***************************************************************** 09/20/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.218 ***************************************************************** 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 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Defiant As Sanctions Loom Up 2 [NYTr] Iran warns it could quit nuclear treaty, issues oil 3 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief Urges More Diplomacy on Iran 4 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Russia Resisting Iran Referral 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns Against Sanctions Over Nukes 6 Xinhua: Iran threatens to quit NPT if referred to UNSC 7 AFP: Iran will not back down in nuclear stand-off - Khamenei 8 [NYTr] DPRK Nuclear agreement: the key points 9 UN Nuclear Watchdog Hopes To Send Inspectors Back To Dpr Of Korea So 10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Wait and See on N. Korea Nuke Deal 11 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S. 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea vows to abandon nuclear weapons proj 13 Guardian Unlimited: Japan-North Korean Talks to Resume 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Confident of Korean Nuclear Deal 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Dismisses N. Korea Reactors Demand 16 BBC: Viewpoints: N Korea's nuclear pledge 17 SF Chronicle: North Korea without nukes 18 AFP: NKorea raises stakes on nuclear deal with reactor demand found 19 IPS: POLITICS: Japan Wary of North Korean Nuclear Deal 20 AFP: N.Korea raises stakes on nuclear deal with reactor demand 21 Heritage Foundation: Nuclear Nightmare 22 RIA Novosti: Conference set to accelerate nuclear ban treaty 23 Mos News: Book of Secret Files Reveals KGB Plans to Release Radioact NUCLEAR REACTORS 24 US: NRC: NRC Performing Special Inspection at Indian Point 2 Nuclear 25 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Duane Arnold Energy Center; Not 26 TheStar.com: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power 27 Daily Times: India steps up lobbying to see nuclear deal through 28 US: York Daily Record: NUCLEAR: Peach Bottom breaks record - 29 US: Hudson Valley News: Hairline cracks discovered in Indian Point f 30 US: Newsday.com: Leakage found at spent-fuel pool at Indian Point nu 31 US: Science Column: Can nuclear power be called a good alternative t 32 US: WCAX-TV: Board meets in Brattleboro and Vernon 33 US: NRC: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 34 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 35 US: Beyond Treason by Joyce Riley 36 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting 37 US: Interfax: Radioactive metal found at Su-27 crash site 38 Scoop: NZ Soldiers - Treated As Nuclear Guinea Pigs NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 39 US: [shundahaialert] NPR Panel on Skull Valley Nuke Dump Tomorrow 40 US: Rocky Mountain News: Standard Mine joins Superfund 41 US: Lahontan Valley News: Time to get serious about truck bypass 42 US: Bradenton Herald: Toxicologist hears of Tallevast's past 43 US: Bradenton Herald: Galvano: Relocate Tallevast residents 44 Bellona: Spent nuclear fuel from liquid metal cooled reactor unloade 45 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada meeting on Yucca is added 46 US: Las Vegas SUN: Utah official switches gears on plan for nuclear 47 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Trucks and trains 48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes make plea deal in tribal theft case 49 US: Boston Globe: Utility regulators tour radwaste storage site, hea 50 US: KUTV: Rising Prices Renew Interest In Utah Uranium 51 AU ABC: No dump on Arrente land 52 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH77 Spent fuel casts PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 [NukeNet] NIF, Plutonium and Weapons Design, Oakland Tribune ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Defiant As Sanctions Loom Up Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:24:14 -0700 WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com ROMAIPS AP DV IP ML=20 POLITICS: Iran Defiant As Sanctions Loom Up Saloumeh Peyman TEHRAN , Sep 30 (IPS) - While moves are afoot to bring United Nations Se= curity Council (UNSC) sanctions to bear on Iran for intransigence on its= atomic programme, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is turning into = a national hero and a symbol of defiance against the West.=20 Much of the adulation for 'Engineer Chamran', as the president is popular= ly known, was on display when he returned to a hero's welcome in Tehran o= n the weekend, after proclaiming Iran's ''inalienable right'' to produce = nuclear fuel at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Germany, France and Britain, known as the EU-3, began drafting a resoluti= on to get the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer the intr= ansigence to the UNSC immediately after Ahmadinejad's speech at the UNGA = on Saturday. Hundreds of Iranian men, families in tow and the women doffing their veil= s in a departure from Islamic tradition, joined in welcoming Ahmadinejad= , wearing the humble, religious 'man-on-the-street' attitude that, unex= pectedly for the West, won him a landslide victory against wealthy reform= ists in the presidential elections in June. Many older generation Iranians said the welcome accorded to Ahmadinejad r= eminded them of a time, 60 years ago, when another popular leader, Mohamm= ed Mossadegh, returned home after successfully defending Iran's national = rights to its oil at the Hague, against British oil companies and colludi= ng Iranian elite. =20 On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared to his people over state television that = Iran was not worried about any reference by the IAEA to the UNSC. ''They = do what they have to do and we do what we have to do--our position will r= emain unchanged,'' he declared.=20 ''The people of Iran will insist on their rights and nothing is going to = happen to them,'' he added reassuringly.=20 A retired engineer, Hasan Daqiqi, told IPS: ''Ahmadinejad is not doing an= ything special =FB only what every single Iranian patriot would do''. ''Do not ask my name , I am one of the millions of Iranian Muslim, secula= r, nationalists from different walks of society, and President Ahmadineja= d has just lifted our spirits-- we are proud of him,'' said another old m= an with a luxuriant white beard.=20 The homecoming celebrations continued through the weekend and merged into= Sunday's commemoration of the birth of Mohammed Al Mahdi, the 12th and l= ast Shiite Imam providing an opportunity to give the right spiritual tou= ch to the political proceedings.=20 On the other hand, the Iranian government is bracing for tough times day= s ahead, though supporters of the ruling establishment and even some secu= lar nationalists believe that it is worth paying the price to defend the = nation's right to have access to peaceful nuclear energy. At a press conference here on Sunday, foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid R= eza Asefi, recommended that the IAEA refrain from taking a radical approa= ch. ''Europeans and the IAEA should look into Iran's nuclear case with l= ogic and avoid language of threat and pressure which will bear no fruit''= =2E ''Our advice to the agency (IAEA) is to review Iran's case tomorrow, logi= cally and realistically, to avoid making the case more complicated,=94 As= efi said at the conference.=20 Asefi also projected Iran's defiant mood by saying that Iran would not he= sitate to begin uranium enrichment (another step towards making atomic bo= mbs) if it found the IAEA's course of action wanting from its point of vi= ew. Interpretations of Asefi's press conference in Monday's Farsi language pr= ess were optimistic.=20 The 'Aftabyazd' daily highlighted Asefi's statement: ''Sending Iran's dos= sier to the UNSC does not imply military assault on Iran,'' the paper sai= d in a headline. =20 But, the fact that Iran could be banking heavily on support from Asian an= d African countries as well as China and Russia in the UNSC, if it came t= o that, was evident through comments in the press, which is closely monit= ored by the government.=20 In an editorial in the 'Sharq' daily on Monday, Farzaneh Roostaee said= : ''The dispute on how to cope with Iran's nuclear case may extend to the= next 2006 UNGA as the U.S. has failed to woo Indian support against Iran= ''.=20 India and other non-Western nuclear countries, such as Russia, China and = South Africa, are chary of backing a reference to the UNSC of Iran's nucl= ear programme by the IAEA that has been meeting in Vienna since Monday to= decide the issue. =20 But a decision on the issue could take as long as a week as the 35-nation= IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, thrashes out the reference issue behi= nd closed doors, which could eventually lead to punitive sanctions agains= t Iran. =20 The weekend celebrations focused on the religious tone of Ahmadinejad's U= .N. speeches and many said it would help the president mobilise the suppo= rt that may be needed in the coming days in the event of international sa= nctions or a confrontation with the U.S. =20 At the celebrations, which included the singing of Shiite lyrics praising= the 12 ' immaculate imams', one panegyrist intoned: ''Ahmadinejad is th= e only Shiite president to mention the holy name of the 12th Imam Mahdi f= rom the U.N. podium. He, the President, has shaken the heart of America i= n the heart of America( U.N. headquarters)''.=20 The 12th Mohammed Al Mahdi, a direct descendent of Prophet Mohammed, di= sappeared mysteriously 12 centuries ago but Shiites believe he will retur= n before the 'day of judgement'. =20 ''Ahmadinejad has demonstrated to the world that Iran is powerful, a seek= er of peace and a reformist,'' the panegyrist sang and called for ''more = voices from Africa and Asia in the UNSC so that justice may prevail''. (E= ND/IPS/AP/IP/ML/DV/SP/RDR/05). =20 =20 =3D 09201014 ORP003 NNNN ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran warns it could quit nuclear treaty, issues oil Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:07:46 -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 AFP - Sep 20, 2005 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050920144651.nmz11v6m.html Iran warns it could quit nuclear treaty, issues oil threat TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani warned that Tehran could quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if it is subjected to the "language of force" in a stand-off over its nuclear programme. Responding to European efforts to haul Iran before the UN Security Council over "breaches" of international atomic safeguards, Larijani also said Tehran would link its oil business and other economic trade with individual countries based on whose side they took in the dispute. "If you want to use the language of force, Iran will be left with no choice, in order to preserve its technical achievements, to get out of the framework of the NPT and out of the framework of the additional protocol, and resume enrichment," Larijani said Tuesday. "If, in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), they want to talk to us in the language of humiliation, threat or introduce the so-called trigger mechanism or take it to the United Nations Security Council, we will revise our stance on the additional protocol (to the NPT) and enrichment," he added. He later elaborated: "If our dossier is sent to the Security Council, we will cease the application of the additional protocol" -- a clause that gives reinforced inspection powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "Concerning the NPT, it depends how they will send our case to the Security Council," he said. Larijani, whose country is accused of secretly developing nuclear weapons, also warned that states which lined up with Britain, France and Germany against Iran -- OPEC's number-two producer -- would suffer economic consequences. "Those countries that have economic transactions with Iran, especially in the field of oil, have not defended Iran's rights so far," complained Larijani, the hardline secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. This top decision-making body, he said, was "very determined to make a balance between these two things. "So based on how much they defend Iran's national right will facilitate their participation in Iran's economic field." He was later asked if this meant countries like Japan -- which recently signed a major contract to develop Iran's Azadegan oil field -- could lose contracts in Iran. "It is not only Japan but other countries that are concerned. We will examine their attitude," Larijani said, adding that the future of the Azadegan contract "depends on their (Japan's) conduct". Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only and that civilian nuclear fuel work is a right enshrined in the NPT. "If you want to pressure beyond the NPT and take it to the Security Council, you will not gain anything and only make trouble for yourselves," he warned, accusing the EU-3 of trying to "humiliate" Iran by demanding it abandon nuclear fuel technology. "The Europeans have been trying to humiliate the Iranians. Do not doubt that enrichment is a national desire," Larijani said, dismissing demands by the EU-3 that Iran give up nuclear fuel as the best "objective guarantee" the clerical regime will not seek nuclear weapons. "We will not accept excessive pressure. They cannot play with a country's pride," he said, comparing the nuclear crisis to Iran's struggle to nationalise its oil industry from British control in the 1950s. "The Europeans keep telling us of this big giant -- the UN Security Council. But this will not mean the end of the Iranian people," he said. "I remind them of the North Korean case: after two years they accept North Korea's right to enrichment. They should do the same with us." * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief Urges More Diplomacy on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 4:46 AM AP Photo VIE122 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The chief U.N. atomic inspector on Monday called for talks to replace international confrontation over Iran's nuclear activities, while the United States and European Union pressed efforts to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council. A resolution drafted by U.S. and European diplomats asks International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei to report to the Security Council ``Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply'' with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The confidential document, shared in part late Monday with The Associated Press, is meant for the IAEA's 35 board-member nations to vote on this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she expected the council to take up the matter. ``I'm quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community assurances that it is not going to try to build a nuclear weapons program under cover of civil nuclear power,'' Rice told reporters Monday at the United Nations. Preparing the draft had been on hold the last few days to give Iran a chance to deflect the Security Council threat by offering sufficient concessions - and after that failed to happen, to try to get Russia and China on board. European Union diplomats and a U.S. official said both of those countries remained opposed to referral to the Security Council, despite strong lobbying by the Americans and Europeans. But they told AP that the West would likely force the issue to a vote regardless. ``The difficulty remains with Russia and China and some of the Third World countries,'' said one of the diplomats. The U.S. official predicted the vote would be close. Like the Europeans, he demanded anonymity as a condition for discussing the sensitive behind-the-scenes maneuvering. At the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the Iran nuclear standoff had reached a ``very difficult moment,'' but added that it ``may not be possible'' to resolve the matter at the IAEA board level. The divisions dampened optimism generated by North Korea's decision to dismantle nuclear weapons and its atomic facilities and to allow IAEA inspectors to return in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances. On Tuesday, North Korea cast doubt on its commitment to the agreement by saying it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides a light-water atomic energy reactor. While the impact of the North's latest statement wasn't immediately clear, the United States and other nations have resisted the idea of giving North Korea such a reactor. Earlier, ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, had said he hoped to have his inspectors in place ``the earlier ... the better,'' and indirectly suggested Korea could serve as example for Iran. He criticized both Tehran's intransigence and U.S.-European calls for Security Council involvement as examples of ``confrontations and political brinkmanship,'' adding: ``I very much hope that this week all the parties ... create the necessary conditions to go back to the negotiating table.'' As with North Korea, ``there are security issues, there are nuclear issues'' that must be negotiated to reduce tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions, ElBaradei said in unusually blunt comments. Others cautioned against drawing too close a parallel. ``The North Koreans are scared of the United States'' said former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright of the motives driving Pyongyang to agree to abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for security pledges from Washington. But in the case of Iran, which had been negotiating with European nations, ``if a deal is made with the European Union, you still haven't dealt with the United States and Israel, the prime security threats,'' said Albright, who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. Washington and the EU started to lobby jointly for Security Council referral last month, after Iran effectively walked away from talks with Germany, Britain and France and resumed uranium conversion. The process of conversion is a precursor to enrichment, which can make nuclear fuel or weapons-grade uranium. Additionally, North Korea needed a deal to secure international economic aid and stave off starvation among its population, whereas Iran is hurting much less from the effects of international sanctions, which mostly affect the transfer of sensitive technologies, he said. Diplomats accredited to the IAEA, meanwhile, suggested Iran may have another card up its sleeve, saying Tehran may announce it is ready to grant agency experts access to high-ranking military officials or military sites. The agency has been trying to determine if gaps in Iranian reporting on more than 18 years of clandestine nuclear activity first revealed three years ago are attempts to cover up military involvement in what Iran insists is a purely civilian program to generate power. Establishing such involvement would bolster arguments by the United States and its allies that Iran's program is a cover for trying to make nuclear arms. The IAEA has been rebuffed in attempts to revisit Parchin, the site of alleged experiments linked to nuclear weapons, and to inspect Lavizan-Shian, the possible site for equipment that can be used both for peaceful and nuclear weapons-related purposes. The agency also has been denied access to senior military officials. Any such concessions by Iran could increase the number of countries opposed to Security Council referral and leave the Europeans and the Americans in the minority. --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Russia Resisting Iran Referral From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 12:46 PM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Russian resistance could delay the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency's vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council, but Europe and Washington remain committed to such a move, senior European diplomats said Tuesday. The diplomats said a European Union resolution calling for referral could be introduced at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board meeting. But they said the 35-nation board could also postpone a vote on the U.S.-backed resolution to a later session. Board members China and Russia - both Security Council members with veto power - are opposed to hauling Iran before the U.N.'s top decision-making body. But the diplomats said the Russians could change their mind at a later date, which is the rationale for possibly delaying a vote. Backers of the Security Council option now only have a slim majority among board nations, but with Russia on board, more support would swing their way, a diplomat told The Associated Press. The Russians ``want a little more time to see how the discussions go on Iran'' within the IAEA, instead of immediate referral, said another. They spoke anonymously as a condition for discussing the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also hinted that, while referral was a near certainty, when that might happen was still undecided. ``I'm quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community assurances that it is not going to try to build a nuclear weapons program under cover of civil nuclear power,'' she told reporters Monday at the United Nations. The confidential draft resolution on referral, shared in part with the AP, requests that IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council ``Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply'' with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The draft also asks the council to expand the IAEA's inspection powers in Iran and to request that Iran resume a recently broken freeze on activities linked to uranium enrichment - the possible pathway to nuclear weapons. The draft had been on hold the last few days to give Iran a chance to offer sufficient concessions and, after that failed to happen, to try to get Russia and China on board. A U.S. official predicted any vote would be close. Like the Europeans, he demanded anonymity as a condition for discussing the sensitive behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Washington and the EU started to lobby jointly for Security Council referral last month, after Iran effectively walked away from talks with Germany, Britain and France and resumed uranium conversion. The process of conversion is a precursor to enrichment, which can make nuclear fuel or weapons-grade uranium. Diplomats accredited to the IAEA have suggested Iran may announce it is ready to grant agency experts access to high-ranking military officials or military sites. The agency has been trying to determine if gaps in Iranian reporting on more than 18 years of clandestine nuclear activity are attempts to cover up military involvement in what Iran insists is a purely civilian program to generate power. Establishing such involvement would bolster arguments by the United States and its allies that Iran's program is a cover for making nuclear arms. The IAEA has been rebuffed in attempts to revisit Parchin, the site of alleged experiments linked to nuclear weapons, and to inspect Lavizan-Shian, the possible site for equipment that can be used both for peaceful and nuclear weapons-related purposes. The agency also has been denied access to senior military officials. Any such concessions by Iran could increase the number of countries opposed to Security Council referral and leave the Europeans and the Americans in the minority. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns Against Sanctions Over Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 8:31 PM AP Photo VAH103 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Tuesday threatened to resume uranium enrichment and bar open inspections of its nuclear facilities if an ongoing meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog decides to refer it to the Security Council for possible sanctions. However, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, offered Europe a new round of talks, saying the world should give Tehran's new government a chance to reach a political understanding. At the International Atomic Energy Agency board meeting in Vienna, European negotiators prepared a draft resolution that would refer Iran to the Security Council for alleged ``failures and breaches of its obligations to comply'' with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But Russia's opposition could delay the vote until a later meeting of the 35-member board, diplomats in Vienna said. Larijani criticized the discussion in Vienna, saying nuclear technology has become a matter of national pride and that the Iranian government would not compromise over its right to enrich uranium. ``If they want to speak with Iran with the language of force, Iran will have no choice, in order to preserve its technological achievements, to get out of the framework of the NPT and the additional protocol and resume (uranium) enrichment,'' Larijani told a news conference. Larijani did not appear to be calling for Iran to pull out of the treaty completely but rather to suspend the protocol that allows unfettered, short-notice inspections of nuclear facilities. He warned that Iran's response would be the same if the IAEA tried to impose deadlines. ``If they set a deadline, it will, from Iran's point of view, make no difference from being referred to the U.N. Security Council and Iran will react in the same manner,'' Larijani said. Britain, Germany and France, negotiating on behalf of the European Union, have drafted a resolution demanding Iran be referred to the council. But Europeans face opposition from other members of the IAEA board of governors, which started meeting Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA has been trying to determine if gaps in Iranian reporting on more than 18 years of clandestine nuclear activity are attempts to hide military involvement in what Iran insists is a purely civilian program to generate electricity. Establishing such involvement would bolster arguments by Washington and its allies that Iran's program is a cover for making nuclear arms. Board members China and Russia - both Security Council members with veto power - oppose hauling Iran before the U.N.'s top decision-making body. But diplomats say the Russians could change their mind, which is the rationale for possibly delaying a vote. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also hinted that, while referral was a near certainty, when that might happen was undecided. ``I'm quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community assurances that it is not going to try to build a nuclear weapons program under cover of civil nuclear power,'' she told reporters Monday at the United Nations. Larijani urged the European troika to get back to the negotiating table. ``We are telling the three European countries that we are ready for talks but within the framework of the NPT,'' he said. ``It's a good opportunity for them to play a good role. It's wise to give the new government (in Iran) a new chance to reach understanding.'' Last week, new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended his country's right to produce nuclear fuel in a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly. He denied his nation had any intention of producing weapons and offered foreign countries and companies a role in Iran's nuclear energy production. Larijani said Iran was determined to restart uranium enrichment within a political deal but said it would do so without an agreement if Europeans refused to continue negotiations. ``If talks are considered dead, we will have no option but to go after restarting work in Natanz,'' he said, referring to a nuclear facility in central Iran that suspended uranium enrichment in 2003 under a deal with the Europeans. Momentum for Security Council referral came after a report earlier this month by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Tehran had produced about seven tons of the gas needed to enrich uranium - a possible pathway to a nuclear weapon - after restarting uranium conversion in Isfahan, central Iran, last month. The Isfahan facility converts uranium concentrate ore, known as yellowcake, into uranium hexaflouride gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Uranium enriched to low levels is used to produce nuclear fuel for generating electricity; further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Larijani said Iran was forced to pursue uranium enrichment because NPT members, mainly Western countries, refused to provide nuclear technology as called for under the treaty. The IAEA has mentioned numerous violations by Iran after about three years of investigation but says there is no evidence to prove it is running a nuclear weapons program. Larijani described as ``tales'' and ``propaganda'' reports that Iran hid its nuclear activities for 18 years, saying Tehran didn't break any of its treaty obligations. He also said the United States and Europe should learn from the North Korean nuclear issue. ``What was the result of so many pressures on North Korea?'' he asked. ``Finally, they had to recognize North Korea's right to enrich uranium. ... They should recognize Iran's right now.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Xinhua: Iran threatens to quit NPT if referred to UNSC www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-20 21:42:13 TEHRAN, Sept. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran threatened to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resume enrichment if itis referred to the UN Security Council, its top nuclear negotiator said Tuesday. "If the nuclear issue is reported to the UN Security Council,Iran will be left with no choice. We have to get out of the framework of the NPT and the additional protocol... and resume enrichment," Ali Larijani told a news conference. Larijani also threatened to prohibit surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities if Tehran's nuclear case is referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Tehran's threat came as the European Union trio of France,Britain and Germany, whose nuclear talks with the Islamic republic have grounded to a halt over Iran's resumption of suspended enrichment activities in August, are calling to refer its nuclear case to the Security Council. Iran insists it will never give up legal rights of the peaceful use of nuclear technology, which Washington slams as a disguise for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Iran will not back down in nuclear stand-off - Khamenei TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran will "not surrender to any sort of pressure and threat", supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared, as the country faced the threat of being referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme. "The great Iranian nation today, stronger than before and with a determined will to reach its aims and goals, stands solidly and will not surrender to any sort of pressure and threat," Khamenei said Tuesday in a speech read out on state television. "The president, at the United Nations and before the eyes of the world, solidly and with power outlined Iran's position which was the words of all Iranians," Khamenei said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's tough declaration to the UN General Assembly on Saturday. "His speech meant that the Iranian nation has a powerful and unwavering will," Khamenei said. The all-powerful leader's declaration came as Europe's top three powers distributed a draft resolution at the UN atomic watchdog calling for Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council over potentially weapons-related nuclear fuel work. The emergence of the draft resolution ends weeks of speculation about how strongly the West would move to counter Iran after it resumed fuel work last month, claiming its nuclear program is peaceful and that it had the right to this technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service- Help- Ad Feedback AFP ***************************************************************** 8 [NYTr] DPRK Nuclear agreement: the key points Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:08:06 -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 Simon Mcguinness [Note the US agreement not to 'attack or invade' North Korea ... the US gave precisely the same guarantee to Khrushchev after the Cuban missile crisis and promptly launched an undeclared terrorist war against Cuba which persists to this day. The US side got around that agreement by using non-US national mercenaries like Luis Posada Carriles to attach Cuba, funded through a web of anti-Cuban NGOs set up specifically to allow for "plausible deniability" of the official terrorist policy. The North Koreans have learned form the Cuban predicament and insisted on the normalisation of relations between the US and DPRK. Cuba, effectively sold short by the Soviets in 1962, still awaits that normalisation. How different the world would be if Khrushchev had consulted Castro before signing any agreement with the USA regarding the future security of Cuba. The lesson of North Korea is not lost on all the patsy's around the world who (unlike the USA) take the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty seriously and, in consequence, suffer from US aggression: if you want normal relations with the superpower, start the discussions with a few nuclear warheads. -SMcG] The Irish Times, Tue, Sep 20, 05 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/0920/2848152674FRPAN.html Nuclear agreement: the key points Key points from the joint statement issued in Beijing by the six parties involved, North Korea, South Korea, the US, Japan, Russia and China: Pyongyang states it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the other parties express their respect and agree to discuss, at an appropriate time, the provision of a light-water reactor to North Korea The five other parties express willingness to provide oil, energy aid and security guarantees to North Korea The six parties reaffirm that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearisation of the peninsula North Korea is to return, at an early date, to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards The United States affirms it has no nuclear weapons on the peninsula and has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea South Korea reaffirms its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with a 1992 joint declaration, and affirms that there are no nuclear weapons within its territory Washington and Tokyo are to normalise ties with Pyongyang The six parties agreed to hold a fifth round of talks in Beijing in November ) The Irish Times * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 9 UN Nuclear Watchdog Hopes To Send Inspectors Back To Dpr Of Korea Soon Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:26:18 -0400 UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG HOPES TO SEND INSPECTORS BACK TO DPR OF KOREA SOON New York, Sep 19 2005 12:00PM The head of the United Nations Nuclear watchdog agency said today he looked forward to sending his inspectors back to the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as soon as possible following its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). “This is all very encouraging news,” International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/DPRK_agreement.html">IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna of the joint statement released by the six nations at talks in Beijing on the DPRK’s nuclear programme. Asked when IAEA inspectors would return to the DPRK, from which they were withdrawn when the country left the NPT almost three years ago, he said a precise date was still to be fixed, but the commitment was for DPRK to go back to inspections and the NPT at an early date. “I certainly will be consulting with the DPRK, with the concerned parties and clearly the earlier we go back, the better,” he added. “This is going to be a complex inspection process. We need again to reconstruct activities that have taken place since 2002, in fact even before 2002 because since 1993 we haven´t been able to perform comprehensive verification inspection in North Korea.” He said the commitment to denuclearize the Korean peninsula at the Beijing talks between China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas, constituted “a balanced package in my view that addresses both the security needs of North Korea as well as the concerns of the international community about North Korea´s nuclear activities. “It has been a long and complex process,” he added of the talks that have been going on since 2003, “but at the end negotiation pays.” In February Mr. ElBaradei called the DPRK “a serious challenge to the nuclear non-proliferation regime.” Its claim to possess nuclear weapons “is a matter of the utmost concern and has serious security implications, and highlights yet again the importance and the urgency of finding a diplomatic solution through dialogue,” he said then. Today he said the IAEA would conduct “the necessary inspections to assure ourselves that the nuclear weapons programme in the DPRK has been abandoned and that all nuclear activity in the DPRK is subjected to safeguards and dedicated for peaceful purposes.” 2005-09-19 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Wait and See on N. Korea Nuke Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 4:01 AM AP Photo XHG107 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer The Bush administration hailed North Korea's agreement to shut down its nuclear weapons program Monday but warned that the pledge must be followed by action. ``Now we've got to verify whether that happens,'' President Bush said. The announcement that North Korea would dismantle existing weapons and stop building new ones, culminating two years of bargaining, contained no deadlines and few details. The United States and four other nations negotiating with North Korea agreed to return to talks in November, when the difficult questions of verification and timetables will be on the table. ``The question is, over time will all parties adhere to the agreement?'' Bush said. A collapse of the talks, held in Beijing, seemed imminent over the weekend. But a secret meeting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held in New York with Asian diplomats helped pave the way for a compromise, said a senior U.S. official. The deal announced Monday would require Pyongyang to account for and dismantle weapons it developed in secret, outside international arms control. International estimates place North Korea's nuclear arsenal at between two and 13 weapons, probably hidden in tunnels to avoid satellite detection. ``The proof, so to speak, will be in the pudding,'' Rice said in New York, where she is attending the United Nations General Assembly session. The agreement leaves open the possibility that the communist North may one day have a civilian nuclear power program. The administration has previously said North Korea cannot be trusted with atomic technology, and the current round of international disarmament talks nearly deadlocked over the issue. Rice denied that the agreement represented an administration turnabout. But Democrats said it was exactly that. ``The Bush administration was right to reverse course on North Korea and stop letting ideology get in the way of results,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The face-saving compromise was apparently key to winning North Korea's pledge to abandoning its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. North Korea had been demanding that it receive a light water reactor - the type least likely to be misused - but the United States ruled it out. On the other side, guarantees that the North must return to international arms monitoring and meet milestones for cooperation allowed the United States and other partners to agree to a theoretical future claim to civilian nuclear energy, the senior U.S. official said. After the Beijing talks closed and the delegations went home, North Korea issued a statement saying it would not rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty until it gets the reactor. The statement seemed to throw cold water on the deal, but the Bush administration urged patience. ``This is not the agreement that they signed and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed and see what the coming weeks bring us,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said late Monday. Rice and the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan met privately in New York on Saturday night and proposed tweaks to a compromise plan first floated by the Chinese, said the U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the diplomats' discussions were private. Until that point, the current round of six-nation disarmament talks hosted by China was on the brink of failure. The talks include North Korea, South Korea, Russia, China, Japan and the United States. In exchange for giving up weapons now, North Korea will get energy aid, economic cooperation, security assurances and a diplomatic nod from the United States. ``They have said - in principle - that they will abandon their weapons programs,'' Bush said at the White House. ``And what we have said is, `Great. That's a wonderful step forward.' But now we've got to verify whether that happens.'' The North announced in February that it had built nuclear weapons and renounced the then-stalled nuclear talks. It later called Bush ``a half-baked man in terms of morality and a philistine whom we can never deal with.'' As hopes for further diplomacy dwindled in May, Bush called North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong Il a tyrant. Although the rhetoric has softened since, the atmosphere of suspicion burbled just below the surface Monday. ``We have to at every stage test the dedication or the commitment of the North Koreans to indeed carry through with the obligation that they have now taken,'' Rice told reporters. The Beijing agreement says North Korea and the United States will ``respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations.'' It says North Korea stated that it has a right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. ``The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor,'' the statement said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S. From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 10:16 AM AP Photo XHG107 By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea insisted Tuesday it won't dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the U.S. gives it civilian nuclear reactors, casting doubt on a disarmament agreement reached a day earlier during international talks. Washington reiterated its rejection of the reactor demand and joined China in urging North Korea to stick to the agreement announced Monday in which it pledged to abandon all its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security assurances. North Korea's new demands underlined its unpredictable nature and deflated some optimism from the Beijing agreement, the first since negotiations began in August 2003 among the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. ``The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building,'' the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. U.S. officials dismissed the demand. ``This is not the agreement that they signed, and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in New York on Monday. The announcement Monday that North Korea would dismantle existing weapons and stop building new ones, culminating two years of bargaining, contained no deadlines and few details. The six parties in the talks agreed to meet again in November, when the difficult questions of verification and timetables would be on the table. The North had demanded since the latest round of six-party talks began last week in the Chinese capital that it be given a light-water reactor - a type less easily diverted for weapons use - in exchange for disarming. U.S. officials opposed the idea, maintaining North Korea could not be trusted with any nuclear program. The issue was sidestepped Monday, with participants saying they would discuss it later - ``at an appropriate time.'' The North, however, chose to immediately press the issue, essentially introducing a major condition on its pledge to disarm. Japan swiftly joined the United States in rejecting the demand. ``The Japanese side has continuously said that North Korea's demand is unacceptable,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said. China, North Korea's closest ally in the talks, urged Pyongyang to join the other negotiating partners in implementing the commitments in ``a serious manner.'' South Korea remained optimistic, with its point man on North Korea relations saying the country's latest statement isn't likely to derail the Beijing agreement. ``It's possible that the parties differ over this, but we and other participating countries are going to discuss it in bilateral or multilateral contacts before the fifth round of talks resume in early November,'' Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said on MBC radio. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun predicted that ``the United States and North Korea will likely engage in a tug-of-war,'' but added that prospects for resolving the nuclear issue are brighter after Monday's agreement. Other countries at the Beijing talks made clear that the reactor could only be discussed after the North rejoins the Non-Proliferation Treaty and accepts inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency - which North Korea pledged to do in Monday's agreement. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli emphasized earlier in Washington that the ``appropriate time'' for discussing the reactor meant only after the North complies with those conditions. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang was asked in Beijing whether North Korea might have misunderstood the order of commitments laid out in the statement Monday. ``The common statement was adopted by all six parties and I don't think North Korea has any misunderstanding,'' Qin said. Qin said that the November talks were still on, as far as he knew. President Bush's administration has opposed anything resembling a 1994 U.S.-North Korea agreement, which promised the North two light-water reactors for power. That project stalled amid the current crisis, which broke out in late 2002 after U.S. officials said the North admitted having a secret nuclear program. The North's latest position is likely to be a major sticking point in future discussions. ``If the North meant it, it would pose a lot of problems for future talks,'' said Baek Seung-joo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis in Seoul. ``The United States will never be able to accept the North's demand as it means going back to the 1994 agreement.'' The agreement Monday had drawn praise around the world and raised hopes of resolving a standoff that has raised concerns of an arms race in northeast Asia. Under the pact, in exchange for abandoning its weapons, the North gets security guarantees and energy aid, including a pledge from South Korea to provide it with electricity. The North said Tuesday it would ``wait and see how the U.S. will move'' and warned there would ``very serious and complicated'' consequences if Washington demands the dismantlement of the communist nation's nuclear programs before providing a light-water reactor. --- Associated Press writer Burt Herman in Beijing contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea vows to abandon nuclear weapons project · Cautious welcome by Bush for road map deal · Aid and US promise not to invade seals agreement Jonathan Watts in Beijing and Julian Borger in Washington and Ian Traynor Tuesday September 20, 2005 The Guardian North Korea has agreed in principle to end its nuclear weapons programme and rejoin the international non-proliferation treaty, marking the biggest breakthrough in its three-year stand-off with the US. Under a draft accord issued by North Korea and five other countries in Beijing yesterday, the reclusive state promised to give up its main bargaining chip in return for energy, economic aid and a US promise not to attack. President George Bush yesterday gave the agreement a cautious welcome. "Five nations have spoken and said it's not in the world's interest that North Korea have a nuclear weapon, and now there's a way forward," he said after a national security council meeting at the White House. Article continues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Advertisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- "It's a step forward in making the world a more secure place. The question is - over time will all parties adhere to the agreement?" Among the details yet to be hammered out are monitoring and aid payments, as well as the vexed question of whether North Korea can build a lightwater reactor to ease its chronic power shortages. Although vaguely worded, the joint statement issued by negotiators from the US, North Korea and four other regional players - China, South Korea, Japan and Russia - is seen as a road map towards the denuclearisation of the peninsula. North Korea said it was "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes and returning at an early date" to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the safeguard system established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, Washington pledged to respect North Korea's sovereignty and take steps to normalise relations. "The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade with nuclear or conventional weapons," the statement read. A previous US-North Korean agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration broke down in 2002 after Washington claimed that Pyongyang had admitted running a uranium enrichment programme. The North Koreans expelled IAEA inspectors at the end of that year. The inspectors from the UN agency were delighted at the news of a breakthrough. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, said he would try to return his inspectors to North Korea as quickly as possible. "The earlier we go back, the better," he said in Vienna. "This is all very encouraging. It constitutes a balanced package that addresses both the security needs of North Korea as well as the concerns of the international community." White House national security council spokesman Frederick Jones said there was reason to hope this time that the agreement would stick. "The format this time has led North Korea to understand this is more than a bilateral conversation. It's not one voice speaking to the North Koreans. It's a coalition of five all saying the same thing," he said. Economic incentives were put on the table in the form of an agreement by all six countries to promote cooperation in energy, trade and investment. Negotiators will meet in November to try to thrash out the most contentious details such as the level of inspections and the scale of the weapons programme. Pyongyang has never tested a bomb, but has boasted that it has a "nuclear deterrent". US intelligence analysts believe it has enough plutonium for six to eight warheads. Washington initiated the stand-off by accusing North Korea of running a covert uranium enrichment programme. North Korea denies the claim. Another potential stumbling block is Pyongyang's demand for a light-water nuclear reactor. China and South Korea accept that their energy-starved neighbour has a right to possess such facilities. But the US fears it will be used for weapons. International aid workers, who feed one-fifth of North Korea's impoverished population, said the accord could pave the way for them to assist economic development rather than merely provide subsistence humanitarian aid. How did the nuclear stand-off start? In October 2003, the US accused North Korea of running an illicit uranium enrichment program. It cut shipments of heavy oil, worsening an already dire energy situation. Pyong-yang countered by kicking out nuclear inspectors, withdrawing from a global treaty to stop the spread of atomic weapons and reopening the country's only reactor in Yongbyon. How much of a threat is North Korea's nuclear programme? Outside Kim Jong-il's inner circle, no one knows. Although Pyongyang boasts a "nuclear deterrent", it has never tested a bomb. Some analysts suspect North Korea is bluffing because its ability to make a missile-mounted warhead is unproven. But the CIA estimates Pyongyang has extracted enough weapons-grade plutonium from its Yongbyon plant to make more than six bombs. Does this agreement mean the crisis is over? No, it is only a road map. The most difficult issues are still to be resolved and the two main parties - the US and North Korea - do not trust each other. Washington is likely to demand a stringent inspection regime. For its part, North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear arsenal - the country's biggest bargaining card - without securing significantly bigger concessions in future talks. Who is going to pay if they do reach a nuclear weapons-for-aid deal? As was the case in 1994, the big money is likely to come from South Korea, with Japan and Europe chipping in. The US is reluctant to reward North Korea, but it could help with trading opportunities and supporting North Korea's World Bank membership. South Korea is giving billions and it has offered to provide electricity to North Korea's national grid. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Japan-North Korean Talks to Resume From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 6:16 PM By JOSEPH COLEMAN Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) - Japan and North Korea will resume bilateral talks soon on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons, missile program and abductions of Japanese citizens, restarting negotiations that have been stalled for nearly a year, Japan's foreign minister said Tuesday. Japan has been eager to restart negotiations in hopes of resolving the cases of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and '80s. North Korea, meanwhile, could benefit from Japanese aid, investment and trade. ``Japan and North Korea agreed to resume dialogue at an early date,'' Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said. ``As to the date, place and other details, we will make arrangements.'' Their last substantial talks took place in November. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi held a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in May 2004 in Pyongyang. The agreement to restart talks was apparently made during the six-nation negotiations on North Korea's nuclear weapons program this week in Beijing, but Machimura did not say precisely when. The progress on renewing talks came a day after North Korea, in a joint statement from Beijing, committed to ``abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, and returning at an early date'' to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. While the other parties in the six-way talks - South Korea, the United States, China and Russia - have focused on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development, the abductions issue is often rated in opinion polls as a more prominent concern for Japan. The North has admitted to abducting 13 Japanese to train its spies in Japanese language and culture. Pyongyang allowed five to return to Japan in 2002, saying the remaining eight had died. Tokyo, however, has demanded proof of the deaths, as well as a thorough investigation into claims that other Japanese were also abducted. North Korea has indicated it considers the issue a closed case. Kenichiro Sasae, the chief Japanese delegate to the Beijing talks, met a group of abductees' relatives and supporters later Tuesday and said Japan was aiming for talks before the next six-party meeting, Kyodo News Agency reported. Family members of those abducted urged Japan to be tough in pushing for answers and called for economic sanctions against the communist country if it didn't sufficiently cooperate. ``If there is no progress, (Japan could) give a warning (to the North) and impose economic sanctions,'' said Shigeru Yokota, whose daughter, Megumi, was abducted to North Korea, according to Kyodo. Tuesday's announcement also came amid some consternation in Tokyo over a fresh statement by North Korea demanding a light-water nuclear reactor before it gives up its atomic weapons. Machimura said earlier in the day that such a demand was ``unacceptable.'' ``We have to closely watch North Korea's actions to find out if there are fundamental differences in our interpretations (of the Beijing joint statement),'' said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda. ``If our interpretations are completely different, then that means we'll be back to square one, but I believe that is not the case,'' he added. Still, there was abundant skepticism in Japan about the North's commitment to meeting Tokyo's demands. ``There is no way ties between Japan and North Korea can be normalized unless North Korea shows a forward-looking stance in bilateral talks in the days ahead,'' the Yomiuri newspaper wrote in an editorial Tuesday. Japan and North Korea committed to press toward establishing diplomatic relations in a joint declaration during a Koizumi-Kim summit in Pyongyang in 2002. Sporadic talks toward normalization have stalled, however, over the abductions issue. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Confident of Korean Nuclear Deal From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 6:31 PM AP Photo XHG107 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Dismissing North Korea's demand for civilian nuclear reactors as no surprise, chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill said Tuesday that country's agreement to end its nuclear weapons program remains on track. ``We are going to get this done,'' Hill told The Associated Press in an interview, underscoring that North Korea must agree to international restraints before its demand could be seriously considered. In New York, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, ``We can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to.'' Rice, who held meetings with foreign ministers attending the U.N. General Assembly session, said of North Korea's demand: ``We will not get hung up on this.'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, said if North Korea needs some time to reflect on the agreement reached this week ``we'll give it to them.'' But, he told reporters traveling with President Bush to Mississippi to survey Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, that the agreement spelled out the steps that need to be taken. ``Once they take those steps, then we would be prepared to talk further at that time,'' the White House official said. Bush spoke by telephone to South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and they agreed verification of North Korea's pledge to abandon its weapons program was critical, McClellan said. However, Roh's office in Seoul took note of the prospect of ``various difficulties'' in resolving the nuclear issue and said the South Korean president told Bush he appreciated U.S. ``flexibility'' during the negotiations in Beijing. North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides an atomic energy reactor, a statement that cast doubt on its commitment to a breakthrough agreement reached at international arms talks on Monday. The North wants a light-water reactor, a type less easily diverted for weapons use. ``Life is too short to overreact to every statement coming out of Pyongyang,'' said Hill, who has returned to Washington following the talks. ``It obviously was not a helpful statement. But it was not unexpected, either.'' Still, Hill said North Korea's demand would be discussed at the next round of talks in early November. The focus will be on implementing the tentative agreement reached in Beijing, he said. While the United States is prepared to discuss North Korea's insistence on being supplied with light-water reactors, Hill ruled out any such arrangement until North Korea rejoins an international treaty designed to limit the spread of technology and agrees to international supervision. Under the tentative agreement, South Korea would provide North Korea with the energy it says it needs, Hill said. ``They know what they signed on to,'' Hill said. ``We are not surprised by these sorts of statements. There probably will be more of them.'' Asked if he was confident the breakthrough agreement would be concluded, Hill replied: ``I wouldn't have supported it if I did not think it would get done.'' And, he noted, the agreement is not with the United States alone, but with North Korea's neighbors. ``That means something in Asia,'' he said. China has taken the lead in the six-party talks, which have had an up-and-down history since they began more than two years ago. The other countries are South Korea, Japan and Russia. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Dismisses N. Korea Reactors Demand From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 20, 2005 10:01 PM AP Photo XHG107 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is dismissing North Korea's demand for civilian nuclear reactors and appears confident of a final agreement to end that nation's nuclear weapons program. Still, the administration and South Korea foresee difficulties. The next round of negotiations is planned for early November. In the interim, informal discussions among the six negotiating nations - the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia - are expected. ``We are going to get this done,'' U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill told The Associated Press in an interview. He stressed that North Korea must agree to international restraints before its demand can be considered seriously. In New York, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said ``we will not get hung up'' on the North Korean statement. ``We can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to,'' Rice said amid meetings with foreign ministers attending the U.N. General Assembly session. ``I think we will just stick with the text of the Beijing agreement to which the North Koreans signed on,'' she said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, said that if North Korea needed some time to reflect on the agreement reached this week, ``We'll give it to them.'' McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to survey Hurricane Katrina relief efforts that the agreement spelled out the steps needed to be taken. ``Once they take those steps, then we would be prepared to talk further,'' he said. Bush spoke by telephone with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and they agreed that verification of North Korea's pledge to abandon its weapons program was critical, McClellan said. Roh's office in Seoul took note of the prospect of ``various difficulties'' in resolving the nuclear issue and said the South Korean president told Bush he appreciated U.S. ``flexibility'' during the negotiations in Beijing. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said: ``There are going to be differences. That's to be expected.'' Describing North Korea's demand as remote, Ereli said, ``We're not even close to going that far.'' North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provided light-water reactors. ``Life is too short to overreact to every statement coming out of Pyongyang,'' Hill said upon his return from negotiations in Beijing. ``It obviously was not a helpful statement. But it was not unexpected, either.'' Still, Hill said North Korea's demand would be discussed at the next round, although he ruled out any such arrangement until North Korea rejoined an international treaty designed to limit the spread of nuclear technology and agreed to international supervision. Under the tentative agreement, South Korea would provide North Korea with the energy it says it needs, Hill said. ``They know what they signed on to,'' Hill said. ``We are not surprised by these sorts of statements. There probably will be more of them.'' Asked if he was confident the breakthrough agreement would be concluded, Hill replied, ``I wouldn't have supported it if I did not think it would get done.'' He noted the agreement is not with the United States alone but with North Korea's neighbors. ``That means something in Asia,'' he said. Freedom House, a private group that champions democracy around the world, welcomed the agreement but its executive director, Jennifer Windsor, said there was a risk that international interest in promoting human rights would fall by the wayside. ``If North Korea truly wishes to join the community of nations and if its negotiating partners truly wish for a peaceful region, the country's egregious human rights record must be at the focus of serious discussions,'' she said in a statement. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 16 BBC: Viewpoints: N Korea's nuclear pledge Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 September 2005 In the wake of North Korea's agreement in principle to abandon nuclear weapons, the BBC News website spoke to people in neighbouring South Korea and Japan to hear their reaction. HI-YOON, SEOUL , SOUTH KOREA [Hi Yoon] Hi-yoon is sceptical about the declaration I feel cynical about this wholly unclear declaration. I am very conservative when it comes to the issue of North Korea's nuclear powers. We South Koreans experienced a war because of them. How can we trust such a government? And I can't help but feel that history repeats itself. In 1994, similar talks with a similar supposed breakthrough came to nothing. On the surface it is amazing news, but who will guarantee their promises and what about their constant demands? I'm negative about the future and I think they will only make deals to get more benefits and delay setting any firm dates. I will never trust the North Korean government. MUTSUKO YOSHIDA, NAGASAKI JAPAN Mutsuko Yishida has contact with many atomic bomb survivors North Korea has betrayed us many times. I feel scared about their possible access to a nuclear arsenal. This seems a remarkable agreement in principle, but I'm not convinced the North Koreans operate by the same rules and their latest demands for nuclear reactors is proof of this. I am the chair for the Nagasaki Foundation for the Promotion of Peace and many Hibakusha - survivors of the nuclear bomb - are members. The wish of these victims is to make Nagasaki the last atomic bomb in the world. For many years, the shock was so great that they concealed their feelings. But now they are eager to speak up as the only human beings to have experienced the horror of an atomic bomb. They talk about nuclear disarmament and, for many, it is their greatest wish. When Mother Theresa visited the Hiroshima museum, she said that all world leaders must see this. If Kim Jong-il visited and spoke to some Hibakusha, how could he not understand? But I fear that they cannot be trusted and their way of thinking is beyond the comprehension of the average person. LEE JUNG-WOO, SUWON, SOUTH KOREA Jung-woo would like to see a united Korea I am positive about the future. I believe that Korea is one nation temporarily divided into two states because of post-war political and ideological differences. This deal will revive stagnant relations between North and South Korea as the nuclear weapons issue was the main barrier to peaceful relations. Many South Koreans are sceptical of our policy towards the North, arguing that we offer economic aid only for the money to go towards the development of nuclear weapons. Now we can legitimately expect that they will not use aid for weapons. But we must carefully observe the actions of the government of North Korea. We cannot ignore the possibility that it will break this agreement. The government is likely to do just whatever suits its own interests. SHINJI NOMA, HIROSHIMA, JAPAN Shinji Noma believes the world has double standards on the nuclear issue The Japanese are well used to hearing the lies of the North Korean authorities. This agreement is ambiguous with no promises attached. With so many complicated steps towards the abolition of nuclear weapons, I have little optimism. And there is a history of mistrust because of the Japanese people who were abducted by the North Korean authorities over 20 years ago. Many Japanese people regard North Korea's attitude as political manoeuvring. But I think the world has double standards, which is probably what the North Korean politicians are telling themselves. There are nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan and Israel too. This is an issue close to my heart. As a member of Amnesty International, I have been exchanging letters with Mordechai Vanunu, the nuclear whistleblower in Israel. I have heard much about the horrors of nuclear war. There is real feeling against nuclear weapons, but what can we do if we are on the doorstep of North Korea? KEN IMAI, YOKOHAMA, JAPAN Ken Imai says North Korea is the single greatest threat to Japan As a Japanese person, I am afraid of a nuclear North Korea. I feel it is the single greatest threat to our national security. Our nation has experienced the great atrocity of atomic bombs. Recently, I visited the museum in Hiroshima. It truly was an apocalypse, the extent of which it is difficult to imagine. If the North Koreans have decided to abandon weapons, it would be a great relief for us. But, judging from their past and current performance, I just do not trust their response. I don't know much about North Korea's regime, but it seems very unstable to me. Sometime in the future we will surely witness a collapse and that could affect us and neighbouring countries such as South Korea and China. I hate to think what could happen if they had nuclear capability in such a scenario. ***************************************************************** 17 SF Chronicle: North Korea without nukes EDITORIAL Tuesday, September 20, 2005 NORTH KOREA'S pledge to give up its nuclear weapons program didn't last long -- a pointed reminder of the unreliability of its rogue regime. On Monday, North Korea raised the hopes of the civilized world by announcing that it would dismantle its nuclear program and submit again to international oversight of its adherence to nonproliferation rules. Early today came the condition: a statement that the United States "should not even dream" of North Korea's nuclear disarmament unless it is provided with a light-water reactor. Monday's agreement had come unexpectedly in six-nation talks hosted by China, after two years of mostly frustrating exchanges. Participating with Beijing and the two Koreas have been the United States, Japan and Russia. The latest demand adds to the imperative of making sure the Pyongyang regime actually forgoes its menacing nuclear activities. On Monday, the United States had affirmed that it does not intend to attack North Korea and has no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. South Korea restated its commitment to a nuclear-free peninsula and renewed a proposal to supply 2 million kilowatts of power to the North. The parties had agreed to discuss Pyongyang's desire for a light-water nuclear reactor to be used for peaceful purposes. North Korea prefers to have sovereignty over its power-generating facilities. But the speed of its new demand raised questions about North Korea's commitment to Monday's "deal." With another round of talks scheduled for November, and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency chafing to resume nonproliferation inspections that were suspended by Pyongyang in 2003, there are serious uncertainties about the success of negotiations that Washington all but gave up on. North Korea's Stalinist dictatorship headed by Kim Jong Il is notoriously fickle -- it could suddenly change direction again. But its neighbors, and the United States, desire urgently to head off an indefinite period of nuclear blackmail by an impoverished, unstable government with unfathomable objectives. Beijing's key role in the negotiation could attest to Chinese emergence as a stabilizing influence in world diplomacy, which would be a highly welcome development. President Bush's rhetorical hard line on Pyongyang (part of his "axis of evil") and refusal to engage in bilateral talks had given little early promise of easing the crisis growing out of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. As promising as Monday's agreement seemed toward not only curbing nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula, but advancing the cause globally, North Korea's abrupt imposition of a potentially insurmountable condition was a harsh reminder of the difficulty of achieving and sustaining such a deal. Page B - 6 San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: NKorea raises stakes on nuclear deal with reactor demand found Tuesday September 20, 12:31 PM BEIJING (AFX) - North Korea said it will not dismantle its nuclear weapons until the United States delivers light-water reactors, casting doubt on an agreement heralded as a breakthrough for peace. North Korea had pledged yesterday at six-nation talks in Beijing to give up its atomic weapons in return for energy and security guarantees. But it warned today that the offer is conditional on US concessions. 'They are telling us to give up everything, but there is nothing we should give up first,' North Korea's envoy to the talks Kim Gye-gwan told reporters at Beijing airport before leaving for Pyongyang. 'The United States can prove a change to its hostile policy against the DPRK (North Korea) by providing light water reactors.' His comments echoed an earlier statement by North Korea's foreign ministry, which said the United States 'should not even dream' it will dismantle its nuclear arsenal until Washington provides the reactors. US ally Japan immediately rejected the demand as 'not acceptable', while China said all sides should honor their 'solemn political commitment' to a joint document issued at the six-nation talks yesterday. 'The common statement was passed by the six parties, and I don't think that the DPRK had any misunderstanding about this common statement,' said foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang. The agreement had been cautiously welcomed by world leaders as an important step toward ending the three-year stand-off, with US President George W Bush calling it a 'positive sign'. The North Korean comments appeared to be a response to Washington's portrayal of the deal as a breakthrough, and to set a bargaining position ahead of a new round of six-nation talks in November. The on-and-off talks which opened in Aug 2003 brought together North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and hosts China. In the statement of principle yesterday, North Korea said it would scrap its weapons, return to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accept international inspectors in return for security guarantees, economic benefits and energy aid. The statement said North Korea's demand for light-water reactors, earlier ruled out by the United States, will be considered at an 'appropriate' time. US officials insisted that would happen only after North Korea's nuclear programs had been scrapped. The North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the provision of the reactors is the key to ending the standoff. 'As clarified in the joint statement, we will return to the NPT and sign the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the US provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building, to us,' he said. South Korean foreign ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-Hyung said he expects North Korea to soften its position ahead of the November talks. 'This issue will be discussed and settled through talks among countries concerned,' he said. Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, though, indicated Pyongyang's demand spells trouble. 'I suppose such statements would not be accepted,' Machimura told reporters in Tokyo, adding that the position 'seems to indicate that the second stage of negotiations has already begun'. ckp-cw-mp/fz/swp Copyright © 2005 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 19 IPS: POLITICS: Japan Wary of North Korean Nuclear Deal Inter Press Service News Agency Suvendrini Kakuchi TOKYO, Sep 20 (IPS) - A day-old nuclear disarmament deal with North Korea already threatens to come unstuck, with Japan joining other negotiating countries in disagreeing with a demand by Pyongyang for a light-water nuclear reactor for its civilian programme. On Tuesday, Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura criticised North Korea after Pyongyang released a statement saying it will not dismantle its nuclear programme unless given the light-water nuclear reactor first. Machimura termed the demand by Pyongyang as "unacceptable", and pointed out that Japan, and other countries at the negotiating table, had stressed that the subject of a new reactor would be discussed only "at an appropriate time". China, which hosted the difficult negotiations in Beijing, as well as the United States, which played a lead role, have already reacted to the new demand by saying Pyongyang must stick to Monday's agreement by which North Korea was to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and security guarantees. The six parties, including Russia and South Korea, first began negotiations in 2003 after Pyongyang announced withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Monday's agreement did not specify deadlines and the parties are scheduled to meet again in November to finalise modalities and time-frames. South Korea, which is to provide electricity to the North under the deal, continued to be optimistic and President Roh Moo-hyun reportedly said that the chances for a resolution of the vexed nuclear issue were still brighter than ever before. Analysts here contend the new sabre-rattling represents a typical "morning after" while dealing with Stalinist North Korea, one of the world's last bastions of communism. ''Distrust runs deep, especially in Japan where bilateral relations with North Korea have dipped even lower in the recent past after the abduction of Japanese nationals by the ruthless regime in that country. An agreement, however historic, will certainly not convince the Japanese that North Korea has changed," said Katsumi Sato, director of Modern Korea, a leading and conservative think tank in Japan. Sato rejected the new agreement as a ruse on the part of Pyongyang and referred to similar promises in the past that were also broken by the totalitarian regime. For instance, after North Korea quit the NPT, it went ahead and boosted its nuclear capabilities. "North Korea is buying time to build up its nuclear weapons and strengthen the hold of the current murderous regime and we must not be duped," insisted Sato. Yet, some analysts pointed out that the joint-statement issued in Beijing is the first breakthrough in the six-party process, launched in August 2003, and will serve as a base for future negotiations on implementation. "There is no doubt the agreement is a historic step in going ahead with the larger goal of achieving a nuclear weapon-free Korean peninsula. The situation would have been far worse if nothing came forward at Beijing," points out Masanori Okonogi, a respected Korean expert at the prestigious Keio University in Tokyo. According to Okonogi, the next crucial step would be to keep up the negotiations and make sure the new breakthrough and momentum is not lost again. "Yes, the record with North Korea is patchy. But this time North Korea has shown more compromise, such as a separate agreement with Japan towards normalising bilateral relations. There is no excuse now to give up," he says. Okonogi also stressed the importance of the upcoming meeting in November as crucial to move ahead. In the statement, the U.S., Russia, Japan and South Korea promised to provide energy assistance to North Korea as well as economic cooperation in the fields of trade and investment, bilaterally and multilaterally. In a separate agreement with Japan, both nations agreed to work to solve the thorny historical issues and revive the bilateral Pyongyang Declaration, signed in 2002, that was in cold storage till now. The mixed reading of Monday's statement is based on several developments in East Asian security in the recent past. A major change in East Asian diplomacy is the younger leadership in South Korea that has been fostering a more friendly and cooperative relationship with North Korea. The rise of China's status in the region as an economic power, eager to exercise its leadership, has also tipped the scales in favour of promoting a more inclusive stance towards North Korea rather than a hardline approach, as was practiced by Washington and Japan. Sato says the latest breakthrough is indicative of how the U.S. is backing away from putting too much pressure on North Korea as well. "With the Iraq war and domestic problems at home, Washington is not keen on wielding the axe in East Asia, and North Korea has benefited as a result," he says. The Japanese media, representing national sentiment, has not praised the new agreement. The Yomuiri newspaper, the largest daily, reminds readers that the six-party talks have not reached a resolution. "There is no way ties between Japan and North Korea can be normalised unless North Korea shows a forward-looking stance at bilateral talks in the days ahead," warned the newspaper. Says international relations expert, Sakura Sakakibara at the Mitsui Global Strategies Centre,'' The latest statement is a masterpiece in international diplomacy in the sense that all the six countries involved did not lose face. But actual results remain illusive and vague, leaving a bad taste in the mouth despite the euphoria". (END/2005) Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: N.Korea raises stakes on nuclear deal with reactor demand 20/09/2005 19h52 Front pages of leading newspapers in South Korea show reports of the six-way talks on North Korea's nuclear program ©AFP - Jung Yeon-Je BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea said it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons until the United States delivered light-water reactors, casting doubt on an agreement heralded as a breakthrough for peace. North Korea had pledged Monday at six-nation talks in Beijing to give up its atomic weapons in return for energy and security guarantees. But it warned Tuesday that the offer was conditional on US concessions. "They are telling us to give up everything, but there is nothing we should give up first," North Korea's envoy to the talks Kim Gye-gwan told reporters at Beijing airport before leaving for Pyongyang. "The United States can prove a change to its hostile policy against the DPRK (North Korea) by providing light-water reactors." His comments echoed an earlier statement by North Korea's foreign ministry, which said the United States "should not even dream" it would dismantle its nuclear arsenal until Washington had provided the reactors. US officials on Tuesday downplayed the North's vow to keep its nuclear weapons as a negotiating tactic that left intact Monday's accord. "I think we will not get hung up on this statement," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news conference. "We will stick to the text of the Beijing statement, and I believe that we can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to," the chief US diplomat said. Earlier, US ally Japan rejected the demand as "not acceptable", while China said all sides should honour their "solemn political commitment" to a joint document issued at the six-nation talks Monday. "The common statement was passed by the six parties, and I don't think that the DPRK had any misunderstanding about this common statement," said foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang. Monday's agreement had been cautiously welcomed by world leaders as an important step toward ending the three-year stand-off, with US President George W. Bush calling it a "positive sign". The hawkish North Korean comments appeared to be a response to Washington's portrayal of the deal as a breakthrough, and to set a bargaining position ahead of a new round of six-nation talks in November. Song Min-soon ©AFP/POOL - Ahn Young-joon The on-and-off talks which opened in August 2003 brought together North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and hosts China. In the statement of principle on Monday, North Korea said it would scrap its weapons, return to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accept international inspectors in return for security guarantees, economic benefits and energy aid. The statement said North Korea's demand for light-water reactors, earlier ruled out by the United States, would be considered at an "appropriate" time. US officials insisted that would happen only after North Korea's nuclear programmes had been scrapped. The energy-starved North's demand for a light-water reactor was the sticking point when the talks broke up last month, even though experts have said the country's crumbling power grid could not handle the electricity it would generate. The North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the provision of the reactors was the key to ending the standoff. "As clarified in the joint statement, we will return to the NPT and sign the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the US provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building, to us," he said. South Korean foreign ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-Hyung said he expected North Korea to soften its position ahead of the November talks. Christopher Hill ©AFP/File - Peter Parks "This issue will be discussed and settled through talks among countries concerned," he said. Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, though, indicated Pyongyang's demand spelled trouble. "I suppose such statements would not be accepted," Machimura told reporters in Tokyo, adding that the position "seems to indicate that the second stage of negotiations has already begun". Monday's agreement came as a surprise after the talks had deadlocked on the reactor demand. It averted the immediate possibility of Washington taking the issue to the UN Security Council. The standoff began when the United States accused North Korea in 2002 of breaking a 1994 agreement by running a secret uranium-enrichment programme. Under the agreement, two light water reactors were to be supplied in exchange for a freeze on existing nuclear activity. North Korea responded by throwing out international inspectors and withdrawing from the NPT. + Ŕđŕáńęčé Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 Heritage Foundation: Nuclear Nightmare [Press Room - Commentary] [Peter Brookes] September 19, 2005 Not only has Tehran thumbed its nose at diplomatic efforts to settle disputes over its nuclear (weapons) program, now it's offering to share its nuclear know-how with others. At the United Nations last week, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Tehran is ready and willing to share "peaceful" nuclear technology with other Islamic states. Making matters worse, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran has already produced seven tons of uranium hexafluoride enough precursor material to support the building of one nuclear weapon since ending its moratorium on uranium-enrichment activities earlier this month. Will the Iranian nuclear juggernaut be stopped before Tehran becomes a certified nuclear power and spreads its atomic wares across the Muslim world? The next best chance to do that comes this week, when the 35-nation IAEA board of governors meets in Vienna. The United States and like-minded nations (France, Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia) are trying to pressure Iran back to the nuclear negotiating table or get the IAEA to (finally!) refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions over its violation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards. But not everyone is convinced; diplomatic deal-making over voting Iran to the Security Council is reaching a fever pitch. Tehran is seducing potential supporters with its significant energy resources, while flirting with Muslim members of the IAEA board (Yemen, Nigeria, Algeria) by offering to share its ill-gotten nuclear spoils. In fact, late last week, opponents of referral were trying to delay consideration of Iran's nuclear program for at least a few weeks to give Iran time to return to negotiations, gather supporters or undermine Washington's position. Big powers such as Russia, China and India are leaning against a quick referral. Beijing and Delhi thirst for Iranian oil and gas, while Moscow is eager to build/fuel Iran's Bushehr reactor. Venezuela, South Africa and Brazil are thinking about their own nuclear ambitions. Despite threats to downgrade relations with the IAEA, Tehran is hinting at a compromise. Iran will invite Europe, Russia, China and South Africa to participate in nuclear joint ventures that would let Iran keep its nuclear fuel cycle, while calming fears that Tehran isn't diverting fissile material to a nuclear-weapons program. But why should we trust Iran to cooperate with anyone, considering its record of resisting the IAEA over the last couple of years? Even after 21/2 years of intensive, on-the-ground investigation, the IAEA says that many key aspects of Iran's (18-year, clandestine!) nuclear program remain murky due to a dearth of Iranian cooperation. In fact, even after 30 months, the IAEA still can't "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei claims that Tehran continues to dodge questioning, even resisting IAEA requests to interview nuclear scientists. It also won't let the watchdog conduct a full inspection at other possible nuclear sites, such as Parchin. Among the burning mysteries: a) how Iran developed its uranium-enrichment capability; b) what assistance Iran got from A.Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist; and c) was Tehran conducting nuclear work at Lavian-Shian before it was exposed as a possible nuclear site and bulldozed under in 2004? There are also troubling questions about Iran's research on plutonium, which isn't generally used for nuclear reactor fuel, but is used in advanced nuclear weapons. The IAEA would also like to know why Iran has been experimenting with polonium, and attempted to buy beryllium both used for triggering nukes. Considering Iran's record of denial and deception, the United States and its allies in this effort are absolutely right to demand a full cessation of all Iranian enrichment-related activities, complete disclosure to the IAEA and a continuation of negotiations with the EU-3 (France, Germany, Britain) over its nuclear program. Moreover, under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to develop or maintain a nuclear fuel cycle, which would allow it to manufacture or enrich its own nuclear fuel not just for civilian reactors, but also for bombs. The IAEA assessment makes it plain that there'd be no way to verify that Iran isn't diverting nuclear material to a military program. Without question, the Iranian nuclear issue has reached critical mass. What happens in Vienna over the next couple of weeks will determine not only the IAEA's and the United Nations' credibility in nuclear nonproliferation, it will, more importantly, determine Iran's nuclear fate and its ability to share its nuclear know-how with others. Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, hosts "The Brookes Report" on WMET radio in Washington D.C. First appeared in the New York Post © 1995 - 2005 The Heritage Foundation ***************************************************************** 22 RIA Novosti: Conference set to accelerate nuclear ban treaty 20/ 09/ 2005 MOSCOW September 20 (RIA Novosti)- The principal objective of a New York conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is to "facilitate the CTBT's entry into force and make it universal," the Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. The ministry said the conference, which will run from September 21 to 23, would address the complicated situation surrounding the Treaty, and approve measures to ensure it enters into force as soon as possible. The core provision of the document, which was opened for signing on Sept. 24, 1996, is that each signatory state undertakes not to conduct any nuclear tests or any other nuclear explosions. Furthermore, the signatories are obligated to ban and prevent any nuclear explosions at any place under their control or jurisdiction. More than 60 States, including the Russian Federation, have ratified the Treaty. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 23 Mos News: Book of Secret Files Reveals KGB Plans to Release Radioactive Material in Tokyo Bay - MOSNEWS.COM Tokyo Bay / Photo from www.yokogawa-bridge.co.jp Created: 20.09.2005 12:36 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:36 MSK MosNews The Soviet security service, the KGB, considered releasing radioactive material in Tokyo Bay in the late 1960s, which it hoped would be blamed on U.S. submarines and thereby damage Japanese-U.S. relations, according to The Mitrokhin Archive II, published by former KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin. “The Mitrokhin Archive II” reveals several sabotage plans by KGB officers to sour relations between Tokyo and Washington, Japan Today wrote in a review on Tuesday. The book also discloses that Japanese Foreign Ministry officials, journalists and politicians on the right and left were helping the Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s. Mitrokhin was a senior KGB archivist between 1948 and 1984. But he smuggled sensitive foreign intelligence to his home and took it with him when he defected to Britain in 1992. The first volume of his archives was published in 1999. He died in 2004. In the book, which was co-written by historian Christopher Andrew, Mitrokhin reveals that in 1969, KGB officers in Tokyo considered a plan to scatter radioactive material in Tokyo Bay in the expectation that it would be blamed by the Japanese public on nuclear submarines based at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture. The plan was, however, vetoed by senior officers, who feared it would be difficult to obtain U.S. radioactive material, and sources from other countries could show links to Moscow, the book says. The book also discloses a plan to instruct a Japanese agent to leave a book bomb in the American Cultural Center in Tokyo in October 1965 at the time of demonstrations against the Vietnam War. In order to conceal its hand in the operation, the KGB was prepared to publish leaflets purporting to come from Japanese nationalists calling for attacks on U.S. property. It is not known whether this operation was ever implemented. Mitrokhin reveals the ultimately unsuccessful attempts by the intelligence service to scupper a revised security treaty between Japan and the United States in 1960. He claims the KGB helped foster a Japanese student protest against U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s press secretary James Hagerty. Later, senior KGB chiefs took some of the credit when Eisenhower’s trip to Japan was canceled due to safety concerns. The KGB in Tokyo also managed to get published bogus secret annexes to the proposed revised treaty which purported to continue the 1951 San Francisco Treaty on the use of U.S. troops to quell civil unrest in Japan, and to extend Japanese-U.S. military cooperation from the Soviet Pacific to the Chinese coast. One of the major preoccupations for Soviet agents was to reconnoiter sabotage targets in the event of a war between the Soviet Union and NATO countries. Mitrokhin discloses that in 1962 agents made preparations for the sabotage of four major oil refineries in Japan as well as U.S. bases in Okinawa. They also identified four sites on the northwest coast of Hokkaido which could be used as wartime bases for KGB officers. The former archivist reveals that the KGB had two valuable agents, codenamed Rengo and Emma, based at the Japanese Foreign Ministry, who provided large amounts of material between the late 1960s and 1979. Emma used a small camera fitted to her handbag to copy sensitive documents. The KGB also used a Russian-language teacher to seduce a Japanese diplomat in Moscow into working for them, according to the book. Similar techniques were used to recruit a Japanese cipher clerk in Moscow, codenamed Nazar, who also helped the Soviet Union on his return to Tokyo. Information he passed on included traffic between Tokyo and Washington. The book notes, “There must have been moments when, thanks to Nazar and Soviet code-breakers, the Japanese Foreign Ministry was, without knowing it, practicing something akin to open diplomacy in its dealings with the Soviet Union.” The KGB also recruited journalists and politicians to work as agents during the 1970s. They were used mainly to lobby on behalf of the Soviet Union, rather than provide useful intelligence. By the fall of 1979, the KGB had 31 agents and 24 confidential contacts, according to Mitrokhin. The book reveals that the KGB managed to collect a lot of technological information from Japanese companies, particularly in the field of computers. Mitrokhin concluded that although the Soviet Union spent a lot of money on operations in Japan, they failed to really achieve their goals or improve Moscow’s image overseas. “Though the KGB offensive in Japan generated many tactical operational successes, it ended in strategic failure. The enormous quantity of S (science and technology intelligence) collected by Line X (KGB section) from the West and Japan could not save the Soviet system from economic collapse. ”Nor were KGB active measures able to persuade Tokyo to sign a peace treaty acceptable to Moscow. At the beginning of the 21st century Russia and Japan were the only major combatants in the Second World War that had not yet ’normalized’ their relations.“ Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: NRC Performing Special Inspection at Indian Point 2 Nuclear Plant; Small Amount of Leakage from Spent Fuel Pool Area under Review News Release - Region I - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-049 September 20, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated a special inspection into leakage from the spent fuel pool area at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. The leakage, which was discovered recently at the Buchanan, N.Y., facility, is minimal and does not pose any immediate health or safety concern for members of the public or plant workers. An NRC health physics specialist, who arrived on site last week, and the NRCs two Resident Inspectors at Indian Point 2 have been closely following the actions of Entergy, which owns and operates the plant. The special inspection, chartered by the NRC, will be conducted by the health physics specialist and additional agency inspectors, as appropriate. Spent fuel pools are deep, water-filled storage structures designed to hold the fuel assemblies that have been used in the reactor. Containing hundreds of thousands of gallons of cooling water, these pools have stainless-steel liners surrounded by steel-reinforced concrete walls measuring several feet in thickness. During recent excavation work being done in conjunction with the dry cask spent fuel storage project, workers identified several hairline cracks on concrete walls for the Indian Point 2 pool. Slight seepage has been collected. It is not yet clear whether the seepage is from a current or prior leak. The leakage is estimated to be very small. For example, recent efforts by plant staff to collect leakage have yielded less than a pint per day. Samples of soil in the vicinity of where the leakage was found indicate that radioactive contamination is limited to an area in close proximity to the cracking. The NRC team will, among other things, review the companys evaluation of the pool structure, evaluate remedial actions on the part of the company, and assess any potential environmental impact of the leakage. The team will issue a report documenting its findings within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. Last revised Tuesday, September 20, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Duane Arnold Energy Center; Notice FR Doc 05-18661 [Federal Register: September 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 181)] [Notices] [Page 55175-55176] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20se05-105] of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) to the extent currently held by Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL) as owner, and Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) as licensed operator of DAEC. The transfer would be to FPL Energy [[Page 55176]] Duane Arnold, LLC (FPLE Duane Arnold). The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. According to an application for approval filed by DAEC, FPLE Duane Arnold, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of FPL Group, Inc., would assume title to IPL's 70 percent ownership of the facility following approval of the proposed license transfer, and would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of DAEC. FPLE Duane Arnold will also take title to the general license for the independent spent fuel storage installation. No physical changes to the DAEC facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. The proposed amendment would replace references to IPL and NMC in the license with references to FPLE Duane Arnold, to reflect the proposed transfer. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below. Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C ``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Robert E. Helfrich, Senior Attorney, FPL Energy, LLC, 700 Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, Florida 33408, (561) 304-5288, facsimile: (561) 691-7135, e-mail: robert_helfrich@fpl.com, Sam Behrends, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20009, (202) 986-8108, facsimile: (202) 986- 8102, e-mail: Sbehrend@llgm.com, Kent M. Ragsdale, Managing Attorney-- Regulatory Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., PO Box 351, 2100 First Street, SE., Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0351, 319-786-7765, facsimile: (319) 786-4533, e-mail: kentragsdale@alliantenergy.com, Jonathan Rogoff, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, (715) 377- 3316, facsimile: (715) 386-1013, e-mail: jonathan.rogoff@nmcco.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated August 1, 2005, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Deirdre W. Spaulding, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05-18661 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 26 TheStar.com: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power Sep. 20, 2005. 01:00 AM CANDU reactors best choice for province, says Alan Middleton Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan mused in public earlier this month about the need to build new nuclear power plants in Ontario. This spurred several newspapers, including the Toronto Star, to write editorials supporting the need for new nuclear plants. Given the energy situation this seems all well and good. However, it now seems the debate is shifting from whether we need new nuclear generation, to what nuclear technology we should use, even implying that we could invite the French and Americans to build their brand of nuclear technology here in Ontario. This is very odd. Made-in-Ontario nuclear technology  CANDU  is one of the top-performing reactors in the world. We have a world-class nuclear industry here in Ontario. The CANDU 6 operates in five countries on four continents. In terms of average lifetime capacity factor, the single most important measure of reactor performance, the CANDU 6 fleet ranks well ahead of the French and U.S. reactor fleets. In 2002, the top three CANDU 6 units actually achieved an average 97.1 per cent capacity factor. CANDU 6 is already licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and is considered to be among the safest reactors in the world. CANDU 6 is a proven safe, clean, reliable and affordable solution that is ready to fill Ontario's looming electricity supply gap in the shortest possible timeframe. It sounds like we are suffering once again from the perennial "it can't be good if it's Canadian" syndrome! There is a nuclear renaissance underway around the world and the foundation of Ontario's nuclear industry, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), is at the forefront. AECL has designed, built and delivered five reactors overseas in the last 10 years  all on or ahead of schedule and on budget. The foreign sale of a pair of CANDU 6 reactors enables the Ontario nuclear industry to employ more than 10,000 people in high-paying, high-tech jobs and to contribute billions to the Ontario economy. To invite the French and Americans to bid on a project on the Canadian nuclear industry's home turf would be extremely short-sighted. At a time when nuclear power is experiencing a major worldwide resurgence, the Ontario government would end up pulling the rug from beneath our own nuclear industry by sending a powerful signal of non-confidence to potential customers around the world. Furthermore, examination of the relative capabilities of the competition suggests that the French and Americans are nowhere near ready to build new nuclear reactors in Ontario Reactor design and construction is not the core business of either Westinghouse or General Electric. Their new reactor designs are still on the drawing board and have never been considered for Canadian licensing review. It is also important to consider that a new reactor has not been built in the U.S. since the 1970s and, as a result, the industry that makes components for American reactors has withered away. AREVA is a vertically integrated nuclear power company owned by the French government. It makes its money by selling the fuel, parts and services needed to support its reactors and has been reputed to sell reactors at a discount to lock customers into long-term dependence. Canadian regulators are unfamiliar with the French technology and have never licensed the French reactor that AREVA would like to sell to Ontario. The fact that it doesn't have what are termed passive safety systems (advanced CANDUs have numerous passive safety systems) should also make it very unattractive to Canadian regulators. Both the AREVA and the General Electric reactors are rated at around 1,500 to 1,600 megawatts and either would be the single-largest generating station on the Ontario grid, thus requiring the province to pay for almost 1,000 megawatts of additional reserve as backup in case a large reactor went out of service. Foreign reactors use enriched uranium fuel assemblies that Ontario would need to buy from a foreign country. CANDU, on the other hand, uses natural uranium fuel that is mined in Saskatchewan and processed and fabricated here in Ontario. One wonders why Ontario is even contemplating opening our doors wide to foreign interests at the expense of a local technology that employs thousands of people and produces the best reactors in the world. We should sit down immediately at the negotiating table and hammer out a deal with the federal government that will allow us to proceed with the environmental approvals, licensing and construction to bring new CANDUs on line before the lights go out in Ontario. Then we should announce to the world that Ontario is proudly going ahead with our made-in-Ontario solution: CANDU. Alan Middleton is an assistant professor of marketing at the Schulich School of Business, York University. › Get great home delivery subscription deals here! Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 27 Daily Times: India steps up lobbying to see nuclear deal through | Wednesday, September 21, 2005 By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: India is hiring a top public relations and lobbying firm to push through Congress its case for the nuclear cooperation deal signed with the United States during the Manmohan-Bush meeting in July this year. While the Indian embassy has not revealed the name of the company, that of the firm that is to supplement the contract is Barbour, Griffith and Rogers which India hired recently. Indian ambassador Ronen Sen told India Abroad, “Under my direction, these guys will fulfill” specific goals that they would be set, adding, “we will monitor them.” He explained that the two companies were not to be used to “build bridges and open doors” because, “I don’t want to waste government time and the taxpayer’s money by getting these firms to do things which I can do. The idea is to use them for specific goals, specific objectives.” Barbour, Griffith and Rogers is headed by former US ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, who is known in Pakistan for this constant sniping at Islamabad while serving in New Delhi. The award of a lobbying contract to his company is seen as a gesture of thanks for all Blackwill did for India. However, the US-India nuclear deal is in serious trouble on Capitol Hill as was evident at a recent hearing by the House International Relations Committee. The influential nonproliferation lobby in this country is also set against the deal, which it considers “bad news” for nonproliferation as well as a negation of existing US law. The Nuclear Suppliers Group is not thrilled with the proposed deal and if it goes through Congress successfully, a “very iffy thing,” it will be difficult for Washington to say no when a country such as Pakistan demands the same treatment. Home | National Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 28 York Daily Record: NUCLEAR: Peach Bottom breaks record - [ydr.com] Peach Bottom breaks record Tuesday, September 20, 2005 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station says its Unit 3 reactor has shattered a world record for longest continuous run among light-water reactors. At 9:40 a.m. Monday, Peach Bottom's Unit 3 boiling-water reactor had operated for 707 days, five hours and 40 minutes without a shutdown, the plant's operator said. Peach Bottom's two boiling-water reactors jointly produce more than 2,200 megawatts of continuous power. One megawatt is enough electricity to power about 800 homes. Other Exelon Nuclear-owned and -operated plants have also placed high on the light-water reactor continuous run list. Three Mile Island in Dauphin County has run continuously for 680 days. Copyright © York Daily Record 2005 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 29 Hudson Valley News: Hairline cracks discovered in Indian Point fuel storage building Tuesday, September 20, 2005 Engel blasts Entergy for spent fuel pool leaks After soil and bedrock were removed from the floor of the Indian Point 2 fuel storage building as part of a reinforcement project currently underway in advance of the Indian Point Energy Center dry cask storage project, a small amount of moisture was seen on the newly exposed pool wall. The moisture was found along two horizontal hairline cracks on the outside wall of the pool several feet below ground, inside the fuel storage building. The spent-fuel pool has four-to-six feet thick walls with a one-quarter inch stainless steel inner liner, and the fuel itself is entirely underground. Structural and civil engineers inspected the cracks and determined they are typical of cracks seen from shrinkage during post-construction concrete curing," said Geoffrey Schwartz, Entergy manager of Indian Point 2s spent-fuel dry storage project. "The cracks do not weaken the wall and the pool is structurally sound. Entergy engineers this week have determined that the moisture came from the spent fuel pool, and may have come from a leak in the pool that was repaired in 1992. Radiological engineers and chemists report that trace amounts of radioactive cesium and cobalt were present in samples taken from the wall. Both are present in the spent-fuel pool. There is no radiological hazard to workers or the public and the potential environmental impact is minimal. Soil samples taken three feet from the area where the moisture was detected showed normal background levels of radiation. Deep-depth core borings taken earlier as part of the dry cask storage project in six locations near the pool showed no elevated levels of radioactivity. Entergy engineers and health physics technicians are continuing to analyze soil samples and will be monitoring the area around the fuel storage building in addition to the routine radiological monitoring done on a regular basis. Removal of spent fuel from the pool to storage casks is scheduled to begin at the end of 2006. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been notified. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 30 Newsday.com: Leakage found at spent-fuel pool at Indian Point nuclear plant By JIM FITZGERALD Associated Press Writer September 20, 2005, 6:52 PM EDT WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- A small amount of slightly radioactive water has leaked from the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, officials said Tuesday. Spokesmen for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owner of the Westchester County plant, said the water was found several feet underground and was no danger to the public or to plant workers. Less than a pint a day has been collected since the water was spotted in late August and soil samples show no radioactivity a few feet away, the officials said. "We see nothing at this point that indicates any widespread contamination," commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said. He said there was "nothing to the extent that anyone exposed to it would suffer any severe health effects." Nevertheless, the NRC launched a special inspection, he said. Indian Point's critics said the leak was another indication that the plant should be closed, and Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano said he should have been informed long before Tuesday. "It's absolutely unbelievable that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy would keep us in the dark," he said. "This leak could be small; it could have reached the Hudson (River); it could have been going on for years." The 40-foot-deep pool, which has a steel liner, holds the highly radioactive fuel assemblies that have been used in the nuclear reactor. The rods of fuel are submerged to shield them from the air, and the water in the pool becomes slightly radioactive from the fuel. Entergy said the pool remained structurally sound. The water was found along hairline cracks on the outside of the pool's walls, which are 4 to 6 feet thick, during an excavation and reinforcement project, Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said. Entergy is converting its spent-fuel storage from pools to dry casks, and the reinforcement was part of that plan, he said. Test results showing that the water was from the spent-fuel pool were not complete until Monday, he said. The pool often has been criticized by opponents of the two Indian Point plants in Buchanan, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, not because of leaks but because they claim it is not protected well enough from an air attack. If fire burned off the water, the radioactivity from the fuel rods could be catastrophic. The pool is refilled automatically if any water leaks out, however. Alex Matthiessen, president of the environmental group Riverkeeper, called the leak "yet another safety breach at Indian Point" and demanded an investigation of the plant's spent-fuel storage system and a test of the drinking water of the communities around the plant. Steets said the hairline cracks are not necessarily the source of the leak because they were typical of cracks that develop from normal concrete curing after construction. He said there was even a chance that the newly discovered water was left over from a leak that was repaired 13 years ago. Discovery of the leak has not interrupted the reinforcement project, Steets said. And it might not even have to be repaired if the amount of water lost does not reach 25 to 30 gallons a day, he said. Sheehan, the NRC spokesman, agreed that "it remains to be seen" if a repair will be necessary. Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Science Column: Can nuclear power be called a good alternative to fossil fuels? - The Current - Opinions Saint Louis, MO, The Current"> + + + --> --> By Catherine Marquis-Homeyer Published: Monday, September 19, 2005 Advocates of nuclear power like to call it a "clean" alternative to coal or natural gas-fueled power plants. Opponents point out that it just trades one problem for another potentially bigger problem. Talking about nuclear power is all about tradeoffs. We must face the dilemma of nuclear power before we make a choice about it. In the desperate effort to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming, even some environmentalists are willing to embrace Dick Cheney's favorite alternative to coal - nuclear power. But narrow definitions of "clean" power by advocates cannot wipe away the downside of nuclear. Let us take a look at the whole picture, not just how one side or the other wants to define "pollution." First, remember that one of the big challenges of rising greenhouses gases is the automobile powered by gasoline. Nuclear power is a potential replacement for coal or natural gas as a power source for plants that produce electricity. It will not reduce our dependence on oil, unless it is used as a way to make hydrogen for hydrogen cars or electricity for electric cars. Wind, solar and biofuels are also potential power sources to do the same things. Outside of politics, lawmaking and public relations spin, you cannot simply eliminate problems by relabeling and redefining terms. Scientific facts remain, no matter whether you call hazardous by-products at level A or level B "safe." Redefining "safe" levels to accommodate business might sound good but does not change the health effects. Here is what scientists say: Nuclear power plants do not emit heat-trapping gases. They do, however, produce wastes that pose lethal hazards for future generations, and because their safety is often poorly regulated, there is a risk for catastrophic accidents. Calling nuclear power "clean" by saying radioactive wastes do not count is foolish. It just trades one problem for another. Safety of nuclear power plants has improved. Storage of nuclear wastes has improved. But there are safer, cleaner options, like wind and solar. The other fact is that in the age of terrorism, nuclear power plants offer a tempting target for terrorists. When we talk about nuclear power, we are of course talking about nuclear fission, the splitting atoms of the rarer U-235 isotope of uranium to release energy that is typically absorbed by water. The steam is used to power turbines to generate electricity. The whole idea of nuclear fission power plants grew out of a search for a peace time use for nuclear power. The first nuclear reactors were built to make the materials for nuclear bombs. Spent fuel can be reprocessed into new fuel. Spent fuel rods contain plutonium and unused uranium. These spent rods can be reprocessed into a mix of enriched uranium and plutonium that some modern reactors can use as fuel. Breeder reactors generate plutonium, the stuff of nuclear bombs, as fuel, so we have to ask ourselves how far-spread do we want that technology in the age of terrorism? The plutonium used as fuel in some power plants could be an attractive terrorist target here as well. Over the years, many countries went for nuclear power. France gets some 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Nuclear power plants have a limited operating life, as they eventually become too "hot" to operate and have to be shut down. While safety has improved, human error and slack safety enforcement is always the real threat. The real nuclear power promise is in nuclear fusion, which produces water as its waste product, but this solution is much farther off than wind or solar. No way around it, nuclear power produces radioactive waste that is hazardous for millions of years and for which we have no permanent storage solutions. Storage in underground bunkers may be long term but there will come a date when future generations need to deal with that problem, and will likely not be pleased we passed it down. That is assuming they know it is there. We uncover unknowns from the distant past every day, so there is really no guarantee that we will succeed in alerting future civilizations that we left that waste in that particular spot and that is has to be recontained by a certain date. A current popular solution our government uses for some nuclear waste is to make weapons out of so-called depleted uranium, and shoot it all over the landscape of our enemies. We have been doing that since the first Gulf War. The problem comes not so much from the solid chunks of this material but from the effects of having it explode into a fine powder that can be inhaled or ingested. There are plenty of veterans groups investigating a link between exposure to depleted uranium and health problems like rising cancer rates and birth defects. Supporters of DU will argue about the link but it always takes awhile to establish a link between a cause and cancer. Look how long it took to establish the cancer link to cigarettes. It might make more sense to suspend this use until it is proven safe, instead of waiting for proof that it is dangerous. Readily available uranium needed for nuclear fission power plants is expected to be gone in 50 years, so it may not much more abundant than oil. Nuclear advocates also like to tell you that nuclear power is cheap but actually it is a subsidized industry. Your tax dollars help make it appear cheap. Nuclear power has different problems than coal or natural gas-fired power plants. Pretending it is the only solution, or the best solution, to greenhouse gases before looking at all the facts just puts off a real, longer term solution and trades one problem for another. ***************************************************************** 32 WCAX-TV: Board meets in Brattleboro and Vernon Home WCAX.com September 20, 2005 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. The members of the state Public Service Board are on the road today.The regulatory panel will be at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant this afternoon to view the area where Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owner, hopes to install concrete and steel dry casks for storing radioactive waste.Then at seven p-m, the board has scheduled a public hearing at Brattleboro Union High School.Vermont Yankee officials say they are running out of room to store the highly radioactive waste in the plant's spent fuel storage pool.They say the plant will be forced to shut down in 2007 or 2008 if it is not allowed to expand its storage to the dry casks. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No FR Doc 05-18664 [Federal Register: September 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 181)] [Notices] [Page 55177-55178] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20se05-106] [[Page 55177]] Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed License No. 24-00889-01 Amendment for Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bonano, Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Material Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; Telephone: (630) 829-9826; fax number: (630) 515-1259; e-mail: gab1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to Material License No. 24- 00889-01 to authorize Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri (the licensee), to release from its license the Medical Plaza I Building at 4320 Wornall Road, and the Dickson-Diveley Laboratory at 4312 J.C. Nichols Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri for unrestricted use. The NRC has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the licensee's request to amend its license to release the Medical Plaza I Building and the Dickson- Diveley Laboratory from its license for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's December 1, 2004 (ML052510691) and June 21, 2005 (ML052510686) request to release its Medical Plaza I Building and Dickson-Diveley Laboratory for unrestricted use. Both facilities are listed under Saint Luke's Material License Number 24-00889-01. Saint Luke's Hospital is authorized to use byproduct material for medical research. The licensee transferred all licensed material from the Medical Plaza I Building and the Dickson-Diveley Laboratory to its radioactive waste storage area in the main hospital building. The main hospital building is under the same radioactive materials license. The licensee also transferred materials to the Mayo Clinic Rochester [License No. 22-00519-03], and shipped material for disposal through Adco Services, Inc. [IL-01347-01], and GTS Duratek [R-73008-E94]. The licensee identified two isotopes, which are listed in the license, with half-lives greater than 120 days (hydrogen-3, and carbon-14), which had been used at the Medical Plaza I Building and Dickson-Diveley Laboratory facilities. The licensee conducted surveys of the facilities and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological condition of the buildings is consistent with criteria specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E for unrestricted use. No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment because it no longer plans to conduct NRC-licensed activities at the Medical Plaza I Building and the Dickson-Diveley Laboratory. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City to demonstrate that the release of the Medical Plaza I Building, 4320 Wornall Road, and the Dickson-Diveley Laboratory, 4312 J.C. Nichols Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri facilities comply with radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non- radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action of releasing the facilities for unrestricted use is to take no action. Under the no- action alternative, the Medical Plaza I Building and the Dickson- Diveley Laboratory facilities would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the facilities. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is inconsistent with the NRC's Timeliness Rule, 10 CFR Part 30.36, ``Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas,'' which requires licensees who have ceased licensed activities to request termination of their radioactive materials license. This alternative also would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden and limit potential benefits from future uses of the facilities. Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. Since the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with the Missouri Section for Environmental Public Health, Department of Health and Senior Services. The Missouri Section for Environmental Public Health was provided with the draft EA for comment on September 6, 2005. The State reviewed the EA and responded back to the NRC on September 7, 2005, and did not have any additional comments. II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the facilities for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the [[Page 55178]] human environment. Thus, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Further Information 1. McPhee, Mark, M.D., Chief Operating Officer, Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1, 2004 (ML052510691). 2. Decommissioning Report (Final Status Survey Report), Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Medical Plaza I Building, 4320 Wornall Road, and the Dickson-Diveley Laboratory, 4312 J.C. Nichols Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri facilities, June 21, 2005 (ML052510686). 3. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City Conversation Record, dated September 2, 2005 (ML052510698). 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG- 1748, August 2003. 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, August 1994. 6. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003. 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 (800) 397-4209, (301)415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 12th day of September 2005. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, RIII. [FR Doc. 05-18664 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings FR Doc 05-18784 [Federal Register: September 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 181)] [Notices] [Page 55178-55179] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20se05-108] Dates: Weeks of September 19, 26, October 3, 10, 17, 24, 2005. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of September 19, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 19, 2005. Week of September 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 26, 2005. Week of October 3, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 3, 2005. Week of October 10, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 10, 2005. Week of October 17, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Decommissioning Activities and Status (Public Meeting) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of October 25, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) [[Page 55179]] *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 15, 2005. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-18784 Filed 9-16-05; 10:14 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 35 Beyond Treason by Joyce Riley Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:25:10 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free. From: "ilene proctor" Date: September 20, 2005 6:45:45 AM PDT To: , Subject: Beyond Treason by Joyce Riley DYING TO WIN: BEYOND TREASON DETAILS HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS COVERED UP THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM FOR DECADES Ilene PRoctor INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS Press Contact: Ilene Proctor or Angus Hsu Direct Line: (310) 271.5857 Cell: (310) 721.2336 E-mail: proctor@artnet.net BEYOND TREASON the True Causes of Gulf War Illness DYING TO WIN: BEYOND TREASON DETAILS HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS COVERED UP THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM FOR DECADES The Story behind the Cover-up of Depleted Uranium (DU) Exposure, Chemical & Biological Exposure, and Experimental Vaccinations by Ex Air Force Captain and military nurse Joyce Riley who led the investigation into the First Gulf War Syndrome in 1991 and the spokesperson for the American Gulf War Veterans Association. 56% of those who served in the first Gulf War were disabled within less than 10 years. Joyce is also a co-host of the powerful, and influential nationally syndicated show, The Power Hour. http://www.beyondtreason.com/reviews.html http://www.beyondtreason.com/news.html FEATURING A PANEL OF EXPERTS: Dr. Doug Rokke - Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project Leuren Moret - Geological Scientist and International Radiation Expert Dennis Kyne - Nuclear Chemical & Biological Medical Specialist This 89-minute http://www.beyondtreason.com/e video presents comprehensive and compelling documentation from United States Government archives of a massive cover-up lasting over two generations. DVD includes bonus CD-Rom with thousands of pages of documents retrieved from the Freedom Of Information Act and many others from concerned whistle-blowers The American Military has been getting away with mass murder for decades. Beyond Treason by Joyce Riley (RN) and William Lewis details in no uncertain terms the contamination of the planet by the United States military and the indefensible use of depleted uranium on the battlefield. In addition to exposing the deadly duplicity of the Department of Defense, Beyond Treason documents the genocide of our own and the coalitions military and Iraqis by chemical and biological exposure. Equally egregious are the experimental vaccines given to our troops, without their knowledge or consent, which has resulted in the fact that 250,000 troops are now permanently disabled, 15,000 troops are dead and over 425,000 are ill and slowly dying from what the DOD still insists on calling a mystery disease. The video also exposes the connection between depleted uranium (DU) and Gulf War Syndrome, and the underestimated dangers from the fallout of low-level DU radiation. Scientists around the world sounded an alarm, emphasizing that DUs tiny particles travel long distances when airborne. When one truly analyzes the anatomy of this atrocity, we realize that the damage of using DU will last 4.5 billion years; in another words forever! It packs a knockout punch posing a threat to victor as well as vanquished. DU leaves radioactive particles in the air, water, soil, and food chain. These tasteless, invisible particles, if ingested and absorbed into your body's tissues, quietly kill. At the Pentagon, DU is no mystery weapon. The American military has been testing it for 40 years, yet no one in the corridors of power gave much attention to ensuring that American GI's knew how to handle the new weapons system. According to Gulf vets, they were never told of the risks of being exposed to a DU campaign. But after they come back home, the soldiers are growing mystified as their health deteriorates. Beyond Treason shows that whatever soldiers brought back with them from the Gulf is now afflicting their families. Their children became hospitalized with breathing problems when contaminated gear was dragged into their houses. Younger children born after the war often suffered strange blisters on their hands. Many wives gave birth to horrifically deformed babies or incurred miscarriages. Whistle Blower: the Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. Doug Rokke is a thorn in the side of the military today because of what he learned eight years ago in the Gulf, where he served as lieutenant with the U.S. Army Preventative Medicine Command. According to Rokke, the message is clear. The United States Government knows about the health and the environmental consequences of using DU and doesnt care. As ailing Gulf War Heroes from all 27 coalition countries slowly die of unknown causes, they wait for answers from their respective governments but no satisfying or even responsible answers have come forth from the military establishment. Records that span over a decade point to severe negligence and even culpability on the part of the U.S. Department of Defense and their disposable army mentality. How many more will have to die before action is taken? http://www.beyondtreason.com/ Radioactive Wounds of War --Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq --25 Aug 2005 "U.S. forces first used DU in the 1991 Gulf War, when some 300 tons of depleted uraniumthe waste product of nuclear power plants and weapons facilities... The Pentagon has expanded DU beyond tank and A-10 shells, for use in bunker-busting bombs, which can spew out more than half a ton of DU in one explosion, in anti-personnel bomblets, and even in M-16 and pistol shells... The problem is that when DU hits its target, it burns at a high temperature, throwing off clouds of microscopic particles that poison a wide area and remain radioactive for billions of years. If inhaled, these particles can lodge in lungs, other organs or bones, irradiating tissue and causing severe deformities. The DOD has refused to test for the multiple cases of DU poisoning. Deformed Iraqi babies caused by USA use of depleted uranium The deformities are similar to those experienced by both Vietnam war veterans and Vietnamese mothers because of the US Military/Industrial Complex's use of the abominable chemical of mass destruction called "Agent Orange". The Pentagon has swept these American baby deformities under the rug. ======================================================================= ================================== ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting FR Doc 05-18652 [Federal Register: September 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 181)] [Notices] [Page 55178] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20se05-107] Notice AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on October 25 and 26, 2005. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public sessions includes: (1) Discussion of the Energy policy Act of 2005, which provides for NRC regulation of accelerator- produced radioactive material and discrete sources of Ra-226; (2) Status of Specialty Board applications for NRC recognition; (3) Electronic signature in written directives; (4) Revision of NRC Form 313A; (5) RIS on dose control and assessment; (6) Review of the medical events definition commission paper. To review the agenda, see or contact, via e-mail . Purpose: Discuss issues related to 10 CFR part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material. Date and Time for Closed Session Meeting: October 25, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. This session will be closed so that NRC staff can brief the ACMUI on discussing information relating solely to internal personnel rules. Dates and Times for Public Meetings: October 25, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and October 26, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Address for Public Meetings: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, Room T2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad S. Saba, telephone (301) 415- 7608; e-mail of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Conduct of the Meeting Leon S. Malmud, M.D., will chair the meeting. Dr. Malmud will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit a reproducible copy to Mohammad S. Saba, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8F03, Washington, DC 20555. Submittals must be postmarked by October 3, 2005 and must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting. 2. Questions from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman. 3. The transcript and written comments will be available for inspection on NRC's Web site () and at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about January 26, 2006. This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 7. 4. Attendees are requested to notify Mohammad S. Saba at (301) 415- 7608 of their planned attendance if special services, such as for the hearing impaired, are necessary. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-18652 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 Interfax: Radioactive metal found at Su-27 crash site Interfax.com Text version Site map Sep 20 2005 7:44PM VILNIUS. Sept 20 (Interfax) - Half of an air-to-air missile and about 2 kilos of radioactive metal were found at the scene where a Russian Su-27 fighter crashed in Lithuania last Thursday, the Lithuanian Defense Ministry's press service told Interfax. "Specialists say the metal does not pose a direct danger to the people working at the crash site," the press service said. The Russian Defense Ministry's flight security service chief Maj. Gen. Sergei Bainetov, who is involved in investigating the incident, earlier told the Lithuanian interagency investigative commission in writing that there were no substances dangerous to human health at the site. © 1991-2005 Interfax All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 38 Scoop: NZ Soldiers - Treated As Nuclear Guinea Pigs Tuesday, 20 September 2005, 2:06 pm Opinion: Guest Opinion coment by Larry Ross Sept 18,2005 In 1957 the UK goverment, with the collaboration of the NZ government, deliberately and knowingly exposed UK and NZ servicemen and their future descendants to nuclear radiation, resulting in disease, suffering, pain, genetic damage and eventual death. It's all in the article below and on Expose, TV1, Thursday Sept 22, 2005. Governments won't admit this crime, anymore than they will admit that Agent Orange dropped on Vietnam during the war in the 60's, similarly killed and caused fatal disease and genetic damage to servicemen exposed to it and to their children born afterward. Similarly, the US and UK contaminated Iraq and other battle zones with D.U. weapons dust residue, which has killed thousands of Iraq civilians, US and UK troops, and through DNA genetic damage, their offspring and future generations. D.U. residue has a half life of 4.5 billion years and will gradually drift around the world, endlessly contaminating and killing. No wonder governments don't wish to admit their crimes. The UK and US showed callous disregard for the life of their own citizens, and for the population of the lands they devastated, and for future generations. It illustrates the character of the politicians, military and foreign service personnel who made these criminal decisions and covered up or denied the effects for so long. Land mines and cluster munitions are other examples of indescriminate use of killing and maiming devices used in many battle zones. They kill soldiers and civilians and pollute the land, making it unuseable for years after. Governments have done this, not once by 'mistake'... but many times knowing full well the long term effects on innocent civilians. Think of the many lies told to UK and US populations (and to the world) to get their support for the illegal Iraq war. Even after the lies have been exposed and the true US, UK motives revealed, the governments concerned continue the war and mass killing, repeating the lies, or simply disregarding the truth. The record shows that a majority of people will either believe, deny or disregard their goverment's lies. These lies are driven home and endlessly repeated by a co-operative media. Billions and billions of dollars are wasted developing destructive devices, and inventing situatiions and lies to use them. As the weapons are developed, the crimes become more extreme and require greater government effort to justify. The new US nuclear-use policy (Christchurch Press Sept 13/05) justifies the unprovoked use of nuclear weapons against suspected enemy nations or those the US classifies as "terror groups". If the US claims they are planning to use WMD against the US, the US has licenced itself to use nuclear weapons against them. The US and UK invented a litany of lies about Sadam Hussein, his supposed WMD and nuclear weapons, and how he planned to use them against the US. These were all lies, yet the US/UK, without UN approval, launched a hugely destructive, expensive and expanding war against Iraq based on these lies. The same type of lies may now be used to justify new wars using nuclear weapons. As with Iraq there will be a flurry of protest and then people will settle down, shrug their shoulders and accept what Bush's Neo-conservatives call a 'new reality". The fall-off in the number of people willing to protest the Iraq war is a good example. Bushites calls dissenters traitors and disloyal to their country. The result of the trillions of dollars spent on making thousands of nuclear weapons, is enough to kill earth's population. Although the Communist threat is over, Bush neocons have invented a new policy for the unprovoked use nuclear weapons that could very easily escalate to global war and kill everyone. It's insane. But their insanity is presented as quite normal and acceptable by most media. Therefore the majority of people accept it without question. Or like the Germans under Hitler, they are afraid to speak out for fear of recriminations.. For articles on Iraq, 9/11, nuclear weapons, Bush Empire, Fundamentalism: http://www.nuclearfreenz.org.nz BE SURE TO WATCH… Expose: Nuclear Guinea Pigs the next Expose, Thursday September 22 at 8:30pm TV 1: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/434386 Nuclear Guinea Pigs In 1957, 551 of our fittest young men from the Royal New Zealand Navy set sail for Christmas Island unaware that they were about to witness Britain's largest and last-ever round of nuclear tests. Sidney Holland, then Prime Minster, had agreed to Britain's request for assistance. Between them the men witnessed 9 megaton hydrogen bomb explosions - each one at least 1,000 times more powerful than those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They were called on deck and sat with their backs to the blasts. All they wore for protection were white cotton hoods and dark glasses to protect them from the initial flash. Although they had been told they would be 200 km away from ground zero, they were sometimes as close as 80 km away. MORE: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/434386 ***************************************************************** 39 [shundahaialert] NPR Panel on Skull Valley Nuke Dump Tomorrow Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:29:22 -0700 version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Dear friends, There is a radio panel scheduled for tommorrow morning to discuss the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) high-level nuclear waste dump recently approved by the NRC for the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. Shundahai Network Director Pete Litster is one of the panelists. This is a live broadcast. The number to call is 702-258-3552 Where: KNPR 88.9FM Nevada Public Radio, Las Vegas It can also be heard on the web at http://www.knpr.org/son/index.cfm. This is a live broadcast. The number to call is 702-258-3552 When: Tuesday, September 20th from 9AM-10AM Pacific Time Who: Margene Bullcreek- Skull Valley Goshute grandmother and Director of Onhgo Gaudadeh Devia Awareness, an environmental justice organization on the Reservation opposed to the nuclear waste project Pete Litster Shundahai Network Executive Director Opponent of the Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain nuclear waste projects. Peggy Maize Johnson- Executive Director of Citizen Alert in Nevada, Opponent of the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear dump. Denise Chancellor Utah State Assistant Attorney General Working to oppose the PFS project in Utah John Parkyn, President of Private Fuel Storage (PFS) PFS is the consortiuum of nuclear utilities who plan to store nuclear fuel on the Goshute Reservation. We hope you can tune in! Please feel free to offer feedback by contacting our office. In Peace, Shundahai Network Shundahai Network www.shundahai.org P.O. Box 1115 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone- 801.533.0128 Fax- 801.533.0129 shundahai@shundahai.org Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation" ***************************************************************** 40 Rocky Mountain News: Standard Mine joins Superfund Toxic runoff seen as risk to water supply in Crested Butte By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News September 20, 2005 Colorado's newest Superfund site is the Standard Mine, a crumbling collection of shafts, a mill and an impoundment pond, all delivering a toxic broth of water to streams near Crested Butte. Sitting at 10,000 feet, and covering about 10 acres in the Gunnison National Forest, the Standard Mine dates to 1874. Work there petered out in 1966. But last week, the site was formally added to America's long list of high-priority toxic cleanups. The Standard Mine site joins Colorado's list of 22 existing Superfund sites, and more than 1,200 nationwide. Colorado sites include high-profile cleanups like the $6.1 billion job at the former Rocky Flats nuclear plant near Boulder, and far more obscure mop-ups at abandoned mines or old landfills. Water leaking from the Standard Mine's old shafts and wastewater pond is thick with metals such as cadmium, zinc, lead and copper - all of which leach into nearby Elk Creek, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Elk Creek in turn feeds into Coal Creek, the drinking water supply for Crested Butte that begins four miles downstream from the mine. Though the town's supply currently meets federal drinking water standards, environmental regulators fear an aging and deteriorating impoundment pond catching polluted water flowing off the mine site could suffer "catastrophic failure," potentially overwhelming Crested Butte's drinking water. That the pollution has wiped out aquatic life in Elk Creek and jeopardizes the area's drinking water leaves environmental activists eager to see the site's toxic runoff controlled. "We welcome the assistance EPA will be offering us," said Steve Glazer of the High Country Citizens' Alliance and a longtime resident of the Crested Butte area. "Within six to eight years, we hope to have the Standard Mine cleaned up and expect a refurbished aquatic ecosystem and protection of the drinking water supply." But it's unclear who, if anyone, will pay for the work. If the EPA can't pin blame for the pollution on a responsible company or person - and that's looking unlikely, an EPA official said - then the public must pick up the tab. But federal funds for such cleanups have become harder to come by since Congress in 1995 declined to renew the industrial tax that paid for much of the work. In fact, money for such work is so limited that some Superfund cleanups in Colorado have stopped or slowed. At the Summitville mine site in the San Juan mountains, the EPA is seeking $15 million for a new water- treatment plant to ensure it can keep up with toxic flows pouring off the site and into the Alamosa River watershed. But the project has stalled, as the EPA hasn't provided the money. "The program is not getting the funding it needs," Alex Fidis, an attorney specializing in Superfund for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, told the Christian Science Monitor last week. "The problems are still there and, if anything, are getting worse." One agency likely to put up some of the money at the Standard Mine is the U.S. Forest Service, because the site is located within the Gunnison National Forest. Just how much will be determined later, said Christina Progess, project manager for the EPA, when the total costs and division of responsibilities are calculated. The state of Colorado might provide funding as well, though the state's own version of its Superfund is dwindling after lawmakers raided it of $30 million in 2002 to deal with budget shortfalls. Standard Mine • Location: Gunnison National Forest • Nearest town: Crested Butte, 10 miles to the southeast • Size: About 10 acres • Contaminants: Mine runoff laced with metals including cadmium, zinc, lead and copper. • Environmental threat: Aquatic life in nearby streams and drinking water supply of Crested Butte. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency © Rocky Mountain News ***************************************************************** 41 Lahontan Valley News: Time to get serious about truck bypass and Fallon Eagle Standard - Opinion September 20, 2005 The residents of Fernley got a good scare last week when a 10,000-gallon tanker carrying pressurized liquid natural gas sprang a leak and caught fire in the middle of a parking lot next to Interstate 80. Fortunately the worst-case scenario - an explosion that could have destroyed everything within a one-mile radius - never materialized, thanks, in part, to some heads-up action on the part of local firefighters. The incident did illustrate kinds of hidden dangers that roll down American highways every day. The incident also illustrates the value of routing trucks, to the extent possible, around and away from populated centers to minimize the risk to people and property in the event of a spill, accident or terrorist plot. Fallon, located at the crossroads of two U.S. highways in a major shipping corridor, is especially vulnerable to a truck-related disaster. Highway 95 is a major arterial feeding Las Vegas with all kinds of substances arriving from all over the U.S. Some of those substances, possibly including radioactive waste bound for Yucca Mountain, move to southern Nevada through the heart of downtown Fallon. In fact, they have to drive down Maine Street past Fallon's historic wooden courthouse. Imagine the chaos that would have prevailed had the Fernley tanker caught on fire at the intersection of Maine and Williams in Fallon. City officials have been talking about creating a truck bypass around Fallon for years. There has been lots of talk but, unfortunately, not much in the way of substantive action. With the increasing number of trucks headed through Fallon on their way to Las Vegas it is not a matter of if there will be a hazmat incident, it is a matter of when. We urge the mayor, city council and fire department to sound the alarm and begin the process of planning a bypass with a new sense of urgency. Let's not wait for an errant tanker to blow a hole in the middle of town to get serious about this perilous situation. All contents © Copyright 2005 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 42 Bradenton Herald: Toxicologist hears of Tallevast's past | 09/20/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - There may be more wells in Tallevast that could be pathways for underground contamination from an old beryllium plant to leak to the surface, a health consultant learned Monday. Residents told health consultant Robert P. DeMott that many of Tallevast's private wells were dug without permits over the past century. The locations of many of those wells are now lost, Tallevast leaders said. Modern maps show a scattering of homes surrounded by many vacant lots. But residents say each one of those vacant squares was a home with its own well. DeMott spent more than four hours talking with Tallevast residents to gain an understanding of life in the small community during the period Loral American Beryllium Co. was in operation. Talk flowed easily as residents reminisced about happier times. Beverly Byers told DeMott how she accepted Loral's offer of fill dirt from a construction project to supplement the soil in her garden. Little did she know at the time that the soil was filled with beryllium dust that could harm her. Today Byers' hands are rough and gray, the skin as thick as an elephant's hide. Charlie Ziegler described how he had emptied the dust from the plant's vacuum system so the beryllium could be captured in drums for recycling. Now Ziegler has trouble breathing. Cassandra Brice, a child during Loral's peak years of operation in the 1980s, told of running in the backdraft of planes flying low over Tallevast to Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport. Their passage would stir up a cloud of beryllium dust. Patricia Simmons' eyes smiled as she remembered picking guavas and citrus off the trees as a child, eating them on the spot, without any fear that the fine coat of dust might be making her sick. "We didn't have a clue," said Norris Bryant, who worked at the beryllium plant. "That's what life was like before the plant came in," Simmons said. "When it came, we thought the plant was a grand idea. It brought jobs and financial gain, but we had no idea of the problems it would bring." DeMott, a Tampa toxicologist, was selected by Tallevast leaders to conduct the health risk study financed by Lockheed Martin Corp. Lockheed owned the beryllium plant when the contamination was discovered in 2000 and is now responsible for cleaning up the toxic mess. Tallevast residents have filed a negligence lawsuit against Lockheed for property damage and emotional stress they believe was caused by the pollution. ***************************************************************** 43 Bradenton Herald: Galvano: Relocate Tallevast residents | 09/20/2005 | NICK MASON Herald Staff Writer MANATEE - State Rep. Bill Galvano wants government to pay for relocating Tallevast residents out of their contaminated community. Galvano, R-Bradenton, told Manatee County commissioners Monday that the federal, state and county governments should come up with the estimated $20 million needed to move 238 people to new homes. "I've come to the conclusion we need to relocate that community," Galvano said. "You've got a community whose lives are upside down. . . . I don't think that community could ever be the same." Residents of homes in the 131-acre plume of groundwater contamination would move to unspecified property in East Manatee, and their Tallevast properties would be turned over to the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority under Galvano's proposal. "I'm willing to push the state as hard as we can," Galvano told commissioners. "I'd like you to consider being a partner in that." Commissioners rejected the idea. "It's not our responsibility," Commissioner Donna Hayes said. "I'd love to see them relocated. I don't think we have any money in the coffers." Commissioners said county and state health officials have assured them that there is no immediate health threat to Tallevast residents. Commissioners and county attorneys said the county has no legal liability or legal responsibility for relocating residents. "As a county, I think we should stay out of it," Commissioner Joe McClash said. Galvano and state Rep. Donna Clarke, R-Sarasota, met with Manatee commissioners to talk about key issues the Florida Legislature faces in the 2006 legislative session. He decided it was the right time to put his idea of Tallevast relocation on the table. "I just want to let you know where I'm going with this thing," Galvano said. After the work session with commissioners, Galvano said he is prepared to ask next year for a state budget allocation or file a claims bill covering the full estimated $20 million to get the relocation moving. The state later could recoup any federal or county contributions, he said. Galvano also said he wants to "keep the door open" to collecting relocation funds from Lockheed Martin Corp., former owner of the old beryllium plant at 1600 Tallevast Road, the source of the toxic plume of chemical contamination. Galvano described his relocation proposal as being in exploratory stages. He said he discussed the concept this month with Laura Ward and Wanda Washington of Family Oriented Community United and Strong, a Tallevast residents group; airport officials; and a few state legislators. But he has not spoken yet with U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida; U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota; Gov. Jeb Bush or Florida Legislature leaders. Washington, vice president of FOCUS, said she appreciates Galvano's willingness to help Tallevast residents move. "I don't know exactly what Galvano's plan is or was," Washington said. "But as far as relocation, when it comes to government, we are leaning on Galvano right now. Right now, Galvano is the community's shoulder." Fred Piccolo, the airport's president and chief executive officer, said the airport could administer the relocation program, drawing on past experience of relocating about 200 nearby households in an airport noise mitigation program. After site cleanup by Lockheed Martin, the airport could lease the properties to commercial tenants, generating income for the airport authority and property and sales tax for county and state governments. "You can take these lemons and turn them into lemonade by giving everyone some benefit," Piccolo said. "This allows the residents to get relocated. It gives the state and federal government a vehicle to manage the program, and it gives a long-term benefit to the airport as a future revenue source." Gail Rymer, Lockheed Martin's director of communications, said company officials have not talked with Galvano or seen any relocation proposal from him. "The conditions in the community do not pose a risk to residents, and it seems to us that if the state diverts resources to things not posing a risk, they may be setting an awkward precedent," Rymer said in a prepared statement. "But the political process thrives on ideas that are out-of-the-box. We will be watching the details as they unfold." Rymer said Lockheed Martin is committed to moving quickly to clean up the groundwater and will work with residents "in determining the best remediation methods." She said the company has not committed to spending any money for resident relocation. Donna Wright, Herald Staff Writer, contributed to this story. n Consultant: More wells raise concerns. 8A • Read our archive coverage of Tallevast at HeraldToday.com. ***************************************************************** 44 Bellona: Spent nuclear fuel from liquid metal cooled reactor unloaded in Gremikha Spent nuclear fuel from the from Project 705 — Alfa class submarine’s metal liquid cooled reactor was unloaded at the former navy base in Gremikha on the Kola Peninsula. 2005-09-19 16:27 The operation required to heat the reactor therefore a powerful boiler-house was installed. The personnel engaged in the operation had to take a course and take exams arranged by the Russian Federal Nuclear Agency and the Defense Ministry officials. The deputy director of Rosatom Sergey Antipov said to Minatom.ru that out of 11 nuclear submarines with metal liquid cooled reactor built in Russia one submarine with fuel expects dismantling, one reactor compartment should be unloaded and one sealed reactor needs treatment according to a special technology. The unloading operation took 2 months this summer in comparison with 8 months in 1991. Next summer apparently two metal liquid cooled reactors should be unloaded as well. Gremikha (Iokanga) naval base is the second onshore storage site at the Kola Peninsula for spent nuclear fuel and radwaste from submarines. The base is the easternmost Northern Fleet base at the Kola Peninsula, located some 350 kilometers east of the mouth of the Murmansk fjord. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development set Gremikha as priority project in the program of environmental rehabilitation. reported Interfax. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 45 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada meeting on Yucca is added Today: September 20, 2005 at 9:54:43 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU The complete hearing schedule for the Environmental Protection Agency on Yucca Mountain: + AMARGOSA VALLEY Monday, Oct. 3, 4 p.m. - 9 p.m. Amargosa Valley Community Center 821 Eas Farm Road, Amargosa Valley, NV Information Session 4 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Roundtable Dialogue Session 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. + LAS VEGAS The Cashman Center, Rooms 203-206 850 North Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV Tuesday, Oct. 4 4 p.m. - 9 p.m. Information Session 4 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Roundtable Dialogue Session 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing 7 p.m. - 9p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 5 10a.m. - 12 p.m. Information Session 10a.m. - 11.m. Public Hearing 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 6 10 a.m .- 12 p.m. Information Session 10 a.m. - 11 a.m. Public Hearing 11 a.m. - 12 p.m. + WASHINGTON, D.C. Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. EPA East Building, Room 1153 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Information Session 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. Public Hearing 2 p.m. -4 p.m. Please use the Constitution Ave. entrance and bring a photo ID. WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency approved an additional hearing in Nevada next month to allow those observing the Rosh Hashanah holiday to participate in public comment meetings on Yucca Mountain radiation standards. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who is Jewish, requested an additional hearing because those originally scheduled conflict with the Jewish holiday, which starts at sundown on Oct. 3 and ends at sundown on Oct. 5. The EPA added another hearing in Las Vegas on Oct. 6. The public hearing comment periods last through Oct. 21. Nevada officials have called for a longer period, but the agency has not made a final decision. The EPA has proposed two-tier radiation standard for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. One tier maintains the 15-millirem standard for up to 10,000 years, and the other limits exposure to 350 millirem per year for 10,000 to 1 million years. State officials and other Yucca critics object to the standard saying there is no reason the radiation limit should increase so drastically, especially at the time when the waste storage containers inside the mountain would likely fail. The state plans more legal action but the rule has to be finalized first. Once the public comment period ends, the agency will evaluate the comments and could make changes it deems necessary. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 Las Vegas SUN: Utah official switches gears on plan for nuclear waste Today: September 20, 2005 at 11:19:27 PDT Delegation may be softening its stance on Yucca Mountain By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF WASHINGTON -- A Utah senator today said he planned to introduce a "major" new comprehensive plan for dealing with the nation's nuclear waste. Sen. Robert Bennett, a Republican, today said he would unveil the details in a speech this week. "The whole issue of storage is evolving," Bennett said. "The energy bill made it very clear that we are on the side of nuclear power. We want more nuclear power, which raises the question of what do we do about the waste." Bennett and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have been supportive of storing all highly radioactive waste from throughout the nation at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the Utah delegation may be softening its stance on the proposed nuclear waste repository, in part because Utah recently moved one step closer to becoming a dumping ground itself. On Sept. 9, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a green light to a consortium of eight nuclear power utilities that aim to establish a temporary waste site on Goshute Indian reservation roughly 45 miles from Salt Lake City. Utah political leaders have long fought the proposal. The waste site ultimately could store up to 44,000 tons of waste in steel containers. The Goshute site is considered a stepping stone for waste that ultimately would be bound for the permanent underground repository planned at Yucca Mountain, which would have a capacity for up to 77,000 tons of waste. Energy Department officials aim to open Yucca as early as 2012, although critics say it likely would be later. Last week Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, for the first time threw his support behind a plan advocated by Nevada lawmakers to keep high-level nuclear waste stored where it now sits -- on-site at nuclear power plants -- until a better plan or new recycling technology is developed. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is planning legislation that would require an on-site storage policy in which the Energy Department would assume ownership of the waste. But he has not yet introduced it. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., introduced a similar bill to leave waste on-site, as well as kill Yucca and use the money for reprocessing research, but it has little hope of House approval. Utah Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, already support the Nevadans' on-site plan. And Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, is closer to Nevada's position than he was a year ago, although he still has not advocated killing Yucca Mountain. There is no indication that Bennett is planning to suddenly oppose Yucca, but the suspicions are that he will be proposing some kind of compromise. Utah leaders have faced a quandary: Advocate Yucca so that waste doesn't end up sitting long-term in Utah? Or side with the Nevadans in a unified front to keep waste out of the West? Utah's Republican senators, Bennett and Hatch, have thus far clung to their Yucca support. Bennett today did not say if that support would change, but only said that his proposal would include a more comprehensive approach to dealing with the nation's nuclear waste. Hatch has eyed friends and foes in the fight and is weighing strategy. Power brokers support Yucca, including most Western lawmakers and President Bush, Hatch has noted. "If we join Sen. Reid at this time in an anti-Yucca Mountain stance, that would alienate some of those who are best positioned to help us," Hatch told the Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday. Hatch has said it is better to leave waste where it is to await a permanent home at Yucca rather than send it to Utah temporarily. Hatch and Bennett drew the ire of Nevada lawmakers in 2002 when they emerged from a meeting at the White House with key Bush administration officials who promised them no federal support for the Goshute site if the two senators would support Yucca. They agreed to the deal. But it turned out to be a somewhat empty promise. The Bush administration's NRC approved the Goshute site this month. And the White House can do little to slow the Goshute project, which would be financed with corporate money. In turn, Hatch and Bennett reportedly have not been happy with Reid. Reid, like the other Nevada lawmakers, oppose the Goshute site. But Hatch has said Reid has thwarted their efforts to fight the interim dump. Reid is a personal friend but "he has shown that he doesn't have Utah's best interests in mind," Hatch said in the Salt Lake Tribune. Officials with the utility consortium Private Fuel Storage say their temporary storage facility is necessary even if Yucca is opened soon. Not all waste will be shipped to Yucca immediately and the Goshute site will offer nuclear utilities some relief, they say. Many nuclear power plants have filled their indoor waste pools and are now storing waste in dry casks in outdoor, on-site storage areas. Congress adopted Yucca as the solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage problem, and promised nuclear plants that it would begin shipping waste away by 1998. But Yucca has long been plagued by delays, prompting the nuclear utilities to seek alternatives to expensive on-site storage. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Trucks and trains Opinion Article Last Updated: 09/20/2005 12:58:51 AM Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. claims he “intends to win” the war against allowing high-level radioactive waste into Utah. Unfortunately, he's playing patty-cake with the federal government. The governor needs to practice complete entrenchment rather than his game of give in, give up and retreat. The governor has at his disposal the Utah Highway Patrol, which can beef up inspections of hazardous waste already passing through Utah. The governor should dramatically increase full-scale inspections of suspect semi-trailer trucks and railroad cargo, and violators should be fined to the maximum. Regardless of whether nuclear waste is shipped by rail or by truck, the risk of accident is too great. As The Tribune has pointed out many times, the majority of Utahns live within five miles of any given route over which the radioactive waste may be transported. The waste shouldn't be allowed in Utah. James A. Marples Provo © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes make plea deal in tribal theft case Article Last Updated: 09/20/2005 12:58:52 AM smhBy Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Two Skull Valley Goshutes pleaded guilty in federal court Monday and a third was sentenced to probation for stealing from their tribe. All three were in U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell's court on charges related to in-fighting that has fractured the small community since leaders inked a deal to lease part of the tribal reservation for nuclear waste storage. Marlinda Moon, Sammy Blackbear and Mirada Wash thought they had helped overthrow the old tribal leadership four years ago and won election as the new Executive Committee. They already had begun to withdraw money from tribal accounts when the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs indicated the old leadership was still in place. Prosecutors had said the trio used bogus documents to access the funds. Moon and Wash, whose case was set for trial Monday, instead pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft from an Indian tribal organization. Blackbear was sentenced to three years probation. He also must pay $17,300 restitution - at $100 a month - to Zions Bank, where some tribal funds were kept. Their attorney, Duncan Steadman, also was scheduled to agree to a plea bargain on Monday. But the hearing was postponed because he was ill. "I don't think any of this is fair," said Blackbear, who had become a witness for prosecutors in their separate, criminal case against embattled Goshute leader Leon Bear. "But it doesn't mean we are going to give up, by any means." Bear pleaded guilty this summer to cheating on his taxes. The court gave him three years probation and ordered him to repay the tribe for double-charge travel expenses in addition to the back taxes, fines and interest. Moon and Wash face sentencing on a single charge Nov. 28. Moon pleaded guilty to misusing $800 of tribal funds. Wash agreed she was not authorized to spend $650. In accepting the deal Monday, Moon hesitated, reluctant to say she broke the law knowingly. "Even though nobody is recognizing it, we were trying to do tribal business," she explained afterward. All six counts for which they were originally indicted carried possible jail time of 185 years and fines of up to $5.25 million. They face up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine under the plea agreement. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 49 Boston Globe: Utility regulators tour radwaste storage site, hear from public - Boston.com + Vt.Utility regulators tour radwaste storage site, hear from public Associated Press Two of the Public Service Board's three members joined about two dozen others Tuesday on a tour of the area at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant where the plant wants to store high-level radioactive waste in concrete and steel casks. David Gram September 20, 2005 --> [The Associated Press] Utility regulators tour radwaste storage site, hear from public By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | September 20, 2005 VERNON, Vt. --Two of the Public Service Board's three members joined about two dozen others Tuesday on a tour of the area at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant where the plant wants to store high-level radioactive waste in concrete and steel casks. The afternoon tour, followed by a public hearing Tuesday evening in neighboring Brattleboro, came at the start of the board's review of Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear's plan to move some of the oldest and least radioactive spent fuel from its spent fuel pool to the dry casks -- cylinders about 20 feet high and 11 feet across that would be placed on a reinforced concrete pad just north of the plant's turbine building. Former Gov. Thomas Salmon, a Democrat who served during the 1970s and later was chairman of Green Mountain Power Corp., was among those at the evening hearing speaking in favor of the dry cask storage plan. He called it a "proven technology ... virtually impervious to threats from terrorists or others." Vermont Yankee has said it needs to move some spent fuel assemblies out of its spent fuel pool because the pool serving the 33-year-old reactor is filling up. Plant officials have said it will have to shut down in 2008 if the extra storage is not approved -- 2007 if the plant wins the permission it seeks to boost its output by 20 percent. Salmon said Vermont needs its lone reactor as a relatively cheap source of electricity. Of shutting the plant down early, he said, "That's an unacceptable proposition in my view." But many other speakers from an audience of about 100 said the waste storage conundrum is a major symptom of problems connected with a technology they wish had never been put into use. They argued that much of the waste would remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, that the government and nuclear industry so far had not answered the question of how to dispose of it, and that the first step should be halting production of it by shutting down nuclear plants. "We need to get to another energy source that doesn't produce this waste," said Colin Blazej of Windham. He said he feared the dry cask storage plan "would delay that day," adding, "No other generation has given this dangerous a legacy to the next 5,000 generations." Dave McElwee, a senior engineer at the plant, began the afternoon tour by showing visitors the rail spur leading to the plant that Vermont Yankee hopes to use to move the 190-ton casks from the plant either to a permanent or temporary nuclear waste disposal site. A long-planned government waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is tied up in litigation; meanwhile a nuclear industry consortium including Entergy has proposed a privately operated site in Utah. "We're obviously hopeful that the DOE (the federal Department of Energy) starts to take the fuel," McElwee said. After a thorough security screening so the group could enter the plant's protected areas, McElwee led the tour to the area where the plant has proposed to install its new waste storage. McElwee and project manager John Hoffman provided some of the particulars about the proposed dry cask storage facility. The concrete pad, 76 by 132 feet, on which the casks will be placed will be at 252 feet above sea level. The Connecticut River, about 210 feet away, generally runs at about 218 feet above sea level past the plant. It's been estimated that there would be one flood in 500 years in which the river passing the plant would rise to 231 feet. Fuel from the spent fuel pool would be loaded into the casks in the pool, then lowered by crane to ground level, where a large tractor-like vehicle would remove each cask from the reactor building's south end about 150 yards to the pad. Hoffman said the biggest challenge to date in designing the project was fitting the pad where it's going to go. "It's a small site," he said. "We wanted to keep it in the protected area," behind the plant's security perimeter. Public Service Board members David Coen and John Burke joined the tour. The panel's chairman, James Volz, has removed himself from the dry cask storage review to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Until March, Volz was director of public advocacy at the Department of Public Service, which strongly has supported the dry cask storage plan.[ /] © Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More: ***************************************************************** 50 KUTV: Rising Prices Renew Interest In Utah Uranium Sep 19, 2005 10:40 pm US/Mountain MOAB, Utah A half-century after the boom that put Moab on the map as the ``Uranium capital of the world,'' there are indications an industry revival might be on its way to southeastern Utah. The price for uranium, a radioactive chemical element used for atomic energy, has more than quadrupled to $30 a pound in the last four years. County clerks' offices in the region have filed thousands of claims – instead of the usual dozens – since last fall. The first uranium boom occurred in 1952. The Atomic Energy Commission was offering good money for uranium, including a $10,000 bonus – roughly $70,000 in today's dollars – for significant finds. When Texan Charlie Steen found uranium-rich deposits in the Lisbon Valley's Big Indian Wash, the rush to the Colorado Plateau was on. Four Utah counties saw 309,380 claims between 1946 and 1959. Shepherds and farmers would set out on family picnics with the commission's how to prospect for uranium pamphlet and a Geiger counter. People pulled trailers onto lawns in Moab for living space. Some slept on the courthouse lawn. Moab's population ballooned from 1,000 to 8,000 in just a few months. “Let me tell you, there's no thrill bigger than the thrill of discovery,” said Jimmy Walker, now 77, who prospected for uranium in the 1970s. Mark Steen, Charlie Steen's son, foresees a resurgence in uranium mining. He and a partner have staked about 2,500 claims since last fall. He wrote this summer in the Canyon Country Zephyr that the commission bought more than 40 million pounds of uranium concentrate from the processing mill his father started in Moab – a quantity worth $325 million between 1948 and 1971. The same concentrate at $110 a pound, where many believe the price of uranium is headed, would be worth $4.4 billion. James Tibbetts, a Moab stonemason, has staked a few dozen claims. The son of a boom-time prospector, he has been researching uranium on the Internet. He also attended an industry forum in Grand Junction, Colo., a few months ago with his father-in-law. With global demand for electricity growing and the limitations of energy sources such as hydropower, coal and oil, Tibbetts said: ``I think uranium's going to come back.'' There are skeptics. Conventional wisdom has it that the easy uranium already has been mined. New deposits are bound to be deeper and harder to find. Most exploration could be too costly for casual prospectors. Staking and maintaining a claim used to cost about $10. Now, it's $165 plus yearly expenses to keep the claims active. Grand County Commissioner Bill Hedden suggests that enthusiasm will diminish if the possibility of development becomes real. ``Then, if it's not just hypothetical, but it's got a face on it, then you'll see people go, 'Wait a minute,' `` he said. Cleaning up Utah's uranium mills is costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion. The price for treating people made ill by working in the mines, moving uranium, milling it – and, in some cases, those who just lived around it – cannot be tallied. The Atomic Energy Commission knew the radiation in uranium ore could be dangerous, even fatal. Yet, eager to ensure its uranium supplies during the Cold War, it allowed workers and their families to be exposed to high levels of radiation throughout the 1950s and '60s. Exposure standards were not set until 1969, and then, many contend, poorly enforced. In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to partly address the government's responsibility for these health problems. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and the late Democratic Rep. Wayne Owens were two of its strongest advocates. So far, the fund has distributed nearly $1 billion to downwinders and uranium workers. And efforts are under way to expand the program to cover a range of illnesses suffered by people in a broader geographical area. Even today's enthusiastic prospectors acknowledge the health toll. Old-timer Earl D. Shumway, 79, who's staked a claim in Grand County, lost a brother and a son to radiation disease. And his own compensation check went largely to caring for his dying son. ``Very few miners got rich out of mining,'' he said. ``We got more money out of the (compensation) payments.'' So far, 3,651 Utahns have gotten RECA payments. (© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material AP ***************************************************************** 51 AU ABC: No dump on Arrente land Monday, 19 September 2005 Presenter: Kate Sieper One of the proposed sites for the national nuclear waste dump is on Arrente land, Commonwealth land certainly, but also Arrente country. In fact the Mt Everard site is only ten kilometres from a small community and now the traditional owners are saying no to the dump, stating they intend to do what they can to protect the plants, animals, birds and land. Raelene Martin is one of the concerned Arrente people and says the lack of contact from the Government is offensive. "We have traditional ties to the whole region and it just frustrates the families out here how the Government hasn't approached us to talk about the dump and you know I don't even think they've been consulted Central Land Council. We don't want to live next to a nuclear waste dump." Meanwhile a local man with well known green credentials has taken up the fight for the dump. Hal Duell is running for council and says we need to approach the issue of a nuclear waste dump with a little more responsibility. "Nobody wants it in their backyard; nobody in Central Australia does; I don't. But we do have to have a waste facility. It's only responsible to look after our own waste, and I think that a lot of the debate and the argument over a uranium waste facility is actually distracting us from the larger question of whether or not we as a nation want to be a major supplier of uranium to the world. I think that is a far more interesting question and we're not being allowed to ask it, we're not being allowed to debate it." Raelene Martin speaking with Kate Sieper. Last Updated: 19/09/2005 2:07:00 PM ACST ***************************************************************** 52 NRC: RIN 3150-AH77 Spent fuel casts FR Doc 05-18663 [Federal Register: September 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 181)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 55036-55038] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20se05-7] List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT, -24PHB, and -24PTH Revision 8 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations revising the Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 8 to Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1004. Amendment No. 8 to the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] System CoC would add a new spent fuel storage and transfer system, designated the NUHOMS[supreg]-24PTH System, and modify the NUHOMS[supreg]-32PT and -24PHB dry shielded canister designs. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before October 20, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH77) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your [[Page 55037]] comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. An electronic copy of the proposed CoC, Technical Specifications (TS), and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Package Accession No. ML051610554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail, jmm2@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal Register. Procedural Background On May 25, 2005, a direct final rule (70 FR 29931) and companion proposed rule (70 FR 30015) were published in the Federal Register, to revise the cask system listing for the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] System, by adding Amendment No. 8 to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214. After the rules were published, staff became aware of needed changes in the TS associated with the CoC, and on July 15, 2005, the NRC withdrew the direct final rule (70 FR 40879) and the proposed rule (70 FR 40924). This rule includes the original Amendment No. 8 changes, revised TS 1.2.17c and 1.2.18, Table 1-1l, and additional changes, as discussed in the direct final rule. These additional changes were originally to be addressed as a subsequent amendment. However, the withdrawal of the May 25, 2005, package allowed the staff to combine this information into Amendment 8. This results in a more effective and efficient use of resources. This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 8 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] System cask design. The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on December 5, 2005. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by October 20, 2005, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR- RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is revised to read as follows: [[Page 55038]] Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1004. Initial Certificate Effective Date: January 23, 1995. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: April 27, 2000. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: September 12, 2001. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 12, 2002. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 7, 2004. Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: December 22, 2003. Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: March 2, 2004. Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: December 5, 2005. SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Docket Number: 72-1004. Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015. Model Number: NUHOMS[supreg]-24P, -52B, -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB, and - 24PTH. * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 05-18663 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 53 [NukeNet] NIF, Plutonium and Weapons Design, Oakland Tribune Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:29:24 -0700 version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Hi, all -- good read -- follows up on one of my "favorite" topics, and one you have certainly heard about over the years... -- Marylia Secret laser experiments proposed If approved, Livermore lab could conduct the weapons research By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Inside Bay Area (includes Oakland Tribune/Tri-Valley Herald and other ANG newspapers) September 19, 2005 U.S. weapons scientists want to fire the worlds largest laser at targets resembling miniature atom bombs in experiments aimed at a deeper understanding of the physics in thermonuclear weapons. Critics say the experiments could lead to new, low-yield nuclear explosives. Details of the proposed experiments and their purposes are classified, though weapons scientists say they are not pursuing new kinds of nuclear bombs. If approved by federal weapons authorities at the U.S. Department of Energy, the laser shots would mark an unprecedented use of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium in a U.S. fusion facility. Shots on the new targets could begin in 2010 at the National Ignition Facility, a massive laser complex at Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab. In the 1990s and again in a recent environmental study, weapons scientists and federal defense officials said the experiments could fill gaps in understanding of critical aspects of weapons physics. But Clinton administration weapons officials called the experiments highly speculative and told a 1995 panel of scientists studying NIFs implications for development of new weapons that there is no intention on the part of the Department to pursue these experiments. At $4 billion, the giant laser is the most expensive scientific construction project in the nation and one of the more controversial. Critics say the laser wont achieve its defining purpose of igniting fusion burn andhas dubious relevance to maintaining nuclear weapons. The new, classified targets could answer both questions. When complete in 2008, NIF would be scientists best shot in a half-century of ion guns, magnetic chambers and other big lasers at creating a tiny star inside a laboratory through pure fusion; that is, without using a fission bomb as a lighting match, as in H-bombs. But with the new, classified targets, weapons scientists would be departing from pure fusion and exploring thermonuclear explosions on targets very similar to an atom bomb, with concentric shells of beryllium and weapons-grade plutonium; just a gram or two of each; containing a mix of two heavy hydrogen gases, tritium and deuterium. That's almost identical to the first stage of a thermonuclear weapon, a grapefruit-sized hollow ball of beryllium and plutonium surrounded by high explosives that serve as a fission match to touch off fusion. The experiment and the bomb differ in size and shape; modern primaries tend to be oblong, shaped like eggs or watermelons; and they differ in the means of detonation: imploding high explosives for nuclear bombs versus a crushing fist of X-rays created by 192 beams of intense laser light inside the Rose Bowl-sized National Ignition Facility. What theyre doing is trying to make a miniature H-bomb, not a pure fusion explosion. Theyre on a totally different page than the rest of the fusion community, said Ray Kidder, a former senior manager over laser research at Lawrence Livermore and a nonproliferation advocate. The reason, he said, is obvious to anyone in the weapons world. The answer is to design new weapons, weapons that have different characteristics and are based on a different way of making the weapon detonate, Kidder said. This is an absolutely whole new ball game. Some other fusion scientists are also concerned that the classified experiments could taint the international pursuit of fusion energy. Stefan Atzeni, a physicist at the University of Rome and co-author of a definitive textbook on laser fusion, said he understands the need of U.S. scientists to learn more about weapons physics. But he opposes the use of weapons-grade plutonium in fusion experiments. Personally, I see these experiments as politically risky, he wrote in an e-mail last week. They certainly would not have a positive impact on public perception of fusion: They may be viewed as supporting weapons proliferation. The Clinton and Bush administrations concluded that NIF posed no proliferation risks in part because of the lasers enormous size and cost — it could not be replicated into a feasible weapon; and because experiments on NIF could yield rare insights into physics at the extreme temperatures, energies and pressures found only in stars and nuclear weapons. Some physicists, including the late Theodore Taylor, a weapons designer turned arms-control advocate, warned that the giant laser might open the door to novel fusion weaponry, driven by high explosives or magnetic fields. Such experiments could make it harder for the United States to persuade the United Nations to limit other nations nuclear research, said Christopher Paine, a senior weapons analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. How does the United States look objecting to the nuclear energy programs of other countries while it injects weapons research functions into its search for fusion energy? Paine said. It puts us in a frightfully hypocritical position. This new class of weapons would turn the operation of existing H-bombs inside out. Since the 1950s, virtually all nuclear weapons in the arsenals of advanced nuclear powers have been boosted designs. They inject fusion fuel into detonating atom bomb of plutonium and use the fusion reactions to split even more plutonium atoms. That dramatically raises the efficiency of the atom bomb, allowing weapons designers to shrink their size and weight as fission triggers for thermonuclear weapons. A possible new class of weapons is closer to fusion bombs, using nuclear fission as a booster. In some of the classified experiments proposed for the National Ignition Facility, scientists would fire at a pellet that looks rather like an atom bomb but is 100 times smaller. If the target works; if it implodes perfectly and doesnt squirt out to the sides; the pellet would be crushed smaller still, and the hydrogen fusion fuel inside would fuse, releasing trillions of neutrons. Some neutrons will shatter the atomic nuclei of the plutonium and produce hot fragments that deliver scads of energy back into the fusion fuel, making it burn more efficiently. The plutonium becomes an explosive to boost a tiny fusion bomb. Its 100 percent about new nuclear weapons that are just what people are looking for because theyre low-yield weapons with reduced residual radiation, said Kidder, the retired Livermore laser physicist. Weapons scientists would not discuss the experiments in detail, saying they are classified. But in response to written questions, scientists at Livermore who declined to be identified stressed that the experiments strictly were intended to improve the understanding of ordinary H-bombs. The classified shots are not relevant to any new design, they wrote. It is narrowing uncertainties in weapons physics, not exploring new weapons, that is the rationale for the classified experiments, according to Livermores scientists. If so, Kidder asks, why the secrecy? You put fission into it, and the world has to be kept out, Kidder said. I would prefer they did not do any fusion experiments with fission that were classified. But the whole idea of doing things in a dark corner and doing things that could lead toward proliferation, I dont favor that. Contact Ian Hoffman at: ihoffman@angnewspapers.com ### Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************