*****************************************************************
07/25/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.170
*****************************************************************
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 RIA Novosti: Iran believes it still has right to create full nuclear
2 Persian Journal: Iran slams Chirac's comments on mullahs' nuclear pr
3 IPS: POLITICS: Iran Sits Pretty in World's Hottest Region
4 MNA: Iran will definitely overcome nuclear challenge - foreign minis
5 Korea Herald: 6 parties may discuss venue change
6 BBC: N Korean talks: Who wants what
7 RIA Novosti: North Korean nuclear talks expected to deliver
8 RIA Novosti: Russian/North Korean bilateral talks ahead of six-party
9 BBC: North Korea nuclear talks resume
10 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S., N. Korea Meet for Bilateral Exchang
11 Xinhua: New round of six-party talks to open Tuesday morning
12 Korea Times: US, N. Korea Compare Notes Prior to 6-Way Talks in Beij
13 Korea Times: NKs Talks Tactics Follow Scenario
14 Korea Times: Restart of Nuclear Talks
15 Reuters: US, N.Korea nuclear envoys meet on eve of talks
16 Reuters: Two-stage talks possible on N.Korea issue - paper
17 Mos News: Russia Rejects Japan Abduction Issue at N. Korea Nuclear T
18 AFP: Japan risks being odd man out in six-nation Korean nuclear cris
19 AFP: US to work with Japan on abduction issue at six-party talks
20 US: [NukeNet] Don't Forget: Today is Senate Call-In Day!
21 US: ICT: Navajos protest energy exploitation at council
22 US: NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Impact of Potentially Degra
23 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Notice
24 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [VIEWPOINT] Nuclear powers shake up order
25 Pravda: Yushchenko doubts Ukraine was right to disown nuclear weapon
26 Greenpeace: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
27 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: India-US nuclear cooperation and Pakistan
28 Indian Express: Ending our nuclear winter
29 Asia Times Online: Uranium at the core
NUCLEAR REACTORS
30 US: Las Vegas SUN: Celebrities come out to protest nuclear power
31 Xinhua: Pakistan eager to expand cooperation in nuclear energy
32 US: NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company, et al. South Texas Project,
33 RedNova News: Energy Bill Boosts Nuke Plant Construction
34 US: Reuters: Exelon Ill. Quad Cities 1 nuke cut to 20 pct power
35 US: Reuters: PPL Pa. Susquehanna 1 nuke dips to 73 pct power
NUCLEAR SECURITY
36 US: NRC: Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security Ba
NUCLEAR SAFETY
37 US: [du-list] Conclusions and Recomendations from SANDIA REPORT
38 TIME.com: Life After Death
39 US: NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impa
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
40 US: [NukeNet] House Panel Issues Subpoena Tied to Nuclear Waste
41 US: Musicians, Actors oppose nuclear dumps
42 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $6,000 Fine for High Mountain Inspection Servi
43 AU ABC: Nuclear dump leak may contaminate water: expert
44 AU ABC: MP urges 'people power' to stop waste transport
45 US: NewMexican: Radioactive tailings will be moved away from Colorad
46 Las Vegas SUN: Porter says full documents not received
47 US: NRC: RIN 3150--AH75 spent fuel casts rev 4
48 Daily Review: Russians learn environmental lessons
49 US: AU ABC: Nuclear dump site gets thumbs down -
50 US: PE.com: Agency raises perchlorate concerns
51 US: National Indigenous Times: CLC dumps on nuclear waste plans
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
52 lamonitor.com: Photographer remembers the big day
53 lamonitor.com: LANL holds public meeting on consent order
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 RIA Novosti: Iran believes it still has right to create full nuclear cycle
- Khatami
26/07/2005
TEHERAN, July 25 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - President of
Iran Mohammad Khatami said that his country did not intend to
give up its right to create a full nuclear cycle, the
presidential press office said Monday.
Khatami said that Iran would never give up its legitimate right
to develop peaceful nuclear technologies and create a full
nuclear cycle. He added that the voluntary suspension of uranium
enrichment in the country was only temporary.
The president said Iran had demonstrated its good intentions on
many occasions and had suspended operations at its nuclear
center that did not relate to uranium enrichment. It had also
complied with a request from the European Union to delay its
decision on resuming uranium enrichment. "But this cannot
continue any longer," the president said.
Khatami said that Iran was ready to cooperate with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European three
(Great Britain, France and Germany). He added that his country
would continue to work with the IAEA and the European three and
that he was sure that simple and logical solutions could be
found, if U.S. pressure did not prevail.
Pursuant to earlier agreements, the European Union will submit
draft proposals to resolve the problem of "Iran's nuclear
dossier" by late July. But Iran insists that the proposals
should provide for the resumption of uranium enrichment. Teheran
says that if they do not, it will lift the moratorium and
continue developing a full nuclear cycle on its own.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
2 Persian Journal: Iran slams Chirac's comments on mullahs' nuclear program -
www.iranian.ws
Jul 24, 2005
Haaretz
A senior Iranian mullah this weekend slammed French President
Jacques Chirac for comments he made on Iran's nuclear program in
a Friday interview to Haaretz.
"The possibility that Iran will equip itself with nuclear
weaponry is unacceptable to France, its partners and the entire
world," Chirac told Haaretz. When asked on the possibility of
imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic if it chooses to
ignore international demands, he went beyond his previous
statements in the firmness of his response.
"We are demanding of Iran concrete guarantees that its nuclear
program will be restricted to peaceful and civilian purposes,"
he said. "If this does not prove to be the case, it will of
course be necessary to transfer the handling [of the Iranian
problem] to the UN Security Council."
Iranian.ws
*****************************************************************
3 IPS: POLITICS: Iran Sits Pretty in World's Hottest Region
Inter Press Service News Agency Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jul 21 (IPS) - Despite the best efforts of the
administration of U.S. President George W. Bush to make Iran an
international pariah, the Islamic Republic keeps wracking up one
diplomatic victory after another.
One month after the surprise election victory of hard-line
President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran finds itself in a
substantially stronger position to resist the U.S. campaign to
isolate it as part of a strategy of "regime change."
Last weekend's three-day visit by U.S.-backed Iraqi President
Ibrahim Jaafari to Tehran, where he was warmly received by
regime's top religious and government officials, was only the
latest, albeit the most spectacular, of a series of events that
underlines Iran's growing leverage.
That his visit, which followed a series high-level meetings
between the two countries that produced a military-cooperation
accord among other agreements, included a prayerful pilgrimage
to the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic
Republic and arch-foe of the "Great Satan" itself, must have
stuck deeply in the craw of neo-conservatives and other hawks
here who had long assumed that a "liberated" Iraq would
gratefully cooperate in ousting the mullahs in Tehran.
The hawks, who welcomed Ahmedinejad's victory in the belief
that an ostentatiously hard-line president would put to rest the
notion that there was a "moderate" faction the West could deal
with, have still not given up hopes for achieving regime change
-- be it through a U.S.-supported "democratic revolution" a la
Ukraine and/or by military strikes on selected nuclear and
political targets that would foment a popular uprising.
Despite a greater-than-expected turnout and landslide victory
by the winner, the hawks have continued to argue that "the
country is ripe for revolution," as Jeffrey Gedmin, the
neo-conservative director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin,
wrote in this week's current Weekly Standard.
But even if -- and most Iran experts here dismiss Gedmin's
opinion as more ideological than informed -- internal
unhappiness with the Islamic regime has reached an all-time
high, the international context is significantly more favourable
to Iran in any confrontation with the U.S. than it has been for
some time.
While Washington's military campaign in Afghanistan and
invasion of Iraq were designed in part to intimidate Iran,
Tehran actually emerged with as a big winner, according to most
regional observers.
"Its two greatest regional enemies, the Baathist government in
Iraq and the Sunni extremist regime in Afghanistan were both
smashed without Iran having to fire a shot," notes Anatol
Lieven, an analyst at the New America Foundation.
"Now, it has governments in Afghanistan and still more in Iraq
that are basically very sympathetic to Teheran and Teheran's
view of regional affairs" -- an observation given much more
force by last weekend's festivities in Tehran.
And even though Iran suddenly found some 160,000 U.S. military
troops just next door, that, too, was not necessarily as
daunting as the hawks had thought it might be. After all, Iran's
unspoken potential to make life much more difficult for many of
its new and already-overstretched U.S. neighbours has always
given it a certain amount of leverage.
But in recent weeks, Iran has found its position getting
stronger, sometimes even with Bush's seemingly unwitting
assistance.
The Bush administration's agreement this week to sell India
advanced nuclear technology despite Delhi's boycott of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for example, has created the
perception of a double standard that Iran is likely to use to
its advantage both in negotiations with the EU-3 (Britain,
France, and Germany) and in fending off U.S. efforts to get the
U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against it for
allegedly violating the NPT.
"Iran will argue how can it be penalised for minor
transgressions of the NPT, which it has signed, when India, a
nuclear power, gets full nuclear cooperation from the U.S. when
it is not even a member," noted Arjun Makhijani, director of the
Institute for Energy and Envrionmental Research.
"How can you argue that Russia can't sell (nuclear) reactors to
Iran after this?" said Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert
at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace. "That's what
Iran is going to count on."
Bush, of course, approved the nuclear deal as part of a
diplomatic effort to promote India as "a major world power in
the 21st century" and, more specifically, as a counterweight to
China (whose growing demonisation by Republicans in Congress and
Sinophobes in the Pentagon also helps Iran by diverting
attention to an even bigger "threat.")
But conferring on India regional superpower status to contain
China may further shield Tehran, which has long-standing and
close ties to New Delhi, from Washington's more-aggressive
designs.
The fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his delegation,
despite having been given the red-carpet treatment at the White
House this week, reportedly rejected all appeals to reconsider
their support for the proposed multi-billion-dollar "peace
pipeline" that will transport Iranian gas to India via Pakistan
offered clear evidence that Delhi has not intention of acting as
Washington's pawn on the global chessboard.
"The Indians will not be corralled into any kind of containment
policy regarding China and Iran, but especially Iran," said
Rajan Menon, a foreign-policy expert at Lehigh University. Given
the strength of its own relationship with Iran and its large
Muslim population, he said, "The U.S. would risk a break with
India if it actually attacked Iran."
The fact, of course, that Iran is a oil and gas exporter at a
time of record prices (in part due to the instability in
U.S.-occupied Iraq) and growing great-power competition for
energy resources is also a major factor in Tehran's increasing
clout. In addition to India, China, which late last year signed
a 25-year, 100-billion-dollar gas deal with Iran, has a great
deal invested in Iran's stability.
"China sees Iran as a very important part of its energy
strategy, and it's powerful enough to stand up with them if they
need support at the UN Security Council," said Gary Sick, an
Iran expert at Columbia University who advised former President
Jimmy Carter on the National Security Council. "For its part,
Iran sees China as a potentially very valuable ally."
Nor is it just China. Russia, which continues to support Iran's
civilian nuclear programme nuclear plant, is also more likely to
support Iran at the Security Council, less for love of Tehran
than because it has become increasingly alienated from
Washington over the past year, according to Wayne White,
director of the Middle East Institute (MEI) and a former top
State Department expert on the Gulf.
That alienation was on display earlier this month when Russia
and China encouraged the four other Central Asia members of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to call on Washington to
set a deadline for withdrawing from military bases in Kyrgyzstan
and Uzbekistan, both SCO states.
The bases, which have been used to support U.S. military and
intelligence operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and which
some have suggested could be used in similar ways against Iran,
was widely seen as the opening shot by both Moscow and Beijing
in a concerted effort to roll back strategic gains made by
Washington in Central Asia in the immediate aftermath of the
Sep. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
"Without even having orchestrated some master plan, Iran is
sitting pretty in Central Asia at the moment," said Menon, who
recalled Russia and Iran helped broker a peace accord ending the
civil war in Tajikistan in 1994. "It's a multipolar region, and
the fact that we're having problems with so many players gives
the Iranians a lot more running room."
Meanwhile, the rapidly fading likelihood that Turkey will be
admitted to the EU in the wake of the French and Dutch rejection
of the EU Constitution, as well as growing concerns in Ankara
about both Kurdish unrest in a weakened Syria and its own
Kurdish insurgency, offers yet another opening to woo a key
neighbour whose alliance with Washington has been under
unprecedented strain for more than two years now.
These diplomatic advances have contributed to growing
self-confidence inside Iran, particularly among the new
generation of leaders, including Ahmadinejad, who "have grown up
with the idea that Iran makes its own decisions and takes its
own path regardless of what outsiders think," according to Sick.
"From inside Iran, there's a sense that everything is breaking
for us."
"What I worry about is that they will conclude that they don't
need to worry so much about compromise, and that could be very
dangerous," he went on. "They do still have to think about their
neighbours, which at this point includes the U.S." *****
(END/IPS/NA/MM/AP/IP/NC/IK/BW/ML/JL/KS/05) (END/2005)
Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 MNA: Iran will definitely overcome nuclear challenge - foreign minister
2005/07/24
[ src=] Print version [ src=]
Kharrazi said here on Monday that the nuclear issue and regional
developments are the two main challenges facing Iran’s next
foreign minister and expressed hope that his replacement would do
better than he had done.
Speaking in a farewell ceremony for reporters, Kharrazi told the
Mehr News Agency that Iran’s nuclear dossier will be one of the
most significant challenges for future administrations, but added
that Iran would definitely overcome the problems.
The Iranian nation is proud of the country’s achievements in
the field of nuclear technology, all Iranians are determined to
support these achievements, and the nuclear negotiations have
progressed well so far by relying on this national support, he
added.
As a significant regional power, Iran should stabilize its
position in such a way that all the world, and particularly the
major powers, would have to recognize the country’s position,
and significant steps have been taken to achieve this ideal, he
said.
Iran’s position has become more stable, and, despite all the
negative propaganda, no power in the world can deride the dignity
and sovereignty of the Islamic Republic, he observed.
He went on to say that the regional challenges facing the next
administration could be resolved through resistance, logic, and
negotiation.
According to polls, some 70 to 80 percent of the people have
expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Foreign
Ministry over the past eight years, Kharrazi said, but added,
“Of course, our performance has not been ideal, and we faced a
lot of problems.”
He also expressed hope that the experiences of the past eight
years would be fruitfully used by the next administration and
that the next foreign minister would be able promote Iran’s
foreign policy.
Kharrazi stated that the Islamic Republic can only remain stable
if forces come and go while the system continues its work.
Today, Iran is regarded as one of the most important countries in
the Middle East, which enjoys complete stability and a democratic
government and does not yield to oppression, he noted.
The foreign minister said that one of Iran’s most important
achievements during his tenure was the reduction in national
security costs gained by the expansion of ties with other
countries, especially neighboring states and members of the
European Union.
“Today, Iran’s active role in the international arena is
undeniable. Even the United States cannot deny this role, despite
its hostility toward the Islamic Republic.”
He called the nuclear issue the main priority for the next
administration’s foreign ministry, adding that developments in
Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan, the Caspian Sea, and the
Persian Gulf would be the next priorities.
“Iran’s economic affairs are also very important because we
believe Iran cannot live in isolation and should expand its
economic ties with the world.”
Asked what Iran would do if its nuclear dossier were to be
referred to the UN Security Council, Kharrazi said, “We have
some rights, and we will insist upon them. If the Europeans fail
to respond to those rights, we will follow our own path.
“A referral to the UN Security Council should have legal and
logical reasons. We have not acted contrary to our commitments.
What we want is legal and completely legitimate, and the
ambiguities mentioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency
have also been resolved.”
He stressed that there is no reason for referring Iran’s
nuclear dossier to the UN, since the Islamic Republic only seeks
to make peaceful use of nuclear technology in line with the terms
of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
SA/HL/HG End
MNA
© 2003 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Herald: 6 parties may discuss venue change
BEIJING - This could be the last round of six-party talks held
in Beijing, with China hinting it does not want to be the host
of the high profile meeting again.
According to sources, China has been suggesting the next round
of the six-party talks be held at another venue since the last
three sessions and the fourth starting today have been in
Beijing.
"It is likely that the members to the talks will discuss the
most appropriate venue to replace Beijing," a South Korean
source in China said on condition of anonymity.
But South Korean government officials said it is more
advantageous for the concerned parties to have China host the
talks unless Beijing feels too burdened and wants the venue to
move temporarily.
Hosting negotiations for the six countries is costly, even
though the cost of accommodation for the hundreds of delegates
is borne separately by each country.
The burden of hosting the highly sensitive talks regarding
North Korea's weapons of mass destruction appears less and less
attractive to China, which is facing challenges on many fronts,
including domestic affairs and a redefined position in the
global economy following last week's revaluation of the yuan.
China became host of the crucial six-party talks as the
international community sought a breakthrough in the nuclear
crisis between North Korea and the United States in 2002.
The United States wanted multilateral negotiations instead of
dealing directly with North Korea, while the North demanded
bilateral talks with Washington over its emerging enriched
uranium program.
When Washington's initial suggestion of holding a multilateral
meeting involving the permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council along with the two Koreas, Japan, Australia and the
European Union was flatly rejected by Pyongyang in January 2003,
then U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested Beijing would be the
best organizer and host of multi-way talks involving the United
States, China, Japan and the two Koreas.
Although this suggestion, covertly relayed by China to North
Korea, failed at first - resulting in unsuccessful three-way
talks between Washington, Beijing and Pyongyang - the attempt
laid the groundwork for molding the current six-party framework
established some months later.
After failing to see any progress in the three-way talks of
April 2003, China pushed for another multilateral effort, to
which both Washington and Pyongyang conceded.
The first six-nation talks opened in Beijing in August of the
same year.
Sources suggest an alternative location for the disarmament
negotiations could lie almost anywhere.
However, North Korea is most likely to agree only to a venue
that enables it to directly contact its main command center
during the negotiation process.
South Korea would be eager to host the talks since the nuclear
issue is a key national policy interest.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee and Kim Man-yong Korea Herald correspondents
2005.07.26
*****************************************************************
6 BBC: N Korean talks: Who wants what
Last Updated: Monday, 25 July, 2005
Representatives from six countries are meeting in Beijing for
talks aimed at breaking the impasse over North Korea's nuclear
weapons programmes.
Click on the map below to find out what each nation hopes to get
from the talks
United States
Washington wants North Korea to agree to end its nuclear
programmes, and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -
designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
In return, the US is understood to be willing to grant Pyongyang
a guarantee of non-aggression, but it is unlikely that this would
be the formal treaty that North Korea ideally wants.
It is also likely to promise the impoverished North Korea more
aid, including food and fuel, as part of any deal.
Washington wants to ensure that, this time, any settlement cannot
be broken.
Pyongyang violated a 1994 pact to halt its nuclear ambitions, and
the Bush administration is anxious that this does not happen
again.
The US is likely to want North Korea to destroy, not just close
down, its nuclear reactors. It also wants a reliable system of
verifying that North Korea is keeping to its agreements.
United Nations inspectors, who were expelled by Pyongyang in
2002, failed to spot an enriched uranium programme which North
Korea says it has been developing.
In the long term, the US says diplomatic ties with North Korea
are not possible until Pyongyang agrees to observe international
human rights conventions, adopt a less aggressive outlook and
stop selling its missile technology to other rogue states.
North Korea
North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons and to be working on
building up its arsenal.
The problem for the US, and the rest of the world, is that it is
very difficult to verify these claims.
North Korea says US hostility against it has forced it to seek a
nuclear deterrent - and it appears worried that, like Iraq, it
could be the victim of a pre-emptive US attack.
Pyongyang says it would be willing to give up its nuclear
programme, provided the US sign a security guarantee which is
more substantial than a general statement.
The beleaguered regime also wants an easing of economic
sanctions, and additional aid to support its creaking economy,
especially its energy needs.
China
China is likely to seek a middle-ground policy of containment
during the six-nation talks.
Even though Pyongyang is one of its closest allies, Beijing does
not want to see a nuclear North Korea on its border.
But nor does it want Kim Jong-il's regime to come under more
pressure, economically or militarily.
If North Korea collapsed, China's border would be flooded with
hundreds of thousands of hungry North Koreans - a problem it is
already experiencing, albeit at a much lower level.
As North Korea's largest source of humanitarian support and
energy supplies, China is in a strong bargaining position.
It has already used its influence to bring several rounds of
six-party talks to fruition.
Beijing's increasingly proactive role marks a significant
departure in Chinese foreign policy regarding Pyongyang, which
used to be confined to behind-the-scenes negotiations.
But the extent of China's leverage over North Korea remains in
doubt. And Beijing's principal concern is its relationship with
the US.
South Korea
South Korea has always vehemently opposed its neighbour's nuclear
ambitions.
But it has often taken a less confrontational stance than the US,
concerned that threats to apply economic or even military
pressure would only provoke North Korea further.
South Korea has good reason to be anxious about the continuing
crisis.
Thousands of North Korean weapons are already poised on the
border, well within range of Seoul.
Japan
Japan, like the US, wants to maintain a tough line against North
Korea.
Tokyo feels threatened by nearby Pyongyang's weapons programme,
especially since the communist state test-fired a suspected
Taepodong-1 missile over Japan's main island of Honshu in 1998.
Japan also says the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by the
North Koreans decades ago should be raised at the Beijing talks.
In the past, Tokyo has made clear that this issue is just as
important to Japan as the nuclear stand-off.
Russia
Russia is opposed to the idea of a nuclear North Korea, but it
also has ties with Pyongyang which it would be loath to
jeopardise.
Like China, Russia provides much-needed aid to North Korea, and
also has business interests in the country.
Moscow has retained links with its communist neighbour ever since
the Soviet Union helped set up the country in the aftermath of
World War II.
But correspondents say that Moscow's influence may be limited,
primarily because Russia cannot commit a large financial outlay
to help North Korea economically.
*****************************************************************
7 RIA Novosti: North Korean nuclear talks expected to deliver
concrete results - Russian diplomat
26/07/2005
BEIJING, July 25 (RIA Novosti) - The fourth round of six-party
talks on North Korea's nuclear program will open in Beijing
Tuesday, with high-ranking diplomats from Russia, North and
South Korea, the United States, China, and Japan in attendance.
Alexander Alexeyev, deputy Russian foreign minister and head of
the Russian delegation, said all parties expect the talks to
result in new accords. "All the parties, including Russia, have
come to Beijing expecting concrete results," Alexeyev said,
adding that "time has not been wasted" since the third round
with intensive negotiations toward a fourth round.
Alexeyev said Russia has been advocating a package approach to
the problem based on "common sense."
Russia has repeatedly declared its preparedness to take part in
compensatory arrangements related to North Korea.
The six-party negotiations involving Russia, North and South
Korea, the United States, China, and Japan began in August 2003.
Three rounds of talks have been held to persuade North Korea to
give up its nuclear program.
The fourth round, initially scheduled for September 2004, was
postponed when North Korean negotiators refused to take part,
citing what they described as a hostile climate created by the
U.S. Pyongyang also demanded that an inquiry be launched into
South Korea's secret experiments with uranium and plutonium
since 1982.
Officials in Pyongyang are pushing for the U.S. to sign a
non-aggression pact and establish diplomatic relations with
North Korea. In addition, North Korea is also demanding the
resumption of fuel supply for its electrical power stations,
which was suspended in late 2002, and joint legal guarantees
with the negotiating parties for its security.
North Korea declared itself a nuclear power on February 12,
2005. There has been no clear evidence that it possesses nuclear
weapons because the International Atomic Energy Agency has not
been allowed to conduct inspections in North Korea and satellite
data has been inconclusive.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
8 RIA Novosti: Russian/North Korean bilateral talks ahead of six-party
negotiations
26/07/2005
BEIJING, July 25(RIA Novosti) - Russian and North Korean
delegations met for bilateral talks in Beijing Monday, ahead of
the next round of six-party negotiations on North Korea's
nuclear program.
A source close to negotiations said the Russian and North Korean
delegations, headed by deputy Russian foreign minister Alexander
Alexeyev and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan,
respectively, were satisfied with the "constructive"
discussions. However, the source did not disclose what matters
were discussed. On his arrival at the Beijing airport, Alexeyev
told journalists that all the negotiating parties, including
Russia, had come to Beijing expecting concrete results.
The fourth round of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear
program will open in Beijing Tuesday. The Russian delegation
already arrived in Beijing and was holding bilateral meetings
with the North Koreans ahead of the negotiations.
The six-party negotiations involving Russia, North and South
Korea, the United States, China, and Japan began in August 2003.
Three rounds of talks have been held to persuade North Korea to
give up its nuclear program.
The fourth round, initially scheduled for September 2004, was
postponed when North Korean negotiators refused to take part,
citing what they described as a hostile climate created by the
U.S. Pyongyang also demanded that an inquiry be launched into
South Korea's secret experiments with uranium and plutonium
since 1982.
Officials in Pyongyang are pushing for the U.S. to sign a
non-aggression pact and establish diplomatic relations with
North Korea. In addition, North Korea is also demanding the
resumption of fuel supply for its electrical power stations,
which was suspended in late 2002, and joint legal guarantees
with the negotiating parties for its security.
North Korea declared itself a nuclear power on February 12,
2005. There has been no clear evidence that it possesses nuclear
weapons because the International Atomic Energy Agency has not
been allowed to conduct inspections in North Korea and satellite
data has been inconclusive
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
9 BBC: North Korea nuclear talks resume
Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 July, 2005
[Kim Kye-gwan and Christopher Hill]
North Korea and the US had a pre-talks meeting for the first time
A fresh round of six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear
programme has opened in Beijing.
Negotiator Kim Kye-gwan said Pyongyang was ready to work to make
the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
The main aim of the negotiations is to persuade North Korea to
give up its nuclear arms programme in return for economic aid and
security guarantees.
The six-party talks had been stalled for more than an year after
North Korea withdrew, blaming US aggression.
Earlier this month it agreed to a fourth round with the US,
China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.
On the eve of the talks, US negotiator Christopher Hill had an
initial meeting with Mr Kim, which US officials described as
businesslike.
'Spirit of progress'
The BBC's Charles Scanlon in the South Korean capital Seoul says
there is little expectation of a breakthrough at the six-party
talks, but negotiators say this time they will be more flexible
and will discuss the problems in more detail.
As long as all the parti demonstrate wisdom and the spirit of
co-operation... our ship will reach the final destination of
denuclearisation Kim Kye-gwan
After the failure of the first three rounds, negotiators
fear further stalemate could derail hopes for a diplomatic
solution.
But in his opening remarks Mr Kim said Pyongyang was committed to
moving forward.
"The fundamental thing is to make real progress in realising the
de-nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula," he said.
He added that all parties must "demonstrate wisdom and the spirit
of co-operation".
The US envoy repeated assurances that Washington recognised North
Korea's sovereignty and would not attack.
Pyongyang wants a peace treaty with the US, and is demanding aid
in exchange for freezing and then scrapping its nuclear
programme.
In the 13 months since the last round of talks, North Korea has
declared itself a nuclear power.
But it has angrily denied US allegations that it is running a
second secret project to enrich uranium in addition to its
well-known plutonium programme.
Kidnapped Japanese
Washington meanwhile has been refusing to talk about any kind of
pact until North Korea agrees to shut down its nuclear weapons
programme.
The US has indicated that the country could face further
sanctions if it fails to resolve the nuclear crisis, although it
has stressed that it does not intend to attack the North.
South Korea, China and Russia fear that Tokyo's insistence on
raising the issue of the past abduction of Japanese citizens by
North Korea could endanger the negotiations.
In 2002 Pyongyang admitted to abducting 13 people during the
1970s and 1980s to train spies in Japanese language and culture.
It declared the issue over after repatriating five victims, while
saying the other eight had died. However, Japan believes some
could still be alive and living in North Korea.
The Russian negotiator, Alexander Alexeyev, has described the
Japanese position as counter-productive, though Washington has
backed Tokyo.
*****************************************************************
10 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S., N. Korea Meet for Bilateral Exchange
Home> National/Politics Updated July.25,2005 19:41 KST
Just one day ahead of the six-party talks on North KoreaˇŻs
nuclear program scheduled to open Tuesday, the heads of the six
national delegations have arrived in Beijing. Kenichiro Sasae,
(left) director general of the Japanese foreign ministryˇŻs
Asia-Oceania affairs bureau and chief negotiator for the talks,
answers questions from reporters in Beijing on Monday.
Meanwhile, RussiaˇŻs deputy foreign minister and top negotiator
for the talks, Alexander Alexeyev, gets in a car upon arriving
at Beijing Capital Airport on the same day./Yonhap
S. Korea, U.S., Japan Want Written Commitment from North
U.S. Point Man Seen as Key to Six-Party Talks
N. Korea's Fate Hangs by a Thin Thread
The chief negotiators of Pyongyang and Washington in six-party
talks met face-to-face at Beijing's Daioyutai State Guest House
on Monday, in the first official bilateral contacts in the two
years and nine months since the nuclear dispute reared its head.
The meeting between Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan and
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was largely
symbolic but offered a taste of things to come in the fresh
round of six-party talks.
Prior to the meeting, Hill said the two sides were "just trying
to get acquainted, to review how we see things coming up and
compare notes."
Working-level officials from the two countries secretly met
several times in New York this year and also briefly during
previous rounds, but the U.S. does not acknowledge those
meetings as formal negotiations. In the run-up to the resumption
of talks, Washington grudgingly acceded to bilateral talks
provided they come "within the framework of the six-party
talks." That framework has now been restored, and the opening
ceremony Tuesday will take only 30 minutes, with the rest of the
day devoted to bilateral contacts to give the two countries
plenty of opportunity for direct negotiations.
Hill on Monday only smiled when asked about reports that the
U.S. has proposed setting up a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang,
which represents the lowest possible level of a diplomatic
relationship. This was mooted during 1994 talks between the two
countries but rejected by Pyongyang at the time.
The White House had been cool on exchanging liaison offices, but
the wind changed in June, when President George W. Bush said the
U.S. was prepared to form a more normal relationship, always
provided North Korea dismantles its nuclear program.
Normalization of the relationship has been one of PyongyangˇŻs
core demands.
Just one day ahead of the six-party talks on North KoreaˇŻs
nuclear program scheduled to open on Tuesday, Song Min-soon,
head of the South Korean delegation, and Christopher Hill, head
of the U.S. delegation, answer reporters' questions at China
World Hotel in Beijing after a bilateral meeting Monday.
MondayˇŻs meeting appears to have mainly provided a platform for
the two sides to restate their existing positions. Kim
reportedly reiterated that any nuclear disarmament must be
mutual, while Hill responded this was unacceptable and insisted
North Korea must make a commitment to unilaterally scrapping its
nuclear weapons program during this round.
A South Korean official said since this was the first meeting
the two sides merely reconfirmed positions they would use as
baselines from which to conduct their future negotiations.
Meanwhile, the South Korean delegation also met separately with
their American and Japanese counterparts to discuss cooperation
during the negotiations.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
11 Xinhua: New round of six-party talks to open Tuesday morning
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-25 21:47:56
BEIJING, July 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The fourth round of
six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, which has
become the focus of world attention, is to open at 9:00 Tuesday
morning at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse here in Beijing.
Journalists gather in front of the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse,
where the fourth round of six-party talks on the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue is to be held, in Beijing, July 26,
2005. (Xinhua photo)
Wu Dawei, head of the China delegation, Kim Kye-gwan, head of
the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK), Christopher Hill, head of the United States delegation,
Song Min-soon, head of the delegation of the Republic of Korea
(ROK), Alexander Alexeyev, head of the Russia delegation and
Sasae Kenichiro, head of the Japan delegation, will address the
opening ceremony, which will be televised live.
After the opening ceremony, closed-door meetings and
bilateral talks will continue, during which substantial
negotiations will be held on resolving the Korean Peninsula
nuclear issue in a peaceful manner.
Since the conclusion of the last round of six-party talks,
the dialogue process has been tortuous. After a 13-month
standoff, the six nations finally all expressed their intention
of resuming the talks.
Delegations from DPRK, the United States, ROK, Russia and
Japan have arrived in Beijing since last Friday. Over the past
few days, they held a series of bilateral contacts and exchanged
views on issues to be discussed during the imminent six-party
talks. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing held a welcome
banquet in their honor Monday evening, at which the heads of the
six delegations gathered for the first time.
Cars carrying delegation members of the Republic of Korea
drive into the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, where the fourth
round of six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue
is to be held, in Beijing, July 26, 2005. (Xinhua photo)
From 2003 to 2004, China, the DPRK, the U.S., the ROK, Russia
and Japan held three rounds of six-party talks in Beijing.
Differing from the former talks, this round has no timetable for
a conclusion. In comparison with the latest round of six-party
talks, neither the DPRK or the U.S. have changed their basic
standpoints.
After he arrived in Beijing on Sunday, Christopher Hill,
head of the U.S. delegation and assistant secretary of state,
told reporters that the the United States is "very much
committed" to the fourth round of six-party talks, and he
wouldn't expect this to be the last set of negotiations.
The DPRK urged the U.S. to push forward the six-party talks
toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula with active
and sincere efforts.
More than 500 journalists from home and abroad are covering
the event. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Korea Times: US, N. Korea Compare Notes Prior to 6-Way Talks in Beijing
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Park Song-wu
Korea Times Correspondent
BEIJING _ Top delegates from North Korea and the United States
held an informal meeting here on Monday to ``compare notes''
prior to TuesdayˇŻs official opening of the six-party talks on
Pyongyang's nuclear programs.
During the 80-minute meeting at the Diaoyutai state guesthouse,
the two sides checked each other's willingness for progress in
the fourth round of the talks, which resumed after a 13-month
hiatus, a Seoul official said on a condition of anonymity.
``The two sides still need to narrow their opinion gap,ˇŻˇŻ he
said. ``But they have a common goal. They want to achieve a
substantive result this time. They will continue holding talks
and try to find a solution.ˇŻˇŻ
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told
reporters before attending the talks with his North Korean
counterpart Kim Kye-gwan that the meeting was intended to sound
out Pyongyang's readiness for the talks.
``We are just trying to get acquainted, review how we see things
coming up and compare notes,'' Hill said. ``We are looking
forward to working hard and trying to make some progress.''
It was the first encounter between Kim and Hill since a July 9
meeting in Beijing where the North Korean made the surprising
announcement that Pyongyang would return to the six-party talks.
The Monday meeting was also the first of its kind to be held
before an official opening of the six-party talks.
Chief delegates from the six participating countries _ the two
Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan _ scurried to hold
bilateral contacts throughout the day.
Before the Pyongyang-Washington meeting, South KoreaˇŻs chief
delegate, Song Min-soon, met the American chief delegate at
China World Hotel to share the results of his meeting with Kim a
day earlier. Hill also briefed Song about his Sunday meeting
with the Chinese delegation, led by Vice Foreign Minister Wu
Dawei.
Song also meet Japanese chief delegate, Kenichiro Sasae, before
attending a welcoming reception hosted at the state guesthouse
by China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing in the evening.
``We underlined that Japan should focus on the nuclear issue to
accomplish a constructive result,ˇŻˇŻ a Seoul official said.
``Japan didnˇŻt raise an objection to our request.ˇŻˇŻ
The official declined to elaborate. But his remarks were
apparently intended to warn Japan not to raise the abduction
issue during the six-party talks. North Korea confessed in 2002
that its agents had kidnapped 13 Japanese citizens in the 1970s
and the 1980s to use them as language instructors for spies.
The South Koreans plan to hold separate bilateral talks with the
Chinese delegation and the Russian delegation, headed by Deputy
Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, after the opening ceremony
on Tuesday.
The ceremony will begin at 9 a.m. at the state guesthouse with
Wu Dawei declaring the opening of the six-party talks. Li
Zhaoxing will deliver a keynote speech, which will be followed
by chief delegates' opening remarks that are expected to last
around two minutes each.
im@koreatimes.co.kr 07-25-2005 19:38
*****************************************************************
13 Korea Times: NKs Talks Tactics Follow Scenario
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
By Park Song-wu
Korea Times Correspondent
BEIJING _ North Korea has ``prepared a lot'' to play an active
role in the six-party talks on its nuclear programs a diplomatic
source here said on Monday.
He said that North Korean delegates came here with many types of
worst- and best-case scenarios.
One example showing the North Koreans' approach was found at a
table where Pyongyang's top delegate Kim Kye-gwan and his
American counterpart Christopher Hill sat together to probe each
other's readiness for the talks.
``North Korea has always wanted to proceed under its own
scenario,'' the source said on a condition of anonymity. ``It is
meaningful that the bilateral meeting was included in the
scenario because it signals that North Korea is actively trying
to achieve something this time.''
He said the two-way meeting was the first of its kind to be held
before the official opening of the six-party talks.
Even though the two sides met three times on the sidelines of
the main talks in the past three rounds of discussions, all
meetings were inconclusive. A soured atmosphere in such meetings
led the North Korean delegation to unilaterally walk out of the
talks, following a worst-case scenario, the source said.
The source said he did not expect the two top delegates to have
discussed ``something big'' before the official beginning of the
talks, as the media speculated.
``I don't think the two parties discussed big issues such as a
visit to Pyongyang by the U.S. President or the Secretary of
State,'' he said. ``It was their first meeting this week. So I
think they simply explored ways to achieve successful talks.''
He declined to elaborate on a media report in Japan that the
U.S. has told North Korea in their informal contacts from May
that it could consider the possibility of setting up a liaison
office in Pyongyang in return for the communist state's
scrapping of nuclear programs.
The report led many people in Beijing to think that the Monday
contact between the U.S. and North Korea was designed to develop
the idea of the establishment of the liaison office, a first
step towards formal diplomatic relations.
It is not the first time for the U.S. to propose setting up a
liaison office in Pyongyang.
When the idea was first mentioned in the 1994 agreed framework,
which averted the first North Korean nuclear crisis, Pyongyang
reportedly declined to accept it as North Korea considered the
office a CIA branch in its territory.
im@koreatimes.co.kr 07-25-2005 19:26
*****************************************************************
14 Korea Times: Restart of Nuclear Talks
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion
Real Progress Requires Concerted Efforts of All Participants
It is heartening to see the six-nation talks to discuss North
KoreaˇŻs nuclear programs finally resume in Beijing today.
Actually, the regional nonproliferation conference has already
begun with major participants engaged in brisk bilateral
meetings over the past few days. The strong intentions and
positive attitudes of leading diplomats provide sufficient
reason for optimism on the fourth round of six-way talks coming
after a 13-month impasse. We hope this initial upbeat mood will
last to overcome potential hurdles and bear fruit.
Most promising were the changes in the stances of two key
players _ the United States and North Korea. That the two sides
had a pre-conference meeting yesterday for the first time since
the six-way format began reflected their positive approaches.
The chief U.S. delegate, Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill, also said this should not necessarily be the
last round, checking hasty hardliners in Washington. In their
bilateral meetings, the two Koreas renewed their resolve to
attain substantive progress.
South and North Korea also agreed to maintain two-way contacts
to work out measures to solve deadlocks in the multilateral
process. PyongyangˇŻs recognition of Seoul playing a greater
role in the overall framework brightens the prospects for not
only the six-way talks but also for future inter-Korean
relationship. Among other positive factors are South KoreaˇŻs
``significant proposalˇŻˇŻ to supply 2000 megawatts of
electricity to the North and North Korean leader Kim Jong-ilˇŻs
citation of his fatherˇŻs last wish to denuclearize the Korean
Peninsula.
There are worrisome signals, too. North KoreaˇŻs renewed calls
for turning the armistice into a peace treaty and the
disarmament of other participants are feared to complicate the
resumed talks. Hopefully, Pyongyang should not be serious about
these new preconditions but is just floating them as bargaining
cards. WashingtonˇŻs possible criticism of the NorthˇŻs highly
enriched uranium programs as well as JapanˇŻs attempts to raise
the issue of the kidnap victims will also pose serious stumbling
blocks. Tokyo is urged to separate the nuclear from the
humanitarian issue.
All these mean South Korea will become far busier than previous
rounds of meetings as a coordinator. Fortunately, both the
deadline and conference format of the fourth round appear quite
flexible to allow the participants sufficient room for
negotiation if they are really serious about attaining real
results. As always, however, it is North Korea that should make
the final ``strategic decision.ˇŻˇŻ
Over the past year or so of the standoff, Pyongyang might have
been able to make half a dozen nuclear bombs. But its economy
has been aggravated with its human rights situations becoming
the focus of international attention. North Korean leaders are
urged to think deeply over who will be hurt most if the talks go
adrift once again.
07-25-2005 16:43
*****************************************************************
15 Reuters: US, N.Korea nuclear envoys meet on eve of talks
Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:44 AM ET
By Brian Rhoads and Jack Kim
BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. and North Korean negotiators met for
more than an hour on Monday on the eve of the long-awaited
resumption of six-party talks aimed at ending the three-year
crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
The encounter between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim
Kye-gwan was one of a flurry of contacts taking place before the
fourth round of talks between the two Koreas, the United States,
Russia, Japan and host China gets under way formally on Tuesday.
Three previous rounds ended without progress and few expect any
breakthrough this week. But the meeting between Washington and
Pyongyang and faint progress at weekend talks between the two
Koreas provided a more buoyant atmosphere for this, the first
formal session in 13 months.
There were no immediate details on the rare American bilateral
contact with North Korea, which China's official Xinhua news
agency noted was the first of its kind to take place ahead of a
round of six-way talks. The U.S. delegate set a briefing for 1300
GMT.
"We're just trying to get acquainted, to review how we see
things coming up and compare notes," Hill had told reporters
ahead of the meeting. In the end the pair talked for 75 minutes.
Contact between the United States and North Korea at three
previous rounds of inconclusive talks in Beijing was limited,
taking place on the sidelines of the main discussions.
But it was after Hill and Kim shared a steak and cheesecake
dinner in Beijing on July 9 that Pyongyang announced the talks
were back on. The last round ended inconclusively in June 2004.
EXTRA SHIRTS
The crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused
North Korea -- which U.S. President George W. Bush had branded as
part of an axis of evil alongside Iran and pre-war Iraq -- of
pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
The North quickly expelled International Atomic Energy Agency
inspectors and withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. In February this year it announced that it now possessed
nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang meanwhile demanded that the United States drop its
"hostile policy" towards North Korea and called for economic aid,
security guarantees and diplomatic recognition.
At previous rounds of six-way talks, the United States demanded
the North first scrap its nuclear programmes before Washington
could offer any aid or guarantees, leaving the two sides poles
apart.
"Considering the gap between the two parties, there is little
possibility of the talks producing progress," said Hajime Izumi,
a Korea expert at the University of Shizuoka near Tokyo.
Still, Hill said he had brought extra shirts for his Beijing
stay. And North and South Korea said after bilateral discussions
on Sunday that they wanted to see "substantial progress" at the
talks and a framework for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
Seoul has said it would supply the North with 2,000 megawatts of
electricity, roughly equivalent to total power output in the
impoverished Communist state.
The United States has pressured China, Pyongyang's closest ally
and provider of the bulk of its fuel and food aid, to do more to
rein in the North.
Beijing has expressed its desire to keep the Korean peninsula
nuclear free, but fears that pressuring Pyongyang might trigger a
collapse leading to instability on its northeastern border.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing urged the visiting
delegations at a welcoming banquet on Monday night to recognise
their responsibilities in achieving results at the fourth round
of the six-way talks.
"From my perspective, what we are looking for from the six-party
talks is not just talks themselves," Li said.
"We want to achieve progress and development through the talks.
"We want to resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula
through dialogue and peaceful means so as to maintain peace on
the Korean peninsula so a new peaceful situation of
reconciliation and cooperation in Northeast Asia will be created
and this will benefit the people of various nations"
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 Reuters: Two-stage talks possible on N.Korea issue - paper
Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:42 AM ET
TOKYO, July 25 (Reuters) - Japan, the United States and South
Korea hope to resolve the issue of North Korea's nuclear
ambitions in a two-stage process that would include a second set
of talks, perhaps in September, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun
financial daily said on Monday.
After a break of more than a year, negotiators from China,
Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas are set to
resume six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programmes in
Beijing from Tuesday.
The newspaper quoted sources close to the talks as saying that
Japan, the United States and South Korea were consulting with
Russia and China on the two-stage plan.
The talks starting on Tuesday would aim to reach an accord on
"final goals" for the process, which would include North Korea
scrapping its nuclear arms programmes as well as dealing with its
missile programme and unspecified human rights issues, and would
draw up a binding agreement to this end.
Providing security guarantees for North Korea would also be
included in the final goals, the newspaper said.
Once an agreement is reached, talks would adjourn until another
round of negotiations is held to discuss concrete procedures to
achieve the goals. Nuclear facility inspectors would also take
part in these talks, the paper said.
Three previous rounds of talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programmes
have ended without progress.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
17 Mos News: Russia Rejects Japan Abduction Issue at N. Korea Nuclear Talks -
NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Alexander Alexeyev and Kenichiro Sasae, Russia’s and Japan’s
top negotiators at the talks / Photo: Reuters
Created: 25.07.2005 11:28 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:28 MSK
MosNews
Russia believes that Japan’s proposal to raise the issue of the
kidnapping of Japanese people by North Korean secret services at
the six-party talks on the peninsula’s nuclear problem is
“counterproductive”, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev,
the head of the Russian delegation at the talks, said on Monday
in Beijing.
Alexeyev said that “the six-party process was intended and is
being conducted in order to resolve the nuclear problem on the
Korean Peninsula. If participants in the talks use them to
resolve bilateral problems, it will turn into a process destined
to fail.”
“We understand those countries that would like to resolve their
own problems during the six-party process. These may be
extremely important for them. However, we believe that this is
extremely counterproductive,” Alexeyev said.
The talks on ways to make the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free open
on July 26 in Beijing. The participants will be the two Korean
states, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S., the Itar-Tass news
agency reported.
Japan said earlier it would insist on discussing the fate of
several Japanese citizens abducted years ago by North Korean
agents when nuclear disarmament talks open, the Associated Press
reported last week quoting a Japanese government spokesperson.
Tokyo reportedly dispatched a diplomat to revive negotiations
over the kidnappings although Pyongyang — brought to the
negotiating table through months of delicate diplomacy — has
objected to discussing anything outside the nuclear agenda.
The fate of several Japanese kidnapped to North Korea decades
ago has been a sticking point as the two countries prepare for
six-nation talks in Beijing aimed at eliminating North Korea’s
nuclear weapons program. North Korea kidnapped the Japanese to
use as language teachers for its spies.
North Korea, which has repeatedly rejected Tokyo’s call to
discuss the abductions, said Wednesday it would not deal with
Japan at all during the next round and blamed Tokyo for “trying
to change the direction and atmosphere of the six-party talks.”
[Đĺéňčíă@Mail.ru]
*****************************************************************
18 AFP: Japan risks being odd man out in six-nation Korean nuclear crisis talks
Monday July 25, 12:45 PM
TOKYO, (AFP) - Japan risks being the odd man out in this week's
nuclear crisis talks by seeking to press a separate agenda of
forcing North Korea to come clean on its Cold-War abductions of
Japanese nationals.
But, with firm US backing, Tokyo is set to bring up the
abduction issue at the six-nation talks -- fully aware that its
economic aid will be essential in persuading the Stalinist state
to give up its nuclear arms programs.
North Korea has protested against Japan for using the previous
three rounds of nuclear talks in Beijing to press on the
kidnappings, an affair that Pyongyang called a done deal.
Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency commented last
week, "The negative role played by Japan at the previous rounds
of the talks compels (North Korea) not to deal with Japan even
if the talks are resumed."
South Korea, increasingly warming towards Pyongyang, has joined
China and Russia in snubbing the abduction issue, which has
provoked anger here against Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for
being reluctant to punish Pyongyang.
South Korea's pointman on North Korea, Unification Minister
Chung Dong-Young, said last week that "it won't be helpful" for
solving the nuclear crisis "if we raise the issues of
disarmament (of conventional weapons), human rights or
kidnapping."
As in previous rounds, Japan is expected to use its keynote
speech and possible bilateral contacts with North Korea at the
talks to address the kidnapping case.
North Korea admitted in 2002 to have kidnapped 13 Japanese up
until the 1980s to train its spies in Japanese language and
culture.
It declared the abduction issue over after repatriating five
kidnap victims along with their families and claiming that the
eight others were dead.
But Japan has insisted the eight were still alive and were kept
under wraps as they knew top secrets in the secretive communist
state. It also suspects that dozens of other Japanese have been
snatched away by the North.
Tokyo's closest ally Washington, while giving top priority to
the nuclear crisis at the six-way talks, has not ruled out other
issues.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news conference
here during her Asian swing earlier this month that there are
missile proliferation, human rights and other issues "that will
have to be resolved" with Pyongyang.
"The United States continues to strongly support Japan's efforts
for a favorable resolution of the abduction issue," she said.
Her remarks may reflect strong US suspicions against North Korea
which breached a 1994 deal with the United States to halt its
nuclear program.
The US House of Representatives adopted a resolution on July 11,
urging the US government not to remove North Korea from its list
of state sponsors of terrorism until it "renounces
state-sponsored kidnapping and provides a full accounting of all
abduction cases."
A task force within Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party
proposed last week that Tokyo impose economic sanctions against
Pyongyang if no progress was made on the kidnapping issue at the
six-way talks and that Japan offer no economic aid to Pyongyang
unless the case is resolved.
"I know the Japanese government would like to make some progress
on the abduction issue and keep other politicians from making a
case against Mr. Koizumi," said University of Chicago professor
Bruce Cumings, a US specialist on Korean affairs.
"My sense is that Japan is probably going to be more supportive
of the American and South Korean positions than establishing its
own position in this particular round of talks," he said.
Tokyo-based analyst Pyon Jin-Il, an ethnic Korean, said that
cash-rich Japan will be "indispensable" for any US plan to
reward North Korea for ending its nuclear programs with security
and economic guarantees.
"To gain Japanese cooperation, the United States must play a
certain role in the abduction issue," he said.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: US to work with Japan on abduction issue at six-party talks
Monday July 25, 05:35 PM
BEIJING, (AFP) - The United States told Japan it has no
objections to it raising the issue of abductions of Japanese
nationals at a fourth round of six-party talks on North Korea's
nuclear weapons programs.
"There was a meeting of minds. Japan and the United States will
closely cooperate in bringing about substantial progress at the
fourth round," Japan's delegation said in a statement after
holding bilateral talks with the US side.
"Japan and the United States also confirmed that they will
cooperate in dealing with the abduction issue in an appropriate
manner."
US chief negotiator Christopher Hill and his Japanese
counterpart Kenichiro Sasae met for one hour at the US embassy
here ahead of the resumption of multinational talks on the North
Korean nuclear weapons drive on Tuesday.
Japan vowed Sunday to bring up North Korea's abduction of
Japanese nationals at the talks despite opposition from Russia,
the two Koreas and China.
The United States, which also questions North Korea's human
rights record, has stood by Japan when it mentioned the
kidnappings at previous six-way talks or in bilateral contacts
on the sidelines.
As in previous rounds, Japan is expected to use its keynote
speech and possible bilateral contacts with North Korea at the
talks to address the kidnapping issue.
North Korea admitted in 2002 to having kidnapped 13 Japanese up
until the 1980s to train its spies in Japanese language and
culture.
It declared the abduction issue over after repatriating five
kidnap victims along with their families and claiming that the
eight others were dead.
But Japan has insisted the eight were still alive and kept under
wraps as they knew top secrets in the secretive communist state.
It also suspects that dozens of other Japanese have been
snatched by the North.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
20 [NukeNet] Don't Forget: Today is Senate Call-In Day!
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:42:18 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C59125.E9C23104"
MONDAY JULY 25: TODAY IS SENATE CALL-IN DAY!
Please take a few moments today to call both of your Senators. Urge them to:
1. Stop taxpayer funding of new nuclear reactors
2. Investigate the Bureau of Indian Affairs undocumented approval of a land
transfer for the proposed Private Fuel Storage high-level nuclear waste
dump on Skull Valley Goshute land.
Even if youve called your Senators before, call them again today!
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Support the efforts of musicians Ani DiFranco and the Indigo Girls; actors
James Cromwell and Joan McIntosh, Winona LaDuke, Skull Valley tribal
members Margene Bullcreek and Lena Knight, NIRS, Public Citizen, and US
PIRGall of whom will be participating in a press conference and
congressional briefing and meeting with key Senate offices throughout the day.
Keep the phones ringing in the Senate all day! Ask all of your friends and
colleagues to make calls too!
Your voice is needed today!
Thank you!
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
21 ICT: Navajos protest energy exploitation at council
[2005/07/25]
Posted: July 25, 2005
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
Brenda Norrell Indian Country -- Navajo rapper Che Glawnii
said Navajos have been asleep and have been woken up by the need
to protest energy exploitation. (Bottom photo) Nadine
Narindrankura of Big Mountain follows in the tradition of
community members who have been protesting the Navajo Nation
Council's coal mining and water slurry leases for 30 years.
WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. - Navajos arrived by horseback and on foot at
the tribal capitol to protest the use of Navajo water for coal
slurry in Arizona, a plan to build a new power plant in New
Mexico, and extensive pollution from oil and gas wells, coal
mines and power plants throughout the Navajo Nation.
As the Navajo Nation Council began its summer session,
Navajos from the most remote areas of the Navajo Nation - who
haul water long distances and live with the effects of polluted
air, land and water - protested plans for more lease agreements
with energy companies.
Navajo protesters questioned whether the 88 council
delegates who represent 110 chapters were listening. Some present
were the grandchildren of Navajo protesters from Big Mountain who
have been coming here for 30 years with the same protest message
and urging the council to protect the land and water.
''It is frustrating to try and persuade some of the
councilmen, when they are benefiting,'' said Navajo high school
student Nadine Narindrankura, from Big Mountain. She referred to
the royalties and fees paid by energy companies for leases,
dollars that go into the Navajo Nation general fund and become
the source of the council delegates' payroll.
''Most of the people out there have to haul water. My
grandmother has to haul water 20 miles round trip, but others
aren't that lucky. My uncle hauls water a couple of times a day
and it's 60 miles round trip. With the price of gasoline, it is
expensive.''
Navajo rapper Che Glawnii urged Navajos to rise up and
resist the oppression and exploitation by energy companies who
target the poorest nation members who have few resources to fight
back and do not speak English.
''The thunder and lightning is here! The bear is out,''
said Glawnii, adding that Navajos have been asleep like
hibernating bears; but it is a new season, and the thunder and
lightening of spring has awakened his people.
Glawnii and his mother, Sarah White of Sanostee, N.M.,
are among Navajos opposing the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant
in the Four Corners area.
''If they attack us, then we will attack them,'' Glawnii
said. ''President Bush made a call to the American people and
said we should help fight terrorism. We are fighting terrorism by
fighting the terrorism the United States government has waged
against the American Indian.
''We should be fighting for our Dine' homeland. This is
the war we should be fighting.''
Glawnii and White are among Navajos in the Doda Desert
Rock group opposing the proposed $2 billion coal-burning power
plant planned by the Dine' Power Authority and Sithe Global of
Houston, to be located on tribal land near Nenahnezad, N.M.
Navajo opponents say the Four Corners area is already
saturated with deadly toxins and pollution from power plants,
coal mines, oil and gas wells, and unreclaimed uranium tailings
from the Cold War.
Glawnii said he is now embarrassed that he voted for
Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. and Navajo Vice President Frank
Dayish.
''All we are asking for is fairness,'' said Anna Frazier
of Leupp, member of the group Dine' Citizens Against Ruining our
Environment (Dine' CARE).
''Is economic development more important than the life of
the people, the way of life of the people, or the health of the
people?'' Frazier said. ''All we hear is that we need revenues. I
don't hear any kind of respect for the people or their way of
life. What we know is that non-Indians are getting rich and the
Navajos who have lived here all their lives are getting the short
end of all of this.''
Referring to the leasing of Navajo resources for revenues
and the protests that have gone on for decades, Frazier said,
''It goes on and on, and there is no end to it.''
Members of the Black Mesa Water Coalition, co-founded by
Navajo and Hopi youths, were among those who rode on horseback
and walked for four days from Black Mesa to bring their message
of respect for water and life to the council.
Outside the tribal council, speaking to a group of Navajo
student bicyclists promoting health in front of the chambers,
Shonto Councilman Harry Brown said Peabody Coal is pressing the
Navajo Nation Council to sign another lease agreement for its
aquifer water: ''Peabody wants us to sign again for 25 years.''
Brown said Peabody threatened to tear out the paved road
and water lines around the Black Mesa coal mines near Kayenta if
the Navajo Nation Council does not enter into another agreement
to supply the coal mine with water for coal slurry.
Brown told the students that if the coal mine were
closed, there would be a loss of jobs. But he then referred to
traditional Navajo teachings and said that the earth, water and
air do not belong to human beings.
''This does not belong to us. It belongs to itself.''
. © 1998 - 2005 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Impact of Potentially Degraded
FR Doc E5-3941
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 42596-42602] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-69]
Hemyc and Mt Fire Barriers on Compliance With Approved Fire
Protection Programs AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
proposing to issue a generic letter (GL) to: (1) Request that
addressees evaluate their facilities to confirm compliance with
the existing applicable regulatory requirements in light of the
information provided in this generic letter and, if appropriate,
take additional actions. Specifically, although Hemyc and MT fire
barriers in nuclear power plants (NPPs) may be relied on to
protect electrical and instrumentation cables and equipment that
provide safe shutdown capability during a fire, recent NRC
testing has revealed that both materials failed to provide the
protective function intended for compliance with existing
regulations, for the configurations tested using the acceptance
criteria in Generic Letter (GL) 86-10, Supplement 1, ``Fire
Endurance Test Acceptance Criteria for Fire Barrier Systems Used
To Separate Redundant Safe Shutdown Trains Within the Same Fire
Area.'' (2) Require that addressees submit a written response to
the NRC in accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54(f) (10 CFR 50.54(f)).
This Federal Register notice is available through the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under
accession number ML051540292.
DATES: Comment period expires September 23, 2005. Comments
submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except
for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date
and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments
may also be delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike
(Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m. on Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Angie
Lavretta at (301) 415-3285 or by e-mail axl3@nrc.gov, Daniel
Frumkin at (301) 415-2280 or e-mail dxf1@nrc.gov, or Chandu Patel
at (301) 415-3025 or by e-mail at
cpp@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Generic Letter 2005-XX Impact of
Potentially Degraded Hemyc and Mt Fire Barriers on Compliance
With Approved Fire Protection Programs Addressees All holders of
operating licenses for light-water nuclear power reactors, except
those who have ceased operations and have certified that fuel has
been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.
Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing
this generic letter to: (3) Request that addressees evaluate
their facilities to confirm compliance with the existing
applicable regulatory requirements in light of the information
provided in this generic letter and, if
[[Page 42597]] appropriate, take additional actions.
Specifically, although Hemyc and MT fire barriers in nuclear
power plants (NPPs) may be relied on to protect electrical and
instrumentation cables and equipment that provide safe shutdown
capability during a fire, recent NRC testing has revealed that
both materials failed to provide the protective function intended
for compliance with existing regulations, for the configurations
tested using the acceptance criteria in Generic Letter (GL)
86-10, Supplement 1, ``Fire Endurance Test Acceptance Criteria
for Fire Barrier Systems Used To Separate Redundant Safe Shutdown
Trains Within the Same Fire Area.'' (4) Require that addressees
submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with NRC
regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 50.54(f) (10 CFR 50.54(f)). Background NRC's concern with
the performance of fire barriers at nuclear power plants began
with the failure of Thermo-Lag to pass performance tests in
October 1989 at Southwest Research Institute. The tests were done
for the Gulf States Utilities Company after visually observing
degradation of Thermo-Lag at River Bend Station. In June and
August 1992, two sets of full-scale fire endurance tests on
Thermo-Lag were conducted at Omega Point Laboratories in San
Antonio, Texas, by Texas Utilities Electric Company for Comanche
Peak Steam Electric Station, with similar results. In July 1992,
the NRC sponsored a series of small-scale fire endurance tests at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The results
again indicated that 1-hour-and 3-hour- rated Thermo-Lag barrier
material failed to consistently provide its intended protective
function.
On August 6, 1991, the NRC issued Information Notice (IN) 91-47,
``Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material To Pass Fire
Endurance Test,'' the first in a series of INs issued between
1991 and 1995 on performance test failures and installation
deficiencies related to Thermo-Lag 330 fire barrier systems.
Because of questions about the ability of 1-hour- and
3-hour-rated Thermo-Lag fire barrier material to perform its
specified function and because of the widespread use of
Thermo-Lag in the nuclear industry, the NRC issued the following
generic communications to inform licensees of the Thermo-Lag test
results and to request that licensees implement appropriate
compensatory measures and develop plans to resolve any
noncompliances with 10 CFR 50.48: Bulletin 92-01, ``Failure of
Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System To Maintain Cabling in Wide
Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free From Fire Damage,'' June 24,
1992.
Bulletin 92-01, Supplement 1, ``Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire
Barrier System To Perform its Specified Fire Endurance
Function,'' August 28, 1992.
GL 92-08, ``Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers,'' December 17, 1992.
Supplement 1 to GL 86-10, ``Fire Endurance Test Acceptance
Criteria for Fire Barrier Systems Used To Separate Redundant Safe
Shutdown Trains Within the Same Fire Area,'' March 25, 1994. GL
92-08 specifically asked licensees to review any existing fire
barrier configurations credited for 10 CFR 50.48 compliance in
light of the concerns with Thermo-Lag 330-1 fire barriers.
In response, the licensees reviewed their fire protection safe
shutdown plans to determine if corrective actions were needed.
Some licensees had made conservative commitments and installed
Thermo-Lag in locations where it was not needed to satisfy NRC
requirements, therefore no corrective actions were required.
Where fire barrier materials were required, licensees took one or
a combination of the following corrective actions: Rerouted
cables through other fire areas so that redundant safe shutdown
trains were not located in the same fire area.
Replaced Thermo-Lag, or the affected material, with an
alternative rated fire barrier material.
Upgraded the installed fire barriers to a rated configuration.
Concluded that certain Thermo-Lag barriers were no longer
required.
Subsequently, deficiencies were also identified in other fire
barrier materials. In 1993, for example, Kaowool installed as a
1-hour- rated fire barrier was found to be unable to pass circuit
integrity tests. In response, the NRC reassessed previous staff
reviews of Kaowool fire barriers and informed the industry and
the Commission of the potential failure of Kaowool to perform as
intended and suggested additional testing of Kaowool
(SECY-99-204; ADAMS Accession No. ML992810028). To resolve the
issue, the industry took voluntary corrective actions. In August
1993, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) formed a Fire Barrier
Review Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to address the adequacy of fire
barrier materials other than Thermo-Lag. The Committee performed
reviews of the original testing of the fire barrier, Hemyc
(performed in the early 1980s in Spain), and concluded that Hemyc
was differently constructed than Thermo-Lag 330-1, and therefore
was not subject to the same failure modes as Thermo-Lag 330-1. In
May 1994, this review was documented in the NEI report,
``Documentation of the Adequacy of Fire Barrier Materials in
Raceway Applications Vis- [agrave]-vis Failure Characteristics
Inherent to the Thermo-Lag 330- 1.'' However, beginning in late
1999, three plant-specific findings by the staff raised concerns
about the performance of Hemyc and MT fire barriers.
In November 1999, during an inspection at Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (IR 50-400/99-13; ADAMS Accession No.
ML003685341), the inspection team noted that the acceptance of
the Hemyc and MT fire barrier materials used was based on
American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 test acceptance
criteria, even though the ANI test methodology clearly stated
that the tests were done for insurance purposes only and were not
intended to be considered the equivalent of fire barrier
endurance tests for fire barrier ratings.
In October and November 2000, during an inspection at McGuire 1
and 2 (IR 50-369/00-09, 50-370/00-09; ADAMS Accession No.
ML003778709), the inspection team noted that the licensee was
unable to provide documentation demonstrating protection by Hemyc
fire barrier material used to separate safe shutdown functions
for two trains within a single fire area.
In September 2000, during an inspection at Waterford 3 (IR
50-382/00-07; ADAMS Accession No. ML003773900), the inspectors
noted that the Hemyc materials were installed in configurations
which typically would not be bounded by the existing tests.
In June 2001, the NRC initiated confirmatory fire tests in
response to Task Interface Agreement 99-028 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML003736721), after concluding that existing testing was likely
insufficient to qualify Hemyc or MT as rated fire barriers. The
NRC tests were based on ASTM E119 Standard time-temperature
conditions and the current NRC guidance in GL 86-10, Supplement
1, for typical Hemyc and MT installations used in U.S. NPPs. The
test results indicated that Hemyc and MT fire barriers did not
pass the GL 86-10, Supplement 1, criteria to achieve a 1-hour
fire rating for Hemyc or a 3-hour fire rating for MT, for the
configuration tested. On April 1, 2005, the NRC issued IN
2005-07, ``Results of Hemyc Electrical Raceway Fire Barrier
System Full Scale Fire Testing.'' This IN describes the results
of the NRC- sponsored confirmatory testing of
[[Page 42598]] Hemyc. However, the staff recognized that
additional evaluations would be needed to determine whether
regulatory compliance exists in light of the concerns identified
in IN 05-07.
On April 29, 2005, the staff held a public meeting with licensees
and interested members of the public to discuss the Hemyc and MT
test results and the staff's intentions to take prompt additional
regulatory action to ensure that appropriate measures are under
way for compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 requirements at affected
plants. This generic letter is the follow-on to IN 05-07.
The NRC has established a Web page to keep the public informed of
the status of the Hemyc/MT fire barrier issue at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fire-protect
ion/technical-issues.html#fire .
This page provides links to information on related fire
protection issues, along with documentation of NRC interactions
with industry (including generic communications, industry
submittals, meeting notices, presentation materials, and meeting
summaries). The NRC will continue to update this Web page as new
information becomes available.
Hemyc Construction--Hemyc fire barrier material consists of mats
of 2-inch Kaowool ceramic fiber insulation inside an outer
covering of Refrasil \1\ high-temperature fabric. The mats are
custom-sized for the electrical raceway and machine-stitched to
produce the factory mats. Hemyc mats, which are installed over a
metal frame to provide the 2- inch air gap design, are identical
except that 1\1/2\-inch Kaowool is used instead of the 2-inch
material.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Refrasil was used during NRC tests. Siltemp and
Refrasil were tested by the NRC and determined to be essentially
equivalent (ADAMS Accession No. ML051190055).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- MT Construction--MT used with conduits has four
layers. The first layer, closest to the conduit, is 1 inch of
Kaowool ceramic fiber blanket wrapped in a fiberglass fabric. The
second layer is a 2-mil sheet of stainless steel. The third layer
is a hydrate packet. This packet is made by stitching together
packets of aluminum trihydrate in a fiberglass-coated fabric. The
fourth and outermost layer is a 1\1/2\- inch Kaowool blanket
wrapped in Refrasil. The configuration is slightly different for
air drops and structural supports. Air drops use a 3-inch blanket
of Kaowool as the inner layer. Structural supports do not have
the hydrating packet layer or the stainless steel sheet.
Discussion Hemyc and MT, manufactured by Promatec, Inc, were
installed at NPPs to protect circuits and instrumentation cables
in order to meet regulatory requirements and in accordance with
plant-specific commitments. The NRC conducted confirmatory
testing of both materials at the Omega Point Laboratories in San
Antonio, Texas. The test results indicated that when tested to GL
86-10, Supplement 1, criteria, neither the Hemyc nor the MT fire
barrier system would provide its rated fire barrier protection.
The staff noted at least three failure modes in the limited test
program. Two failure modes resulted from shrinkage of outer
material (Refrasil), causing the barrier to open and exposing the
interior surfaces or layers to the fire. The third failure mode
resulted from failure to adequately protect steel members
intruding into the barrier. The standard used by some utilities
required protection of 3 inches of intruding steel for the Hemyc
1-hour fire barrier and 18 inches of intruding steel for the MT
3-hour fire barrier. The test results indicated that additional
protection of intruding steel was required to achieve a 1-hour or
3-hour fire rating. Based on these test results, the NRC is
concerned that the Hemyc and MT fire barriers may not provide the
level of fire endurance intended by licensees and that licensees
that use Hemyc or MT may not be complying with NRC regulations.
Section 50.48 of 10 CFR part 50 requires that each operating NPP
have a fire protection plan that satisfies General Design
Criterion (GDC) 3, ``Fire Protection,'' of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.''
The NRC Regulation in 10 CFR 50.48 states that each operating
nuclear power plant (licensed before or after issuance of GDC 3)
must have a fire protection plan that satisfies Criterion 3 of
Appendix A. GDC 3 requires that structures, systems, and
components important to safety be designed and located to
minimize, in a manner consistent with other requirements, the
probability and effect of fires and explosions. Fire protection
features required to satisfy 10 CFR 50.48 include features to
limit fire damage to structures, systems or components important
to safety so that the capability to shut down the plant safely is
ensured. One means of complying with this requirement is to
separate one safe shutdown train from its redundant train with
rated fire barriers. The duration of fire resistance required of
the barriers, usually 1 hour or 3 hours, depends on the other
fire protection features provided in the fire area. The NRC
issued guidance on acceptable methods of satisfying the
regulatory requirements of GDC 3 in the branch technical
positions (BTPs) and generic letters identified below in the
Applicable Regulatory Guidance section of this generic letter. GL
92-08 specifically included the staff's expectation that
licensees would review existing fire barrier configurations
credited for 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, compliance, based on
earlier concerns with Thermo-Lag. Licensees of plants licensed to
operate before January 1, 1979, must comply with their fire
protection requirements as specified in 10 CFR 50, appendix R,
and licensees of plants licensed to operate after January 1,
1979, must comply with the approved fire protection program
incorporated into their operating license. The staff expects
licensees to reevaluate their fire protection programs in light
of information provided in IN 05-07 and this generic letter and
to implement appropriate compensatory measures and develop plans
to resolve any noncompliances within a reasonable timeframe.
For guidance in addressing any degraded or nonconforming Hemyc
and MT fire barrier configurations, licensees should consult the
guidance in Revision 1 to GL 91-18, ``Information to Licensees
Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded
and Nonconforming Conditions,'' dated October 8, 1997. Licensees
are encouraged to review Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-07,
``Compensatory Measures To Satisfy the Fire Protection Program
Requirements,'' in determining the appropriate compensatory
measures to meet fire protection program requirements for the
degraded or nonconforming fire barrier installations. All
licensees should consider the impact of fire barrier degradation
on the operability of affected equipment and assess the impact on
plant safety.
NRC regulations do not require fire detectors and automatic fire
suppression systems when 3-hour fire barriers are used. NRC
regulations do require fire detectors and automatic fire
suppression systems when 1-hour-rated fire barriers are used;
however, the staff has approved plant-specific requests for
exceptions (i.e., exemptions or amendments) for specific areas of
the plant based on detailed evaluations of the area configuration
and combustible loading. Hemyc and MT fire ratings are expected
to provide time to extinguish fires before safe shutdown systems
are damaged.
[[Page 42599]] If a nonconforming condition is identified, then
licensees can use at least two methods, individually or in
combination, to restore compliance. One way is to make plant
modifications such as replacing the Hemyc or MT fire barriers
with an appropriately rated fire barrier material, upgrading the
Hemyc or MT to a rated barrier, or rerouting cables or
instrumentation lines through another fire area.
Another way to address the issue is to perform a technical
evaluation that considers defense-in-depth and safety margins as
follows: Plants licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, that
do not plan to perform a plant modification must request an
exemption from 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, that demonstrates that
the configuration as installed meets the requirements of 10 CFR
50.12, ``Specific Exemptions.'' If the plant proposes to use a
risk-informed approach to justify an exception in accordance with
10 CFR 50.12, then this approach should follow the guidance of
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, ``An Approach for Using
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on
Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.'' Plants licensed
to operate after January 1, 1979, that do not plan to perform a
plant modification must meet the fire protection requirements in
the operating license condition. The standard license condition
allows a licensee to make changes to the approved fire protection
program without prior staff approval ``if those changes would not
adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe
shutdown in the event of a fire.'' GL 86-10, ``Implementation of
Fire Protection Requirements,'' provides guidance on performing
and documenting these changes.
Plants licensed after January 1, 1979, that adopt a risk-informed
approach, must submit a license amendment in accordance with 10
CFR 50.90. The exception to 10 CFR 50.90, provided in the
standard license condition and in 10 CFR 50.48(f)(3), does not
apply because the risk assessment approaches used by plants
deviate from the approved deterministic approaches used in their
licensing bases.
Furthermore, the licensees' risk assessment tools have not been
reviewed or inspected against quality standards found acceptable
to the NRC staff. Consequently, the staff is not confident that a
risk-informed approach ``would not adversely affect the ability
to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire,''
at this time. Because this approach fails to meet the exception
criteria for an exception to 10 CFR 50.90, a license amendment is
required for the change to the license condition, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.90. Applicable Regulatory Requirements NRC
regulations in 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDC
3, require each operating nuclear power plant (licensed before or
after issuance of GDC 3) to have a fire protection plan providing
post-fire safe shutdown. That is, a means must be provided to
limit fire damage to structures, systems or components important
to safety so that the capability to shut down the plant safely is
ensured. The regulation in 10 CFR 50.90 requires a licensee who
desires to amend their license, to submit an amendment request to
the NRC. All NPPs licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, are
required to comply with 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, paragraph
III.G, ``Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.'' All NPPs
licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, are required to comply
with 10 CFR 50.48(a), which requires that each operating nuclear
power plant have a fire protection plan that satisfies GDC 3. The
fire protection plan is incorporated into the operating license
for each post-1979 plant as a license condition. This license
condition specifically cites the staff SER on the licensee's fire
protection plan, to demonstrate that the license condition has
been met (although licensees may modify their fire protection
plan as long as there is no adverse effect on safe shutdown).
Applicable Regulatory Guidance The NRC issued guidance on
acceptable methods of satisfying the regulatory requirements of
GDC 3 in Auxiliary and Power Conversion Systems Branch (APCSB)
BTP 9.5-1, ``Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power
Plants,'' May 1, 1976; Appendix A to APCSB BTP 9.5-1, February
24, 1977; and Chemical Engineering Branch (CMEB) BTP 9.5-1,
``Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,'' July 1981. In
response to licensees' questions, the staff provided additional
guidance on fire barriers in GL 86-10. The staff issued
additional guidance as Supplement 1 to GL 86-10.
In the BTPs and in GL 86-10, the staff states that the fire
resistance ratings of fire barriers should be established in
accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Standard 251, ``Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building
Construction and Materials,'' \2\ by subjecting a test specimen
that represents the materials, workmanship, method of assembly,
dimensions, and configuration for which a fire rating is desired
to a ``standard fire exposure.'' Supplement 1 to GL 86-10
provides guidance for fire barrier endurance testing and for
evaluating deviations from tested configurations. This guidance
is repeated in RG 1.189, ``Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear
Power Plants.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
E-119, ``Fire Test of Building Construction Materials,'' and NFPA
251 are essentially equivalent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Requested Actions Within 60 days of the date of this
letter, all addressees are requested to determine whether or not
Hemyc or MT fire barrier material is installed and relied on for
separation and/or safe shutdown purposes to satisfy applicable
regulatory requirements.
Addressees who credit Hemyc or MT for compliance should provide
information regarding the extent of the installation; whether the
material is degraded or nonconforming; and any compensatory
actions in place to provide equivalent protection and maintain
the safe shutdown function of affected areas of the plant in
light of the recent findings of potential degradation of Hemyc
and MT. Licensees should provide evaluations to support
conclusions that they are in compliance with regulatory
requirements for the Hemyc and MT applications.
Licensees that can not justify their continued reliance on Hemyc
or MT shall provide a description of corrective actions taken or
planned and a schedule for milestones including when full
compliance will be achieved. In addition, licensees should
identify and discuss all applications that are considered
degraded but operable, including a basis for this conclusion.
Compensatory and corrective actions shall be implemented in
accordance with existing regulations commensurate with the safety
significance of the degraded or nonconforming condition. The NRC
expects that all licensees shall fully restore compliance with 10
CFR 50.48, and submit the required documentation to the NRC, by
December 1, 2007.
Requested Information All addressees are requested to provide the
following information: 1. Within 60 days of the date of this
generic letter, provide a statement on whether Hemyc or MT fire
barrier material is used at their NPPs and whether it is relied
on for separation and/or safe shutdown purposes in accordance
with the licensing basis, including whether Hemyc or MT is
credited in other analyses (e.g.,
[[Page 42600]] exemptions, license amendments, GL 86-10
analyses).
2. Within 60 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees
who have installed Hemyc or MT fire barrier materials should
discuss the following in detail: a. The extent of the
installation (e.g., linear feet of wrap, areas installed, systems
protected), b. Whether the Hemyc and/or MT installed in their
plants continues to comply with 10 CFR 50.48, in light of recent
findings, c. The compensatory measures that have been implemented
to provide equivalent protection and maintain the safe shutdown
function of affected areas of the plant in light of the recent
findings of potential degradation Hemyc and MT, including
evaluations to support the addresses' conclusions and a
discussion of the impact on plant risk, d. A general description
of, and implementation schedule for, all corrective actions to
restore the fire protection program to compliance with the
licensing basis, including a description of any licensing actions
or exemption requests needed to support changes to the plant
licensing basis.
3. No later than December 1, 2007, addressees that have degraded
or nonconforming Hemyc and/or MT and rely on it for separation
and/or safe shutdown purposes should provide the following
information upon implementing corrective actions: a. Confirmation
that the fire protection program is in compliance with the
regulatory requirements listed in the Applicable Regulatory
Requirements section of this generic letter once all corrective
actions for regulatory compliance have been completed and the
licensing basis has been updated to reflect the actions taken.
b. A summary of the evaluation used to determine the
susceptibility of the fire protection program to the adverse
effects of potentially degraded Hemyc or MT fire barriers. (The
submittal may reference a guidance document, e.g., GL 86-10, or
another approach previously submitted to the NRC. The documents
submitted or referenced should include the results of any
supporting Hemyc or MT tests or evaluations performed to obtain
pertinent information used in the determination.) c. A
description of the existing programmatic controls that will
ensure that other fire barrier types will be assessed for
potential degradation and resultant adverse effects. Addressees
may reference their responses to GL 92-08 to the extent that the
responses address this specific issue.
Required Response In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order to
determine whether a facility license should be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or whether other action should be taken,
an addressee is required to respond as described below.
Within 30 days of the date of this generic letter, an addressee
is required to submit a written response if it is unable to
provide the information or it cannot meet the requested
completion date. The addressee must address in its response any
alternative course of action that it proposes to take, including
the basis for the acceptability of the proposed alternative
course of action.
The required written response should be addressed to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Document Control Desk, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, under oath or
affirmation under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition,
a copy of the response should be submitted to the appropriate
regional administrator.
Reason for Information Request The recent confirmatory testing of
the Hemyc and MT fire barriers revealed that similar barriers
installed at NPPs may not perform their intended protective
function during a fire.
The NRC staff will review the responses to this generic letter
and will notify affected addressees if concerns are identified
regarding compliance with NRC regulations. The staff may also
conduct inspections to determine addressees' effectiveness in
addressing the generic letter.
Related Generic Communications 1. Regulatory Issue Summary 05-07,
``Compensatory Measures To Satisfy the Fire Protection Program
Requirements,'' April 19, 2005.
2. Information Notice 05-07, ``Results of Hemyc Electrical
Raceway Fire Barrier System Full Scale Fire Testing,'' April 1,
2005.
3. Information Notice 99-17, ``Problems Associated with Post-Fire
Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis,'' June 3, 1999.
4. Information Notice 95-52, Supplement 1, ``Fire Endurance Test
Results for Electrical Raceway Fire Barrier Systems Constructed
from 3M Company Interam Fire Barrier Materials,'' March 17, 1998.
5. Information Notice 95-49, Supplement 1, ``Seismic Adequacy of
Thermo-Lag Panels,'' December 10, 1997.
6. Generic Letter 91-18, ``Information to Licensees Regarding NRC
Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and
Nonconforming Conditions,'' Revision 1, October 8, 1997.
7. Information Notice 97-70, ``Potential Problems With Fire
Barrier Penetration Seals,'' September 19, 1997.
8. Information Notice 97-59, ``Fire Endurance Test Results of
Versawrap Fire Barriers,'' August 1, 1997.
9. Information Notice 94-86, Supplement 1, ``Legal Actions
Against Thermal Science, Inc., Manufacturer of Thermo-Lag,''
November 15, 1995.
10. Information Notice 95-52, ``Fire Endurance Test Results for
Electrical Raceway Fire Barrier Systems Constructed from 3M
Company Interam Fire Barrier Materials,'' November 14, 1995.
11. Information Notice 95-49, ``Seismic Adequacy of Thermo-Lag
Panels,'' October 27, 1995.
12. Information Notice 95-32, ``Thermo-Lag 330-1 Flame Spread
Test Results,'' August 10, 1995.
13. Information Notice 95-27, ``NRC Review of Nuclear Energy
Institute, Thermo-Lag 330-1 Combustibility Evaluation Methodology
Plant Screening Guide,'' May 31, 1995.
14. Information Notice 94-86, ``Legal Actions Against Thermal
Science, Inc., Manufacturer of Thermo-Lag,'' December 22, 1994.
15. Information Notice 94-34, ``Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-Blanket
Ampacity Derating Concerns,'' May 13, 1994.
16. Information Notice 94-28, ``Potential Problems With Fire
Barrier Penetration Seals,'' April 5, 1994.
17. Generic Letter 86-10, Supplement 1, ``Fire Endurance Test
Acceptance Criteria for Fire Barrier Systems Used To Separate
Redundant Safe Shutdown Trains within the Same Fire Area,'' March
25, 1994.
18. Information Notice 94-22, ``Fire Endurance and Ampacity
Derating Test Results for 3-Hour Fire-Rated Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire
Barriers,'' March 16, 1994.
19. Information Notice 93-41, ``One Hour Fire Endurance Test
Results for Thermal Ceramics Kaowool, 3M Company FS-195 and 3M
Company Interam E-50 Fire Barrier Systems,'' May 28, 1993.
20. Information Notice 93-40, ``Fire Endurance Test Results for
Thermal Ceramics FP-60 Fire Barrier Material,'' May 26, 1993.
21. Generic Letter 92-08, ``Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers,''
December 17, 1992.
22. Information Notice 92-82, ``Results of Thermo-Lag 330-1
Combustibility Testing,'' December 15, 1992.
[[Page 42601]] 23. Bulletin 92-01, Supplement 1, ``Failure of
Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System To Perform its Specified Fired
Endurance Function,'' August 28, 1992.
24. Information Notice 92-55, ``Current Fire Endurance Test
Results for Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material,'' July 27, 1992.
25. Bulletin 92-01, ``Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier
System To Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits
Free from Fire Damage,'' June 24, 1992.
26. Information Notice 92-46, ``Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material
Special Review Team Final Report Findings, Current Fire Endurance
Tests, and Ampacity Calculation Error,'' June 23, 1992.
27. Information Notice 91-79, ``Deficiencies in the Procedures
for Installing Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials,'' December 6,
1991.
28. Information Notice 91-47, ``Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire
Barrier Material To Pass Fire Endurance Test,'' August 6, 1991.
29. Information Notice 88-56, ``Potential Problems With Silicone
Foam Fire Barrier Penetration Seals,'' August 4, 1988.
30. Generic Letter 88-12, ``Removal of Fire Protection
Requirements from Technical Specifications,'' August 2, 1988.
31. Generic Letter 86-10, ``Implementation of Fire Protection
Requirements,'' April 26, 1986.
32. Generic Letter 83-33, ``NRC Position on Certain Requirements
of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50,'' October 19, 1983.
33. Generic Letter 81-12, ``Fire Protection Rule (45 FR 76602,
November 19, 1980),'' February 20, 1981.
Backfit Discussion Under the provisions of Section 182a of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I) and
10 CFR 50.54(f), this generic letter asks addressees to evaluate
their facilities to confirm compliance with the existing
applicable regulatory requirements as discussed in this generic
letter. Specifically, although Hemyc and MT fire barriers in NPPs
may be relied on to protect electrical and instrumentation cables
and equipment that provide safe shutdown capability during a
fire, recent NRC testing has revealed that both materials failed
to provide the protective function intended for compliance with
existing regulations.
For plants licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, licensees
are required to comply with 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, which
requires protection of safe shutdown capabilities. One means of
complying with this requirement is to separate one safe shutdown
train from its redundant train using rated fire barriers, as
cited in Appendix R, paragraph III.G.2(a). Recent test results
indicated that Hemyc and MT fire barriers did not pass the GL
86-10, Supplement 1, criteria to achieve a 1-hour fire rating for
Hemyc or a 3-hour fire rating for MT. Therefore, for any such
plant that relies on Hemyc and/or MT for compliance, compliance
with Appendix R is in question and the information requested by
this generic letter is a compliance exception to the rule in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I). For plants licensed to
operate after January 1, 1979, licensees are required to comply
with 10 CFR 50.48(a), which requires that each operating nuclear
power plant have a fire protection plan that satisfies GDC 3. The
fire protection plan is incorporated into the operating license
for each post-1979 plant as a license condition and may rely on
fire barriers such as Hemyc and MT to provide the required
protection. The license condition specifically cites the staff
SER on the licensee's fire protection plan, to demonstrate that
the license condition has been met (although licensees may modify
their fire protection plan as long as there is no adverse
effect). However, recent test results indicated that Hemyc and MT
fire barriers did not pass the GL 86-10, Supplement 1, criteria
to achieve a 1-hour fire rating for Hemyc or a 3-hour fire rating
for MT. Therefore, for any such plant where the staff-approved
fire protection plan relies on Hemyc and/or MT for compliance
with their license condition, compliance with the license
condition is in question and the information requested by this
generic letter is a compliance exception to the rule in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I). Federal Register
Notification A notice of opportunity for public comment on this
generic letter was published in the Federal Register (XX FR
XXXXX) on July XX, 2005.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance
with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, the NRC has determined that this generic letter is not a
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This generic letter contains
information collection requirements that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These
information collections were approved by the Office of Management
and Budget, clearance number 3150-0011, which expires February
28, 2007.
The burden to the public for these mandatory information
collections is estimated to average 300 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the information collection. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the
potential impact of the information collections contained in the
generic letter and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed
information collection necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will
have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3.
Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected? 4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques? Send comments on any aspect of
these information collections, including suggestions for reducing
the burden, to the Records and FOIA/ Privacy Services Branch
(T-F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to
INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011),
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an
information collection unless the requesting document displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Contact Please direct any questions about this matter to the
Technical Contacts or the Lead Project Manager listed below, or
to the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
project manager.
Bruce A. Boger, Director, Division of Inspection Program
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[[Page 42602]] Technical Contacts: Daniel Frumkin, NRR, (301)
415-2280, e-mail: dxf1@nrc.gov. Angie Lavretta, NRR, (301)
415-3285, e-mail: axl3@nrc.gov. Lead Project Manager: Chandu
Patel, NRR, (301) 415-3025, e-mail: cpp@nrc.gov. Note: NRC
generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document
Collections.
End of Draft Generic Letter Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the
documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of
July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick L. Hiland, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, Division of
Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-3941 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Sunshine Act Notice
FR Doc 05-14674
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 42595-42596] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-67]
Date: Weeks of July 25, August 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2005.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters to be Considered: Week of July 25, 2005 Thursday, July
28, 2005: 1:25 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)
(Tentative). a. (1) Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site
Permit for Clinton ESP Site), Docket No. 52-007-ESP; (2) Dominion
Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP
Site), Docket No. 52-008-ESP; (3) System Energy Resources, Inc.
(Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site), Docket No.
52-009-ESP; (4) Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National
Enrichment Facility), Docket No. 70-3103-ML; (5) USEC Inc.
(American Centrifuge Plant), Docket No. 70-7004 (Tenative). 1:30
p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1). Week of August
1, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week
of August 1, 2005.
Week of August 8, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the week of August 8, 2005.
Week of August 15, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, August 16, 2005: 10
a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and
the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD)
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Shawn Smith, 301-415-2620).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1). Week of
August 22, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 22, 2005.
Week of August 29, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the week of August 29, 2005.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: David Gamberoni, (301) 415- 1651.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at: http:// www. nrc. gov/ what-we-do/ policy-making/
schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate.
If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these
public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or
other information from the public meetings in another format
(e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability
Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD:
301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a
case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers: If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting
[[Page 42596]] schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to
dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: July 20, 2005.
Sandy Joosten, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-14674 Filed 7-21-05; 10:30 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
24 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [VIEWPOINT] Nuclear powers shake up order
July 26, 2005 KST 13:54 (GMT+9)
As the Bush administration's global strategy is materializing
in the second term, Washington's unilateral foreign policy that
prioritizes its own national interests continues. During the
first term, the Bush Administration had been criticized by many
countries, including those in Europe, for unilaterally refusing
to sign the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions and
carrying out a strike on Iraq without a UN resolution.
In the second term, the Bush administration is working to
attain Washington's position in the reform of the UN Security
Council and has caused the rupture of the seventh Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference as it intended to.
Meanwhile, President Bush had a summit meeting with the head of
India on July 18 and promised to provide cooperation for the
peaceful use of nuclear power instead of applying sanctions
against the country that carried out nuclear experiments twice
outside the boundary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Washington's policy fundamentally revises the existing
nonproliferation policies, and observers are concerned that it
could shake the backbone of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
from its roots.
The foreign policy strategy of the Bush administration in the
second term shows a strong will to refrain from using military
force and resolve international conflicts with diplomacy unlike
in the first term. However, Washington maintains a consistent
posture to establish a new world order, international norms and
international organization needed to keep the global hegemony of
the United States.
In order to do that, Washington uses a diplomatic strategy that
is a combination of unilateralism and cooperation, bilateralism
and multilateralism, depending on the case.
In the summit meeting between the United States and India,
President Bush welcomed the prime minister of India as a state
guest and promised cooperation in the nuclear energy field
because Washington had decided that it was necessary to bring
India on as an ally in order to check China.
By recognizing the nuclear possession by India, a non-member of
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and providing nuclear fuel
and technology to India for the peaceful use of the nuclear
program under the control of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Washington virtually broke the existing nuclear order
based on the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty and created new
international rules.
In May, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference
broke off without reaching an agreement after interests of each
nation collided. At the time, Washington stressed the
reinforcement of nuclear nonproliferation and the restriction of
the peaceful use of nuclear power but was passive in promoting
the reduction of nuclear armaments.
In fact, the United States has been developing new nuclear
weapons to attack underground bunkers according to the new,
post-9/11 nuclear strategy. After watching the development of
U.S. policy, the international community believes that
Washington wants to break the multilateral regulation of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and create a joint network among
nations under the leadership of the United States in order to
establish a new nuclear order that differentiates each nation.
Washington's position of restricting the peaceful usage of
nuclear power has become less convincing after its deal with
India, and therefore, the nations with little risk of nuclear
proliferation are likely to be allowed to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes under the auspices of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. The United States justified the collaboration
with India as an exception because it has actively supported
America's war against terrorism and there is no possibility that
it will give terrorist groups nuclear arms.
Behind the explanation lies Washington's need to keep China in
check and the prospect for increased demand for energy in India,
whose economy continues to grow by 6 percent annually. However,
considering the geographical environment, it is still unknown
whether India can become a rival of China's. In April, China and
India put an end to their border dispute and promised to
increase trade between the two nations. Moreover, the U.S.
assistance for India requires consent of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, which regulates exports of nuclear-related goods.
As the United States unilaterally reshuffles the international
order and norms, how will Korea fare in the new international
environment? What choices does Korea need to make? What should
we do to eliminate worries about nuclear proliferation and
increase the possibility of being permitted to use nuclear power
for peaceful purposes? Most of all, we need to enhance
international trust and participate in the joint network led by
the United States.
Seoul needs to devise a strategy to keep both the United States
and China as partners by developing the collaboration and
alliance with the United States and convincing Washington of the
importance of China as a geographical neighbor and Korea's
reconciliation with China as an ally of the United States.
With strategic flexibility, Korea needs to display a balanced
diplomacy of open neutrality based on the Korea-U.S. alliance.
*The writer is a researcher at the Sejong Institute. Translation
by the JoongAng Daily staff.
by Kim Soung-chul
2005.07.25
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
25 Pravda: Yushchenko doubts Ukraine was right to disown nuclear weapon
Ukrayinska Pravda
translated by Pravda , 25.07.2005, 10:06
President Viktor Yushchenko is not sure Ukraine was right to
refuse nuclear weapon.
That is what he said after visiting museum exposition in
commemoration of nuclear bombardment victims in Hiroshima,
Interfax-Ukraine reports.
Answering the question, what did he feel observing Earth model
with Ukraine portrayed as a country without nuclear weapon,
Yushchenko answered: “I want to speak honestly. On the one hand,
there is my point of view as a politician and on the other hand
my human understanding of the matter.”
“As a human being, I share those feelings millions of people do
have. Life is more comfortable, when one knows he’s far from
nuclear danger”, - President said.
“But on the other hand, regarding political background of that
time, I have some thoughts, whether we took to logically
coordinated and complex measures.”
Yushchenko added: “I think Ukraine’s deed hasn’t been so far
appreciated at its true value. And francly speaking, we’re a
little bit anxious about it.”
According to President’s press-service, Yushchenko with his wife
and Ukrainian delegation laid a wreath on the monument near
memorial museum in commemoration of Hiroshima nuclear bombarding
victims and visited museaum’s exposition.
President marked, that observing museum’s displays, he couldn’t
help thinking about “slight difference between military and
peaceful atom” and about awful tragedy, which took place in
Ukraine 20 years ago - Chornobyl.
Yushchenko thinks that are Japanese who can actually understand
all the challenges, which face Ukraine after Chornobyl. “We
count on your understanding and support in overcoming the
consequences of Chornobyl tragedy.”, - he said.
President also stated, Ukraine, on its part, fully understands
all the importance of memorandums Japan files against the
countries, which continue nuclear tests.
Thus, Yushchenko emphasized the importance of Japan and Ukraine
sharing a common point of view regarding the matter of UN
reorganization with UN being able to resort to essential
preventive measures for the sake of international nuclear
security.
On July 6th there will be 60 anniversary of Hiroshima tragedy.
*****************************************************************
26 Greenpeace: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[Painting by a survivor of the atomic bombings]
Last edited: 25-07-2005
During World War II, the United States and Britain began an
atomic bomb program called the "Manhattan Project". The project
was initially driven by the fear that Germany might be
developing an atomic bomb. Research and development continued
after Germany was defeated, however, despite the fact that there
was little likelihood of the Japanese making an atomic bomb.
It culminated in the design, production and detonation of three
nuclear weapons in 1945. The first was on July 16: "Trinity",
the world's first nuclear test, near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The
second was the weapon "Little Boy", detonated on August 6, over
the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The third was the weapon "Fat
Man", detonated on August 9, over the city of Nagasaki, Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instantly destroyed. The atomic
shock waves killed all those within a wide radius and in the
area beyond radiation meant many more died or suffered from
leukemia over the coming days, months and years. The survivors,
known in Japan as "Hibakusha" and their children suffered social
exclusion by a society terrified of radioactive contamination.
Many Hibakusha have made their tragedy the basis for campaigning
for a world in which their will be no more Hiroshima's or
Nagasaki's.
Hiroshima
At 8.15am on the 6th August 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little
Boy" - the first such device to be detonated in military action
- was dropped from a B-29 Superfortress, the "Enola Gay". The
official Hiroshima government estimate made in December 1945 is
that 140,000 died however, many thousands more have perished
since then. After the nuclear attack, Hiroshima was rebuilt as a
peace memorial city, and the closest surviving building to the
location of the bomb's detonation was designated the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial.
Nagasaki
On the morning of August 9, 1945, the crew of the American B-29
Superfortress "Bockscar", carrying the nuclear bomb nicknamed
"Fat Man" found their primary target, Kokura, to be obscured by
cloud. The bad weather conditions and a series of other problems
led them to go on to a secondary target - the industrial area of
Nagasaki. The number of Nagasaki residents killed is believed to
be 100,000.
At the time the US government justified the use of the atomic
bombs by speaking about revenge for the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor and the Japanese refusal to accept the Allied demand for
unconditional surrender. In later years, however, the US
government has argued that it was militarily necessary to drop
the bombs because the only alternative was an invasion of Japan
which would have cost many servicemen their lives.
Right from the start, however, America's most senior Army, Navy
and Airforce officers and some top officials denied that there
was any military necessity to drop the atomic bombs. In the
words of General, later President, Eisenhower, "We did not need
to hit them with that awful thing." From decoded Japanese
telegrams and other means knew that Japan was militarily
defeated and that a combination of American surrender terms
which would allow the Japanese to keep their Emperor - which the
US did agree to after the dropping of the atomic bombs - and the
Soviet Union's forthcoming entry into the war against Japan
would most likely lead to a Japanese surrender without any need
for an invasion.
Historical evidence
This July the WMD Awareness group - that's a coalition of anti
nuclear groups that includes Greenpeace - brought two historians
over from the US for a conference to mark the 60th anniversary
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Mark Selden is a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca,
New York, US and Peter Kuznick, is director of the Nuclear
Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US.
They gave riveting presentations, the case they made was complex
and multi-layered, but in essence it was this.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives
show that one of US President Truman's main motives in dropping
atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was not to avoid
having to make an invasion by allied troops, but to limit Soviet
expansion in Asia.
They contend that Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union
began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not
because of the atomic bombs themselves. Furthermore they argue
that the US knew both that the Japanese were ready to surrender
if guarantees were given that they could keep their Emperor, and
that they would very likely surrender if the Soviets were to
enter to war in the Pacific, which the Russians had confirmed
they would do before the dropping of the bomb.
The historians cited many documents and statements, many by
senior military officers and atomic scientists involved in the
US nuclear programme.
Watch the interview of professors Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden.
Why is all this relevant today?
The Cold War, which began in response to the dropping of the
bomb on Hiroshima, is over, but this does not mean nuclear
weapons have disappeared. Far from it: There are over 30,000
nuclear weapons in the world, more than a thousand of them ready
to launch at a moment's notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
While the prospect of an all out exchange of arsenals between
Russia and the US has receded, the prospects of a nuclear weapon
actually being used are perhaps greater today than during the
cold war.
Nuclear "powers" have repeatedly refused to give up their
arsenals of weapons. This attitude has led to the near collapse
of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - the agreement
which is supposed to control nuclear arms and lead to eventual
total global nuclear disarmament. Moreover, it has contributed
to other countries - including India, Pakistan and very likely
North Korea - developing their own nuclear weapons in recent
years. Nuclear brinkmanship is inevitable in such a climate of
nuclear hypocrisy.
In the US George Bush talks openly of developing more robust,
more 'usable' nuclear weapons.
Here in the UK the Labour government has quietly changed its
policy on nuclear weapons. It used to be the case that the UK
agreed it would not launch a nuclear weapons against a non
nuclear country - this policy has been quietly abandoned. Labour
has also endorsed the use of nuclear weapons - in 1993, then UK
Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, declared that the UK may use
its nuclear weapons to protect Britain's "strategic interests" -
a pretty wide definition, and well beyond the original one where
they would be used if the UK was threatened with a nuclear
strike. The current Labour government, despite being strongly
pressed to do so by the House of Commons Defence Select
Committee, has never repudiated the Rifkind doctrine and has,
moreover, created a sub-strategic Trident which could be used
for exactly this purpose.
What the future holds
During the next parliament the UK government has to decide
whether to build a successor to Trident - our current nuclear
weapons system. Morally, and possibly legally, as a signatory up
to the NPT - the UK should be disarming not ploughing billions
of pounds into developing new and more deadly nuclear weapons.
The building of new laboratories, the hiring of scientists, and
other factors suggests that Blair intends to do no such thing,
and unless the public demand it he will happily sign off on a
successor to Trident, obviously not seeing Trident as one of the
targets in his global "war" against weapons of mass destruction.
Greenpeace was formed in response to the threat of nuclear
weapons and has campaign over the years for their elimination.
We believe that only when all countries pursue nuclear
disarmament in good faith can we begin putting the nuclear genie
back in the bottle by banning the use and manufacture of the
nuclear materials at the heart of the bomb.
*****************************************************************
27 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: India-US nuclear cooperation and Pakistan
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Pakistan’s reaction to news of US-India nuclear cooperation
agreement has so far been mature. It has not betrayed panic.
This is good. Panic is not going to solve anything and in any
case the movement that we have seen along the India-US track
should not come as a surprise for those who have been plotting
the course of India’s US diplomacy since the Clinton
administration. The increasing tendency of the Bush
administration to seek allies and supporters for its causes
outside the United Nations framework has also ensured that
Washington should look upon an ambitious India as a strategic
partner. To take the edge off the agreement on nuclear
cooperation, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called
up General Pervez Musharraf after the signing and assured him
that it would have no impact on power relations in the region
since the cooperation is confined to India’s civilian nuclear
programme and energy generation.
Dr Rice’s assurance, of course, hides the fact that by extending
this cooperation, the United States has virtually accepted India
as a de jure nuclear weapons state, albeit outside the framework
of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This means that at
least bilaterally India is now kosher and none of the NPT
provisions meant to deny know-how to a non-signatory will apply
to India as far as the US is concerned. The agreement also takes
care of US domestic legislation against a hold-out state that
has tested nuclear weapons.
This is a major development. While it is good to see Pakistan
acting with equanimity in the face of it, it definitely calls
for a coherent short- to long-term strategy to deal with the
full implications of this development. General Musharraf has
already held a meeting of the National Command Authority on July
23 and one of the items on the agenda was the India-US nuclear
cooperation pact. We do not know the details of what was
discussed in camera but at least two possibilities have been
indirectly reported. There is word that Pakistan would initiate
talks with the US for a similar arrangement; and two, it may
slow down the pace of talks on nuclear CBMs scheduled for August
5-6 in New Delhi. Additionally, General Musharraf has indicated
that Pakistan, while keeping an eye on the next steps by India,
would refrain from getting into an arms race with that country.
All these steps, as reported, are commendable. Striving for
symmetry with India has long been rejected as a viable policy.
General Musharraf’s statement on that count simply reinforces
the continuation of the policy of working out ratios and
retaining the balance on their basis within an asymmetric
relationship. As for engaging the US on a similar deal, there is
no harm in doing that, though Pakistan should be cautious about
the nature of the quid pro quo the US might demand.
India is already working towards scuttling any such possibility
and Dr Manmohan Singh’s reference while in the US to the danger
of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling in the hands of extremists
was basically a crude attempt to present Pakistan as an
“irresponsible” state. This has been a motif with India since
the Kargil conflict in 1999. That it should surface again while
the two states are embarked on a normalisation process should
not surprise anyone. Not only has Dr Singh cast doubts over the
security of Pakistani arsenal, he has also cast a shadow over
the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.
The real question that Pakistan faces is the maintenance and
upgrading of its nuclear capability. How much of that can be
done without a cooperative agreement with the US? Pakistan has
done it so far and it can continue with its present course while
trying to engage the US. The other issue is legitimacy, which is
what India has secured through its agreement with the US.
Legitimacy is important and we have constantly argued that the
world should grant that to the three second-generation nuclear
weapons states. We referred to an arrangement that granted
legitimacy to all three — India, Pakistan, Israel — by the five
legitimate weapons states. But the US has scripted bilateral
arrangements with Israel and now India. That leaves out
Pakistan. At the same time these arrangements do not involve the
other nuclear weapons states. The United States has therefore
embarked on a course that can be dangerous for
non-proliferation. *
EDITORIAL #2: Human safety and fighting terror
One of the ostensible reasons for eradicating terrorism is to
enhance overall security, especially security for citizens, the
soft targets most at risk from such acts. However, the paradox
is that multiple terror acts and the strike-at-will ability of
such groups can cause security agencies to act in ways that can
reduce overall security. In London, the police pumped five
bullets into a young man and declared that it had shot one of
the bombing suspects. It initially gave the identity of the
person as a Pakistani Muslim. We now know that the unfortunate
person was a Brazilian national living and working in London. In
held Kashmir Indian security forces shot and killed three
teenage boys and wounded a fourth on suspicion of being
terrorists. Indian army sources later said it was a “mistake”.
In Islamabad, raids on seminaries resulted in a botched
operation which led to transfers of three top police officers.
These are just three incidents from different countries in the
last few days. There are scores more. These incidents throw up
an obvious question: What is the point of fighting terror if the
citizen will be terrorised by both the terrorists and those
presumably countering them? Hence there is need to develop
guidelines for counter-terrorism personnel. *
Home | Editorial
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
28 Indian Express: Ending our nuclear winter
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Why Indo-US pact is a deal every govt in Delhi would have
loved to cut
C. RAJA MOHAN
As you tune into India’s great debate on the nuclear pact that
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has signed up with President George
W. Bush, don’t let the experts flummox you with all the jargon.
If you leave the nuclear detail to the government and the
experts, you will find the latest Indo-US pact a tectonic shift
in geopolitics. All such shifts in global order produce delicious
ironies. Just savour them.
The first irony is that the “unilateralist” Bush Administration
has chosen to modify one of the most important treaty
arrangements in the world to favour an India that is allegedly
passionate about “multilateralism”. The Indo-US nuclear pact is
about a convergence between the Bush Administration, which views
treaties from the pragmatic rather than legal perspective, and a
“revisionist” India which has long sought a change in global
nuclear rules.
As the Bush Administration makes a nuclear exemption for Delhi
and justifies it on the ground that India is “exceptional”, all
sorts of “multilateralists” in Europe and the US will oppose it.
Thanks to Indian nuclear vacillations in the 1960s, India found
itself outside the NPT, which now has universal membership
barring India, Israel and Pakistan. India’s refusal to sign the
treaty had little to do with the in-built discrimination in the
NPT. It had to do with the fact that under the NPT, India could
not be accepted as a nuclear weapon power.
As the rules of nuclear non-proliferation steadily tightened
under the NPT, India found itself increasingly cut-off from the
flows of global nuclear commerce. Under the treaty, India was
neither non-nuclear fish nor nuclear fowl. Trapped in this
nuclear “trishanku” state, India desperately sought to change
its standing vis a vis the nuclear system. With the nuclear
tests of May 1998, Delhi ended the self-created confusion about
its nuclear status. India told itself and the world that it is
now a nuclear weapon state and began to engage the US to alter
the nuclear regime in its favour.
Singh’s nuclear pact with Bush is a triumphant culmination of
the effort that involved a series of negotiations, launched by
the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and US Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott during 1998-2000 and continued
by National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and his US
counterpart Condoleezza Rice during 2001-04.
President Bush was better disposed towards India than his
predecessor, Bill Clinton, and lifted most of the sanctions
imposed on Delhi after the 1998 tests. Mishra wanted more —
civilian nuclear and space cooperation with the US. Rice largely
accepted the principle and the two produced the “Next Steps in
Strategic Partnership”. While the NSSP produced a change of
direction in US nuclear policy towards India, it did not clinch
the unresolved differences. Nor did the NSSP open the door for
substantive civilian nuclear energy cooperation.
The Bush-Singh pact now goes beyond the NSSP and offers India de
facto recognition of its nuclear weapon status and access to the
global nuclear energy market in return for separating India’s
military and civilian nuclear programmes. It is a deal, worth
its weight in gold, that the Vajpayee government would have
loved to cut. Probably that explains Vajpayee’s ire against the
government than the details of the deal itself.
Besides changing the nuclear rules, Bush has met a second,
equally fundamental grand strategic objective of India. For
decades now, Delhi has been struggling to find nuclear parity
with China and atomic separation from Pakistan. Thanks to its
grand illusions about disarmament and a fetish for the United
Nations, India could not respond quickly or effectively to
China’s first nuclear test in October 1964. As a consequence,
the doors of the international nuclear order were shut on its
face.
As India slept, barring a brief nuclear moment in 1974, Pakistan
too acquired nuclear weapons by the late 1980s with Chinese
assistance. India’s nuclear tests of May 1998 did not resolve
India’s security problematique. The Indian tests, followed by
those of Pakistan, in fact underlined the nuclear parity between
India and Pakistan. China along with the Clinton Administration
took a strong position against India’s “proliferation” and its
threat to the global nuclear order.
As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council
and one of the five nuclear weapon states recognised by the NPT,
China passed the UNSC resolution 1172 demanding India and
Pakistan give up their nuclear weapons. Ironically, from that
collusion with China against India in 1998, and the obsessive
focus on “South Asian proliferation”, the US is now offering to
recognise Delhi’s strategic parity with Beijing and treat India
differently from Pakistan. The Indo-US nuclear pact allows India
to expand its civilian nuclear energy programme without
undertaking any political obligations that China does not.
The nuclear exception for India that Bush is seeking in the US
non-proliferation legislation as well as international rules is
premised on the proposition that India’s non-proliferation
record has been impeccable and that India is a “responsible”
nuclear weapon state.
The same, however, cannot be said of Pakistan. Thanks to the
A.Q. Khan affair, which has revealed the expansive nuclear black
market run by sections of the Pakistani establishment, there is
no support in Washington either in the executive or legislature
to extend the kind of nuclear cooperation the Bush
Administration wants to undertake with India.
While the Indo-US nuclear pact allows India to break out of its
nuclear isolation that has deepened since the first test of May
1974, creates nuclear equivalence between India and China and
differentiates between Delhi and Islamabad, some in Delhi would
love to see India play second fiddle to China and remain
confined to a South Asian nuclear paradigm.
Since 1974, the world gave us a simple choice: either you have a
peaceful nuclear programme or a nuclear weapons programme. The
Indo-US nuclear pact is a historic breakthrough, because it
allows us to have both. It is a deal India has waited for
decades, and no government in Delhi would be foolish enough to
reject it.
© 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
29 Asia Times Online: Uranium at the core
Korea News and Korean Business and Economy, Pyongyang news
By Ralph A Cossa
HIROSHIMA - The six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's
nuclear weapons programs resume in Beijing on July 26 after a
13-month hiatus. But what are the prospects for success? Some,
particularly in China and South Korea, see the mere act of
talking as progress, and certainly talking is better than not
talking. But it is clearly not enough.
The US, for one, has made it clear that it is expecting some
movement toward its ultimate goal: the denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula, a goal which, at least on paper, the other
five parties (China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea)
profess to share. "We don't intend to engage in talks for talks'
sake," insisted US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In fact,
all six parties, in one way or another, have said they want to
see real progress made at this fourth plenary session.
Progress is indeed possible, if Pyongyang is serious about
trading away its nuclear programs and Washington is equally
serious about cutting a deal. There are some positive
indications that this may finally be the case. North Korean
leader Kim Jong-il reportedly told visiting South Korean
Unification Minister Chung Dong-Young that the 1992 Declaration
on the Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula was the "dying
wish" of his father and was "still valid". This gives the junior
Kim the political cover he needs (if, in fact, he really needs
political cover, as some analysts suggest) to press on with
denuclearization. Of note, the 1992 declaration, while not
ruling out nuclear power plants (the South has several of them),
prohibits reprocessing, which has (rightfully) been one of
Washington's major concerns about Pyongyang's "peaceful"
nuclear-energy program.
Washington has also indicated it is prepared to be more flexible
regarding economic incentives, praising the South's recent
energy proposal (which presumably lays to rest the resumption of
the 1994 Agreed Framework's ill-fated light-water reactor
project or LWR). Rice has cautioned that "North Korea's energy
needs will be considered only after North Korea agrees to
dismantle completely its nuclear weapons program". This is
significant since the original Washington position was that no
rewards would be provided until dismantlement was complete.
While Washington is still not prepared to "reward bad behavior"
in advance, it seems willing to allow Seoul and others to do so
in return for North Korea's agreement to dismantle, with rewards
no doubt timed to coincide with concrete actions by Pyongyang.
While the negotiating process promises to be a long, drawn-out
one, observers will have an early indication of Pyongyang's
seriousness. This can be summed up in one word: uranium. The
crisis began with the revelation that North Korea had a
clandestine uranium-based weapons program that subverted the
1994 US-North Korea agreement to denuclearize the peninsula in
return for energy assistance (heavy fuel oil deliveries,
followed by the construction of two LWRs). According to the US,
Pyongyang privately acknowledged the program, but now publicly
denies this. Complete denuclearization requires Pyongyang to
acknowledge all its nuclear programs.
Again there is some hope. The US has been claiming that the
North has a (weapons-related) highly enriched uranium program.
According to Chinese interlocutors, while the North rejects this
claim, it has been more circumspect about the existence of a
possible (energy-related) uranium enrichment program.
Acknowledging the centrifuges of which Washington has firm
evidence Pyongyang has acquired but maintains are for a peaceful
fuel fabrication program – while not necessarily credible –
would provide one way to get past this hurdle.
If Pyongyang really accepts the South's offer to satisfy the
North's electrical energy needs, then it no longer needs a
peaceful nuclear energy program and can give up (or, more
likely, sell back) its uranium enrichment equipment. There is
also the "A Q Kim option", where the North can suddenly discover
a rogue scientist conducting programs behind the Dear Leader's
back. As outlandish as this sounds, a similar cover story was
used to explain Pyongyang's about-face when it finally
acknowledged that Japanese civilians had been kidnapped. (The A
Q relates to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear
weapons program who has confessed to proliferation, but on a
purely individual, not state, basis.)
It is too early to be either optimistic or pessimistic about the
prospects for success of the talks, but how Pyongyang deals or
fails to deal with the uranium issue will provide a major
indication of the North's sincerity.
Note: The North added an eleventh-hour wrinkle by calling for a
peace treaty to replace the 1953 Armistice. This was Pyongyang's
for the asking in 1999 when, for reasons still not explained but
presumed to be centered around its reluctance to sign a treaty
if Seoul was a signatory, the North walked away from the
four-party talks (with the South, China and the US), which were
aimed specifically at achieving that objective. It is not clear
if the latest demand is for a bilateral US-North Korea treaty
(which Washington would and should find unacceptable) or if the
North is finally ready to involve the South in the process.
Ralph A Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a
Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and
senior editor of Comparative Connections, a quarterly electronic
journal.
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)
Head Office: Rm 202,
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
*****************************************************************
30 Las Vegas SUN: Celebrities come out to protest nuclear power
Today: July 25, 2005 at 11:13:44 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Anti-nuclear activists brought out like-minded
celebrities Monday to protest nuclear components of the energy
bill and storing nuclear waste on Native American lands.
Singer Ani DiFranco along with Emily Saliers and Amy Ray, who
make up the group the Indigo Girls, and actor James Cromwell
spoke against Private Fuel Storage, the proposed temporary
nuclear waste storage site in Utah. They also objected to
Congress passing any new incentives for future nuclear power
plants, which may happen in a comprehensive energy bill.
DiFranco summarized her opposition to nuclear power in one
word: "cancer."
She said there is no container than can stay air tight forever
to keep radiation from nuclear waste away from people just as
there is no way to ship the waste across the country "without
mishap."
"Anyone who is trying to tell me that nuclear waste is clean is
lying to me," DiFranco said.
House and Senate negotiators may be wrapping up work on a final
version of the energy bill this week. The bill renews a
government insurance program in the event of a nuclear accident
and provides incentives to develop new plants.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may issue a
decision as early as next month on licensing the Private Fuel
Storage facility in Utah on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian
Reservation. The site is intended to store waste until the
proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, would open.
Saliers said the existing nuclear waste should stay where it is
and nuclear power should stop generating more. She would rather
seen renewable energy like wind power used and more efforts to
conserve energy.
The entertainers, along with U.S. Public Interest Research
Group and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, will
visit congressional offices today, including Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the referring page.
Las Vegas SUN main page
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions or problems? Click here.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
31 Xinhua: Pakistan eager to expand cooperation in nuclear energy
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-26 01:47:06
ISLAMABAD, July 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Pakistan Monday expressed
its desire to expand cooperation with the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG) and the United States in peaceful use of atomic
energy.
"Our position constantly has been that the Nuclear Suppliers
Group should extend cooperation to Pakistan for the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy under the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) safeguards," Foreign Office spokesman Naeem Khan
said at a weekly news briefing.
Commenting on the recent understanding reached between the
United States and India over the peaceful use of nuclear
technology, Naeem said Pakistan has its own strategic relations
with the United States and "we would like to extend this
cooperation in multiple fields including the peaceful use of
nuclear energy, high technology and the peaceful use of space
technology."
"We would like to expand cooperation with the NSG in the
peaceful use of nuclear energy, we already have cooperation with
our friend China and we would like to expand cooperation with
the United States as well," he added.
Referring to a meeting held with visiting officials of the
NSG to Pakistan early this year, the spokesman said Islamabad
has conveyed its position vis-a-vis having cooperation with the
44-member grouping that includes the United States, Britain,
China, France and Russia.
Pakistan has also conveyed to the NSG partners that it would
like that the non-proliferation regime should accommodate the
ground nuclear realities of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
states, he noted.
Pakistan, he added, has its own nuclear program and all its
nuclear power reactors are under the IAEA safeguards.
Talking on the US-India understanding on the peaceful use of
nuclear energy, the spokesman said Washington has made it clear
that it does not amount to recognizing India as a nuclear weapon
state.
He observed that the US-India understanding should not have
anyimpact on the ongoing negotiations between Pakistan and India
overthe nuclear and conventional confidence building measures
under the composite dialogue process. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company, et al. South Texas Project, Units
FR Doc E5-3942
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 42592-42593] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-65]
1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application
Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring and Opportunity for a
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
Commission) is considering issuance of an order under Section
50.80 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
approving the indirect transfer of Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80 for South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and
2, respectively, to the extent held by Texas Genco, LP (Texas
Genco).
The June 28, 2005, application requests the consent of the NRC to
the proposed indirect transfer of control of the STP, Units 1 and
2, licenses to the extent held by Texas Genco. Texas Genco is a
44 percent owner and non-operating licensee of STP, Units 1 and
2.
According to the application, filed by STP Nuclear Operating
Company (STPNOC) on behalf of Texas Genco, Texas Genco is
indirectly owned by Texas Genco Holdings, Inc., which in turn is
wholly owned by Texas Genco LLC. Texas Genco LLC is owned by
investment funds affiliated with The Blackstone Group, Hellman &
Friedman LLC, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
L.P., and Texas Pacific Group (the Investment Funds) and certain
members of the management team (Management owners).
As stated in the application, the ultimate owners of Texas Genco
are proposing a corporate restructuring such
[[Page 42593]] that several new entities would be interposed
between (i) the Investment Funds and Management owners and (ii)
Texas Genco LLC.
This proposed restructuring is in anticipation of a proposed
initial public offering of a minority interest in Texas Genco
Inc. Texas Genco Inc., was incorporated on May 20, 2005, as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of another new entity, Texas Genco
Sponsor LLC. Immediately prior to the initial public offering,
Texas Genco Sponsor LLC and Texas Genco Inc., will form a new
limited liability company, Texas Genco Holdings LLC.
Following certain transactions described in the application, and
following the initial public offering, Texas Genco Inc., will
become the sole managing member of Texas Genco Holdings LLC, and
Texas Genco Holdings LLC will become the sole owner of Texas
Genco LLC and the indirect owner of licensee Texas Genco, which
shall at all times continue to be a licensed owner of STP.
According to the application, the Investment Funds and Management
owners would control Texas Genco Inc., through their ownership of
a majority of the voting power in Texas Genco Inc., and continue
to ultimately control Texas Genco. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no
license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly
or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless
the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission
will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the
Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified
to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise
consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and
orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene, and written comments with regard to the license
transfer application, are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C,
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon Mr. John E. Matthews,
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004, attorney for STPNOC; Nicholas S. Reynolds,
Winston & Strawn LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
20006-3817, attorney for Texas Genco; the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail
address for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order
granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and
designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing
will be published in the Federal Register and served on the
parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. For further details with respect to this action,
see the application dated June 28, 2005, available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or
by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th
day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David H. Jaffe, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-3942 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
33 RedNova News: Energy Bill Boosts Nuke Plant Construction
A House-Senate conference committee is negotiating a U.S. energy
bill that includes several proposals to boost nuclear power
plant construction.
The proposals call for taxpayers to share the cost of licensing
the first generation of new plants, offer loan guarantees and
set caps on industry liability in case of an accident, the
Washington Post reported Sunday.
In addition, the White House wants to protect investors against
regulatory delays by defraying the cost of some delays. Some
proposals would give the nuclear industry protection against
fluctuations in the price of electricity.
Nuclear power advocates say nuclear power would cut the
country's dependence on foreign oil, may seem more attractive as
oil prices increase and cut the production of greenhouse gases
that can cause global warming.
Nuclear power opponents say putting the burden of nuclear power
liability and licensing on the taxpayer as well as the
heightened security concerns make it uneconomical.
In addition, the risk for long-term high-level nuclear waste
storage and the lack of a permanent disposal site, make nuclear
power as unattractive as global warming, according to Anna
Aurilio, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Source: United Press International
© 2002-2005 RedNova.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
34 Reuters: Exelon Ill. Quad Cities 1 nuke cut to 20 pct power
Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:14 AM ET
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) 864-megawatt unit 1 at the Quad Cities nuclear
power station in Illinois dipped to 20 percent of capacity by
early Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a
report.
On Friday, the unit was operating at 85 percent of capacity.
The 1,728-MW Quad Cities station is located in Cordova in Rock
Island County, about 155 miles west of Chicago. There are two
864-MW units 1 and 2 at the station.
Unit 2, meanwhile, dipped from 98 percent on Friday to 97
percent on Monday.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Chicago-based energy company Exelon's unregulated Exelon
Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station for its owners,
Exelon (75 percent) and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (BRKa.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) MidAmerican Energy Co. subsidiary (25
percent).
Exelon's subsidiaries own and operate more than 38,000 MW of
generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and
distribute electricity (5.1 million) and natural gas (460,000) to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
35 Reuters: PPL Pa. Susquehanna 1 nuke dips to 73 pct power
Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:08 AM ET
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - PPL Corp.'s (PPL.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) 1,140-megawatt unit 1 at the Susquehanna
nuclear power station in Pennsylvania dipped to 73 percent of
capacity by early Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
said in a report.
On Friday, the unit was operating at full power.
The 2,245 MW Susquehanna station is in the town of Berwick in
Columbia County, about 125 miles northwest of Philadelphia. There
are two units at the station, the 1,105 MW unit 1 and the 1,140
MW unit 2.
Unit 2, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
PPL's PPL Susquehanna LLC subsidiary operates the station for
its owners: PPL (90 percent) and Allegheny Electric Cooperative
Inc. (10 percent).
PPL's subsidiaries own and operate more than 12,000 MW of
generating capacity in the United States, market energy
commodities in the U.S., and transmit and distribute electricity
to nearly 5 million customers in Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom
and Latin America.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security Based
FR Doc E5-3943
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 42596] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-68]
Events AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued
Bulletin (BL) 2005-02 to all holders of operating licenses for
nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased
operation and have certified that fuel has been removed from the
reactor vessel. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
issuing this bulletin to: 1. Notify addressees about NRC staff's
need for information associated with emergency preparedness (EP)
for security-based events at a nuclear power plant; 2. Request
addressees provide information to the NRC within 30 days of this
bulletin regarding actions taken or planned to be taken in the
areas discussed below: a. Security-based emergency classification
levels and emergency action levels (EALs), emergency response
organization augmentation for security-based events, and a
security-based EP drill and exercise program, b. Accelerated NRC
notifications and onsite protective measures; 3. If actions
regarding the topics covered in this bulletin have not been
taken, the addressees are requested to provide a schedule
detailing expected completion dates for all pending activities;
and 4. Require addressees to provide a written response to the
NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f). This Federal Register
notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML051990027.
DATES: The bulletin was issued on July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Not applicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Michael Norris at 301-415-4098
or by e-mail , Greg Casto at 301-415-4072 or by e-mail , or
Douglas Pickett at 301-415-1364 or e-mail dvp1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Bulletin 2005-02 may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, .
The ADAMS number for the bulletin is ML051740058.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in
accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document
Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick L. Hiland, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, Division of
Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-3943 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 [du-list] Conclusions and Recomendations from SANDIA REPORT
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:41:26 -0700
"To reduce civilian risks to negligible levels, children should be
discouraged from
playing in or near battle-damaged vehicles."
Here are the Conclusions and Recommendations from the Sandia Report.
The author appears to be a nuclear scientist, but I could get no results
beyond those below in two tries on Google Scholar.
R Rands
Amateur Scientist
BSc Boise State College 1971
(in biology)
[page 115]
"7.0. Conclusions and Recommendations
This study included a numerical analysis of the effect of DU exposure on
exposed
individuals, using Gulf War veterans and Iraqi civilians as a case study.
The accuracy and
validity of the methodology was then assessed by an uncertainty analysis,
benchmark
calculations, and by comparisons with veteran health statistics,
epidemiological data, and
comparisons with the results from previous Gulf War/DU studies. Based on
this
investigation, the following conclusions were reached.
"7.1 Dispersal/Consequence Methodology
. This study included an assessment of the methods for predicting
radioisotope
dispersal and health effects for the specific case of Gulf War use of DU
munitions.
The basic methodology was determined to be valid. The findings of this study
can be
used as a benchmark and a guide for evaluating the validity and
uncertainties of
health predictions for other radioisotope dispersal studies.
7.2 Weapons Complex Uranium Guidance
. No significant radiological health risks are posed by normal handling and
processing
of uranium within the weapons complex, if standard safety guidelines are
followed.
. Clinical health effects should not result from the chemical toxicity
(heavy metal)
effect of uranium, if the implicit limit of 3 ?g U/g kidney is not exceeded.
Although
an individual is unlikely to become ill at this maximum permitted kidney
burden,
transient indicators of renal dysfunction are possible.
. A reconsideration of the weapons complex guidelines for uranium exposure
is
recommended to determine whether the guidelines are consistent with the most
recent
findings and basic chemical toxicity health protection standards.
[p 116]
"7.3 DU-Exposed U.S. Veterans
. DU-induced cancer risks for most Gulf War veterans are extremely small.
. Only a few U.S. veterans, in vehicles accidentally struck by DU
penetrators, inhaled
sufficient quantities of DU to incur an appreciable fatal cancer risk (~1%,
compared
to all U.S. civilian fatalities from cancer equal to 24%).
. The risk of radiation-induced cancer for DU-exposed veterans is almost
entirely
associated with the risk of lung cancer. All other radiation-induced cancer
risks,
including leukemia, are much smaller.
. The risk of radiation-induced birth defects is very small relative to the
U.S. average
birth defect frequency of about 8% per live birth. For the worst case, the
incremental
risk is about 0.03%, and for most veterans the risk is extremely small.
. For routine handling of DU munitions or occupation of tanks containing DU
munitions, potential health risks are very small.
. The dominant path for DU exposure was inhalation of DU particulate.
Embedded DU
fragments made significant contributions to the DU concentration in the bone
and
other organs; however, even with fragment effects included, the risk of
cancer for
these organs and the risk of leukemia were very small. Ingested DU did not
have a
significant effect on the radiological risk.
. For veterans retaining embedded DU fragments, a review of the literature
did not
identify any veterans with soft-tissue sarcomas in the vicinity of
fragments.
Nonetheless, animal tests suggest that fragment-induced local sarcomas
cannot be
ruled out as a possibility.
. The risks of DU-induced cancers for veterans and DU-induced birth defects
for their
children are sufficiently small that any effect from DU exposure would be
impossible
to distinguish from background incidences of cancers and birth defects.
Furthermore,
veteran health statistics do not support claims of significant increases in
cancers or
birth defects among Gulf War veterans.
. For most DU-exposed veterans, the DU concentration in the kidney was too
small to
result in kidney-related health effects. However, a few Level I veterans may
have
[ p117]
"inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to experience transient
kidney damage.
Long-term kidney health effects are not expected for any DU-exposed
veterans.
. Currently, neurotoxic effects from DU exposure cannot be ruled out.
Nonetheless,
veteran test results to date suggest that major neurotoxic effects are
unlikely. Other
possible toxicity effects from DU internalization have been suggested;
however,
evidence for other chemically induced DU effects is not well established.
. Continued medical examination of DU-exposed veterans and tracking of
veteran
records is recommended to assure that no unexpected long-term health effects
develop as a result of DU exposure. Some issues, such as the possibility of
soft tissue
sarcomas in the vicinity of DU fragments and possible neurotoxic effects,
may
require long-term monitoring.
. Continued basic research (e.g., animal testing) is recommended to
determine the
significance of possible linkages between DU exposure and chemically induced
health effects such as neurotoxic effects.
. Reasonable precautions are suggested to reduce the possibility of health
effects from
DU exposure as a result of friendly fire, such as assuring that the
ventilation system is
operating following shell impact or rapidly exiting the vehicle.
. Timely post-battle screening and treatment, as required, are strongly
recommended to
provide accurate records for all Level I veterans.
7.4 DU-Exposed Iraqi Civilians
. The radiological risk is extremely small for civilians located downwind
from DU
munitions use. Thus, DU is predicted to have no detectable health effects
(including
cancers, leukemia, and birth defects) on downwind civilians.
. Monitoring of DU in the environment suggests that DU contamination of food
and
water supplies has not been significant to date. Furthermore, widespread DU
contamination in the distant future is unlikely.
. The most significant risk for Iraqi civilians may be for children playing
in or near
DU-damaged vehicles. The nominal risk of lung cancer for these children is
about
[p 118]
0.04%, and the nominal risk of colon cancer is 0.06%. The risk of leukemia
and other
cancers is insignificant.
. The beta particle emission rate for DU is too low to present a risk of
skin burns from
direct contact with DU metal. However, a DU fragment in close contact with
the skin
at the same location for many years (e.g., worn as jewelry) could result in
a local skin
cancer risk from beta irradiation.
. Gamma radiation from nearby unburied shells, fragments, or particulate is
too weak
to present a significant radiological risk.
. No adverse kidney effects are predicted for Iraqi civilians exposed to DU.
. To reduce civilian risks to negligible levels, children should be
discouraged from
playing in or near battle-damaged vehicles.
. To assure that long-term contamination of the environment has not resulted
from DU
munitions use, continued monitoring of the post-battle zone environment and
nearby
civilians is suggested."
----------------
> SANDIA REPORT SAND2005-4331
> Unlimited Release
> Printed July 2005
>
> An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case
> Study
>
> Albert C. Marshall
> Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories
> Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
>
> Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation,
> a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy's
> National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
======================================
Google Advanced Scholar search results:
1.
Your search - epidemiology author:"Albert C. Marshall" - did not match any
articles.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.
- Try your query on the entire web.
2.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Albert+C.+Marshall%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2005&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off
- Advanced Scholar Search Scholar Results 1 - 4 of 4 for author:"Albert
C. Marshall". (0.05 seconds)Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to
get more results.An Assessment of Reactor Types for Thermochemical Hydrogen
ProductionAC Marshall - SAND2002-0513, February, 2002 - osti.govPage 1. 1
SANDIA REPORT SAND2002-0513 Unlimited Release February 2002 AnAssessmentof
Reactor Types for Thermochemical Hydrogen Production Albert C.
Marshall...Cited by 4 - View as HTML - Web Search - prod.sandia.gov
-infoserve.sandia.govSmall fission power systems for NEPRJ Lipinski, SA
Wright, MP Sherman, RX Lenard, AC . - SPACE TECHNOLOGY ANDAPPLICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL FORUM, 2002 - adsabs.harvard.eduTitle: Small fission power
systems for NEP Authors: Lipinski, Ronald J.;Wright,Steven A.; Sherman,
Martin P.; Lenard, Roger X.; Marshall, Albert C.;Talandis ...Cited by 1 -
Web Search - adsabs.harvard.edu - link.aip.org - csa.comApplication of
revised thermionic theory to MTC diodesAC Marshall, DB King - AIP
Conference Proceedings, 2001 - link.aip.org>/> Application of revised
thermionic theory to MTC diodes. [AIP ConferenceProceedings552, 1158
(2001)]. Albert C. Marshall, Donald B. King. Abstract. ...Web Search -
adsabs.harvard.edu - adsabs.harvard.edu - csa.comAn advanced thermionic
theory: Recent developmentsAC Marshall - AIP Conference Proceedings, 2000 -
link.aip.org>/> An advanced thermionic theory: Recent developments. [AIP
ConferenceProceedings 504, 1319 (2000)]. Albert C. Marshall. Abstract.
...Web Search - adsabs.harvard.edu - csa.comGoogle Home - About Google -
About Google Scholar©2005 Google
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/
*****************************************************************
38 TIME.com: Life After Death
NYC Authorities take new precautions against bombers in Times
Square Vignette StoryServer 5.0 Mon Jul 25 16:45:53 2005
From the Magazine | Hiroshima
Life After Death
Posted Sunday, Jul. 24, 2005
They
are called the hibakusha, survivors of a day when the world went
dark. About 85,000 people who lived in Hiroshima and its
environs on Aug. 6, 1945, are still alive. For many, that
morning was the beginning of a lifetime of struggle--to overcome
not only the physical ailments associated with radiation but
also the psychic trauma caused by years of rejection from their
own society, which shunned the survivors out of fear they could
contaminate others. French photographer Gerard Rancinan traveled
to Hiroshima this year to photograph the hibakusha and record
their stories. Seventy agreed to pose, some holding childhood
photos or pictures of family members killed in the bombing. The
survivors wrote their names in white marker next to their
portraits and recorded how far they were from ground zero on
Aug. 6. Taken together, the pictures are striking reminders of
the bomb's life-altering effects. And they bear witness to the
human capacity to withstand the worst ravages of war.
+ Eyewitnesses to Hiroshima
+
+ Cover Story: Living Under the Cloud The atom bombs dropped
over Japan ended a terrible war and persuaded the world never to
use nuclear weapons again. Why that legacy is now in peril--and
what we should do about it
+
+ The Men Who Dropped the Bombs The U.S. servicemen aboard the
planes that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki knew that their
missions would change the world. In their own words, four
surviving crew members recount in gripping detail what they saw
from above
+
+ Crossing the Moral Threshold Why U.S. leaders never
questioned the idea of dropping the Bomb
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
FR Doc E5-3940
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 42593-42595] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-66]
Related to Issuance of Amendment No. 11 to Materials License No.
STB- 527, the Dow Chemical Company (TDCC), Bay City, MI Site (TAC
L60463) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION:
Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Nelson, Project Manager,
Materials Decommissioning Section, Decommissioning Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7E18, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415-6626; fax number: (301) 415-5397; e-mail:
dwn@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to the Dow Chemical Company's (TDCC) Material
License, No. STB-527. The amendment would allow an alternate
method for conducting surveys, would add two plans to the
license, and would expand the scope of onsite decommissioning
activities.
NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of
this amendment in accordance with the
[[Page 42594]] requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA,
the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate.
The amendment will be issued following the publication of this
Notice.
II. Environmental Assessment Background TDCC is the current
holder of NRC radioactive source materials license STB-527 (NRC
Docket 040-00017). The license authorizes TDCC, to possess and
use licensed materials (materials contaminated with source
material) during activities leading to their removal from the Bay
City, MI site. License STB-527 continues in effect until the
Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is
terminated.
The source material (radiological contamination) consists of
thorium and its daughter products. The license authorizes the
removal and transport of contaminated materials from the site in
accordance with an approved decommissioning plan (DP). The DP for
TDCC Bay City, MI site was approved in License Amendment No. 7
dated July 21, 1997 (See ADAMS ML050750212). The NRC is
considering a license amendment (License Amendment No. 11) to
approve the following: 1. An alternate method (AAR Method as
described in Revision 2 to the Supplement to the DP) for
conducting final status radiological surveys at its Bay City, MI
site, (See ADAMS ML051040383), and 2. The addition of four
structures and two small pieces of land adjacent to the property
to the scope of decommissioning activities (See ADAMS
ML051040383), and 3. The incorporation of the Groundwater
Monitoring Plan (GMP) for TDCC Bay City site into the license
(See ADAMS ML051040383), and 4. The incorporation of Revision 3
of TDCC Thorad Project Radiological Health and Safety Plan into
the license (See ADAMS ML051290296).
The objective of decommissioning at TDCC's Bay City, MI site is
to remediate radiological constituents, to the extent required,
to allow the NRC to release the property for unrestricted use and
terminate TDCC's license for the site (STB-527).
The Proposed Action The proposed action is to allow TDCC to more
accurately determine the spatial distribution of the radiological
contamination in the subsurface soil using an alternate surveying
method (AAR Method) to that described in the Final Survey Plan.
The amendment would also incorporate a formal GMP and Revision 3
of the Radiological Health and Safety Plan into the license and
add four structures and two small plots of land to the scope of
decommissioning activities.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Through the proposed
action, the licensee believes the alternate survey method would
more accurately characterize the radiological contamination in
the subsurface soil. By more accurately characterizing the
subsurface soil, the licensee believes that the volume of soil
excavated would be reduced thus reducing the cost of
decommissioning. The original DP did not address the four
structures and two small plots of land in the scope of
decommissioning activities. In order to release the whole site
for unrestricted use, the four structures and two plots of land
need to be formally addressed in the DP. The license has
routinely collected ground water samples on-site without an
approved GMP and the amendment would formally incorporate the GMP
into the license. Revision 3 of the Radiological Health and
Safety Plan addresses administrative issues that have arisen
since its last revision.
Alternative to the Proposed Action The ``no-action'' alternative
would be to require TDCC to continue to conduct surveys using the
method described in License Amendment No. 7. This could result in
the licensee unnecessarily excavating soil that exceeded the
approved release criteria.
The inclusion of the GMP into the license is not required.
However, inclusion does formally commit the licensee to all of
the provisions of the GMP and may prevent misunderstandings
between the NRC and TDCC regarding its implementation.
To release the entire site for unrestricted use, all buildings
and plots of land must be surveyed and remediated to the levels
required in License Amendment No. 7. The staff compares survey
results to the release criteria before concluding that the site
is suitable for license termination and can be released for
unrestricted use. If the buildings and plots of land are not
addressed in the DP and, therefore, not released for unrestricted
use, TDCC would be required to maintain control of them in the
license. This would place an unnecessary regulatory burden on
TDCC.
The Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts An earlier and
more extensive EA was prepared for License Amendment No. 7 (See
ADAMS ML050750212). The amendment approved TDCC's unrestricted
release criteria and final survey plan for the Bay City, MI site
(See ADAMS ML050750212). The NRC staff determined that
decommissioning of the site using the proposed release criteria
and the final survey plan could be accomplished to demonstrate
compliance with the NRC public and occupational dose limits, and
effluent release limits. In addition, the staff concluded that
the approval of the decommissioning activities at TDCC Bay City,
MI site in accordance with the commitments in NRC license STB-527
Amendment No. 7, and employing the unrestricted release criteria
and the final survey plan, would not result in a significant
adverse impact on the environment. For more details on the
facility description, operating history, radiological status,
evaluation of decontamination, evaluation of decontamination of
outdoor areas, radiation protection programs, and environmental
impacts, refer to the EA prepared for License Amendment No. 7
(See ADAMS ML050750212).
Radiological and non-radiological impacts are discussed in detail
in the EA prepared for the decommissioning of the site in License
Amendment No. 7. Since the release criteria remains the same for
soils and surfaces, changing the survey methodology and adding
four buildings and two small plots of land to the scope of
decommissioning activities will not cause an increase the level
of radiological and non- radiological impacts. Compliance with
the soil and surfaces release criteria ensures that the dose
limit for the site will not be exceeded. Adding the GMP to the DP
and revising the Health and Safety Plan are administrative issues
that have no environmental impact.
Agencies and Persons Contacted NRC staff has consulted with
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Michigan State Historic
Preservation Office in the preparation of this EA. The NRC staff
has determined that Section 7 consultation is not required
because listed/habitat are not present in the proposed action
area, therefore the proposed action will not affect listed
species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has determined that
the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential
to cause effects on historic
[[Page 42595]] properties because it is administrative/procedural
action.
Therefore no further consultation is required under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. The MDEQ had no
comments on the proposed action.
List of References A. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Issuance
of License Amendment to the Dow Chemical Company to Approve the
Decommissioning Criteria and Final Survey Plan for the
Decommissioning of Thorium Contaminated Slag Storage Piles at the
Dow Chemical Company's Sites in Midland and Bay City, Michigan.''
July 21, 1997, (ML050750212). B. The Dow Chemical Company,
``Revised RAIs and Revision 2 of Supplement to the
Decommissioning Plan for the TDCC Bay City, MI, Site.'' April 13,
2005, (ML051040383). C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Revised
Radiological Health and Safety Plan for the TDCC Bay City, MI,
Site.'' May 6, 2005, (ML051290296).
D. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Method for Surveying and
Averaging Concentrations of Thorium in Contaminated Subsurface
Soil'', February 1997.
E. UREG-5849, Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in
Support of License Termination. June 1992. F. NUREG-1757, Volume
1, Rev 1, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,
Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, Final Report,
September 2003.
G. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination.'' H. Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions.'' III. Finding of No Significant Impact Based upon the
analysis in this EA and the EA prepared for License Amendment No.
7; the NRC staff has concluded that there will be no significant
environmental impacts from the proposed action and has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the document related
to this notice are: ML050750212 for the July 21, 2005, letter
issuing Amendment No. 7; ML051040383 for the April 13, 2005,
letter requesting a license amendment to incorporate Revision 2
of the Supplement to the DP into the license; ML051290296 for the
May 2, 2005, letter providing Revision 3 of the TDCC Radiological
Health and Safety Plan; and ML050110068 for the letter dated
December 31, 2004, responding to a NRC request for additional
information. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kimberly Gruss, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-3940 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
40 [NukeNet] House Panel Issues Subpoena Tied to Nuclear Waste
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:42:20 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
A spokesman for the Energy Department, Craig
Stevens, said the department had offered to let
committee members see the documents, but not to
have copies.
Sounds like they're afraid of science. Just
what G Bush told [lied to] the people of Nevada
Yucca would be decided on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21denver.html?
House Panel Issues Subpoena Tied to Nuclear Waste
Plan
a.. E-Mail This
b.. Printer-Friendly
c.. Reprints
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 20 - The House subcommittee that
is investigating falsification of research at the
government project to bury nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada issued a subpoena to the Energy
Department on Wednesday.
In their effort to clarify whether the
falsification made the work unreliable,
Congressional staff members said they were seeking
more technical studies, as well as organizational
charts and lists of acronyms. In a dispute that
has lasted more than three months, the Energy
Department has resisted, and department officials
have complained about the committee's earlier
release of e-mail messages detailing the
falsifications.
In those e-mail messages government workers talked
about manipulating their work to meet
quality-assurance standards.
Representative Jon Porter, Republican of Nevada,
who is chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal
Work Force of the Government Reform Committee,
said in a statement, "I will not be deterred by
the lack of responsiveness, and remain committed
to pursuing and finishing what we began, a
thorough and complete investigation of the safety
behind the Yucca Mountain project."
A spokesman for the Energy Department, Craig
Stevens, said the department had offered to let
committee members see the documents, but not to
have copies.
"All the documents, everything the chairman has
asked for, has been here for him to come down and
seek, as well as any member of the committee or
staff, to view and take notes on," Mr. Stevens
said.
He noted that the department was eight blocks from
Capitol Hill.
In a letter to the committee, the department's
acting general counsel, Eric J. Fygi, said that
the Energy Department would eventually submit much
of the material requested to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, to apply for a license, but
that it could be subject to attorney-client
privilege. A department spokesman said the
decision about what could be made public was up to
the regulatory commission.
But at the regulatory commission, a spokeswoman,
Sue Gagner, said the initial decision to keep
material secret would come from the Energy
Department. The department could make a list of
documents it did not want to disclose, Ms. Gagner
said, and if some party to the licensing hearings,
like the State of Nevada, wanted to see them, the
issue would be decided by regulatory commission
hearing officer.
Mr. Stevens of the Energy Department then said
that the department wanted to assure the
confidentiality of whistle-blowers who had made
accusations under promise of anonymity.
He added, "The department has made every effort to
provide the information the congressman has
requested while ensuring that the documents are
handled in a way that does not impair the
department's ability to carry out its
responsibility under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act."
The Yucca Mountain repository is already far
behind schedule; it was supposed to begin
accepting waste in 1998 but seems unlikely to do
so for many years.
This is a financial problem for the Energy
Department because it signed contracts with the
companies that run nuclear reactors, promising to
take the wastes in exchange for a payment for each
kilowatt-hour generated in a reactor.
Now the reactor owners are suing for billions of
dollars. But the department is not yet ready to
file an application for a license to operate the
repository.
The heart of the issue is government calculations
about how fast radioactive material would dissolve
into rainwater, percolate through the rock and
then travel outside the boundaries of the
repository, which is about 100 miles from Las
Vegas.
Under the system set up by Congress to develop a
burial place for radioactive waste, the Energy
Department is supposed to conduct a scientific
study and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for a license, and persuade the
commission that the rate of travel is slow enough
so that no one will be exposed to illegal amounts
of radiation during the period when regulations
apply.
The government has spent more than $6 billion
looking for a place to bury nuclear waste.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
41 Musicians, Actors oppose nuclear dumps
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:06:33 -0400
For Immediate Release: For More Information:
Linda Gunter, NIRS (202) 328-0002
Michele Boyd, Public Citizen, 454-5134
Navin Nayak, PIRG 546-9707
Musicians, Actors, Native Americans Urge Congress:
No Expansion of Nuclear Power or Radioactive Dumps on
Native land
Washington, DC As the U.S. Congress works to finalize an energy
bill that could include more than $10 billion in subsidies for
the nuclear power industry, musicians Ani DiFranco and Indigo
Girls, actor James Cromwell and Native American advocates Winona
LaDuke and Margene Bullcreek decried the expansion of nuclear
power and the industry's legacy of waste at a congressional
briefing on Capitol Hill.
The Senate version of the energy bill contains massive subsidies
for building a new generation of nuclear power plants, including
loan guarantees, tax credits, limited liability in the case of an
accident, research and development funding, and demonstration
projects.
Highlighting the long history of problems with nuclear power in
the U.S., the group of artists and advocates drew special
attention to a nuclear utility consortium's proposal to dump
44,000 tons of highly radioactive atomic fuel from commercial
reactors onto the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation,
located 45 miles from Salt Lake City. A final decision on the
proposal, which would require 4,000 rail shipments of radioactive
waste over the next 20 years, is expected soon from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In contrast to the expensive and dangerous history of nuclear
power, the presenters emphasized the readiness of renewable
energy and energy efficiency. In 2004, newer technologies such as
renewable energy and co-generation already provided 92 percent as
much electricity globally as nuclear power did, according to a
recent Rocky Mountain Institute report.
Right now we are standing at a critical crossroads in the history
of our nation, said Ani DiFranco. In one direction we sacrifice
the great American southwest to inevitable and irreversible
radiation. In the other direction we stem the tide of pollution
and disease by nuclear power conglomerates, and shift instead
into sane and sustainable energy production. The choice is ours.
The time is now.
"The problem of nuclear waste is not solved when the solution is
to dump it on Indian lands," said Winona LaDuke, executive
director of Honor the Earth. Dumping on the Goshutes opens
the door to more nuclear waste, more dumps, and more time lost to
unsustainable and unjust energy development."
Dumping high-level nuclear waste on Indian land is environmental
racism and absolutely unacceptable," said Emily Saliers of Indigo
Girls. Nuclear power is not clean and there is nowhere on earth
to store its waste safely. It is time to shift the U.S. energy
paradigm away from fossil fuels and nuclear power toward a safe
and clean energy future."
Concerns were raised about the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs'
(BIA) promotion of the Skull Valley dump without a tribal vote or
consideration of the adverse impacts on the community. BIA is
supposed to protect the well-being of our tribe and its members,"
said Margene Bullcreek of the Skull Valley Goshute tribe.
Instead, they undermine our sovereignty by approving a lease for
this dangerous project on our land without our consensus."
When it comes to nuclear energy and weapons, from the mining to
the testing to the disposal of nuclear waste, Native communities
have been a sacrificial lamb for our destructive and wasteful
policies," said Amy Ray of Indigo Girls. Indeed, we all will
suffer if nuclear energy is not shut down."
After the briefing, the group was scheduled to meet with
Senators, urging them to oppose an energy bill that would spend
billions of taxpayer dollars on the construction of new nuclear
power plants and calling instead for significant investments in
technologies that will protect public health and the environment.
The only thing the nuclear power industry has done right in the
past three decades is not build a new plant," said Kevin Kamps of
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. We need an energy bill
that corrects the nuclear mistake, not one that commits billions
of taxpayer dollars to repeat it."
Enough is enough," said James Cromwell The legacy of fifty years
of federal subsidies for nuclear power is 50,000 tons of forever
deadly radioactive waste. We need to replace nuclear power with
renewable energy sources so we have a finite radioactive waste
problem to deal with, not an infinite one."
After Skull Valley where will be the next dump? And the next?"
asked Ani DiFranco. Must there be disaster before enlightenment?"
Linda Gunter is Director of Development and Media Relations at
NIRS. She can be reached at: 202-328-0002 ext. 23.
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: NRC Proposes $6,000 Fine for High Mountain Inspection Service
News Release - Region IV - 2005-02
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
No. IV-05-028 July 25, 2005
CONTACT: Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine
of $6,000 against High Mountain Inspection Service, Inc. of
Mills, Wyoming, for violating NRC requirements.
In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallet, Administrator of
the NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, said that as a
result of an NRC inspection, the agency determined that the
company violated NRC training requirements for the possession
and use of radioactive materials.
The violation involved the companys use of an individual who had
not been fully trained to perform the role of a radiographers
assistant at a refinery in Cheyenne, Wyo., where the company was
conducting radiography services in November 2004. Additionally,
the company failed to provide the individual with radiation
monitoring equipment, as required.
Radiography is a non-destructive testing method which uses a
sealed radiation source to make x-ray like images of heavy metal
objects like pumps, valves, and pipes.
To assure radiation safety at temporary job sites, the NRC
places a great deal of importance on having a second, trained
individual who can provide immediate assistance should a
radiographer become incapacitated during radiography operations,
Mallet said. It is also important that all radiography personnel
be equipped with radiation monitoring equipment, including an
alarm rate meter to give warning of abnormal conditions.
NRC staff discussed the apparent violation, its significance,
the root cause and the companys corrective actions during an
enforcement conference with High Mountain officials on May 31.
The company said it has taken steps to prevent recurrence.
The NRC has classified the violation at Severity Level III,
which carries a $6,000 civil penalty. The agency has a
four-level severity scale in which Severity Level I is the most
serious. The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed fine
or challenge it. The NRC fined High Mountain $12,000 in April
2004 for two violations of NRC security and safety requirements.
The NRCs letter, its enclosures, and the companys response will
be made available to interested members of the public through
the agencys public electronic reading room at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing
these documents is available from the NRC Public Document Room
at 1-800-397-4209.
Last revised Monday, July 25, 2005
*****************************************************************
43 AU ABC: Nuclear dump leak may contaminate water: expert
(ACST)Monday, 25 July 2005. 17:50 (AEDT)Monday, 25 July 2005.
A hydro-geologist says a radioactive leak at one of the sites
short-listed as a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory
could contaminate drinking water.
Earlier this month federal Science Minister Dr Brendan Nelson
short-listed Fishers Ridge, 43 kilometres from the town of
Katherine, along with two other defence properties near Alice
Springs, as possible locations for the dump.
Dr Peter Jolly, of the Northern Territory's Environment
Department, has told ABC Science Online that a leak from the
proposed Fishers Ridge site has the potential to endanger
pristine groundwaters, and the Katherine and Daly rivers
downstream.
Dr Jolly, who has been involved in a three-year study of the
hydro-geology of the region, says he is "extremely surprised"
the site has been considered.
"In [the Fishers Ridge] area you get rainfall in some years of
over two metres in two months," Dr Jolly said.
Dr Jolly says the water flows directly or indirectly into the
Katherine and Daly rivers, both of which have been earmarked as
being important for biodiversity.
He says water falling on the area also forms many springs on
Aboriginal land and flows onto sites used for ecotourism.
"These aquifer systems are some of the most important in the Top
End," Dr Jolly said.
"If there were any leaks from a facility at this site it would
be one of the worst sites in Australia in terms of having an
impact on ecosystems and an impact on an aquifer that is used
for drinking and for other water uses."
Dr Jolly says his comments are made in the absence of there
being any details of the proposal available and that a
worse-case scenario would need to be analysed to determine the
actual risk posed.
The siting of a nuclear waste dump in Australia has been a
contentious issue for years with the states reluctant to house
such a facility.
The remote Northern Territory site is considered a less
politically sensitive option for the dump site than more
populated areas.
Dr Nelson says Australians must accept the dump somewhere and it
will need to be operational by late 2011.
He says the dump is necessary because of the Government's A$330
million replacement research reactor at Sydney's Lucas Heights,
which will generate most of the waste.
The current proposal is to transport, in a manner yet to be
determined, low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste
in 200 litre steel drums, in some cases mixed with concrete or
vitrified.
Waste will be stored either 5 metres below the surface or above
ground in secured buildings.
The exact nature of the facility will in part be determined by
the characteristics of the final site chosen.
*****************************************************************
44 AU ABC: MP urges 'people power' to stop waste transport
(ACST)Tuesday, 26 July 2005. 09:23 (AEDT)Tuesday, 26 July 2005.
The Member for Murray Darling, Peter Black, says it is highly
likely nuclear waste will be brought through Dubbo and Cobar to
a disposal site in the Northern Territory.
Mr Black expects protests along the route through western New
South Wales.
He says he expects the Federal Government will transport the
waste from Lucas Heights by road through Dubbo, Cobar and Broken
Hill to Port Augusta then to the Territory.
He says there is little the New South Wales Government can do
about it.
"But that leaves people power. People power has worked in the
past and I think that people right along the route are going to
stand united on this matter," he said.
"It's not a matter of whether you support the National Party or
Country Labor or something else. It's a matter of whether you
want to see nuclear waste transported past your front door.
"We are not convinced about arguments as to its safety."
*****************************************************************
45 NewMexican: Radioactive tailings will be moved away from Colorado River
Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:45 pm
By MARK THIESSEN | Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY - More than 12 million tons of radioactive
waste will be moved away from the Colorado River, which provides
drinking water for more than 25 million people across the West.
The Department of Energy on Monday said the radioactive tailings
about 750 feet from the river near Moab in southeastern Utah
will be moved, predominantly by rail, to a proposed holding site
at Crescent Junction, Utah, about 30 miles from the Colorado
River.
"The only way we can look at this is good news," said Energy
Department spokesman Mike Waldron. "We have identified a
solution that will help to ensure the environmental quality of
the region for generations to come."
The department's decision was announced in the final
environmental impact statement for the tailings site. It will
become final after being published in the Federal Register.
The 94-foot-tall waste pile came from Moab's rich uranium
deposits, which were mined in the 1950s for nuclear bombs. The
Uranium Reduction Co. sold its mill in 1962 to Atlas Corp.,
which ran it sporadically until declaring bankruptcy in 1998.
The Energy Department took over the site in 2001.
"Taking all the facts into account, we believe the
recommendations issued today provide the best solution to
cleaning up Moab and protecting the river," Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman said in a prepared statement. "The Colorado River
is the lifeblood of the Southwest."
The Energy Department "made the right decision to move this pile
to a safe location," said U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
At the storage facility in Crescent Junction, the waste would be
covered and buried in a hole, lined with a protective layer to
keep the material from seeping into the groundwater. Cleanup and
moving the pile has been estimated to cost more than $300
million.
The waste began piling up in the 1950s after the dawn of the
Atomic Age turned sleepy communities in Utah into uranium mining
boom towns. The department took control of the site in 2001
after the most recent owner of the mill, Denver-based Atlas
Corp., declared bankruptcy in 1998.
In November, the Energy Department outlined four options for the
site. Three of them called for moving the waste and burying it
anywhere from 17 to 85 miles away in a hole. Option No. 4, which
would have cost only half as much, called for leaving the pile
in place but covering it over with dirt and rocks.
Critics of moving the waste argued that it has been there for
decades with little effect. They contended the area is rich in
uranium, leading to natural erosion and leaching of radioactive
materials into the water, to which the waste added little.
But Gov. Jon Huntsman, Utah's congressional delegation, scores
of activists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned
that the waste is too dangerous to leave it so close to the
Colorado River.
Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican,
*****************************************************************
46 Las Vegas SUN: Porter says full documents not received
Today: July 25, 2005 at 9:29:18 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski <>
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- His staff may have 1,652 pages of Yucca Mountain
project documents to begin to review today, but Rep. Jon Porter
is still concerned about the pages that are not there.
The Energy Department did not include the project's draft
license application in the documents it sent to Porter's office
Friday. The draft was among the 10 sets of documents required by
a subpoena delivered to the department last week.
Porter, R-Nev., chairman of a House subcommittee investigating
potential scientific fraud at the project, said he will be
consulting with the subcommittee's lawyers on what to do next.
Failure to comply with a subpoena can result in a contempt of
Congress charge.
"They are not in compliance, although that is not unusual when
dealing with the Department of Energy," Porter said. "The bottom
line is that they have not complied, that is a document that
should be available."
But the department has not refused to turn over the draft
application, it just did not do it by Friday's deadline.
"Congressman Porter's request potentially involves thousands
and thousands of pages within a universe of millions and goes
far beyond his original request," department spokesman Craig
Stevens said.
"(Friday) the Department has produced all documents that were
available within the two-day time period that was allotted, and
it is only natural that it would take more time to assemble
additional documents in light of the scope of his request.
"Any additional existing documents that would be responsive
will be produced," Stevens said.
House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., sent the
department the subpoena Wednesday with instructions for 10
different sets of documents to be delivered by 4 p.m. Friday.
Porter had requested the documents in writing and during an
April hearing on the potential falsified scientific information.
The department announced in March that it had discovered e-mails
written by several U.S. Geological Survey employees that suggest
they falsified work on water flow research, a critical safety
component to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The Energy Department told Porter the documents could be viewed
at the department headquarters, but Porter wanted his own copies.
"It's not like showing up at DOE for a cup of coffee and going
through five documents," Porter said. "They have yet to explain
to us why they failed to turn the documents over to us. It is
obvious they were not ready."
Eric Fygi, the department's acting general counsel, said the
additional documents will be given to the committee as "we
identify and collect them."
Fygi emphasized that the subcommittee keep records of concerns
raised by project employees confidential and requested that the
staff members consult the department before disclosing any of
the documents included in the collection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the referring page.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions or problems? Click here.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
47 NRC: RIN 3150--AH75 spent fuel casts rev 4
FR Doc 05-14568
[Federal Register: July 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 141)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 42513-42515] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jy05-13]
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-UMS Revision 4
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations revising the NAC International, Inc.,
NAC-UMS Universal Storage System listing within the ``List of
approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 4 to
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Number 1015. Amendment No. 4 to
the NAC-UMS CoC would modify the cask design by replacing the
specific term ``zircaloy'' with the more generic term ``zirconium
alloy''; revising the definitions of ``operable'' and ``site
specific fuel''; revising vacuum drying pressure and time limits;
revising short-term temperature limits and completion times for
the heat removal system; clarifying the surface dose rate
surveillance; adding a dissolved boron concentration option;
deleting a redundant boron concentration administrative control;
adding an alternate site-specific design basis earthquake
analysis; and incorporating editorial and administrative changes.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or
before August 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH75) in
the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings
submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available
for public inspection.
Because your
[[Page 42514]] comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including personal information such as social security numbers
and birth dates in your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply
e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact
us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via
the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol
Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also
be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents,
including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically
via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the
public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access
and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located
in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. An electronic copy of
the proposed CoC, TS, and preliminary safety evaluation report
(SER) can be found under ADAMS Package Accession No. ML051250544.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, telephone
(301) 415-6219, e-mail, jmm2@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the
direct final rule published in the final rules section of this
Federal Register.
Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes
contained in Amendment 4 to CoC No. 1015 and does not include
other aspects of the NAC-UMS cask design. The NRC is using the
``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because
it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC
that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of
public health and safety continues to be ensured.
The direct final rule will become effective on October 11, 2005.
However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by
August 24, 2005, then the NRC will publish a document that
withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the
comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a
second comment period on this action.
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter
explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is
adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and
provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in
a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive
response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or
reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment
raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or
considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the CoC or TS.
List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and
procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs,
Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC
is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-
RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for
part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53,
57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68
Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as
amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071,
2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234,
2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-
486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub.
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133,
135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241,
sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151,
10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat.
2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d),
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C.
10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec.
189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96
Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under
sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.
10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19),
117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222,
2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are
also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and
sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214,
Certificate of Compliance 1015 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * *
* Certificate Number: 1015.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: November 20, 2000.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: February 20, 2001.
Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: December 31, 2001.
Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: March 31, 2004.
Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: October 11, 2005.
[[Page 42515]] SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the NAC-UMS Universal
Storage System.
Docket Number: 72-1015.
Certificate Expiration Date: November 20, 2020.
Model Number: NAC-UMS.
* * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of July,
2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-14568 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
48 Daily Review: Russians learn environmental lessons
Last Updated: 07/25/2005 02:43:12 AM
By Tony C. Yang, CORRESPONDENT
BERKELEY — Krasnoyarsk-29, a once-secret Russian city of more
than 100,000 people, is plagued with some of the same
environmental problems Americans face: air pollution, water
contamination and government apathy, environmental activist Irek
Shaydullin says.
Like the nuclear waste buried deep beneath Krasnoyarsk-29, a
former nuclear production facility, the Russian environmental
movement's place in the public consciousness has not reached
mainstream awareness — yet. With some help from the
United States,
eight young Russian environmental leaders are here in Northern
California to change that.
Last week, Shaydullin and other community leaders from across
Russia visited Bay Area environmental groups and toured
facilities to get a taste of grass-roots democracy and interact
with American environmental nonprofit organizations.
Thanks to a grant from the Open World Leadership Center, funded
by the Library of Congress, the Berkeley-based Center for Safe
Energy hosted the
eco-visitors July 15-24. Before the trip, none
of the eight delegates had ever left Russia.
Hailing from all over Russia, the delegates were nominated for
their activism and youth. The U.S. government pays for their
travel expenses, and during their stay they live with local
families to learn about American culture.
"We help regular people solve their (environmental) problems,"
Andrei Kovlovich, a 40-year-old former soldier, said through an
interpreter. "We work with other organizations."
Sierra Club conservation director Mike Daley contrasts American
environmental problems with Russia's. "We had Three Mile
Island," he said, referring to a partial nuclear power plant
meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979. "They had Chernobyl. Their
problems are huge compared to ours."
Daley hosted the delegates for a one-hour seminar on grass-roots
activism Wednesday.
The past week has been a flurry of educational visits for the
Russian delegates, who represented the International Rivers
Network, the Ural Ecological
Union and the Socio-Ecological Union,
among others. They took lessons at Berkeley's Ecology Center,
toured Altamont Pass windmills and visited the Chevron corporate
headquarters in San Ramon.
"They're very enthusiastic," said Beck Cowles, information
program manager at the Ecology Center.
But the task of making a greener Russia takes more than just
enthusiasm. Activists of both nations acknowledge the advantages
American activists have over their Russian counterparts.
"If we don't care about the environment," Kovlovich said, "no one
will."
© 2005 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
49 AU ABC: Nuclear dump site gets thumbs down -
25/07/2005
The King River is downstream from one of the three Northern
Territory sites short-listed for a nuclear waste dump (Image:
David George/Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources,
Environment and the Arts)
A radioactive leak at one of the sites short-listed as a nuclear
waste dump in Australia's Northern Territory could contaminate
drinking water, says a hydro-geologist familiar with the area.
Dr Peter Jolly of the Northern Territory's environment
departmentsays a leak from the proposed Fishers Ridge site, has
the potential to endanger pristine groundwaters, and the
Katherine and Daly rivers downstream.
Jolly was involved in a three-year study of the hydro-geology of
the region, including the Fishers Ridge site, and says he is
"extremely surprised" the site has been considered.
Earlier this month federal science ministerDr Brendan Nelson
short-listed Fishers Ridge, 43 kilometres from the town of
Katherine, along with two other defence properties near Alice
Springs, as possible locations for the dump.
"In [the Fishers Ridge] area you get rainfall in some years of
over 2 metres in 2 months," says Jolly, who has been responsible
for assessing water resources in the territory for the past 30
years.
He says the area is a plateau, with a shallow sandstone aquifer
on top of relatively impermeable rock.
"Rain that falls on the ground goes into that sandstone and
[runs off] relatively quickly to the edge of the escarpment," he
says.
Jolly says water flows directly or indirectly into the Katherine
and Daly rivers, both of which have been earmarked as being
important for biodiversity.
He says water falling on the area also forms many springs on
Aboriginal land and flows onto sites used for ecotourism.
[concept]
One of the proposals is to house the store the waste above
ground. A videoshows more details (Image: DEST)
"These aquifer systems are some of the most important in the Top
End," says Jolly.
"If there were any leaks from a facility at this site it would
be one of the worst sites in Australia in terms of having an
impact on ecosystems and an impact on an aquifer that is used
for drinking and for other water uses."
Jolly says his comments are made in the absence of there being
any details of the proposal available and that a worse-case
scenario would need to be analysed to determine the actual risk
posed.
The government has posted some informationon the web.
Preliminary assessment
The sites on the short-list were selected following a
preliminary assessment by the Department of Education, Science
and Training(DEST).
Minister Nelson says this preliminary assessment determined that
the sites were environmentally suited for the project.
However, ABC Science Online was unable to obtain a copy of this
preliminary assessment, or to confirm whether Jolly's report was
part of this assessment.
A spokesperson for DEST says he could not comment further in the
time available.
A political hot potato
The siting of a nuclear waste dump in Australia has been a
contentious issue for years with the states reluctant to house
such a facility.
[King River]
The remote Northern Territory site is considered a less
politically sensitive option for the dump site than more
populated areas (Image: David George/Northern Territory
Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts)
Now Minister Nelson says Australians must accept the dump
somewhere and it will need to be operational by late 2011.
He says the dump is necessary because of the government's A$330
million dollar replacement research reactor at Sydney's Lucas
Heights, which will generate most of the waste.
The current proposal is to transport, in a manner yet to be
determined, low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste
in 200 litre steel drums, in some cases mixed with concrete or
vitrified.
Waste will be stored either 5 metres below the surface or above
ground in secured buildings. The exact nature of the facility
will in part be determined by the characteristics of the final
site chosen.
Field investigation and community consultation on each site will
be carried out before an Environmental Impact Statement on the
final site choice.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agencywill also have to approve the facility.
DEST is currently engaging a contractor to manage day-to-day
work of the site investigations.
At this stage the facility will only be for Commonwealth waste
but Minister Nelson says he is willing to negotiate with states
about transferring their own waste to the facility. Related
Stories NT set to oppose govt nuclear waste plan, The World
Today ABC Radio 15 Jul 2005 Australia's new nuclear reactor: do
we need it? Earthbeat Radio National 23 Feb 2002Uranium
spill not damaging, says expert, News in Science 15 Jan 2002
*****************************************************************
50 PE.com: Agency raises perchlorate concerns
| Inland Southern California | Corona-Norco
REPORT: Federal health officials say the chemical could harm
those with genetic thyroid disorders.
11:23 PM PDT on Sunday, July 24, 2005
By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise
The federal agency charged with tracking disease across the
nation is raising new concerns about how a rocket-fuel chemical
found in Inland water supplies could harm the most vulnerable
people.
People with genetic disorders of the thyroid -- possibly tens of
thousands of people nationwide -- could suffer deteriorating
health as a result of drinking water or eating foods
contaminated with perchlorate, according to an analysis by a
division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The report's authors also raised concern about the 6.9 percent
of pregnant women who may not get enough iodine in their diets
and about the declining iodine intake among the general
population.
In sufficient doses, perchlorate interferes with the thyroid's
ability to absorb iodine, an element necessary for the
production of hormones that regulate growth and metabolism.
It is particularly vital for fetuses and infants, who need the
hormones for brain and nerve development and who, unlike adults,
have scant reserves of the hormones.
Perchlorate has leached from Cold War-era factories and military
bases into hundreds of groundwater sources in the Southwest and
West, including several in the Inland area.
It also has contaminated the lower Colorado River, a primary
source of drinking and irrigation water. Perchlorate has been
found throughout the nation in vegetable crops and in cow milk
and human milk.
The report's authors, who work with the centers' Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, make a call for research
that precisely measures individuals' perchlorate ingestion,
tracks their nutrition and considers their genetic makeup.
"That hasn't been done," said Bruce A. Fowler, an assistant
science director for the agency and co-author of the analysis.
"But the optimism is, given that we have the analytical methods,
that it is feasible to do this."
The agency is examining how perchlorate might combine with other
drinking-water pollutants to cause health problems.
Also being studied is how the chemical might adversely affect
people with certain nutritional deficiencies, such as the
increasing number of people who don't get enough iodine in their
diets, Fowler said by telephone from his office in Atlanta.
Glen Avon-area environmental activist Penny Newman, who has
followed the perchlorate issue for years, said the toxic
substances agency's work is part of a trend among public health
professionals concerned about potential health risks associated
with the small amount of perchlorate in drinking water and food.
"People have really started to take a look at this," Newman
said. "And what the health professional are saying is, 'We
should protect the most vulnerable.' "
EPA Levels Challenged
The CDC analysis followed a published commentary by Maine and
Connecticut health officials, who said that the "safe" level for
perchlorate set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
February might not protect the most sensitive people, including
fetuses and babies.
To determine a safe ingestion level, EPA used an
industry-sponsored study on healthy adults that critics say was
applied too broadly.
EPA's official safe level, called a "reference dose," is used as
a basis to set future clean up and health standards.
In Congress, pending budget legislation would require federal
environmental health officials to make independent perchlorate
research a spending priority. Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-California, added that language this month.
Fowler said the toxic substances agency's paper was done to
identify topics for future perchlorate research.
It was published in the on-line edition of Environmental Health
Perspectives, a government scientific journal that tracks
environmental health studies and issues.
The paper is based on a review of studies done on how
perchlorate can impair thyroid function and on literature about
genetic disorders of the thyroid.
The authors found that long-term ingestion of perchlorate in
food and water might harm people whose thyroids already are
compromised by genetic conditions.
The paper's lead author, genetics expert Dr. Franco
Scinicariello, and Fowler said that no one knows precisely how
many people are affected by genetic disorders of the thyroid,
but the number nationally is probably in the thousands to ten of
thousands.
Several genetic disorders impair the thyroid's ability to make
hormones, and perchlorate worsens the condition, Scinicariello
said.
The toxic substances agency's duties include assessing the
health risks of sites where toxic materials have been released
into the environment.
Industry and Department of Defense officials say perchlorate
levels in drinking water are safe, while environmental groups
demand cleanups.
Fowler said more studies would bring clarity to the perchlorate
controversy.
"In the absence of clarity, we get into matters of opinion," he
said.
Reach David Danelski at (951) 368-9471 or
ddanelski@pe.comMore
2005, The Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
51 National Indigenous Times: CLC dumps on nuclear waste plans
26 Jul 2005
The Central Land Council (CLC) has criticised plans to locate a
national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson on Friday announced three
potential sites had been identified for the nuclear dump: Mount
Everard, 27 km north-west of Alice Springs, Harts Range, 165 km
north-east of Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge, 42 km south-east
of Katherine.
CLC director David Ross said the Mt Everard and Harts Range sites
were close to homes and communities.
"I think people in Canberra just looked at a map and thought it
looked remote and empty," Mr Ross said.
"No one wants a nuclear dump in their backyard and I am sure that
traditional owners will have deep concerns about their safety,
risks to the environment and the transportation of the nuclear
waste."
Mr Ross said Friday's announcement followed an assurance by the
Commonwealth last year that there would be no nuclear waste
repositories located in the NT.
"The views of the Territorians - both black and white - do not
seem to be important to this government," he said.
The plan is also facing opposition from both sides of politics in
the Territory, but the federal government warned it would have no
patience for further delays to its efforts to set up a repository
for low-level nuclear waste.
Federal Labor condemned the move, with the MP whose electorate
will house the dump accusing the government of treating
Territorians with contempt.
Science Minister Brendan Nelson said the three potential sites
have been selected - Mount Everard, 27km north-west of Alice
Springs, Harts Range, 165km north-east of Alice Springs, and
Fishers Ridge, 42km south-east of Katherine.
All are commonwealth-owned land currently used for defence
purposes.
The government was burnt last year in its attempt to set up a
waste dump in South Australia, eventually losing a fight with the
SA government in the Federal Court.
Dr Nelson indicated the government would not back down this time.
"The reality is we've got to proceed with this now; there will be
no further mucking about; the Australian government is absolutely
determined to make sure once and for all that one of these three
sites is chosen," he said.
"There needs to be a reality check by those who would be opposed
to this."
The government will take a year to carry out the site selection
process, with the preferred site to be fully operational by 2011.
Aboriginal woman and Northern Territory Environment Minister
Marion Scrymgour said Territorians were lied to during last
year's federal election campaign when the government said it was
not pursuing any options for a waste dump on the mainland.
"Territorians have been taken for a ride. We have been lied to,"
Ms Scrymgour said. – AAP
*****************************************************************
52 lamonitor.com: Photographer remembers the big day
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second of a four-part series
illustrating personal accounts of participants as a result of
the Manhattan Project.
LA MESILLA - Sixty years ago, Manhattan Project technician and
amateur photographer Jack Aeby made history with four snaps of
his camera at the Trinity Site.
Armed with a simple 35-millimeter camera, Aeby took the only
known color photograph of the first atomic explosion.
The National Atomic Museum indicates that the photo was taken a
mere 25 milliseconds after ignition of the explosion.
The 21-year-old Aeby set up a chair some six miles from the
blast, which had the explosive power equal to 18,600 tons of
TNT.
Aeby used the chair as a tripod to take the world famous photo
at about 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945.
Aeby recalled taking his first photo, which was overexposed by
extreme brightness from the blast, released the shutter, cranked
the diaphragm down, changed speeds and snapped three more shots
as fast as he could.
Photo number three was the good one. "Obviously a lot of luck
went into that shot," Aeby said. "The plutonium was burning
right there in front of our eyes."
One witness likened the cloud forming above the explosion to a
pool of spilt milk, he said, adding it was a result of the
shockwave causing condensation in the upper atmosphere.
Some 250 laboratory employees and 125 soldiers were on hand to
watch the $2 billion Manhattan Project grand finale.
Aeby described the pre-dawn shot with the explosion vaporizing
the metal tower and ground debris into a gaseous bubble that
began to rise.
"The bubble was so hot it started to produce effects that hadn't
been seen anywhere," he said. "The heat was felt where I was,
but not overpowering, it was more like when you suddenly go out
a door into sunlight and feel heat on your face."
The shockwave arrived to Aeby about 57 seconds after detonation.
"It travels the speed of sound," he said. "It shook us like an
instantaneous sensation of wind but it didn't knock us down.
People began to show some elation."
The blast was fairly loud, he said, adding that it compressed
their ear drums a bit.
When the shockwaves hit the mountains, it sounded like rolling
thunder until it ran out," Aeby said. "One guy said he always
wanted to talk back to a thunder storm."
Aeby remembered having the feeling that people seemed to want to
say something profound but most couldn't think of anything to
say.
Aeby picked up his chair and began the walk back to base camp.
He remembered as the shock wave hit he saw Enrico Fermi
dribbling torn paper to the ground. The shockwave moved the torn
paper. Fermi used that measurement to estimate the yield of the
first nuclear explosion.
"Fermi's estimate was in the ball park," Aeby said.
Aeby smiled remembering how Fermi knew the exact width and
height of his own thumb and would use it like a yard stick to
make measurements.
"After the blast the sun began to come up and it got light
enough to see the actual cloud," Aeby said.
Aeby was working in Italian physicist Emilio Segre's P-6 group
in Los Alamos.
Segre had obtained permission for Aeby to take the camera along
to photograph the activities of people at the site.
"What we were trying to do was determine the yield of the bomb -
measuring the prompt gamma," Aeby said. "As soon as the
theoretical division knew I had the picture, they used it to
measure the width of the fire ball and determined fairly close
estimates of the yield of the weapon."
After the explosion, Aeby remained with his group until about
noon, then headed back to Los Alamos where he developed his film
that night.
"My friends and I made 70 copies of the photo and passed them
out to people who wanted them including Fermi, Hans Bethe and
Edward Teller," he said.
A couple of days later word came that Gen. Leslie Groves had
heard about the photo and wanted it.
Aeby said Groves stated the next people to see his picture would
be "Mr. Truman, Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Stalin."
Groves also gave the photo to newspapers and other media, Aeby
said. Groves later returned the picture.
Aeby recalled a flyer had been circulated prior to the test
shot. People wanted to try to set up a demonstration to give the
Japanese an idea of what the bomb could do. They hoped to
convince the Japanese to surrender because they had really been
gearing up.
A demonstration just wasn't possible, he said.
"There was a little guilt from everyone who had a hand in the
Manhattan Project," Aeby said. "But last week I accompanied a
tour back to the Trinity Site and a woman thanked me," he said.
"She told me her husband and son were on a ship heading for
Japan when the Armada was turned around because the war was
over."
Aeby worked at the lab from 1943 to 1946, left and returned in
1946 to work in the health physics group.
He went on to conduct measurements on the three detonations of
Bikini Atoll at the Nevada Test Site.
"Until they started detonating them underground," Aeby said.
"Even then you could see the shockwaves kind of roll across the
ground surface kicking up dust."
Aeby married Los Alamos teacher Jeanne Clemens. They have five
children.
Aeby remained at LANL until his retirement in 1975.
Aeby, now a sharp, active 82-year-old, divides his time between
property in La Mesilla and Honolulu.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
53 lamonitor.com: LANL holds public meeting on consent order
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
Los Alamos National Laboratory is holding a public meeting this
Tuesday on the Consent Order on environmental clean-up that was
signed with the New Mexico Envirornment Department.
The meeting will take place 5-7:30 p.m. at Fuller Lodge, 2132
Central Ave., in Los Alamos.
The Consent Order was a negotiated agreement between LANL and
NMED signed in March that lays out a comprehensive program for
analyzing, characterizing, testing monitoring contaminants at
the laboratory and developing plans for cleanup and remediation.
Requests for information, comments or questions can be addressed
to Lorrie Bonds Lopez at 505-667-0216 or via e-mail at
lorriel@lanl.gov.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************