking our
state sovereignty and the very Constitution itself. 

Subscribe to Newsday home delivery

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc. |  Article licensing and reprint
*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: NRC Issues Licenses Allowing Westinghouse to Export Nuclear Reactor Equipment and Fuel to
China

News Release - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-037     February 25, 
2005   
  


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license
authorizing Westinghouse Electric Co. to export to China the
reactor systems, components and associated equipment and
engineering services to build and operate as many as two
pressurized water nuclear reactors at the San Men site and two
at the Yang Jiang site. A second license was also issued,
authorizing Westinghouse to export enough low-enriched uranium
fuel to be used in the initial core and in one refueling for
each reactor. 

Westinghouse submitted the application for the license to export
the reactors on Feb. 25, 2004, and the application for the fuel
export license on August 26, 2004. Should China accept
Westinghouses bid for constructing the plants, shipments of the
reactor systems and components are expected to begin around
mid-2007. 

After carefully reviewing the applications and associated
information, the NRC concluded that approving these exports to
China will not be adverse to the common defense and security.
The NRC also agreed with the conclusions reached by interested
Executive Branch agencies that approving these exports is fully
consistent with U.S. legal requirements.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, February 28, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: News Release - 2005-038 - NRC Renews License for Dry-Cask
Spent Fuel Installation at Dominion’s Surry Nuclear Power Plant
 
Releases > 2005 > 05-038
 
  NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public 
Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     
E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov   
  
  No. 05-038     March 1, 2005   

RENEWS LICENSE FOR DRY-CASK SPENT FUEL INSTALLATION AT DOMINIONS
SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the license of
Dominion Generation for its dry-cask independent spent fuel
storage installation at the Surry nuclear power plant in Surry,
Va., for an additional 40 years. 

The license includes strict conditions to monitor potential
effects of aging on the integrity of the casks, said E. William
Brach, director of the NRCs Spent Fuel Project Office. These
conditions include additional inspections to be conducted by the
licensee and continuous monitoring of radiation at the boundary
of the dry-cask storage facility. 

This is the first time the NRC has renewed a license for a
dry-cask spent nuclear fuel storage facility. In December, the
agency renewed the license for an away-from-reactor spent fuel
pool storage facility at G.E. Morris in Illinois. 

The 40-year term for Surrys renewed license represents an
exemption from NRC regulations that specify a 20-year license
term for spent fuel storage facilities. The Commission approved
the exemption in early December. At that time, the agency
emphasized its position that dry casks are an interim or
temporary storage method for spent nuclear fuel until a
permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste is available. 

Surry in 1986 became the first commercial nuclear plant to be
licensed by the NRC to operate a dry-cask independent spent fuel
storage installation. There are now more than 30 such
installations in the United States. Typically, spent fuel is
moved into NRC-approved dry casks after cooling at least five
years in pools of water. Surrys spent fuel pools are at
capacity, making continued use of dry-cask storage important for
the plants two reactors to continue to operate to the end of
their current operating licenses in 2032 and 2033.   

Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005       
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: NRC Expects Strong Attendance at 17th Annual Regulatory Information Conference
 
News Release - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-039     March 1, 2005   
  

More than 1,200 people, a record for pre-registration, are
expected to attend the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Regulatory
Information Conference (RIC), March 8-10, at the Marriott
Bethesda North, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, Md. Attendees
will include representatives from Canada, France, Japan, the
Republic of Korea and more than 20 other foreign countries, a
record level of overseas participation at the conference. Also
expected are professional staff members from the U.S. Congress. 

The agency will mark a number of important events during this
conference, including: 
  + 

The first public presentations by the newest Nuclear Regulatory
Commission members, Gregory Jaczko and Peter Lyons, who will
address the RIC on March 9. NRC Chairman Nils Diaz,
Commissioners Edward McGaffigan and Jeffrey Merrifield and other
senior agency officials will also speak at the conference; 
  + 

The RICs return to Rockville, after several years in downtown
Washington, D.C.; and 
  + 

The beginning of the integration of the RIC with the former
Nuclear Safety Research Conference, which had been run by the
NRCs Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

The conference is free, onsite registration will be provided and
the sessions will be open to the public. The conference brings
together NRC managers, regulated utilities and other interested
stakeholders to meet and discuss nuclear safety initiatives and
regulatory trends. Topics at this years conference include
licensing new nuclear power plants, emergency preparedness and
fire protection. 

The conference agenda is available on the NRCs Web site at this
address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Seabrook Station
 
News Release - 2005-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-040     March 1, 2005   
  

Energy Seabrook to increase the generating capacity of Seabrook
Station by 5.2 percent. The NRC staff determined that FPL could
safely increase the reactors power output primarily by upgrading
minor plant components. NRC staff also reviewed FPL evaluations
that showed the plants design can handle the increased power
level. 

The NRC's safety evaluation of the plants proposed power uprate
focused on several areas, including nuclear steam supply
systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical
systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences,
operations, and other technical specification changes. 

The power uprate for the unit, located 13 miles south of
Portsmouth, N.H., will increase its generating capacity from
approximately 1115 to 1173 megawatts electric. FPL intends to
operate Seabrook at the higher power level following its spring
refueling operations. 

NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate
application in the Federal Register providing the public an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or
hearing requests were received by the NRC. The agencys
evaluation of the Seabrook uprate will be available through the
NRCs ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML050140453
on this Web page: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, March 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 33 What the Union of Concerned Scientists Thinks About DU
 
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:17:20 -0600 (CST)

 
 ---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Young" <syoung@ucsusa.org>
To: <ekessler@okiemail.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 5:06 PM
Subject: Depleted Uranium

> Ed Kessler,
>
> You recently forwarded an article about depleted uranium to UCS. I do not
> know if the article is factually correct, as it has an enormous amount of
> information. All I can tell you is what I believe I sent you before -
> colleagues we work with and trust have looked closely at the issue and do
> not believe it is a signficant problem, and the United Nations does not
> believe it is a significant problem.
>
> My apologies if this does not sufficiently answer your question, but given
> our limited size and resources we simply cannot maintain expertise on
> every issue.
>
> Thank you for your interest in and support of UCS.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Stephen Young
> Washington Representative/Senior Analyst
> Global Security Program
> Union of Concerned Scientists
> (202) 331-5429
>
> Make your voice heard on important environmental and security issues --
> join the Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network at
> www.ucsaction.org. It's quick, easy, and FREE. 
*****************************************************************
 34 [du-list] "Poison DUst"-- documentary
 
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:31:06 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
International Action Center, Tue, 01 Mar 2005 9:42 AM PST
Film Poison DUst features vets exposed to DU 
http://www.iacenter.org/poison-dust.htm
February 20, 2005--The premiere showing on Feb. 15 of "Poison DUst"--a 
documentary highlighting the effects of Depleted Uranium [DU] on veterans 
returning from the Iraq war-- attracted a large and engaged crowd at the 
New School theater.

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 2/28/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/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>
*****************************************************************
 35 Bradenton Herald: Expanded eligibility for beryllium tests

| 03/01/2005 | 

•  TALLEVAST: An overview of the beryllium pollution saga   

DONNA WRIGHT

 Herald Staff Writer

The Florida Department of Health will offer free blood tests to
family and household members of former workers and residents who
lived within a half mile of the Loral American Beryllium Co.
plant. To schedule an appointment for the test call Mary Ellen
Thornton at Sarasota County Health Department at 861-6092. 

More former employees of Loral American Beryllium Co. are now
eligible for free beryllium testing and a federal compensation
program. 

The U.S. Department of Energy has expanded the eligibility
period to include any workers employed at the defunct Loral
American Beryllium Co. plant in 1967, Assistant Secretary of
Energy John S. Shaw said Monday. 

Formerly only those workers employed during 1968 or anytime
between 1980 and 1989 were eligible for the compensation program
that pays medical benefits and possible lump sum compensation of
$150,000 to workers who develop beryllium disease. 

"Whenever we find evidence of a vendor company contracting with
the department for this type of work, we are very interested in
making sure workers get the testing they deserve," Shaw said. 

The Energy Department last week expanded its free beryllium
screening to include workers at the former Tallevast plant
beginning this month. 

The Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education is providing
the free blood tests for beryllium sensitivity. 

Terry Owen, the last union president at American Beryllium, said
she learned workers from 1967 were covered when she called the
Oak Ridge Institute on Friday for more information on the free
medical screening program. 

Beryllium workers at the Tallevast plant milled and machined the
exotic metal for parts for atomic weapons and missile guidance
systems. 

Exposure to beryllium dust can lead to an allergic reaction
which is a forerunner for a chronic lung condition that can be
fatal if not treated. 

If workers employed during the eligibility period test positive
for beryllium sensitivity, they can receive medical monitoring
and/or compensation through the Department of Labor under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program. 

Family members of workers and residents living within one half
mile of the old plant will receive free testing through another
program financed through funds from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, a part of the Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta. 

Administered by the Florida Department of Health and Sarasota
County Health Department, those tests are to begin next week. 

Manatee County provided free beryllium tests to former workers,
residents and household members of former workers in December
and January. 

When the program was approved, commissioners said they hoped to
recoup the $60,000 allocated for the tests. 

Assistant County Administrator David Rothfuss said he was
unaware if staff was researching reimbursement through the
Department of Energy, but if that were possible, staff would ask
the board to pursue that avenue. 

"If there is some way to get reimbursement," Rothfuss said,
"that would be our desire." 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com.
*****************************************************************
 36 Fort Morgan Times: Health board filled, opposes nuclear waste

March 01, 2005 Fort Morgan, CO                                                                                 
 			 								 					
Article Last Updated: Monday, February 28, 2005 -
 		   			
The Northeast Colorado Board of Health is sitting with a full
board as the final county representatives were appointed during
their Wednesday meeting. 

Mike Weimer was appointed as the new Morgan County representative 
andJennifer Goble as the new Logan County representative. 

Goble and Weimer replaced outgoing board members Marilyn Neihart 
of Morgan County and Virginia Thornton of Logan County, both of 
whom stepped down after completing their tenure on the board at 
the end of 2004. Neihart was honored at the beginning of the 
meeting and was presented with an award for her service on the 
board during the past seven years. She expressed her appreciation 
and wished everyone good luck in their future endeavors.                      

 The board listened to a presentation from Julie McCaleb,
director of Environmental Health for the Northeast Colorado
Health Department, about Clean Harbor's permit application to
store radioactive materials at their site on Highway 36. The
land is actually located in Adams County, but directly borders
portions of Washington County.

 McCaleb told board members that they wouldn't have the right to
deny or approve the request, but could offer a letter either
supporting or opposing the request. The decision is actually up
to CDPHE's hazardous waste division. Board members decided to
draft a letter to the CDPHE in opposition to the request to
store radioactive materials at the hazardous waste site. 

Prior to the Board of Health meeting, members held a public
hearing to address proposed changes to the individual sewage
disposal system regulations in northeast Colorado. McCale,
presented the proposed changes and after some discussion and
input from members of the audience, the board approved the new
regulations.

 Jody Crossley, NCHD director of client health services, spoke
to the board about adding a traumatic brain injury component to
NCHD's children with special needs program. According to
Crossley, the grant will bring an additional $800 per year to
clients that qualify for the program. She said the money will go
towards care coordination for these individuals and the addition
of this component will not cost the organization any extra
dollars in personnel or other fees. 

She did note that there were some issues surrounding the Health
Information Privacy and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a
non-HIPAA compliant agency, with the ownership of these new
client records. The board advised Crossley to proceed with the
new component if those issues could be worked through.

 In other business the board:

 * Approved the financial statements from December;

 * Received a report from board president, Yuma County
Commissioner Robin Wiley, that the purchase of NCHD's Fort
Morgan office building has been finalized;

 * Approved the revised 2005 budget;

 * Approved the audit engagement letter from Lauer, Szabo and
Associates, P.C. 

* Heard a legislative update from Denise Hase, NCHD director of
finance, marketing and public affairs;

 * Elected Goble as the board's new secretary;

 * Tabled the appointment of one board member to serve on NCHD's
personnel policy revision committee. The board decided to wait
until all members were present;

 * Listened to a presentation by Robert Carson, NCHD district
public health administrator, concerning public health needs in
each of the six counties.

© 1999-2005 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Eastern Colorado Publishing 
Co.
*****************************************************************
 37 The Australian: WMC expands uranium mine 

[March 01, 2005]
 	 	
TAKEOVER target WMC Resources today committed an additional $90 
million to expanding its Olympic Dam uranium and copper mine in 
South Australia.

The funds will support an expanded drill program, designed to 
prove up reserves and take the project through to the 
commencement of project execution planning.

 WMC said the early commencement of this feasibility stage 
drilling was on the back of an improving long term commodity 
price outlook and continuing strong drill results, also released 
today.

 WMC, which is the subject of a takeover bid by Swiss-based 
Xstrata, said a dedicated team had been appointed to work closely 
on proposed expansion options.

 Olympic Dam holds close to 40 per cent of the world's known 
uranium. Its assets are considered very valuable given the rising 
price of uranium and a global movement to nuclear energy. 

"Growing confidence in the viability of an expanded Olympic Dam
has driven a commitment to significant new drilling," WMC chief
executive Andrew Michelmore said today.

 "With long term uranium supply contracts now being signed above
spot prices and great progress from the study team, the outlook
for the expansion continues to improve."

 He said new drill results announced today showed the orebody
had the ability to host a significantly greater resource.

 The feasibility stage drill program will include 340 kilometres
of additional drilling.

 WMC said the additional $90 million in funds included $14
million to advance the expanded resource from inferred to
indicated status and $76 million for feasibility drilling to
take a significant portion of the resource to a measured level.

 When the study is complete WMC will have the data and models to
enable it to commit to an expansion into the southern orebody.

 Mr Michelmore said WMC had now committed more than $145 million
to expanding Olympic Dam.

 The Development Study is running to schedule with a decision on
the preferred mining method expected at the end of the first
quarter.

 The results released today included 69 metres at 3.02 per cent
from 625 metres to 694 metres, and 13 metres at 4.32 per cent
from 430 metres to 443 metres.

 At 1415 AEDT WMC shares were down one cent to $7.58. 
		 		 	 	 	   		 		
  privacy       terms      © The Australian   

*****************************************************************
 38 The Australian: Treaty ruins uranium safeguards 

[March 02, 2005]
 	 	
IF Swiss-based Xstrata wins WMC, Australia's restrictions on 
uranium sales and bans on nuclear waste imports may be overridden 
by treaty obligations.

When Peter Costello allowed the bid to proceed, he placed great 
emphasis on government controls on uranium export and waste. He 
did not tell Australians that one of our most important trade 
treaty sign-ups is the Energy Charter Treaty, under which we have 
undertaken to allow energy exports to take place without 
restriction. 

If WMC is bought by Australian-based BHP, or the Australian arm 
of Rio Tinto, the treaty will not apply to Olympic Dam uranium. 

But Switzerland is one of the most enthusiastic members of the 
ECT organisation and it is empowered to protect any of its 
companies. 

When I was alerted to our ECT obligations by Sydney barrister 
Ludmilla Robinson, I couldn't believe such a treaty existed and 
that we could be in danger of making such a mistake over uranium. 

But further investigation confirms Robinson's contention that
the treaty provisions "make nonsense of Mr Costello's
pronouncement that the exploitation and sale of Australian
uranium is controlled by strict government regulation". 

In his defence, the Treasurer would argue that, although
Australia was a signatory, it did not ratify the treaty and is
not bound by it. There are also possible escape clauses and
Xstrata's undertakings. 

But Robinson's work, reviewed by former High Court chief justice
Sir Anthony Mason, shows we are very likely to be bound by the
signature. If we ratify the treaty, our energy companies that
operate in signatory countries may gain the same protection as
Xstrata. 

Costello should explain why he didn't alert Australians to the
dangers of this treaty. 

Robinson says the ECT is a multilateral agreement covering
economic activity in energy resources and products, including
waste products. Most of the countries that signed it in 1994
were European, because it was designed to protect EU investors
in energy-rich countries formerly in the Soviet Union. 

Accordingly, it places onerous conditions on host states to
protect foreign investment in energy resource exploration,
production and trade. No one is quite sure why the 1994 Labor
Government signed the treaty. 

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty overrides the ECT, but if
ECT is binding, Australia will not be able to impose other
restrictions on the export of uranium and must take waste
products if required to do so by the Swiss. 

Robinson says ECT could also allow oil tankers to travel through
the Barrier Reef. 

Costello is looking like the next prime minister. Apart from
John Howard, the possible fallout from his Xstrata decision is
the only thing standing between Costello and the Lodge. 

Costello rejected the good advice of Trade Minister Mark Vaile
and others to take 90 days to look hard at the implications of
Xstrata owning 38 per cent of the world's uranium. 

The early fears concerned US press reports about Swiss
involvement in the Iraq food-for-oil scandals. Swiss traders
control 40 per cent of Xstrata. 

Costello relied on statements from the current board and
management that were no doubt made in good faith. But in five or
10 years, these people will have retired and the Swiss traders
will appoint new people to key posts and they might find the ECT
treaty much more enticing. 

Costello should tough it out, saying he is advised that
Australia is not bound by the treaty and/or there are escape
clauses. That is a high-risk legal view. 

To be certain of avoiding the treaty obligations on uranium,
Australia must repudiate the treaty immediately. If Xstrata wins
WMC, it will be too late, because then Xstrata will have 20
years to act freely under the grandfathering clause. 

Mick Davis might not have known about the treaty, but you can be
sure that the Swiss controllers of 40 per cent of his capital
know the implications of every word of the ECT, because they are
experts at smashing government-imposed trade restrictions. 

They already have Cuba, South Africa, Iran and possibly Iraq
under their belt. 

Australia's uranium restrictions would make a nice sequel. 

gottliebsenr@theaustralian.com.au 
		 		 	 
  privacy       terms      © The Australian   
*****************************************************************
 39 AP Wire: Experts: Waste should stay at old sites

| 03/01/2005 | 

H. JOSEF HEBERT

 Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A significant amount of radioactive waste from Cold
War bomb-making should remain at former production sites, and
several locations should be kept open longer than planned to
treat waste from elsewhere, scientists recommended Tuesday. 

Reports by two panels of the National Academies urged the Energy
Department to revamp its massive $140 billion cleanup plans for
defense nuclear waste with the goal of transporting less of it
to a central facility. 

This would allow cleanup activities to be completed sooner and
cost less, the panels said. The current cleanup schedule,
involving dozens of sites, envisions most waste treatment and
disposal to be finished in 20 years. 

States with some of the biggest cleanup challenges - including
Washington, Idaho and South Carolina - and have argued that
high-level defense nuclear waste should be taken away for deep
geological burial. 

But a National Research Council panel, asked to review the
government program, concluded that the "recovery of every last
gram" of such waste "will be technically impractical and
unnecessary." 

In some cases removing waste could lead to increased human
exposures to radiation, the panel said. It also said the expense
associated with retrieval, immobilization and disposition of
some of the waste in a central repository "may be out of
proportion with the risk reduction achieved, if any." 

An attempt to recover all of this waste - such as the hardened
"heel" waste attached to the inside of buried tanks at the
Hanford site in Washington state - could lead to further leaks
and contamination than if it were left in place, the report
said. 

Another National Research Council panel issued a companion
report. It recommended that the Energy Department use waste
treatment facilities that will handle cleanup efforts at the
most contaminated sites to treat waste from other defense sites.
That would require those facilities to stay open longer than
planned. 

Such use of treatment facilities at the Hanford site in
Washington state, the Savannah River complex in South Carolina,
the Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho would
accelerate overall cleanup efforts, the report said. 

How far the Energy Department should go to clean up the
environmental damage left over from decades of bomb-making and
the pace of the cleanup have sparked intense debate between the
federal government and states. State officials fear they may be
burdened permanently with waste that will be highly radioactive
for thousands of years. 

Citizen activists and state officials argue that the federal
government is required to remove as much of the highly
radioactive waste left over from bomb-making as is technically
possible. Such waste, they say, should go to an underground
disposal site known as WIPP in New Mexico or the Yucca Mountain
high-level waste dump proposed in the Nevada desert. 

"Given the controversy surrounding this issue and the reality
that not all of the waste will or can be recovered and disposed
of offsite, the country needs a structured, well-thought-out way
to determine which wastes can stay," said David Daniel, chairman
of the panel of scientists that wrote the report on what wastes
should be exempted from deep geological burial. 

The report said that techniques exist that allow the separation
of the most highly radioactive material, which would go to a
central repository, from less dangerous waste that can be
processed to reduce the potential hazard and be allowed to
remain where it is. 

The panel, however, acknowledged that the implementation of a
more "risk-based" approach to addressing the waste problem must
be handled with care and within current rules and the law, or
risk resistance from states. 

The government must determine how best to dispose of the waste
"in a manner the public can trust," said Daniel, dean of the
College of Engineering at the University of Illinois. 

ON THE NET 

National Academies, where the reports are available:
http://www.national-academies.org.   

*****************************************************************
 40 American Statesman: Lawmaker wants limit on radioactive wastes
 
  Statesman.com 
 	 	 	 	 	 				 	 		 
79th LEGISLATURE                                         

Bill would keep most states' waste out of Texas
 		 	
By Kevin Carmody
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, March 01, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                                
					 					 						 					 			 		 	 			 	 	 	 		 	 	
Legislation introduced Monday would block a proposed West Texas 
dump from accepting low-level radioactive waste from any other 
state except Vermont. 

Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, said his bill would clarify 
the intent of the Legislature when it voted in 2003 to allow the 
creation of a privately operated disposal facility for the 
low-level radioactive waste produced in Texas and Vermont, which 
have signed a disposal compact.

Villarreal said legislators were assured that radioactive wastes
from the other 48 states would be excluded. But under the
Texas-Vermont compact, a seven-member commission appointed by
the two states' governors can approve agreements allowing any
state or entity to send radioactive waste to the Texas dump. 

Last year, Nebraska officials proposed paying Texas $30 million
to allow the Texas dump to accept radioactive wastes from their
state and the four others with which Nebraska has a disposal
compact: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 

"Now we understand there are many more states that want to come
into Texas with their waste," Villarreal said. "We need to
tighten up the hole in our statutes." 

The Legislature in 2003 also authorized the creation of a second
privately operated dump to accept low-level radioactive waste
from U.S. Department of Energy facilities. A Dallas company,
Waste Control Specialists, has applied to the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality for a permit to operate both facilities
in Andrews County near the New Mexico border. 

Also Monday, state Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, introduced a
resolution asking legislative leaders to create a joint
committee to study the risks associated with importing
radioactive wastes from other states. The committee would offer
recommendations for legislative action next session. 

"I want to know what all the costs are before other lawmakers
decide to turn West Texas into the nation's first and last
resort for radioactive waste disposal," Gallego said. 	 	   	 	
   		 		
Presented by The Austin American-Statesman. Contact us.
 Copyright 2001-2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights
*****************************************************************
 41 [deseretnews.com]: N-risks are acceptable
 
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
 	   	 
Level heads prevailed and the NRC has ruled that storing nuclear 
waste in impervious lead containers in a remote location does not 
pose unacceptable risks. 

If the governor and all the other people of Utah would quit using 
electricity and return to an agrarian economy, they could justly 
say, "We don't want that stuff here." 

Our leaders should be working on ways to safely store and 
transport nuclear waste. Nuclear power is coming. We need to be 
ready.

 Jeff Anderson
 Salt Lake City


 © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 



*****************************************************************
 42 Las Vegas RJ: Utah governor seeks help against nuclear site 
 
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
 


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. lobbied in
Washington over the weekend against the nuclear-waste repository
planned for the Goshutes' reservation in Skull Valley.
 
 "I want to make sure the White House is able to follow this
issue as we proceed," Huntsman told The Salt Lake Tribune's
Washington office.
 
 Huntsman met with White House officials during a Republican
Governors Association dinner Saturday night and at the National
Governors Association winter meeting.
 
 He said he emphasized the state's opposition to Private Fuel
Storage's plan to transport casks of waste from the nation's
nuclear energy reactors to Utah's western desert. 
Huntsman does not know yet whether the Bush administration will
side with Utah.
 
 "The feedback is they want to follow the issue with us and
there's only so much detail you can cover at this point,"
Huntsman said Sunday evening. "We will have meetings to follow."
 
 In 2002, the Bush administration signed a pledge to block use
of federal funds to help build, maintain or transport nuclear
waste to the Goshute site in exchange for votes from Utah's two
Republican senators in favor of siting the nation's nuclear
waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
 
 The Yucca Mountain plans face an uncertain future because of
congressional divisions and court rulings.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 43 Bellona: Iran, Russia ink deal for Bushehr fuel that includes SNF return,
but West still jittery
 
Russia and Iran signed a nuclear fuel supply deal long opposed by 
Washington on Sunday, paving the way for Iran to start up its 
first atomic reactor next year in the Persian Gulf port city of 
Bushehr.

  Technicians aligning vessel-head nozzles inside the Bushehr
nuclear power plant, Iran’ first atomic power station, a project
the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons
development.   

  AFP   

Charles Digges, 2005-02-27 19:01

The deal includes a provision to repatriate the Russian produced
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) so that plutonium cannot be reprocessed
from it in Iran for nuclear weapons purposes, and Iran has
bridled for more than years against that specific clause,
delaying time and again signing a deal that would provide for
the SNF’s return to Russia. 

But the point of returning the spent fuel to Russia became
somewhat academic after Iran announced in 2003 its intentions to
revive it nascent uranium mining infrastructure—meaning the
Islamic Republic will soon be capable of manufacturing its own
fuel and enriching uranium even more highly in its complex of
hexaflouride gas uranium enrichment centrifuges. 

It is therefore something of a mystery as to why Iran has
stalled on returning its future SNF, which will add to the some
15,000 tonnes of SNF Russia is already barely managing. But
Tehran Sunday did finally agreed to send the spent fuel back,
though both sides still disagree on who should pay for its
return. 

The governments said Sunday they had agreed on details of the
shipment, but said the timing and the costs were confidential
Both sides refused to discuss further details of shipping the
nuclear fuel to Iran and the spent fuel back to Russia, but
insisted that the agreement conforms to international nuclear
regulations. 

"This is a very important incident in the ties between the two
countries and in the near future a number of Russian experts
will be sent to Bushehr to equip the power station," Alexander
Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency
(Rosatom) was quoted by the Reuters as saying. 

"Iran observes all the regulations on the prohibition of the
spread of nuclear weapons."

  Leaked Minatom Documents Show No Plan For Iranian SNF   

  Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, has failed to
secure guarantees from Iran that Teheran will return spent
nuclear fuel that could be converted into weapons-grade
plutonium, despite repeated assurances to the contrary from
Moscow.

In 2002, Bellona Web and other environmental news agencies
revealed that Russia’s deal with Iran included no provisions for
return of the fuel, which ratcheted up heat on the Kremlin from
Washington which believes Iran is building a clandestine nuclear
arms program. 

Iran, OPEC's second largest oil producer, denies the charge and
has received strong backing from Moscow, which is keen to play a
major role in expanding Iran's nuclear energy program. 

Is Iran gunning for nuclear weapons?
 But strong evidence, revealed last month by The New Yorker
magazine, suggests that the United States is refocusing and
revising its current military deployment in Iraq toward Iran and
that the gathering of intelligence by special forces units and
remote controlled aircraft on the locations of Iran’s uranium
enrichment centrifuges is already underway. 

So far, say Iranian dissident groups and US Defence Department
sources, Iran has amassed some 1000 centrifuges, some of them
purchased from Pakistan, which, when fully operable, will be
capable of producing some two to four nuclear warheads a year. 

Washington and many European nations have long pressured Moscow
to abandon it civilian nuclear co-operation with Iran, and has
pressed hard for the Russians to at least gain some surety that
the spent nuclear fuel will be returned to Russia for storage,
most likely in Zheleznogorsk, the closed central Siberian
nuclear city that has the country’s only facility for storing
spent fuel from VVER-1000 light-water reactors of the type
Moscow is building in Bushehr.

  A hole in one of the walls surrounding the Zheleznogorsk
Chemical Combine.   

  Charles Digges/Bellona   

Storage options for the Iranian fuel 

But Zheleznogorsk has troubling security problems, and in 2001,
former State Dume Deputy Sergei Mitrokhin and a television
camera crew followed a well-worn foot path through a hold in
wall surrounding the closes city and posed for pictures in
Zheleznogorsk’s RT-2 SNF storage site unhindered by any of the
sentries meant to be guarding the facility. 

Frustrated by this lapse in security, agents of the Russia’s
Federal Security Service (FSB)—the KGB’s successor—planted
without hindrance by Interior Ministry guards a paper mache bomb
at the RT-2 facility in early 2003. The bomb lay in the facility
unnoticed for several days, and the incredulous officers
re-entered the site, again unhindered, to retrieve the mock-up
explosive. A sweeping re-evaluation of security in
Zheleznogorsk, which is home to one of three remaining plutonium
reactors. All are being shut down with American funding.

  FSB Plants Fake Bomb at RT-2 SNF Storage Facility   
  
  Camouflage-clad agents of the Krasnoyarsk branch of the
Federal Security Service (FSB) penetrated security fences to
plant a simulated bomb at the RT-2 spent nuclear fuel storage
facility at Zheleznogorsk Chemical Combine in December 2002 and
encountered no resistance from Interior Ministry troops that
guard the site, an FSB spokesman said.

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and Rumyantsev
signed Sunday’s fuel delivery and return agreement at the $800
million Bushehr nuclear power plant after Aghazadeh showed
Rumyantsev Bushehr's nuclear fuel storage house and the reactor
core, expected to be operational by late 2005 or early 2006. 

"What I saw was much better and more than I had expected.
Assembling operations in the past three to four months have been
expedited," Rumyantsev said, according to news reports.
Referring to the process to complete the plant, he added: "I
can't say the situation is excellent, but it's very good." 

Aghazadeh said the fuel storage area was built to international
standards. "This storage house is ready to receive nuclear
fuel," he said. 

Fuel repatriation unlikely to settle Washington’s stomach 
Moscow hopes the SNF repatriation clause in the fuel deal will
allay U.S. worries that Iran may use the spent fuel, which could
be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium, to develop arms. But
it is likely to be cold comfort for the Bush administration. On
Thursday Bush voiced his concerns about Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s continued support of Teheran’s nuclear
programme at a summit between the two leaders in Bratislava,
Slovakia. 

Iran doesn’t need Russian fuel in the long run

 Iranian efforts to produce its own fuel rather than importing
it have been a bigger concern in the international community
than the deal with Russia. That's because the enrichment process
can be carried further to produce material for nuclear weapons. 

France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian
commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic
aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join
mainstream international organisations. Iran has suspended
enrichment-related activities during the talks with the
Europeans, which both sides have said were difficult, but
insists the freeze will be brief. 

Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. But
documents being circulated among International Atomic Energy
Agency board members in Vienna ahead of a board meeting Monday,
and seen by The Associated Press there, indicated Washington
would try to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency
board meeting in June should the European talks fail. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been
probing Iran's nuclear programme for over two years, said it
would also keep a careful eye on Tehran's use of the fuel. 

Spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement Sunday that
inspectors would "monitor closely the use of the fuel and where
it goes" as part of agency safeguards monitoring aimed at
ensuring no nuclear materials are diverted to any covert weapons
activities. 

Bushehr to open in late- to mid-2006

 Rumyantsev said Bushehr would start operating in late 2006. 

"We are planning the physical launch at the end of 2006. About
half a year before this the first delivery of fuel will take
place," the Itar-Tass news agency quoted him as saying. 

Iranian officials put the plant's launch about six months
earlier in mid-2006. Diplomats in Tehran said they may have been
referring to the reactor's initial test phase, Reuters reported. 

Rumyantsev said the first batch of enriched uranium fuel was in
Siberia ready to be shipped. 

Once operational, Bushehr will generate 1,000 megawatts of
electricity. Initiated before Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and
badly damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the project was
later revived with Russian help.   

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 44 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Divide and conquer

Today: March 01, 2005 at 9:13:27 PST 

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 Utah's governor and U.S. senators have been scrambling over the
past few days in the wake of a federal panel's decision last
week that could result in 44,000 tons of high-level nuclear
waste being sent to Utah. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican,
told White House officials that Utah would continue to fight
plans by eight utilities to build a nuclear-waste dump on an
Indian reservation in his state. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said
that while he "strongly disagreed" with the recommendation by an
advisory board to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a
dump be built, he said he had expected it. "There seems to be a
bias within the NRC in favor of the nuclear industry," Hatch
said, certainly earning him an early nomination for the
Understatement of the Year Award.

 We have plenty of sympathy for the residents of Utah, because
we believe it would be dangerous to ship nuclear waste to Utah
and store it there -- even temporarily as is proposed. But that
sympathy doesn't extend to Utah's U.S. senators, who stuck it to
our state on nuclear waste storage in 2002 when they voted for
President Bush's plan to permanently bury nuclear waste in
Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Utah's senators did so after receiving
a pledge from the Bush administration that it wouldn't seek to
use federal funds to store nuclear waste in Utah on a temporary
basis. The senators' sleazy pact with Bush came despite the fact
that Nevada had consistently supported Utah officials in
opposing a temporary dump in Utah. They decided to cut and run
rather than display unity with Nevada and other states by
fighting Bush's policy of turning the West into a nuclear
dumping ground.

 It's still possible that Bush will block nuclear waste from
heading to Utah, but Utah residents should understand what
Nevadans have come to realize about the president and his
relationship with the nuclear power industry: The industry gets
its way on nuclear waste storage, no matter how unsafe it is to
transport man's deadliest waste and bury it.

 Utah, welcome to Nevada's world. 
 
*****************************************************************
 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Western congressmen want government to move Atlas tailings 

Article Last Updated: 03/01/2005 01:48:22 AM                              
                   
  WASHINGTON - Twenty-one House members from the West are urging
the Energy Department to move the Atlas tailings pile away from
the Colorado River, citing the risk of contamination of the
drinking water for people living downstream. The Energy
Department is expected to decide this spring whether to move the
10.5 million tons of uranium tailings, left over from Cold
War-era processing, or whether to put a cap atop the pile to try
to prevent the tailings from being   disturbed. "As elected
representatives, it is our responsibility to convey to the
Department of Energy the hazards created by the continued
presence of the tailings pile near the source of water for many
of our constituents," the House members wrote. "We hope you will 
work with us toward removal of the Atlas Tailings pile." In 
addition to the three members from Utah's delegation, the letter 
was signed by House members from Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and 
California. The governors of Utah and   other Western states also 
support relocating the pile, the more costly of the two options. 

-Robert Gehrke
   
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 46 IPS: RENEWABLES: New Dispute Blows Through Wind Energy
 
Sanjay Suri                                                                                                            

LONDON, Mar 1 (IPS) - A new controversy is blowing through 
generation of wind energy after a German study declared it an 
expensive option.                                                 

It can cost between 54 and 102 dollars to save emission of a 
tonne of carbon dioxide by using wind energy, says a report 
released last week by a German government energy agency and two 
other independent groups. 

Germany, which has the world's largest number of wind farms, 
would have to spend 1.4 billion dollars to link wind farms to the 
electricity grid to meet its declared aim of producing 20 percent 
of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015, the report 
says. That would cost the average German home an additional 21 
dollars a year.

 The report has stirred new controversy in both Germany and 
Britain. The two countries agreed last November to cooperate on 
drawing more energy from renewable sources, principally wind.

 The partnership has run into some tough opponents.

 The Country Guardian, a British group that has opposed wind 
farms for years claims the new German report validates their 
objections. "We have been saying for years that wind energy costs 
three times as much as conventional energy, and damages the 
landscape," Ann West from Country Guardian told IPS. "Wind farms 
are such horrible blots on the landscape."

 Elfam, the largest utilities company in Denmark found in a study 
that wind farms had not reduced carbon dioxide emissions, she 
said. The Germany energy giant Eon, she said, had found that wind 
energy needs to be backed up by conventional energy.

 "Wind energy is not just more expensive but it leads to more 
pollution," West claimed. She cited a report by the Royal Academy 
of Engineers in Britain to suggest that a conventional power 
station produces more carbon dioxide when it is turned down to 
make room for energy from wind farms, and also when it has to 
"ramp up" when wind energy is insufficient.

 But such claims are strongly disputed by many environmentalists. 
"The German report makes it clear that there are no technical or 
economic barriers to Germany producing more energy from wind," 
Jim Footner from Greenpeace told IPS. "The report says 
upgradation of the grid would cost 1.4 billion dollars over ten 
years, but the grid would have to be upgraded anyway for supply 
of energy from nuclear plants or those that use fossil fuels."

 Germany spends between 1.6 and 2.4 billion dollars a year just 
to maintain the electricity grid, Footner said. And it was state 
support that had linked the grid to the conventional sources, he 
said.

 Critics of wind energy, he said, are not factoring in the cost 
of conventional sources in terms of their contribution to climate 
change, or the financial burden of storing nuclear waste.

 A report by the National Audit Office says Britain is on track 
to produce 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 
2010. Wind energy is expected to account for about three-quarters 
of that.

 The cost of generation of wind energy has been steadily coming 
down, Footner said. "An energy review carried out in 2002 by the 
British government showed that onshore wind will be the cheapest 
source of energy by 2020."

 But wind energy has its enemies, he said. "There are very large 
interests in conventional fossil and nuclear energy that are 
feeling threatened by the growth of renewables." 

Small and localised sources of energy from renewables will be far 
more secure than the big plants because of the diversity they 
offer, he said. 

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) drew support from the 
German report. 

"The report by the German government makes clear that Germany 
intends to further expand its production of wind and renewable 
power up to 20 percent of their country's electricity needs by 
2015-2020," it said in a statement. "By 2015 some 35,000 MW of 
wind power could be operating in Germany, split between on and 
offshore."

 Wind power is expanding in many countries around the world 
because "it is the cheapest way of generating new renewable power 
and therefore the cheapest way of saving a tonne of carbon 
through new renewable power sources," BWEA said. (END/2005)
 									 	 
Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 47 Express-News: Nuclear waste measure would plug loophole 

MySA.com: Metro | State
 	 	 	 
  [San Antonio's Home Page From The Express-News and KENS 5]     

Web Posted: 03/01/2005 12:00 AM CST 
Lomi Kriel

Express-News Austin Bureau 

AUSTIN  A loophole that opened last session, allowing private
companies to dispose of low-level nuclear waste in Texas, would
be closed under a bill filed Monday by Rep. Mike Villarreal,
D-San Antonio. 

House Bill 1656 would mandate that the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality license waste disposal from only parties
inside the Texas Compact, which now includes only Vermont. 

Under federal law, states deal with their own low-level nuclear
waste and can either build a disposal site or contract with
others to get rid of it. But under a bill passed last session,
private companies also can apply to dump federal low-level
radioactive waste in Texas. 

The only company to do so, Dallas-based Waste Control
Specialist, fought for years to obtain permission to run a
low-level nuclear waste facility in Andrews County in West
Texas. 

The company possesses an existing license from the Texas
Department of State Health Services to store radioactive waste
from uranium mills. In addition to applying for a disposal
license, it also applied to increase the amount of waste the
facility can currently hold. 

Last month, Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, and 14 other senators
wrote to the state's health department asking them to delay that
decision. Duncan, for one, thinks the state needs to get paid
more for keeping other states' waste. 

George Dials, Waste Control president and chief operating
officer, did not immediately return phone calls about the
legislation. 

The U.S. Department of Energy also has indicated interest in
transferring federal low-level radioactive waste from New Mexico
and Ohio, Villarreal said. 

He also pointed to several spillage accidents in San Antonio as
evidence the transportation of nuclear waste could affect
metropolitan areas as much as the rural areas where it is
stored. 

Proponents say storing the waste is lucrative for the state;
South Carolina, for example, generates $24 million a year from
its site. 

Villarreal said that's only a "short-term benefit." 

"I haven't seen any numbers related to the long-term cost of the
risk of exposure to the state of Texas and the health of our
grandchildren and great-grand children," he said.Also in the
House, Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, filed a resolution Monday
calling for the creation of a House-Senate interim committee to
study Texas' role in the disposal of nuclear waste. 

lkriel@express-news.net   			     			   				

MySanAntonio.com                          |
© 2005 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News.
*****************************************************************
 48 Scoop: NZ leads on nuclear-free stance
 
Tuesday, 1 March 2005, 5:38 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government      

NZ leads on nuclear-free stance – 20 years on from Oxford Union
Debate

Disarmament Minister Marian Hobbs will be advocating for a
strengthened nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty when she
represents New Zealand at the five-yearly NPT review conference
in New York in May.

It is 20 years today since former Prime Minister David Lange won
the 1985 Oxford Union debate arguing that nuclear weapons were
morally indefensible. Today Marian Hobbs reiterated that nuclear
disarmament remains New Zealand's ultimate goal. 

"We all remember how proud we felt when David articulated our
nation's attitude to nuclear weapons," Marian Hobbs said. "New
Zealanders can be just as proud today knowing that we continue
to play a leading role advancing the notion of a world without
nuclear weapons.

"New Zealand chairs the New Agenda Coalition, a group of nations
(Brazil, Egypt, Ireland,New Zealand, Mexico, South Africa and
Sweden) pursuing worldwide nuclear disarmament. We have been
very encouraged that the New Agenda resolution at UN 2004 on
nuclear disarmament was supported by key NATO states including
Germany, Belgium, Norway, Canada and Turkey as well as Japan and
Korea. The resolution included 'an unequivocal undertaking by
the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of
their nuclear arsenals'.

"In New York in May we will be pushing very strongly for both
progress on nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states and
progress on controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. 

"I am determined to approach the Review Conference with the hope
that we can work together to make real progress and hoping that
our overarching goal of a world free from nuclear weapons will
be an enduring legacy for our children."

ENDS

*****************************************************************
 49 DOE: Office of Science; DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
 
                         FR Doc 05-3921 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 39)] 
[Notices] [Page 9936] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr05-53]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear 
Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of 
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Friday, March 11, 2005; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852-1699.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department 
of Energy; SC-90/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice 
and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy 
and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities 
within the field of basic nuclear science research.
 
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the 
following: Friday, March 11, 2005.
 
Reports from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation 
Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science 
Foundation Presentation from Office of Management and Budget 
Presentation and Discussion on new charges to NSAC Public Comment 
(10-minute rule) Public Participation: The meeting is open to the 
public. If you would like to file a written statement with the 
Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If 
you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these 
items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 
301-903-0536 or Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (e- mail). You must 
make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days 
before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include 
the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of 
the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute 
rule. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the 
date of the meeting due to programmatic issues that had to be 
resolved.
 
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on February 23, 2005.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-3921 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 50 WQAD: Former editor of nuclear weapons issues publication dies

March 1, 2005   

CHICAGO The former editor of a publication that gave a voice to 
scientists concerned about the dangers of nuclear weapons during 
the Cold War has died of cancer in California.

Ruth Salzman Adams -- who also worked for the Chicago-based John 
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation -- was 81.

Adams -- a Chicago resident from 1949 to 1984 -- died Friday.

As editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists during the 
Cold War, Adams provided a forum for scientists to express their 
opposition to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons.

Adams -- who also edited several books -- joined the MacArthur 
Foundation in 1983 and concentrated on programs that highlighted 
the risks posed by weapons of mass destruction and promoted peace 
and social justice.                                                        

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights

Quad City Area News      Full Story >    

News, links, and information for your community. WQAD.com covers
32 counties in eastern Iowa and western Illinois.
   
WQAD-TV-DT.) 

Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and WQAD. All Rights Reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************