*****************************************************************
09/12/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.211
*****************************************************************
   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 [NYTr] Russia to Expand Iran Ties, Open Bushehr Plant Next Year
2 RIA Novosti: Iran set to expand cooperation with Russia
3 RIA Novosti: Russia and Iran discuss preparation for IAEA session
4 BBC: Iran and Russia in nuclear talks
5 Xinhua: Iran slams warning on referral of nuclear issue to UN   
6 Reuters: Iran reminds West has allies against U.N. push 
7 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Nuclear Talks to Resume
8 Guardian Unlimited: Envoys Aim to End N. Korea Nuke Stalemate
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kim Jong-il Offers to Meet Bush
10 Xinhua: Will marathon talks be trapped in chicken-and-egg debate?   
11 Korea Times: 6 Nations Seek Nuke Breakthru 
12 Korea Times: [Pacific Perspective] Round Four Continues Finally 
13 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Odd Numbers in Nuclear Talks 
14 Reuters: China dampens hopes of quick fix to N.Korea crisis
15 Reuters: US seeks not to focus on N.Korea civilian atom plan
16 Reuters: U.S. says ready to settle N.Korea nuclear issue 
17 AFP: North Korea needs power, but should it be nuclear? - 
18 AFP: No sign of compromise as envoys arrive for resumption of N Kore
19 US: Wash. Post: U.S. adopts first-strike nuclear policy
20 US: [UQ-Wire] UQ Wire: Bill Grigsby -  The Nuclear Option
21 US: IPS-English POLITICS-US: Pentagon Foresees Pre-emptive Nuclear
22 US: !!Pentagon Set to OK Use Of Nukes In Pre-emptive Attacks
23 US: UC Berkeley Press Release: Arts and the A-bomb
24 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: Trinity Site to be opened to the public
25 Halifax Live: Preemptive Nuclear Strikes - Now Only A Matter of Time
26 Guardian Unlimited: Britain faces long-term nuclear threat and 
27 Sify: France supports India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat           
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
28 US: [NukeNet] NJPIRG Press Statement: Gov Codey Must Intervene in
29 US: [epa-impact] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck
30 US: [epa-impact] Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Insta
31 RIA Novosti: Russia could help Vietnam develop nuclear power
32 RIA Novosti: Bushehr power plant to become operational in 2006
33 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with the Public to Discuss Results of Humboldt 
34 Xinhua: France, India to cooperate in nuclear energy development   
35 Sify: Nuclear power to bridge shortage: Sayeed              
36 US: Bangornews.com: Addressing Maine's energy problem - 
37 Mos News: Iranian Nuclear Chief Visits Russia to Discuss Controversi
38 US: NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity for Hearing on Application to Ren
39 US: Reuters: NRC OKs rstart of Entergy La. Waterford 3 nuke 
40 US: Reuters: Exelon shuts Ill. Braidwood 1 nuke for work
41 Reuters: France promises India nuclear energy help
42 US: NRC: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant 
43 US: Reuters: Entergy Ark. Arkansas 2 nuke back at full power 
44 US: Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke starts to exit outage
45 NewsRoom Finland: Greenpeace lodges official complaint over Finnish 
46 US: NRC: Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
47 AFP: France backs India's nuclear energy plans after winning sub,
48 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
49 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting in Houston on Proposed National 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
50 US: [NukeNet] Planning The Impossible: Evacuating NYC
51 [du-list] New DU Research project: Iraqi Children's Tooth
52 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
53 US: Deseret news: N-waste ball in Utah's court 
54 US: New Standard: Feds, Firms Move Forward with Utah Nuke Storage Pl
55 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear transport to Utah may face problems 
56 US: NWTRB: Calendar
57 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Hold a Meeting i
58 US: Institute of Physics: Media Relations
59 KRNV.com: Environmental group joins fight against Yucca Mountain
60 UK: News & Star: Radioactive seagulls stored at Sellafield
61 US: Deseret News: LDS Church opposes N-site 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
62 Rocky Mountain News: DOE to clean up Rocky Flats spots
63 Tri-City Herald: Hanford board baffled by DOE's reluctance on cost, 
64 SFBV: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons program
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Russia to Expand Iran Ties, Open Bushehr Plant Next Year
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:26:01 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by mart

Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - September 12, 2005
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050912/41370556.html

Bushehr power plant to become operational in 2006

MOSCOW - Russia and Iran have confirmed that they intend to commission the
Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) by the end of 2006, a spokesman for
Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said Monday.

The agency's head, Alexander Rumyantsev, and Gholamreza Aqazadeh, the head
of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, met in Moscow Monday to discuss
the construction of the first power unit at the Bushehr NPP and confirmed
they planned to commission the plant by the end of 2006, the spokesman said.

Russian experts are currently on the final stages of the construction of the
first power unit with capacity of about 1,000 Megawatts.

Earlier reports indicate that Russia is planning to build six power units at
nuclear power plants in Iran within the next decade.

                            ***

Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - September 12, 2005
http://en.rian.ru/world/20050912/41371170.html

Iran set to expand cooperation with Russia 

MOSCOW - The Iranian government intends to expand its cooperation with
Russia, an Iranian official said Monday.

During a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow,
Gholamreza Aqazadeh, Iranian vice-president and the head of the country's
Atomic Energy Organization, said relations with Russia were very important.

"We have many joint projects that allow us to increase the volume of
bilateral trade," Lavrov said, opening the talks. "The results of the first
half of 2005 show the increasing rate of trade turnover between Russia and
Iran."

Earlier in the day, Aqazadeh met with head of the Russian Atomic Energy
Agency Rosatom Alexander Rumyantsev and discussed the construction of the
Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 RIA Novosti: Iran set to expand cooperation with Russia
 
12/ 09/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - The Iranian government
intends to expand its cooperation with Russia, an Iranian
official said Monday.

 During a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in
Moscow, Gholamreza Aqazadeh, Iranian vice-president and the head
of the country's Atomic Energy Organization, said relations with
Russia were very important.

 "We have many joint projects that allow us to increase the
volume of bilateral trade," Lavrov said, opening the talks. "The
results of the first half of 2005 show the increasing rate of
trade turnover between Russia and Iran." 

Earlier in the day, Aqazadeh met with head of the Russian Atomic
Energy Agency Rosatom Alexander Rumyantsev and discussed the
construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran.

2005 "RIA Novosti"   


*****************************************************************
 3 RIA Novosti: Russia and Iran discuss preparation for IAEA session
 
12/ 09/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov and Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
Gholamreza Agazadeh discussed preparations for a regular session
of the IAEA Board of Governors scheduled for September 19-23,
the Russian Foreign Ministry said Monday. During their meeting,
the officials focused on the Iranian nuclear problem. The
Russian side said IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei's
report on the agency's guarantees in Iran had laid a positive
base to continue professional, depoliticized negotiations within
the framework of the IAEA. 

It is Moscow's opinion that the move to apply the guarantees is
necessary for a quick resolution of all the remaining issues on
Iran's nuclear program.


© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   




*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: Iran and Russia in nuclear talks
 
Last Updated: Monday, 12 September 2005
 
By Steve Rosenberg BBC News, Moscow   

[Two technicians carry a box containing yellowcake at the Iranian 
nuclear facility at Isfahan]                                

Russia and Iran plan further co-operation in nuclear energy                                                             

                                 
The head of Iran's nuclear programme is holding talks in Moscow 
on expanding co-operation with Russia. 

The visit of Gholamreza Aghazadeh, comes a week before a crucial 
meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 
Vienna. 

The meeting is due to decide whether to refer Iran to the United 
Nations Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear 
programme. 

Iran has warned of "consequences" if Europe refers Iran to the 
UN. 

Valued partner 

In the eyes of the United States and the European Union, Iran is 
a threat - a country which they suspect of plotting to develop a 
nuclear bomb. 

To Russia, though, Iran is a valued business partner. And at 
talks in Moscow, Russia and Iran have pledged to boost 
co-operation in the field of nuclear energy. 

For a number of years, Russian engineers have been building an 
atomic plant at Bushehr, in southern Iran. 

Russian officials have now promised the power situation will be 
up and running by the end of next year. 

[Isfahan plant]                                 

Iran resumed uranium conversion despite international pressure                                                          

Also, there is no sign of Moscow encouraging Tehran to stop 
uranium conversion - a controversial process which Iran resumed 
last month and which many in the West fear is part of a secret 
weapons programme. 

Europe and Washington are threatening to seek Iran's referral to 
the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if the Iranian 
government does not call a halt. 

Talks with the EU are unlikely, however, as Europe says Iran's 
decision last month to resume conversion of uranium violated the 
agreement underpinning months of negotiations. 

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted that Moscow 
would not support such a move. The minister said he believed 
there was still scope within the IAEA to resolve disagreements 
with Iran.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: Iran slams warning on referral of nuclear issue to UN   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-12 03:01:25   

    MOSCOW, Sept. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian Vice President
Gholamreza Aghazadeh said here Monday that referring his
country's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council cannot be
justified, and threatened with tough reactions should that
happen. 

    Germany, France and Britain, the so-called European trio
that has been in talks with Tehran to persuade it to scrap
uranium enrichment, bristled at Iran's August move to renew
uranium conversion activities and warned of backing a US push to
bring Iran before the UN Security Council for sanctions. 

    Aghazadeh, who also heads Iran's nuclear energy agency and
is in town to meet Russian officials including Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov, said there are no technical or legal reasons for
referring Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council. 

    "Let me assure you we are not seeking dividends in exchange
forsuspending our nuclear activity either at the talks with the
'European trio' or with Russia. What we are interested in is
creating an atmosphere of trust and transparency before the
whole world so as to convince everyone that we are conducting
peaceful research," Aghazadeh was quoted by the Interfax news
agency as saying. 

    Uranium conversion is a process that precedes enrichment.
Enriched uranium can be used as fuel in nuclear power generation
or in nuclear bombs. 

    Moscow, which insisted on Iran's right to develop peaceful
nuclear technologies, has urged Tehran to halt uranium
conversion and continue cooperation with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

    Aghazadeh, however, said his country would not budge on
nuclearfuel work. 

    "This matter has already become a national issue that
concerns the whole of the Iranian society and I can assure you
no Iranian government will agree to conclude a bargain deal on
this issue," Aghazadeh said. 

    The Iranian government will announce new proposals to the
European trio ahead of a session of the IAEA board of governors,
scheduled for Sept. 19, Aghazadeh said. 

    "The nature of our cooperation with the IAEA is positive,
whichis stated in Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's reports,"
Aghazadeh said, adding that a number of countries, including
Russia, have objected to bringing Iran before the UN Security
Council. 

    "Should other sides like to politicize this issue, we will
react accordingly. Iran's reaction will be tough and clear, and
ifthis happens, then you will learn what our reaction will be
like,"Aghazadeh said. 

    In meetings with Russian officials, Aghazadeh discussed
nuclearenergy cooperation with Russia, which is building a
nuclear power plant in Iran under a one-billion-US dollar
contract. 

    Both sides confirmed their wish to launch the Bushehr
nuclear power plant before the end of 2006 at a meeting between
Aghazadeh and Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander
Rumyantsev, an agency source told Interfax. Enditem    

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Reuters: Iran reminds West has allies against U.N. push 

Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:08 PM ET

 MOSCOW, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Iran's top nuclear official, upbeat 
after a Moscow visit, reminded the West on Monday that Tehran had 
powerful allies opposed to referring its suspected atomic weapons 
programme to the U.N. Security Council.

 The European Union and the United States want the Security 
Council to take up Iran's case after Tehran resumed uranium 
processing last month, effectively halting talks aimed at curbing 
its nuclear ambitions.

 But Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation head Gholamreza Aghazadeh 
said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which 
currently monitors Tehran's nuclear programme, had no reasons to 
get the Security Council involved.

 "Based on IAEA criteria, there are no technical or judicial 
grounds for the referral of the Iranian dossier to the U.N. 
Security Council," he told reporters in Moscow after a series of 
meetings with senior Russian officials.

 "A number of countries including Russia have voiced their 
reluctance to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. 
Security Council."

 While calling on Iran to halt uranium conversion, Russia -- a 
permanent Council member with a veto to block any move against 
Iran -- opposes a referral and calls for more diplomacy to settle 
the impasse.

 The United States, Britain, China and France are the other 
permanent members who wield vetoes on the Security Council.

 EU officials and the United States have been trying to win the 
support of other IAEA board members such as China, India and 
South Africa, which are reluctant to send Iran to the Council.

 EU diplomats have said more than half a dozen countries on the 
IAEA's 35-nation governing board, which meets on Sept. 19, 
believe there is no justification for a referral.

 Moscow has been long criticised by Washington for building a $1 
billion nuclear power plant for Iran near the southern port of 
Bushehr, due to be launched next year.

 Iran denies U.S. accusations it is seeking nuclear bombs and 
says it is entitled to a peaceful nuclear electricity programme.
			 			
© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Nuclear Talks to Resume
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Monday September 12, 2005 9:47 AM
 	
AP Photo BEJ101 
By BO-MI LIM 
Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Envoys to talks aimed at ending North
Korea's nuclear weapons program will try again to resolve the
standoff, as the United States resists demands by the communist
state for civilian nuclear reactors. 

Analysts say the North's insistence on a peaceful nuclear
program at the negotiations set to resume Tuesday isn't a tactic
aimed at stalling the disarmament talks but a real concern of
the regime as it tries to revive its economy. 

The latest round of nuclear talks broke off for a recess early
last month after 13 days of negotiations in which envoys failed
to agree on a statement of principles laying a groundwork for
dismantling the North's nuclear weapons programs. 

The talks were to resume during the last week of August, but the
North demanded a two-week postponement, taking issue with annual
joint military exercises between U.S. and South Korean troops
and Washington's appointment of a special envoy on human rights
in North Korea. 

But the nuclear negotiations themselves remained snarled over
North Korea's assertion that it has a right to conduct peaceful
nuclear activities, among other issues. Washington says the
North's record of weapons development proves it cannot be
trusted with any kind of nuclear program. 

On Friday, Christopher Hill, the top U.S. negotiator to the arms
talks, reiterated a set of measures - including energy aid
offered by South Korea - that he said would make it unnecessary
for North Korea ``to go and develop additional capacity,
especially through such very difficult and extremely expensive
projects as nuclear energy.'' 

But last week, the North reiterated that it was ``unimaginable''
that it would dismantle its nuclear power industry ``without
getting any proposal for compensating for the loss of nuclear
energy.'' 

North Korea suffers from chronic energy shortages and blackouts
are common even in its capital. As of 2003, the North was able
to generate less than 30 percent of its total capacity of 7.8
million kilowatts of electricity, according to South Korean
government statistics. 

``Economic development has been the regime's top priority since
the mid-1990s,'' said Paik Hak-soon at the Sejong Institute in
Seoul. ``It's in a situation where it has to secure nuclear
energy for economic recovery and development.'' 

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, allows for
countries that follow its provisions to get assistance with
peaceful nuclear programs, and the North has said it could
rejoin the treaty if the current standoff is resolved. 

But with Washington against the North having a civilian nuclear
program, Paik warned the communist regime would ``not have any
incentive whatsoever to return to the NPT'' - a crucial step
toward bringing the North under international monitoring of its
nuclear activities. 

While Washington tries to portray a united front with South
Korea, Japan, China and Russia at the six-nation talks, several
of those nations seem inclined to compromise. 

South Korean officials, including President Roh Moo-hyun, have
said North Korea would be able to pursue peaceful nuclear
activities when it dismantles all its nuclear weapons programs,
returns to the NPT and complies fully with safeguards from the
United Nation's nuclear watchdog. 

A Chinese Foreign Ministry official also made similar comments
earlier this month in Beijing.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Envoys Aim to End N. Korea Nuke Stalemate
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Monday September 12, 2005 4:16 PM

AP Photo SEL106 
By BO-MI LIM 
Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Envoys to talks aimed at ending North
Korea's nuclear weapons program will try again to resolve the
standoff, as the United States resists demands by the communist
state for civilian nuclear reactors. 

The main U.S. envoy says the key to a solution lie with
Pyongyang. 

``We know we are ready to sit down and negotiate and try to
finish this thing,'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill said Monday in Seoul, en route to Beijing for Tuesday's
talks. ``But the question is what (North Korea) has done during
that one month.'' 

Analysts say the North's insistence on a peaceful nuclear
program isn't a tactic aimed at stalling the disarmament talks
but a real concern of the regime as it tries to revive its
economy. 

The latest round of nuclear talks broke off for a recess early
last month after 13 days of negotiations in which envoys failed
to agree on a statement of principles laying a groundwork for
dismantling the North's nuclear weapons programs. 

The talks were to resume during the last week of August, but the
North demanded a two-week postponement, taking issue with annual
joint military exercises between U.S. and South Korean troops
and Washington's appointment of a special envoy on human rights
in North Korea. 

The nuclear negotiations themselves remained snarled over North
Korea's assertion that it has a right to conduct peaceful
nuclear activities, among other issues. Washington says the
North's record of weapons development proves it cannot be
trusted with any kind of nuclear program. 

On Friday, Hill reiterated a set of measures - including energy
aid offered by South Korea - that he said would make it
unnecessary for North Korea ``to go and develop additional
capacity, especially through such very difficult and extremely
expensive projects as nuclear energy.'' 

But last week, the North reiterated that it was ``unimaginable''
that it would dismantle its nuclear power industry ``without
getting any proposal for compensating for the loss of nuclear
energy.'' 

North Korea suffers from chronic energy shortages and blackouts
are common even in its capital. As of 2003, the North was able
to generate less than 30 percent of its total capacity of 7.8
million kilowatts of electricity, according to South Korean
government statistics. 

``Economic development has been the regime's top priority since
the mid-1990s,'' said Paik Hak-soon at the Sejong Institute in
Seoul. ``It's in a situation where it has to secure nuclear
energy for economic recovery and development.'' 

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, allows for
countries that follow its provisions to get assistance with
peaceful nuclear programs, and the North has said it could
rejoin the treaty if the current standoff is resolved. 

But with Washington against the North having a civilian nuclear
program, Paik warned the communist regime would ``not have any
incentive whatsoever to return to the NPT'' - a crucial step
toward bringing the North under international monitoring of its
nuclear activities. 

While Washington tries to portray a united front with South
Korea, Japan, China and Russia at the six-nation talks, several
of those nations seem inclined to compromise. 

South Korean officials, including President Roh Moo-hyun, have
said North Korea would be able to pursue peaceful nuclear
activities when it dismantles all its nuclear weapons programs,
returns to the NPT and complies fully with safeguards from the
United Nation's nuclear watchdog. 

A Chinese Foreign Ministry official also made similar comments
earlier this month in Beijing. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Kim Jong-il Offers to Meet Bush
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Sep.12,2005 21:27 KST   
 
  North Korean leader Kim Jong-il offered to meet with U.S.
President George W. Bush and discuss the whole range of
bilateral issues to bring about a normalization of ties between
them, Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun reported Monday. 

According to the paper, Kim made the offer to South Korean
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young when they met in Pyongyang
in late June, and Seoul passed it on to Washington. The paper
said the offer was an attempt to get security guarantees in
return for abandoning all nuclear projects straight from the
horse¡¯s mouth, but Washington was unlikely to take Kim up on
it. 

It said North Korea could repeat the offer when six-party
denuclearization talks resume in Beijing on Tuesday. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
*****************************************************************
 10 Xinhua: Will marathon talks be trapped in chicken-and-egg debate?   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-12 20:16:49   

    BEIJING, Sept. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- The second phase of the
fourth-round six-party talks kicked-off here Wednesday. 

    Trapped in a chicken-and-egg debate, will the upcoming talks
face insurmountable difficulties and uncertainties. 

    War, sanctions, conflicts, "rogue state", "axis of evil",
"outpost of tyranny" and anti-US parades have nailed the United
States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on
opposite sides of the same coin. 

    The mistrust has lead to a chicken-and-egg debate with two
major gaps unbridged in the first phase of the fourth-round of
six-party talks. 

    First, Washington demands Pyongyang give up the right to a
civilian nuclear program for fears of transformation to military
use. Pyongyang, with only one card in hand, insists on its right
for fears of "rubber check". 

    The US and the DPRK are also grappling over whether the DPRK
should dismantle its nuclear program before receiving aid,
guarantees and recognition, or whether the US concessions should
come first, or even at the same time. 

    "Lacking trust, the two parties are trapped in the vicious
cycle of a chicken-and-egg debate," Ruan Zongze, deputy director
of the China Institute of International Studies, said, "No one
wants to take the initiative." 

    During the one-month recess, Pyongyang's insistence on a
civilian nuclear program has been enhanced. The Republic of
Korea (ROK) seemed willing to recognize the DPRK's right with
certain conditions. Meanwhile, the US softened its attitude in a
double negative way in its agreement with Japan -- the United
States will not accept DPRK's right unless it fulfills three
conditions. 

    "Even if they reach a certain agreement," Ruan said, "the
implementation process is still full of difficulties due to the
mistrust." 

    The second phase might bring some fruits. However, since
issues concerning the core interests of six parties have been
unveiled, the talks still face enormous uncertainties, analysts
said. 

    "I'm cautiously optimistic," said Wang Yizhou, deputy
director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 

    "My guess is an agreement has 60 percent chance." 

    Nevertheless, a communique or agreement is not the proper
standard by which to judge the talks, Ruan acknowledged. 

    "The half-a-century conflicts have made the problem too
complicated and the talks made the worsening situation a little
better," Ruan said, "That's the most valuable part of the
six-party talks." 

    "Two years ago, the DPRK and the US were at swords' points,"
Ruan said, now they sit down and have a talk. 

    This model, which is widely acclaimed, is likely to become a
new mechanism for the solution of security issues in Northeast
Asia, he added. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Times: 6 Nations Seek Nuke Breakthru 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

 One of the toughest issues in the six-party talks on North
Korea¡¯s nuclear programs, which resume today, is how to deal
with Pyongyang¡¯s demand for retaining peaceful nuclear
facilities such as the light-water reactors in Sinpo, South
Hamkyong Province. 

There have been guesses on what Pyongyang really means when it
refers to a light-water reactor. It could mean the two reactors
in Sinpo, where construction is virtually stopped, or the future
right to have nuclear power plants after resolving the current
nuclear standoff. 

But Koh Yu-hwan, professor of North Korean Studies at Dongguk
University in Seoul, told The Korea Times that Pyongyang hopes
to see the completion of the Sinpo project, which it obtained in
a deal with Washington in 1994.

 First of all, North Korea has no financial ability to build a
nuclear power plant if it looses the chance to get it now. The
Kim Jong-il regime might have thought that Pyongyang could use
its rich natural uranium later to fuel the light-water reactors. 

Natural uranium is a toxic but barely radioactive material. As
the reactor operates, nuclear fission converts the uranium to
more radioactive substances, making it possible to produce the
necessary energy.

 Secondly, the Communist regime apparently wants to keep alive
its energy sovereignty even after it accepts Seoul¡¯s generous
offer of 2 million kilowatts of electricity because North Korea
feels uneasy about depending on energy from South Korea.

 What irritates Washington is that the development of nuclear
technologies can make it possible for rogue states such as North
Korea to convert a peaceful nuclear facility into a generator of
weapons of mass destruction. That¡¯s why the U.S. is strongly
trying to deny North Korea¡¯s right to have the peaceful use of
nuclear energy. 

But Pyongyang may argue that only those countries with highly
developed technologies, such as the U.S., can extract
weapons-grade materials from light-water reactors.

 Such a complicated background makes the light-water reactor
issue a key sticking point that needs to be addressed carefully,
according to Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who heads
the standing committee of the National Security Council. 

Koh said he thinks the best solution he can think of is to
mothball the Sinpo project, not fully scrapping it as the U.S.
wants to. 

``I think the best way now is to stop constructing the two
light-water reactors until the dust settles,¡¯¡¯ he said.
``There would be no problem to resume construction when the
North is unlikely to resort to the dangerous nuclear
business.¡¯¡¯

 Koh said the U.S. also agrees that the North¡¯s demand for the
right to peacefully use nuclear power is a ``downstream
theoretical issue.¡¯¡¯ In other words, it could mean that
Washington can accept the North¡¯s right to have civilian
nuclear facilities in the future if Pyongyang restores trust by
rejoining the non-proliferation treaties and abiding by the
U.N.¡¯s nuclear safeguard regulations.

 The $4.6 billion reactor project in Sinpo, part of the 1994
deal between North Korea and the U.S., was a reward for the
energy-starved country's promise to freeze and eventually
dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

 But the deal broke down in 2002 when U.S. officials claimed
that North Korea had secretly developed enriched uranium-based
nuclear programs. Pyongyang denied the claim. 

im@koreatimes.co.kr 09-12-2005 17:15         

Prof. Koh Yu-hwan
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Times: [Pacific Perspective] Round Four Continues Finally 
  	   
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

By Ralph A. Cossa

 KYOTO _ The fourth round of Six-Party Talks aimed at ending
North Korea's nuclear weapons aspirations is set to resume today
in Beijing after a five-week recess. One main sticking point,
seemingly still unresolved, centers around North Korea's "right"
to have a peaceful nuclear energy program.

 Pyongyang says it will never give up this right and,
furthermore, expects Washington to resume construction of the
nuclear light water reactors (LWRs) promised under the
now-defunct 1994 Agreed Framework. Washington, while stating
that the issue of a peaceful nuclear energy program sometime in
the future may not be a complete "showstopper," has rejected the
idea of resuming LWR construction, indicating that neither the
U.S. nor any of the other parties _ China, Japan, Russia, and
South Korea ) _ are prepared to finance such an effort. While
they have not said as much, there is an offer on the table from
Seoul to provide North Korea with the same amount of power (two
megawatts) that would have been generated by the LWRs,
presumably as compensation for letting this program die a
graceful death.

 As the talks resume, it may be useful to try to understand the
motivation behind these conflicting stands. In discussing
Pyongyang's reasons, of course, we can only guess. But, based on
past performance and its own statements, an educated guess is
possible.

 There are a number of factors that most likely lie behind
Pyongyang's insistence on pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy
program. Primary among them is the fact that the other five
parties do not agree on this issue. North Korea never misses an
opportunity _ and regrettably there are many of them _ to drive
wedges between and among the other five interlocutors. Beijing,
Seoul, and Moscow are on record supporting this "right."
Washington and Tokyo oppose it, arguing that North Korea gave up
this right when it cheated on its prior agreements and walked
away from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A failure of the
five to speak with one voice on this issue presents too tempting
a target for Pyongyang to pass up.

 Another strong possibility is that maintaining a "peaceful"
nuclear program is a hedging strategy aimed at preserving a
future nuclear weapons option, even if its current programs are
eventually abandoned. As long as the North has direct access to
spent fuel rods, it can always eject International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) inspectors (which would have had to have been
allowed back in for a peaceful program to resume) and resume
reprocessing activities to acquire more weapons grade plutonium
(as it did at the onset of the current crisis). This is, of
course, exactly why Washington and Tokyo do not want to see any
type of nuclear energy programs in North Korea (and this is much
easier to understand than why the others seem so sanguine about
this possibility).

 The North is likely also raising the nuclear energy issue as a
diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real
problem, which is ending both its acknowledged plutonium-based
nuclear weapons program and its once-acknowledged and now denied
uranium-based program. It may even be aimed at providing some
political cover for the latter. Of late, Chinese interlocutors
seem to be making a distinction between a weapons-related
highly-enriched uranium (HEU) program and an energy-related
uranium enrichment program (for fuel fabrication). This may
represent a possible face-saving way to acknowledge the presence
of centrifuges which Pyongyang is known to have purchased. The
North Koreans were reportedly presented with some of the
evidence at the last round of Talks. Without acknowledging yet
another violation or lie. (The odds are high that Washington
would accept just about any cover story if the end result was to
put the uranium program on the table.)

 Adding the nuclear energy demand may also be a delaying tactic
driven by greed and/or by more sinister motives. The more
problems one lays on the table, the higher the anticipated
reward for cooperating. This has been a long-standing North
Korean tactic, which has generally worked. At a minimum, it is
likely to demand power plants, not just power transmission lines
emanating from the South (which could be cut off).

 More troublesome is the view of many in Washington that
Pyongyang has no intention of ever giving up its nuclear weapons
program but recognizes that simply staying away from the Talks
(as they did between June 2004 and July 2005) is no longer an
option. Therefore the smart thing to do is to show up but to
keep piling on demands that one or more of the parties find
unacceptable, in order to indefinitely stall while producing as
many nuclear weapons as possible.

 There is another factor that can't be overlooked, and that is
North Korean pride. As a sovereign state, Pyongyang argues, it
has as much right to nuclear energy as South Korea and Japan.
Washington's allegations that it cannot be trusted to have such
a program just make maters worse.

 It would appear that the only way to deal with all these
possible motives and still achieve Washington's long-term
objective is for the other five parties (absent Pyongyang) to
come to a common position regarding the nuclear energy program,
one that agrees that such a program could exist, in principle,
as soon as North Korea comes into full compliance with IAEA
safeguards and fully accounts for all its past nuclear
activities (including pre-1994 actions which were supposed to be
accounted for before the LWRs would be finished) This is the
same standard followed by Seoul, Tokyo, and all states with
peaceful energy programs. All must also agree, and publicly and
firmly state, that the Agreed Framework LWR program is dead and
will not be resurrected.

 The other five nations, privately but convincingly, also need
to set a deadline for some form of meaningful progress on
denuclearization to restrict the benefits currently gained by
stalling. Absent some sort of progress, each must warn Pyongyang
that its current level of diplomatic and economic interaction
with North Korea will not be sustainable. They must also make it
clear that if the current diplomatic process does not yield some
positive results, then the only logical action is to take things
to the next higher diplomatic level; namely, the United Nations
Security Council. 

RACPacForum@cs.com 09-12-2005 17:30         
*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Odd Numbers in Nuclear Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

By Philip Dorsey Iglauer

 Nuclear weapons have mocked logic in all negotiations on them
since the birth of the atomic age.

 Before the North Korean nuclear crisis, Mutual Assured
Destruction _ poignantly shortened to MAD _ hung like a sword
over potential combatants to prevent World War III. Since that
time, mind-numbing long arms control and reduction talks have
been a mainstay of East-West rivalry.

 Though the United States and the Soviet Union made pacts with
the atomic doomsday machine to avert worldwide war, their peace
with the bomb also inadvertently pushed the superpowers to
construct enough thermo-nuclear bombs to extinguish life on
earth tens of thousands of times over.

 As North Korea is reportedly capable of manufacturing more than
ten bombs and talks as if they exist, we look to be embarking on
a similar numbers game in the Six-Party Talks in Beijing, China.

 An Asian atomic arms race, however, can be avoided. 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill is a seasoned
diplomat. Before his promotion as Washington's nuke point man to
North Korea, Hill was throughout the 1990s a top State
Department official who negotiated the U.S. point-of-view in the
Byzantine web of fratricidal animosities in the former
Yugoslavia.

 Vice Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-kwan
is the leading North Korean official on talks about the North's
nuclear weapon's program. He has been everywhere in the global
press presenting the image of a deal maker. Rumors say he's
behind an offer to exchange the U.S.S. Pueblo for a visit by
Condoleezza Rice, Washington's number one diplomat. 

As the fourth round recessed on Aug. 7, Hill predicted peace
when the parties meet again. ``We really want to solve this when
we meet again.'' And he added with his words becoming almost
ebullient, ``We will not have to spend another 13 days but more
like 13 hours or even 13 minutes. But what we can't do is to
spend another 13 months doing nothing.'' 

Although it is comforting Hill cut his diplomatic teeth in a
region as cut-throat as the Balkans before being dispatched to
Asia's equally ill-mannered Northeast, one cannot help but feel
superstitious when the ambassador relies on unlucky ``13'' as a
rhetorical device. Whether to be unnerved or hopeful is really
an a prori judgment.

 Another source of mixed emotions is the White House. President
George W. Bush's sudden change of heart from tough talk and
provocation with regard to the Korean Peninsula, which was
impeding a resolution to the North Korean nuclear weapons
crisis, is encouraging.

 Bush, who referred to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as a
``pygmy,'' and Kim Jong-il himself were hitherto unwitting
participants in a Mexican standoff: either written assurances
for Pyongyang that the U.S. will not topple the teetering regime
in Pyongyang must precede Pyongyang's dropping its nuclear
weapons or the other way around. Both fear trusting the other
will result in losing more than otherwise could be obtained.

 It will require an act of religious faith to escape the
Prisoner's Dilemma around and around which negotiators talk ad
nauseam. According to press reports, it has been proffered by
South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young that two
issues (out of 15 others) are sticking points: 

Whether Pyongyang's civilian nuclear development ``rights,'' as
stipulated under Article V of the NPT, will be extended to it if
the North re-enters the arms control regime and what to do with
the light-water reactors in Sipo that were to be built by the
still-born Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). Let
us hope that the marriage of KEDO former executive director
Charles Kartman to Choi Yoon-hee, eldest daughter of Choi
Chang-yoon, a high-level official in the Chun Doo-hwan and later
Kim Young-sam administrations, is more fruitful.

 KEDO's failure does not augur well for multilateral groups in
Northeast Asia in general.

 It has been suggested that talks are resuming their course of
throat coarsening tongue wagging because neither Washington nor
Pyongyang expects a breakthrough that returns the peninsula to a
non-nuclear status quo. Rather, Washington and Pyongyang are
outflanking each other to assign blame and appear sincere in the
eyes of the other four powers _ China, Russia, Japan, and South
Korea _ for the likely impasse that will ensue.

 Another dour perspective blames Bush's neo-cons for playing a
rear-guard defensive action with the multilateral six-party
framework, stalling while they concentrate on their real
interests in Iraq and central Asia. But slowing conflict
resolution talks with Stalinist bureaucrats in Pyongyang is like
adding ice water to what already was a glacial process. What's
the point?

 At any rate, it does not have to be so conclusively
insurmountable. 

As North Korea and the U.S. return to the bargaining table, and
even though a long and difficult road lies ahead in the search
for common ground, which entails at a minimum a declaration of
basic principles, any agreement between the two primary
antagonists in this six-party drama is again up to South Korea.
Seoul continues obsessing over the diplomatic process like a
Korean mother over her son's college entrance exam.

 The key to a successful outcome will be for South Korea in the
person of Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon to cajole,
coerce, inspire _ and if need be, bribe and threaten the chief
negotiators of the U.S. and the North Korea to rise above
themselves and their nation's cynical short-term interests. 

ephilip2005@hotmail.com 09-12-2005 17:33         

*****************************************************************
 14 Reuters: China dampens hopes of quick fix to N.Korea crisis

Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:40 AM
 					   
 BEIJING, Sept 12 (Reuters) - China tempered expectations on 
Monday of any quick resolution of the North Korean nuclear 
crisis, saying the six-party talks process would be long and a 
breakthrough hard to achieve.

 Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a group of visiting 
reporters the major impediment to progress remained a lack of 
trust between the United States and North Korea.

 The fourth round of talks between the United States, the two 
Koreas, Japan, Russia and host China are to resume formally on 
Wednesday after a five week recess for the delegates to consult 
with their capitals.

 "It's going to be a very long process. Any major breakthrough is 
something really hard to achieve," Liu told reporters.

 North Korea is demanding it be allowed to retain civilian 
nuclear programmes along with economic aid in return for 
scrapping its weapons schemes. The United States and others at 
the talks have been pushing for a full dismantling of Pyongyang's 
nuclear programme.

 The impasse prevented the parties from agreeing on a joint 
statement of principles despite a fourth round that has already 
lasted 13 days, longer than all other previous rounds combined, 
and saw unprecedented contact between the United States and North 
Korea before breaking for a recess on Aug. 7.

 Liu said delegates were still aiming for the joint document.

 "We hope to see some progress, but we didn't really expect too 
much ... because the process takes time," Liu. "The basic problem 
existing, is still the lack of trust between the United States 
and North Korea."

 DINING, THEN DISCUSSION

 Negotiators were expected to attend a banquet hosted by China on 
Tuesday and start holding formal discussions at the exclusive 
Diaoyutai State Guest House on Wednesday.

 Russia's team arrived on Monday, while negotiators from South 
Korea, the United States and North Korea were expected on 
Tuesday.

 The crisis erupted in late 2002, when Washington confronted 
Pyongyang with evidence it was violating international accords by 
pursuing a covert uranium enrichment weapons programme in 
addition to its mothballed plutonium reprocessing endeavours at 
Yongbyon, near the capital.

 North Korea has since reactivated Yongbyon, tossed out 
international inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear 
non-proliferation treaty and, in February, announced it had built 
nuclear weapons.

 The United States wants complete, verifiable and irreversible 
dismantling of all of North Korea's nuclear programmes before aid 
and security guarantees can be granted. The North wants aid and 
guarantees first and the right to maintain civilian programmes.

 Three previous rounds and the 13 day marathon fourth round have 
failed to bridge the impasse.                                           

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 15 Reuters: US seeks not to focus on N.Korea civilian atom plan

Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:43 AM ET

 By Jon Herskovitz

 SEOUL, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The United States is ready to seek a 
negotiated settlement at multilateral talks on dismantling North 
Korea's nuclear weapons programmes, the top U.S. negotiator to 
the discussions said on Monday.

 The talks, resuming on Tuesday in Beijing, went into recess on 
Aug. 7 after the six countries had failed to reach agreement even 
on a statement of principles during 13 days of discussions.

 A key stumbling block then between the parties -- the two 
Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States -- was whether 
the North should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear programme.

 "One should not assume that the outstanding problems all have to 
do with the issue of so-called peaceful use or civilian use," 
said Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of state for Asia and 
Pacific affairs.

 "I would be careful not to focus on any one aspect of it at this 
point," he said.

 Hill made the comments after meeting South Korean Unification 
Minister Chung Dong-young.

 There have been signs of some policy divisions, particularly 
after Chung said that North Korea had a right to a peaceful 
nuclear programme.

 U.S. officials have expressed concern about the North having any 
sort of nuclear programme, saying the communist state could use a 
civilian programme to develop weapons.

 Hill said after his meeting with Chung that the United States 
and South Korea were on the same page when it came to the 
peaceful nuclear programme issue.

 POWER PLAY

 Hill, who heads to Beijing on Tuesday, said last week that North 
Korea, which is battling energy shortages, should seriously 
consider South Korea's sweetener offer to supply it with 
electricity about equal to its own output once it has dismantled 
its nuclear weapons programmes.

 "They (the South Koreans) have a rather ambitious and rather 
important conventional energy proposal, which will, within two 
and half to three years, begin lighting up DPRK towns, cities and 
villages," Hill told reporters.

 The North's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea.

 Hill said the players had laid many of their cards on the table 
and the upcoming discussions should move at a relatively fast 
pace compared to the previous marathon session.

 "They (the North Koreans) know our position. They know our 
approach. It shouldn't take as long as last time," Hill said.

 China, however, tempered expectations of any quick resolution of 
the crisis, saying the six-party process would be long and a 
breakthrough hard to achieve.

 Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told visiting reporters 
on Monday the major impediment to progress remained a lack of 
trust between Washington and Pyongyang.

 "It's going to be a very long process. Any major breakthrough is 
something really hard to achieve," Liu said.

 Negotiators were expected to attend a banquet hosted by China on 
Tuesday and open formal discussions at the exclusive Diaoyutai 
State Guest House on Wednesday.

 The crisis erupted in late 2002, when Washington confronted 
Pyongyang with evidence that it was violating international 
accords by pursuing a covert uranium enrichment weapons programme 
in addition to its mothballed plutonium reprocessing endeavours 
at its Yongbyon reactor, north of the capital.

 North Korea has since reactivated Yongbyon, ejected U.N. 
inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
and, in February, announced it had built nuclear weapons.

 The United States wants complete, verifiable and irreversible 
dismantling of all of North Korea's nuclear programmes.

 On Monday, Pyongyang tried to muddy the waters by blasting joint 
South Korean-U.S. military training as a prelude to an invasion 
of the North that also cast a shadow over the six-way talks.                                          

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 16 Reuters: U.S. says ready to settle N.Korea nuclear issue 

Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:15 AM ET

SEOUL (Reuters) - The United States is ready to seek a negotiated 
settlement at multilateral talks on dismantling North Korea's 
nuclear weapons programmes, the top U.S. negotiator to the 
discussions said on Monday.

The talks went into a recess on August 7 after the six countries 
involved failed to reach agreement even on a statement of 
principles during 13 days of discussions in Beijing.

That fourth round of negotiations between the United States, the 
two Koreas, Japan, Russia and host China will resume on Wednesday 
after a five-week recess for the delegates to consult with their 
capitals.

"We've used the one month very productively in Washington, we're 
ready to sit down and negotiate and try to finish this thing," 
said Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of state for Asia and 
Pacific affairs.

"But the question is what the DPRK has done in that one month," 
added Hill, who was speaking ahead of a meeting with South Korean 
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young. The North's official name 
is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Separately, Hill is also due to meet his South Korean counterpart 
to the talks, Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon.

There have been signs of some policy divisions, particularly 
after Chung said North Korea has a right to a peaceful nuclear 
programme -- a key sticking point in the six-party talks.

U.S. officials have expressed concern about the North having any 
sort of nuclear programme, saying the country could use a 
civilian programme to develop weapons.

Hill, who will head to Beijing on Tuesday for the talks, said 
last week that North Korea, which is battling energy shortages, 
should seriously consider a sweetener from South Korea to supply 
it with electricity about equal to its own output after it 
dismantles its nuclear weapons programmes.

Chung will head to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, on 
Tuesday for ministerial-level talks on issues such as 
confidence-building measures between the North and South Korean 
armies. The two Koreas are technically still at war because the 
1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce and not a peace treaty.
			 			

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: North Korea needs power, but should it be nuclear? - 

Monday September 12, 02:47 PM 

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea's sincerity in demanding a civilian
nuclear programme for peaceful purposes will be tested when new
six-nation talks resume in Beijing on Tuesday, experts say.
 
There is no doubt North Korea desperately needs a steady energy
supply but it is unclear if nuclear power is the best solution
-- or whether getting it would keep Pyongyang from continuing
its atomic ambitions.
 
"For North Korean leaders, the most pressing challenge is the
shortage of energy, which is severe enough to cripple any major
industial activity," said Chang Sun-Sup, chairman of the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organizaton (KEDO), set up a decade
ago to help meet North Korea's energy needs.
 
Even though Pyongyang is insisting on nuclear power, however,
experts say the Stalinist state's power grid is too primitive to
handle the capacity that would be provided by the nuclear plants
it is demanding.
 
As part of any deal, North Korea wants the international
community to complete construction of two light-water reactors,
a five billion dollar project suspended two years ago.
 
Work on the 1,000-megawatt reactors began under KEDO's auspices
as part of the 1994 agreement that ended the previous standoff
over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
 
At the time, North Korea agreed to freeze its atomic drive in
return for fuel oil and the construction of the reactors -- but
the deal ended when the United States accused Pyongyang of
running a uranium enrichment programme.
 
According to the Nautilus Institute, a California-based research
group on Northeast Asian energy isues, the deal was doomed from
the start.
 
"The North Korean grid could not then, nor could it ever, have
supported these two reactors as the grid was far too small and
simple to run such large and potentially hazardous units," the
institute said in a July report.
 
One of the report's co-authors, South Korean nuclear expert Kang
Jungmin, said Pyongyang's demand for the reactors was a
political gesture made against the advice of the country's own
power experts.
 
"To consume the electricity generated by such reactors, North
Korea would need a power grid 10 times the size of what they now
have," Kang said.
 
"They simply cannot even use the reactors, even if they ever get
them," he said.
 
But Washington has rejected leaving any atomic facilities in the
hands of a North Korean regime that it says has previously
threatened to use nuclear weapons, and to sell them to a third
party.
 
A generation ago, Communist North Korea was the leading energy
producer in Asia, outperforming the capitalist South through a
network of hydro and thermal power plants unrivalled in the
region.
 
With three times the generating capacity of today's network, it
was set up by North Korea's founding father Kim Il-Sung, who
wanted a powerful industrial base to strengthen his hand in the
race for supremacy with the rival South.
 
Many of those plants are now in ruins or decayed to such an
extent that they function at 50 percent or less of capacity,
according to experts closely monitoring the North's energy
sector.
 
The transmission grid system is so degraded that it no longer
operates on a national level and only small clusters of the
country are connected to the network.
 
Kim's dream of industrial power dissolved as North Korea's
economy buckled under the weight of its own centrally planned
excesses and international factors that deprived it of cheap raw
materials including oil.
 
The decline was speeded up by natural disasters in the mid-1990s
that dislocated the economy and triggered widespread famine.
 
According to the Nautilus Institute, North Korea's power output
declined by two-thirds between 1990 and 2000 and has stagnated
since.
 
The country's entire power generation capacity from a few dozen
coal-fired and hydro power plants is now around 2,000 megawatts,
a fraction of the capacity available to New York City. 

   Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: No sign of compromise as envoys arrive for resumption of N Korea talks - 

Monday September 12, 11:17 PM 

BEIJING (AFP) - Envoys have begun arriving for the resumption of
talks aimed at denuclearising the Korean peninsula, with the
United States and communist North Korea showing few signs of
relaxing their positions.
 
Despite a flurry of diplomatic activity during five weeks of
recess, no clear signals have emerged that the fourth round of
talks resuming Tuesday will be any different from past
inconclusive rounds.
 
"What North Korea has to do is get out of the nuclear business,"
Christopher Hill, chief US envoy to the six-party talks, said
Friday before a visit to Seoul Monday.
 
"Nuclear weapons, nuclear programs are not something that one
should leave in an ambiguous state," he said.
 
Whether Pyongyang should be allowed peaceful use of nuclear
energy was the main sticking point in the last set of talks that
broke up on August 7 after two weeks of intense negotiations.
 
Pyongyang insists it has an "unconditional right" to operate
nuclear programs for civilian use and while the United States
opposes this, other parties, including China indicated they were
not against it.
 
Along with delegates from South Korea, North Korea and Japan,
Hill will fly to Beijing Tuesday to reconvene the talks hosted
by China.
 
While little of substance was achieved last time, the talks were
noted for the unprecedented bilateral contacts between the
United States and North Korea as the long-time adversaries
attempted to build trust.
 
The sixth party, the Russians, arrived Monday headed by Deputy
Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev. He said he was "optimistic"
while admitting it was "hard to predict the result" of the
talks, Xinhua news agency reported.
 
In typical fashion, North Korea stepped up its anti-US rhetoric
Monday, accusing Washington of clouding prospects for the talks
by "unreasonably" listing Pyongyang as violating an
international convention against biological weapons.
 
"The United States would be well advised to stop such rash acts
as hurting its dialogue partner in a bid to chill the climate
for building confidence between the DPRK (North Korea) and the
US ...," the North said through its ruling party newspaper,
Rodong Sinmun.
 
The six nations will restart discussions by reviewing a draft
statement outlined by China on the principles of how to
denuclearise the Korean peninsula, diplomats said.
 
The talks will be open-ended and after bilateral meetings
Tuesday they are expected to move into more formal talks on
Wednesday.
 
Washington says the North should not exercise the right to
peaceful nuclear facilities since Pyongyang has acknowledged
using its civilian program in the past as a cover for making
weapons.
 
Hill argued there was no need for Pyongyang to maintain civilian
programs because South Korea had pledged to provide electricity
to its northern neighbor.
 
"If this is about energy, we've got a very good proposal for
that," he said, adding that North Korea "has had trouble keeping
peaceful programs peaceful" -- a reference to a 1994 deal known
as the Agreed Framework that turned sour.
 
Under the now defunct 1994 nuclear agreement, light water
reactors were to have been built by a US-led consortium to
replace North Korea's existing graphite-moderated reactors,
which can produce weapons-grade plutonium. 

But construction has been suspended amid the nuclear standoff,
which flared in October 2002 when the US accused the North of
developing a secret uranium-enrichment program.
 
Pyongyang has denied the US charges but declared in February
this year that it had already built nuclear bombs.
 
Despite the seemingly entrenched positions, analysts said it was
possible the US could agree to recognise North Korea had a right
as a sovereign state to civilian nuclear programs, in return for
a verification mechanism.
 
But it will not likely happen at this round of talks.
 
"It will take time and there will be no immediate
breakthroughs," said Joseph Cheng, a North Asia expert at City
University of Hong Kong. "But someone has to take the first
step."
 
   Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 19 Wash. Post: U.S. adopts first-strike nuclear policy
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:35:01 +0100

 
	WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com


Friends,

Now it's finally official: the Pentagon will initiate
first-use of nuclear weapons if it can claim some enemy is
"using or planning to use" WMDs. This would of course have
applied to Iraq, which as it turned out had no WMDs: the
"using or planning to use" only needs to be claimed, not
proved.

This first-use doctrine is no surprise: it was leaked months
ago on the Internet, and was first proclaimed secretly  by
Bush back in 2002. The real significance of this announcement,
I suggest, is its timing in relation to the planned offensive
against Iran.

Prior to this offensive, obviously, the administration needs
to get all of its ducks in a row. We can learn what those
ducks are by watching news developments. First use of nukes,
given the difficulties Iran offers as a target, is clearly one
of those ducks.

The surprising and unprecedented evacuation of the Gaza strip
by Israelis - forced through by ultra-Zionist Sharon - is
apparently another of those ducks: enabling the Israelis to
nuke (ethnically cleanse) Gaza in the heat of conflict,
perhaps blaming it on a "stray Iranian missile". The Katrina
operation is certainly another duck: testing and implicitly
declaring the style of martial law we can expect to be
deployed domestically, in the wake of the phony terrorist
incident that will be used as the  final spark for the war.
The London bombings, as I suggested at the time, were another
duck: Britain will as usual be Washington's token
"international ally", and the British people need to be put in
a state of fear & expectation (like Americans post-911), and
indoctrinated that Islam is a terrorist culture. Segregating
people into "classes" or "sub cultures" has been a time-honored 
part of British society since at least 1066.

Does anyone know of any other ducks? I hope so, because if
we're running out that means war is near. We've seen reports
that military leaves have been cancelled for September: if
those are accurate we should probably begin looking for
bunkers to hide in. The Gaza pullout is particularly worrying
- not because its the most significant development - but
because it was so unexpected, so rushed, and so politically
troublesome for Sharon: its significance is as a timing
indicator. Sharon is certainly privy to secret Administration
plans, as Israel will participate in the attack, and he would
want to minimize the timeframe between his political
difficulties and the outbreak of war, which will obviously
eclipse those difficulties.

Another reason to think that Armageddon is near can be found
in this latest article. We read that the first-strike
announcement has been delayed because of various negative
consequences that are likely to follow from the announcement,
in terms of public opinion and Congressional reaction. Those
negative consequences can now be expected and, again, there
would be a desire to minimize the timeframe between the
announcement and the eclipsing events.

rkm

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html 

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan 
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons 

By Walter Pincus 
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01 

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of
nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting
presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a
nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction.
The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to
destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or
chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but
not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of
nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first
announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The
strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified
national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the
United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the
use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States,
its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be
available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative
guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for
using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first
attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption
doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the
Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear
weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from
weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written
under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is
unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is
expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen.
Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to
Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's
office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final
coordination with the military services, the combatant
commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office,
Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies
differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document
"revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the
range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in
the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to
use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces
or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is
in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological
weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely
destroy."

That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to
nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that
Congress has thus far declined to fully support.

Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research
toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy
biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing
them into the atmosphere.

The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons
for "attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep,
hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine
the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead
(RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the
Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried
weapons sites.

The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end
of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
"raises the danger of nuclear weapons use." It says that there
are "about thirty nations with WMD programs" along with
"nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as
sponsored by an adversarial state."

To meet that situation, the document says that "responsible
security planning requires preparation for threats that are
possible, though perhaps unlikely today."

To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the
United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be
made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them
"if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using
such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the
United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or
retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and
effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past
has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use'
policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine
deterrence."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed
Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the
bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was
"apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review
and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts
about the program." She added that members "certainly don't
want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear]
preemption policy" without hearings, closed door if necessary.

A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has
not yet received a copy of the draft.

Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources
Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon
Web site, said yesterday that it "emphasizes the need for a
robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice
including new missions."

Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in
nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine
was due in August but has not yet appeared.

"This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration
pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons," Kristensen
said. "It provides justification for contentious concepts not
proven and implies the need for RNEP."

One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly
the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or
concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade
Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized
nuclear weapons.

In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services
panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He
said the money was for research and not to begin production on
any particular warhead. "The only thing we have is very large,
very dirty, big nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "It seems to
me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cj-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cj-help@cyberjournal.org

*****************************************************************
 20 [UQ-Wire] UQ Wire: Bill Grigsby -  The Nuclear Option
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:25:39 -0500 (CDT)

 
	UNDISC_RECIPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Posting to Headlines Wire of Scoop
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Date: Monday, 12 September 2005
Time: 12:27 pm NZT

UQ Wire: Bill Grigsby -  The Nuclear Option

 Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
 http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

 The Nuclear Option
By  Bill Grigsby 

I was sitting around recently, trying to imagine just how the
BushCo Administration would attempt to frame the TV news this
year on September 11. Of course there would be lots of flags.
Backdrops, lapel pins, special commemorative 9/11 messages from
corporate sponsors. A speech mentioning the Iraq War, just in
case people were beginning to doubt whether there was a connection
between the NeoCons' war and 9/11. In front of a rabidly pro-war
audience . . . hmmmm . . . not many of those left. Rush Limbaugh
could invite some of his millions of faithful listeners . . .
. naaah, that would be a scarier crowd than the protestors being
videotaped miles away in the free speech zone.' A new product
rollout. Something that respectfully recognizes the sacrifice
and tragedy suffered by Americans and others on 9/11. Something
about the culture of life' that helps promote the GOP brand.
Something that makes you take note and say, boy, that White
House Communications Team really outdid itself this time!' After
an official response to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath that showed
without a doubt that our government could be as insensitive and
incompetent as some of the worst dictatorships we've propped
up over the years, Americans were in need of a glimmer of light.

And then came the announcement that the Pentagon was adopting
a nuclear strike doctrine that would allow the president to order
a nucular weapon strike to thwart a terrorist threatyou know,
like the one Iraq posed way back in 2002. What a perfect way
to commemorate 9/11! 

And some glimmer of light! What makes it especially tasteful
is the U.S. government's new slogan for the war on terror'it's
now a war against violent extremism.' And what better way to
wage war against violent extremism than with pre-emptive nuclear
attacks? Think how less complicated Iraq would be now if we had
just levelled it in 2003. Firefight in Falluja? Shutting down
the presses in Sadr City? Just flatten them, and call in Halliburton,
your favorite multinational reconstruction contractor. Any contractor
will tell you that building from the ground up is easier than
remodelling. 

This is especially comforting on the heels of the government's
performance in Louisiana and Mississippiwhere the Homeland Security
Director was relying on a BushCo Campaign donor for up-to-the-minute
information on their disaster response. FEMA Director Michael
Brown apparently thought the Air Force One Flyover would buy
them 24-36 hours, long enough to bring in some of the big guns
who helped him organize the Annual American Horse Awards and
help him get some White House-approved photos on the White House-approved
nightly news. Yes, the president who steadfastly played golf
after Katrina hit, who resolutely said his man Brown was doing
a heckuva job, who could have used a thesaurus after his fourth
description of the hurricane's aftermath as unimaginably indescribable,'
now wants Congress to give him the power to order nuclear strikes
in the possibly endless war against violent extremism. These
would be 'precision' nuclear strikes, of course, based on the
best available intelligence. So not to worry about a club of
psychopathic, trigger-happy kooks and a figurehead president
who'd rather re-read the book of Revelation than slog through
the daily news. Or read a story about pet goats than respond
to a second plane crashed into a second tower. Have complete
confidence! Give the president the keys to the nuclear warchest,
let's build some new generation bunker busters (or is it budget
busters?), and exorcise this violent extremism from civilized
society! Terror be gone! Cuz we knows they hates our freedoms,
even if we're not s'posed to say it any more! 

You may be thinking, if the national debt in is the trillions,
and we can't even restore order or sieze the oil fields of a
third rate military power, and we're trying to pressure Iran
and North Korea to destroy nuclear stockpiles or weapons factories,
why would we want to spend billions on a new nuclear weapons
program?' Well that would just show that you don't understand
politics. It's sophisticated stuff, best left to the experts,
like Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. And a small, 'precision'
nuclear weapon, one that, like the other smart bombs in the American
arsenal, only kills the bad guys (hmmm . . . this could explain
the undisclosed, secure location, couldn't it?), would not only
serve as a deterrent to widely dispersed terrorist groups planning
large public conventions to discuss killing Americans, but it
could be used for instance to 'speed up' multilateral discussions
on free trade issues with countries accused of supporting terrorist
activities. Sort of put them on the fast track.' The nuclear
track.

The problem, of course, is the word nuclear.' First of all,
the president has been advised to mispronounce it on account
of the pollsters say it makes him seem like a regular guy. Other
world leaders cringe, however. And former TV reporter Karen Hughes
has been hired to run international interference and let the
rest of the world know that the president will stick by his mispronunciation
because that's what leaders do. It's all part of her new job
as global PR Troubleshooter. The second problem with the word
nuclear' is that it conjures images of horrendous destruction
and genocide. And the U.S. is the only government to ever actually
use nuclear bombs to kill civilian populations. This begs the
question, will the rest of the world be comforted by the U.S.'
declaration that it reserves the right to launch pre-emptive
nuclear strikes to thwart a threat to its interests?' The third
problem is how to spin nuclear' to unload all of the semantic
baggage likely to impede the development of nuclear bunker busters.

Well, the president never says nuclear power' any more without
safe and clean' in front of it. Why not safe and clean' nuclear
weapons? It's equally plausible. And anyway, it's like the mediocrity'
poster sez, it takes a lot less time, and most people won't
notice the difference until it's too late.' The U.S. Government
has already pulled out of the ICC, and could clog up the courts
for years with conflicting definitions of safe' and clean.'
Anything's possible in a country where the press dutifully accepts
that the enemy state's weapons wreak mass destruction and ours
are precision munitions.' As you read this, someone in the government
is being paid well to think up acceptable household names for
weapons that can kill thousands of people. Names not unlike

high energy munitions' (HEMs)
energy efficient warfare'
anti-terror strike capacitors'
Hydrogen-enhanced penetrating devices' (HEPDs)
subatomic disassembling armed mechanism' (Sadam)

Whatever the name, it would be hard to beat the unilateral Doctrine
of Joint Nuclear Operations' in terms of sheer Orwellian contradiction.
Making nuclear devices seem like your friend is a uniquely American
marketing challenge. But rolling out a nuclear first-strike
doctrine' on 9/11 is an overreach that makes the Social Security
Scare Tour seem like, well, a slam dunk?

*************

)2005 Bill Grigsby
Eastern Oregon University

********************

 STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article.
We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant
information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds
in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build
bridges between our various investigative communities, towards
a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which
now lie before us. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Scoop website is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/
This Story is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00150.htm

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Help Sudanese refugees rebuild their lives through GlobalGiving.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/V8WM1C/EbOLAA/E2hLAA/08wplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

For more information: http://www.unansweredquestions.net/
Post message: UQ-Wire@yahoogroups.com 
Subscribe:  UQ-Wire-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
Unsubscribe:  UQ-Wire-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
List owner:  UQ-Wire-owner@yahoogroups.com 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UQ-Wire/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    UQ-Wire-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 21 IPS-English POLITICS-US: Pentagon Foresees Pre-emptive Nuclear
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:53:38 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS NA HD IP ML NC=20
POLITICS-US: Pentagon Foresees Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - Amid increasing tension between the United Sta=
tes and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme, and growing concern about o=
verstretched U.S. ground forces, the George W. Bush administration is mov=
ing steadily toward adopting the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons again=
st non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy=
=2E

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recen=
tly posted to the Pentagon's website, Washington will not necessarily wai=
t for potential adversaries to use what it calls =94weapons of mass destr=
uction=94 before resorting to a nuclear strike against them.

The document, entitled =94Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations=94, has y=
et to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, according to an acco=
unt published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consist=
ent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which wa=
s widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold fo=
r the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

=94What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear =
weapons against non-nuclear powers in pre-emptive first strikes,=94 said =
Ivan Oelrich of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS) about both t=
he NPR and the new Doctrine.

The Doctrine would also appear to contradict the administration's oft-sta=
ted claim that it is significantly reducing the role of nuclear weapons i=
n its global military strategy.

=94(T)he new doctrine reaffirms an aggressive nuclear posture of modernis=
ed nuclear weapons maintained on high alert,=94 according to Hans Kristen=
sen of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

=94(T)he new doctrine's approach grants regional nuclear-strike planning =
an increasingly expeditionary aura that threatens to make nuclear weapons=
  just another tool in the toolbox,=94 he wrote last week in 'Arms Control=
  Today.'

=94The result is nuclear pre-emption, which the new doctrine enshrines in=
to official U.S. joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, where the obj=
ective no longer is deterrence through threatened retaliation but battlef=
ield destruction of targets,=94 according to Kristensen.

The Doctrine is the latest in a series of documents adopted by the admini=
stration that has moved the U.S. away from the traditional view that nucl=
ear weapons should be used solely for the purposes of defence and deterre=
nce.=20

Along with the NPR, which called for the development of new delivery syst=
ems for nuclear weapons and noted that China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Sy=
ria, and Libya could all be targets, the new view was expounded by Bush h=
imself in his September 2002 National Security Strategy document. =94We c=
annot let our enemies strike first,=94 he warned at the time.

In mid-2004, according to national security analyst William Arkin, Rumsfe=
ld approved a top-secret =94Interim Global Strike Alert Order' that direc=
ted the military to be prepared to attack potential adversaries, notably =
Iran and North Korea, that are developing WMD.=20

=94Global strike=94, according to a classified January 2003 presidential =
directive obtained by Arkin, is defined as including nuclear, as well as =
conventional, strikes =94in support of theatre and national objectives=94=
=2E

The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which=
  a pre-emptive nuclear strike might be used, including:

If an adversary intended to use WMD against the U.S. multinational or all=
ied forces or a civilian population;

In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons tha=
t only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;

Against adversary installations, including WMD; deep, hardened bunkers co=
ntaining chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infra=
structure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the =
U.S. or its friends and allies; and

In cases where a demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nucle=
ar weapons would deter WMD use by an adversary.

The previous Doctrine, promulgated under the Clinton administration in 19=
95 made no mention of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against any =
target, let alone describe scenarios in which such use would be considere=
d.

Moreover, the new Doctrine blurs the distinction that existed during the =
Cold War between strategic and theatre nuclear weapons by =94assign(ing) =
all nuclear weapons, whether strategic or nonstrategic, support roles in =
theater nuclear operations=94, according to Kristensen.

Another particularly worrisome aspect of the latest Doctrine, according t=
o Oelrich, is its conflation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons =
as one =94WMD=94 threat that could justify a U.S. nuclear strike, particu=
larly given the huge disparity in destructive and lethal impact between c=
hemical weapons, on the one hand, and nuclear arms on the other.

=94What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the leg=
itimacy of using nuclear weapons if (the administration) suspects another=
  country might use chemical weapons against us,=94 he said. =94Iraq is a =
perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a countr=
y where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical w=
eapons against us.=94

Critics also fear that resorting to nuclear weapons may have become incre=
asingly attractive to the administration as the Army and Marines have bec=
ome bogged down in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

=94(U.S. Strategic Command) planners, recognising that U.S. ground forces=
  are already overcommitted, say that a global strike must be able to be i=
mplemented 'without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces,=94=
' according to Arkin's account of recent directives received by commander=
s charged with contingency planning.

The new strategy may also be relevant to the situation in Iran, which is =
known to have chemical weapons but whose nuclear programme Washington ins=
ists is being used to produce weapons as well.

Writing in 'The American Conservative' last month, columnist Philip Giral=
di, a former CIA officer who also worked at the Defense Intelligence Agen=
cy, reported that Vice Pres. Dick Cheney's office had tasked the United S=
tates Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan for a =94large=
-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nucle=
ar weapons=94 in the event of another 9/11 terrorist attack.

=94Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not=
  be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option,=94 he wr=
ote.

In fact, it is questionable whether even U.S. nuclear weapons could reach=
  their hardened targets underground, which is why the Pentagon has been p=
ressing Congress for several years to finance research into the developme=
nt of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Democrats and a small minority of Republicans in the House of Representat=
ives have so far blocked the administration's request, although it will b=
e taken up later this fall by a joint House-Senate conference committee. =
The new Strategy may be aimed in part at exerting pressure on the lawmake=
rs to approve the request.

Meanwhile, however, administration critics warn that instead of deterring=
  potential adversaries from pursuing nuclear weapons, the new Doctrine is=
  almost certain to have the opposite effect.

=94We make it seem that nuclear weapons are essential to our security,=94=
  noted Oelrich. =94So it immensely enhances the cachet of nuclear weapons=
  to others.=94
*****
+DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Weapons Talks Open on Crisis Note (http://www.ipsne=
ws.net/news.asp?idnews=3D28532)
+POLITICS: New U.S. Plans for Nukes Hypocritical, Say Experts (http://www=
.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3D22370)

(END/IPS/NA/IP/HD/NC/ML/JL/KS/05)

=20
=3D 09122238 ORP010
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 22 !!Pentagon Set to OK Use Of Nukes In Pre-emptive Attacks
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:53:03 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Pentagon Set to OK Use Of Nukes In Pre-emptive Attacks

In other news... The Washington Post is reporting the Pentagon is
drafting new guidelines to allow the military to use nuclear weapons
in pre-emptive attacks. The Pentagon is in the final stage of updating
what is known as the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations that
outlines

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/12/1426204

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
 23 UC Berkeley Press Release: Arts and the A-bomb
                
09.12.2005 - 

[UC Berkeley News]   

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 12 September 2005                                                                 
								
BERKELEY  The Atomic Age will undergo artistic scrutiny and
rethinking through an upcoming series of events coordinated by
the University of California, Berkeley's Consortium for the
Arts. 							 

The programs come some 60 years after detonation of the first
atomic bomb under the guidance of the late UC Berkeley Physics
Professor J. Robert Oppenheimer and after the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also wrap around the run of a major
Bay Area arts event - "Doctor Atomic," the San Francisco Opera's
collaboration with Peter Sellars and John Adams that recreates
the hours before the atomic bomb's first explosion in the New
Mexico desert. 							 

Anthony J. Cascardi, director of the consortium and UC
Berkeley's interim dean of arts and humanities, said the idea of
the series is to contribute UC Berkeley's artistic and
intellectual artistic resources to a multi-faceted set of
reflections on the scientific, social, historical and cultural
changes wrought for the world by atomic weapons.

The UC Berkeley events begin in late September and will include:
							 
  + "The College Presents: Science and the Soul: J. Robert
Oppenheimer and 'Doctor Atomic'," a public conversation at UC
Berkeley at 8 p.m., Monday, Sept. 26, between Peter Sellars and
John Adams about the making and meaning of their opera.

They will be joined by UC Berkeley physics professor Marvin
Cohen and Mark Richards, dean of physical sciences at UC
Berkeley. The discussion will explore Oppenheimer's role in the
creation of the atomic bomb and the historical, scientific and
musical background of "Doctor Atomic." 							 

The free campus program, presented by UC Berkeley's College of
Letters &Science and Cal Performances at Wheeler Hall
Auditorium, will feature an exclusive musical preview of the
opera.

Tickets will be available at the Cal Performances ticket office
at Zellerbach Hall from Sept. 20-25 and at the Wheeler lobby box
office the night of the event. For more information about the
opera, see LS.berkeley.edu/CollegePresents,
www.doctor-atomic.com or www.sfopera.com.


  + "On Nuclear Time," a 5 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 29 lecture by
art historian Julia Bryan-Wilson of the Rhode Island School of
Design, exploring plans for a marker over a New Mexico nuclear
waste dump to warn future generations about the effects of
radioactivity. Without using words, the monument is supposed to
warn people thousands of years in the future of the site's
radioactive risks. The lecture, organized by UC Berkeley's
Department of History of Art, will take place in Room 160 of
Kroeber Hall, near the intersection of Bancroft Way and College
Avenue.


  + "A Composer's Colloquium," a presentation by UC Berkeley's
Music Department with composer Adams about the making of "Doctor
Atomic." It will take place from 3-4:30 p.m., Friday, Sept. 30,
in the Elkus Room, 125 Morrison Hall.


  + "Doctor Atomic Goes Nuclear," a series in October at the
Pacific Film Archive that will feature films depicting the
aftermath of nuclear war, the anxiety of the Atomic Age and the
unsettling tradeoffs in society's promotion of science and
technology. Sellars and Jon Else, a UC Berkeley journalism
professor and acclaimed documentary filmmaker ("The Day After
Trinity: J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb"), will be
among the special guests providing commentary on the series'
films. Visit the PFA website calendar for schedule updates and
admission prices:
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/pfa_programs/index.html.


  + "100 SUNS," an installation by Michael Light from Oct. 3-8,
adjacent to Memorial Glade, in front of Doe Library. The Center
for Photography at the Graduate School of Journalism will
present the artwork based on photographer and bookmaker Light's
2003 book of the same name. The series of previously classified
American nuclear detonation photographs made by the military
during the era of United States atmospheric atomic testing
reflect on the role of the University of California in the
nuclear arms race and the Cold War.


  + "Controlling Nuclear Weapons: From Oppenheimer to the
Present: Authors in Conversation," at noon, Wednesday, Oct. 5,
in North Gate Hall's Bayley Library. Participants will include
Martin Sherwin, professor at Tufts University and co-author of
the recent biography, "American Prometheus: The Triumph and
Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer;" and Jonathan Schell, senior
fellow at the Institute For the Study of Globalization at Yale
University and author of "The Fate of the Earth, The
Unconquerable World" and other works on the history of nuclear
weapons.


  + "The Aesthetics of the Bomb and the Aesthetics of 'Doctor
Atomic,'" a colloquium and roundtable discussion by UC
Berkeley's Rhetoric Department at 4 p.m., Monday, Oct. 10, about
the aesthetics of nuclear weapons and the practices and politics
surrounding them as seen in "Doctor Atomic," the film
"Crossroads," the work of photographer Richard Misrach, and what
author David E. Nye calls the "nuclear sublime." This event will
take place in 370 Dwinelle Hall.


  + "Atomic Poetry," a reading by 30 poets of new work created
for this 3 p.m., Saturday, Oct.15 program at the Berkeley Art
Museum. Participants in the event, organized by UC Berkeley's
English Department, will include poets Robert Hass and Lyn
Hejinian of the UC Berkeley faculty, along with Brenda Hillman,
Bill Berkson and Leslie Scalapino, among others. 							 
tags - CMS--> 									 								 									

Copyright UC Regents
*****************************************************************
 24 Las Cruces Sun-News: Trinity Site to be opened to the public
 
 White Sands Missile Range
 Sep 12, 2005, 10:21 pm

White Sands Missile Range will open Trinity Site to the public
for the third open house this year on Oct. 1. Trinity Site is
where the world’s first atomic bomb was tested at 5:29:45 a.m.
Mountain War Time on July 16, 1945.
 
The open house is still free. 

At the site visitors can take a quarter-mile walk to ground zero
where a small obelisk marks the exact spot where the bomb was
exploded. Historical photos are mounted on the fence surrounding
the area. 

Once at the site, visitors also can ride a missile range bus two
miles to the Schmidt/McDonald ranch house. The ranch house is
where the scientists assembled the plutonium core of the bomb. 

For more detailed information concerning Trinity Site, visit the
missile range’s Trinity Site web pages, the only official
Trinity Site Web site, by going to
www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trinst
 
Visitors are allowed to drive their own vehicles to the site.
 
The simplest way to get to Trinity Site is to enter White Sands
Missile Range through its Stallion Range Center gate on Oct. 1.
Stallion gate is five miles south of U.S. Highway 380. The
turnoff is 12 miles east of San Antonio, NM, and 53 miles west
of Carrizozo, The Stallion gate is open during each open house
from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Visitors arriving at the gate between
those hours will receive handouts and will be allowed to drive
unescorted the 17 miles to Trinity Site. The road is paved and
marked.
 
The other way of attending the open house is to drive with the
Alamogordo caravan. The caravan forms at the Otero County
Fairgrounds and leaves at 8 a.m. It is an 85 mile drive to the
site from Alamogordo and there are no services on the route or
at the site. The caravan is led by military police once it gets
onto the missile range. It is scheduled to leave Trinity Site
between 12:30 and 1 p.m.
 
All adults must show a photo ID. All vehicles are subject to
search and should be carrying proof of insurance and current
registration papers.
 
There are no ceremonies or speakers at the site. Food and
souvenirs are sold at the site. For more information, call the
White Sands Missile Range public affairs office at (505)
678-1134.

This column is provided by White Sands Missile Range’s Public
Affairs Office. For more information, call the office at (505)
678-1134. 

Copyright © 2004 Las Cruces Sun-News, a Gannett Co., Inc.
newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 25 Halifax Live: Preemptive Nuclear Strikes - Now Only A Matter of Time
 
  By D.L. McCracken
 Sep 12, 2005, 16:37

Have you been paying close attention to the horror that is New
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? Have you found yourself not
really following other news items of significant importance
because first, Katrina has pushed everything else to the back
burner by mainstream media and second, what is happening in New
Orleans is all the bad news you can handle at the moment?
 
There is at least one piece of information released to the media
recently that deserves much more attention than it's receiving.
Have you by chance skimmed over headlines or caught the back end
of a news item with contain phrases such as, "revised doctrine
for the use of nuclear weapons"? How about "preemption
strategies"? 

It's time to start paying close attention because something else
is happening in the United States that is pretty damn scary.
 
It's called The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and the
Pentagon has drafted certain revisions to the original 1995
document which simply put, describes the role of U.S. nuclear
deterrence, force posturing and deployment considerations. In a
nutshell, the doctrine specifies definite rules for the use by
the U.S. of nuclear weapons. The newly revised doctrine provides
more options and reasons for using nuclear devices as well as
other weapons of mass destruction against nations and/or
terrorist groups and furthermore, includes an option for
preemptive use of said weapons. 

In other words, the revised doctrine includes the option for the
United States to fire off the first nuclear missile - a
preemptive strike, an idea that was initially announced by U.S.
President George W. Bush in 2002.
 
Along with the newly revised preemption clause, the doctrine
also incorporates:
 
- a reduction in the level of hostilities where a nuclear weapon
could be utilized;
 
- a support for the utilization of nuclear weapons against all
forms of weapons of mass destruction including chemical and
biological;
 
- a support for deploying nuclear weapons against terrorists and
terror factions;
 
- support for protection of nuclear forces over protecting
people.
 
The revised doctrine contains over 20 additional pages devoted
to various nuclear options including the use of nulcear devices
in theatre operations or in an active combat zone. The new
chapter devoted to theater nuclear operations was added as a
direct result of the emergence of dangerous 'rogue states' and
organized terrorist factions especially if those entities had
been successful in obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
 
Critics of the revised doctrine warn that the added options for
deployment of a nuclear device "threaten to make nuclear weapons
just another tool in the toolbox". The revised document also
includes at least four scenarios where commanders in a combat
theatre situation request Presidential approval for use of
nuclear weapons first.
 
According to The Nuclear Information Project, "in nuclear
preemption, the objective no longer is deterrence through
threatened retaliation but battlefield destruction of targets
with nuclear weapons first in anticipation that deterrence will
fail."
 
Th revised docrine also takes into consideration the inevitable
collateral damage caused by a nuclear device, even weapons with
a "lower yield". One paragraph from the revised doctrine
states,"Specific techniques for reducing nuclear collateral
damage may include lower yield weapons, improving accuracy,
employing multiple smaller weapons, adjusting the height of
burst, and offsetting the desired ground zero."
 
So there you have it. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate killing
machines. Deterrence has worked for decades but suddenly the
Bush administration wants to scrap deterrence and incorporate
preemptive strike capability when that administration or a
commander in a ground combat situation feels that it would be
appropriate.
 
We all are deeply aware of the destruction that one small
nuclear bomb can create, not only in the immediate aftermath of
a strike but in the weeks, months, years and decades to come. At
a time when we would hope that our world leaders would be doing
their utmost to decrease the nuclear threat, the world's most
powerful nation is writing doctrines that will allow them to
strike first - anywhere on this planet.
 
It's now only a matter of time.
   
  Copyright © HalifaxLive.com, All Rights Reserved. Last
Updated: Sep 12th, 2005 - 16:48:25       
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Britain faces long-term nuclear threat and 
must plan for it, says Reid
 
· Defence secretary seeks debate on ageing Trident
· Decision on replacement likely in next two years 		
 		
Patrick Wintour and Martin Kettle
Tuesday September 13, 2005
 		
Defence secretary John Reid today opens a national debate
about replacing Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, saying
he believes Britain faces a long-term external nuclear threat
and may have to plan on that basis.

In an interview with the Guardian, he gives the first indication
of government thinking in what promises to be one of the most
controversial decisions of this parliament. The decision has to
be taken in this parliament and, according to some experts,
possibly in the next two years.
 			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
Mr Reid promises an open debate in the country, parliamentary 
party and parliament on any Trident alternative.

Asked if Britain would face a nuclear enemy in 15 years, the
date at which Polaris, the current deterrent, is likely to be
obsolete, he replied: "The decision is never an easy one, and I
think recent history teaches us it is impossible in most cases
to predict where your enemy will come from. Nobody, or very few,
foresaw the invasion of the Falklands or that Saddam would
invade Kuwait, and I could go through any number of other
examples. So to say whether we might have a nuclear enemy in 15
years' time is a difficult question to answer, other than to say
history probably suggests we will".

He added while Britain had already done everything to minimise
its nuclear deterrent, "it is the case that others have been
trying to develop and in some cases have developed their nuclear
weapons". He cited North Korea, Pakistan and India, adding
evidence existed Saddam had been heading in same direction.

He cautioned against the view that "just because new threat of
international terrorism has arisen the old threats will
necessarily go. They may change". He added: "My track record and
that of the government on nuclear weapons - maintaining while
ensuring it is the minimum - is one for all to see, as well as
being a good one."

Any new deterrent would not breach the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty and would not necessarily represent an increase in the
size of the deterrent.

Promising a full debate, he said: "It is not only a good thing
that there will be such a discussion, it is an inevitable thing.

We are not going to have a secret Chevaline-like decision taken
by some of the cabinet which then proceeds without any public
discussion or debate. Even if that was desirable, and it is not,
it is not possible.

"It is a matter of political practicality. In the course of the
next four years this decision will take place. It will
inevitably be more public than such decisions in the past."

The Wilson government in 1974 extended Polaris with the
Chevaline programme, only informing a small cabinet group.

Mr Reid said he had given no detailed consideration to whether
MPs should be given a vote. But he added: "People are not
stupid. They can always find ways - fox-hunting was put to a
vote in the PLP, so people will find ways of doing things."

Faced by accusations that he has secretly made the decision to
spend up to £20bn on the replacement, he insisted: "It is not a
decision about which I have received any advice, papers, options
or made any decisions." He warned that regardless of any
decision, spending would have to be tightened, with greater
European coordination on procurement.

Mr Reid also prepared Britain for an increase in the size and
risks of deployment in Afghanistan next May, including a
possible merger between the Nato force and US counter-terrorism
forces in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Britain will take over leadership of the Nato mission for a year
and extend its presence in the southern Helmat province, one of
the areas of illegal poppy cultivation. He said a larger
commitment in Afghanistan was compatible with a continued
presence in Iraq, but he expected British troops to start
withdrawing from Iraq within 12 months.

The deterrent

· The Trident D-5 is a solid propellant submarine launched
ballistic missile (SLBM) developed by the US in the late 1960s.
· It is 13.42 metres (44ft) long and has a diameter of 2.11
metres (7ft). It has a maximum range of 7,500 miles.

· UK Tridents are deployed in the four Vanguard-class ballistic
missile nuclear-powered submarines.

· The Trident can carry up to 12 warheads but the D-5 version
carries up to four. In 1999, it was announced that each Vanguard
submarine would carry a maximum of 48 warheads.
 	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 27 Sify: France supports India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat                   

PTI                   
     	
Monday, 12 September , 2005, 18:03            

Paris: France on Monday came out strongly in support of India's 
bid for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, 
saying its aspiration was "legitimate" and one that should be 
realised. 

Welcoming Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the Elysee Palace
here, President Jacques Chirac also expressed his determination
to move forward for cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. 

Emphasising that for France, India was a "major partner" of the
world today, he said "and this is the reason why France has
always supported India's positions, in particular her legitimate
aspiration for a seat at the UN Security Council as a permanent
member." 

"France supports this aspiration and hopes that it will be
fulfilled," he said. 

On cooperation in the field of energy, particularly in nuclear
energy, within the framework of the rules governing
non-proliferation, he said, "We have some progress to make in
this domain and the will and determination to progress together
with respect to international rules." 

Chirac said Indo-French relations and interactions dealt with
the major international issues, the preparation of the UN
meeting which is to take place in a few days, the problems
related to terrorism and development, and all the crises which
existed in the world. 

He said the two sides would also have the occasion to underline
their determination to considerably develop their exchanges in
all the political sectors within a truly "consultative and
cooperative framework".   

  © Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
Sify.com
*****************************************************************
 28 [NukeNet] NJPIRG Press Statement: Gov Codey Must Intervene in
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:01:02 -0700

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

For Immediate Release:                 For More Information Contact:
September 12, 2005                     Suzanne Leta, Clean Energy Advocate
                                                      609 394  8155 x310
                                                      267 879 4285 (cell)
                                                      <mailto:sleta@njpirg.org>sleta@njpirg.org

Governor Codey Must Intervene in
Oyster Creek Proceeding


The NRC announced today that Exelon's license extension application for the 
Oyster Creek nuclear power plant has been has been docketed and that the 
NRC will begin its technical review of the plant.  The NRC also announced 
that within 60 days of a published notice in the Federal Register, any 
party who will be affected by the license renewal can file for a hearing 
and petition to intervene in the process.  The notice will be published in 
the Federal Register very soon; at a recent NRC meeting, the estimated date 
given was this Friday, September 16th.

It is the responsibility of Governor Codey to take every possible action to 
advocate for the health and safety of New Jersey residents most affected by 
a potential license extension for Oyster Creek.

Governor Codey must represent local and state interests and file a request 
for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the NRC proceedings on 
Oyster Creek's license extension application.  Anything less would be 
reckless endangerment.

***************************************************





NRC NEWS
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: <mailto:opa@nrc.gov>opa@nrc.gov
www.nrc.gov

No. 05-128 September 12, 2005

NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION TO RENEW OPERATING 
LICENSE FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request 
a hearing on an application to renew the operating license for the Oyster 
Creek Generating Station for an additional 20 years.

The Oyster Creek nuclear plant is a boiling water reactor located nine 
miles south of Toms River, N.J. AmerGen Energy Co. LLC submitted the 
renewal application July 22. The current operating license for Oyster Creek 
expires on April 9, 2009.

The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient 
information for the agency to formally "docket," or file, the application 
and begin its technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude 
requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it 
indicate whether the Commission will grant the application.

A notice of opportunity to request a hearing will be published soon in the 
Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is 60 days after 
publication of the notice. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest 
may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a 
party in the proceeding.

A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must be filed 
with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Requests may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to 
<mailto:HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov>HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should also be 
submitted to the NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 
415-3725 or e-mail to <mailto:OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov>OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.

Information about the license renewal process can be found on the NRC Web 
site at 
<http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html>http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. 
The Oyster Creek renewal application is online at 
<http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html>http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html.


Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
<mailto:sleta@njpirg.org>sleta@njpirg.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

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 [epa-impact] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:31 -0400 (EDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/September/Day-12/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53813-53814]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se05-75]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-39]
 
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 
Company (CYAPCO or licensee), pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 
specific provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The licensee is using the NAC Multi-Purpose 
Canister System (NAC-MPC), Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, to 
store spent fuel under a general license in an independent spent fuel 
storage installation (ISFSI) associated with the operation of the 
Haddam Neck Plant, located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. The 
requested exemption would allow CYAPCO to deviate from requirements of 
the NAC-MPC CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program. 
Specifically, the exemption would relieve the licensee from the 
requirement to develop training modules under its Systems Approach to 
Training (SAT) that includes comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt CYAPCO from regulatory 
requirements to develop certain training. By letter dated June 1, 2005, 
the licensee requested exemptions from certain regulatory requirements 
of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which 
require a general license to store spent fuel in a NRC-certified spent 
fuel storage cask under the terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. 
The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to deviate from the 
requirements in CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program.
    CoC No. 1025, Amendment 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for 
the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires that a 
training program for the NAC-MPC System be developed under the general 
licensee's SAT Program. Further, the training modules must include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of both 
the NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. By exempting the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 
72.214 for this request, the licensee will not be required to develop 
training modules that include comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI.

[[Page 53814]]

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Granting the requested exemptions will relieve the licensee of the 
requirement to develop training modules under the SAT that include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the 
ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System. Thus, the licensee will not incur 
the costs associated with this activity.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the 
licensee. The staff determined that not requiring the licensee to 
develop training modules including comprehensive instructions for the 
operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System, 
is an administrative change, and would have no significant impacts to 
the environment.
    Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would 
result from granting the requested exemptions. CYAPCO has stated that 
for activities associated with operation and maintenance of ISFSI 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are not important to 
safety, CYAPCO will provide training/instructions in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions and CYAPCO approved procedures. NRC 
determined that requiring the licensee to develop training modules 
under its SAT for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI SSCs 
considered not-important-to-safety would not provide a commensurate 
increase in public safety associated with the costs. Therefore, 
allowing the licensee to develop these modules separately from its SAT 
does not impact public safety.
    The proposed action would not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of 
effluents released offsite, and there would be no increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    The potential environmental impact of using the NAC-MPC System was 
initially presented in the Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule 
to add the NAC-MPC System to the list of approved spent fuel storage 
casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (65 FR 12444, dated March 9, 2000), as revised 
in Amendment No. 1 (66 FR 45749, dated August 30, 2001), in Amendment 
No. 2 (67 FR 11566, dated March 15, 2002), in Amendment No. 3 (68 FR 
42570, dated July 18, 2003), and in Amendment No. 4 (69 FR 50053, dated 
August 13, 2004).
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with 
the proposed action, alternatives with equal or greater environmental 
impacts were not evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, 
the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the 
exemption request would have the same environmental impact as the 
proposed action.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 6, 2005, the staff consulted with Mr. Michael Firsick of 
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 
Radiation, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
He had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that a consultation 
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because 
the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat. 
The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a 
type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic 
properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under 
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based 
upon the foregoing Environmental Assessment, the NRC finds that the 
proposed action of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 
72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not requiring the 
licensee to develop training modules under its SAT that includes 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the 
ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC will not significantly impact the quality 
of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to this exemption request, see 
CYAPCO's letter dated June 1, 2005. The exemption request was docketed 
under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72-39. The NRC maintains an Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed 
through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at 
<A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html</A>. If you do not 
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-17970 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 30 [epa-impact] Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:32 -0400 (EDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: smtp2.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/September/Day-12/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53812-53813]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se05-74]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-8]
 
Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact Regarding a License Amendment

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project 
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; Fax number: (301) 415-8555; E-mail: <A HREF="mailto:jms3@nrc.gov">
jms3@nrc.gov</A>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 
or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Special 
Nuclear Materials License No. 2505 that would incorporate changes to 
the updated safety analysis report to alter the design basis limit for 
the dry shielded canister (DSC) internal pressure from 50 psig to 100 
psig. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP) is currently 
storing spent nuclear fuel at the Calvert Cliffs independent spent fuel 
storage installation (ISFSI) located in Calvert County, Maryland.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Identification of Proposed Action: By letter dated May 16, 2005, 
CCNPP submitted a request to the NRC to amend license SNM-2505 in order 
to incorporate changes to the updated safety analysis report to alter 
the design basis limit for the DSC internal pressure from 50 psig to 
100 psig. The design basis limit change is being made to support CCNPP 
adding the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to the existing NUHOMS-24P 
design for dry storage of spent fuel. The NUHOMS-32P design stores 
eight more spent fuel assemblies than the NUHOMS-24P design.
    The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the amendment.
    Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action would allow CCNPP 
to optimize its dry spent fuel storage capacity by upgrading portions 
of its ISFSI to use the NUHOMS-32P DSC. The proposed action would allow 
CCNPP to reduce the minimum number of canister loadings each year from 
four (using the NUHOMS-24P design) to three (with the NUHOMS-32P design).
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: By letter dated 
December 12, 2003, CCNPP submitted a request to amend license SNM-2505 
to add the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to the existing NUHOMS-24P 
design for dry storage of spent fuel. An EA and Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) were published in the Federal Register on 
May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29784) for CCNPP's December 12, 2003, license 
amendment request which concluded that adding the NUHOMS-32P as an 
optional design to the existing NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of 
spent nuclear fuel would have no significant impact on the environment.
    The proposed action contained in CCNPP's May 16, 2005, request is 
to incorporate changes to the updated safety analysis report to alter 
the design basis limit for the DSC internal pressure from 50 psig to 
100 psig. The DSC provides confinement, an inert environment, 
structural support, and criticality control for 32 pressurized water 
reactor fuel assemblies. The DSC shell is a welded stainless steel pressure

[[Page 53813]]

vessel that includes thick shield plugs at either end. To support the 
pressure increase structural design changes were made to the DSC to 
ensure that the confinement boundary for the spent nuclear fuel is 
maintained under the proposed design pressure limit of 100 psig for all 
specified normal operation, off-normal operation, and accident 
conditions. The staff has determined that the proposed action would not 
endanger life or property. No effluents are released from the ISFSI 
during operation and the proposed changes have no impact to DSC loading 
activities. Therefore, there is no significant change in the type or 
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be 
released offsite. There is also no significant increase with regard to 
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures because of 
the proposed action. There are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action because the 
NUHOMS-32P DSC includes design changes to ensure the confinement 
boundary for the spent nuclear fuel is maintained under the proposed 
design pressure limit of 100 psig.
    The amendment only affects the requirements associated with the 
loading of the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are 
no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the 
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment request 
(i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Approval or denial of the 
amendment request would result in minimal change in the environmental 
impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.
    Agencies and Persons Consulted: On August 11, 2005, Richard McLean 
of the State of Maryland was contacted regarding the proposed action 
and had no concerns. The NRC staff has determined that consultation 
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for this 
specific amendment and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is 
not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on 
historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under 
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted 
by CCNPP and changing the DSC design basis pressure limit would have no 
significant impact on the environment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based 
upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed action of 
approving the amendment to the license will not significantly impact 
the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has 
determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
license amendment is not warranted.
    The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket 
72-8. For further details with respect to this action, see the proposed 
license amendment dated May 16, 2005. The NRC maintains an Agencywide 
Documents Access Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed 
through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at: 
<A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</A>. Copies of the 
referenced documents will also be available for review at the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852. 
PDR reference staff can be contacted at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or 
by e-mail to <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st of August, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-17971 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 31 RIA Novosti: Russia could help Vietnam develop nuclear power
 
12/ 09/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia may contribute to
creating nuclear power in Vietnam, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Alexander Alexeyev said in an article published on the
ministry's official Web site.

 The energy sector is a key element of Moscow's cooperation with
Hanoi, Alexeyev said. The joint Russian-Vietnamese oil company
Vietsovpetro accounts for more 60% of oil extraction in Vietnam.
In 2004, the company extracted more than 12 million metric tons
of crude.

 Russia has contributed to the construction of numerous power
stations in the country and is currently working on the
modernization of a Vietnamese thermal power plant and the
construction of a hydro-electric power station. Russian
companies have also won tenders for the delivery of equipment to
the Vietnamese energy industry.

 Russian-Vietnamese trade turnover could exceed $1 billion this
year, Alexeyev said.

 There are 45 ongoing investment projects with partial Russian
funding. The Russian automotive companies KamAZ and UAZ build
heavy goods and off-road vehicles in Vietnam and Vietnamese
airlines are using Russian Antonov aircraft. Military and
technical cooperation between the two countries is also on the
rise.

© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 32 RIA Novosti: Bushehr power plant to become operational in 2006
 
12/ 09/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Iran have
confirmed that they intend to commission the Bushehr Nuclear
Power Plant (NPP) by the end of 2006, a spokesman for Russia's
Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said Monday. 

The agency's head, Alexander Rumyantsev, and Gholamreza
Aqazadeh, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
met in Moscow Monday to discuss the construction of the first
power unit at the Bushehr NPP and confirmed they planned to
commission the plant by the end of 2006, the spokesman said. 

Russian experts are currently on the final stages of the
construction of the first power unit with capacity of about
1,000 Megawatts. 

Earlier reports indicate that Russia is planning to build six
power units at nuclear power plants in Iran within the next
decade.

© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 33 NRC: NRC to Meet with the Public to Discuss Results of Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant Special
Inspection

News Release - Region IV - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza 
Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 No. IV-05-035           
September 12, 2005 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

with the public Sept. 15 to discuss results of a special
inspection regarding the circumstances of the companys reported
loss of nuclear material from the Humboldt Bay nuclear plant
near Eureka, Calif. 
The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Humboldt Bay Yacht
Club, Wharfinger Building, One Marina Way, in Eureka. NRC staff
will brief the public on the results of its inspection and
invite questions and comments from the public. Executives from
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which owns the plant that shut down
in 1976, also will participate.
 
PG&E officials notified the NRC on Aug. 17, 2004, that they have
been unable to locate three sections of a spent nuclear fuel rod
that records show was removed from the reactor in 1968. In
addition to the fuel rod segments, PG&E has informed the NRC
that it cannot account for several small detectors removed from
the reactor core, which contain small amounts of nuclear
material. The special inspection reviewed PG&Es search
activities and its radioactive material control and
accountability program. 

It is considered highly unlikely that the material is in an area
to which the public would have access, and is most likely either
in the spent fuel pool or has been sent to a licensed disposal
facility.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, September 12, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 34 Xinhua: France, India to cooperate in nuclear energy development   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-13 06:59:35   

    PARIS, Sept. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh kicked off Monday a short visit to France for
talks on nuclear energy cooperation and gained support from
Paris. 

    It is his first official visit to France after his taking
office in spring 2004 and in the wake of his deal concluded in
July with Washington for the sake of lifting the sanctions
imposed on India after India testing its nuclear weapons. 

    In an interview with the French daily Le Figaro in its
Monday edition, the Indian prime minister said that any outside
help India gets with its nuclear energy ambitions would be kept
entirely separate from its military nuclear programme, which
resulted in nuclear bomb tests in 1998. 

    He sought to differentiate India from arch-rival Pakistan,
which also tested A-bombs in 1998. "India is a democracy that
functions well. Our political system offers sufficient
guarantees to ensure that we keep our promises," he said. 

    India, with its billion-plus population, imports 70 percent
of its fuel requirements and with the price of oil hovering over
60 dollars a barrel is now looking urgently for alternative
sources of energy. 

    For its part, Paris said it backed India's plans to develop
civilian nuclear energy in order to fulfill the bilateral
agreement signed in 1998 during a visit by French President
Jacques Chirac to Delhi and after Paris won contracts for the
saleof 6 conventionally powered Franco-Spanish submarines and 43
Airbus aircraft. 

    "France recognizes the need for full international
cooperation with India in the civilian nuclear field and will
work towards that by collaborating with other countries and with
the Nuclear Suppliers Group," said Chirac and Singh in a joint
statement issued after their meeting. 

    "France welcomes the firm commitment by India to stop the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the measures it
has taken and intends to take in that regard," said the
statement. 

    "In this context, the two countries are working to seal a
bilateral cooperation agreement in the nuclear field," it said. 

    France and India "agree to acknowledge that the nuclear is a
safe energy source, ecologically viable and sustainable, and the
necessity to deepen international cooperation in order to
promote the use of nuclear energy to pacific purposes," the
statement said. 

    Singh is the first foreign leader received by Chirac since
he left hospital last Friday after one-week treatment for a
minor vascular problem. He will leave Paris Tuesday for New York
to attend a UN summit. Enditem    

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 Sify: Nuclear power to bridge shortage: Sayeed              

UNI   
                
Monday, 12 September , 2005, 13:36            
     	
New Delhi: Power Minister P M Sayeed said India will harness
nuclear power to bridge the demand-supply gap faced by the
country. 

Talking to UNI, the Power Minister said there has been a 7.5 per
cent growth rate witnessed by the power sector in the first
quarter of the financial year and it would have been more if the
shortage of coal and gas was not there. 

Nuclear power, he said, is a viable option and would help
improve the country's power situation. 

The country's largest producer of electricity, National Thermal
Power Corporation (NTPC) plans to have an installed capacity of
56,000 MW where the bulk of the production will be through its
future forays into nuclear and hydel energy generation. 

NTPC is planning an installed capacity of 56,000 MW by 2017 from
23,739 MW by the end of this year despite the coal shortage
facing the country. 

This would mean that thermal power will only be a short-term
feasibility and the PSU which produces 27 per cent of the
country's power will have to eventually shift from its
traditional coal generation. 

Nuclear power is one of the viable alternatives in the long-run
as the country's coal reserves will only last for another 50
years. 

The fuel has been the preferred option for countries like France
and Japan who have low hydrocarbon reserves. 

The Corporation's officials have said that against the backdrop
of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signing a deal on the import of
nuclear fuel with US, NTPC is gearing up to enter the nuclear
energy business. 

The agreement with the US for fuel supply will enable India to
step up its civil nuclear programme with productions to go up
from 10 giga watt to 275 giga watt by 2052, NTPC officials say. 

Refusing to elaborate on its nuclear plans, Chairman and
Managing Director of NTPC C P Jain said, "We are looking at it
as a long-term option." NTPC accounts for around 27 per cent of
the power produced in the country as thermal generation
continues to be its mainstay. 

Parliament was informed in the last session that the country's
power production will be augmented as the work on nine nuclear
plants at a total cost of Rs 29,542 crore is continuing at a
bristling pace. Three reactors are being set up in Tamil Nadu
with the total capacity of 2500 MWe. Maharashtra, Rajasthan and
Karnataka are setting up two reactors each with the capacity in
MWe 1080, 440 and 440, respectively. 

TAPP Unit-4 (540 MWe) in Maharashtra has been connected to grid
on fourth June, 2005. He said total power generation from the
current crop of nuclear power plants in the country during
2004-05 was about 16,500 MUs. 

Fourteen reactors with installed capacity of 2770 MWe have
generated 17010 Million Units in 2004-05. The generation of
power in 2005-06 is expected to be around 17000 million units. 

The present installed capacity of 2770 MWe is expected to reach
7280 MWe by March 2011 with the progressive completion of
projects under construction. 

More projects are also planned so as to reach the capacity of
20,000 MWe by the year 2020, the Rajya Sabha was informed. 


As per projections, nuclear power can account for up to 20 per
cent of India's power generation by 2052, up from 5 per cent in
2012. 

At present, Nuclear Power Corporation is the only agency
producing nuclear power in the country. 		   	 

  © Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
Sify.comhosted at SifyHosting India
*****************************************************************
 36 Bangornews.com: Addressing Maine's energy problem - 
 
[Gray Arrow] 		 VIEWPOINTS
 
Monday, September 12, 2005 - Bangor Daily News 

Beth Nagusky, state government's director of the Office of Energy 
Independence and Security, in her op-ed published in the Bangor 
Daily News of Aug. 30, states that Maine, in contrast to the 
United States, is on the right energy course. 

She touts state government policies promoting energy
conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy as the
solution to our problems; as opposed to the federal government's
failure to take the energy crisis seriously. She belittles any
potential benefits from the recently passed federal energy bill.
She boasts "big strides were made in the 1970s in response to an
oil embargo and we can do it again." 

Maine's energy policy, dating from about 1980, has focused on
electric conservation and renewable electric generation. Our
electric utilities, being heavily regulated by the state, have
been used as a convenient vehicle to implement the policy.
Electric conservation subsidies and renewable electric
generation mandates were funded by increasing electric prices.
Maine electric prices increased relative to the United States by
about 50 percent since 1980. 

As electric prices increased, customers reduced or limited their
consumption of utility provided electricity and instead
increased their consumption of gas and oil, directly or via
self-generation of their own electricity. The recent Eastern
Maine Medical Center and University of Maine self-generation
projects are the most recent examples. 

These actions by consumers caused electric prices to increase
even more, as much of electric utility costs are fixed and
needed to be recovered over a smaller base of sales. In turn, in
response to the ever higher electric prices, further reductions
in electric consumption and increases in gas and oil consumption
occurred as the cycle continued. In the interim, proposals to
construct a new, large coal-fired plant at Sears Island and to
purchase power from Hydro-Quebec were turned down by the Maine
Public Utilities Commission, hydro power projects were abandoned
and Maine Yankee was shutdown, all replaced by gas-fired power
plants.

 With due respect, Maine has not made great strides with respect
to its energy policy. It's energy problem is its high and
increasing use of petroleum related fuel. Despite the
intervention by state government in our energy industry as
described above, Maine has substantially increased its reliance
on petroleum based fuels and now is even more vulnerable to
their high and volatile prices. For example, according to the
U.S. Office of Energy Information Administration, Maine's use of
petroleum and natural gas increased by about 67 percent from
1980 to 2001 (latest year for which data is available) compared
to an increase of only 12 percent in all of the nation. 

Maine now consumes about 20 percent more per capita than the
U.S. Maine does not seem to have made the strides that Nagusky
claims. And, with the recent run-up in petroleum and natural gas
prices, Maine citizens are paying a high price for the actual
consequences of its energy policy.

 There is nothing wrong with considering all energy options,
including those promoted by Nagusky and her associates. Energy
conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy resources
can all be economic solutions to the problem of high energy
prices and a component of consumers' energy portfolios. However,
if pursued using government subsidies and mandates as in the
past, these options will be unreasonably expensive and make the
problem worse. 

Instead, the policy should be to eliminate subsidies and
mandates which will lower the price of electricity and to market
electricity to end-users who would otherwise consume high cost
oil and gas. This would reverse the course of the past 25 years,
causing electric demand to increase and further reductions in
its price. With lower electric prices consumers will use more
electro-technology, such as advanced heat pumps, fuel cells and
other energy efficient end-use technology, effecting overall
reductions in the use of oil and gas. 

The increased demand for electricity could be met in the
short-term from existing efficient gas-fired generators and over
time with new, clean coal technology, nuclear power, and
economically viable hydro, wind and biomass generation. And, if
Maine means business, it will quickly eliminate the current
electric subsidies and mandates and reduce electric prices
accordingly. A 5 percent savings would translate into about a
$50 million benefit. 

While this energy policy may not pass the politically correct
test in Maine, I submit that it is a mainstream policy for much
of the U.S. and the world and will maximize the benefits of
conservation, efficiency and renewables. Consider that 60
percent of the electric generation in the United States is
coal-fired and 20 percent is nuclear. France generates most of
its electricity with nuclear energy. 

The fact is, providing energy using greater amounts of
electricity offers many options for reduction in the use of oil
and gas and for increasing energy efficiency, which Maine surely
needs. The current policy has failed to accomplish its
objectives. 

A new policy based upon increased electrification is needed. 

Carroll Lee, of Brewer, is the former president and chief
operating officer of Bangor Hydro. 

    Bangornews.com Staff
 
feedback@bangordailynews.net

 Bangor Daily News PO Box 1329 491 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 
Switchboard: In-State Long Distance 1-800-432-7964 or 
207-990-8000 ©2005 All rights reserved.
   
*****************************************************************
 37 Mos News: Iranian Nuclear Chief Visits Russia to Discuss Controversial
Nuclear Power Plant - 

 MOSNEWS.COM
 
Iranian Vice-President and the head of the country’s atomic
energy agency Gholamreza Aghazadeh / Photo: AP 	 	
 	 	
Created: 12.09.2005 15:22 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:22 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
	 	 		 	
Iran’s vice-president and the head of the country’s atomic
energy agency, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, has arrived in Moscow for a
brief working visit, with Russia’s work on a nuclear power
station high on the agenda, local media reported Monday.

Aghazadeh is due to meet the head of the Russian federal nuclear
agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, as well as Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and Igor Ivanov, head of Russia’s Security Council. 

Russia is building a power station in the southwestern Iranian
city of Bushehr, a project which is sparking controversy as the
United States and other Western countries accuse Iran of seeking
to secretly build nuclear weapons. 

According to the deal, which capped an 800-million-dollar
contract to build and bring the Bushehr plant on line, Russia
will provide the reactor, the first of what Iran hopes will be
up to 20 similar reactors, with the necessary nuclear fuel on
condition that Iran sends back spent fuel. 

The first delivery of Russian nuclear fuel for the nuclear power
reactor of Bushehr will take place within months. 	 	 	 	 	 	   
 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity for Hearing on Application to Renew Operating License for Oyster
Creek Nuclear Plant

News Release - 2005-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-128     September 12, 
2005   
  

opportunity to request a hearing on an application to renew the
operating license for the Oyster Creek Generating Station for an
additional 20 years. 
The Oyster Creek nuclear plant is a boiling water reactor
located nine miles south of Toms River, N.J. AmerGen Energy Co.
LLC submitted the renewal application July 22. The current
operating license for Oyster Creek expires on April 9, 2009.
 
The NRC staff has determined that the application contains
sufficient information for the agency to formally "docket," or
file, the application and begin its technical review. Docketing
the application does not preclude requesting additional
information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether
the Commission will grant the application.
 
A notice of opportunity to request a hearing will be published
soon in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a
hearing is 60 days after publication of the notice. Petitions
may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the
license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding.
 
A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be
submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to
HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should also be submitted to the
NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 415-3725 or
e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.
 
Information about the license renewal process can be found on
the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.
The Oyster Creek renewal application is online at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/oystercreek.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, September 12, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 39 Reuters: NRC OKs rstart of Entergy La. Waterford 3 nuke 

Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:01 AM ET

 NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission authorized the restart of Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: 
Quote, Profile, Research) Waterford 3 nuclear power station in 
Louisiana.

 In a release, the federal nuclear watchdog said plant workers 
were performing maintenance unrelated to the hurricane prior to 
restarting the reactor.

 In the past, the New Orleans-based energy company said it was 
considering whether to repair a check valve in the safety 
injection system.

 Entergy shut the unit as a precautionary measure on Aug. 28 as 
Hurricane Katrina approached St. Charles Parish where the plant 
is located. The plant was essentially undamaged by the storm but 
did lose offsite power and some communications systems.

 The NRC said it worked with other federal, state and local 
agencies, including the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
in evaluating the readiness of offsite emergency preparedness and 
response capabilities to support operation of the plant, and 
determined conditions are sufficiently stable to ensure officials 
could implement the plant's emergency preparedness plans if 
necessary.

 The 1,911 MW Waterford station is located in Taft, in St. 
Charles Parish, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. There are 
three units at the Waterford station, including two 411 MW 
natural gas- and oil-fired units 1 and 2, and the 1,089 MW 
nuclear unit 3.

 One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American 
averages.

 Entergy's regulated Entergy Louisiana Inc. subsidiary owns the 
station.

 Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of 
generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and 
distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi and Texas.                                               

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 40 Reuters: Exelon shuts Ill. Braidwood 1 nuke for work

Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:32 AM ET

 NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, 
Profile, Research) shut the 1,185-megawatt unit 1 at the 
Braidwood nuclear power station in Illinois on Sunday to repair a 
seal on a reactor coolant pump, a spokesman for the Chicago-based 
energy company said Monday.

 He could not say when the unit would likely return to service 
due to competitive reasons.

 On Friday, the unit was operating at full power.

 The 2,362 MW Braidwood station is in Braceville in Will County 
about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. There are two units at the 
station: the 1,185 MW Unit 1 and the 1,177 MW Unit 2.

 Unit 2, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power.

 One megawatt powers about 800 homes, according to North American 
averages.

 Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary 
operates the station.

 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.                    
*****************************************************************
 41 Reuters: France promises India nuclear energy help

Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:34 PM ET

By Anna Willard

PARIS (Reuters) - France joined the United States and Britain on 
Monday in backing India's atomic energy programme and promised to 
do all it could to help the country get access to civilian 
nuclear technology and equipment.

In a dramatic policy shift in July, the United States promised 
India full cooperation in developing its civilian nuclear energy 
programme. Britain gave its backing last week.

French President Jacques Chirac and Indian Prime Minister 
Manmohan Singh said they would work towards a bilateral agreement 
in a joint statement after a meeting,.

"France acknowledges the need for full international civilian 
nuclear cooperation with India and will work towards this 
objective by working with other countries and the NSG (Nuclear 
Suppliers Group) and deepening bilateral cooperation," the 
statement said.

Manmohan stopped off in France on his way to the United Nations, 
where he is expected to meet Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf 
to discuss ways to move forward the peace process between the two 
South Asian rivals.

France, which has the highest number of nuclear reactors after 
the United States, is a member of the NSG, an informal group 
seeking to control nuclear-technology exports.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters France would 
work with the group to try and get restrictions on supply of 
equipment and technology lifted.

Washington had barred providing atomic technology to India 
because of New Delhi's status as a nuclear power that has refused 
to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was designed 
to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

India caused international outrage in 1998 by testing a nuclear 
weapon. Its old foe, neighbouring Pakistan, carried out five 
nuclear tests soon afterwards in a tit-for-tat response.

But the United States changed policy in return for New Delhi's 
commitment to adhere to international non-proliferation regimes.

Monday's statement said France noted "India's strong commitment 
to preventing weapons of mass destruction proliferation and the 
ongoing steps it is taking in this regard."

Pakistan called on the United States and other Western countries 
earlier on Monday for help developing its own nuclear technology 
to meet growing energy needs.

Pakistan built its first nuclear power station in 1972 with 
Canadian help, but Western countries -- under U.S. pressure -- 
halted nuclear cooperation suspecting Pakistan was secretly 
developing nuclear weapons.                                             

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 42 NRC: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant 
 
                        FR Doc 05-17970 
[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)] 
[Notices] [Page 53813-53814] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12se05-75]                         
 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance 
of an exemption to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 
(CYAPCO or licensee), pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the specific 
provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), 
and 72.214. The licensee is using the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister 
System (NAC-MPC), Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No.
 
1025, to store spent fuel under a general license in an 
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) associated 
with the operation of the Haddam Neck Plant, located in Middlesex 
County, Connecticut. The requested exemption would allow CYAPCO 
to deviate from requirements of the NAC-MPC CoC No. 1025, 
Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the 
NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program. Specifically, 
the exemption would relieve the licensee from the requirement to 
develop training modules under its Systems Approach to Training 
(SAT) that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation 
and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System.
 
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action 
The proposed action would exempt CYAPCO from regulatory 
requirements to develop certain training. By letter dated June 1, 
2005, the licensee requested exemptions from certain regulatory 
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 
72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which require a general license to store 
spent fuel in a NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask under the 
terms and conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed exemption 
would allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in CoC 
No. 1025, Amendment No. 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications 
for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program.
 
CoC No. 1025, Amendment 4, Appendix A, Technical Specifications 
for the NAC-MPC System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires 
that a training program for the NAC-MPC System be developed under 
the general licensee's SAT Program. Further, the training modules 
must include comprehensive instructions for the operation and 
maintenance of both the NAC-MPC System and the ISFSI. By 
exempting the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this 
request, the licensee will not be required to develop training 
modules that include comprehensive instructions for the operation 
and maintenance of the ISFSI.
 
 
[[Page 53814]] The Need for the Proposed Action Granting the 
requested exemptions will relieve the licensee of the requirement 
to develop training modules under the SAT that include 
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of 
the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System. Thus, the licensee will 
not incur the costs associated with this activity.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has reviewed 
the exemption requests submitted by the licensee. The staff 
determined that not requiring the licensee to develop training 
modules including comprehensive instructions for the operation 
and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System, is 
an administrative change, and would have no significant impacts 
to the environment.
 
Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would 
result from granting the requested exemptions. CYAPCO has stated 
that for activities associated with operation and maintenance of 
ISFSI structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are not 
important to safety, CYAPCO will provide training/instructions in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions and CYAPCO approved 
procedures. NRC determined that requiring the licensee to develop 
training modules under its SAT for the operation and maintenance 
of ISFSI SSCs considered not-important-to-safety would not 
provide a commensurate increase in public safety associated with 
the costs. Therefore, allowing the licensee to develop these 
modules separately from its SAT does not impact public safety.
 
The proposed action would not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types 
of effluents released offsite, and there would be no increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
 
The potential environmental impact of using the NAC-MPC System 
was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment for the 
Final Rule to add the NAC-MPC System to the list of approved 
spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (65 FR 12444, dated 
March 9, 2000), as revised in Amendment No. 1 (66 FR 45749, dated 
August 30, 2001), in Amendment No. 2 (67 FR 11566, dated March 
15, 2002), in Amendment No. 3 (68 FR 42570, dated July 18, 2003), 
and in Amendment No. 4 (69 FR 50053, dated August 13, 2004).
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
 
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
 
Alternatives to the Proposed Action Since there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts were not 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption 
request would have the same environmental impact as the proposed 
action.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted On July 6, 2005, the staff 
consulted with Mr. Michael Firsick of the Connecticut Department 
of Environmental Protection, Division of Radiation, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. He had no comments. 
The NRC staff has determined that a consultation under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the 
proposed action will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed 
action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause 
effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
 
Based upon the foregoing Environmental Assessment, the NRC finds 
that the proposed action of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(I), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not 
requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT 
that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and 
maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
 
For further details with respect to this exemption request, see 
CYAPCO's letter dated June 1, 2005. The exemption request was 
docketed under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72-39. The NRC maintains an 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These 
documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. If you do not 
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st 
day of August, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
L. Raynard Wharton, Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 05-17970 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 43 Reuters: Entergy Ark. Arkansas 2 nuke back at full power 

Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:21 AM ET

 NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote, 
Profile, Research) 1,000-megawatt unit 2 at the Arkansas Nuclear 
One nuclear power station in Arkansas returned to full power by 
early Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said a 
report.

 The unit dipped to about 66 percent of capacity due to an 
inadvertently dropped control rod due to some maintenance in the 
area of the control rods.

 After raising the dropped rod, the company decided to keep the 
unit at reduced power to conduct some tests on Friday.

 The 1,840-MW Arkansas Nuclear One station is in Russellville in 
Pope County, about 75 miles northwest of Little Rock. There are 
two units at the station: 844 MW unit 1 and 1,000 MW unit 2.

 Unit 1, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power.

 One MW powers about 800 homes, according to North American 
averages.

 Entergy's regulated Entergy Arkansas Inc. subsidiary owns the 
station.

 Entergy's regulated and unregulated subsidiaries own and operate 
about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy 
commodities, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million 
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.                                                

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 44 Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 2 nuke starts to exit outage

Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:18 AM ET

 NEW YORK, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, 
Profile, Research) 1,112-megawatt unit 2 at the Peach Bottom 
nuclear power station in Pennsylvania started to exit an outage 
and ramped up to 1 percent of capacity by early Monday, the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report.

 The Chicago-based energy company shut the unit on on Sept. 8 for 
planned maintenance to replace a seal on a reactor recirculation 
pump.

 The 2,224 MW Peach Bottom station is located in Peach Bottom, 
Pennsylvania, about 75 miles southwest of Philadelphia. There are 
two 1,112 MW units 2 and 3 at the station.

 Unit 3, meanwhile, dipped to 88 percent, down from 89 percent, 
as it coasts down for the refueling outage expected to start in 
mid September.

 The last time unit 3 shut for refueling was from Sept. 14-Oct. 
13, 2003. The unit is on a 24-month cycle.

 One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American 
average.

 Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation 
Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for its owners: Exelon 
(50 percent) and New Jersey-based energy company PSEG (50 
percent).

 In December, Exelon, the biggest nuclear power operator in the 
United States, agreed to acquire PSEG. Pending regulatory and 
shareholder approvals, the companies expect to complete the deal 
in 2006.

 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.

 PSEG's regulated and unregulated subsidiaries own and operate 
more than 16,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy 
commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity and natural 
gas to customers in North America, South America, the Middle 
East, Europe and India.                                                 

© Reuters 2005. 
All Rights Reserved.                    
*****************************************************************
 45 NewsRoom Finland: Greenpeace lodges official complaint over Finnish nuclear power
station
 	
12.9.2005 at 12:50 		

The environmental organisation Greenpeace advised Monday that it
would be sending an official complaint to the Finnish chancellor
of justice, Paavo Nikula, concerning the construction of a new
nuclear power station in Olkiluoto. 

In its complaint, Greenpeace intends to ask Mr Nikula to
determine whether the preparation of the project was illegal or
against ministers' directions. The complaint concerns the trade
and industry ministry, as well as the Radiation and Nuclear
Safety Authority of Finland. 

Greenpeace founds its complaint on the basis of an investigation
into the legality of the nuclear power station, conducted by
British consultancy firm, Large and Associates. The
investigation concluded that the safety of the station was not
sufficiently studied prior to the granting of construction
permission. 

/STT/ 	

© Copyright STT 2005 	

September 14-16, 2005" />	[virtual.finland.fi]  	

© 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland
 	Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
 	Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion
and Publications 
*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
 
                        FR Doc 05-17971 
[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)] 
[Notices] [Page 53812-53813] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12se05-74]                         
 
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact Regarding a License Amendment AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; Fax 
number: (301) 415-8555; E-mail: jms3@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment 
to Special Nuclear Materials License No. 2505 that would 
incorporate changes to the updated safety analysis report to 
alter the design basis limit for the dry shielded canister (DSC) 
internal pressure from 50 psig to 100 psig. Calvert Cliffs 
Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP) is currently storing spent 
nuclear fuel at the Calvert Cliffs independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) located in Calvert County, Maryland.
 
Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of Proposed Action: 
By letter dated May 16, 2005, CCNPP submitted a request to the 
NRC to amend license SNM-2505 in order to incorporate changes to 
the updated safety analysis report to alter the design basis 
limit for the DSC internal pressure from 50 psig to 100 psig. The 
design basis limit change is being made to support CCNPP adding 
the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to the existing NUHOMS-24P 
design for dry storage of spent fuel. The NUHOMS-32P design 
stores eight more spent fuel assemblies than the NUHOMS-24P 
design.
 
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the 
amendment.
 
Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action would allow 
CCNPP to optimize its dry spent fuel storage capacity by 
upgrading portions of its ISFSI to use the NUHOMS-32P DSC. The 
proposed action would allow CCNPP to reduce the minimum number of 
canister loadings each year from four (using the NUHOMS-24P 
design) to three (with the NUHOMS-32P design).
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: By letter dated 
December 12, 2003, CCNPP submitted a request to amend license 
SNM-2505 to add the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to the 
existing NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of spent fuel. An EA 
and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were published in 
the Federal Register on May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29784) for CCNPP's 
December 12, 2003, license amendment request which concluded that 
adding the NUHOMS-32P as an optional design to the existing 
NUHOMS-24P design for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel would 
have no significant impact on the environment.
 
The proposed action contained in CCNPP's May 16, 2005, request is 
to incorporate changes to the updated safety analysis report to 
alter the design basis limit for the DSC internal pressure from 
50 psig to 100 psig. The DSC provides confinement, an inert 
environment, structural support, and criticality control for 32 
pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies. The DSC shell is a 
welded stainless steel pressure
 
[[Page 53813]] vessel that includes thick shield plugs at either 
end. To support the pressure increase structural design changes 
were made to the DSC to ensure that the confinement boundary for 
the spent nuclear fuel is maintained under the proposed design 
pressure limit of 100 psig for all specified normal operation, 
off-normal operation, and accident conditions. The staff has 
determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or 
property. No effluents are released from the ISFSI during 
operation and the proposed changes have no impact to DSC loading 
activities. Therefore, there is no significant change in the type 
or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may 
be released offsite. There is also no significant increase with 
regard to individual or cumulative occupational radiation 
exposures because of the proposed action. There are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action because the NUHOMS-32P DSC includes design 
changes to ensure the confinement boundary for the spent nuclear 
fuel is maintained under the proposed design pressure limit of 
100 psig.
 
The amendment only affects the requirements associated with the 
loading of the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, 
there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no 
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
 
Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the 
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment 
request (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Approval or denial 
of the amendment request would result in minimal change in the 
environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On August 11, 2005, Richard 
McLean of the State of Maryland was contacted regarding the 
proposed action and had no concerns. The NRC staff has determined 
that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
is not required for this specific amendment and will not affect 
listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also 
determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity 
having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 
Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act.
 
Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the amendment request 
submitted by CCNPP and changing the DSC design basis pressure 
limit would have no significant impact on the environment.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
 
Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed 
action of approving the amendment to the license will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed license amendment is not warranted.
 
The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, 
Docket 72-8. For further details with respect to this action, see 
the proposed license amendment dated May 16, 2005. The NRC 
maintains an Agencywide Documents Access Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at: http: 
//http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of the 
referenced documents will also be available for review at the NRC 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD, 20852. PDR reference staff can be contacted at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st of August, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 05-17971 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 AFP: France backs India's nuclear energy plans after winning sub,
Airbus deals - 

Tuesday September 13, 05:30 AM 

PARIS (AFP) - France said it backed India's plans to develop
civilian nuclear energy after winning two multi-billion-euro
contracts for the sale of Airbus aircraft and conventionally
powered submarines.
 
"France recognises the need for full international cooperation
with India in the civilian nuclear field and will work towards
that by collaborating with other countries and with the Nuclear
Suppliers Group," French President Jacques Chirac and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said after meeting in Paris.
 
"France welcomes the firm commitment by India to stop the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the measures it
has taken and intends to take in that regard," they said in a
joint statement, issued in French.
 
"In this context, the two countries are working to seal a
bilateral cooperation agreement in the nuclear field."
 
The Nuclear Suppliers Group comprises 30 countries including
Britain, France and the United States, which work together to
direct the development of atomic energy in the world while
enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
 
India, which is not party to the treaty and which tested nuclear
weapons in 1998, has already won approval for its civilian
nuclear energy programme from the United States and Britain.
 
France's inclusion strengthens India's claim to be a unique case
among non-signatories to the non-proliferation treaty which
should nonetheless receive assistance.
 
Chirac's endorsement of India's civilian nuclear ambitions came
after Singh confirmed his country was purchasing six
Franco-Spanish submarines in a contract worth 2.4 billion euros
(three billion dollars) and 43 Airbus planes worth 1.8 billion
euros.
 
The submarine deal, which France had been lobbying hard to win,
will involve the Franco-Spanish made vessels being assembled in
Mumbai as part of a technology transfer arrangement.
 
The 65-metre (213-foot) long diesel-electric vessels are
designed for coastal defence, with sophisticated detection
equipment, six torpedo tubes and missile launchers. They are
able to stay at sea for up to 45 days with a crew of 31, and can
dive to a depth of 300 metres.
 
The Airbus deal was previously announced by Singh and India's
state-run Indian Airlines.
 
The contracts were "a measure of the friendship, trust and
cooperation" between their two countries, Chirac said as he
greeted Singh before their meeting.
 
It was the 72-year-old French president's first meeting with a
foreign dignitary since being released from hospital last Friday
after suffering what his doctors called a minor vascular problem
that affected one of his eyes.
 
Chirac said the talks agenda also included India's bid for a
permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
 
He announced after the meeting that he had accepted an
invitation from Singh to make a two-day visit to India starting
February 20 next year. His last trip to the country dates back
to 1998.
 
In the evening, Singh was to dine with French Prime Minister
Dominique de Villepin. He will leave Tuesday for New York to
attend a UN summit with other world leaders.
 
In an interview published Monday in Le Figaro newspaper, Singh
vowed that any outside help India gets with its nuclear energy
ambitions would be kept entirely separate from its military
nuclear programme.
 
He sought to differentiate India from arch-rival Pakistan, which
also tested A-bombs in 1998, by saying: "India is a democracy
that functions well. Our political system offers sufficient
guarantees to ensure that we keep our promises."
 
India, with its billion-plus population, imports 70 percent of
its fuel requirements and with the price of oil hovering over 60
dollars a barrel is now looking urgently for alternative sources
of energy.
 
"France is prepared with India to look at how it will be
possible to cooperate in the civilian nuclear area within an
international and bilateral framework that respects the
non-proliferation criteria," a French diplomat said after the
Chirac-Singh meeting.
 
She added that France's involvement "appeared necessary" to
Chirac after US President George W. Bush moved to lift a ban on
civilian nuclear technology sales that had been imposed on India
after its May 1998 nuclear bomb tests.
 
   Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 48 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                        FR Doc 05-18070 
[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)] 
[Notices] [Page 53815] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12se05-77]                         
 
Dates: Week of September 5, 2005.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters to be Considered: Week of September 5, 2005 Friday, 
September 9, 2005 9 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 
(Tentative) a. Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI; Review of Utah 
Contention K (Aircraft Crash Hazards) Rulings (Tentative).
 
* * * * * The Affirmation Session tentatively scheduled on 
Thursday, September 9, 2005, at 9:25 a.m. has been rescheduled 
tentatively on Friday, September 9, 2005, at 9 a.m. * 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: Michelle Schroll, 
(301) 415-1662.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
August Spector, at (301) 415-7080, TDD: (301) 415- 2100, or by 
e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: September 7, 2005.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18070 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 49 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting in Houston on Proposed National Source Tracking System
 
News Release - Region IV - 2005-03
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011
  No. IV-05-034           September 12, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

Sept. 20 in Houston, Texas, to discuss its proposed national
tracking system for certain radioactive materials used for
academic, medical and industrial purposes. 
As announced in the Federal Register on July 28, the NRC is
considering amending its regulations to require licensees to
report information on the manufacture, transfer, receipt or
disposal of certain radioactive materials and sources of
interest to the automated tracking system. The sources are
considered to be sealed sources because they are encased in a
capsule designed to prevent leakage or escape of the material.
The NRC worked extensively with other agencies and the
international community to reach agreement on which radioactive
sources should be tracked. They include, but are not limited to,
certain amounts of Cobalt-60, Strontium-90, Cesium-137,
Iridium-192 and Americium-241.
 
Licensees would have to report their initial inventory of these
sources and annually verify and reconcile the information in the
system with the licensees actual inventory. In addition, the
proposed rule would require manufacturers to assign a unique
serial number to each nationally tracked source. The proposed
rule is available on the NRCs rulemaking website at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
 
The meeting will be at the offices of the Texas Department of
State Health Services, Elias Ramirez State Office Building, 5425
Polk Street, Rooms 4B-4E, Houston, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
NRC held a meeting on the same topic in Rockville, Md. Aug. 29.
 
The agenda includes a 30-minute welcome, introduction and NRC
staff presentation on the rule requirements, with the remainder
of the time available for public comments. The time available
per person may be limited to ensure that everyone has an
opportunity to speak.
 
Those planning to attend are requested to notify Ikeda King,
telephone 301-415-7278, e-mail ijk@nrc.govto pre-register.
On-site registration at the meetings will also be available.
 
Written comments on the proposed rule are also invited and
should be submitted by Oct. 11. They may be mailed to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff; sent
by e-mail to SECY@nrc.govor submitted via the NRCs rulemaking
web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, September 12, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 50 [NukeNet] Planning The Impossible: Evacuating NYC
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:01:00 -0700

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



   And, in a nuclear explosion, Mr. Hauser added,
there's is the danger of radioactivity. "Rescue
workers might, without any idea of protection, at
the end of the day choose to stay out of the plume
and I can't blame them," he said.


Today, four years after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
there is still no single plan to evacuate all of
New York, which virtually no one believes is
possible. If New York's anthem was about fleeing
the city instead of its lure, its lyrics might
read: "If you can make it out of here, you can
make it out of anywhere."



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/weekinreview/11robe.html

Planning the Impossible: New York's Evacuation

Lief Parsons


   a..              E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Reprints
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: September 11, 2005
ON New Year's Eve 1999, Fred Siegel writes in "The
Prince of the City," his new book about Rudolph W.
Giuliani's New York, authorities feared that
terrorists would seize on Y2K computer glitches to
strike in Times Square. In response, the National
Guard was secretly mobilized in Brooklyn "as part
of an emergency plan for evacuating Manhattan." As
midnight came and went, the computers hummed on,
the celebration proceeded flawlessly and officials
concluded, Mr. Siegel notes with a tinge of
sarcasm, "Gotham was ready for a future
emergency."

In fact, no plan existed that night for evacuating
all of Manhattan. The guard unit at the Brooklyn
Navy Yard consisted of about 100 troops and 50
trucks, and their mission, in the event of an
attack, was limited to ferrying the injured out of
Times Square.

Today, four years after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
there is still no single plan to evacuate all of
New York, which virtually no one believes is
possible. If New York's anthem was about fleeing
the city instead of its lure, its lyrics might
read: "If you can make it out of here, you can
make it out of anywhere."

Just imagine trying to move more than eight
million New Yorkers - including the high number of
people without cars - through streets that are
clogged on an ordinary day and then through the
tunnels and over the bridges that connect New
York's islands to the mainland and to one another.
"It would not be easy and it would not be pretty,"
said Jerome M. Hauer, the city's former emergency
management director.

History offers little comfort. For example, on
Nov. 25, 1783, British troops began their retreat
from New York (a day still celebrated in some
Irish neighborhoods as Evacuation Day). It took
them a full month.

During World War II, civil defense focused on air
raid shelters, but the advent of radioactive
weapons in the cold war inspired proposals to
evacuate people by boat (after a test-run by a
flotilla of 20 ferries, barges and tugboats up the
East River in 1951, officials figured 100,000 an
hour could be spirited away for six hours; then
the flow "would taper off for lack of equipment").
There were also plans to construct atomic-proof
shelters for 1.5 million beneath city parks, in
underground stations in Washington Heights and
along a Second Avenue subway bored through rock,
and to build two cross-town expressways to speed
the escape from Manhattan.

Even so, a mayoral panel concluded in 1955 that
only a million people could be moved from the
worst danger zones within an hour. "Until more
efficient use of transportation and more than one
hour's warning can be assured," the panel said,
"about three million people, or 37 percent of the
city's eight million population, might be balked
in any attempt to escape the target area except by
walking."

In 1966, the city's civil defense director,
Timothy J. Cooney, admitted the obvious: "If a
nuclear bomb fell in our midst, civil defense
would be an academic question."

Today, the city appears to be better prepared than
ever for disasters, especially natural ones like
hurricanes (a Category 5 hurricane has apparently
never hit the city head on). Officials have maps
of escape routes from vulnerable neighborhoods
near water to 23 reception centers and public
shelters, the ability to mobilize fleets of buses,
and a keen sense of contingencies (like knowing
when bridges would have to be closed because of
high winds and when subway and car tunnels might
flood).

"It's very important to have a sense of order if
you have an evacuation and we are able to mass
37,000 cops in the neighborhoods that need it,
where people are poor or infirm," said Police
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly. Still, as the
city's Household Preparedness Guide says:
"Evacuation is used as a last resort."

Joseph F. Bruno, the emergency management
commissioner, said the city is prepared to move
from 400,000 to two million people from the path
of a hurricane - a challenge made a little less
daunting by advance warning, knowing which
flood-prone areas to evacuate and identifying how
many poor, elderly, disabled and non-English
speakers live there. Since 9/11, with its hellish
communications breakdowns, New York officials said
they have also vastly improved their ability to
communicate with the public by radio and
television and, to a lesser extent, with each
other.

Still, much of the planning assumes that people
already know what to do (the city's preparedness
guide is available online at nyc.gov/readyny and
two million copies have been distributed in eight
languages), or would telephone the city's
information line, 311, which can handle only so
many calls (about 178,000 two years ago on the day
of the blackout).

"Would it be difficult to move two million people?
Absolutely," Mr. Bruno said. "I hope we never have
to do it."

Which means evacuating eight million would be
beyond difficult. "We have plans for area
evacuations, and if you take them to their logical
conclusion an area could be the entire city of New
York," Mr. Bruno said. "Those are doomsday type
things, a nuclear attack. We're definitely not
throwing our hands up. But it would be a
catastrophic event that would be extremely
difficult for New York City to have to deal with."

How long would it take to virtually empty the
city? "I wouldn't even hazard a guess," Mr. Bruno
replied.

Mr. Hauer, now a consultant in Washington, said
evacuating the whole city would not be impossible,
but would be fraught with nightmarish challenges,
like rescuing people from hospitals and nursing
homes and reversing traffic flows. "It's a matter
of where do you put all those people when you get
them out of Manhattan," he said.

And, in a nuclear explosion, Mr. Hauser added,
there's is the danger of radioactivity. "Rescue
workers might, without any idea of protection, at
the end of the day choose to stay out of the plume
and I can't blame them," he said. "Obviously,
there'd be a lot of self-evacuation."

That's more or less what happens after work every
weekday when half the borough's daytime
population - nearly 1.5 million commuters - leaves
Manhattan to return home. Perhaps there's some
comfort in remembering that, except for the
stragglers, most eventually make it.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 51 [du-list] New DU Research project: Iraqi Children's Tooth
 
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:00:48 -0700

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
from:
http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/21_1.htm

Campaigh Against Depleted Uranium - UK

We Need Your Help - New Research Projects Planned

CADU are extremely pleased to report that we have two fundraising
projects planned for the next few months. The first is a study into
Iraqi children's exposure to DU. This could give the movement some
powerful and compelling scientific evidence to support a global ban
on DU production and use. The second is an epidemiological project in
southern Iraq, sponsored by the International Coalition, full details
in the next issue...

The Iraqi Children's Tooth Project

Following the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf Wars of
1991 and 2003, many populated areas of Iraq became contaminated with
fine uranium oxide dusts that are readily respirable.

Despite continued reports of substantial increases in cancer and
birth defects there are virtually no data on the extent to which
Iraqi civilians have sustained internal contamination.

Everyone has trace levels of uranium in their body, the majority of
which is stored in the bones and teeth. Consequently, the primary or
deciduous teeth that children normally lose between ages six and 12
represent valuable biologic specimens that can be used to study a
child's uranium burden.

In total, 52 teeth from northern, central and southern Iraq have been
collected. these will be analysed alongside 16 North American
'archaeological' teeth' from the 1940s - prior to the nuclear age.

The analysis will be done in the British Geological Survey's
state-of-the-art laboratories in Nottingham, England. Professor of
Geological Chemistry, Randall Parrish Ph.D from the BGS will use
multi-collector, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC ICP
MS) to analyse the teeth for their content of four uranium isotopes.
The varying proportions of these will indicate the type of uranium
the children have been exposed to.

Professor Parrish will be working alongside Dr Thomas Fasy from the
Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

The project needs $87,000 to complete the study because each tooth
costs $1000 to analyse. It is hoped that much of it can be raised in
the US, but as co-sponsors of the project CADU will do its utmost to
ensure that the figure is met. We are looking for groups that might
want to sponsor a tooth. Think you could? Then get in touch.

CADU
Bridge 5 Mill
22a Beswick Street
Ancoats
Manchester
UK
M4 7HR
Telephone: +44 (0)161 273 8293 / 8283
Fax: +44 (0)161 273 8293
Email:info@cadu.org.uk


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 52 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc 05-17972 
[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)] 
[Notices] [Page 53814-53815] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12se05-76]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Elan 
Operations, Inc., Princeton, NJ Facility AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Nicholson, Commercial and R 
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone 
(610) 337-5236, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: jjn@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Elan 
Operations, Inc. (formerly Elan Pharmaceuticals and The Liposome 
Company), Materials License No. 29-19918-01, to authorize release 
of its facility in Princeton, New Jersey for unrestricted use. 
NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of 
this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 
51.
 
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No
 
[[Page 53815]] Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The 
amendment will be issued following the publication of this 
Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the 
release of the licensee's Princeton, New Jersey facility for 
unrestricted use.
 
Elan Operations, Inc. (known as The Liposome Company at the time) 
was authorized by NRC from April 23, 1982, to use radioactive 
materials for research and development purposes at the site. On 
February 26, 2005, Elan Operations, Inc. requested that NRC 
release the facility for unrestricted use. Elan Operations, Inc. 
has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to 
the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license 
termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for 
unrestricted use.
 
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license 
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the 
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by 
Elan Operations, Inc. Based on its review, the staff has 
determined that there are no additional remediation activities 
necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff 
considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the 
facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity 
meets the requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding 
of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the 
EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to 
terminate the license and release the facility for unrestricted 
use. The NRC staff has evaluated Elan Operations, Inc.'s request 
and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the 
completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 
CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the radiological 
environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts 
evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 
Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Facilities'' 
(ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no 
non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the 
basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental 
impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the action.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for the license amendment and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the 
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this Notice are: The Environmental Assessment (ML052450172); 
Letter dated November 5, 2003 requesting the amendment and 
including the plan for decommissioning (ML033090192); Letter 
dated June 16, 2004 providing additional information 
(ML041820304); Letter dated February 26, 2005 (ML050980018); 
Final Status Survey Volumes 1 and 2 (ML050980055 and 
ML050980057); and Letter dated April 19, 2005 providing 
additional information (ML051300383). Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at (800) 397- 4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted 
under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may 
not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly 
available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these 
documents should submit a request to the NRC under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA 
request can be found on the NRC's Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia-privacy.html .
 
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 2nd day of September, 
2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety Region I.
 
[FR Doc. 05-17972 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 53 Deseret news: N-waste ball in Utah's court 

[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, September 12, 2005 

Deseret Morning News editorial 

The next step is up to Utahns now that the nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has authorized a license for Private Fuel Storage to 
build an above-ground nuclear waste storage site on the Skull 
Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. 

On Friday, the NRC rejected Utah officials' arguments 
that the risk of a jet fighter from Hill Air Force Base crashing 
into the storage casks was too great and that the facility would 
be too close to a major population center. Then it voted, 3-1, 
to authorize the NRC staff to issue a license to PFS, a 
consortium of utilities, to construct and operate the storage 
site. 

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., has vowed to fight the licensing 
decision in court. Members of Utah's congressional delegation 
say there are many administrative, legislative and legal options 
to exploit in order to prevent Utah's West Desert from becoming 
the nation's disposal site for spent nuclear fuel rods, which is 
waste from electrical power production. Unquestionably, the 
fight has reached a new level of urgency. 

The one consolation — and something both sides agree upon 
— is that spent nuclear rods will not be coming to Utah 
tomorrow, although PFS officials say the waste could come as 
soon as 2008. 

The most logical solution would be to recycle and store 
spent nuclear fuel rods where they are produced, which would be 
sound alternatives to both PFS's proposed site in Utah and the 
proposed permanent federal repository in Nevada's Yucca 
Mountain. Reacting to the NRC decision, Senate Minority Leader 
Harry Reid, D-Nevada, on Friday reiterated his support of this 
concept. 

"Transporting high-level radioactive waste to Utah is as 
dangerous as it would be transporting it to Nevada," Reid said 
in a statement. "Thousands of tons of deadly nuclear material 
will pass homes, schools, businesses and churches in communities 
all across the country, and there is simply no way to safely do 
this." 

Reprocessing spent fuel rods on site would relieve the 
risks of transporting these dangerous materials and minimize the 
risks of these materials falling into the wrong hands. 

Another solid option is to pass legislation sponsored by 
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, which would designate nearby Bureau of 
Land Management lands as wilderness. This would block the 
construction of a rail line to the PFS site. The legislation, 
which is part of the Defense Reauthorization Act, is now in the 
Senate. Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett need to carefully 
consider Bishop's proposal and do all they can to support it. 

The NRC licensing decision was, undoubtedly, a 
considerable setback for Utah. But key elected officials say 
many avenues of redress remain. Utah must exploit each and every 
one of them. 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 54 New Standard: Feds, Firms Move Forward with Utah Nuke Storage Plan

Sep 12 -                                                                                                                                                        

In a maneuver designed to circumvent a public deliberation 
process that has already spurred vocal opposition, the US 
Department of Energy announced Friday that it has awarded a $3.1 
billion contract to a consortium of eight nuclear power plant 
operators to build a waste storage facility at a disputed Utah 
site on Native American land. 

The announcement spurred a new round of complaints and plans for
lawsuits from state officials and Native American, religious and
environmental groups.
 
Plans to store the spent nuclear fuel in Utah have been in the 
works for eight years, but they picked up pace in 2002 after 
President Bush and Congress approved the plan to allow a 
consortium of nuclear companies to use land offered by a faction 
of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, the Indian nation that owns 
rights to the proposed waste storage site, as a temporary storage 
facility for radioactive waste presumably headed toward a 
proposed constructed permanent facility in Nevada. 

The consortium, Private Fuel Storage (PFS), will be permitted to 
store upwards of 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull 
Valley site, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday. The 
site is to be used as a temporary repository for waste slated to 
be stored at a site on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Nevada site is 
also heavily contested and has run into technical and legal 
problems.
 
"Our decision today concludes this protracted adjudication, which 
has generated more than 40 published Board decisions and more 
than 30 published Commission decisions," the Commission said in 
issuing the order. "The adjudicatory effort, plus our staffâ€™s 
separate safety and environmental reviews, gives us reasonable 
assurance that PFSâ€™s proposed [storage facility] can be 
constructed and operated safely."
 
Opponents of the effort say the waste represents environmental 
and health threats in the event of an accident or deliberate 
attack. 

The groups warn that the Utah location will become a de facto
permanent storage facility, due both to the growing, somewhat
successful opposition to the Yucca Mountain site, and because
the transportation and transfer of spent fuel is so dangerous.
Last year, a federal court ordered the Environmental Protection 
Agency to redraft the Yucca Mountain storage facility plans 
because the proposal "unabashedly" rejected scientific views on 
the issue.
 
Public Citizen termed the latest NRC decision "irresponsible and 
misguided," and cautioned that people and officials need to see 
through the "nuclear industryâ€™s need for a publicly presentable 
waste solution that it can use in its push for a â€˜nuclear 
renaissance.â€™" 

Private Fuel Storage will take about 20 years to transport all 
the planned waste to Skull Valley, but the license does not 
require the consortium to develop removal plans for fifteen 
years, the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah) 
noted. The group also warns that clean-up responsibility remains 
an up-in-the-air issue, as does the length of storage.
 
In addition to sparking opposition efforts by the state of Utah 
and environmental groups, the Skull Valley deal created a tribal 
rift that has yet to heal. Previously, The NewStandard reported 
on an ongoing battle between the tribeâ€™s federally-recognized 
leader, Leon Bear, and tribal members who dispute his status and 
his decision to allow the storage of nuclear waste on Goshute 
land. 

Utah politicians threatened to take action to halt the PFS plans, 
and environmental groups are considering filing a court challenge 
to the NRC decision, the Washington Post reported this weekend.
z In a statement, PFS said the facility will not be operational 
before 2008. "We are pleased that the Commissioners have made a 
final decision on these issues and authorized a license," said 
PFS Chairman and CEO John Parkyn. "We can now move forward to 
meet the needs of the commercial nuclear industry and help 
protect the electricity supply in our nation."
 					 				   			 			 				
 					   						
© 2005 The NewStandard. See our .
*****************************************************************
 55 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear transport to Utah may face problems 

Today: September 12, 2005 at 11:5:26 PDT 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- Moving nuclear waste to the planned interim 
storage site in Utah will face the same challenges as moving 
waste to Nevada's Yucca Mountain. 

The arguments over the transportation of high-level nuclear 
waste follow a well-laid path. 

Critics will point to potential terrorist strikes and accidents 
while the industry will point to a relatively clean record of 
moving used fuel from one place to another. 

The transportation planning process, a private venture for Utah 
and public one for Nevada, share similar characteristics. Each 
need a large land withdrawal from the Bureau of Land Management 
to begin construction, detailed planning and cooperation from 
states waste shipments would cross and eventual public 
acceptance. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Private Fuel 
Storage's license on Friday. The consortium of nuclear utilities 
investing in the project will now begin to look for companies 
interested in storing their waste there -- until the proposed 
repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas 
opens. 

Private Fuel spokeswoman Sue Martin said some planning on 
moving the waste from nuclear power plants has been done, 
including designing and building a prototype rail cask that 
would move the waste. But until Private Fuel knows exactly where 
it will be taking waste from and moving it to Utah, specific 
details like routes and transportation methods are still unknown.

Several utilities are the initial investors in Private Fuel, 
but they will give the opportunity to utility storing nuclear to 
put waste in Utah. 

Yucca Mountain, if approved, would bring waste from almost 
every state east of the Mississippi River. The Energy Department 
aims to build a new rail line from Caliente on the Union Pacific 
lines to move waste to the mountain. 

Similar to transportation plans that would bring waste to 
Yucca, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to approve 
any container Private Fuel would use to move the waste and it 
would need to be moved under Transportation Department rules for 
radioactive material. 

Transportation planning was not part of the eight-year 
application process and Utah was not allowed to bring it up 
during proceedings. 

Utah Assistant Attorney General Jim Soper said the commission 
said transportation was not within the scope of whether the site 
should get a license. 

Soper wonders how many utilities will actually use Private Fuel 
Storage. 

"It is not an attractive alternative for all utilities," he 
said, because it may cost more and utilities would still be 
liable for waste as it moved to the state. For Yucca, once the 
department takes title to the waste at the utility when it 
begins preparing it for shipment, it is the Energy Department's 
responsibility, he said. 

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the NRC's decision to 
license Private Fuel is "irresponsible beyond human 
comprehension." 

"If this stuff is so safe to store above ground, it is safe to 
leave it on site," Berkley said. "There is no reason to be 
moving this stuff. We've been against shipping waste for years 
and they are still going forward with this." 

Similar to the Energy Department, Berkley said Private Fuel is 
vague about routes. 

"Once the American public gets wind of the fact nuclear waste 
will be driven through their neighborhoods, they will protest," 
she said. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 56 NWTRB: Calendar
 
[U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board] 
  
 Updated August 23, 2005
 Agendas will be posted approximately 1 week prior to each
meeting.   

  Fall Board Meeting
 November 8-9, 2005
 Contact: TBD 
Topic: TBD     Location: Las Vegas, NV
 
  
  Winter Board Meeting
 February 1-2, 2006
 Contact: TBD 
Topic: TBD     Location: Las Vegas, NV
 
  Spring Board Meeting
 May 10-11, 2006
 Contact: TBD 
Topic: TBD     Location: Washington, DC


*****************************************************************
 57 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Hold a Meeting in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 20-22 

News Release - 2005-12
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail:   
  No. 05-127     September 9, 2005   
  

  The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste will meet Sept. 20-22 in Las Vegas, Nev., to be
briefed on recent developments related to the proposed
high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Committee
members will also be briefed on the NRCs plans for reviewing the
Department of Energy license application for Yucca Mountain and
will hear the views of experts on such issues as the evolution
of climate around the proposed site. 
In addition to the briefings  all of which are open to the
public  the ACNW has set aside the evening of Sept. 21 to hear
from those interested in the issue.
 
On Sept. 22, the committee will conduct a planning meeting to
discuss future agenda items that would form the basis for ACNW
briefings over the next year. Those portions of the planning
meeting addressing personnel matters will be closed to the
public.
 
The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all
aspects of nuclear waste management.
 
The briefings will be held at the Pacific Enterprise Plaza
Building One, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas. They will run on
Tuesday from 9:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and on Wednesday from 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The portion for public input will run on
Wednesday from 6 p.m to 8 p.m. The open portion of the planning
meeting on Thursday will run from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Attendees
will be subject to security screening before entering the
meeting facility.
 
Oral or written views may be presented by members of the public.
Those wanting to make oral statements should notify Sharon
Steele, at 301-415-8065. Videoconferencing may be available.
Those interested in using this service should contact Theron
Brown at 301-415-8066.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, September 12, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 58 Institute of Physics: Media Relations
 
PR60(03)
 
Thursday 13th August. 

Scientists discover cheap and environmentally friendly way to
dispose of waste from nuclear power plants 

Scientists from the University of Strathclyde collaborating with
an international team from Imperial College, Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory(RAL), ITU (Karlsruhe) and the University of Jena have
successfully turned the radioactive isotope Iodine-129, a major
waste product in the nuclear power industry, into the more
friendly isotope Iodine-128 using the VULCAN Laser at RAL. This
is the first time an isotope has been transmuted. They announced
their discovery today in The Institute of Physics journal
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics.
 
Iodine-129 is one of the major waste products from nuclear power
plants and has a half-life of 15.7 million years making it
difficult and dangerous to dispose of. Currently, it is encased
in glass and buried deep in the earth. Professor Ken Ledingham
and colleagues irradiated Iodine-129 with a laser beam and
succeeded in turning some of it into Iodine-128 which, with a
half life of just 25 minutes, which can be handled with greater
safety. 

The next step for Professor Ledingham is to develop this
technique on an industrial scale and with other radioactive
isotopes. He is currently working on a proposal to seek funding
to develop a laser system powerful enough to carry our further
transmutation studies in the laboratory.
 
. Professor Ledingham said today: "The discovery we published
today shows for the first time that we can transmute isotopes
using lasers. Now we need to scale up our methods so that we can
deal with the sort of volumes likely to be produced by the
nuclear power industry in the future. At present transmutation
of radioactive waste which is still many years down the track
will be carried out using large accelerators and reactors. Our
vision is that since enormous strides have been made in laser
technology over the last few years perhaps lasers offer an
alternative procedure in the future.
 
This discovery will also provide an easier way of producing the
isotopes needed to operate the PET scanners used in hospitals
and in research. These isotopes are currently manufactured in
huge machines called cyclotrons, only four of which exist in the
UK. Professor Ledingham hopes to be able to apply his technique
to the production of these isotopes quickly and believes that
this will be a practical reality within the next five years.
 
Notes for editors
 
  1. This paper is published in the Institute of Physics journal
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. It will be published on
the Web at on Thursday 14th August.
 

  2. For more information about this press release and the
Institute of Physics, please contact David Reid, Press Officer,
The Institute of Physics, Tel: 020 7470 4815, Email: . For more
Institute of Physics press releases, see 
. 

  3. Alternatively contact Professor Ken Ledingham at the
University of Strathclyde on 0141 5485716, 


  4. 
The Institute of Physics is a leading international professional
body and learned society with over 37,000 members, which
promotes the advancement and dissemination of a knowledge of and
education in the science of physics, pure and applied. It has a
world-wide membership and is a major international player in:
 
    + scientific publishing and electronic dissemination of
physics; 
    + setting professional standards for physicists and awarding
professional qualifications; 
    + promoting physics through scientific conferences,
education and science policy advice.
 

The Institute is a member of the Science Council, and a
nominated body of the Engineering Council. The Institute works
in collaboration with national physical societies and plays an
important role in transnational societies such as the European
Physical Society and represents British and Irish physicists in
international organisations. In Great Britain and Ireland the
Institute is active in providing support for physicists in all
professions and careers, encouraging physics research and its
applications, providing support for physics in schools, colleges
and universities, influencing government and informing public
debate.
   
  The Web site for physics and physicists from the Institute of
Physics   
  
(c) Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Ltd. 2000- 2003   
*****************************************************************
 59 KRNV.com: Environmental group joins fight against Yucca Mountain

September 13, 2005   

The Citizen Alert environmental group is taking to the road to
help drum up opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump
project in southern Nevada. 

The group's "Back to Our Routes" town hall meetings will be held
in 25 Nevada communities through October 22nd. 

Group representatives will provide citizens with materials and
teach them how to fight the dump. 

Citizen Alert leaders note the Department of Energy still lacks
a license to transport and store high-level nuclear waste at
Yucca Mountain. They say they think the license will never be
granted if Nevadans stay united in opposition to the dump. 

Among others, meetings are scheduled for October fifth in Carson
City, October sixth in Fallon, October ninth in Ely, October
eleventh in Elko, October 13th in Winnemucca, October 15th in
Reno and October 22nd in Las Vegas. 

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)   

      All content © Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KRNV. All
*****************************************************************
 60 UK: News & Star: Radioactive seagulls stored at Sellafield

12/09/2005

By Mark Preskett
 
HUNDREDS of radioactive gulls are being stored in an industrial 
freezer at Cumbriaâ€™s Sellafield nuclear plant, it has been 
revealed.
 
The birds are being stored at the site after BNFL managers 
employed sharpshooters to kill any seagulls or pigeons which 
landed at the power plant, according to The Independent on 
Sunday.
 
The practice was introduced more than a decade ago over fears 
that any birds which landed at Sellafield would then fly on, 
potentially carry hazardous radiation.
 
Traces of radiation has been found in some of the dead birds.
 
Those that are killed are designated low-level nuclear waste and 
are placed in a large industrial freezer on the site.
 
But the number of birds stored at the site is rapidly increasing 
because they cannot be disposed of at BNFLâ€™s low-level waste 
site at nearby Drigg.
 
The birds cannot be dumped at Drigg because the seagulls would 
decay if left out in the elements and would be deemed 
â€œputrescentâ€.
 
A spokesman for BNFL said they were in talks with the Environment 
Agency and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate over what to do 
with hundreds of the birds being stored in the freezer.
 
*****************************************************************
 61 Deseret News: LDS Church opposes N-site 

[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, September 12, 2005 

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News 

Utahns opposed to the siting of a high-level nuclear waste 
repository in Tooele County have gained a powerful ally, The 
Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Over the weekend, the church made available this response 
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent ruling that the 
Private Fuel Storage repository could be built in Skull Valley: 

"We regret the decision by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to authorize the issuance of a license that would 
allow storage of radioactive waste in Skull Valley. Storage of 
nuclear waste in Utah is a matter of significant public interest 
that requires thorough scrutiny." 

The statement was attributed to Dale Bills, spokesman for 
the church. No further elaboration about the matter was 
immediately available. 

The repository, proposed for Goshute tribal land, would 
house 40,000 tons of highly-radioactive spent nuclear power 
plant fuel rods. The material would be in "temporary" storage 
for up to 40 years. 

The latest action triggered comparisons with a previous 
debate related to nuclear issues in which the church played a 
role. 

On May 5,1981, the First Presidency issued a statement 
opposing the deployment of the MX Missile system, under 
consideration for the Great Basin of Utah and Nevada. The Air 
Force project had been envisioned as a gigantic set of tracks 
and shelters, with missiles shuttled from place to place in a 
vast stretch of the state's western desert. 

The 1981 statement deplored the nuclear arms race and 
expressed grave concern over the MX system's many missiles and 
nuclear warheads. "Such concentration, we are informed, may even 
invite attack under a first-strike strategy on the part of an 
aggressor," the statement said. 

The construction project would have adverse impacts on 
sociological, ecological and water resource factors, added the 
statement, signed by the three members of the First Presidency. 

As Cold War confrontations faded, the push for the MX 
system dissolved. But church opposition also has been credited 
as an important factor in the project's abandonment. 

The latest statement bolsters the arguments of those 
fighting against the high-level nuclear repository. 

Although the facility was approved last week by the NRC, 
it continues to face tremendous political opposition. 

A 2002 Deseret News poll by Dan Jones &Associates found 
79 percent of Utahns were opposed to the PFS project. Shipping 
of nuclear waste on railroad routes through the state was among 
the biggest concerns, but lately fears of a terrorist attack 
also have been in the forefront. Private Fuel Storage has said 
the facility would be a temporary one. But the government's 
planned permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has bogged 
down in political fights and debate concerning the validity of 
scientific studies, leading to increased concerns about the 
temporary nature of the Utah facility. 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 62 Rocky Mountain News: DOE to clean up Rocky Flats spots

By Rocky Mountain News

September 12, 2005

The Department of Energy reversed itself today on the cleanup of
low-level radioactive spots at Rocky Flats, saying it will clean
up the contaminated areas instead of dismissing them as
statistically insignificant. 

But the discovery of hot spots in soil thought to be clean at
the former nuclear weapons plant sounded a warning to members of
the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments. 
			
 "If there are hot spots in areas that were remediated, you have
to presume there are hot spots in the areas that were not
remediated," said David Abelson, executive director of the
coalition of government officials from around the 6,000-acre
site 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver. 

The Energy Department's John Rampe said the areas unexpectedly
found to have low levels of radioactivity "don't look
significant to us, given what we know now." 

He also reported a negative finding after retesting for possible
radioactivity on state-owned land just south of the plant site
and east of Colorado 93. 

"There is nothing there," Rampe said. "That one is by the
board." 
  
2005 © Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
 63 Tri-City Herald: Hanford board baffled by DOE's reluctance on cost, schedule
specifics 

This story was published Monday, September 12th, 2005
 
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

PORTLAND -- The Hanford Advisory Board has grown frustrated with
the Department of Energy's refusal to release specifics about
the escalating cost and schedule of the $5.8 billion
vitrification plant under construction at Hanford. 

"For the board and its members to continue to defend the
(vitrification plant) to the public, to Congress and others, it
is crucial the board has timely and complete information," the
board said in advice to DOE it adopted Friday at a meeting in
Portland. 

The concern was echoed by Jay Manning, director of the
Washington State Department of Ecology, speaking at the meeting. 

"I am incredibly frustrated by how long it has taken" to get
information on the new budget and schedule for the plant, he
told the board.
 
Late in 2004, DOE announced that a new earthquake study showed
that critical parts of the plant planned to treat radioactive
waste might not be designed to withstand a severe earthquake. 

In addition, resolving technical problems on the one-of-a-kind
plant has consumed contingency built into the budget, and
contractor Bechtel National has struggled to find resources to
support nuclear-quality construction and provide materials and
equipment. 

Congressional leaders have said that the cost of the plant may
now approach $10 billion and it may miss its legal deadline to
start full-scale operation in 2011 by four years. 

But DOE has said it needs time to come up with a new plan before
discussing cost and schedule numbers. 

The advisory board is calling for DOE to publicly release its
reviews of the cost and schedule of the plant and a review done
by the Army Corps of Engineers in the spring. After the corps
review, DOE commissioned a more in-depth study of the plant's
costs. 

Among the board's concerns is that increased costs may
jeopardize completion of the plant, which it considers crucial
to Hanford cleanup. 

Starting during World War II, radioactive and hazardous chemical
waste began accumulating in underground tanks meant to
temporarily store waste from the production of plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program. 

The vitrification plant is intended to turn much of the 53
million gallons of radioactive waste in the tanks into stable
glass logs for permanent disposal. 

In the meantime, Hanford workers are moving waste from the older
leak-prone single-shell tanks into new and sturdier double-shell
tanks to await treatment. 

However, the state projects that the newer tanks will be full by
2008, and no more waste can be removed from the older tanks
until some of the waste in newer tanks is treated. 

The state has told DOE that if it does not have the
vitrification plant ready to operate by the 2011 deadline, it
must find another way to move waste out of the single-shell
tanks, even if it means building additional double-shell tanks
to accept the waste, Manning said. 

Construction has slowed at the vitrification plant, and DOE's
Office of River Protection at Hanford continues to work on a
report requested by DOE headquarters outlining the orderly halt
of additional work. 

However, in a memo to DOE headquarters, a possible date of June
1, 2006, was given to resume full construction activities after
the incorporation of new earthquake design standards and
validation of a new cost and schedule for the plant. 

The state has urged DOE not to delay construction on the
vitrification plant, and board members agreed that any delay in
construction only would increase the cost of the plant. 

The Hanford fiscal year begins Oct. 1, and DOE and its
contractors still are waiting for Congress to reconcile House
and Senate budgets approved for Hanford, including work at the
vitrification plant. 

Overall, the Bush administration approved a $270 million cut
from the present Hanford budget of nearly $2.1 billion. The
Senate added $34 million back to the budget and the House added
$200 million back. 

Given the federal money that will be required for rescues and
repairs because of Hurricane Katrina, the state is concerned
that Congress give Hanford at least as much money as was
included in the Senate budget for the site, Manning said. 

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Hanford Advisory
Board also said they were concerned that longterm there may be
pressure to sacrifice other cleanup projects at Hanford to find
the money needed to cover the escalating costs of the
vitrification plant. 

The board is asking DOE to request all the money it needs to
have the vitrification plant completed by legal deadlines
without damaging other Hanford cleanup projects.
 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 64 SFBV: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons program

San Francisco Bay View - 

National Black Newspaper of the Year
 
9/7/05 

Five admirals, Carlyle Group and Rand take over 

Part 1 

by Leuren Moret 
    
  This windowless building at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
was headquarters for the super secret National Radiological
Defense Laboratory. San Francisco Bay lies in the foreground
with the Hunters Point neighborhood, heavily impacted by
radioactive and toxic contamination, in the background. Fifteen
years after the shipyard was declared a Superfund site, the Navy
still has not decontaminated even the cleanest part.   
  Photo: Maurice Campbell, www.mecresources.com   



“I think some of these folks would put nuclear tips on ice cream
cones if they could.” - U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., on
efforts by Bush administration officials to repeal a research
ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, quoted in Global Security
Newswire May 19, 2003 

UC and nuclear weapons: the kiss of death 

The top-secret Manhattan Project was laid out by Robert
Oppenheimer the night Ernest Lawrence took him to the Bohemian
Club during World War II. It was a part of California’s brutal
rise to economic and political power described in “Imperial San
Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin” by Gray Brechin. 

In 1939, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr had argued
that building an atomic bomb “can never be done unless you turn
the United States into one huge factory.” Years later, he told
his colleague Edward Teller, “I told you it couldn’t be done
without turning the whole country into a factory. You have done
just that.” That was after Edward Teller had stuck the
proverbial knife in Oppenheimer’s back, and pulled his security
clearance. 


    
  This 46-acre landfill at the Hunters Point Shipyard, lying
across a cove from the 49ers’ Candlestick Park stadium, is
filled with radioactive and toxic waste and explosive gases.
Mayor Newsom wants to give the land right beside the landfill
next month to Lennar Corp. to build 1,600 new homes.   
  Photo: Maurice Campbell, www.mecresources.com   



Teller - also known as Dr. Strangelove - went on to promote a
grandiose U.S. nuclear weapons program for decades at the
nuclear weapons labs: Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos. The
program remained under a no-bid University of California
management contract for 61 years. 

In a stealth takeover by the Carlyle Group, facilitated by five
admirals, the management contract will be transferred next year
to the University of Texas, where the military and the Carlyle
Group will have control. A new “ramping up” of the nuclear
weapons program is underway, with program funding at the highest
level ever - even higher than during the Cold War – extending
nuclear weapons into outer space, into the very atmosphere that
makes life on earth possible, and with no “real” enemy in sight. 

Estimating the cold war mortgage 

In 1995 dollars, according to the Department of Energy (DOE),
the U.S. has spent approximately $300 billion on nuclear weapons
research, production and testing. Today in the nuclear weapons
complex there are 10,500 contaminated sites, 2.3 million acres
under DOE ownership, and 120 million square feet of buildings. 

The DOE Environmental Management program estimates that the 1995
high base cost to clean up the environmental legacy is $350
billion. That excludes the Nevada Test Site, Hanford, the
Savannah and Clinch rivers and the Columbia River, which are
considered to be “national sacrifice zones” because the
technology does not exist to clean them up. 

That was the cost for cleaning up the environment. The damage to
the human health, not only of Americans but also to the global
population, was predicted by the European Committee on Radiation
Risk (ECRR) in a 2003 independent report on low level radiation
for the European Parliament to be 61,600,000 deaths by cancer,
1,600,000 infant deaths, and 1,900,000 fetal deaths. “In
addition, the ECRR committee predicts a 10 percent loss of life
quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who
were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.” 

The cost to the predominantly Black community living near the
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco is much greater.
Shortly after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
the Navy established the secret Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory (NRDL) at the shipyard to study the biological
effects of ionizing radiation. The premier military radiation
research facility of the post-World War II era, the lab operated
at the shipyard until 1969. 

Operation Crossroads ships returning to the Hunters Point
Shipyard following exposure to detonation of radioactive blasts
were researched and decontaminated, and secret experiments
exposing animals, plants, military personnel, prisoners and
local residents to radiation were conducted at the NRDL, where
550 civilian scientists worked with 65 Navy officers. 

The radioactive waste and dead animals from the lab were dumped
on the base, which lies along the shore of San Francisco Bay.
The shipyard’s largest dump, filling a stream gorge, is now a
46-acre toxic and radioactive landfill. More waste was sunk
offshore not far from the Golden Gate Bridge in a battleship and
55-gallon drums, contaminating one of the richest fisheries in
the world. 

Studies by the San Francisco Department of Public Health have
documented an inexplicably high incidence of breast cancer among
Black women under the age of 40, suggesting environmental
causes. Dr. Janette Sherman became a medical doctor because of
her concern about radiation after experimenting with radiation
on lab animals at the NRDL as a researcher there in the 1950s.
Her book, “Life’s Delicate Balance – Causes and Prevention of
Breast Cancer,” identifies ionizing radiation as one of the main
causes of breast cancer. 

Even worse, the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP),
while conducting studies on infant mortality and cancer around
nuclear power plants, discovered that milk contaminated with
radiation has been shipped into Black inner city communities – a
genocidal plan which explains why Blacks have the highest cancer
rates, infant mortality and asthma in the U.S., which has been
blamed on poverty. 

The studies using U.S. government data on radiation in milk
revealed that at the time of Chernobyl the Pennsylvania Milk
Board had been selectively shipping radioactive contaminated
milk from dairies around the Three Mile Island and Peachbottom
reactors into Black inner city communities on the East Coast
(see Jay Gould, “Infant Mortality and Milk,” a chapter in
“Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup”). 

An RPHP study on health improvements by race in San Francisco
County after the shutdown of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant
in 1989 reports that health improved for all ages, diseases and
races except for Blacks. Black infant mortality also increased
after startups and accidents, but unlike improvements in infant
mortality for whites and Asians, which decreased after the 1989
shutdown, Black infant mortality continued to reflect startups
and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants in California. 

UC Regents meeting May 15, 2003: the point man 

One year ago, Admiral Linton Brooks, administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under DOE,
informed California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents
that the management contract for the nuclear weapons labs would
be put up for competitive bid for the first time, with the award
to be made in 2005. When a Regent asked if it would be for all
the labs or just Los Alamos, he replied that it would be for Los
Alamos. Later another Regent questioned him again, and this time
he said, “It would be inconceivable for just one lab.” 

He requested a competitive bid from UC, but the Regents were now
leery of the politics involved, and Brooks was challenged by a
fiery Bustamante. The lieutenant governor demanded to know why
UC should waste millions of dollars preparing a bid when the
University of Texas was the most favored institution to get the
award and had a member on the blue ribbon panel making the award
decision. 

Admiral Brooks also informed the Board of Regents that “we’re
back in the bomb business” because Los Alamos had just produced
the first plutonium “pit” since Rocky Flats closed down. He
indicated that they would be making “mini-nukes” only, and
nuclear weapons testing would start at the Nevada Test Site in
2005. 

An hour later, and 45 miles away, he announced to Livermore
employees that “we’re back in the bomb business” and they would
be making big ones, little ones and more. By this time it seemed
to me that Admiral Brooks was a slippery character, and I began
to wonder why an admiral was involved. 

UC Regents meeting Aug. 17, 2004: two admirals stage ‘the setup’ 

On Aug. 4, 2004, UC President Dynes, a physicist and consultant
to Los Alamos and former chancellor of UC San Diego, and UC
Regents Chair Gerald Parsky visited Los Alamos and met with
employees over chronic and recent security and safety lapses at
the lab. Parsky told them: “The regents will be left with no
choice about the contract competition if we do not feel
confident that you understand the importance of security,
procedures and safety at the lab. If we feel that you understand
this and that steps are being taken to address these issues, the
regents will not only endorse competing for this contract – we
will compete to win.” 

During three minutes of public comment before the Regents on
Aug. 17, I informed them that the lab contract was going to the
University of Texas; it was a “done deal.” I told them that the
management contract change was a chess move the Carlyle Group
was making to privatize the nuclear weapons program, that
Carlyle owned 70 percent of Lockheed Martin Marietta, and that
Lockheed a year ago had bought Sandia Labs - they make the
trigger for nuclear weapons. 

When “Carlyle” was mentioned, I noticed that the chair, Gerald
Parsky, and the vice chair, Richard Blum, who is married to Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, started shifting around in their chairs. Body
language can say a lot. They began a disruptive and loud
conversation carried on through the rest of my comments. 

As a Livermore whistleblower, I commented that the loss of
computer discs with classified information and missing keys had
happened almost daily for 61 years under sloppy UC management,
and that science fraud as well as health and safety violations
had been just as bad. 

During my week of security briefing at Livermore in 1989, we had
been told the story of a scientist taking classified material
home in his briefcase who did not notice it had fallen off the
back of his bike. A merchant found the battered briefcase in an
intersection, and several days later a horrified lab security
employee found that every page of a lengthy report with
“CLASSIFIED” stamped on each page had been taped in the window
of the merchant’s shop hoping the owner would claim his lost
secret documents. 

What was even more egregious, I pointed out, was an article in
the July 10, 2004, issue of the Daily Mirror about the murder by
the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad of Robert Maxwell, a
British publisher. It revealed that Maxwell, who was the former
owner of the Daily Mirror, was a high level Mossad agent and had
sold PROMIS software to Los Alamos with a back door for the
Mossad to spy on the lab. In closing, I told the Regents that no
matter who got the contract award, “The University of California
would forever be known as the university that poisoned the
world.” 

References for Part 1 

“Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin” by Gray
Brechin, UC Press, January 1999. 

“Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline
Environmental Management Report,” U.S. DOE Office of
Environmental Management Executive Summary, March 1995. 

“Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The
Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the U.S.
and What the DOE is Doing About It,” U.S. DOE Office of
Environmental Management, January 1996. 

“ECRR: 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on
Radiation Risk – Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure
at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes, Regulator’s
Edition: Brussels, 2003,” http://www.euradcom.org. 

“Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast
Cancer” by Dr. Janette Sherman, 2000,
http://www.janettesherman.com. 

“Asthma; Infant Mortality; Recruiting Foster Parents” by Lynda
Crawford, Gotham Gazette, May 5, 2003,
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/children/20030506/2/379. 

“Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Coverup” by Jay
Gould and B. Goldman, 1990, http://www.radiation.org,
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1990/s90/s90reviews.html#anchor
203469. 

“Letter to Employees of University of California-managed
National Labs,” Today at Berkeley Lab, Aug. 6, 2004,
http://www.lbl.gov/today/2004/Aug/06-Fri/letter-jump.html. 

“A Career in Microbiology Can Be Harmful to Your Health: Death
Toll Mounting as Connections to Dyncorp, Hadron, PROMIS Software
and Disease Research Emerge” by Michael Davidson and Michael C.
Ruppert, Feb. 14, 2002,
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_14_02_microbio.html.
 

Media coverage of Los Alamos security lapse, July 2004,
http://www.4law.co.il/lanl1.htm. 

“NASA plans to read terrorists’ minds at airports” by Frank J.
Murray, Washington Times, Aug. 17, 2002,
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm. 

Air Travel Privacy FOIA Documents: “NASA Ames Research Center
Northwest Airlines Briefing December 10-11, 2001,” Electronic
Privacy Information Center,
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/foia1.html. 

Stop Carlyle! website,
http://isuisse.ifrance.com/stopcarlyle/enindex.htm. 

Parts 2-4 of this exposé will appear in the Bay View in the
coming weeks. The entire article is available at
www.sfbayview.com. Email Leuren Moret at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. 
      
sfbayview.com

San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street 
San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 
671-0316 Email:
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************