*****************************************************************
03/14/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.58
*****************************************************************
   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 [du-list] Lisbon Tribunal Iraque
2 JTW Comment: The Infamous WMD Search : A View From the Inside -
3 Guardian Unlimited Iran: Nuke Program Needed for Electricity
4 Guardian Unlimited: Israel will attack Iran 'only as last resort'
5 Guardian Unlimited: United against Tehran
6 BBC: US offer helps but Iran talks still
7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea and the Two Alliances
8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kaesong Power Supply to Reverse Current A
9 US: A nuclear weapon by any other name...
10 US: Las Vegas SUN: Reid seeks big change to nation's nuke policy
11 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Hu Jintao's China   
12 Mos News: Belarus Halts Work to Destroy Soviet Missile Facilities De
13 Pakistan News: Dr AQ Khan not to be handed over to any country - Ras
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
14 US: AP Wire: NRC: Oconee Nuclear station operated safely in 2004
15 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Summer Nuclear Power Pla
16 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO rapped over lax N-safety 
17 US: CE: N.B. government under growing pressure to decide fate of nuc
18 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Robinson Nuclear Power P
19 Sofia News: Nuclear go-aheads - 
20 US: NRC: Hoeg Named NRC Senior Resident Inspector at St. Lucie Nucle
21 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
22 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
23 US: The Advertiser: State fails nuclear test 
24 Daily Yomiuri: Nihon Arm 'not to blame' in N-accident 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
25 [ibon] 'Outrageous', water group says of NWRB's raw water
26 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive waste at royals' beach
27 US: AP Wire: House passes bill for groundwater cleanup in Santa Clar
28 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Bush has conned Nevada's voters
29 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Secrecy on nuke dump
30 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Shoshone lawsuit good way to keep nuclear was
31 US: SLP-D: Q and A about environmental contaminants in breast milk
32 Korea Times: Three Types of Radioactive Waste 
33 Reid: Reid Statement at Yucca Mountain Hearing
34 US: AU ABC: SA Labor sparks new uranium debate. 
35 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet March 15-17
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
36 Secrecy News -- 03/14/05
37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
38 Physics Today: Los Alamos Workers Debate the Labs Safety, Morale, an
39 DOE: Office of Science; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
40 Las Vegas SUN: Book: Nazis Tested Nuclear Device in 1945
41 Bellona: Norway to sponsor replacement of all nuclear lighthouses in
42 Scotsman.com: Nazi Germany Tested Nuclear Bomb Near War's End - Clai
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [du-list] Lisbon Tribunal Iraque
 
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:23:45 -0800

 
<x-flowed>

WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ
PORTUGUESE HEARING
(LISBON, 18, 19 and 20 March 2005)
TRIBUNAL-IRAQUE

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10370&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Includes...

........
In addition, the aggressors have used forbidden weapons, namely 
fragmentation bombs, incendiary bombs, weapons and ammunition with depleted 
uranium and uranium charged bombs and missiles.

According to a report by Human Rights Watch, 13,000 fragmentation bombs 
were used in the conflict, killing more than a thousand civilians.

But the systematic use of radioactive weapons was particularly serious. 
According to studies presented at the World Conference on Uranium Weapons, 
held in Hamburg in October 2003, the amount of radioactive matter (depleted 
uranium, UD) used in Iraq exceeds by far that contained in the bombs 
dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the Gulf War 1991 between 320 and 
800 tons of DU were dropped, in 2003 more than 2200 tons. On the whole, 
this equals in atomic radioactivity more than 260 Nagasaki bombs (according 
to the calculations by Prof. Katsuma Yagasaki, from Ryukyus University in 
Japan).

Knowing that DU half-life is extremely long (4,500 millions of years, the 
equivalent to the Earth's age), the resident population in the affected 
areas will continue to live, generation after generation, under the threat 
of contamination. Humanity has never experienced such terrible war damage.

It can indeed be stated that the USA and Great Britain carried out, in 1991 
and 2003, a nuclear war in the Middle East. Vast regions are contaminated, 
including water reserves, agricultural soils, vast natural resources and towns.

Both American and British denials about the potential dangers of such 
weapons attempt to conceal well known facts. Since 1943, the effect of DU 
is common knowledge among the USA military , after a report dated October 
30thof that year (since declassified) addressed to General Leslie R. 
Groves, with an accurate description of the effects of uranium on the human 
body and of its efficacy as a weapon. Since 1974 the use of DU as a war 
weapon was being investigated by the US, both in military tests and in 
laboratories. Since 1991, for over ten years, the air exclusion zones 
created in the North and South of Iraq, were used as a testing ground for 
the new generation weapons that were to be used in 2003 (Dai Williams, 
Hamburg Conference).

On the other hand, the consequences of the use of such weapons in Iraq in 
1991 were also common knowledge amongst the American authorities. Not only 
was it widely known that the incidence of cancer, thyroid malfunctions, 
leukaemia and congenital malformations had enormously increased among the 
contaminated Iraqi population (in Basra in 2002 there were 11 times as many 
cancers as in 1988) but it was also known, as a result of an USA government 
study conducted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (published in March 
1994), that in a sample of 251 Gulf War veterans' families 67% of the 
births were children with congenital malformations.

During military conflicts, weapons can only be used against military 
targets and only as long as the war lasts, they must not cause undue 
suffering, must not use poisonous material, or cause severe environmental 
damage. Thus, the use of weapons with depleted uranium (as well as cluster 
bombs and others) in military operations violates these rules and has to be 
considered illegal.

Both the President of the USA and the British Prime Minister have exposed 
not only the Iraqi population and soldiers but also their own troops to 
weapons considered illegal under every war convention, and did so with full 
knowledge of its consequences.

It can thus be said with good reason that the real weapons of mass 
destruction were those that the American and British military forces used 
in Iraq.

These acts constitute war crimes, described in art.8, nr.2, b), i),ii), 
iv), v), ix) and xx) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/05


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



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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>
*****************************************************************
 2 JTW Comment: The Infamous WMD Search : A View From the Inside -
                  An Interview with Douglas Han

Turkish Weekly Test(Alpha) Edition:Hisar   

  Ryan Mauro   
  
Douglas Hanson was a US Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 
20 years, and is a Gulf War I combat veteran. He has a background 
in radiation biology and physiology, and was an Atomic 
Demolitions Munitions (ADM) Security Officer, and a Nuclear, 
Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer.? As a civilian analyst, 
he has worked on stability and support operations in Bosnia, and 
helped develop a multi-service medical treatment manual for 
nuclear and radiological casualties. He was initially an 
operations officer in the operations/intelligence cell of the 
Requirements Coordination Office of the CPA, and was later 
assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and 
Technology.


RM: Do you feel it was the right move to end the search for WMD
in Iraq?

DH: I think it was the right thing. Keep in mind that the
document exploitation center in Qatar still has a ton of papers
to process, and a few ISG advisors will remain in Iraq.
Duelfer's report pretty much covered all of the key findings,
including the oil-for-food scandal paper trail, which, if the
Coalition had not intervened, would have put Saddam on the fast
track to a robust WMD capability. Cost vs. benefit had already
been exceeded, so they were correct in withdrawing most of their
people.

I might add that contrary to major press reports, WMD were
found. 155mm artillery projectiles with Sarin and mustard agent,
and battlefield rockets with CW were found. These finds are
ignored because they were old munitions from GW I. But the real
issue is that they were still not accounted for in contravention
of UN resolutions.

Duelfer's report also confirms my analysis that Saddam retained
an extensive regeneration capability in all areas of WMD - Chem,
Bio, and Nuke. He was just waiting for inspections to end. Even
David Kay said he was more dangerous then we thought.


RM: Why is it you focus on the suspicious nature of finds such
as "pesticides" hidden in underground bunkers but Kay and
Duelfer did not ?

DH: I don't know why they did not think it was significant. With
the exception of one report, all of the encounters with these
pesticides in ammo dumps were public knowledge. It doesn't take
a super-genius to figure out that this was more than
coincidence. In fact, both the CIA and the DIA had arrived at
the same conclusion in the 90s that Saddam continued to
manufacture precursors under the guise of legitimate
agricultural and industrial enterprises. This is just a guess,
but perhaps they felt confident that they would stumble on the
"big one" and so these finds were initially thought to be
insignificant.

The other issue is that at virtually every one of these
encounters, it seemed as if the Army and Marine chemical
detection gear, including mass spectrometers, under the control
of trained specialists, were showing positive for agents, while
the ISG tests were showing negative. It's possible, though
highly unlikely, that the entire US ground force training
regimen and equipment were at fault. That is, until the Danes
found Iraqi mortar shells with a mysterious liquid in them that
tested positive for mustard agent. Later, US "experts" said that
it was not mustard agent. The Danish Army was at a loss in
explaining this little discrepancy. Hey! Join the club!

Bottom line is that ultimately we found the mechanisms and
materials to regenerate his WMD capability, and this confirms
now-retired General Tommy Franks view on Saddam's WMD. Franks
describes it as having a disassembled pistol on the table with
the magazine and ammo sitting next to it. All Saddam had to do
was assemble it, load it, and then pull the trigger. It was only
a matter of time, not the lack of means.


RM: Is there any good information indicating that Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction are in Syria, Iran or Libya ?

DH: There are reports with satellite photos out there somewhere
that show truck convoys going into Syria. I certainly haven't
seen the photos, but it does make sense. Both the previous Iraqi
regime and the current Syrian regime are Baathist, and we know
that former Iraqi Baathist leaders are having a grand old time
in Damascus with bucket loads of blood money. Of course, both
nations were client states of the former Soviet Union, and when
the Al-Qaqaa "missing" explosives story came up, it didn't take
long to remind the American people that evidence showed Russian
advisors had seemingly assisted Saddam in moving the high
explosives and WMD.


RM: How come the Duelfer and Kay Reports don't seem to make much
of these reports? Wouldn't you think the Bush Administration
would love to note these suspicious findings or to note
intelligence indicating WMDs were moved outside of Iraq?

DH: Again, I'm speculating, but here are my thoughts. As far as
the administration is concerned they have not been very good at
communicating, or refuting, as the case may be, any of these
reports even if they could possibly reinforce their case. But I
would caution that the war has a very significant information
operation aspect to it. So I wouldn't jump to conclusions about
any public disclosures by the Administration, Kay, or Duelfer.
On the other hand, the reticence on everybody's part may be due
to the feelings that they all got burned to some degree on the
usefulness of pre-war information.


RM: What do you think is the biggest problem with the Iraq
Survey Group ?

DH: Technically they were very good, but outside of a small
number of experienced field operators, I viewed the ones I
encountered as being inside the beltway analytical types who
were all of a sudden called out to prove their theories.
Intelligence analysis for the sake of academic "what if"
discussions and navigating the wickets to produce a strategic
predictive product is all very necessary and has its place. But
doing the field work while having to answer to an operational
commander is quite a different animal. This is not meant to
denigrate their efforts - a number of them lost their lives in
service to their country. I think a better method would have
been to attach ISG personnel to the combat divisions and
regiments. In this way, the ISG could have made use of the
units' knowledge of their operational areas - the terrain, the
enemy, the locals, the facilities, etc. Once suspected sites
needed to be searched, or people questioned, then the units'
could provide the skills of Soldiers and Marines who actually do
reconnaissance for a living. Once the search or interrogation
was completed, then the intell cycle would continue and build
upon previously gathered information.

But that's just me.


RM: What issue do you feel is most important for the public to
know about the inner politics and working of the Iraq Survey
Group?

DH: I can't comment on the internal politics, because I don't
know what they were. All I can do is comment on the group's
behavior and operations. My two articles on the actions of the
ISG pretty well cover my observations. The only thing I can add
is the comment of one of the other people in the Ministry of
Science and Technology several months after I had left. It went
something like: We should have been asking questions of the ISG,
not the other way around. In other words, they appeared to be
stepping into a situation that they had not prepared for in even
a rudimentary fashion.

An example of their lack of planning and resident expertise was
when they were forced to contract out for required personnel
over nine months after the fall of Baghdad. One online defense
related jobs service advertised in January of 2004 for the
following positions in Iraq in a "potentially hostile
environment:"


Biologist/BW Analyst 
Chemist/CW Analyst 
Research Analyst 
Senior Intel Analyst 
Underground Facilities Analyst 

In the meantime, it was entirely possible that more biological
seed agents, precursors, and dual use equipment was being moved
out of, or within Iraq, or secured in a secret facility. In
addition to this belated effort to obtain the required skills to
conduct a rigorous search, the document exploitation center in
Qatar was still getting its feet on the ground. I also have it
on good authority that the multi-million dollar center was using
an outmoded database system and was staffed with people not
well-versed in document exploitation.


RM: Do you feel that the CIA is making a mistake by dismissing
virtually all defectors even remotely connected to the Iraqi
National Congress ?

DH: That's an excellent question, and extremely good timing
given the latest adventures with Ahmad Chalabi. I don't know the
numbers they listened to, and the numbers they dismissed, but
the CIA's opposition to Chalabi and the INC goes back to the 90s
in my opinion.

Back when the US was financing the INC in the Kurdish Northern
No-fly Zone there was a distinct apathy to defectors with
knowledge of WMD; Dr. Khidhir Hamza's frustrating experience
with them is a case in point. Another is that the CIA's attempt
to overthrow Saddam with the aid of a loose alliance of the INC,
the Iraqi National Accord, and Kurdish rebels in 1995-6 had been
thoroughly infiltrated by Saddam's intelligence services. The
attempt was defeated before it got off the ground, and while the
CIA agents were bugging out, Saddam's tanks rolled over our
Kurdish allies without so much as a spitball thrown at them by
US aircraft. CIA sour grapes CIA bungling, so blame it on the
INC The CIA paying debts to their buddies in the INA All very
strange.

Fast forward to the reconstruction after the war, and the CIA
was still dropping bones to discredit Chalabi. Just within the
last few days, the New York Sun reported that Chalabi's
political life had been rejuvenated and he was in a position to
be elected to an important leadership position. Just a few days
later, however, a Reuters report says that the Iraqi interim
defense minister will arrest Chalabi on the charge of "maligning
the defense ministry." Navigating the Byzantine world of Middle
East politics and their tribal medieval honor system is very
tough. I think the CIA basically made friends with the wrong
people over a period of decades, and then got their ass kicked
in 1996 by Saddam, and then the blame-game lasted into the next
century. Again, that's my opinion only.


RM: What was the attitude of the Iraqi people towards the
Coalition when you were there ?

DH: My experiences were generally that they were positive
towards us or a neutral acceptance of our presence. However,
this was before the full rise of the Baathist die-hards and
Iranian mercenaries and other foreign terrorists. That's not to
say it was all hunky-dory. We were sustaining casualties
virtually everyday, and the sad thing was that there seemed to
be no coordinated effort at the Corps operational level to
synthesize the intell and then go on the offense to root these
guys out.


RM: What do you think of the theory that the intelligence
provided by defectors was planted by Iran ?

DH: I don't think much of the theory, although it wouldn't
surprise me if that was the case since Iran has been
outmaneuvering the US in the Central Region for over a decade.
This theory, however, doesn't make sense in the long run. Iran
wanting Saddam taken out is one thing, but ending up with the
Coalition on your back and front doorsteps presents them with
another set of problems.

But, stranger things have happened in this part of the world.
					


Ryan Mauro has been a geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense
Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security
company, since 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast
Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com), which
specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has
been published in WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com,
StrategyPage.com, WorldTribune.com, HomelandSecurityUS.com,
JRNyquist.com and in the Turkistan Newsletter (Turkistan
Bulteni). He is a frequent writer for Milnet.com as well. He has
appeared on radio shows including The Al Rantel Show, WIBG
Radio, WorldNetDaily Radioactive with Joseph Farah, Jeff Nyquist
Program, Kevin McCullough Show, Laurie Roth Show, Tovia Singer
Show, Stan Major Show, and Preparedness Now. His book "Death to
America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq" is scheduled to be
published in the coming months. He publishes his own web site
called . Mr. Mauro may be reached at tdcanalyst@optonline.net

Source: Global Politician, 14 March 2005
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=428
   
  2005-03-14 14:16:09   

*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited Iran: Nuke Program Needed for Electricity
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday March 14, 2005 7:31 AM

AP Photo LCAR109 

By TAREK AL-ISSAWI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran, accused by the United States of using
a nuclear energy program as a front to produce weapons, has
repeatedly said its program is for peaceful purposes only, and
that it needs nuclear power to generate enough electricity to
remain self-sufficient. 

But the United States is disputing that claim, too, saying the
Gulf nation does not need nuclear power for electricity because
it has massive oil and gas reserves. 

The issue is gaining new prominence as Iran gets set to host a
meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
this week. 

In a region largely dependent on the West for vital military and
industrial needs, energy-rich Iran has long stood out as a
nearly self-sufficient nation that is exerting all its efforts
to produce nuclear energy despite stiff resistance from the
international community. 

Iran's total recoverable oil reserves exceed 130 billion
barrels, equal to 12 percent of the world's oil. It has an oil
production capacity of 4.2 million barrels a day, making it the
second biggest producer of oil in the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia. 

It has also discovered new oil fields in recent years, including
a new field announced last week - Ramin, which is said to hold
855 million barrels. The New Azadegan oil field in southwestern
Iran has estimated reserves of 5 billion barrels. 

The U.S.-based Energy Information Administration estimated that
in 2003, Iran produced 3.9 million barrels of oil a day,
exported 2.5 million of those and locally consumed 1.4 million.
More recent numbers were unavailable. 

In addition to its oil, Iran has gas reserves estimated at 28
trillion cubic meters, the second largest in the world after
Russia, according to government estimates, and it consumes much
of its gas production. 

However, the country disputes the idea that those reserves mean
it should not seek nuclear power. 

``America has more oil than Iran, and Russia has more gas than
Iran, and both of them have many nuclear power plants,'' said
Asadollah Sabouri, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization
of Iran. 

``No country can deny Iran the advanced nuclear technology on
the grounds that Iran is rich in oil and gas,'' he said. 

Iran's Nuclear Energy Council has said the country must produce
7,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants by
2021 to meet its increasing electricity demands. Iran's
parliament has asked for the construction of 20 nuclear power
plants. 

The nation aims to become the economic powerhouse of western
Asia during the next 20 years. Under a plan approved in 2003,
Iran would be a regional superpower and a base for high
technology and scientific know-how by 2025. 

Iran accuses the West of seeking to deprive it of nuclear
technology purely because it is an Islamic republic. 

The country's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, told dozens
of international nuclear scientists earlier this month that
Washington and the Europeans had approved the building of 20
nuclear power plants in Iran and provide advanced nuclear
technology when Tehran was under the pro-Western shah Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi in the 1970s. 

But they reversed their positions after the 1979 Islamic
revolution that toppled the shah and brought the late Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini to power. 

On Saturday, Iran scoffed at U.S. incentives aimed at coaxing it
to drop its nuclear ambitions. An Iranian envoy in Europe,
however, acknowledged in guardedly positive terms that there
appeared to be a ``new awakening'' in Washington. 

Hossein Mousavian, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, has said that
obtaining nuclear technology is one of the ways for a nation to
develop technologically. 

Also at stake, Iranian officials say, is national pride. They
insist that no Iranian government would even contemplate
abandoning the nuclear program, adding that such a move would be
tantamount to political suicide. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, said last month
that he told the Europeans in very clear terms that any Iranian
government accepting to give up nuclear technology will collapse
immediately. 

Despite being under U.S. sanctions since 1979, Iran has managed
to mass produce conventional weapons, planes, tanks, vehicles,
electrical appliances and machines, making it both
self-sufficient and an exporter of a variety of products and
goods worldwide. 

Last month, Iran and Russia signed a nuclear fuel agreement,
paving the way for the 1,000 megawatt Bushehr nuclear power
plant to go online by mid-2006. The signing came despite strong
U.S. objections. 

While the Iranian public might be divided into pro-reform and
conservative movements, and differences remain over political
and civil liberties, the nuclear program is the one issue that
unites them. 

``Iran's success in obtaining nuclear technology doesn't know
factional parties. It's national pride,'' said prominent
political analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Israel will attack Iran 'only as last resort'
 
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Monday March 14, 2005
 		
Israel will only take military action against Iran as "a very 
last resort" to prevent it acquiring nuclear weapons, Ephraim 
Sneh, a member of the Israeli parliamentary defence and foreign 
affairs committee, said yesterday. 

He was speaking after a report in the Sunday Times claimed that 
the inner cabinet of the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, last month 
gave "initial authorisation" for a combined air and ground attack 
on Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. 

Mr Sneh told Israel's Army Radio: "The Iranian threat is an 
existential threat to the state of Israel. Military action is the 
very last resort. 

"We have to ensure that other steps, diplomatic steps, are 
carried out first. Here the United States plays a leading role 
and I hope it will fulfil it." 

The Israeli vice-prime minister, Shimon Peres, when asked before 
yesterday's cabinet meeting if Israel planned a strike against 
Iran, replied: "I don't think so." 

The Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, warned in London 
last month that time was running out and Iran could have a 
uranium enrichment capability - the key to building a nuclear 
weapon - within six months. The US and European assessments are 
that it will take Iran longer than this. 

Iran insists its nuclear programme is purely for civilian 
purposes. 

Three EU governments - Britain, France and Germany - have been 
engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iran for the last three 
months. The talks broke up last week with out a deal but are due 
to resume on March 23. 

The EU persuaded the US, which is sceptical about negotiations, 
to offer economic concessions in return for Iran abandoning its 
nuclear programme. The EU and the US say that Iran, which is rich 
in fossil fuels, has no need of a civilian nuclear programme. 

The US economic concessions include withdrawing Washington's 
opposition to Iran joining the World Trade Organisation. 

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said 
yesterday the abandonment of Iran's civilian nuclear programme, 
which does not contravene any international treaties, was out of 
the question. 

He said the negotiations with the Europeans were "difficult" but 
far from over. 
	
[UP] 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: United against Tehran
 
Monday March 14, 2005
 		
If there is one lesson to be unearthed from the rubble of
the Iraq war it is that it is easier to set the world to rights
if America and Europe are on the same side. 

So it is good news that the US and its biggest EU partners,
Britain, France and Germany, have now agreed on a common
approach to the vexed issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions. By
accepting that Tehran can be offered economic incentives to come
clean about its alleged clandestine weapons programmes,
Washington has secured tacit European support for referring the
issue to the UN security council, which could impose sanctions,
if that does not happen. 

This is a significant and welcome convergence of views, and far
better than US threats, veiled and not so veiled, that
unilateral military action and regime change might be considered
if Iran remained defiant. It is bad news that no sooner was this
joint initiative announced on Friday than Iranian ministers
scornfully rejected it. 

Europe's big three were galvanised into action in late 2003 to
avoid a divisive replay of the Iraq crisis, eventually winning a
suspension of uranium enrichment, which can be used to make
atomic weapons. 

Tehran's insistence that it wants nuclear technology solely for
civilian power generation - available under the terms of the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty - is not widely believed, not
least because of 18 years of evasion and lies about its
activities. 

Israel, itself an undeclared nuclear power, has been banging the
drum ominously, warning that unless something is done, the
mullahs could have a bomb within five years, and that it will
act if the US does not. Others, including the CIA, are not so
sure, but are still deeply worried. 

Under the terms of the new agreement, the US will back Iran's
accelerated entry into the World Trade Organisation and permit
spare parts to be sold for the country's airliners. The idea is
to engage with Iran by appealing to its self-interest to force a
strategic choice on a country with a young population and a
desperate need for investment, jobs and growth. The alternative
will be isolation. 

George Bush began to shift towards a compromise on his recent
visit to Europe despite having long insisted he would never
"reward" Tehran, in his eyes a sponsor of terrorism, for doing
the right thing. 

Part of his carrots and sticks bargain with the EU three is that
the US will play down its "outpost of tyranny" rhetoric, which
tends to boost Iran's hardliners. Transatlantic unity cannot
solve all problems - and there is clearly no guarantee that it
will work in this very difficult case. But it is a sensible
basis on which to start. 
	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 6 BBC: US offer helps but Iran talks still
 
Last Updated: Monday, 14 March, 2005

crisis                                                                                                                   
	 		 	 		 
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds 
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website   

Despite a shift in policy which has brought Washington closer to 
the European negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme, the 
talks are still in trouble. 

[Iran negotiator Hassan Rowhani and German Foreign Minister 
Joschka Fischer]                               

A deal? Iran negotiator Hassan Rowhani and German Foreign 
Minister Joschka Fischer                                                             

The American move to offer Iran incentives and a European threat
to take Iran to the Security Council have opened up a window for
a new more combined approach which had been lacking before. 

But the fundamental issue remains the same. Will Iran will give
up its intention of developing a uranium enrichment process? 

Iran is threatening to set a deadline in the talks, the
Europeans are about to make an assessment of the progress, or
lack of it, so far, but the potential crisis will not be reached
until later this year, according to a Western expert who has
just been to Iran. 

Dr Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies in London said: "It is very likely that Iran will avoid
a breakdown in the talks until after presidential elections in
June and the formation of a new cabinet in September. The crunch
point will probably not be until the fall." 

Dr Samore said that all Iranian officials he had met rejected
both publicly and privately the permanent cessation of uranium
enrichment, the central issue in the talks with the so called
European Three - Britain, France and Germany. 

Reluctant 

"At the same time," he went on, "Iran is reluctant to pick a
fight with the Security Council. It is feeling somewhat
isolated. The US and EU have made up on this, its ally Syria is
under pressure in Lebanon and the Palestinians and Israelis are
talking. 

"The United States has been very smart in changing its position.
It has made a deal with the Europeans over carrots and sticks
for Iran. This makes it more likely that the talks will continue
and more likely that the Europeans will blame Iran if there is a
breakdown. 

"I told the Iranians that the Americans had crossed a
psychological threshold. Iran has always said it is the US which
counts. Now Iran has the chance of naming a price for stopping
enrichment. I do not know, though, if it will do so." 

The fact that Dr Samore, who worked on nuclear non-
proliferation in the Clinton administration, was granted a visa
is being seen as part of an effort by Iran to persuade the
outside world that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. 

But the talks are no nearer a result. 

A letter on 10 March to the EU from the European Three stated
that "while progress is not as fast as we would wish, we believe
we are moving in the right direction". 

This is diplomatic jargon for: "Some minor issues are OK but the
big deal is a long way off." 

Western view 

The big deal, from the European and American point of view,
would be an agreement by Iran not to enrich uranium as fuel for
its nuclear power programme. 

The West sees the acquisition by Iran of enrichment technology
as dangerous in itself - because the same process which enriches
uranium to the level needed for nuclear fuel can also be used to
enrich to the higher level needed for a nuclear bomb. 

Iran has always said it is t US which counts. Now Iran has the 
chance of naming a price for stopping enrichment. I do not know, 
though, if it will do so            [ src=] Dr Gary Samore, IISS    

And the West fears that Iran might use this technology to build
a bomb either secretly, or legally by leaving the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and doing so anyway. 

If it agrees to abandon enrichment, Iran would get a bagful of
goodies, including assured fuel for its nuclear reactors from
outside suppliers, support for its membership of the World Trade
Organisation and easier trading conditions. 

If it refuses, it could be reported to the Security Council.
That might result in a demand for it not to enrich and sanctions
if it does. 

'Objective guarantees' 

The talks are stalled on what is meant by "objective guarantees"
that Iran will not build a nuclear bomb. 

Each side interprets "objective guarantees" in a completely
different way. 

Only by giving up enrichment entirely, the West believes, could
Iran provide such "objective guarantees" especially in view of
its past violations of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. It
hid an enrichment programme for 18 years. 

Iranian view 

From the Iranian point of view, the big deal would be for the
rest of the world to accept that the "objective guarantees"
would take the form of intrusive inspections by the UN nuclear
agency the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

It would then be allowed to enrich quite legally. 

Such inspections, it says, would take care of fears about a
secret programme. It also says that it needs to be able to make
fuel to ensure its security of supply and that it is allowed to
do so under the NPT. 

So defining "objective guarantees" is rather difficult. 

So far it has proved impossible. 

'Secret plans' 

And even now, there are reports that Israel is preparing a
military strike against Iranian nuclear installations if the
talks fail. 

The London Sunday Times says that secret plans for a combined
air and ground assault have been drawn up. 

However, the Israelis have not given up on the diplomatic track
yet and retired general Ephraim Sneh, a member of the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, says that military action
would be used only as a last resort. 

That also means, of course, that it is an option at some stage.
*****************************************************************
 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea and the Two Alliances
 
  Home> Editorials/Columns    Updated Mar.14,2005 23:49 KST   
 
Fallon, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said the U.S.-Japan
alliance is stronger than it has ever been, and that the
alliance between Washington and Tokyo was the most important
U.S. treaty in the Pacific region. He said Japanese Prime
Minister Koizumi Junichiro believed in the alliance and was
showing remarkable leadership. Only then did he turn to Korea. 

The difference in importance to U.S. national interests of Japan
and Korea is not new. The three-way relationship has not put
Korea at a disadvantage in the 50 years or so since it has been
thus imbalanced, and despite the differences in importance, the
Korea-U.S. alliance has been stronger than the Japan-U.S.
alliance because the U.S. fought the Korean War and Korea sent
troops to Vietnam. 

After World War II, the Free World order in Northeast Asia was
built on the two pillars of the U.S.-Japan alliance and
Korea-U.S. alliance, and while there was no official alliance
between Korea and Japan, due to their common ally in the U.S.,
the two closely cooperated in terms of security. But a growing
number of people are getting the feeling that over the last
couple of years centripetal forces between the U.S. and Japan
have led to a strengthening of the Washington-Tokyo axis, while
centrifugal forces have been forcing Washington and Seoul
further apart. 

Some even believe the six-party talks to resolve the North
Korean nuclear issue are split four to two, with North and South
Korea, China and Russia on one side and the U.S. and Japan on
the other. Subtle differences between the U.S. and Korea over
how to resolve the issue or the differences in opinion about the
U.S. role in the talks are being taken as signs of these
qualitative differences in the bilateral and three-way
relationship. 

If the three-way relationship between Korea, the U.S. and Japan
has changed thusly since the Roh administration took power, we
face a grave change in one of the factors that has sustained the
nation over the last 50 years. The change in the three-way
relationship not only signifies changes in the common security
basis between the three, but in the economic relationships and
the path to unification, it could also bring great changes to
the amount of policy options Korea has to choose from. 

If that is indeed the case, then perhaps we ought to be told. If
indeed the governmentˇŻs ˇ°independent diplomacyˇ± and
ˇ°independent defenseˇ± mean an attempt to shake one of the
pillars on which Korea has based its survival, then it cannot
continue to be an understanding within the government, but must
be discussed broadly with the people. If such a strategic choice
were left to simple expressions like ˇ°LetˇŻs move the
Korea-U.S. relationship to an independent oneˇ± or ˇ°LetˇŻs get
along better with China,ˇ± there would be a great danger that
the fate of Korea could fall in the trap created by the
qualitative differences between the Korea-U.S. and U.S.-Japanese
alliances. 

*****************************************************************
 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kaesong Power Supply to Reverse Current After 57 Years
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Mar.14,2005 21:57 KST   
 
Industrial Complex in North Korea on Wednesday. Electricity
supply between South and North Korea has been cut off for 57
years since the North shut off electricity because the South
failed to pay its bills in 1948. This is the first time since
the division of the Korean Peninsula that the supply has been
this way round. 

Continuing work on the complex, a North-South cooperative
project, has come under fire from the U.S. after Pyongyang on
Feb. 10 declared it possesses nuclear weapons. 

An official at the industrial complex said Monday preparations
were complete so the South Korean power monopoly KEPCO can begin
supplying electricity to the Kaesong industrial park on
Wednesday. Once a safety check is done, three facilities
including Shin Won Corporation will get their power from the
South. 

About 15,000 kilowatts of electricity will be supplied to the
Kaesong industrial park, equal to electricity used by 5,000
households, the official said. KEPCO plans to charge companies
in Kaesong industrial park the same industrial rate it charges
factories in the South. 

(Park Young-chul, ycpark@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 9 A nuclear weapon by any other name...
 
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:07:59 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
2a76ad.jpg
2a76cc.jpg 2a76d4.jpg 2a76dc.jpg
2a76e4.jpg
<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org>2a76ef.jpg

A nuclear weapon by any other name...

is still a nuclear weapon

The nuclear bunker buster is back, and it's still bad.

Last year you were part of a critical campaign to stop the Bush 
administration from developing new nuclear weapons -- and we won! No 
federal funds can be spent on the bunker buster in 2005, and all work on 
the program has stopped. That's $27 million that won't be wasted this year 
-- $500 million over the next five years.

This was a huge victory for all of us.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration can't take "no" for an answer. It's 
now asking Congress to spend $8.5 million of your money on the bunker 
buster in 2006, $14 million in 2007, and likely hundreds of millions 
thereafter.

Like last year, we can stop the bunker buster in its tracks.

<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=action_alerts&task=view&alert_id=45&Itemid=75>Tell 
your representative to oppose this funding ... again

And, like last year, this weapon (also known as the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator or RNEP) is a dangerous idea:
    * It makes us less secure. By pursuing this weapon at the same time we 
are asking other nations -- notably North Korea and Iran -- to hold back, 
we are undermining our own efforts to stop the spread of these dangerous 
weapons. Its like asking your kids to stop smoking while you light up!
    * It won't work. The bunker buster bomb is supposed to penetrate into 
the ground to reach buried bunkers before exploding. But it cannot burrow 
deep enough to reach deeply buried bunkers nor to contain its radioactive 
fallout. The weapon could thus kill thousands of innocent civilians and 
still not achieve its mission.
    * We don't need it. There are other ways of attacking underground 
bunkers, such as destroying entrances with conventional weapons.
    * The time for "do as I say, not as I do" is long over. America needs 
to reassert its global leadership on nuclear threats by foreswearing this 
needless weapon and focusing instead on stopping other nations and 
terrorists from getting the bomb.

What you can do: Some of our friends in Congress have sent a letter to 
their colleagues asking them to oppose the bunker buster.

<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=116>Read 
the letter here

The more signatures they get, the stronger the opposition will become. 
Please 
<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=action_alerts&task=view&alert_id=45&Itemid=75>click 
here to ask your Representative to sign on today!

And stay tuned. There will be votes in Congress later this year on this 
issue, and we will need your help then too.

Thank you!

Erin Sikorsky
State Political Director
California Peace Action



----------
This is a message from the California Peace Action Alert Program. To 
subscribe to this list visit 
<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=com_wrapper&wrap=subscribe&Itemid=114>here.

To unsubscribe from this list visit 
<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=com_wrapper&wrap=unsubscribe&uid=43a58d4348169f3eace2437eda369e07>this 
link

To update your preferences and contact information visit 
<http://www.californiapeaceaction.org/capa/index.php?option=com_wrapper&wrap=preferences&uid=43a58d4348169f3eace2437eda369e07>this 
link

2a7701.jpg
2a7709.jpg 2a7711.jpg 2a771a.jpg

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 2a76ad.jpg: 00000001,377deb3e,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a76cc.jpg: 00000001,377deb3f,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a76d4.jpg: 00000001,377deb40,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a76dc.jpg: 00000001,377deb41,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a76e4.jpg: 00000001,377deb42,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a76ef.jpg: 00000001,377deb43,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a7701.jpg: 00000001,377deb44,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a7709.jpg: 00000001,377deb45,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a7711.jpg: 00000001,377deb46,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 2a771a.jpg: 00000001,377deb47,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 10 Las Vegas SUN: Reid seeks big change to nation's nuke policy

Today: March 14, 2005 at 11:09:47 PST 

Bill would give DOE more power, make Yucca obsolete

 By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU 
CHIEF

 WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
intends to unveil legislation aimed at making Yucca Mountain
obsolete by allowing the Energy Department to take ownership of
waste as it sits now at nuclear power plants.

 The bill, similar to a bill that Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.,
has been pushing since 2001, would represent a significant shift
in nuclear waste policy and would likely face strong opposition
in Congress.

 The bill would allow the Energy Department to take ownership
and responsibility for cost and security of on-site waste
storage, currently a burden of the nuclear utilities nationwide
that produce the waste, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

 Reid's bill would allow the department to use the money in a
national nuclear waste fund to manage the radioactive material
at the plants. Currently, by law, that money must be used for
the development of a national permanent geologic repository --
Yucca.

 Congress in 1982 pledged that the Energy Department would begin
shipping waste to Yucca by Jan. 31, 1998, for permanent storage.
But the planned underground repository has been delayed by
budget and legal setbacks.

 Nuclear utilities have continued to store some of the nation's
most radioactive "high-level" waste at their plants -- and in
recent years filed 66 lawsuits against the government, with
potential damages in the billions of dollars.

 Congress will break for a spring recess later this week, and
Reid intends to introduce the legislation shortly after Congress
returns April 4. Reid hinted at his intention in written
comments submitted for a hearing of a Senate Appropriations
subcommittee last week.

 "I believe it is time to look at other nuclear waste
alternatives," Reid said in the written statement. "One option
may be for the federal government to take responsibility for the
nuclear waste at the reactor sites. This is the right thing to
do and I look forward to discussing this option with my
colleagues."

 Two potential allies could be Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Reid aides said. Bennett and Hatch strongly
support Yucca. But they are also trying to stop a proposed
temporary nuclear waste site on Goshute Indian reservation land
in their state, considered a stopover site for waste until Yucca
is completed. Reid is hoping to pique their interest because his
bill could eliminate the need for the Utah site.

 Bennett and Hatch have received pledges from White House
officials that the administration would continue to support
Yucca and not the temporary Utah site, although the White House
has taken no concrete steps to block the Utah site.

 Reid likely would need the support of Sen. Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and of the
Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Yucca funding.
Domenici, who was unavailable for comment, is a leading Yucca
proponent but has also endorsed consideration of both short- and
long-term waste storage alternatives as the delayed Yucca
program plods ahead.

 Reid likely would face a significant legislative battle. The
Nevada delegation has always operated in a Congress where Yucca
enjoyed majority support, especially from lawmakers who
represent districts with nuclear plants.

 Reid's bill would represent a significant change in the
nation's long-standing nuclear waste strategy. Congress approved
geologic storage in 1982 and designated Yucca as the sole focus
of study in 1987. President Bush and Congress officially
approved Yucca in 2002 after years of Energy Department research
and fierce lobbying by Nevada lawmakers against the
controversial repository.

 "I really don't think Congress has the stomach to go through
that again," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the industry's top lobby group.

 Nuclear industry officials will strongly oppose the legislation
because they have long argued that a permanent geologic
repository was the best long-term waste solution. Plants, which
store waste in cooling pools and outdoor, above-ground "dry
casks," were never designed for permanent storage, they say.

 "It's a non-starter," NEI waste management director Steve Kraft
said of Reid's bill. "Every year this point gets missed: It's
not the ownership of the material, it's where the material is.
The material has to leave our sites."

 Nevada officials and other Yucca critics have long said it was
safer and more cost-effective to continue storing waste at
plants, at least until a better Yucca alternative can be
developed.

 Reid aides said a notable benefit of the Reid bill is that it
would eliminate the need for shipping waste cross-country by
truck and train.

 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., plans to co-sponsor the bill, an
Ensign aide said.

 But Berkley hasn't won much House support in four years that
she has advocated a bill similar to Reid's legislation. Her bill
has only garnered a handful of co-sponsors and has never even
been granted a hearing by House Republican leaders, who
generally support Yucca. The House in 2002 approved Yucca on a
306-117 vote.

 Nils Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which would license and regulate Yucca, today said there is no
significant safety hazard to temporary on-site waste storage.
But he said that at some point waste stored on-site should be
moved to a central site and that the commission supports
geologic storage.

 
 
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Hu Jintao's China   

The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
 
  Home > News > Editorial/Op-Ed   
    
China's legislature approved President Hu Jintao's appointment
as the country's official military chief Sunday, completing the
process of consolidating control of the party, government and
armed forces under one man. The National People's Congress gave
approval by an overwhelming 2,866 votes, with six against and
five undecided. 

Hu, 62, had already taken over as chairman of the Communist
Party's Central Military Commission last September from Jiang
Zemin, who handed over the scepters of power one by one to the
fourth generation leader over two and a half years. Hu became
general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China (CPC) in November 2002 and was installed as
president of the world's most populous country in March 2003. 

For the first time in modern China's turbulent history, a
leadership transition was completed peacefully, although the
process itself remains far from transparent. China's 1.3 billion
people and the outside world are allowed to see only the final
stage of the succession saga such as the largely ceremonial NPC
vote with the rest of the process hidden behind the curtains of
Zongnanhai. 

We do not know how long the new top leader, a water conservancy
engineer who began his career with a provincial construction
authority and was elected to the Politburo at the age of 49,
will stay at the helm; it will depend on how the governing
system of the huge country introduces elements of participatory
democracy, whether through top-down political changes or
bottom-up social movements. 

Economic development since Deng Xiaoping has earned China a sort
of understanding from the international community for pursuit of
its own system over the past few decades, but economic
advancement itself now calls for higher expectations internally
and externally for greater political freedom and stronger
guarantees for human rights. There is no reason why China alone
should and could remain isolated in a political Stone Age while
individual rights awareness grows fast in accordance with
improving communications. 

Beijing's apparent interference in Hong Kong's leadership change
with Tung Chee-hwa's premature resignation last month and
enactment of the anti-secession law which allows military attack
on Taiwan if it moves toward independence are the kind of
measures that reflect the arbitrariness of the current Chinese
system, which may not be possible under a multi-party
competitive political structure. 

As the seventh largest economy in the world with membership in
the World Trade Organization and as a military power with the
largest standing army, China has emerged as a key player in the
contemporary world. The nation can choose the best system to
rule but the near unanimous vote at the Great Hall of the People
to finalize power transition to Hu Jintao leaves something to be
desired about the future of the neighboring country, and about
the freedom of press and religion. 

Now, Hu's leadership, complete with all titles, is expected to
be displayed concerning the major regional issue, North Korea's
nuclear program. Pyongyang's boycott of the Beijing six-way
talks, which were arduously prepared by Chinese officials, and
its announcement Feb. 10 that it has nuclear weapon(s) were a
slap in China's face. A top international affairs official of
the CPC was promptly dispatched to Pyongyang but no clear
outcome is seen yet. 

Concerned parties hope Beijing, the sole supplier of food and
energy aid to North Korea, will exercise more positive influence
on Pyongyang to bring it back to the negotiating table. But, in
the long run, a China turning more open and democratic will be a
great catalyst for change in North Korea and the stabilization
of peace in the region and the world. 

2005.03.15
 
*****************************************************************
 12 Mos News: Belarus Halts Work to Destroy Soviet Missile Facilities Despite
U.S. Agreement - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 14.03.2005 17:52 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:52 MSK 

MosNews

Belarus has halted the destruction of its ballistic missile
launch pads despite a disarmament agreement with the United
States according to which the former Soviet state would become a
non-nuclear nation. 

There are still 79 launching pads for Topol-type ballistic
rockets, but their destruction has been halted, the Interfax
news agency reported, citing a source in the nation’s Defense
Ministry’s National Agency for Control and Inspection. 

“According to the so-called Lisbon protocol, Belarus is supposed
to have fully destroyed all nuclear weapons and to have become a
non-nuclear state,” the source, who was not named, was quoted as
saying. 

Initially, there were 81 such launch pads; one was destroyed
with the help of explosives, another was partially dismantled. 

The protocol also binds the country to remove not only the
weapons, but their launching bases as part of the agreement. 

The Topol launching pads are set to be destroyed, but the CIS
state “does not have enough funds and technical capabilities” to
do this, the source said. 

The foundations of the launch pads were built using high-grade
cement, which is 30 meters thick in some places. “It is
impossible to remove this cement using our current means.”

Other methods to remove the cement are being examined, including
blasting the cement, but this may have ecological consequences.
 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 13 Pakistan News: Dr AQ Khan not to be handed over to any country - Rashid

PakTribune.Com
 
Monday March 14, 2005 (1752 PST)
 		 		 		
Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad has reiterated that no 
compromise will be made on the nuclear program of the country nor 
Dr A Q Khan will be handed over to any other country.   

ISLAMABAD, March 15 (Online): Information Minister Sheikh Rashid
Ahmad has reiterated that no compromise will be made on the
nuclear program of the country nor Dr A Q Khan will be handed
over to any other country. 

Sheikh Rashid was replying to adjournment motions moved by
opposition members Liaqat Baloch, Imtiaz Safdar Warriach and
others in NA Monday on the matter of transfer of nuclear
technology to Iran. He announced that Dr Qadeer Khan served the
country. If US have to investigate, it should do so through us,
Sheikh Rashid remarked. 

Information minister while referring to his earlier statement in
this regard said that he had not said some thing new. It is not
such an important thing. " I remained associated with Dr Qadeer
Khan issue. I alongwith Sharif ud Din Pirzada got the matter
related to his pardon settled". he added. 

Government is not included in sale of nuclear know how , he
told. The whole world knows what happened when the investigation
was conducted against Dr Qadeer Khan on the report of IAEA.
There is no threat to national security, he remarked. Dr Qadeer
Khan will not be handed over to any one at any cost, he
announced. If some one has to conduct any inquiry he should do
it through us, he stated. 

He observed that Dr Qadeer Khan had delivered great service to
nation. Lapses are also committed by great people, he added. "
Our technology will further move ahead. PPP and PML both served
this cause, he underlined. This matter should not be confused,
he stated. 

Imtiaz Safdar Warraich while speaking on adjournment motion said
that Sheikh Rashid can not give this statement. He had leaked
out national secret which should be debated, Warraich demanded.

Earlier Dr Qadeer issue was mishandled, he observed. 

Liaqat Baloch said that statement given by Sheikh Rashid will
deteriorate our relations with Iran and the pipeline project
will be put at stake. 

Farid Ahmad Paracha said that voice should be raised from within
the national assembly when national security is in jeopardy.

This adjournment motion should be put to debate. This is matter
of public importance. 

Speaker reserved his ruling after listening to arguments from
both sides. On the other hand opposition staged walk out from
the house. 

End.  
  •   
Pakistan News Service © PakTribune.com Pvt Ltd 2003-2004   
*****************************************************************
 14 AP Wire: NRC: Oconee Nuclear station operated safely in 2004

| 03/14/2005 | 

Associated Press

SENECA, S.C. - The Oconee Nuclear Station operated safely last
year, but some past and potential problems remain under review,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. 

An assessment by regulators released earlier this month cites
two past problems. 

All the issues are based on hypothetical scenarios, said Dayle
Stewart, spokeswoman for Duke Power Co., which operates the
three reactors at the station. 

"There was never any danger to the public, employees or the
operations of the plant," Stewart said. 

The report cites a finding last fall on the staffing of a
standby shutdown facility in case of fire. Both Duke and the NRC
said the concerns have been resolved. 

The letter also cited a heat loss problem in 2003 that remained
under review. 

The review notes the station was fined $60,000 last year for
failure to get NRC approval for a change in a safety procedure.
The matter will be reviewed again, the letter said. 

Three potential problems were cited. They include a reactor
coolant pump seal in Unit 1; reactor building coatings; and a
control room wall that is not tornado protected in Unit 3. 

"These could be potential problems, but we're not far enough
along in the review," said Mel Shannon, the NRC's senior
resident inspector. 

Information from: The Greenville News,
http://www.greenvillenews.com  

*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Summer Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2005-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-05-008   		        March 14, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

South Carolina Electric & Gas officials March 23, to discuss the
NRCs annual assessment of safety performance at the Summer
nuclear power plant, located near Jenkinsville, S.C. The period
covered is the calendar year 2004. 

The 3 p.m. meeting at the Summer plants Nuclear Learning Center
auditorium is open to public observation. Before the session
ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on
the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in
ensuring safe operation of the facility. 

Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Summer
plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power
plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This
meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the
company, with local officials and with residents near the plant.
Our aim is to make this information available to the public and
answer any questions people may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sum_2004q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] . 

Overall, the Summer plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC
uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green
and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the
safety significance of the issues involved. Because all
inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant
during 2004 were classified as green, Summer will receive the
baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2005. 

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2005,
the NRC plans safety inspections concerning pressurizer
penetration and steam space piping connections at the Summer
plant. 

Current information for the Summer plant is available on the NRC
web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUM/sum_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, March 14, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 16 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO rapped over lax N-safety 

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

Kansai Electric Power Co.'s failure to enforce safety standards
caused the fatal steam leak at the No. 3 reactor of its Mihama
Nuclear Power Station in August, a government nuclear safety
panel said Monday. 

In a final draft report of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency's accident investigation committee, KEPCO was reprimanded
more severely than in an interim report compiled in September on
the incident at the plant in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture. 

The committee will submit the final report on March 30 based on
the draft, which reveals a large gap in the approach toward
safety between the agency and the Kansai region's major power
firm. 

According to the draft, the cause of the accident was initially
attributed to the failure to include damaged parts in a list of
areas to be inspected for a long time, in addition to mechanical
problems in the pipe. 

Investigators, however, later discovered that KEPCO's
maintenance and quality guarantee system had not functioned
properly, leading to its failure to correct the defective
inspection system. 

Although the draft mentioned the responsibility of Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Ltd. and Nihon Arm Co., it reiterated that
KEPCO was mainly responsible. Several committee members
supported this view. 

Although the agency requested that KEPCO submit detailed action
plans, including top executives' statements concerning their
commitment to safety measures, the plans--consisting of about 30
items in five main areas--submitted to the agency Monday did not
satisfy this demand. 

As a result, the agency has ordered KEPCO to revise the plans so
that both employees and people living near nuclear plants
believe that the firm has changed its attitude toward safety.   

Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun 

*****************************************************************
 17 CE: N.B. government under growing pressure to decide fate of nuclear 
power plant

canadaeast.com - 

CP Atlantic Regional News
 
CHRIS MORRIS
 	 	 	 	 	 	 
FREDERICTON (CP) - The New Brunswick government is under growing 
pressure to decide the fate of the Point Lepreau nuclear power 
plant.

 Bruce Fitch, New Brunswick's Energy Minister, said Monday 
provincial and federal officials will meet this week to see if 
Ottawa can help with the estimated $1.4 billion price tag to fix 
up the aging reactor. The federal government has already said 
refurbishing Point Lepreau would not qualify for funds under the 
Kyoto plan to cut greenhouse gases.

 But Fitch said there may be other options.

 "There's more than one way to skin a cat," he said.

 Premier Bernard Lord's Conservative government is looking for at 
least $400 million to help keep the 22-year-old nuclear 
generating station near Saint John, N.B., running for another 25 
years.

 Lord has warned that if the province doesn't get help, it may 
have to look at such other options as building a coal-fired power 
plant.

 The premier was unavailable for comment on Monday.

 Bruce Power of Ontario, a private company that operates a major 
nuclear facility in Ontario, has made an offer to the Lord 
government to refurbish and run Point Lepreau - the only nuclear 
power plant in Atlantic Canada.

 But Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive officer of Bruce Power, 
said in an interview on Monday the province needs to make a 
decision within weeks.

 "There are some decisions you would want to take on plant 
operations today that impact your ability to run this project 
successfully," Hawthorne said.

 "My point is, if people think the refurbishment decision can 
keep being pushed into the future, then they're ignoring some of 
the operational realities of the situation."

 Hawthorne said Lepreau is due for a major maintenance shutdown 
beginning next month. He said the maintenance needed by Lepreau 
depends on whether there is going to be a refurbishment.

 "The operational realities require an early decision."

 Hawthorne said he would have liked a decision from the New 
Brunswick government months ago.

 Fitch said the Lord government is still waiting for a 
recommendation on Lepreau from the board of directors of NB 
Power, the provincial utility that operates the nuclear plant.

 He said he is hoping the government will be able to make its 
decision before the end of the month, when the provincial 
legislature resumes its sitting.

 "It's better to make the right decision than a quick decision," 
Fitch said.

Copyright © 2005 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Robinson Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2005-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-05-009   		        March 14, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail:   
  

Progress Energy officials March 24, to discuss the NRCs annual
assessment of safety performance at the Robinson nuclear power
plant, located near Hartsville, S.C. The period covered is the
calendar year 2004. 

The 3 p.m. meeting at the Hartsville Public Library is open to
public observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be
available to answer public questions on the plants safety
performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe
operation of the facility. 

Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Robinson
plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power
plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This
meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the
company, with local officials and with residents near the plant.
Our aim is to make this information available to the public and
answer any questions people may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/rob_2004q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] . 

Overall, the Robinson plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC
uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green
and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the
safety significance of the issues involved. Robinson did have
one white performance indicator during the period, but an NRC
inspection found that the companys subsequent actions were
adequate to address the issue. Based on these results and
overall performance, Robinson will receive the baseline, or
normal, level of inspections during 2005. 

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2005,
the NRC plans inspections of the reactor vessel head replacement
and the under-construction spent fuel storage installation. 

Current information for the Robinson plant is available on the
NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/ROB2/rob2_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, March 14, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 19 Sofia News: Nuclear go-aheads - 

Sat 12 Mar 2005

Nuclear go-aheads Business Staff

THE International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supports
Bulgaria’s plans to build a second nuclear power plant, the
Bulgarian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on March 4. 

The statement said that IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei
had expressed the support of the agency for Bulgaria’s plans to
build a plant at Belene, northern Bulgaria, during a meeting in
Vienna with Foreign Minister Solomon Passi. 

Bulgaria is a major electricity exporter to the Balkans,
generating more than six billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a
year. However, the country will have to close down the
440-megawatt reactors 3 and 4 of the Kozlodui nuclear power
plant at the end of 2006. The closure was agreed upon as part of
Bulgaria’s accession negotiations with the European Union. 

The Belene plant is designed to compensate for the reactors
being closed. 

Meanwhile, the Bulgarian Government was expected to give its
final go-ahead for the construction of the second nuclear power
plant. 

According to recent statements by Government spokesperson
Dimitar Tsonev, the new and former energy ministers – Milko
Kovachev and Miroslav Sevlievski – had agreed to present a draft
resolution to a forthcoming Cabinet meeting to launch the
construction of the plant in Belene. 

Sevlievski became Energy Minister in the Cabinet reshuffle in
February, replacing Kovachev, who took over the Economy
Ministry. 

The construction of the power plant at Belene on the River
Danube has been on hold since 1991 because of lack of finance
and mounting concerns over the region’s seismic stability. 

But in 2002, the current Government decided to re-launch the
project in order to meet domestic demand for electricity and
maintain the country’s role as a leading power exporter in the
region. 

A Cabinet decision is required for the National Electric Company
(NEC), which would manage the project, to start selecting a
construction technology and a chief contractor. 

Three consortiums have offered to build the plant. One of them
consists of France’s Framatome and Germany’s Siemens, which plan
to work together with Russia’s Atomstroiexport. 

Czech engineering firm Skoda Praha, Italy’s Unicredito, Citibank
and Czech Komercni Banka form the second consortium. 

The third is led by Canada’s Atomic Energy Canada Limited and
also includes Italy’s Ansaldo Nuclear, the US Bechtel, and
Japan’s Hitachi Corporation. 

NEC has already selected the UK-based consultant Parsons E
Europe Ltd to design and oversee the construction works. 

Parsons has recommended that the country builds two
1000-megawatt reactors at the Belene site. It favoured Russian
designed reactors produced by Czech Skoda or Atomstroiexport. 

The project’s total cost is estimated at up to four billion
euro. 

© 2001-2005, Sofia Echo Media Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Hoeg Named NRC Senior Resident Inspector at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2005-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-05-010   		        March 14, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials at the Region II
office in Atlanta have assigned Tim Hoeg as the senior resident
inspector at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant near Jensen
Beach, Fla. Hoeg had been the senior resident inspector for four
years at the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant near Port Gibson,
Miss. 

Before being assigned to Grand Gulf, Hoeg worked as a resident
inspector for three years at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant
near Saint Leonard, Md. He joined the NRC in March 1997 as a
reactor engineer in the NRCs Region I office in King of Prussia,
Pa. Prior to joining the NRC, Hoeg worked as a nuclear system
engineer for Public Service Electric and Gas Company at its
Salem Generating Station near Salem, N.J. He also worked as a
shift test engineer for General Dynamics Electric Boat Division
in Groton, Conn. He also served in the United States Navy. 

Hoeg received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical
Engineering from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC
resident inspectors. They serve as the agencys eyes and ears at
the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring
significant work projects, and interfacing with plant personnel
and the public. 

Hoeg joins NRC resident inspector Steve Sanchez and site
secretary Laura Orr at the St. Lucie office where they can be
reached by calling 772-464-7822.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, March 14, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc 05-4924 
[Federal Register: March 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 12504] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14mr05-103]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 61-- 
Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
 
3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often 
the collection is required: Applications for licenses are 
submitted as needed. Other reports are submitted annually and as 
other events require.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Applicants for and 
holders of an NRC license (to include Agreement States) for land 
disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and all generators, 
collectors, and processors of low-level waste intended for 
disposal at a low-level waste facility.
 
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 16 (12 Agreement State 
responses + 4 Agreement State recordkeepers).
 
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 4. 8. An estimate 
of the number of hours needed annually to complete the 
requirement or request: 5,412 hours (56 hours for reporting 
[approximately 4.6 hours per response] and 5,356 hours for 
recordkeeping [approximately 1,339 hours per recordkeeper]).
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: Part 61 establishes the procedures, criteria, and 
license terms and conditions for the land disposal of low-level 
radioactive waste. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are 
mandatory or, in the case of application submittals, are required 
to obtain a benefit. The information collected in the 
applications, reports, and records is evaluated by the NRC to 
ensure that the licensee's or applicant's physical plant, 
equipment, organization, training, experience, procedures, and 
plans provide an adequate level of protection of public health 
and safety, common defense and security, and the environment.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by April 13, 2005. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (3150- 0135), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of March, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4924 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc 05-4925 
[Federal Register: March 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 12504-12505] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14mr05-104]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 72, 
Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent 
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.
 
3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often 
the collection is required: Required reports are collected and 
evaluated on a continuing basis as events occur; submittal of 
reports varies from less than one per year under some rule 
sections to up to an average of about 100 per year under other 
rule sections. Applications for new licenses, certificates of 
compliance (CoCs), and amendments may be submitted at anytime; 
applications for renewal of licenses are required every 20 years 
for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or 
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) and every 40 years for a 
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Certificate holders 
of casks for the storage of spent fuel, licensees and applicants 
for a license to possess power reactor spent fuel and other 
radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage in an 
ISFSI, and the Department of Energy for licenses to receive, 
transfer, package and possess power
 
[[Page 12505]] reactor spent fuel, high-level waste, and other 
radioactive materials associated with spent fuel and high-level 
waste storage in an MRS.
 
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 370 (320 responses + 
50 recordkeepers).
 
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 50. 8. An estimate 
of the number of hours needed annually to complete the 
requirement or request: 25,551 (22,781 hours for reporting [71 
hours per response] and 2,770 hours for recordkeeping [55 hours 
per recordkeeper]).
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 72 establishes mandatory requirements, 
procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, 
transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel and other 
radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage in an 
ISFSI, and requirements for the issuance of licenses to the 
Department of Energy to receive, transfer, package, and possess 
power reactor spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and 
other associated radioactive materials, in an MRS. The 
information in the applications, reports and records is used by 
NRC to make licensing and other regulatory determinations.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: 
.
 
The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 
days after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by April 13, 2005. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (3150- 0132), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to  or submitted by telephone at 
(202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of March, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4925 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 The Advertiser: State fails nuclear test 

[15mar05]

By Political Reporter LAURA ANDERSON

THE State Government has failed on a nuclear issues report card, 
scoring a low 19 out of 100.

The Government's support of uranium mining and its lack of 
involvement in a Senate inquiry into the practice lowered the 
score significantly on the SA Greens report card.

 "The Rann Government passed in only one area of the nuclear 
test, its successful blocking of the importation of nuclear 
(radioactive) waste from interstate," Greens spokesman Dennis 
Matthews said yesterday.

 "Apart from the nuclear waste issue, the Rann Government's 
performance was little different from previous Liberal 
Governments."

 Acting Environment Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said the State 
Government had "established its environmental credentials" with 
its opposition to a radioactive waste site in South Australia. 

"This Government also commissioned an independent inquiry into 
ISL mining of uranium, with a number of recommendations that have 
already been taken up to improve that operation," she said. 
		 		 			 	 		 		 		 	 			
© Advertiser Newspapers Pty Limited   

*****************************************************************
 24 Daily Yomiuri: Nihon Arm 'not to blame' in N-accident 

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency concluded Saturday that
Nihon Arm Co., one of three companies seen responsible for a
fatal steam leak accident at the No. 3 reactor of Mihama Nuclear
Power Station in August last year, should be absolved of blame. 

The agency, affiliated with the Economy, Trade and Industry
Ministry, said only Kansai Electric Power Co. (KEPCO) and
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. should be blamed for the
accident at the power plant in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture. 

Nihon Arm, which was contracted by KEPCO to maintain steam pipes
at the plant, was not responsible for the accident, in which
five people were killed and six injured, the agency said. 

Initially the agency assumed all three companies should share
the blame, but later found that Nihon Arm, an Osaka-based
subsidiary of KEPCO, had just followed instructions from its
parent company. 

This conclusion means that KEPCO and Mitsubishi Heavy must
shoulder heavier responsibility, nuclear industry sources said. 

The agency will include the conclusion in a draft report that is
to be submitted at a meeting of an accident investigation
committee to be held in Fukui on Monday. The agency plans to
draw up the final report by March 30. 

Mitsubishi Heavy constructed KEPCO's nuclear power plants,
including the No. 3 reactor in the Mihama plant. Until 1996, the
company maintained the steam pipes for KEPCO. Nihon Arm took
over the job from Mitsubishi Heavy in 1996. 

The steam pipe that broke and discharged superheated steam was
located in a part of the system that required extra care as pipe
walls were liable to erode more quickly than usual due to the
turbulent water flow. 

But because that section had not been included on a list of
areas to be checked, the thickness of the pipe walls had not
been measured since the reactor began operating in 1976. 

In its interim report in September, the agency tentatively
concluded that the accident was caused by the failure to inspect
the pipes, and blame was distributed among KEPCO, Mitsubishi
Heavy and Nihon Arm. 

A later investigation, however, found that Nihon Arm had just
followed KEPCO's instructions, and that it was not fully
informed by Mitsubishi Heavy of similar failures to list items
to be checked at other nuclear power plants. 

The pipes were not included when Mitsubishi Heavy made up the
checklist in 1990 on orders from KEPCO. 

Since 1998, Mitsubishi Heavy had found that identical water
circulation system pipes had not been listed for inspection at
the No. 1 reactor of Hokkaido Electric Power Co.'s Tomari
Nuclear Power Station and the No. 2 reactor of Japan Atomic
Power Co.'s Tsuruga Power Station. 

But Mitsubishi Heavy informed Nihon Arm only that pipe walls in
the plants were subject to wear. 

Although Nihon Arm discovered on its own that the pipes were not
included on the checklist in April 2003, it did not inform KEPCO
and did not check the pipe in a regular inspection that started
in May 2003. 

But KEPCO and Nihon Arm had an agreement that if the subsidiary
found a part that had not been checked, it would be inspected in
the regular check following the next one. 

Thus Nihon Arm had planned to check the pipe in a regular
inspection that was to start on Aug. 14. But the pipe burst five
days before that date.   

Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun 
*****************************************************************
 25 [ibon] 'Outrageous', water group says of NWRB's raw water
 
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:40:25 -0600 (CST)

 
WATER FOR THE PEOPLE NETWORK Promoting People's Control Over Water
Services and Resources Secretariat office: Room 303, SCC Bldg. 4427
Interior Old Sta. Mesa Manila, Philippines Tel. Nos. +632 713-2737,
+632 713-2729 Fax no. +632 716-0108 Email: research@ibon.org

PRESS STATEMENT March 10, 2005 For reference: Mr. Arnold Padilla,
Water For the People Network coordinator

'OUTRAGEOUS', WATER GROUP SAYS OF NWRB'S RAW WATER PRICING PROPOSAL

The proposal of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) to charge
a fee for the use of raw water is completely outrageous. It raises
moral and social issues that government will find hard to justify
not even with the fiscal crisis or the need to conserve water.

First, it raises the issue of the inherent nature of water as a
common resource that everyone, regardless of his or her capacity
to pay, is entitled to. Pricing raw water is like placing a price
tag to the air we breathe. Since water provides the condition for
people to live, it must be free. The NWRB proposal therefore distorts
this fundamental reality.

Second, it raises the issue of who owns our water. As a common
resource and condition of life, government's mandate is to develop
water and ensure that people, with due bias to the poor and
marginalized, have access to it. But charging a fee on raw water
further disempowers the people in terms of access and control over
water resources. And with the ability to pay now a requisite to
utilize water even at its raw state, unjust preference is given to
large foreign corporations like mining firms, power corporations,
bottling companies, etc. at the expense of indigenous communities,
small farmers, and poor consumers. Large private corporations, which
have the money to buy bulk raw water, thus monopolize ownership and
control of water at the expense of ordinary folk.

Raw water pricing, like most policies that the Philippine government
has implemented for the water sector, is not a product of exhaustive
and democratic consultation with local communities. It is a policy
that so-called water experts, who are in the payroll of the World
Bank and other foreign funding institutions and transnational
corporations that want to control our water, have concocted without
regard to the harsh social realities prevailing in the country. How
will they justify it to a poor farmer who could not avail of
irrigation services due to exorbitant user fees? How will they
justify it to an indigenous woman who fetches water everyday from
rivers and streams for her family's daily needs? How will they
justify it to 3 million poor families in urban and rural areas who
do not have access to safe drinking water?

NWRB's excuse that charging a fee for the use of raw water would
encourage conservation among ordinary people overlooks the fact
that the most wasteful users of water are the big corporations in
industry and agriculture. It ignores the fact that our water resources
are rapidly deteriorating due to corporate exploitation such as
large-scale mining that pollutes our rivers and tourist projects
like golf courses that depletes groundwater. Further, NWRB's
justification that raw water pricing would raise additional revenues
for the cash strapped government ignores the fact that water services
are already charged with value added tax (VAT) while private firms
that invest in the water sector are offered with tax holidays and
other fiscal incentives.

Our people have had enough of water services privatization and
corporate takeover of water resources that deeply violate their
inherent entitlement to water. To say that raw water pricing is a
socially sensitive issue, to quote the NWRB, is a gross understatement.
For many people, especially the poorest of the poor, it is a matter
of life and death. If it pushes through with this proposal, NWRB
is courting a social upheaval. (end)

The WATER FOR THE PEOPLE NETWORK is a broad national network that
campaigns for people's control over water services and resources.
It has more than 100 member organizations from all over the country.

*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive waste at royals' beach
 
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Tuesday March 15, 2005
 		
Radioactive waste has been discovered near a favourite holiday 
haunt of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, the late Queen 
Mother's Scottish home, the Castle of Mey. 

The waste was discovered on the third day of a 60-day survey of
local beaches by the Scottish environment protection agency
(Sepa) after growing concern about illegal discharges from the
closed Dounreay fast-breeder reactor in Caithness. 

Dounreay is facing prosecution for illegally discharging nuclear
waste into the sea and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority has admitted that at least 1,000 particles have been
washed ashore and has no idea how many may be on the seabed. 

The discovery on Dunnet beach, near the Queen Mother's former
home, follows a campaign by a local estate owner, Geoffrey
Minter, to expose what believes is a "cover-up" by the atomic
energy authority on the scale of the problem. Since he bought
the estate, which includes a popular public beach, Sandside, 54
particles have been washed up. 

A recent request under the Freedom of Information Act exposed
that other finds had not been reported by Dounreay at the time.
The new find is further down the coast and has been sent to
Dounreay for examination. 

The radioactive object was the size of a thumbnail and had been
contaminated by caesium-137, a component of nuclear fuel.
Warning signs have been put up around the beach. Similar signs
have had to be erected around Sandside beach. 

The disclosure came as the energy minister, Mike O'Brien,
admitted that safety standards at Dounreay had been unacceptable
and that measures taken to deal with nuclear waste had been
ineffective in protecting the environment. 

Mr O'Brien's admission came in reply to Iain Duncan Smith, the
former Conservative leader, who is pressing for a full
ministerial statement on Dounreay and a public inquiry into the
plant's safety record. 
	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 27 AP Wire: House passes bill for groundwater cleanup in Santa Clara Valley

03/14/2005 | 

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives on Monday passed a
bill to spend $25 million cleaning up groundwater in the Santa
Clara Valley that's contaminated with perchlorate. 

The bill by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, would address
contamination in water supplies for some 80,000 residents of
Morgan Hill, Gilroy and an unincorporated community in between.
Cleanup costs to rid the water of the toxin, a common byproduct
of defense and industrial manufacturing, have been estimated as
high as $150 million. 

The legislation, which passed on a voice vote, would require
local authorities to provide matching funds of 35 percent. 

The same Pombo bill passed the House of Representatives last
year but didn't get a vote in the Senate. Pombo spokeswoman
Nicole Philbin said the congressman has approached Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and hopes
to work with them and others to get the legislation through the
Senate.   

*****************************************************************
 28 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Bush has conned Nevada's voters

Today: March 14, 2005 at 8:58:45 PST 

Republican voters can justify anything, even the Bush
double-cross on Yucca Mountain. Bush voters say the dump was a
done deal anyway because the nuke lobby is too strong, and we
should have bargained to get something out of it for Nevada.
That's good, conservative thought. If we can't stop the possible
poisoning of our grandchildren, maybe we can make a few bucks
off of it. Perhaps the theft of the proceeds from the sale of
our BLM land will give these voters a clue; we don't own most of
our state, the federal government doesn't have to bargain with
us, and unless you are very wealthy, the Republican Party does
not represent you.

 George Bush needs the money he gets from cutting social
programs and selling off chunks of our state to ease the deficit
he's created with his tax cuts for the rich and his wars to
control the oil resources of the world for the American
corporations that finance his election campaigns.

 The 51 percent who voted for Bush in the last election must
have been influenced by the corporate media or the "journalists"
he's paid off with your tax money. To some myopic Bush voters,
all Bush programs are good because he's a good Christian who
prays in the White House. It's almost comical how the American
people vote against their own interests and feel good about it,
but, as the character in the movie "The Sting" says: "It's no
good if the mark knows he's been stung." 

JERRY BITTS

 
 
*****************************************************************
 29 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Secrecy on nuke dump

Today: March 14, 2005 at 8:58:45 PST 

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 We were intrigued by a story in Thursday's Las Vegas Sun about
the optimism expressed by the official who is in charge of
trying to get a nuclear waste dump built at Yucca Mountain, just
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Theodore Garrish, acting
director of the U.S. Energy Department's Yucca Mountain program,
told a Senate committee in Washington that the nuclear waste
dump project is alive and well. "I believe we are better
situated today than we have ever been to move forward with this
program," Garrish said. That struck us as a strange thing to
say, especially since the U.S. Energy Department was dealt a
serious blow last July, one that very well could doom the
project. A federal court ruled that the Environmental Protection
Agency's radiation standard for a dump at Yucca Mountain -- that
radiation from the dump would have to be contained for low
levels for 10,000 years -- wasn't stringent enough under federal
law.

 But after reading Friday's edition of the Sun, we started to
get a better understanding of why Garrish is so bullish on Yucca
Mountain. Washington bureau chief Benjamin Grove reported that
environmental groups, which participated in a closed-door
briefing with EPA officials last week, believe that the options
the EPA are considering for a new radiation standard aren't that
much different than the one tossed out by the court. A standard
meeting the court's ruling would require preventing the release
of radiation for at least 100,000 years.

 That benchmark likely is unachievable, which is why federal
agencies may be trying to skirt having to establish a tough,
meaningful standard that would protect public safety. "My
impression was that they are going to do what they want to do,"
said Peggy Maze Johnson, director of Nevada-based Citizen Alert,
who participated in the briefing via a telephone hookup. "They
don't care about putting waste in a mountain that leaks."

 Officials from the EPA, the Energy Department and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which ultimately would have to rule on
the Energy Department's application to build a dump, have been
meeting secretly regarding the Yucca Mountain project. Officials
from these federal agencies have sought to downplay what's been
occurring, but it's clear what is going on. These agencies are
collaborating to see if there is a way to create a new radiation
standard that isn't too strict and, most importantly, will allow
Yucca Mountain to proceed.

 That Nevada officials have been excluded from these closed-door
meetings, despite the fact that our state would be the nation's
permanent dumping ground for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear
waste, confirms that something nefarious is happening. If ever
there were an issue that demanded openness, it certainly would
involve meetings involving high-level nuclear waste. Instead, we
get secrecy by federal agencies hell-bent on burying man's
deadliest waste near the nation's fastest-growing city. It's not
just a disgrace -- it's a scandal. 
 
*****************************************************************
 30 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Shoshone lawsuit good way to keep nuclear waste out
 

I read the March 7 Las Vegas Sun story by Jace Radke concerning
the lawsuit filed against the federal government on behalf of
the Western Shoshone Nation.

 The suit references the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, signed by
the Western Shoshone leaders and the United States government.

 The treaty does two things -- it identifies the boundaries of
the Shoshone lands and gives the United States rights to
specific activities within the lands. Yucca Mountain is within
the boundaries, and nothing within the treaty would give the
government the right to bury nuclear waste there. The suit seeks
to stop the Energy Department's work on Yucca Mountain.

 This lawsuit, filed by the Shoshone Nation's lawyer, Robert
Hager, may actually be the miraculous opportunity that we have
all been waiting for to keep nuclear waste out of Yucca Mountain
and away from Nevada. The issue is the validity of the Ruby
Valley treaty, the credibility of agreements between the
indigenous people and the federal government.

 The issue is important to us in so many ways. Let's get behind
the treaty and the Shoshone Nation! 

MICKI JAY

 
 
*****************************************************************
 31 SLP-D: Q and A about environmental contaminants in breast milk

St. Louis Post-Dispatch       

stltoday.com

 Sara Shipley Of the Post-Dispatch 

Q: Why are there chemicals in breast milk?
 A: All of us are exposed through food, water and air to
environmental toxins that accumulate in our bodies. Some of
these chemicals concentrate in fat, and therefore appear in
higher levels in breast milk. Chemicals detected in human breast
milk include pesticides such as DDT and chlordane, dioxins and
furans, PCBs, flame retardants, mercury, lead and perchlorate.
 
Q: What?s the health effects of these chemicals?
 A: Little is known about low-level chemical exposure at levels
typical in breast milk. Some feel that the effect is negligible;
others blame it for the rising rate of certain illnesses.
Whatever the effect of chemical exposure in adults, infants are
more vulnerable because their systems are still developing, and
they eat, drink and breathe more by body weight than adults.
 
Q: Should mothers stop breastfeeding because of contaminants?
 A: No. Public health officials universally agree that ?breast
is best? for baby and mother alike. Human breast milk contains
antibodies and other nutrients specifically geared to the
changing needs of an infant. Breast-fed babies are less likely
to get sick as children and as adults, and some studies indicate
they are more socially adept and have higher intelligence.
Lactation also helps mothers to lose weight after pregnancy.
 
Q: Is formula any safer?
 A: No. Formula may contain lower levels of certain
contaminants, but other contaminants are more common. Formulas
containing soy milk, cow?s milk or water is subject to whatever
contaminants were in the original ingredients.
 
Q: What were the results of the recent study about perchlorate
in breast milk?
 A: Researchers at Texas Tech University found perchlorate, the
main ingredient of solid rocket fuel, in all 36 breast milk
samples taken from 18 states, including Missouri. Perchlorate
blocks iodide uptake, interfering with production of thyroid
hormone. Thyroid hormone is necessary for growth and
development; low levels can cause mental retardation. The study
suggested that most perchlorate exposure comes from food, not
drinking water.
 
Q: Is there any way for me to avoid consuming perchlorate?
 A: Recent studies have found perchlorate in samples of milk and
lettuce nationwide, apparently caused by contaminated irrigation
water. Even organic food contained perchlorate. Getting food
from a local source known to be free of perchlorate could be a
solution.
 
Q: How can I counteract the effect of perchlorate in my food and
water?
 A: The authors of the study suggested that pregnant and nursing
women ensure they consume enough iodine, an essential nutrient
that may counteract the negative effect of perchlorate. People
used to get plenty of iodine through iodized salt, but modern
diets including processed foods and gourmet sea salts may not
contain enough iodine. The authors suggest that pregnant and
nursing women consider taking a low-level iodine supplement or
vitamin (up to 290 micrograms/day). Also, kelp and sushi seaweed
wrappers contain iodine. Discuss the issue with your doctor, as
overdosing on iodine can be harmful.
 
Q: Is there anything I can to reduce or prevent exposure to
these chemicals?
 A: Health experts suggest that pregnant and nursing women avoid
smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages; avoid using pesticides
at home; avoid recently dry-cleaned clothes; stay away from
products that contain solvents, such as paints, gasoline and
nail polish; eat a balanced diet low in animal fats and high-fat
dairy products; avoid fish that may contain high levels of
mercury and PCBs, such as swordfish, shark and tuna; and choose
organic foods, when possible.
 
Q: What is the government doing?
 A: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process
of setting drinking water and cleanup standards for perchlorate.
Proposed standards will be subject to public comment. Some
states and European countries have banned chemicals, such as
PDBE flame retardants, because of their presence in breast milk.
The good news is that bans have reduced the average breast milk
level of some chemicals, such as DDT, nearly 100 fold since the
1970s, according to Dr. Gina Solomon, a scientist with the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
 
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

*****************************************************************
 32 Korea Times: Three Types of Radioactive Waste 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Technology   

By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter

 Nuclear power is derived from nuclear fission whereby heavy
nuclei, such as uranium and plutonium, split into lighter
elements and trigger a chain reaction.

 The uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes of
U-235 and U-238. The former is a highly fissionable ingredient,
which plays a major role in creating an incredible amount of
energy in the process of its splitting.

 Natural uranium consists just 0.7 percent of U-235 and the
remaining 99.3 percent is mostly U-238, which does not directly
contribute to the fission process.

 To elicit power from the natural uranium ore, the two isotopes
are separated to increase or enrich the proportion of U-235 to
about 4 percent.

 In comparison, plutonium does not occur in nature and is
created by exposing U-238 to a neutron source, the process
occurring in the creation of uranium-derived nuclear power.

 Both systems of nuclear fission cause a radioactive chemical
element that contains waste material, which can be classified
into three types: low, intermediate and high-level waste.

 Low-level waste contains small amounts of mostly short-lived
radioactivity, which can be decayed in about 300 years. It can
be stored at shallow land burial sites, which generally do not
require shielding.

 Relatively higher amounts of radioactivity exist in
intermediate-level waste, some of which needs to be shielded and
disposed of deep underground. 

High-level waste is created from uranium fuel in a nuclear
reactor. It contains ultra-high levels of radioactivity and take
up to 10,000 years to decompose.

 High-level waste, or the spent fuel, can be reprocessed as a
kind of recycled fuel for nuclear reactors, a process also
required to convert the spent fuel rods for military purposes.

 Whether or not it is reprocessed, the spent fuel is kept about
30 years in interim pools near the nuclear reactors to cool them
down for permanent disposal. 

voc200@koreatimes.co.kr 03-14-2005 19:42         
  
*****************************************************************
 33 Reid: Reid Statement at Yucca Mountain Hearing
                                 
Thursday, March 10, 2005 
                                
Highlights significant failures with project, pushes for “take
title” bill 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the Senate
Democratic Leader, spoke at a hearing today on the future of the
Yucca Mountain project. Reid, who has long said he doesn’t
think the proposed nuclear waste dump will ever open, focused on
the project’s recent and significant failures. 

Reid also highlighted his idea for legislation authorizing the
federal government to take responsibility for the nuclear waste
at the reactor sites. If passed, a nuclear waste repository,
like the one proposed at Yucca Mountain, would no longer be
necessary because the waste would be stored on site at nuclear
facilities. This would eliminate the danger of storing nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain, as well as the danger of transporting
the waste across the country. Reid will work with his colleagues
to build support in the coming weeks as he prepares to introduce
the bill. 

Sen. Reid’s prepared statement follows: 


Senate Committee on Appropriations
 Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Department of Energy Oversight Hearing
 Office of Environmental Management
 Office Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste (Yucca Mountain
program) 

Senator Harry Reid, Ranking Member
 March 8, 2005 


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today to
discuss the budget for the Environmental Management program and
the Yucca Mountain program. 

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Paul Golan, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Office of Environmental Management, and Mr. Ted
Garrish, the Deputy Director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Nuclear Waste. 

The Department has requested $651 million for Fiscal Year 2006
for the nuclear waste repository program, which is $74 million
above last year’s enacted amount of $577 million. 

Several significant events have taken place over the last year
regarding Yucca Mountain. Here are some of the highlights: 

On July 9, 2004 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the
people of Nevada in an argument to stop the Yucca Mountain
project. The court decided that EPA’s radiation standard for
the site is not stringent enough to protect the public from the
significant risks associated with nuclear waste and failed to
follow the recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences. 

On August 31, 2004 the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
rejected DOE’s Yucca Mountain document database, saying it had
failed to make public many of the documents that it had in its
possession. 

The Licensing Board said, “Given the 15 years that DOE had to
gather, review, and produce its documents and the fact that the
date of production, and the incompleteness of its privilege
review, it is clear to us that DOE did not meet its obligation,
in good faith, to make all reasonable efforts to make all
documentary materials available.” 

On October 4, 2004, the DOE Inspector General found that DOE
gave away more than $500,000 worth of Yucca Mountain
construction equipment in 2003. Half a million dollars in most
people’s lives is a lot of money. 

On November 22, 2004 the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
said DOE does not have a plan for safely transporting nuclear
waste to the proposed repository. 

On February 7, 2005 Dr. Margaret Chu, most recently the Director
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste, said the
project would be delayed until 2012 and DOE’s license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would not be
filed until December, a year after the application was expected
to have been filed. 

On February 8, 2005 the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
called for hearings next month to review concerns over the
corrosion of the titanium drip shields that are intended to keep
water from leaking into casks inside Yucca Mountain. 

On February 28, 2005 a DOE official said the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository may not open until 2017. 

It should be clear to anyone that this project is not going
anywhere. 

Given DOE’s abysmal Yucca Mountain track record, I am
confident you will be unable to meet the delayed deadline. I do
not believe Yucca Mountain will ever open, and Nevada and our
nation will be safer for our successful efforts to stop the
project. 

Similarly, it is also true that you haven’t studied the
transportation issues and there are no assurances that you can
do any of this safely. 

I do not understand how you can consider beginning a licensing
process for the repository when you do not even know how you
would transport all this waste or if you can even do this
safely. There is no way to guarantee the health and safety of
Nevadans or any other Americans. 

I believe it is time to look at other nuclear waste
alternatives. 

One option may be for the federal government take responsibility
for the nuclear waste at the reactor sites. This is the right
thing to do and I look forward to discussing this option with my
colleagues. 

*****************************************************************
 34 AU ABC: SA Labor sparks new uranium debate. 

14/03/2005. ABC News Online
 	
The Federal Opposition has denied that Labor opposes the
establishment of new uranium mines.

 Federally, the ALP has its so-called "three mines policy" and
at the state level, a long standing policy of "no new uranium
mines".

 But last week, Deputy South Australian Premier Kevin Foley
declared in Parliament his enthusiasm for more uranium mines in
the state.

 Federal Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson says under
a federal Labor government all current mines would continue, but
any new mines would be up for debate.

 "If the South Australian Government wants to open new mines
after the next election and Labor's in government in Canberra
then that will have to be subject to a policy discussion," he
said.

 "But there's nothing stopping [Premier] Mike Rann or Kevin
Foley putting on the table at the forthcoming national
conference the debate about uranium. That's for them to decide." 


*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet March 15-17 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2005-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail:   
  No. 05-047     March 11, 2005   
  


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste will hold a public meeting March 15-17, in
Rockville, Md., where, among other items, members will brief the
NRC Commissioners on issues previously reviewed at the
Commissions request. The members will also receive a briefing on
research on the estimation of groundwater recharge techniques
and methods, and discuss the status of the NRC review of the
USEC license application for a proposed gas centrifuge uranium
enrichment facility in Ohio. 

The session on Tuesday will run from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The
Wednesday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the
session on Thursday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. All
sessions will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, except the
meeting with the NRC Commissioners, which will take place from
9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday in the Commissioners
Conference Room in One White Flint North. 

For more information on the meeting, contact Sharon Steele, at
301-415-6805. A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs
Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2005/.
  



  


 	Last revised Monday, March 14, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 36 Secrecy News -- 03/14/05
 
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:32:21 -0500

 
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2005, Issue No. 23
March 14, 2005


**	SUNSHINE WEEK BEGINS
**	ENERGY DEPT MAY RELEASE PORTIONS OF URANIUM HISTORY
**	VANDENBERG TAKES LAUNCH SCHEDULE OFFLINE
**	JOAN GRIMSON NAMED TO PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD
**	SPACE STATION TANGLED UP IN IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT
**	SIHANOUK, KING OF BLOGS


SUNSHINE WEEK BEGINS

News organizations, openness advocates and others are promoting the
week of March 13, dubbed "Sunshine Week," as an occasion for
recalling and reinforcing the value of open government.

A variety of links, leads and other resources for reporters and
others can be found on the main Sunshine Week web site here:

     http://www.sunshineweek.org/

Among other notable events scheduled for the week are a March 15
hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Cornyn/Leahy bill
to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act (judiciary.senate.gov),
and the National Freedom of Information Day conference March 16 at
the Freedom Forum (www.firstamendmentcenter.org).

Sunshine Week is sponsored in part by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation (www.knightfdn.org), which also supports Secrecy News and
other open government initiatives.


ENERGY DEPT MAY RELEASE PORTIONS OF URANIUM HISTORY

After a decade of equivocation, the Department of Energy may soon
release portions of its long-promised history of highly enriched
uranium production from 1945 to 1996.

In January of this year, DOE once again categorically denied a
Freedom of Information Act request for the document, which was
originally supposed to be published in 1997 (SN, 02/01/05).

But upon appeal from the Federation of American Scientists, DOE
officials last week said the blanket denial could not be sustained,
and that while some portions of the document were exempt from
disclosure, others were not.

So, for example, "information revealing the location and quantity of
fissile material can be properly withheld" for security reasons.

However, the report also "contains a great deal of purely factual
information, such as facts, figures, photographs and historical
narrative...A significant amount of the withheld factual information
contained in the Report could be released without revealing the
location or quantities of fissile materials."

Accordingly, the DOE Office of Security was advised that it "cannot
continue to withhold this information under the cited reasoning" and
must either release all such factual information or else provide a
new rationale for withholding it.

The March 7 ruling of the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals is
available here:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2005/03/doe-heu-appeal.pdf

A previously published companion report on the history of plutonium
production, entitled "Plutonium: The First 50 Years," is here:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50y.html


VANDENBERG TAKES LAUNCH SCHEDULE OFFLINE

The U.S. Air Force has removed its unclassified launch schedule for
the Western Range launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California from public access, the Santa Maria Times reported
yesterday.

"Although the launches aren't classified, we still must weigh
operational security concerns when determining what and how much
information to make available and when to make it available," Capt.
Todd Fleming, Vandenberg Air Force Base's public affairs chief, said
in response to written questions from the Times. "We are currently
evaluating the security risks with providing such easy and early
public access to launch information."

"Vandenberg's unclassified schedule Web site has evolved from giving
detailed information such as launch dates and liftoff times to more
recently revealing only the month for a mission. Now even that is
gone...," the Times reported.

See "Launch Schedule Off Web" by Janene Scully, Santa Maria Times,
March 13:

http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2005/03/13/news/local/news01.txt


JOAN GRIMSON NAMED TO PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD

Joan Vail Grimson, a former staff member of the Moynihan Commission
on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, the National Security
Council, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was named
last week as the seventh member of the nine-member Public Interest
Declassification Board, a new advisory body.

She was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Frist, as noted in the
March 10 Congressional Record:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/grimson.html

Two more members have yet to be named to the PIDB, one by the House
Republican leadership and one by the Senate Democratic leadership.


SPACE STATION TANGLED UP IN IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT

The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, intended in part to curb the
transfer of sensitive technologies from Russia to Iran, is now
poised to jeopardize U.S.-Russian cooperation on the International
Space Station.

The 2000 statute has the "potential to stop the space-station program
dead in its tracks," said David Goldston of the House Science
Committee in an interview with the Economist, which reported the
story in its March 12 issue.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service provides
background on the Act and its largely unintended impact on the
International Space Station.

See "The Iran Nonproliferation Act and the International Space
Station: Issues and Options," March 2, here:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/space/RS22072.pdf


SIHANOUK, KING OF BLOGS

His Peculiar Majesty Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia has joined the
blogosphere, opining regularly on current events on his own web
site.

The Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) of the Central
Intelligence Agency "first observed the blog in late February...,"
according to a FBIS report.

"Since then it has evolved into a daily report on a range of current
issues, including some with political content. So far, most of the
postings appear without comment while others contain subtle wording,
or use question and exclamation marks, to convey Sihanouk's views--
frequently as veiled tangents-- on given issues."

See "Sihanouk Launches 'News From Cambodia' Blog," FBIS Report, March
10, which gives several examples of the King's contributions:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/03/sihanouk.html

The blog itself, which is mostly in French, may be found here (see
"Royal Messages 2005"):

     http://www.norodomsihanouk.info/



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
     secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to
     secrecy_news-remove@lists.fas.org

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Secrecy News has an RSS feed at:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.rss

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691
*****************************************************************
 37 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
 
                         FR Doc 05-4963 

[Federal Register: March 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 12460-12461] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14mr05-42]                         
 
Flats AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats.
 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, April 7, 2005, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, Room L-211, Front Range 
Community College, 3705 West 112th Avenue, Westminister, CO.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Executive Director, 
Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, 
Building 60, Room 107B, Golden, CO 80403; telephone (303) 
966-7855; fax (303) 966- 7856.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: 1. Presentation on Available Chapters of the 
Draft Rocky Flats Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 
Report.
 
2. Update on the Independent Validation and Verification of Rocky 
Flats Cleanup.
 
3. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary. Public 
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens 
Advisory Board, 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, Building 60, Room 107B, 
Golden, CO 80403; telephone (303) 966-7855. Hours of operations 
are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Minutes will also 
be made available by writing or calling Ken Korkia at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Board meeting minutes are 
posted on RFCAB's Web site within one month following each 
meeting at: http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML.
 
[[Page 12461]] Issued at Washington, DC on March 8, 2005.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4963 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 38 Physics Today: Los Alamos Workers Debate the Labs Safety, Morale, and Leadership 

March 2005
 
As the division leader for health, safety, and radiation
protection at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), I am well
aware of public discussion about the laboratory’s safety record
and the reasonableness of last summer’s decision to suspend
activities here (see Brad Lee Holian’s Opinion piece, Physics
Today, December 2004, ). 

Director G. Peter Nanos said that he suspended operations
because he had little confidence that, as an institution, we had
sufficiently identified and addressed our risks and potential
vulnerabilities. Critics have argued that LANL’s safety record
was good enough, and they therefore questioned the logic
underlying the director’s actions. 

In my opinion, LANL’s safety record is not good enough. The
laboratory collectively, and all employees individually, must
redouble their efforts to embrace a safety mindset, reduce
safety incidents, and strive for a best-in-class record that is
immune to debate. 

Like most statistics, those relating to safety can be presented
in many ways to support just about any message, and a number of
attendant complexities are difficult to completely analyze. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s standardized
total recordable injury rate, the number of injuries per 100
person-years worked, establishes uniform categories of injuries
that allow for comparison of safety rates of businesses that
represent the same type of industry and organizational size. 

In July 2004, the Department of Energy’s average injury rate for
its 27 research contractor organizations was 1.7, compared to
LANL’s rate of 1.9. While these data indicate that Los Alamos
accident rates hover around the mean for DOE research
contractors, it also indicates that we are far from
best-in-class. Also, though LANL’s injury rate improved
dramatically between 1996 (6.0 injury rate) and 2001 (1.5 injury
rate), over the past few years our rate of improvement has not
just stagnated, but actually reversed. 

As a nuclear laboratory, LANL bears an enormous public trust.
Society tends to tolerate accidents resulting from familiar
causes such as construction or driving; at the same time,
society is intolerant of accidents at a place where the hazards
are unfamiliar and potentially catastrophic. The public holds
the laboratory to a very high standard of safety, and it’s our
job to meet that standard. 

In scientific research, we content ourselves with nothing less
than best-in-class. Why would we settle for anything less in
safety when the stakes—the health and lives of our
employees—matter even more? 

In hindsight, the statistics paint a revealing picture about
safety at Los Alamos. But in the midst of July’s crises and
turmoil, what drove Nanos’s decision was a very real concern:
his regard for each and every employee, and his knowledge of the
human toll that any safety incident takes. Lee McAtee () Los
Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 


-----------------------------------------------------------------


Since 1996, I have served as a safety consultant to Los Alamos
National Laboratory. In that capacity, I have provided guidance
to senior executive team members, two past laboratory directors,
and the current director. I have also provided safety training
for laboratory staff and management. 

The laboratory exists within a complex nuclear industry with
extraordinarily high consequences for error; as a result, the
public demands nothing less than this institution’s total
commitment to achieving the best safety and operational records
possible. 

There is a simple rationale for Director Nanos’s standard and
expectation of excellence in all things: The higher the hazards
and risks of an operation, the more important it is to develop
the highest standards for operating procedures and performance,
and to implement those standards consistently. 

It’s easy to become complacent about safety. “Experts” fall into
the trap of expertise: As they become more familiar with safety
hazards, they perceive the risks as being lower than they really
are. Such underestimation leads, in turn, to a false sense of
confidence and the gradual erosion of standards. The result?
Safety loses its prominence and preeminence, and individuals
fail to focus on the big-picture priority of safety. 

The consequences of anything less than a full commitment to
excellence in safety are clear and often tragic. Certainly, in a
culture of excellence, there is no room for carelessness with,
or willful disregard of, important standards and processes. But
on a more fundamental level, data points on an injury and
illness chart represent human beings and pain and suffering for
them and their families. 

Organizations that succeed in achieving greatness do not shy
away from looking at the hard facts, but instead confront those
facts and use them to drive continuous improvement. Here, in my
view, are the hard facts about safety at Los Alamos: 

  + The laboratory’s safety performance is good. Everyone
working at the laboratory, and those who support it, should be
proud of that record. However, 250–300 significant injuries
still occur each year. That situation must improve, and I cannot
imagine a reason for not working hard to make that improvement
happen. Safety excellence requires it. 

  + For about four years, the laboratory’s safety performance
has been on a plateau. This stagnation is inconsistent with the
continuing performance improvement achieved by both private
industry and the Department of Energy during the same time
period. One hallmark of an excellent organization is continuous
improvement in results. Because results follow systems, the
laboratory must improve its safety systems if it is to improve
its safety results. 

  + There have been several recent serious incidents and
injuries. The laboratory concluded that a pattern of near misses
and security incidents over the past year has caused increasing
concerns at DOE, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
the University of California, and LANL. Some of those have had
the potential to cause serious permanent injury or death. One
significant root cause in a few of the incidents was failure to
follow and implement accepted industry standards. A failure to
implement management systems that ensured uniform high quality
was another significant root cause for losing focus on safety. 

Confronting these hard facts about safety is the first step in
achieving the lab’s goal of excellence in not just science, but
also operations and safety. We have to face the present before
we can look toward our future. 

Excellence in science, operations, and safety is not
exclusionary. Rather, the three areas of excellence are
interdependent, and Los Alamos must pursue all of them to
fulfill its national security mission. That task requires the
wholehearted commitment, dedication, attention, and awareness of
every single individual working at the laboratory. It demands a
culture of excellence—the product of not one great decision, but
a million correct decisions made every day. The stakes are too
high to permit anything less. David A. Herbert () Los Alamos
National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 

Holian replies: Spokespeople from Los Alamos National Laboratory
argue that in shutting down the lab, G. Peter Nanos showed that
he really cares about the individuals who are injured or nearly
killed, and their families, rather than only the statistics. But
LANL scientists care far more—arguably more than
management—about the human costs, because we are the troops in
the trenches. Obviously, it is in our self-interest to strive
continually for a safe work environment, an essential component
of good science. 

Do the safety data show that behavior at the laboratory is so
bad that we scientists and workers deserve the public
humiliation and opprobrium heaped upon us by our own director? 

In my Opinion piece, I made sure that the accident rates I
reported placed all the labs and industries on equal footing:
The rate is the number of accidents requiring medical attention,
for everyone at the site—including outside contractors and
maintenance and construction workers— divided by 100
person-years, so as to normalize institutions for their size and
work done. Averaged over a year, the rate is a rough measure of
the percent likelihood that someone would have needed medical
care for an injury. 

I focused on the national labs that perform work similar to
LANL’s, and did not discuss the average over the entire
Department of Energy complex, which would have also included
offices that only process paper and places that have been
totally shut down, apart from guards at the gates. If Los Alamos
were in that category, it too might have a very low accident
rate, but that would not be a very good outcome for national
security. 

With the ground rules outlined above, all DOE labs had
comparable average total-site accident rates at the end of
2003—for the four major nuclear weapons labs (LANL, Lawrence
Livermore, Sandia, and Oak Ridge), the rates were 1.9, 3.3, 3.2,
and 2.3, respectively.1 Following the successful implementation
of a safety program at LANL, the trend in its yearly accident
rates for the years 1997–2003 was downward: 5.6, 3.5, 2.6, 1.9,
1.8, 2.0, and 1.9. During this time, LANL consistently led the
other three weapons labs (apart from the first year only, when
rates for Sandia and Oak Ridge were better). This level of
attention to safety can hardly be characterized objectively as
“stagnation.” 

Were the lessons learned by managers during the shutdown so
critical that the laboratory’s scientific work could be
suspended for three months, experimental work stopped for more
than six months, customers disappointed, students discouraged
from coming to LANL, and staff driven to contemplate leaving?
From the taxpayers’ perspective, the annual cost of doing
business at LANL is more than $2 billion. While salaries were
being paid, benefits were being given out, and retirement plans
were proceeding as usual, scientists’ livelihoods were put on
hold. By livelihood, I mean the reason that scientists are eager
to get up in the morning and go to work. The morale at Los
Alamos has been thoroughly devastated by Nanos’s unprecedented,
unwarranted action. 

Did the shutdown result in a dramatic drop in the labwide
accident rate, as one might reasonably suspect? Surprisingly,
the LANL rate went up dramatically in the first three months of
the shutdown, from 2.0 for January– June 2004 to 2.5 for
January– September 2004, although the rates for the four
nuclear-weapons labs ended up closely comparable,
nevertheless.1,2 One likely contribution to the remarkable rise
in the LANL rate was the intense stress from the rush to meet
artificial deadlines during the early chaos of the shutdown. The
director’s threat to close the lab for any future safety or
security infraction put a punishing psychological burden on the
staff. His decision was a classic top-down fiat. As any safety
expert knows, you improve safety by getting buy-in from the
workers—by valuing them and the work they do—and by listening to
them. 
References
 1. See the Department of Energy's injury and illness statistics
at . 2. See . 

Brad Lee Holian () Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos,
New Mexico     

*****************************************************************
 39 DOE: Office of Science; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
 
                         FR Doc 05-4962 
[Federal Register: March 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 12461] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14mr05-43]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the High Energy 
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of 
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and 
Thursday, May 19, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Radisson Hotel, 2121 P St., NW., Washington, DC 20037. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Strauss, Executive 
Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of 
Energy; SC-20/ Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-3705.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice 
and guidance on a continuing basis with respect to the high 
energy physics research program.
 
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the 
following: Wednesday, May 18, 2005, and Thursday, May 19, 2005.
 
Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Programs.
 
Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle 
Physics Program.
 
Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High 
Energy Physics.
 
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 Panel, 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 Bruce Strauss, 301-903-3705 or 
Bruce.Strauss@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 
Panel will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct 
of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. 
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 90 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 in Washington, DC on March 8, 2005.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4962 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas SUN: Book: Nazis Tested Nuclear Device in 1945

Today: March 14, 2005 at 11:00:32 PST 

 By TONY CZUCZKA ASSOCIATED PRESS 

BERLIN (AP) - 

Nazi Germany tested a crude nuclear device in March 1945,
killing hundreds of people in a massive explosion south of
Berlin, a German researcher claims in a new book published
Monday. 

That the Nazis conducted nuclear experiments has been known for
decades, but "Hitler's Bomb," by Berlin academic Rainer Karlsch,
suggests they may have been closer to building an atomic weapon
for military use than previously believed. 

No independent corroboration of the claims was immediately
available. 

"German physicians did not lag behind their colleagues in the
United States and Britain in their understanding of theory,"
Karlsch told a news conference. "They knew what a plutonium bomb
was and what a uranium-235 bomb was." 

What Nazi Germany lacked was enough fissile material - such as
enriched uranium - to make a full-size, functioning nuclear
bomb, he said. 

Other researchers already have theorized that the Nazis
conducted crude nuclear experiments, but Karlsch said he has
discovered additional evidence, notably in the archives of the
former Soviet Union. 

The book cites postwar witness accounts and Soviet military
intelligence reports to back up its theory of a March 3, 1945,
experimental nuclear test blast at the Nazis' Ohrdruf military
testing area, but it offers no direct documentary proof. 

Karlsch acknowledged he had no positive proof the Nazis
conducted a nuclear test blast, but he hoped his book would
provoke more research. Soil samples that Karlsch had analyzed
for his book found the presence of radioactive isotopes, he
said. 

Witnesses reported a bright flash of light and a column of smoke
over the area that day, and residents said they had nausea and
nosebleeds for days afterward, Karlsch says. 

One witness said he helped burn heaps of corpses inside the
military area the next day. They were hairless and some had
blisters and "raw, red flesh." 

Karlsch concludes that the blast killed several hundred
prisoners of war and Nazi inmates forced to work at the site.
Two months later, on May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered after
the Soviets captured Berlin. 

Ohrdruf, located in the southeastern state of Thuringia, was a
Soviet military base after World War II. 
*****************************************************************
 41 Bellona: Norway to sponsor replacement of all nuclear lighthouses in
north-west Russia
 
Norway and Russia have agreed to replace over hundred nuclear
powered lighthouses in the north-west region during a conference
in February. 

2005-03-14 18:43

Last month Norway signed an agreement of intent stipulating
Norway will finance replacement of all the radioisotope
thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, used as power sources for
lighthouses and navigation beacons in the north-west Russia. It
is more than 110 generators situated in the remote areas in
Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Nenetz regions. The agreement was
signed in the frames of the international conference on RTGs
decommissioning organised by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. The
representatives of French Foreign Ministry, the Russian Defence
Ministry, Rosatom, Mayak plant, IAEA, administration of Murmansk
region and Finnmark county, NRPA and DOE took part in event. 

Under-secretary of State Kim Traavik and deputy director of
Rosatom, co-chairman of MNEPR Sergey Antipov signed the
agreement. In 2005, it is expected to decommission 31 nuclear
generators. Rosatom concern promised to replace all the
lighthouse nuclear generators in Russia by 2012. 

The chief of economy department of Murmansk region Alexander
Ruzankin said to Interfax, that on January 1, 2001, 153
radioisotope thermoelectric generators were scattered along the
coast of the Barents and White Sea. By 1 January, 2005, 55
generators had been decommissioned and sent to the Mayak plant
thanks to the financial assistance from Norway. In 2005, 31 RTGs
are scheduled for decommissioning. According to Ruzankin, if the
same tempo of decommissioning remains, all the RTGs in the
north-west could be replaced by 2010, Interfax reported. 

Bellona was one of the observers at the conference and approves
the reached agreements as the RTGs are not just dangerous from
the environmental point of view, but also can become the threat
for non-proliferation of the radioactive materials and can be
used for ”dirty bomb”. ”We also welcome the establishment of the
interdepartmental commission by Rosatom which began listing off
all the RTGs on the Russian territory” said Bellona’s
representative Igor Koudrik. ”At the same time Bellona stands
for faster RTGs replacement tempo (earlier than 2012) as
practically every year they are vandalised by the ”precious
metal hunters”. Besides, not only financing is needed for the
RTGs decommissioning, but the infrastructure development. For
example, Mayak plant is capable to decommission only 100 RTGs
per year while, according to the estimations, Russia has more
than 1000 RTGs. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the whole
chain of the RTGs decommissioning and come to the right
solution” said Igor Koudrik. 
  
  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
*****************************************************************
 42 Scotsman.com: Nazi Germany Tested Nuclear Bomb Near War's End - Claim
 
Mon 14 Mar 2005   			 			

"PA" 

Nazi Germany tested a crude nuclear device, killing hundreds of
people in a massive explosion south of Berlin in the dying days
of the Second World War, a researcher claims in a new book. 

That the Nazis conducted nuclear experiments has been known for
decades, but Hitler’s Bomb by Berlin academic Rainer Karlsch,
published today, suggests they may have been closer to building
a bomb for military use than previously thought. 

No independent corroboration of the claims was available. 

“German physicians did not lag behind their colleagues in the
US and Britain in their understanding of theory,” Karlsch said
in Berlin. “They knew what a plutonium bomb was and what a
uranium-235 bomb was.” 

What Nazi Germany lacked was enough fissile material – such as
enriched uranium – to make a full-size, functioning nuclear
bomb, he said. 

The book cites post-war witness accounts and Soviet military
intelligence reports to back up its theory of a March 3, 1945,
experimental nuclear test blast at the Nazis’ Ohrdruf military
testing area, but offers no direct documentary proof. 

Karlsch acknowledged that he has no positive proof the Nazis
conducted a nuclear test blast, but hopes that his book will
provoke more research. 

Witnesses reported a bright flash of light and a column of smoke
over the area that day, and residents said they had nausea and
nosebleeds for days afterward, Karlsch says. 

One witness said he helped burn heaps of corpses inside the
military area the next day. They were hairless and some had
blisters and “raw, red flesh.” 

Karlsch concludes that the blast killed several hundred
prisoners of war and Nazi inmates forced to work at the site.
Two months later, on May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered after
the Soviets captured Berlin. 

Ohrdruf, located in the south-eastern state of Thuringia, was a
Soviet military base after the war. 

Soil samples that Karlsch had analysed for his book found the
presence of radioactive isotopes, he said.

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************