*****************************************************************
09/21/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.219
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] Iranian president denounces 'nuclear apartheid'
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Won't Leave Nonproliferation Treaty
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Gets Reprieve in Nuclear Standoff
4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Presses Case for Action Against Iran
5 sacbee.com Editorial: ...and so does Iran - 
6 BBC: Iran press throws down nuclear gauntlet
7 Atomic Iran: The Open Secret
8 IPS-English POLITICS:North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic
9 IPS-English POLITICS: North Korea Deal Seen as Starting Point
10 IPS-English NORTH KOREA-NUKE TALKS: Latest twist in nuclear
11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korean Nuclear Accord a Coup for China
12 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Accuses U.S. of Nuke Attack Plot
13 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear deal at risk after North Korea demands r
14 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Accuses U.S. of Plotting Attack
15 sacbee.com: Editorial: Back to square one? - 
16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Tense Weekend Preceded Six-Party Joint St
17 BBC: Press sees no quick fix over N. Korea
18 Japan Times: Patience has paid off so far
19 [NYTr] Nuclear Diplomacy: New US Tactics on Iran, N.Korea?
20 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senators Urge Pentagon to Keep Nukes Level
21 Guardian Unlimited: The Sino-US pincer
22 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Report Warns of More Terrorists
23 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear reaction
24 Bellona: Rumyantsev: Adamov should be sent back to Russia
25 Japan Times: KGB eyed Tokyo nuke 'accident' - late archivist
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
26 US: NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuanc
27 US: Guardian Unlimited: Two Nuclear Plants to Shut Down for Rita
28 US: NRC: NRC Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Release of Land from
29 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Rejoin NPT First, Reactors Come Later: Fo
30 US: NRC: NRC Raises Security Design Expectations for New Reactor Lic
31 Bellona: Ignalina NPP closure costs $14.6 billion
32 BBC: Nuclear power building 'must end'
33 Foreign Policy In Focus: Feeding the Nuclear Fire
34 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point leaks small amount of tainted water
35 US: Clarion-Ledger: Utilities take heavy financial hit 
36 US: NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear 
37 Lib Dem conference/ Wednesday: Baker: Scrap nuclear power
38 US: Foreign Policy: Think Again: Nuclear Energy
39 US: NCPA: THE RETURN OF THE MIGHTY ATOM                             
40 US: NRC: Meeting of the Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notic
41 US: HVN: Hairline cracks, radioactive moisture discovered in Indian 
42 IPS: POLITICS: North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic Coup'
43 US: Newsday.com: New York state chides NRC for late notification of 
44 US: NRC: Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of 
45 US: Newsday.com: Nuclear plant announcement coming Thursday in Washi
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
46 Xinhua: Radioactive capsules stolen in Venezuela   
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
47 Home buyers, beware! Straightgoods.com
48 Moscow Times: Radioactive Wire Found in Jet Crash
49 Interfax: Russia hampering crash probe - Lithuanian minister
50 RIA Novosti: Lithuania seeks answers for radioactive metal at Su-27 
51 US: Pueblo Chieftain: Thyroid cancer conference set for Lakewood 
52 US: NRC: John Myers, Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed 
53 US: Spectrum: Funds allow for RECA testing
54 Pacific Daily News: Bill to compensate Guam 'downwinders'
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
55 [NukeNet] Calls Needed To Stop Yucca N-Waste Dump
56 [shundahaialert] YES! Utah Senator jumps ship on Yucca nuke
57 Deseret News: Bennett reverses: He's foe of Yucca
58 Brattleboro Reformer: Board hears from public on VY waste
59 US: Pueblo Chieftain: Safe shipment of nuclear waste focus of two-da
60 Las Vegas RJ: CHANGE OF HEART: Yucca Mountain foes gain ally 
61 Las Vegas SUN: NRC advisory panel studies Yucca issues 
62 Las Vegas SUN: Utah senator: Yucca 'does not make sense' 
63 US: Casper Star-Tribune: Rising prices renew interest in Utah uraniu
64 US: Chemical & Engineering News: Federal Policy On Perchlorate Evolv
65 Salt Lake Tribune: Bennett switches, opposes Yucca 
66 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Stand against waste
67 Pahrump Valley Times: Caliente Corridor discussed in Goldfield 
68 Bennett: Yucca Mountain No Longer An Option
69 US: AU ABC: Govt called on to investigate uranium mining. 
70 KVBC: Yucca Project Loses Support
71 US: CCDR: Law could require reporting of environmental concerns to 
72 US: Canon City Daily Record: Cotter hearings come to close
73 US: Vermont Guardian: Utility regulators not bound by states dry cas
74 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain e-mail investigation continues 
75 Pahrump Valley Times: New radiation safety standards for Yucca 
76 Pahrump Valley Times: Nuclear industry exec picked to head project 
77 US: DOE: Record of Decision for the Remediation of the Moab Uranium 
 
                           PEACE
 
78 Secretary-general Urges Key States To Ratify Nuclear Test-ban Treaty
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
79 lamonitor.com: Leadership retreat focuses on courage, team building 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Iranian president denounces 'nuclear apartheid'
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:15:32 -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
 
Workers World - Sep 29, 2005 issue (posted 9/20/2005)
http://www.workers.org/2005/world/iran-0929/

Imperialist powers demand monopoly on technology

Iranian president denounces `nuclear apartheid'

By Fred Goldstein

The imperialist nuclear military powers have denounced proposals
advanced at the United Nations by the president of Iran for the
peaceful use of nuclear energy. Instead, they are moving to escalate
international tensions by drafting a proposal to bring Iran before the
UN Security Council so as to pressure it into ending its processing of
nuclear fuel.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at the UN's 60th
anniversary summit on Sept. 17, once again reiterated that his country
was seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy and proposed that "as a
further confidence building measure and in order to provide the
greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is
prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public
sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment
program in Iran. This represents the most far-reaching step, outside
all requirements of the NPT" (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

The full text of his speech can be found at http://www.iribnews.ir

He pledged once again "continued interaction and technical and legal
cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] will be
the centerpiece of our nuclear policy."

But Britain, France and Germany, the so-called EU3, backed and prodded
by Washington, have drafted a punitive resolution to be presented at
the IAEA meeting in Vienna. The resolution demands that Iran be taken
before the Security Council for alleged "breaches of atomic
safeguards."

The IAEA has never produced an iota of credible evidence that Iran was
working on nuclear weapons. But the imperialist powers, seeking to
keep all independent nations disarmed and vulnerable to attack, have
brought relentless pressure, including threats of military attack by
Washington and Israel, to intimidate and terrorize the Iranian
government into abandoning its nuclear energy program.

President Ahmadinejad referred to the hypocrisy of Washington,
Britain, France and Germany in calling Iran a nuclear threat even as
"Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various
locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman
weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of
the machines of war, threatening the international community and even
the citizens of the countries that possess them."

In fact, it is these very nuclear imperialist powers that are in the
greatest violation of the NPT, written and signed over 30 years ago,
which mandated the process of nuclear disarmament.

He denounced "nuclear apartheid" and the fact that "the culprits are
arrogating to themselves the role of the prosecutor" and "portray
themselves as defenders of freedom and human rights."

"How can one talk about human rights," Ahmadinejad declared, "and at
the same time blatantly deny many the inalienable right to have access
to science and technology with applications in medicine, industry and
energy and through force and intimidation hinder their progress and
development? Can nations be deprived of scientific and technological
progress through the threat of the use of force and based on mere
allegations of possibility of military diversion?"

"We must not," he declared, "at the beginning of the 21st century,
revert to logic of the dark ages."

President Ahmadinejad proposed that the General Assembly, "as the most
inclusive UN organ," create a committee to investigate mechanisms for
enforcing the NPT and "to investigate how--contrary to the
NPT--material, technology and equipment for nuclear weapons were
transferred to the Zionist regime, and to propose practical measures
for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East."

Washington and the EU3 are trying to bury their own aggressive
attempts at world nuclear domination beneath a pile of false charges
and slanders against Iran, which has submitted to hundreds of
inspections. Teheran has invited the IAEA to monitor its enrichment
processes. It is a clear case of a bunch of thieves crying "thief."

Iran, like all nations oppressed or formerly oppressed by imperialism,
has the right to self-determination. The ruling classes of Britain and
the U.S., the former colonizers of Iran, are attempting to destroy its
independence as a nation by preventing it from developing nuclear
energy, whether for power or for self-defense. They are aided by the
German and French imperialists.

Beneath all the diplomacy in Vienna, New York and Washington is the
threat of aggression by the Pentagon or its Middle East outpost in Tel
Aviv. It is a matter of urgency for the anti-war movement to stand in
solidarity with the Iranian people and to demand that the U.S. and the
EU3 keep their hands off Iran and cease obstructing its program of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and national development.

This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Won't Leave Nonproliferation Treaty
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 21, 2005 12:16 PM

AP Photo VIE117 

By ANDREA DUDIKOVA 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran's vice president said Wednesday that
Tehran does not plan to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty despite the country's displeasure over attempts by the
United States and Europe to refer it to the U.N. Security
Council. 

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh met with
representatives of Russia, China and the Nonaligned Movement,
all of whom are opposed to the U.S.-European push for Security
Council referral being prepared at a meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency board in Vienna. 

The chief U.S. representative to that meeting suggested North
Korea - which agreed Monday to a landmark nuclear disarmament
deal - could serve as a model for hauling Iran before the
Security Council. 

Washington insists that Iran is in breach of the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty, and in a speech to the board, U.S.
delegation head Gregory Schulte argued that ``the board complied
with its obligation ... to report North Korea's noncompliance''
after it broke its commitment to that same treaty two years ago. 

But Iran insists nuclear activities have not breached the
treaty, and Aghazadeh, the head of his country's nuclear
program, told reporters in Vienna that ``leaving the
(Nonproliferation Treaty) is not on the agenda of Iran.'' 

Asked about his meeting - part of Iran's lobbying efforts to
increase opposition to council referral - he said only: ``I
think this will have an impact on the outcome of the board.'' 

Aghazadeh had been expected to attend the IAEA's general
conference, scheduled for next week, but his appearance Monday
at the agency's 35-nation board meeting appeared to be arranged
on short notice. That reflected the importance Iran attached to
trying to deflect the chances of being hauled before the
Security Council because of international apprehensions about
its nuclear agenda. 

Tehran insists its nuclear program is solely for energy
production despite concerns of the United States and Europe
Union that it might be used for nuclear weapons. 

Tehran has warned the nuclear agency that referral to the
Security Council could lead it to start uranium enrichment - a
possible pathway to nuclear arms. On Tuesday, it said it could
stop allowing unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear
facilities and programs if the agency's board votes for Security
Council involvement. 

Aghazadeh, in Moscow on Monday, said Iran would welcome other
nations in its ongoing talks with European negotiators, and that
the new Iranian government wants to increase its cooperation
with Russia, which is building a reactor in Iran that triggered
U.S. concerns about Tehran's nuclear intentions. 

A European Union draft resolution, made available in full to The
Associated Press ahead of its formal presentation to the nuclear
agency's board, demands Iran's referral for alleged ``failures
and breaches of its obligations to comply'' with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. 

But some EU countries were leading toward delaying any vote past
this IAEA session, diplomats said, chiefly out of deference to
resistance from Russia, which has veto power in the Security
Council and is strategically and economically key to the
European Union. 

With opposition from Russia, China - another veto-wielding
council member - and developing countries, all of them on the
board, any vote on a resolution demanding Security Council
involvement would be close. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Gets Reprieve in Nuclear Standoff
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 21, 2005 10:16 PM

AP Photo VIE124 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran gained a reprieve in the standoff
over its nuclear program Wednesday, with diplomats saying the
European Union had decided to postpone its push to refer Iran to
the U.N. Security Council. 

The decision to delay a vote until a later board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency instead of demanding one this
week appeared driven by concerns about strong opposition. More
than a dozen of the 35 IAEA board member nations meeting in
Vienna - including Security Council members Russia and China -
are against the idea. 

Although a new EU draft motion does not mention Security Council
sanctions, it still calls for reporting Iran to the council if
it continues defying board demands, which include freezing
activities related to uranium enrichment, said senior diplomats
accredited to the IAEA. 

The text is expected to be introduced at this week's IAEA
meeting, but any vote on referral would come only at a future
session - at the earliest when the board meets again in
November, said the diplomats, who demanded anonymity because
they were not authorized to discuss EU strategy at the meeting. 

Just hours before the new draft was drawn up, the chief U.S.
representative to the IAEA lobbied board members for action this
week on the motion. The motion is formally a European Union
initiative but is being orchestrated in close consultation with
Washington and backed by Australia, Japan, Canada and others at
the meeting. 

``We agree with the European Union and a growing majority of the
board that the time has come to report Iran's (nuclear)
noncompliance to the Security Council,'' U.S. delegation head
Gregory Schulte told the meeting. ``It is now time for the board
to do our duty.'' 

Still, a diplomat familiar with U.S. thinking said the decision
to postpone referral suited Washington, which was not interested
in losing a Security Council battle against veto-carrying
members Russia and China. 

The U.S. diplomatic mission dealing with the IAEA in Vienna
declined comment when asked about the developments. A European
official - who also demanded anonymity as a condition for
discussing EU strategy - said China appeared rigid in its
opposition but ``the key is to gain Russia, and we think we can
gain Russia at a later date.'' 

In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the U.S. and
European initiative to refer Tehran to the Security Council as
counterproductive, saying it ``will not contribute to the search
for a solution to the Iranian problem through political and
diplomatic means.'' 

Although it avoids any mention of U.N. sanctions, the new EU
text proposes the Security Council consider ``making clear to
Iran'' that the crisis can ``best be resolved'' by cooperating
with IAEA investigators. 

Washington insists Iran has breached the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty, as did North Korea, which unilaterally
quit the pact two years ago but announced Monday that it would
give up its nuclear weapons program. 

But Iran insists its nuclear activities have not violated the
treaty. Iranian Vice President Gholmanreza Aghazadeh, the head
of his country's nuclear program, told reporters in Vienna that
``leaving the NPT is not on the agenda of Iran.'' 

He spoke after meeting representatives from Russia, China and
the Nonaligned Movement, which also overwhelmingly oppose the
U.S.-European motion. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator met Wednesday with ambassadors of
the three European countries trying to curb Tehran's nuclear
program, urging them to engage in ``forward-looking
cooperation'' with the Persian state, state-run radio reported. 

Ali Larijani also told the envoys of Britain, France and Germany
to reiterate to their leaders that Iran would not budge on its
plans to pursue a nuclear program in line with the treaty. 

Tehran says its nuclear program is solely for energy production,
despite U.S. and EU concerns that it can be used for nuclear
weapons. 

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that
President Bush believes Iran needs to return to the negotiating
table with the Europeans. 

``We've expressed our concerns about Iran's behavior,''
McClellan said. ``They have a long history of deceiving the
international community, of not abiding by their international
obligations, and that's why we remain concerned about their true
intentions.'' 

Tehran has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it
could start uranium enrichment - a possible step toward making
nuclear arms. On Tuesday, it said it could stop allowing
unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and
programs if the agency's board involves the Security Council. 

Aghazadeh repeated those warnings during Wednesday's closed
meeting with the Russians, Chinese and nonaligned delegates, a
diplomat familiar with the discussions said. He spoke on
condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. 

Aghazadeh, in Moscow on Monday, said Iran would welcome other
nations in its ongoing talks with European negotiators, and the
new Iranian government wants to increase its cooperation with
Russia, whose role in helping build a nuclear reactor in Iran
has added to U.S. concerns. 

--- 

On the Net: www.iaea.org 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Presses Case for Action Against Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Wednesday September 21, 2005 7:46 PM

AP Photo VIE115 

By ANDREA DUDIKOVA 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States on Wednesday urged
fellow board members of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency to do
their ``duty'' and haul Iran before the Security Council for
violating its nuclear treaty commitments. But the timing of a
vote on the issue appeared in doubt. 

A new European Union proposal on Security Council referral that
was circulated late Wednesday appeared to back away from a call
for immediate action in the face of strong opposition from more
than a dozen of the 35 board members of the International Atomic
Energy Agency meeting in Vienna, including Security Council
members Russia and China. 

The new draft still called for reporting Iran to the council -
but only at a future session, if it continues defying board
demands, including reimposing a freeze on uranium enrichment
related activities, according to senior diplomats accredited to
the IAEA. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because
they were not authorized to disclose the confidential details of
the draft. 

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh arrived in Vienna to
campaign against the U.S.-European motion and said his country
would honor the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regardless of
the board's decision - despite its displeasure over the push to
involve the Security Council. 

Aghazadeh spoke to reporters after meeting with representatives
from Russia, China and the Nonaligned Movement - all of whom
oppose the U.S.-European motion, which is expected to be
introduced at the board meeting. 

In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry criticized attempts to report
Iran to the U.N. Security Council as ``counterproductive,'' the
Interfax news agency reported. 

``This will not contribute to the search for a solution to the
Iranian problem through political and diplomatic means,''
Interfax quoted a Foreign Ministry statement as saying. 

The chief U.S. representative, meanwhile, lobbied board members
to support the motion - formally a EU initiative that is being
orchestrated in close consultation with Washington and backed by
Australia, Japan, Canada and others at the meeting. 

``We agree with the European Union and a growing majority of the
board that the time has come to report Iran's (nuclear)
noncompliance to the Security Council,'' U.S. delegation head
Gregory Schulte told the meeting. ``It is now time for the board
to do our duty.'' 

Meeting participants, who spoke anonymously because of the
sensitive issues on the agenda at the closed conference, said
the EU, Australia, Canada and Japan also demanded referral. 

An earlier EU draft resolution, made available to The Associated
Press, demands Iran go before the Security Council for alleged
``failures and breaches of its obligations to comply'' with the
treaty. 

But it avoids any mention of U.N. sanctions in recognition that
council members Russia and China would veto such a push.
Instead, the draft proposes the council consider ``making clear
to Iran'' that the crisis can ``best be resolved'' by
cooperating with IAEA investigators. 

Washington insists Iran has breached the treaty. Schulte argued
that North Korea set an example for Iran, telling delegates that
``the board complied with its obligation ... to report North
Korea's noncompliance'' after it dropped its commitment to that
same treaty two years ago. 

But Iran insists its nuclear activities have not breached the
treaty and Aghazadeh, who also is head of his country's nuclear
program, said ``leaving the NPT is not on the agenda of Iran.'' 

Asked about his meeting - part of Iran's lobbying efforts -
Aghazadeh said only: ``I think this will have an impact on the
outcome of the board.'' 

Tehran insists its nuclear program is solely for energy
production, despite U.S. and EU concerns that it can be used for
nuclear weapons. 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that
President Bush believes Iran needs to return to the negotiating
table with the Europeans. 

``We've expressed our concerns about Iran's behavior,''
McClellan said. ``They have a long history of deceiving the
international community, of not abiding by their international
obligations, and that's why we remain concerned about their true
intentions.'' 

Tehran has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it
could start uranium enrichment - a possible step toward making
nuclear arms. On Tuesday, it said it could stop allowing
unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and
programs if the agency's board involves the Security Council. 

Aghazadeh repeated those warnings during Wednesday's closed
meeting, a diplomat familiar with the discussions said. He spoke
on condition of anonymity because the information is
confidential. 

Aghazadeh, in Moscow on Monday, said Iran would welcome other
nations in its ongoing talks with European negotiators, and the
new Iranian government wants to increase its cooperation with
Russia, whose role in helping build a nuclear reactor in Iran
has added to U.S. concerns. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 5 sacbee.com Editorial: ...and so does Iran - 
           
North Korea is not alone in thwarting efforts to curb the spread
of nuclear weapons. Iran has rejected European proposals to
trade economic aid for renunciation of its nuclear program. Iran
claims the program is solely for peaceful energy generation;
U.S. and European officials believe it is a precursor to a
nuclear arsenal.

 And while Iran says it wants to continue negotiating, it
continues to insist that it has the right - under the
nonproliferation treaty, to which it, unlike North Korea, is a
party - to develop nuclear energy, despite its admitted
violation of the NPT by keeping secret some activities for
nearly two decades.

 Confronted with Iran's obstinacy, the Bush administration is
hamstrung both by the heavy strain on U.S. military resources in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and by its failure so far to gain enough
support in the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing
board for taking Iran's case to the United Nations Security
Council for possible sanctions. And even if that happened, China
and Russia might veto sanctions to preserve their economic ties
to Iran.

 So the nuclear standoff continues. That doesn't mean the quest
for nonproliferation shouldn't continue. But it should also
include steps by the United States and other declared nuclear
weapons powers to shrink their own arsenals - both because it's
right and because not doing so only gives Iran, North Korea and
perhaps others a rationale for defending their own dangerous
pursuits.


Copyright &copy; The Sacramento Bee
*****************************************************************
 6 BBC: Iran press throws down nuclear gauntlet
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 September 2005
 
Newspapers in Iran are in defiant mood as the country's officials 
appear before the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to 
explain Tehran's insistence in pursuing its nuclear programme, in 
defiance of the US and European Union. 

Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is 
widely upheld, and some papers advocate the country's withdrawal 
from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] should the issue 
be referred to the UN Security Council.         Kayhan 

The Majlis [parliament] should ratify and oblige th government to 
pull out from the NPT immediately without any more negotiations 
if Iran's dossier is sent to the UN Security Council [UNSC]. 
Withdrawing from the NPT and resuming uranium enrichment is only 
the first step, while Iran considers other steps like its 
influential role in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Persian 
Gulf, Lebanon, Palestine and the oil market.      [ src=] 

	Jomhuri-ye Eslami 

The Secretary General of Iran's Supreme Council o National 
Security has announced that Iran will pull out from the NPT if 
Iran's case is sent to the UNSC. It shows how Iranians are 
determined to defend their legitimate rights and will make others 
understand that Iran has decided to develop its nuclear capacity 
and this [withdrawal from the NPT] is only the first step.   

E'temaad 

The first point that [President] Ahmadinezha stressed is Iran's 
unwillingness to achieve the production of atomic weapons; what 
Iran's supreme leader [Ali Khamenei] has called a red line that 
must not be crossed. However achieving the technology of peaceful 
atomic energy is also another red line that cannot be ignored by 
anyone in the country.   

	Siyasat-e-Ruz 

America and its allies should accept the reality Iran is a 
powerful country that has developed its atomic technology by 
relying solely on its own scientists, and has not asked the help 
of any country. So it is Iran's legitimate right to enjoy its 
peaceful atomic energy like other atomic powers such as Russia, 
France, and Pakistan.   

        Aftab-e-Yazd 

All Iranian officials are now in agreement tha Iran's nuclear 
dossier is at a very sensitive stage. The only way of reducing 
threats is to rely on the people's support, and that requires 
certain conditions. The people should be informed clearly what 
are the problems faced by Iran.    

	Resalat 

The American-North Korea agreement over Korea' nuclear issue will 
put more psychological pressure on Iran, but the nature of 
Korea's problem is totally different. Iran has clearly announced 
that it is not seeking atomic weapons.        [ src=] 

BBC Monitoringselects and translates news from radio,
television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150
countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham,
UK, and has several bureaus abroad. 		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 7 Atomic Iran: The Open Secret

Nukes and Iran
 
Atomic Iran: The Open Secret
 By Alan Caruba
 Wednesday, September 21, 2005 

Here's what I don't understand. I have recently finished reading
Congressman Curt Weldon's book, "Countdown to Terror", Ilan
Berman's book "Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United
States", and Kenneth R. Timmerman's "Countdown to Crisis: The
Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran." 

Timmerman's book cites each exact day that the ayatollahs got
together to plot their Islamic conquest of the world, moving
their plans one step down the road. Berman's book is a more
general analysis, but equally specific when it needs to be, and
Weldon's book warns that these murderous, power-crazed men who
take their orders from Allah are deadly serious, repeatedly
saying they hate both Israel and the United States, and
apparently having few reservations about trying to destroy
either or both of us. 

According to these books ever since the overthrow of the Shah in
1979 and despite the 1980s war with Iraq, the handful of
ayatollahs who run Iran have lived for no other reason than to
spread the domination of Islam throughout the entire world, to
fund and control a network of terrorist organizations to do
their dirty work, and to acquire nuclear weapons. These guys may
be certifiable nuts, but they have achieved this. 

What I can't understand is how the billions we spend to have the
CIA and other agencies collect all that great intelligence data
about what the ayatollahs, al Qaeda, and other nasty people are
planning apparently either failed to connect the dots or were
ignored when they did! 

In 1998 the CIA was surprised to discover that both India and
Pakistan had acquired "nukes" as well. Earlier, the 1994 Clinton
administration's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, based on
the belief that you could actually do a deal with pathological
lying communist gangsters, also resulted in their predictable
capability to not only make nukes, but to deliver them via
long-range missiles. 

Successive US administrations have known that Iran has been
behind the many attacks on US embassies and armed forces, from
Lebanon to Beirut to Baghdad, yet have said little or nothing
until President Bush named Iran as one of the three "axis of
evil" nations. 

At a recent gathering of heads of state at the United Nations,
we got the measure of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
denied that Iran has long been engaged in the manufacture of
nuclear weapons, saying "The Islamic Republic never seeks such
weapons of mass destruction, and with respect to the needs of
Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to
these countries." This is a boldfaced lie and one of the best
reasons ever offered for a preemptive strike against known
Iranian nuclear and missile facilities. 

For 20 years Iran has lied, cheated, and done everything else to
achieve the ability to make nuclear warheads and the missiles to
transmit them, and the best the US could do was complain to the
United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency which was
enabling Iran every step of the way. In this effort, France,
Germany, Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea were among the
many nations that could not wait to provide blueprints and the
machinery to produce a nuclear Apocalypse. It was an open
secret. 

Prior to World War II, there was a spate of books by journalists
based in Germany and Europe who essentially said Hitler is a
very bad person and Germany is getting ready to start another
war. They were right. At the time, however, Americans most
definitely did not want to participate in a second war in
Europe. It required all the guile that Franklin D. Roosevelt
possessed to provide help to the British after they were
attacked and he had to wait until Pearl Harbor before Americans
decided that enough was enough. 

One would think that September 11, 2001 was enough, but its
memory has faded so swiftly that a lot of Americans are mad at
President Bush for putting our troops in harm's way in places
most could not find on the map. They are nasty, messy little
countries filled with people who dislike each other intensely. 

The White House, members of Congress, the CIA, et cetera, all
know that the real problem is Iran and always has been. Saddam
Hussein provided the reason for the US invasion whose strategic
purpose was to create a base for our troops if and when we had
to support either a popular uprising in Iran or disableâ€”via
another preemptive warâ€”as much of its nuclear and other WMD
capacity as possible. 

Indeed, what Saddam taught everyone in the region was, you don't
go up against the United States unless you have a nuclear
weapons. 

The ayatollahs--insanely determined to destroy Israel--sought to
achieve "parity" with Israel's nuclear capabilities. They
continue to arm Syria and, in Lebanon and Gaza, its proxies,
Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran was forever shipping shiploads of arms
to the Palestinians. 

The ayatollahs also know that launching a nuclear missile from a
ship off the coast of the US has already been "gamed" in the
Pentagon. And the result was that virtually nothing could be
done to prevent it. 

You too can read these books and learn every ghastly thing that
the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, and
the entire US intelligence community knows. 

Ironically, the greatest asset the United States has going for
it are the Iranian people who, time and again, have gone into
the streets to protest the ayatollahs. They are literally
pro-American! We have to ramp up our efforts to reach out to
them. 

If you thought that Iraq needed a regime change, an Iran with
nuclear weapons capability should move to the top of the list of
immediate foreign policy priorities. 

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on
the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, .   
  
  canadafreepress.com  
  torontofreepress.com   

  Copyright © 2005 | Privacy Statement   
*****************************************************************
 8 IPS-English POLITICS:North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:41:01 -0700

 
	autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP IP ML DV
POLITICS:North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic Coup'
Analysis by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Sep 21 (IPS) - Despite snags over the supply of a light-water
reactor, Monday's atomic disarmament deal with North Korea represents a
major diplomatic coup say observers in India,now an acknowledged nuclear
player.

The six-party Beijing agreement, involving China, the United States,
Japan, Russia and South Korea, not only holds the potential of defusing
regional tensions, running high ever since North Korea confirmed its
pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2002, but would have a bearing on Iran's
equally difficult case.

Monday's agreement in Beijing says that Pyongyang will end its nuclear
weapons programme in return for economic and energy benefits and
assurances of military security and return to the nuclear Non-
proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In 2003, Pyongyang defiantly walked out of the NPT. In February, it
announced that it possessed nuclear weapons and although many South
Korean analysts doubted that claim, others believe it could have two to
seven nuclear weapons.

As an incentive to dismantling its nuclear weapons, North Korea insisted
on being provided with a light-water nuclear power reactor for civilian
use. This had become the biggest sticking point in the four rounds of
talks but, unlike in the past, the U.S. has indicated willingness to
discuss it.

A six-party joint statement clearly says: ''The other parties expressed
their respect and agreed to discuss, at an appropriate time, the
subject'' of a light-water reactor (LWR) for North Korea.

Equally important in the agreement is the pledge, by the U.S. and North
Korea, ''to respect each other's sovereignty and right to peaceful
coexistence, and also to take steps to normalise relations''. The U.S.
has ''affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula
and has no intention to attack or invade (North Korea) with nuclear or
conventional weapons''.

''This is probably the key to understanding how the breakthrough took
place,'' Prof. R.R. Krishnan, India's foremost expert on the Korean
peninsula, who was until recently with Jawaharlal Nehru University's
School of International Studies in New Delhi, and is now setting up a
Korean studies centre in the southern city of Chennai.

''As Pyongyang saw it, the U.S. recently adopted an extremely hostile
posture towards it by calling North Korea a 'rogue state' and
an 'outpost of tyranny'. That generated enormous insecurity in
Pyongyang. Now, these concerns are beginning to be addressed with
Washington's new assurances,'' Krishan told IPS in a interview.

Krishnan sees the Sep.19 breakthrough as ''the most substantial step
towards normalisation of the situation in the Korean peninsula'' since a
landmark U.S.-North Korea agreement was signed in 1994.

The peninsula is the site of the last major cold war-era confrontation
between East and West most of which were fought out in third countries
in the developing world.

That said, the six-party deal is yet to be hammered out into specific
agreements which have an agreed sequence and this could pose a problem
in the near future.

Most importantly, the U.S. insists it wants to see North Korea's weapons
programme totally dismantled before delivering material assistance to it,
especially anything like a civilian reactor. Pyongyang has since
declared that the U.S. ''should not even dream of North Korea
dismantling its ''nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs''.

The timing of the different steps agreed to by the six parties could
cause some problems. But sincere and purposive diplomacy should be able
to sort that out. ''What North Korea is looking for is normalisation of
relations with Washington'', says Krishnan. ''Pyongyang itself says it
would not need a single nuclear weapon if its relations with Washington
were normalised''.

Therefore, Krishnan adds, ''It would be most appropriate if the U.S.
moves towards formally recognising Pyongyang, and welcomes the recent
thaw in North-South relations''.

North and South Korea have narrowed their differences and improved
relations in a sustained manner over the past six years. Washington has
been lukewarm to the improvement.

Optimistically, the latest breakthrough could pave the way for a winding
down of the fierce military rivalry on the Korean peninsula where
military budgets, relative to population, are among the highest in the
world.

North Korea is the world's most militarised state relative to
population, with active forces of 1.14 million and reserves of 7.45
million. South Korea has about 650,000 active forces and 3 million
reservists. It is also backed by 37,000 U.S. troops on its soil.

''All those who favour peace and negotiated dispute-resolution will be
heartened by two other potential consequences of the Sep.19 deal in
Beijing,'' said Prof. Achin Vanaik, expert on nuclear disarmament at the
Delhi University and internationally-known peace activist.

If and when fully fleshed out to the satisfaction of all concerned, the
agreement could establish the basis for the de-nuclearisation of the
Korean peninsula, and for a North-east Asia that is free of nuclear
weapons, he said.

South Korea would be tempted to develop a nuclear weapons capability
only if the North has one. (It has reportedly experimented tentatively
with a nuclear programme.) If the North abandons its nuclear weapons
verifiably, Seoul too could be persuaded to foreswear the nuclear option
permanently.

Japan is bound under its constitution not to make, acquire or bring in
nuclear weapons.

''If these obligations and agreements could be sewn up into a legal
agreement for a nuclear weapons-free zone, that would make for a secure
and stable North-east Asia,'' Vanaik said adding that such a demand has
long been voiced by peace movements in Japan and South Korea.

A major implication of the recent deal goes beyond the Korean peninsula
and to the growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme.

If North Korea has been called the ''Hermit Kingdom'' and an
oppressively autocratic, closed society, with only a slippery and
sketchy record of abiding by its international agreements, the same
cannot be said about Iran.

And if North Korea can be persuaded to give up nuclear weapons, then
Iran offers even greater hopes for a negotiated settlement because
Iran's is not an isolationist regime and the country is emerging from
extremism and changing into a normal and vibrant society.

After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared, last Saturday, at
the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that Iran had
an ''inalienable right'' to make its own nuclear fuel, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convened a week-long, closed door meeting
from Monday to decide whether to refer Iran's case to the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC).

Tehran has already made it clear that it looked for support from India
as a non-Western country, which not only makes its own nuclear fuel but
is also a self-declared nuclear power--all without being a signatory to
the NPT.

But India, which recently entered into a civilian, nuclear cooperation
agreement with the U.S., ending decades of international isolation in
nuclear technology, is now expected, as a result of the North Korean
deal, to vote with the European Union at the IAEA.

''India is not holding any brief for Iran's nuclear programme. We
believe that another nuclear weapon state in our neighbourhood is not
desirable. We also believe that Iran, as signatory to the NPT, must
honour all its commitments,'' said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,
as he left New York after the UNGA.

But given the success of diplomatic and conciliatory approaches to the
Korean nuclear crisis, some pressure could now mount on Washington not
rush down the path of placing Iran under UNSC sanctions.
(END/IPS/AP/IP/ML/DV/PB/RDR/05)


= 09211233 ORP005
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 9 IPS-English POLITICS: North Korea Deal Seen as Starting Point
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:05:59 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP NA IP BW NC=20
POLITICS: North Korea Deal Seen as Starting Point Only
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Sep 21 (IPS) - This week's Six-Party agreement on the princip=
les for denuclearising the Korean peninsula is being greeted somewhat war=
ily here, with most experts stressing that the accord marks only the begi=
nning of what is likely to be a protracted negotiating process that could=
  take years, rather than months, to achieve.

The deal reached by the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, the U.S., and China no=
netheless sets out a comprehensive framework. If successfully implemented=
, it would not only defuse a three-year-old crisis over Pyongyang's nucle=
ar intentions, but also ensure that nuclear weapons are effectively banne=
d from one of the world's most militarised hotspots and bolster the badly=
  battered Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

=94If North Korea returns to the treaty, it will bind every country in th=
e world save India, Pakistan, and Israel,=94 noted the New York Times, wh=
ich praised U.S. President George W. Bush, who personally signed off on t=
he deal, for having =94rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peacefu=
l international diplomacy and this vital treaty in particular=94.

Still, the precise details of verification, inspection, and the sequencin=
g of specific actions and rewards remain to be worked out in future round=
s of talks, the first of which is now set for early November. The longer =
these details take to be worked out, the easier it will be for hard-liner=
s, who had resisted any engagement with North Korea, to attack the accord=
=2E

=94This is a good statement of principles, but it does not and was never =
intended to solve all of the problems,=94 according to Alan Romberg, a Ko=
rea specialist and former senior State Department official at the Henry L=
. Stimson Centre here.

=94Nobody ever thought that the next steps would be easy,=94 he told IPS.=
  =94In fact, everyone knew that these details will be very, very difficul=
t to work out.=94

In a reflection of unhappiness by hawks within the Bush administration, n=
otably Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the accord is already being d=
enounced by some as a sell-out of the administration's previous insistenc=
e that Pyongyang should receive no gains until it completely and verifiab=
ly dismantles all of its nuclear programmes and surrenders the two or eig=
ht weapons that Washington believes it has already produced. The former i=
ncludes a uranium enrichment programme whose existence has been denied by=
  North Korea.

=94Wittingly or otherwise,=94 wrote Nicholas Eberstadt of the American En=
terprise Institute in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, =94the U.S. negoti=
ating team has executed an apparent cave-in -- embracing precepts crucial=
  to North Korean objectives but inimical to Washington's own.=94

Eberstadt, along with administration hard-liners, has promoted a policy o=
f =94regime change=94 in North Korea. He was particularly scornful of Was=
hington's agreement in the Sep. 19 =94Joint Statement=94 issued from Beij=
ing to discuss as part of the negotiation process the delivery of a light=
-water reactor to Pyongyang, a provision that recalls the 1994 =94Agreed =
Framework=94 reached between the North and the administration of former P=
resident Bill Clinton.

This provision was deemed so politically sensitive that the State Departm=
ent and its top negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian a=
nd Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill, sent it all the way up to Bush for f=
inal approval before the agreement was announced by Beijing, which has ch=
aired the talks.

=94The (world) has now witnessed a new administration in Washington -- pu=
rportedly cognizant of all the earlier U.S. mistakes -- make those mistak=
es all over again,=94 Eberstadt wrote.

The agreement provides that North Korea will give up all of its nuclear w=
eapons and programmes, return =94at an early date=94 to the NPT, from whi=
ch it abruptly withdrew three years ago, and submit to inspections and sa=
feguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In exchange, South Korea and the United States will pledge not to deploy =
nuclear weapons on the peninsula, and Washington will affirm that it has =
no intention of attacking or invading North Korea. In addition, both Pyon=
gyang and Washington pledge to respect each other's sovereignty and work =
to establish normal relations.

China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. agreed to provide North Ko=
rea with energy assistance, including electricity from the South. In addi=
tion, all six nations agreed to discuss =94at an appropriate time=94 the =
construction in North Korea of a light-water nuclear reactor (LWR).

This last point was particularly contentious, as indicated by the issuanc=
e by each party of a unilateral statement of its interpretation. In an in=
dication of many of the challenges to come, the U.S. statement declared i=
t would oppose the provision of a LWR to Pyongyang until the North had co=
mplied with all of its obligations, prompting a statement by North Korea'=
s foreign ministry that it would not return to the NPT until the U.S. agr=
ees to provide the LWR.

While Pyongyang's statement was seized on by hawks here as evidence that =
North Korea was not acting in good faith, Hill vowed not to get =94hung u=
p on=94 these kinds of details at this point in the process.

=94The challenge that Chris Hill and the State Department, as well as the=
  North Koreans themselves, face is how to sell the agreement to their dom=
estic audiences,=94 said Karin Lee, a Korea specialist at the Friends Com=
mittee on National Legislation, a lobby group here. =94These kinds of sta=
tements can be seen as directed as much as for the home audience as for t=
he opposing side.=94

Hill's reaction was particularly welcome to Lee, who stressed that if the=
  parties focus on their disagreements, as opposed to building on areas of=
  potential agreement, such as how verification and monitoring of North Ko=
rea's compliance will be carried out, the accord could quickly become und=
one.

=94If the sequencing about the LWR becomes the key topic in November, the=
n I would lose hope in the process,=94 she said.

=94Hill and the State Department are interested in results, not in playin=
g 'gotcha' with the North Koreans,=94 said Romberg, who welcomed their su=
ccess in getting an agreement. =94The first thing you have to do is to te=
st (the North Koreans) in a serious way with a serious negotiation, and t=
hat has been lacking until recently.=94

=94What Hill wanted to do was to establish agreement on the end state -- =
a denuclearised Korean peninsula and new sets of relationships between th=
e other five parties. Having done that, you now go back to the terribly d=
ifficult task of how you get there,=94 he said.=20

=94Anybody who criticises it misses the point that this is a very importa=
nt and necessary -- although not sufficient -- first step, although it do=
es not guarantee that you'll have success at the end of the day.=94
*****
+POLITICS: North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic Coup' (http://ipsnews.n=
et/news.asp?idnews=3D30361)
+POLITICS: Japan Wary of North Korean Nuclear Deal (http://ipsnews.net/ne=
ws.asp?idnews=3D30343)

(END/IPS/AP/NA/IP/BW/NC/JL/KS/05)

=20
=3D 09212358 ORP014
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 10 IPS-English NORTH KOREA-NUKE TALKS: Latest twist in nuclear
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:43:50 -0700

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
  NA IP EN DV=20
NORTH KOREA-NUKE TALKS: Latest twist in nuclear plan is no surprise
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)

DUBAI, Sep. 21 (WAM) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) daily said on Wednesd=
ay
that the U.S. approach to North Korea and Iran over the nuclear issue is
apparently one of a double standard as the former possesses nuclear weapo=
ns
and the latter does not.

    =94There is a great contradiction between the White House's approach t=
o
North Korea and Iran over the nuclear issue.

    =94North Korea has a nuclear weapons programme and nuclear weapons and
Washington is helping it get nuclear energy. Iran does not have the bomb =
and
the United States is hindering its efforts to get nuclear energy,=94 rema=
rked
'Gulf News' in a commentary on the issue.

    The North Koreans, the paper went on to say, certainly believe that th=
eir
success is due to getting their hands on the weapons first.

    =94That may be so, but it is a dangerous game of bluff to play. And bl=
uff
has played a large part in the negotiations.=94 Nevertheless, the Dubai-b=
ased
newspaper sees success in the development on the issue following North
Korea's agreement on Monday to scrap its nuclear weapons in return for
international cooperation to develop a peaceful nuclear programme, even
though the communist nation has, a day later, set new conditions to
dismantle its programme.

    =94On the basis that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, it is still somet=
hing
to be welcomed and the latest twist is not surprising.

    =94Dealing in nuclear matters with Pyongyang is an exercise in frustra=
tion
but the deal hammered out is, for all that, worthy of acknowledgment desp=
ite
what appears to be double standards on Washington's part....

    =94But if the North Korean deal has achieved anything other than the
reduction of tension on the Korean Peninsula it must be that talks and
negotiations can and do work. Its success is a defeat for those White Hou=
se
hawks who insisted that Pyongyang could not be trusted to come up with a
deal. It is a lesson that Washington should take note of when dealing wit=
h
other countries far removed from the approaching winter in Pyongyang,=94
concluded the paper. (WAM)





=20

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korean Nuclear Accord a Coup for China
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Wednesday September 21, 2005 8:46 AM

By ELAINE KURTENBACH 

Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING (AP) - China's success in orchestrating a landmark
six-nation accord on ending North Korea's nuclear program has
clinched its role as a major peacemaker in the region -
regardless of the challenges ahead for the deal, analysts say. 

Just hours after the deal was struck, communist North Korea said
it will not dismantle its nuclear facilities until it gets
light-water reactors from the United States. But Washington has
already rejected that demand, calling into question the North's
commitment to the accord. 

On Tuesday however, Beijing downplayed the comment, urging only
that all six countries make good on their promises reached after
more than two years of fractious negotiations. 

North Korea knows exactly what it has agreed to, said Foreign
Ministry spokesman Qin Gang. 

``During consultations and moving ahead, we may encounter
difficulties of this or that kind,'' Qin acknowledged. 

Beijing appeared jubilant over having bridged the differences
between its longtime ally Pyongyang and Washington - as well as
its neighbors South Korea, Japan and Russia. 

``China has worked to construct a lasting peace in Asia to the
benefit of the entire world,'' said a commentary Tuesday in the
communist party's newspaper, People's Daily. ``There is no
turning back.'' 

In the agreement Monday, North Korea pledged to abandon all its
nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security
assurances. In return, it won a recognition of its desire to
keep its civilian nuclear program and a pledge to discuss -
after it meets international safeguards and rejoins the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty - the light-water reactor issue. 

Just keeping the six nations talking is an achievement, said Yan
Xuetong, director of the Institute of International Studies at
Beijing's Tsinghua University. 

``So long as these talks can continue, we have the hope to
maintain peace in this region. We have the hope to solve the
problem peacefully,'' Yan said. ``I think at this moment, it's
good enough.'' 

North Korea's envoys to the talks left Beijing without making
any public comment. Other participants emphasized the accord's
worth depends on Pyongyang keeping its promises. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked the Chinese hosts of
the talks for their role in brokering the agreement. 

Beijing's success in keeping the governments talking and nudging
them toward a settlement was a test case for its diplomatic
clout, said Richard Baum, a political science professor at the
University of California, Los Angeles. 

The potential impact of the deal stretches beyond nuclear
disarmament to include pledges by rivals North and South Korea
to improve ties, and by both Japan and the United States to move
toward normalizing ties with Pyongyang. 

``Beijing is just testing its wings as a global player. This
agreement is a major sign of China having achieved that
stature,'' said Baum. 

It's a status China appears to be cultivating by seeking to work
more closely with the United States. 

Despite lingering friction over trade and human rights among
other issues, China's leaders are seeking greater influence -
and possibly support for their claim to the self-ruled island of
Taiwan - through cooperation with Washington, says Ding
Xueliang, a professor at Hong Kong's City University. 

``China is trying to work with Washington on all sorts of
international issues,'' says Ding. ``If that model can be used
in other international crisis situations Beijing and Washington
can really contribute to the situation in Asia.'' 

``I think this is a very, very carefully designed foreign policy
on Beijing's part.'' 

During the nuclear talks, with help from supporting players
South Korea, Japan and Russia, the U.S. and Chinese negotiators
played a ``good cop-bad cop'' strategy successfully against the
North, with Washington as the bad cop and Beijing as the good
one. 

``Washington must have said very tough things to them,'' he
said. 

The difficulties in finally winning agreement were only hinted
at by Wu Dawei, Beijing's chief envoy to the nuclear talks, who
said it was ``a process of all six parties overcoming one
mountain after another, one wall after another.'' 

The nuclear agreement sets no specific timetable for the North
to dismantle its nuclear program, but it does lay out a
step-by-step strategy - one to be worked out in detail when
talks resume in early November. 

Throughout the process, as the North's main ally and chief
source of food and other assistance, Beijing's influence will
remain pivotal. 

``The agreement shows that China has an irreplaceable diplomatic
role in the Northeast Asian region,'' said Zhu Feng, a professor
at Peking University's School of International Relations. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Accuses U.S. of Nuke Attack Plot
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Wednesday September 21, 2005 10:31 AM

AP Photo SEL103 

By JAE-SOON CHANG 

ting nucAssociated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Wednesday accused the
United States of intending to disarm the communist country and
then ``crush it to death with nuclear weapons'' - two days after
a landmark disarmament agreement that was expected to ease
tensions. 

North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear weapons program in
return for economic aid and security assurances at six-nation
talks in Beijing on Monday - the first breakthrough in more than
two years of negotiations. 

However, the country's rhetoric since then has cast doubt on its
commitment to the agreement and underscored its
unpredictability, though none of its negotiating partners say
they expect a breakdown in the disarmament talks, scheduled to
continue in November. 

``The ulterior intention of the United States talking about
resolving the nuclear issue under the signboard of the six-party
talks is as clear as daylight,'' the North's Rodong Sinmun
newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean
Central News Agency. 

``In a word, it intends to disarm and crush us to death with
nuclear weapons,'' the commentary said. 

Washington has repeatedly denied North Korean allegations that
it is planning an attack. 

Just hours after this week's agreement among the two Koreas,
United States, China, Japan and Russia, North Korea threw its
pledge into question when it said on Tuesday it wouldn't
dismantle its nuclear weapons program unless Washington agrees
to supply light-water reactors for civilian power - a condition
Washington already had rejected. 

South Korea, which has pursued closer economic and political
contacts with the rival North in recent years, interpreted the
North's latest demand as a negotiating tactic. 

``It seems (North Korea) has started laying the groundwork in
advance of the next round of negotiations,'' South Korean envoy
Song Min-soon said, according to the Yonhap news agency. 

The North demanded at the outset of six-party talks last week in
Beijing 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 in the agreement, with participants
saying they would discuss it ``at an appropriate time.'' North
Korea's negotiating partners made clear that the reactor could
only be discussed after it carries out its pledge to rejoin the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and accepts inspections from the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Nevertheless, the North chose to press the reactor issue a day
later - essentially introducing a major condition on its pledge
to disarm. 

The United States said this was ``not the agreement they
signed'' and China, which has hosted all four rounds of the
six-party negotiations since 2003, urged all parties to stick to
the agreement. 

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said he didn't think
``North Korea has any misunderstanding'' about the statement. 

Monday's agreement had drawn praise around the world and raised
hopes of resolving a standoff that has raised concerns of an
arms race in northeast Asia.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear deal at risk after North Korea demands reactor
 
· Six nation pact starts to unravel after just 24
hours 

· America and Japan reject call for civil project               
 		
Jonathan Watts, East Asia correspondent
Wednesday September 21, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Less than 24 hours after signing up to a draft agreement
to denuclearise the Korean peninsula, the government in
Pyongyang threw the negotiating process into disarray yesterday
by declaring that it would not abolish its atomic weapons
programme until it had been given a light-water reactor.

The potentially deal-breaking demand was condemned by the US and
Japan as unacceptable, but other signatory countries said that
it was simply the bluster of a nation notorious for using
uncertainty as a tactic. The statement bodes ill for the next
round of talks in early November, when the six parties - also
including South Korea, China and Russia - must try to put flesh
on the skeleton of an accord they reached on Monday.

Although vaguely worded, that signed agreement - the first in the 
two-year negotiating process - was widely hailed as a 
breakthrough, but its fragility was highlighted yesterday by 
North Korea, which said proposals for it to disarm before 
receiving a new nuclear power generator were a "non-starter".

"The US should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK's
dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing
light-water reactors," said a foreign ministry statement. "This
is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted
rock."

The question of whether North Korea should be given a civilian
reactor for electricity generation was one of the most divisive
issues during the latest round of talks. Under a previous 1994
agreement, Washington had promised to help build two light-water
reactors, from which it is harder to extract weapons-grade fuel
than other types of nuclear plants.

But the Bush administration fears that even these reactors could
be used for military purposes. It has conceded that North Korea
is entitled to such a facility, but only after it has dismantled
its nuclear weapons programme and allowed stricter international
safeguards to prevent a diversion of the fuel.

The US said the conditions announced by North Korea were a
contravention of its promises during the talks. "This is not the
agreement that they signed, and we'll give them some time to
reflect," a spokesman said. Japan's foreign minister, Nobutaka
Machimura, also dismissed the statement from Pyongyang. But, in
the first positive development since the talks, he announced
that Tokyo would soon resume bilateral talks with its neighbour
after a hiatus of almost a year.

China, the host of the talks, and South Korea said that the deal
was far from dead. But with the contentious issues of
inspections, disarmament and the timing of concessions still to
be decided, the negotiators still face months, if not years, of
work. "This is clearly progress, but it is just a first step in
a long march. The devil will be in the detail," said Glyn Ford,
an MEP who specialises in east Asian affairs. "Anyone who thinks
it is over is very much mistaken."

It is not the first time that North Korea has shifted course
during the past two years. After the first day of six-nation
talks in August 2003, the foreign ministry said it saw no reason
to return to the table. Several times since it has declared the
process fruitless and pointless. But it has repeatedly been
dragged back to the talks by a mixture of South Korean
incentives and Chinese pressure.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Accuses U.S. of Plotting Attack
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Wednesday September 21, 2005 8:16 PM

AP Photo NYJM101 

By KELLY OLSEN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - In a second day of bluster after its
disarmament accord, North Korea accused the United States on
Wednesday of planning a nuclear attack and warned it could
retaliate. 

North Korea ``is fully ready to decisively control a pre-emptive
nuclear attack with a strong retaliatory blow,'' the communist
nation's Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in an English-language
commentary carried by the state Korean Central News Agency. 

At six-nation talks in Beijing on Monday, North Korea promised
to give up its nuclear weapons program in return for economic
aid and security assurances. 

Since then, however, the North's rhetoric has underscored its
unpredictability and cast doubt on its commitment to the accord
hammered out with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the
United States after four rounds of contentious negotiations
stretching over two years. 

North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its atomic arms
program unless Washington agreed to supply light-water nuclear
reactors for generating electricity - a condition the U.S.
government has already rejected. 

Despite the tough statements, none of the North's negotiating
partners said they expected a breakdown in the disarmament
talks, which are scheduled to resume in November when the
parties meet in the Chinese capital to begin the hard work of
implementing the agreement. 

Washington has repeatedly denied North Korean allegations of a
planned attack, most recently in the joint statement at the
talks in Beijing, where the U.S. delegation ``affirmed that it
has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no
intention to attack or invade (North Korea) with nuclear or
conventional weapons.'' 

Pyongyang and Washington also pledged to respect each other's
sovereignty and to take steps to normalize relations. 

The North demanded at the outset of the Beijing talks last week
that it be given a light-water nuclear 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 type of nuclear program in light of its
efforts to obtain atomic weapons. 

The disarmament agreement sidestepped the issue, with
participants saying they would discuss it ``at an appropriate
time.'' 

North Korea's negotiating partners made clear the reactor could
only be discussed after Pyongyang carries out the pledge it made
Monday to rejoin the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
accepts inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Gregory Schulte, chief U.S. representative at the U.N. watchdog
agency, said Wednesday that the North needed to move quickly to
implement the accord. 

``The time has come for North Korea to join the international
community and to earn access to the political, economic and
security benefits of normalized international relations, trade,
investment and assistance,'' he said. 

Separately, a U.S.-led international energy consortium plans to
meet Monday and Tuesday in New York City to discuss its
suspended project to build two power-generating nuclear reactors
in the North, said South Korean official Ryu Jin-young. 

The reactors were meant as a reward to the North for agreeing
with the United States in 1994 to freeze - and ultimately
dismantle - its nuclear program. The $4.6 billion project was
suspended in 2003 when U.S. officials said North Korea revealed
it was still working on atomic weapons. 

--- 

Associated Press writer Jae-Soon Chang contributed to this
report. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 15 sacbee.com: Editorial: Back to square one? - 

Sacramento Bee"
 	
North Korea balks at nuclear accord...
 
It took less than 24 hours for the unpredictable North Korean
Communist regime to do something utterly predictable: pour cold
water over a nuclear disarmament deal the world thought it had
agreed to.

 Then again, we may be wrong: North Korea is, as we first said,
unpredictable.

 At the end of six-party talks in Beijing that had seemed to be
going nowhere, North Korea unexpectedly agreed, according to a
joint communique, "to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing
nuclear programs and to return at an early date to the
nonproliferation treaty of nuclear weapons." It also agreed to
submit to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards -
meaning inspections to verify compliance.

 That seemed clear, as did assurances to Pyongyang of energy
assistance, a U.S. pledge not to attack North Korea and a
step-by-step process leading toward diplomatic relations. U.S.
officials even agreed to discuss "at an appropriate time"
construction of a light-water reactor for the production of
civilian nuclear energy by North Korea, an unprecedented gesture.

 Justifiably, skeptics, especially in Washington, doubted that
Pyongyang would dismantle its nuclear arsenal before a reactor
was started. And sure enough, yesterday North Korea's foreign
ministry said the United States "should not even dream" that
dismantling nuclear weapons would precede construction of a
nuclear plant.

 What this apparent retreat from an apparent breakthrough means
is anyone's guess. But the Bush administration has responded
calmly, expressing neither surprise nor pessimism. And so far,
other parties to the agreement - most important, China, which
convened the talks and brokered the accord - have called on
Pyongyang to stick to what it agreed to.

 Then again, the agreement does not spell out a timetable; nor
does it mention what U.S. officials say is a second, secret
North Korean nuclear weapons program that Pyongyang denies
exists. That raises the possibility that even if the Beijing
agreement were to be carried out, no one could be sure the North
Koreans weren't building more nuclear bombs.

Copyright &copy; The Sacramento Bee
*****************************************************************
 16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Tense Weekend Preceded Six-Party Joint Statement: NYT
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Sep.21,2005 20:04 KST   
 
(englishnews@chosun.com ) 


  The U.S. government spent last weekend in emergency
discussions over a statement of principles on North Korea¡¯s
nuclear programs that was finally agreed in Beijing on Monday,
the New York Times reported. The paper said U.S. President
George W. Bush ultimately ended sometimes heated debate and gave
the go-ahead. 

According to the NYT report, U.S. chief negotiator Christopher
Hill held emergency discussions with Washington over the weekend
after China submitted an amended draft agreement. It included a
line calling on North Korea to dismantle "all nuclear weapons
and existing nuclear programs," but the schedule for this was
not addressed. There was also a line calling for discussions "at
an appropriate time" about building a light-water reactor for
the North, a matter Washington had avoided making concessions
on. The paper said Hill was concerned that the Bush
administration was trying to shun the light-water reactor issue
because it brought to mind the Geneva Accords of the Clinton
administration. 

In presenting its amended draft, China informed the United
States it had only several hours to decide whether to adopt it,
while the North Korean side expressed hope that the U.S. would
not walk away from the negotiating table. 

After receiving Hill's report, officials in Washington engaged
in fierce debate. But Bush felt he had no choice but to accept
the draft because he had already decided several years earlier
that a military attack to take out North Korea's nuclear
facilities was impossible. On Sunday, he told Hill he could sign
the agreement. Quoting unnamed officials, the NYT said Bush was
tied down in Iraq, consumed by Hurricane Katrina, and headed
into another standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The
agreement, they said, provides him with a way to forestall, at
least for now, a confrontation with another member of what he
once famously termed 'the axis of evil.' 

In the process, when the light-water reactor issue turned into a
major headache, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met
with her South Korean and Japanese counterparts and proposed
that each side issue their own explanations of what they believe
the agreement to mean. Seoul and Tokyo went along with the idea,
despite opposition from the former. 

The NYT said China put pressure on the U.S. during negotiations
by saying if Washington did not accept discussion about building
a light-water reactor and the talks then collapsed, Beijing
would blame Washington. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
*****************************************************************
 17 BBC: Press sees no quick fix over N. Korea
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 September 2005
 
[L-R: United States Assistant Secretary of State Christopher 
Hill, South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-so and North 
Korea's chief negotiator Kim Gye Gwan after reaching agreement in 
Beijing]                                  

Handshakes hide a long road ahead                                                           

Regional newspapers are unsurprised by North Korea's insistence
it will not scrap its nuclear programme until it receives a
civilian nuclear reactor, which immediately called into question
the agreement reached on Monday in the six-party talks. 

Commentators believe Pyongyang is simply seeking to get the best
deal from an agreement replete with ambiguities, and there is a
long road ahead before a final understanding is achieved. 

A Taiwanese commentator believes that Beijing's role has helped
it gain the upper hand in its competition with Washington for
regional supremacy. 

	Comment in Beijing's China Daily 

	  	The talks ahead are fraught with difficulties
confrontations, complications and unforeseen factors. The past
tells us that, when it comes to Korean nuclear negotiations, one
must possess sufficient political and diplomatic patience and
tolerance... But this certainly cannot shake our confidence in a
political and diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear
issue. 	


	Columnist in China's Huaxia Shibao 

	  	The statement of the North Korean side [demanding 
light-water reactor from the US] is only a tactical trick, aimed
at stressing that its national interests are guaranteed. If too
much is read into it, it will obviously be disadvantageous to
the denuclearization process on the peninsula. 	


	Shanghai's Jiefang Ribao 

	  	The war of words between North Korea and the US is b
no means a sudden unforeseen mishap, it is in fact both sides
reiterating their respective core interests in order to strive
for the initiative in the next stage of negotiations. What it
reflects is precisely where the trouble lies in the
hard-to-resolve North Korean nuclear issue - the lack of mutual
trust. 	


	Comment in Shanghai's Diyi Caijing Ribao 

	  	There are still very many barriers which have to b
overcome, but this is after all the most crucial achievement in
the international community's activities and efforts concerning
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in many years. The
agreement has not only strengthened the confidence of the six
sides to sit together and resolve the issue - it will certainly
have a positive influence on the formation of a new security
mechanism in Northeast Asia. 	


	Comment in Taiwan's China Times 

	  	Looking at the agreement, the US is actually th
biggest loser, and China and North Korea have made significant
progress. Saying that China and North Korea have joined hands to
create another setback for the US' Asia-Pacific diplomacy is not
at all inappropriate... China has not only seized the initiative
again, it has managed to maintain the situation of 'talks and no
breakdown' in the North Korean nuclear issue, and will thus
avoid directly laying its cards on the table with the US at the
United Nations, but will use its hosting of the talks to control
the security agenda in Northeast Asia, use North Korea to curb
Japan, and then bind up the 'US-Japanese alliance'. From this
outcome, Beijing's strategy has been extremely successful. 	[
src=] 


	South Korea's The Korea Herald 

	  	The statement on principles - elaborated mostly i
ambiguous phrases - also signalled a tough and complicated road
ahead for the six parties, who must now sit and negotiate how
and when to transform the agreed principles into action...
Ambiguity lies in almost all of the articles, including the
"appropriate time" in which the members will discuss the subject
of the provision of a light-water reactor. 	


	South Korea's Hankyoreh 

	  	North Korea and the United States are each trying t
interpret to their own advantage parts of the document that they
had long been at odds over before arriving at a compromise...
Therefore the current situation can be seen as a war of nerves
between North Korea and the United States as they try to seize a
more advantageous upper hand. Ultimately the problem will have
to be resolved in the long process of negotiation about concrete
implementation of the joint statement. The [South] Korean
government needs to continue to exert creative effort to assure
that the North and the US soften their mistrust and implement
the statement with concrete agreement. 	


	Australia's The Sydney Morning Herald 

	  	Despite North Korea backing away from part of th
agreement yesterday, at the very least, it shows that patient
diplomacy offers better prospects of progress than the stalemate
resulting from the previous pattern of non-negotiable demands by
the United States and brinkmanship and cheating by Pyongyang's
erratic leader, Kim Jong-il... The importance of Beijing's
readiness to take a constructive initiative is encouraging, not
just for the Korean Peninsula, but for the wider region... There
is a long, tortuous way to go, but this sounds like the
beginning of wisdom. 	


	Melbourne's The Age 

	  	Kim Jong-il, leader of the world's most reclusiv
regime, may look like an oddball but he is nobody's fool. He has
again shown as much by calling the bluff of United States
President George Bush on nuclear proliferation. Mr Bush ... has
been compelled to wind back the rhetoric and the threats... The
positive diplomacy is welcome: there were always flaws in Mr
Bush's hardline approach... But where North Korea is concerned,
things are seldom as they seem. Yesterday its foreign ministry
cast doubt over the deal... Sadly, the long march to peace and
prosperity for oppressed and starved ordinary North Koreans is
far from over. 	


	Japan's Mainichi Shimbun 

	  	Taking advantage of the vague wording of the join
statement, North Korea announced its self-serving interpretation
of the wording in the joint statement. The North Korean
leadership had already firmed up its future negotiation policy
without waiting for the briefing on the results of the talks. 	[
src=] 


BBC Monitoringselects and translates news from radio,
television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150
countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham,
UK, and has several bureaus abroad. 		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 18 Japan Times: Patience has paid off so far

Wednesday, September 21, 2005   
  
EDITORIAL

The issuance on Monday of a joint statement in Beijing by
representatives of the six nations that had taken up North
Korea's nuclear-weapons programs has come as relief to those who
have been watching the talks with both trepidation and
expectation. If the talks had failed, the United States, one of
the two main protagonists in the talks with North Korea,
probably would have taken the issue to the United Nations
Security Council to press for economic sanctions against the
North, a move that could have further heightened tensions in
East Asia. Although the six nations, which also include China,
Japan, South Korea and Russia, have followup work to do, their
patience in negotiating has been rewarded so far.

 China's efforts as chair of the talks and the wisdom of the
U.S. and Japan in compromising on North Korea's demand for a
light-water nuclear reactor should be noted. As chief U.S.
negotiator Mr. Christopher Hill said, "It is a big decision for
them, but it is absolutely the right decision for them." If
North Korea has emerged from the talks with the realization that
its prosperity does not depend on nuclear weapons but instead on
improved relations with other countries, as Mr. Hill also
suggested, it will be something to heartily welcome.

 In the joint statement, North Korea pledged to abandon its
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and return at an
early date to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and to
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards, while the
U.S. made it clear that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean
Peninsula and has no intention of attacking or invading North
Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.

 South Korea reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy
nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 joint declaration on
the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and affirmed that
nuclear arms do not exist within its territory.

 Apart from the nuclear issue, another welcome outcome is that
Japan and North agreed to take steps to normalize relations in
accordance with the Sept. 17, 2002, Pyongyang Declaration, which
had called for an early resumption of normalization talks. It is
hoped that both parties will make a serious effort to resolve
pending issues such as North Korea's missile program and the
fate of all Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by
North Korean agents in the past.

 The path that led to the joint declaration was a rugged one.
The six-party talks started in August 2003 in Beijing. The
latest meeting was a continuation of the fourth round following
a 37-day recess. The first three rounds were fruitless. After
the third round, North Korea had refused to resume negotiations.
In February 2005, it declared that it possessed nuclear weapons.

 By the time the fourth round started in late July, however, a
ray of hope had appeared as South Korea offered to provide
substantial electric power to North Korea, and the U.S. started
referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in a respectful
manner -- a gesture that North Korea had coveted -- and repeated
assurances that it harbored no hostile intent toward North Korea
and respected its sovereignty.

 The joint statement says North Korea and the U.S. will commit
to a peaceful coexistence and to steps for normalizing relations
subject to their bilateral policies. It also refers to South
Korea's reaffirmation of its July 15, 2005, proposal to provide
2 million kilowatts of electric power to North Korea, and to the
willingness of the U.S., China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to
provide energy assistance to North Korea. In broader terms, the
six nations agreed to promote economic cooperation in the fields
of energy, trade and investment, bilaterally and multilaterally.

 The biggest sticking point in the fourth round was North
Korea's insistence that it had a right to a peaceful
nuclear-energy program and its demand that it be furnished with
a light-water nuclear reactor. Japan and the U.S. were reluctant
to agree, fearing that North Korea would cheat as it did in the
past. Apparently both nations made a compromise. In the joint
statement, North Korea's negotiation partners, respecting North
Korea's claim regarding peaceful uses of nuclear energy, agreed
to discuss the subject of "providing light-water reactor" (no
articles attached) to North Korea at an appropriate time.

 The most important achievement is that the six parties have
reaffirmed that their goal is the verifiable denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. They will need to
make further efforts in the talks set to resume in early
November, again in Beijing, to find ways to implement the
various pledges agreed on during the latest talks. The most
important and difficult issue will be verification of North
Korea's dismantling of its nuclear programs. Patience and wise
compromise must be allowed to carry the day again.

 The Japan Times: Sept. 21, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 19 [NYTr] Nuclear Diplomacy: New US Tactics on Iran, N.Korea?
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:28:33 -0500 (CDT)

 
	WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=unavailable 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
 
Newsweek - Sep 19, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9401515/site/newsweek/

Nuclear Diplomacy

The Bush administration has finally changed its tactics on Iran and N.
Korea. The problem is that during four years of stalemate, both countries
moved on with their programs.

By Michael Hirsh

Sept. 19, 2005 - The time for diplomacy is now, Condoleezza Rice declared
at her confirmation hearings eight months ago. Its clear that Rice meant
what she said. Almost as soon as she became secretary of State, she swiftly
empowered a pragmatic negotiator, Christopher Hill, to find common ground
with North Korea. Hill, the assistant secretary for East Asia, may have done
just that on Monday when he announced a tentative and partial deal to
eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program, saying that Washington and
Pyongyang could now exist peacefully together.

Rice has also spelled out a softer approach to Iran, reflecting a weakening
in the U.S.  position since Washington got bogged down in Iraq. Last week at
the United Nations she even removed, at the last minute, a tough line in her
speech that identified Iran as a leading state sponsor of terrorism. (We
didnt want to get out too far ahead of the Europeans, explained a senior
administration official.) But while the Bush administration has replaced
four years of hard-line tactics with real diplomatic maneuvering, it has a
whole new set of problems. The main difficulty is that during the years of
stalemate, both Iran and North Korea have moved on with their nuclear
programs. And they are aggressively using this progress on the ground as
leverage in talks. Tehran, especially, is barreling ahead with newfound
confidence, converting uranium at a great rate and seeking to isolate
Washington and its three European allies diplomatically from other nations,
especially Russia and the other 30 members of the International Atomic
Energy Agencys Board of Governors.

Since re-activating its nuclear program in August in defiance of the wishes
of the European Union-3 Britain, Germany and FranceIran has converted
more than seven tons of raw uranium or yellowcake at its Isfahan facility
into uranium hexafluoride gas, or UF6, officials with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tell NEWSWEEK. UF6 is the basic feeder stock for
enriching uranium into bomb-grade material and reactor fuel. Added to more
than two tons already on hand, thats enough for two nuclear bombs, says
David Albright, a nuclear expert with the Institute for Science and
International Security in Washington.

And in a speech last Saturday that was by turns combative and conciliatory,
new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to pre-empt U.S.-European
efforts to gain support for an anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of
Governors, which is meeting this week in Vienna. Ahmadinejad proposed a plan
by which Iran enriches its own uranium in partnership with other
countriesbecoming, in effect, a nuclear supplier. He specifically mentioned
a joint Iranian-South African collaboration, proposed by Pretoria, to
provide yellowcake to Iran and take back all the UF6.

The idea, according to a diplomat who is familiar with Tehrans thinking, is
to establish a kind of pilot program on the ground before Iran and the EU3
negotiate the entire package. That way Ahmadinejads planwhich originated
in consultations during the visit of Iranian then-chief nuclear negotiator
Hassan Rohani to South Africa about two months agowould gain legitimacy in
the international community. South Africa is an IAEA board member.

What is Irans ultimate strategy? Some U.S. officials and observers believe
that Tehrans plan is to string out the negotiations while it gets closer to
a nuclear weapons program.  The new UF6, for example, is placed in metal
cylinders deep in a tunnel complex that might be immune from a military
strike (although it remains under IAEA camera surveillance). I think they
want to have enough for several bombs worth stockpiled in case theyre
stopped, says Albright. In order to enrich this material to bomb grade,
however, Iran still has much work to do in building cascades of
centrifuges suitable for that task.  Iran denies it has any ambitions to
build a nuclear weapon, which Ahmadinejad said Saturday is prohibited by
our religious principles.

Finally, if diplomatic push does come to shove and the Westerners opt for
economic sanctions, Iran may be seeking to blunt their impact by reducing
the number of countries that will sign on to them. U.S. and European
officials recognize they may never gain a U.N. Security Council resolution
imposing sanctions. But the senior administration official, who spoke only
if his name was not revealed, said Washington could still pack a punch in
hurting Irans already-isolated economy as long as it had the major European
powers, and possibly Japan, on board for bilateral sanctions. Ultimately if
we try to bring something to the Security Council on Iran, were probably
not going to succeed given the Iraq experience. Especially if its us versus
Iran, said the official. Thats why we have to move in lockstep with the
EU3. Were waiting for them to become as frustrated as we have been with the
Iranians.

U.S. and European officials urged the IAEA board to refer Iran to the
Security Council after Ahmadinejad vowed to continue Iran's efforts to
develop enrichment capability and reportedly said he would pass Tehran's
nuclear know-how to other Islamic nations. But Russia has balked, saying
such a referral should not take place before further diplomatic efforts are
made.

North Koreas aims are less transparent than Irans. President Bush,
reacting to Hills statement of a joint agreement in six-party talks with
North Korea on Monday, said the news was a positive step, but added, now
weve got to verify whether or not that happens. The two nations agreed to
work toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, in exchange for
which Washington pledged it has no intention to attack or invade North
Korea and held out hope for aid, economic cooperation and possibly a
civilian nuclear program in the future.

If such a deal succeeds, it may not end up looking terribly different from
the 1994 Framework Agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration,
despite years of harsh criticism of that pact by the Bush administration.
But in the meantime the North has also moved ahead with its programand,
just as dangerously, may be involved in nuclear proliferation. A report in
the Sankei Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper, last week quoted a high-ranking
North Korean military official as saying that Pyongyang has already passed
on ballistic missile information to a friendly nation in the Middle East.

U.S. intelligence officials believe that Tehran has based its Shahab 3
missile on the North Korean Nodong missile, and that it is seeking to adapt
the Shahab 3 to be able to carry a small nuclear warhead. U.S. officials had
no immediate comment Monday on the Japanese news report. But U.S.
intelligence officials have contendedat least until nowthat North Koreas
efforts to sell its knowhow have been confined to missiles, not WMD
technology.

) 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: Senators Urge Pentagon to Keep Nukes Level
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Thursday September 22, 2005 12:46 AM

By MARY CLARE JALONICK 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. should maintain its current level of
500 nuclear missiles, a group of senators told Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. 

The senators wrote Rumsfeld on the same day they met with Air
Force and Pentagon officials to discuss the future of the
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, at bases in North
Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. 

A Pentagon review of future military strategy, conducted every
four years, is expected to be released by early 2006. Sen. Kent
Conrad, D-N.D., and the other senators said they worry that the
review will recommend reducing the stockpile. 

``We know there are discussions going into'' the review to cut
the number, he said. ``Once you start reducing, where do you
stop?'' 

In the letter, the senators argued that nuclear deterrence is
still necessary. 

``The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression
and kept the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from
escalating to global annihilation continue to play a critical
role,'' they wrote. 

The letter was signed by Democrats Conrad and Byron Dorgan of
North Dakota, Max Baucus of Montana and Ken Salazar of Colorado
along with Republicans Michael Enzi and Craig Thomas of Wyoming,
Conrad Burns of Montana and Robert Bennett of Utah. 

Pentagon officials shed little light on what the review will say
but stressed that the missiles are an important part of the U.S.
nuclear strategy. 

The current fleet of missiles, called Minuteman III, are
expected to last through 2020. They are at Minot Air Force Base
in North Dakota, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana and F.E.
Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: The Sino-US pincer
 
Simon Tisdall
Wednesday September 21, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
North Korea's unexpected pledge this week to abandon its nuclear 
weapons appears to be the result of a highly unusual diplomatic 
pincer movement by the US and China. The manoeuvre has 
potentially positive implications for resolving the nuclear 
stalemate with another so-called axis of evil state, Iran.

The deal forged at the six-party talks hosted by China in Beijing 
remains highly fragile, as yesterday's renewed demands from 
Pyongyang show. But if made to stick, diplomats believe that it 
may come to be seen as a landmark in Sino-US strategic security 
cooperation and a paradigm for ending the west's dispute with 
Tehran.

After two years of fruitless talks, the turning point seems to 
have come not in Beijing but in New York, at a private meeting 
last week at the UN between George Bush and the Chinese leader, 
Hu Jintao. The US president is said to have warned his 
counterpart that in the absence of progress, the US may step up 
pressure on North Korea's weak and inherently unstable regime - 
with unpredictable consequences.

"If the talks had failed again, it would have harmed China's 
credibility," said an Asian diplomat familiar with the Beijing 
talks. But China had more powerful motives, too. As its economy 
and international standing have grown, its broader interests in 
solving the dispute have increasingly fallen into line with 
Washington's.

"China has its own security and economic concerns. It sees North 
Korea as a destabilising factor in the region. It wants to keep 
it as a buffer state, to keep the status quo. It doesn't want the 
Korean peninsula to be nuclearised or destroyed," the diplomat 
said. Beijing also feared Pyongyang's nuclear arms could lead its 
regional rival, Japan, and South Korea to acquire similar weapons 
while encouraging a heightened US military presence.

The US decision to offer security guarantees, aid and technology 
to North Korea, having long refused to do so, also reflects a 
more consensual perspective in Washington. That change is 
attributed in part to Condoleezza Rice's appointment as America's 
top diplomat and the reassignment to the UN of John Bolton, the 
former arms control chief whose abrasive style antagonised 
Pyongyang.

But preoccupations with Iraq, growing worries about Iran, plus 
Japanese and South Korean concerns about escalation have also 
helped persuade the White House that China's insistence on 
engagement, rather than confrontation, may best serve its 
interests. The US eschewed bilateral contacts after the 2002 
rupture that led North Korea to quit the nuclear 
non-proliferation treaty. Now its chief negotiator, Christopher 
Hill,hailing the deal as a "turning point", may visit Pyongyang.

The contradictions between this new US approach and its policy 
towards Iran may become increasingly difficult to justify 
internationally. Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear agency chief, 
made the comparison this week while warning against American (and 
Iranian) "brinkmanship". Iranian officials say privately that 
Washington's refusal to meet bilaterally, indirect threats of 
military coercion, and economic sanctions all hinder progress on 
the nuclear issue.

Beijing seems to agree. With its UN veto in its pocket, it has 
opposed punitive measures against Iran, an important oil and gas 
exporter, while insisting engagement is the best path forward. 
Ironically, it may be China, Washington's new-found "strategic 
partner" in the east, which also holds the key to the west's 
Iranian impasse.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Report Warns of More Terrorists
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 21, 2005 12:31 AM

AP Photo UNDK108 

By KIM GAMEL 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Al-Qaida has spawned a so-called ``third
generation'' of followers skilled in urban warfare and suicide
bombings and U.N. sanctions need to be updated to keep up with
the changing tactics, a report warned Tuesday. 

The committee monitoring sanctions against the terror network
and the Taliban said the arms embargo, travel ban and assets
freeze have been effective but ``the combination of sanctions
has still not achieved its full potential.'' 

``Al-Qaida continues to evolve and adapt to the pressures and
opportunities of the world around it and the threat of a
significant attack remains real in all areas,'' the group said
in a report to the U.N. Security Council. 

``At the same time, there has been a revival of the threat from
the Taliban,'' it said, adding that recent evidence suggests the
remnants of Afghanistan's ousted hard-line regime have access to
more money. 

The report, which was dated Sept. 9 and contained
recommendations that will be considered by the U.N. Security
Council, was released as Afghanistan faced the fiercest fighting
in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces invaded in late 2001, with
more than 1,200 people killed in the six months leading up to
Sunday's historic legislative elections. 

Sanctions currently require all 191 U.N. member states to impose
a travel ban and arms embargo against Afghanistan's former
Taliban leaders, Osama bin Laden and his terror network and
those ``associated with'' them, and to freeze their financial
assets. 

The committee recommended more measures to clamp down on terror
financing and said the Security Council should consider
broadening the arms embargo to keep the groups from obtaining
military-quality materials or using chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. 

It said al-Qaida is seeking to stage more massive attacks to
gain media exposure and an effective embargo would force
militants to use less efficient equipment or risk discovery
trying to procure more effective means. 

``Terrorist tactics have evolved over the past several years and
the (monitoring) team believes the arms embargo should change
with the times,'' the report said. 

It said no state had reported an attempt to breach the arms
embargo but it noted implementation often was complicated in
some post-conflict regions or areas beyond government control,
such as in Somalia and Afghanistan. 

The committee's report said al-Qaida's message remains the same
but its operations have expanded to comprise three groups - bin
Laden and his deputies, fighters who trained in Afghanistan and
new recruits alienated by world events who form cells locally. 

It described the new recruits as a third ``new and growing
generation of supporters who may never have left their countries
of residence but have embraced the core elements of the al-Qaida
message.'' 

``These cells are emerging as the main threat posed by al-Qaida
terrorism today,'' the report said. ``They are bound to the
al-Qaida leadership by an overall unity of purpose but remain
independent, anonymous and largely invisible until they
strike.'' 

They often receive training from ``the veterans of Afghanistan
or other areas of conflict'' or travel to Iraq to gain skills in
urban warfare, bombmaking, assassination and suicide attacks,
then return home where they pose an increased threat. 

The report came more than a month after the Security Council
adopted a resolution expanding the sanctions to spell out for
the first time who is included among associates of al-Qaida and
the Taliban. 

It also stated that people who finance or plan acts to support
the outlawed groups and who recruit or provide weapons for bin
Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban ``or any cell, affiliate, splinter
group or derivative thereof'' will face sanctions.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear reaction
 
Tokyo dispatch 
		
North Korea's apparent volte-face following negotiations in 
Beijing highlights the need for some straight talking between 
Pyongyang and Tokyo, writes Justin McCurry              
 		
Wednesday September 21, 2005            
 		
[South Korea's deputy foreign minister, Song Min-soon, watches as 
US assistant secretary of state Christopher Hill (l) shakes hands 
with North Korea's chief negotiator, Kim Gye Gwan, at the close 
of six-party talks in Beijing. Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AFP/Getty 
Images] South Korea's deputy foreign minister, Song Min-soon, 
watches as US assistant secretary of state Christopher Hill (l) 
shakes hands with North Korea's chief negotiator, Kim Gye Gwan, 
at the close of six-party talks in Beijing. Photograph: Ng Han 
Guan/AFP/Getty Images
 

 The ink was barely dry on Monday's six-nation agreement in 
Beijing when North Korea apparently began to renege on its 
commitments.

Hours after it brought renewed hope for stability in north-east 
Asia by agreeing to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme in 
return for aid and help with its civilian nuclear programme, 
Pyongyang appeared to undergo a change of heart. Dismantlement 
would come, it said, but only after the US provided it with the 
light water reactors it needs to solve its desperate energy 
crisis.

"The US 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" a 
statement by the North Korean foreign ministry said. "This is our 
just and consistent stand, as solid as a deeply rooted rock."

Tokyo, wrong-footed by North Korea's apparent about turn, began
the day by plugging its ears and drowning out the diplomatic
noise. Less than a day after giving a cautious welcome to North
Korea's original agreement, Japan's foreign minister, Nobutaka
Machimura, yesterday described the North Korean statement as
"unacceptable".

Any discussion on light water reactors would begin only after
Pyongyang dismantles its nuclear weapons and returns to the
non-proliferation treaty, he said.

Foreign ministry spokesman Akira Chiba, added: "What is
acceptable is that once there is an agreement, we are going to
implement it promptly and steadily. And there is an agreement."

By the end of the day this latest obstacle to progress had been
nudged, if not swept away, with an agreement by Japan and North
Korea to continue bilateral talks on the latter's nuclear
weapons programme and, significantly, the abduction of Japanese
citizens by Pyongyang agents at the height of the cold war.

"Japan and North Korea have agreed to resume dialogue at an
early date," Machimura said. "As to the date, place and other
details, we will make arrangements." The talks will be the first
since last November.

Regardless of what lies ahead for the six-party negotiations,
which will resume in Beijing later this year, the need for some
straight talking between Tokyo and Pyongyang has never been more
obvious.

Japan has made it clear that it will not help North Korea get to
its economic feet - beginning with the restoration of normal
diplomatic relations - until the Korean peninsula is free of
nuclear weapons and the abductions issue has been resolved.

In other words, until the North hands over the remaining
Japanese nationals it admits snatching from the Japanese
coastline in the 1970s and 1980s, or provides incontrovertible
evidence for its claims that they are dead, Japan will play no
part in the provision of civilian nuclear power plants on which
the resolution of north-east Asia's most serious security threat
depends.

"The issue of the abductees is very important; solving it will
allow us to go ahead with our plans for economic cooperation,"
Chiba said. "We are aiming at a comprehensive solution."

Japan, after all, considers itself high on the list of potential
North Korean targets. The North has test-fired missiles over
Japanese territory - most recently in May - and, aside from two
useful meetings in Pyongyang between Kim Jong-il and Junichiro
Koizumi - the political rhetoric is uncompromising on both sides.

But if anything, the Japanese public places a higher priority on
the abductions.

During his first meeting with Koizumi in the North Korean
capital in 2002, Kim admitted his country's spies had abducted
13 Japanese nationals, but that eight of them had died. The
remaining five returned later the same year, quickly becoming a
cause celebre for hardliners who argue that unilateral economic
sanctions offer the only hope of coaxing the North to come clean
on the fates of the abductees they are convinced have been left
behind.

Under pressure from a well-organised lobby, Japan has so far
refused to take Pyongyang at its word. North Korea, which
considers the matter closed, did not help its cause earlier this
year when it returned remains it said belonged to Megumi Yokota,
one of the "dead" abductees, only for DNA tests in Japan to show
that they belonged to someone else.

While ceding ground on the abductees would be near unthinkable
for Japanese negotiators, they are aware too that Japan has much
to gain from an agreement on nuclear weapons alone.

As Machimura said yesterday: "The fact that North Korea has
promised for the first time to abandon all its nuclear weapons
... in a verifiable way will serve as an important basis for
ridding the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons."

Restoring normal relations would also bring immediate benefits
to North Korea in the form of a huge flow of Japanese economic
aid on a par with that extended to South Korea after the war, as
well as energy assistance.

The impoverished North suffers from chronic power shortages.
Satellite pictures taken at night showing a brightly lit South
and a near blacked-out North are proof enough of that.

But according to experts, the North's antiquated power grid,
much of it built during the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation,
cannot handle the output from nuclear reactors.

Barely a third of the work had been completed on two light water
reactors under a 1994 international agreement when Washington
pulled out amid suspicions that the North was producing highly
enriched uranium for use in a nuclear weapons programme.

Acting alone, North Korea is incapable of modernising its power
grid and building the reactors itself - a job estimated to cost
several billion dollars. Offers from South Korea to supply power
in exchange for Pyongyang giving up its nuclear programme offer
an alternative way forward but would take at least three years
and cost $1.5bn (£828m) to implement.

With so much at stake on either side, Japan's response to this
latest act of diplomatic bluster could best be described as
tinged with optimism that the North's apparent attempt to renege
on Monday's agreement in Beijing agreement is little more than a
bump in the road.

"We have to closely watch North Korea's actions to find out if
there are fundamental differences in our interpretations [of the
Beijing statement]," Hiroyuki Hosoda, Tokyo's most senior
government spokesman, said this week. "If our interpretations
are completely different, then that means we'll be back to
square one, but I believe that is not the case."

Korea needs Japanese cash and expertise; Japan needs a
non-nuclear North Korea. It is some quid pro quo, and one from
which neither side can afford to walk away.
 	
 	 	
 	Email
justin.mccurry@guardian.co.uk

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 24 Bellona: Rumyantsev: Adamov should be sent back to Russia
 
Former Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov should be
given an opportunity to return to Russia and answer the
questions of Russian law enforcement agencies, Alexander
Rumyantsev, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom),
told Itar-Tass Russian news agency reported today.

2005-09-21 14:47

"I have known Yevgeny Olegovich for a long time and very well,
we had close contacts in joint work over 30 years. He is a very
skilled, effective and purposeful specialist," Rumyantsev said
on Radio Mayak on September 17. "It is necessary to return
Adamov to Russia and give him an opportunity to answer all
questions authorities want to ask him." 

The former atomic energy minister was detained in Bern,
Switzerland on May 2 at the request of the US authorities who
accuse him of misappropriating $9 million that were allocated by
the US Department of Energy for boosting security at Russian
nuclear power plants and other safeguards. 

In an interview with Russian journalists on September 6 Adamov
called the US "absurd." He believes his case is a link in a
chain of the global intrigue aimed at "weakening of the
[Russian] state" and eventually at the "occupation of Russia." 

Both the United States and Russia are seeking extradition of
Adamov. The Swiss Federal Justice Department has already
considered a decision that Adamov may be extradited to Russia.
Now the Justice Department is considering the issue of his
possible extradition to the United States, Itar-Tass reported. 
  
  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
*****************************************************************
 25 Japan Times: KGB eyed Tokyo nuke 'accident' - late archivist

  Wednesday, September 21, 2005   
  
LONDON (Kyodo) The KGB considered releasing radioactive material
in Tokyo Bay in the late 1960s, which it hoped would be blamed
on American submarines and thereby damage Japanese-U.S.
relations, according to a book published Monday by a former KGB
archivist.

 "The Mitrokhin Archive II," written by Vasili Mitrokhin,
reveals several sabotage plans by KGB officers to sour
Tokyo-Washington relations.

 The book discloses that Foreign Ministry officials, journalists
and politicians from both the right and the left were helping
the Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s.

 Mitrokhin was a senior KGB archivist from 1948 to 1984. 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 new book, cowritten 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 it would be blamed by the public on nuclear
submarines based at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Prefecture.

 The plan was vetoed by senior officers, who feared it would be
difficult to obtain U.S. radioactive material, and getting it
from somewhere else could have provided a trail back to Moscow.

 The book also discloses a plan to have a Japanese agent leave a
bomb planted in a book in the American Cultural Center in Tokyo
in October 1965 at the time of demonstrations against the
Vietnam War.

 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.

 Mitrokhin reveals ultimately unsuccessful attempts by the
Soviet intelligence service to kill a revised security treaty
between Japan and the U.S. in 1960.

 He claims the KGB helped foster a Japanese student protest
targeting President Dwight D. Eisenhower's press secretary,
James Hagerty. Later, senior KGB officials took some of the
credit when Eisenhower's trip to Japan was canceled due to
safety concerns.

 The KGB stationed in Tokyo managed to get bogus secret annexes
to the proposed revised treaty published. These purported to
continue terms in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty regarding
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 to
sabotage 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 that could be used as wartime bases
for KGB officers.

 The former archivist reveals that the KGB had two valuable
agents, code-named Rengo and Emma, based in the Foreign
Ministry. They provided large amounts of material between the
late 1960s and 1979. Emma reportedly used a small camera fitted
to her handbag to copy sensitive documents.

 The KGB 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, code-named Nazar, who also helped Moscow 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 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
autumn 1979, the KGB had 31 agents and 24 confidential contacts,
according to Mitrokhin.

 The book reveals that the KGB managed to collect a large amount
of technological information from Japanese companies,
particularly in the field of computers.

 Mitrokhin concluded that although the Soviets spent a lot of
money on operations in Japan, they failed to truly achieve their
goals or improve Moscow's image.

 "Though the KGB offensive in Japan generated many tactical
operational successes, it ended in strategic failure. The
enormous quantity of S&T (science and technology intelligence)
collected by Line X (KGB section) from the West and Japan could
not save the Soviet system from economic collapse," the book
says.

 Mitrokhin's book, whose U.S. edition is titled "The World Was
Going Our Way," also recounts how Soviet spies flopped in Iraq,
failing to win over Saddam Hussein or sufficiently bolster his
opponents, including Jalal Talabani, Iraq's current president.

 The Japan Times: Sept. 21, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18917 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55425-55427] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-120]                         
 
Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, issued 
to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) for operation of Oconee 
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Seneca, South 
Carolina.
 
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) to relocate the pressure temperature limit curves of TS 
3.4.3 to the Selected Licensee Commitments Manual and add TS 
Section 5.6.9 to reflect the requirements of Generic Letter 96-03 
for this relocation.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated: The proposed 
changes to reference only the Topical Report Number and title do 
not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
 
[[Page 55426]] determine the PTL [pressure temperature limit] 
that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of 
referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current 
Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to 
submit an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of 
revisions to Topical Reports will require review in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.59 and where required receive NRC review and 
approval.
 
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) 
from performing their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, 
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used 
in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not 
increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation 
exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety 
analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
 
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any kind of accident previously evaluated: The proposed 
changes to reference only the Topical Report Number and title do 
not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the 
PTL that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method 
of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current 
Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to 
submit an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of 
revisions to Topical Reports would still be reviewed in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and where required receive NRC 
review and approval.
 
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements.
 
The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
 
The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions and current plant operating practice.
 
(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of Safety The 
proposed changes to reference only the Topical Report Number and 
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to 
determine the PTL that have been reviewed and approved by the 
NRC. This method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the 
use of current Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR 
without having to submit an amendment to the operating license. 
Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still be 
reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and where required 
receive NRC review and approval. The proposed changes do not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not 
altered by the proposed changes. Sufficient equipment remains 
available to actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an 
analyzed event. As such, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific
 
[[Page 55427]] contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks 
to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment 
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least 
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa 
F. Vaughn, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 S. Church Street, Mail 
Code-PB05E, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 15, 2005, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System'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 16th day of 
September 2005.
 
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18917 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited: Two Nuclear Plants to Shut Down for Rita
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday September 22, 2005 12:01 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Twin nuclear power reactors at the South Texas
Project on the Gulf Coast are expected to be in the path of
Hurricane Rita and will shut down before the storm hits land,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday. 

The South Texas Project reactors, 12 miles southwest of Bay
City, Texas, will be shut down seven hours before the storm is
expected to hit land, its operators have told the agency. 

The NRC said workers at the Waterford nuclear power plant 20
mile west of New Orleans also were making preparations for the
hurricane, but Rita's path will determine if it will shut down. 

The Waterford reactor was closed down Aug. 28 in before
Hurricane Katrina and later restarted. The NRC says it must shut
down if winds are anticipated to be more than 74 mph. 

The NRC has sent inspection teams to the facilities. 

``Both plants are robust structures with watertight doors
designed to withstand hurricane force winds,'' the NRC said in a
statement. 

--- 

On the Net: 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: NRC Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Release of Land from Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant

News Release - Region I - 2005-05
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-050                          
September 21, 2005 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil 
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: 
opa1@nrc.gov  
  

a proposal to release part of the R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant
for unrestricted use. 

The meeting will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. at the R.E. Ginna
Training Center, 1517 Lake Ontario Road in Ontario. 

Constellation Nuclear, which operates Ginna, sent the NRC a
letter on May 20 requesting the release of a part of the site
for unrestricted use. (The document is available from the NRCs
electronic database at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. The
accession number is ML051530448.) Before approving the proposed
partial site release, the NRC must determine that the company
has met the criteria for such a release. The 15-acre tract of
land consists of two adjacent parcels on the western edge of the
site boundary. Its entirely outside of the exclusion area. 

Documents related to this action, including the application and
supporting documentation, are accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems Public
Electronic Reading Room at the NRCs web site:
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Those without access to ADAMS
should contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) staff at
800/397-4209. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. 

To expedite the required visitor processing and to assure
adequate accommodations, prospective attendees are encouraged to
contact Shannine DiMora at 315/524-6935 prior to the meeting.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, September 21, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 29 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Rejoin NPT First, Reactors Come Later: Foreign Minister
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Sep.21,2005 19:11 KST   

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 


  Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday that he hoped North
Korea would soon faithfully implement the pledges it made in the
six-party agreement. Attending a debate on the North Korea
nuclear issue held by Harvard University's Kennedy School, Ban
said the joint statement recently adopted at the six-party talks
was a first step toward a peaceful solution to the North Korean
nuclear issue and a very important start. 

About the provision of light-water reactors to the North, Ban
clearly took the position that the reactors would be provided
after North Korea returns to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), calling for discussions to start after Pyongyang
returned to the NPT and observed IAEA inspection regulations. 

Ban said North Korea promised to abide by IAEA regulations, and
in order to do this, he thought the North would soon meet with
the IAEA. He expressed hope that North Korea would implement the
agreement by becoming more open and a responsible member of the
international community. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: NRC Raises Security Design Expectations for New Reactor Licensing Activities
 
News Release - 2005-13
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-131     September 21, 2005   
  

consideration of security earlier in reactor designs and license
applications. 

The NRC is developing proposed revisions to its policy statement
on advanced reactors, as well as revisions to security-related
aspects of the agencys regulations for licensing new reactors.
The aim of the process is to have applicants submit security
assessments early, so that plant designers establish security
features well before construction is planned. The NRC will
notify the public about opportunities to comment on the proposed
changes. 

Were looking to take advantage of the opportunities for early
consideration of security, as well as safety, to be incorporated
into reactor designs, said David Matthews, Director of the
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs in the NRCs Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Accordingly, security design
expectations should be considered as early as possible in the
design and licensing of new reactors. 

The NRC staff will also work on setting standards for future
reactor designs so that security is integral to the design
process. The staffs discussion of the topic will be available
from the NRCs electronic document database, ADAMS, by entering
ML051100233 at this Web address:
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, September 21, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 31 Bellona: Ignalina NPP closure costs $14.6 billion
 
The Lithuanian Parliament stated that Ignalina NPP closure
ordered by the European Union would cost $14.6 billion. 

2005-09-20 17:47

The experts are afraid that Lithuania will not manage to fulfil
its obligations concerning the plant’s shutdown due to the high
costs. According to the experts' estimates $5 billion is
required just to close the nuclear plant and accommodate the
radioactive and nuclear waste. The rest $9.6 should cover the
economical loss and social expenses. The Lithuanian government
should also upgrade the existing electricity generation plants,
build new and improve the system of electricity distribution in
the republic, ITAR-TASS reported.   

  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway



*****************************************************************
 32 BBC: Nuclear power building 'must end'
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 September 2005
 
[Norman Baker]                                  

Mr Baker said sustainable energy sources were the future                                                                 

Liberal Democrats have been urged to rule out the building of any 
more nuclear power plants. 

The party's environment spokesman, Norman Baker, said there 
should be more use of renewable energy sources, to cut carbon 
dioxide emissions. 

Nuclear power was "enormously expensive" and should be dumped for 
"better long-term returns". 

The party's conference in Blackpool also discussed bringing in a 
system of road user charging. 

'Greatest threat' 

The Lib Dems want to reduce UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 
2050. 

Mr Baker said: "The sooner we close the debate over nuclear 
power, the sooner investment in renewable can grow." 

He added: "Climate change is the greatest threat facing the 
planet. A threat of such global proportions must be tackled 
through international action. 

"The environment must be at the heart of government, not out on a 
limb." 

The government has not ruled out building more nuclear power 
stations to help it meet carbon emission targets and plug the 
energy gap created by the closure of ageing plants. 

Mr Baker said: "If we are comparing the effect on the landscape 
of wind farms and nuclear power, I know which one people would 
choose." 

Meanwhile, the Lib Dem transport spokesman, Tom Brake, called for 
vehicle excise duty and fuel tax to be replaced by road user 
pricing. 

He said: "The United Kingdom has the dubious honour of having the 
most congested roads in Europe. 

"We find ourselves in a situation where our high streets come to 
a virtual standstill, our motorways go at a crawling pace. 

"Without proper action, things will only get worse." 		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 33 Foreign Policy In Focus: Feeding the Nuclear Fire

| A Think Tank Without Walls
 
FPIF Special Report
   
By Zia Mian and M.V. Ramana | September 20, 2005 

Editor: John Gershman, IRC     

  Foreign Policy In Focus     www.fpif.org  

The July 18 joint statement by U.S. President George Bush and
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has attracted a great deal of
comment. The focus has been on the possible consequences of U.S.
promises to support India’s nuclear energy program in exchange
for India clearly separating its military and civilian nuclear
facilities and programs and opening the latter to international
inspection. 

Much of the debate on the deal has arisen between what can be
broadly called nuclear hawks and nuclear nationalists. The hawks
believe that New Delhi’s nuclear program is a great success and
that India is more than able to take care of itself. They see
the deal as imposing unnecessary constraints on India’s nuclear
program and impeding the creation of a large nuclear
arsenal--including thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs)--which
they believe to be essential for India to achieve “great power”
status. 

The clearest expression of this perspective comes from former
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), who seek the largest possible nuclear weapons
capability. Vajpayee argues: that “Separating the civilian from
the military would be very difficult, if not impossible… It will
also deny us any flexibility in determining the size of our
nuclear deterrent.” When he refers to “flexibility” in
determining the size of the Indian nuclear arsenal, he does not
include reducing or eliminating it. Rather, his term expresses
the fear that separating civil and military facilities may curb
the arsenal’s size. 

Nuclear nationalists have a less ambitious, more traditional
perspective that considers India’s nuclear program a great
national technological achievement and necessary for India’s
economic and social development. They see the deal as offering a
way to sustain and expand the nuclear energy program without
unduly restricting a “minimum” nuclear weapons arsenal. 

The current government has embraced this nationalist view, as
have many defenders of the deal. The prime minister laid it out
most clearly to Parliament on July 29, saying: “Our nuclear
program … is unique. It encompasses the complete range of
activities that characterize an advanced nuclear power … our
scientists have done excellent work, and we are progressing well
on this program as per the original vision outlined by Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Homi Bhabha.” Singh went on to argue
that “nuclear power has to play an increasing role in our
electricity generation plans,” and he noted that the deal is
flexible because “our indigenous nuclear power program based on
domestic resources and national technological capabilities would
continue to grow.” The expected international support, both in
nuclear fuel and nuclear reactors, will help “enhance nuclear
power production rapidly,” he added. At the same time, he made
it clear that “there is nothing in the joint statement that
amounts to limiting or inhibiting our strategic nuclearweapons
program.” 

These two positions have by and large dominated the debate so
far. There are many problems with both views. The first is their
shared belief in the success of India’s nuclear energy program
and the need to continue with and expand this effort. They fail
to recognize that the deal is actually a testament to the
longstanding, expensive, and large-scale failure of the
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to safeguard health, safety,
the environment, and local democracy. 

Both camps also contend that nuclear weapons are a source of
security, though this conviction has been extensively
debunked.[1] Those who persist in this belief also ignore the
essential moral, legal, and criminal questions of what it means
to have--and be prepared to use--nuclear weapons. The only
differences between the two camps are in the character and size
of the genocidal weapons they desire and in the number of people
they are prepared to threaten to kill. 
A History of Failure
 

The establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1948
was framed by the rhetoric of indigenous national development.
Led by Homi Bhabha, the AEC portrayed India as forging its own
path in the new nuclear age. That was not to be. There was no
progress until the United Kingdom offered the design details and
enriched uranium fuel for the first Indian nuclear reactor,
Apsara.[2] In what was to become a pattern, the official
announcement when the Apsara reactor went critical declared the
landmark a “purely indigenous affair.”[3] 

Similarly, the CIRUS reactor, which provided the plutonium used
in the 1974 nuclear test (and quite likely some used in the 1998
tests as well), was supplied by Canada, and the heavy water used
in it came from the United States. An American firm, Vitro
International, was awarded the contract to prepare blueprints
for the first reprocessing plant at Trombay. The first power
reactors at Tarapur and Rawatbhata were supplied by the United
States and Canada respectively. And foreign collaboration did
not just extend to reactors. Many of India’s nuclear scientists
were schooled in America and elsewhere. Between 1955 and 1974,
over 1,100 Indian scientists were sent to train at various U.S.
facilities.[4] 

Extensive foreign support of the nuclear program ended only
after the 1974 nuclear test. The international community led by
Canada and the United States--both of whom were incensed by
India’s use of plutonium from the CIRUS reactor, which had been
given purely for peaceful purposes--cut off most material
transfers relating to New Delhi’s nuclear program. However,
India’s nuclear facilities surreptitiously procured components
from abroad, and foreign consultants continued to be hired for
projects.[5] Moreover, DAE personnel still had access to nuclear
literature and participated in international conferences where
technical details were freely discussed. 

Even with all this help, DAE’s failures were many and stark. In
1962, Homi Bhabha predicted that by 1987 nuclear energy would
constitute 20,000 to 25,000 megawatts (MW) of installed
electricity generation capacity.[6] His successor as head of the
DAE, Vikram Sarabhai, predicted that by 2000 there would be
43,500 MW of nuclear power.[7] In 1984, the “Nuclear Power
Profile” drawn up by the DAE suggested the more modest goal of
10,000 MW by 2000.[8] India never came close to meeting any of
these goals. 

After over 50 years of generous government funding, nuclear
power amounts to only 3,400 MW, barely 3% of India’s installed
electricity capacity. This capacity is expected to rise by
nearly 50% over the next few years but not because of the DAE.
The largest component of the expansion will be two 1,000 MW
reactors purchased from and being built by Russia. 

This history of failure explains the escalating demands from the
DAE and other nuclear advocates to gain access to international
nuclear markets. Only with international help can the DAE ever
hope to achieve its latest promised goal of 20,000 MW by the
year 2020. 

Another pressure driving the deal with Washington has been the
DAE’s failure to manage its existing nuclear program. In its
determination to build more and more reactors--something to show
for all the money that it gets--the DAE has failed to provide
reactor fuel. Soon after the U.S.-India deal was announced, this
oversight became apparent in a statement from an unnamed
official to the British Broadcasting Corporation who admitted:
“The truth is we were desperate. We have nuclear fuel to last
only till [sic] the end of 2006. If this agreement had not come
through we might have as well closed down our nuclear reactors
and by extension our nuclear program.”[9] The former head of the
atomic energy regulatory board has reported that this is not a
new problem, he notes that “uranium shortage” has been “a major
problem for the officials of NPCIL and the Nuclear Fuel Complex
(NFC) for some time.”[10] 

The issue is simple. Apart from Tarapur I and II, all DAE
reactors are fueled using uranium from the Jaduguda region of
Jharkand. The total electric capacity of the heavy water-based
power reactors is 2,450 MW. At 75% operating capacity, they
require nearly 330 tons of uranium every year.[11] The reactors
that are supposedly dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear
weapons, CIRUS and Dhruva, consume perhaps another 30-35 tons.
When mining started in Jaduguda, the average ore grade was about
0.067%.[12] Now it is reportedly less than half that. The
current mining capacity is around 2,800 tons of uranium ore per
day. This means the DAE may only be producing about 300 tons of
uranium a year, which falls well short of the fueling
requirements. The DAE has been able to continue to operate its
reactors only by using stockpiled uranium from earlier days when
nuclear capacity was much smaller. This stockpile should be
exhausted by 2007. 

The DAE has been desperately trying to open new uranium mines in
India, but it has been met with stiff public resistance
everywhere.[13] This local resistance stems from the widely
documented negative impacts of uranium mining and milling on
public and occupational health. 

The limits on domestic uranium reserves have been known since
the nuclear program was started. This concern was the
justification for the three-phase nuclear power program that
Bhabha originally proposed and that continues to be pursued.[14]
This program involves separating plutonium from the spent fuel
produced in natural uranium reactors and setting up breeder
reactors, which in turn could theoretically be used to utilize
India’s thorium resources for energy production. But the three
phases are far from being realized. The DAE has failed to build
and sustain enough natural uranium-fueled reactors for the first
phase. The second phase is still experimental, and the first
plutonium-fueled power reactor has yet to be completed. Even if
it becomes fully functional, breeder reactors are unlikely to be
a significant source of electricity for several decades.[15] The
thorium fuel cycle, the third phase, is still far in the future. 
Implications of the Agreement for Nuclear Energy in India
 

If the deal with Washington goes through, the DAE will be free
to purchase uranium from the international market for its
safeguarded reactors. This has some important consequences. For
starters, it will reduce pressure on domestic uranium reserves.
Since imported uranium will be much cheaper than Indian uranium,
it may also marginally reduce the operating costs of Indian
nuclear plants. Although the DAE hides its actual costs, there
is little doubt that nuclear electricity is more expensive than
other major sources of power in India.[16] 

At the same time, access to cheap, imported uranium will remove
what has been the DAE’s primary justification for much of its
long-term nuclear plan. For decades, the DAE has cited a
shortage of domestic uranium as justification for India’s
breeder program, even though poor economics and countless
engineering problems have effectively killed similar breeder
reactor programs in the United States, France, and Germany. The
high cost of breeder reactors stems from their need for
plutonium fuel produced at reprocessing plants by chemically
treating spent (i.e., used) nuclear fuel from ordinary reactors.
The separated plutonium is then fashioned into breeder fuel at
special and costly fabrication plants. There are enormous
economic costs, environmental repercussions, and public health
risks associated with this whole scheme. 

If cheap uranium becomes available to India, there will be no
need for any of this. Even so, the DAE may balk at giving up its
breeder reactor program. It may instead choose to emulate Japan,
which imports uranium to power its nuclear reactors and,
ignoring the costs and risks, continues to pursue its breeder
reactor program. If so, the DAE’s institutional interests will
have once again triumphed over economic good sense and concerns
about health and the environment. 

India’s existing nuclear capacity--and any increases in it,
domestic or foreign, that the U.S. deal facilitates--should not
to be considered a benefit. Nuclear electricity is expensive,
and it would be far better to invest in other, cheaper sources
of power as well as energy conservation measures.[17] There are
also important safety concerns associated with nuclear power. At
least one of the DAE’s nuclear reactors has come close to a
major accident.[18] One can barely imagine the consequences of a
Chernobyl-like meltdown involving the release of large
quantities of radioactive materials at a reactor in a densely
populated country like India.[19] Other facilities associated
with the nuclear fuel cycle have also experienced accidents,
though these have primarily affected workers within the
plant.[20] 

Apart from extreme accidents, there are many environmental and
public health consequences associated with the many facilities
that make up India’s nuclear complex.[21] A scientific study of
the health consequences on the local population around the
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS) located at Rawatbhata near
Kota observed statistically significant increases in the rates
of congenital deformities, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths
and one-day deaths of newborn babies, and solid tumors.[22] 

And, to cap it all, there is the unsolved problem of managing
large amounts of radioactive waste for many tens of thousands of
years. The question that really needs to be discussed (but has
hardly figured in the debate) is whether India needs any nuclear
power plants at all. There are many who believe India would be
better off giving up this costly and dangerous technology and
finding ways to meet the needs of its people without threatening
their future or their environment. 
How Many Bombs Are Enough?
 

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons have been linked from the
beginning, and this will continue under the deal with
Washington. Access to the international uranium market for
fueling reactors will free up domestic uranium for India’s
weapons program and will likely boost New Delhi’s nuclear clout. 

There are several ways in which India could use its freed-up
domestic uranium. It could choose to build a third reactor
dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear weapons. There have
been proposals for a larger reactor to add to CIRUS and Dhruva
at the Bhabha Atomic Research center in Mumbai.[23] India could
also start to make highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has used such highly enriched uranium, produced at
Kahuta, for its weapons. Both paths, which need not be
exclusive, would allow India to increase its fissile materials
stockpile at a much faster rate. A third use for domestic
uranium would be in supplying the fuel for a nuclear submarine
that has been under development since the 1970s.[24] Modest
uranium availability and the more-pressing need to keep the
power reactors running have restricted all such plans in the
past. 

If the proposed agreement is solidified, India could use both
its current stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium and all future
production to make nuclear weapons. The current stockpile is
estimated to be perhaps 400-500 kg, sufficient for about 100
simple fission weapons. (It is usually assumed that 5 kg is
needed for a simple weapon. More sophisticated designs typically
require less plutonium.) CIRUS and Dhruva produce about 25-35 kg
of plutonium a year. This means that by 2010 India’s potential
arsenal size could be about 130 warheads using only existing
facilities. 

But there are other sources of weapons-grade fissile material.
Power reactors can be used to make weapons-grade plutonium by
limiting the time the fuel is irradiated. Run this way, a
typical 220 MW power reactor could produce between 150-200
kg/year of weapons-grade plutonium when operated at 60-80%
capacity. 

Another source of fissile material is the stockpile of plutonium
in the spent fuel of power reactors. Though it has a slightly
different mix of isotopes from weapons-grade plutonium, it can
be used to make a nuclear explosive.[25] The United States
conducted a nuclear test in 1962 using plutonium that was not
weapons-grade. One of India’s May 1998 nuclear tests is also
reported to have involved such material.[26] 

Over the years, some 8,000 kg of reactor-grade plutonium may
have been produced in the power reactors not under safeguards.
Only about 8 kg of such plutonium are needed to make a simple
nuclear weapon. Unless this spent fuel is not put under
safeguards--i.e., declared to be off-limits for military
purposes, as part of the deal--India would have enough plutonium
from this source alone for an arsenal of about 1,000 weapons,
larger than that of all the nuclear weapons states except the
United States and Russia. 

Lastly, there is the plutonium produced in Kalpakkam in India’s
small, fast-breeder test reactor (FBTR). Even more plutonium
will be produced by the 500 MW prototype FBTR now under
construction. It is curious that ever since the 1960s, the DAE
has resisted placing India’s breeder program under international
safeguards, even though both Germany and Japan, neither of them
nuclear weapon states, subjected their breeder reactor programs
to such safeguards. In theory, international scrutiny prevents
plutonium or uranium from civil nuclear facilities from being
used to make nuclear weapons. The DAE’s resistance to safeguards
begs the question as to whether the breeder program is, or ever
was, only for civilian purposes. 

A. N. Prasad, former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre (BARC), has argued that these large stocks of
weapons-usable material are beside the point. Prasad asserts
that the deal with Washington should be rejected because “our
military activities are not aimed at stockpiling nuclear
weapons,” since “the weapons become old, their materials
degrade, [and] they have to be dismantled and replaced.”[27] 

But Prasad is disingenuous. It is estimated that the plutonium
used in U.S. nuclear weapons may not need to be replaced for
45-60 years. The material can then be recycled into new nuclear
weapons. Moreover, many of the aging effects that plutonium
experiences can be avoided with proper storage, allowing
existing stocks of plutonium to last indefinitely. All other
nuclear weapons states have stopped producing new material for
their nuclear weapons programs--only India, Pakistan, and Israel
appear to be producing new weapons ingredients. 

Another nuclear weapons resource is tritium, a gas used to boost
the yield of fission weapons. The DAE claims to have tested a
tritium-boosted weapon in 1998. However, tritium decays
relatively quickly (its half-life is just over 12 years). Thus,
to maintain a stockpile of tritium for a long time requires
either a very large initial amount or production at a rate that
balances decay. Tritium is a byproduct in nuclear reactors
dedicated to producing plutonium for weapons. These reactors can
also be used specifically to generate more tritium. 

In short, the deal with Washington promises not only to leave
New Delhi’s weapons capability intact but to allow for a rapid
and large expansion of India’s nuclear arsenal. And both parties
to the pact accept this as a good thing. 

The effects of the use of both the smaller-yield fission weapons
and the more-destructive thermonuclear weapons in India’s
arsenal are well-known.[28] Put simply, the smaller weapons will
kill almost everyone within 1.5 km of the explosion, and the
larger weapons will kill most people out to distances of 3.5 km.
The effects of radioactive fallout would spread tens of
kilometers further. Either kind of bomb would be enough to
destroy a modern city. The question that needs to be asked is,
“How many cities do India’s leaders wish to be able to destroy?” 

There are many who believe that no country should have nuclear
weapons, since such weapons engender fear through the threat of
genocide. In the 60 years since Hiroshima, we all should have
learned that there is no security to be found in the threat to
kill millions. 
Conclusion
 

The nuclear agreement between the United States and India has
many problems and raises two fundamental questions. The first is
whether India needs nuclear energy for its development and the
well-being of its people. A good case can be made that it does
not. 

The second question is whether India needs nuclear weapons if it
truly wants to live in peace with its neighbors and with the
world. Many believe, with good reason, that it does not. 

The outcome of the proposed nuclear agreement, therefore, is a
future in which a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed India
swaggers along in Washington’s shadow. Such a choice could not
be more stark. 
Endnotes
 

[1] Also see Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian, Out of the Nuclear
Shadow, (Lokayan: Rainbow Publishers, and Delhi, London, New
York: Zed Books, 2001) and M. V. Ramana and C. Rammanohar Reddy,
eds., Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream, (New Delhi: Orient
Longman, 2003). The drastic deterioration in South Asia’s
security after the 1998 nuclear tests is documented in M. V.
Ramana and Zia Mian, “The Nuclear Confrontation in South Asia”
in SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and International
Security, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 

[2] In 1951 India and France signed an agreement to collaborate,
but it was not followed by any collaboration as documented in
Itty Abraham, “Notes toward a Global Nuclear History,” Economic
and Political Weekly, November 20, 2004, vol. 39, nos. 46-7, pp.
4,997-5,005. 

[3] Itty Abraham, “Science and Secrecy in Making of Postcolonial
State,” Economic and Political Weekly, August 16-23, 1997, pp.
2,136-46. 

[4] George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global
Proliferation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).
p. 482. 

[5] For example, the initial financial sanction in 1982 for the
Manuguru heavy-water plant indicated the project cost as Rs 4.2
billion with a foreign exchange component of Rs 500 million.
This was revised to Rs 6.6 billion in 1989, with a foreign
exchange component of Rs 786 million. Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, “Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India,” 1994. Similarly, between 1985 and 1993, two foreign
consultancy contracts were awarded for “various works” relating
to the 540 MW reactors. Comptroller and Auditor General of
India, “Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India,”
1999. 

[6] David Hart, Nuclear Power in India: A Comparative Analysis,
(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983). p. 61. 

[7] Vikram Sarabhai, Science Policy and National Development,
(Delhi: Macmillan, 1974). p. 89. 

[8] R. Ramachandran, “Thwarted Nuclear Ambitions,” Frontline,
January 21, 2000, pp. 90-93. 

[9] Sanjeev Srivastava, “Indian PM Feels Political Heat,”
British Broadcasting Corporation,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4715797.stm,
accessed on July 26, 2005. 

[10] A. Gopalakrishnan, “Indo-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation: A
Nonstarter?” Economic and Political Weekly, July 2, 2005. 

[11] This estimate assumes a burn up rate of 7,000 MWd/tU and a
thermal efficiency of 0.29. 

[12] Sanjib Chandra Sarkar, Geology and Ore Mineralisation of
the Singhbhum Copper-Uranium Belt, Eastern India, (Calcutta:
Jadavpur University, 1984). p. 193. 

[13] Xavier Dias, “DAE’s Gambit,” Economic and Political Weekly,
August 6, 2005, vol. 40, no. 32, pp. 3,567-69. 

[14] Homi J. Bhabha and N. B. Prasad, “A Study of the
Contribution of Atomic Energy to a Power Program in India” in
Proceedings of the Second United Nations International
Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, 1958,
pp. 89-101. 

[15] Rahul Tongia and V. S. Arunachalam, “India’s Nuclear
Breeders: Technology, Viability and Options,” Current Science,
September 25, 1998, p. 75. 

[16] M. V. Ramana, Antonette D’Sa, and Amulya K. N. Reddy,
“Economics of Nuclear Power from Heavy Water Reactors,” Economic
and Political Weekly, April 23, 2005, vol. 40 no. 17, pp.
1,763-73. 

[17] M. V. Ramana, Antonette D’Sa, and Amulya K. N. Reddy,
“Economics of Nuclear Power from Heavy Water Reactors,” Economic
and Political Weekly, April 23, 2005, vol. 40 no. 17, pp.
1,763-73. 

[18] Nayan Chanda, “The Perils of Power,” Far Eastern Economic
Review, February 4, 1999. p. 1,363. 

[19] For a study of the consequences of a potential major
nuclear accident in Pakistan, see Zia Mian and A. H. Nayyar,
“Pakistan’s Chashma Nuclear Power Plant: A Preliminary Study of
Some Safety Issues and Estimates of the Consequences of a Severe
Accident,” Report no 321, Center for Energy and Environmental
Studies, Princeton: Princeton University, 1999. 

[20] S. Anand, “India’s Worst Radiation Accident,” Outlook, July
28, 2003, vol. 43, no. 29, pp. 18-20. p. 100. 

[21] M. V. Ramana and Surendra Gadekar, “The Price We Pay:
Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Production
and Testing” in M. V. Ramana and C. Rammanohar Reddy, eds.,
Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream, (New Delhi: Orient Longman,
2003). 

[22] Sanghamitra Gadekar and Surendra N. Gadekar, “Rawatbhata”
in Vinod Gaur, ed., Nuclear Energy and Public Safety, (New
Delhi: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage,
1996), pp. 57-87. p. 384. 

[23] Anonymous, “Questions in Lok Sabha: Government Proposes to
Build Another Nuclear Reactor,” Hindustan Times, December 16,
1999. 

[24] T. S. Gopi Rethinaraj, “ATV: All at Sea Before It Hits the
Water,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, June 1, 1998, pp. 31-35. 

[25] J. Carson Mark, “Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade
Plutonium,” Science and Global Security, vol. 4 no. 1, 1993, pp.
111-24. 

[26] George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on
Global Proliferation, (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1999). p. 428-31. 

[27] Siddharth Varadarajan, “Nuclear Bargain May Prove Costly in
Long Run,” The Hindu, July 20, 2005. 

[28] R. Rajaraman, Zia Mian and A. H. Nayyar, “Nuclear Civil
Defence in South Asia: Is It Feasible?” Economic and Political
Weekly, November 20, 2004, vol. 39 nos. 46-7, pp. 5,017-26. 

Zia Mian is a Pakistani physicist with the Program on Science
and Global Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University. M.V. Ramana
(http://www.geocities.com/m_v_ramana/) is an Indian physicist
based at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment
and Development in Bangalore, India. Both are frequent
contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at
www.fpif.org). This report is a slightly revised version of an
article published in Economic and Political Weekly on August 27,
2005. 		 

  
For More Information 

Sixty Years Without Nuclear War
 By Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman and Frank von Hippel (August 22, 2005)
 http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/pd/363

Unraveling of the U.S. Military
 By Zia Mian (August 22, 2005)
 http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/pd/375

A New American Century?
 By Zia Mian (May 4, 2005) 
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0505amcent.html

U.S.-Russian Lessons for South Asia
 By Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel (August 2, 2002)
 http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0208nukelessons.html

Nuclear War in South Asia
 By Matthew McKinzie, Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana, and A.H. Nayyar
(June 2002) 
http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html			 
Sources
 

Itty Abraham, “Notes Toward a Global Nuclear History,” Economic
and Political Weekly, November 20, 2004, vol. 39, nos. 46-7, pp.
4,997-5,005. 

Itty Abraham, “Science and Secrecy in Making of Postcolonial
State,” Economic and Political Weekly, August 16-23, 1997, pp.
2,136-46. 

S. Anand, “India’s Worst Radiation Accident,” Outlook, July 28,
2003, vol. 43, no. 29, pp. 18-20. 

Anonymous, “Questions in Lok Sabha: Government Proposes to Build
Another Nuclear Reactor,” Hindustan Times, December 16, 1999. 

Homi J. Bhabha and N. B. Prasad, “A Study of the Contribution of
Atomic Energy to a Power Program in India” in Proceedings of the
Second United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful
Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, 1958, pp. 89-101. 

Comptroller and Auditor General of India, “Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,” 1999. 

Comptroller and Auditor General of India, “Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,” 1994. 

Nayan Chanda, “The Perils of Power,” Far Eastern Economic
Review, February 4, 1999. 

Xavier Dias, “DAE’s Gambit,” Economic and Political Weekly,
August 6, 2005, vol. 40, no. 32, pp. 3,567-69. 

Sanghamitra Gadekar and Surendra N. Gadekar, “Rawatbhata” in
Vinod Gaur, ed., Nuclear Energy and Public Safety, (New Delhi:
Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, 1996), pp.
57-87. 

A. Gopalakrishnan, “Indo-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation: A
Nonstarter?” Economic and Political Weekly, July 2, 2005. 

David Hart, Nuclear Power in India: A Comparative Analysis,
(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983). 

Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian, Out of the Nuclear Shadow, (Lokayan:
Rainbow Publishers, and Delhi, London, New York: Zed Books,
2001). 

J. Carson Mark, “Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade
Plutonium,” Science and Global Security, vol. 4 no. 1, 1993, pp.
111-24. 

Zia Mian and A. H. Nayyar, “Pakistan’s Chashma Nuclear Power
Plant: A Preliminary Study of Some Safety Issues and Estimates
of the Consequences of a Severe Accident,” Report no 321, Center
for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton: Princeton
University, 1999. 

George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global
Proliferation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 

R. Rajaraman, Zia Mian and A. H. Nayyar, “Nuclear Civil Defence
in South Asia: Is It Feasible?” Economic and Political Weekly,
November 20, 2004, vol. 39 nos. 46-7, pp. 5,017-26. 

R. Ramachandran, “Thwarted Nuclear Ambitions,” Frontline,
January 21, 2000, pp. 90-93. 

M. V. Ramana, Antonette D’Sa, and Amulya K. N. Reddy, “Economics
of Nuclear Power from Heavy Water Reactors,” Economic and
Political Weekly, April 23, 2005, vol. 40 no. 17, pp. 1,763-73. 

M. V. Ramana and Surendra Gadekar, “The Price We Pay:
Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Production
and Testing” in M. V. Ramana and C. Rammanohar Reddy, eds.,
Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream, (New Delhi: Orient Longman,
2003). 

M. V. Ramana and Zia Mian, “The Nuclear Confrontation in South
Asia” in SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and
International Security, (New York: Oxford University Press,
2005). 

M. V. Ramana and C. Rammanohar Reddy, eds., Prisoners of the
Nuclear Dream, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2003). 

T. S. Gopi Rethinaraj, “ATV: All at Sea Before It Hits the
Water,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, June 1, 1998, pp. 31-35. 

Vikram Sarabhai, Science Policy and National Development,
(Delhi: Macmillan, 1974). 

Sanjib Chandra Sarkar, Geology and Ore Mineralisation of the
Singhbhum Copper-Uranium Belt, Eastern India, (Calcutta:
Jadavpur University, 1984). 

Sanjeev Srivastava, “Indian PM Feels Political Heat,” British
Broadcasting Corporation,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4715797.stm,
accessed on July 26, 2005. 

Rahul Tongia and V. S. Arunachalam, “India’s Nuclear Breeders:
Technology, Viability and Options,” Current Science, September
25, 1998, p. 75. 

Siddharth Varadarajan, “Nuclear Bargain May Prove Costly in Long
Run,” The Hindu, July 20, 2005. 
Progressive Response   
  
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of
the International Relations Center (IRC, formerly the
Interhemispheric Resource Center, online at www.irc-online.org)
and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at
www.ips-dc.org). ©2005. All rights reserved. 

Recommended citation:
 Zia Mian and M.V. Ramana, “Feeding the Nuclear Fire,” (Silver
City, NM &Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, September 20,
2005). 

Web location:
 http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/659

Production Information:
 Author(s): Zia Mian and M.V. Ramana
 			 Editor(s): John Gershman, IRC
 Production: Tonya Cannariato, IRC   

        Copyright © 2001-2005 IRC. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 34 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point leaks small amount of tainted water

By GREG CLARY

(Original publication: September 21, 2005)
 

BUCHANAN — Indian Point 2 workers found a small leak of
radioactive water in late August that company officials and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission felt wasn't significant enough to
be made public, a move that angered county officials yesterday.

The leak, which company officials announced yesterday, is
between a half pint and a pint per day and probably came through
cracks in the spent-fuel storage building at the nuclear power
plant that were discovered during a construction project to
reinforce walls.

"There is no radiological hazard to workers or the public and
the potential environmental impact is minimal," officials from
Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plant, said in a
prepared statement sent to media outlets a little after 2 p.m.
yesterday. "Soil samples taken three feet from the area where
the moisture was detected showed normal background levels of
radiation."

The water contained trace amounts of radioactive cesium and
cobalt, both of which are present in the storage pools, company
officials said.

Michael Slobodien, one of the company's top on-site emergency
experts, said the amount of radiation was more than 100 times
below levels detectible by the average Geiger counter, less than
the amount in a typical smoke detector.

With little information available yesterday, the details of the
leak worried county officials some, but not as much as the lack
of communication by the company and the public entity overseeing
it.

"We just met with Entergy, the NRC and the Department of
Homeland Security last week," said Westchester County Executive
Andrew Spano. "They let us know about the most minuscule things
and didn't say anything about a leak. When did they think they
should tell us?"

NRC officials said yesterday in a press release that they had
already started an investigation and had learned about the leak
Sept. 2.

"The risk significance is low in terms of public health and
safety," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC. "We're
talking about a small amount of water. We're doing a special
investigation because we want to make sure that (Entergy) has
their hands around the extent of the cracking, the extent of the
leakage, and determine exactly where this moisture originated."

The construction project is part of the company's effort to
change the storage of radioactive rods used to generate
electricity from water to a dry-cask storage facility on the
site in Buchanan by the end of next year.

Entergy officials said earlier deep-core borings taken in six
locations near the pool as part of the dry-cask storage project
showed no elevated levels of radioactivity.

"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's manager of Indian Point 2's dry storage project. "The
cracks do not weaken the wall, and the pool is structurally
sound."

Entergy engineers and health physics technicians are continuing
to analyze soil samples and will monitor the area around the
fuel storage building in addition to routine radiological
monitoring.

Sheehan said the agency had a public health official and a
structural engineer on-site already and was satisfied the
400,000-gallon pool was sound. He said there was little
likelihood that enough water had leaked to make it into nearby
water supplies.

Riverkeeper, an environmental group that has called for the
closing of Indian Point's two working nuclear plants, wasn't
satisfied.

"It's outrageous that we have yet another safety breach at
Indian Point," said Alex Matthiessen, the organization's
president. "When is it time to say enough is enough?"

Matthiessen called on New York's U.S. senators — Charles Schumer
and Hillary Rodham Clinton — as well as Gov. George Pataki to
launch a complete investigation of the spent-fuel storage
facility and to test the drinking water supplies of the
surrounding communities.

Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef expressed
frustration similar to Spano's about the leak, but said he was
equally concerned about what else might be wrong at the nuclear
plants.

"Something like this erodes confidence about getting timely
information about Indian Point, which is critical," Vanderhoef
said. "But the second question is, what else is there that we
don't know about? Are there any other tanks with cracks in them?
This raises more questions than it answers, and none of it is
good."

  - - - - - - - -914-694-9300 

  Copyright 2005 The Journal News, . Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
 Use of this site indicates your agreement to the (updated
12/17/2002)   
*****************************************************************
 35 Clarion-Ledger: Utilities take heavy financial hit 

  September 21, 2005

J.D. Schwalm/The Clarion-Ledger
 
Robert Sheperd (right) and Dave Gendron of Sumter Utilities of
South Carolina rebuild the power lines along Beach Avenue in
Waveland on Tuesday. Power crews from across the country have
been working around the clock in Mississippi for three straight
weeks assisting with the massive effort to restore electrical
service. 

Power companies have worked around the clock in Mississippi for
three straight weeks to clear fallen trees, replace splintered
electric poles and string new wires across hundreds of miles so
that when you flip a switch, light comes on.

Unfortunately, all this work comes with a price  several
hundred million dollars to the state's power providers combined.
The cost could be passed onto consumers, as happened in Florida
after a series of hurricanes rocked that state in 2004.

For the tiny 78-person Magnolia Electric Power Association in
McComb, repairing just 3,762 miles of power lines for 28,000
customers meant finding a way to house and feed up to 500
additional out-of-state electrical workers who came to its aid.

The cost for the power association, which is a public
cooperative, was expected to hit $20 million, all from damage
caused by Hurricane Katrina, which swept through Mississippi on
Aug. 29, destroying businesses and flattening homes.

Across the state, other small power companies faced similar
challenges  and costs.

Ron Stewart, senior vice president of the Electric Power
Associations of Mississippi, which represents 25 such companies,
said he expects the combined cost for these rural providers,
including Magnolia, to top $300 million  and that's just an
early estimate.

"There should be some federal assistance, but we don't know if
it will cover it all," Stewart said.

Stewart was unsure if rates would have to be increased to help
pay for the storm. "That would depend on what we get from FEMA,"
he said.

With more than 700,000 customers, the member associations cover
the majority of folks in Mississippi. Entergy Mississippi
provides power to more than 400,000, while Mississippi Power
Co., a subsidy of Southern Co., serves nearly 200,000, including
those on the Gulf Coast, which was especially devastated by the
storm.

Spokesmen for Entergy and Mississippi Power said they could not
yet provide a cost estimate for damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina, although the sum is expected to run into the hundreds
of millions of dollars.

"What we do know is that this was a larger effort than any in
the history of our company," said Kurt Brautigam, spokesman for
Mississippi Power, founded in 1925. "It may be a matter of weeks
before we get some hard numbers and the ability to understand
those numbers."

Under federal law, federal dollars only can go to help publicly
owned utilities, such as the 25 that make up the Electric Power
Associations. Investor-owned utilities like Mississippi Power
and Entergy are ineligible.

Some members of Congress, including Sen. Thad Cochran, have
discussed creating a loophole to allow public money to go to all
utility companies because of the magnitude of Katrina  the
worst natural disaster to hit the United States. But such aid is
not guaranteed.

For those companies, paying for the damage caused by Katrina and
the cost to reconnect their customers could come from added fees
or inflated rates.

Last year, four hurricanes rolled through Florida. Three of them
 Charley, Frances and Jeanne  pummeled territory covered by
Florida Power &Light. At peak outage, nearly 2.8 million Florida
customers lost power, some for as long as 12 days.

Total cost: $1 billion.

The company's 2004 annual review estimated insurance on the
company's nuclear plants covered $109 million of the cost while
$354 million was paid from the company's storm reserve funds.
That left $536 million in unpaid costs.

Last January, the Florida Public Service Commission approved a
monthly storm surcharge of $2.09 per month to be added to
customers' bills. Although that surcharge was lowered to $1.68
per month Sept. 16, it will continue for three years.

By all accounts, Katrina was worse.

In Mississippi, residents like Peggy Parish were going on day 18
without power last week.

Parish, who lives along U.S. 49 south of Mount Olive, pointed to
the power line across the street as she explained the line
spanning the highway to her son's home next door had been
severed.

That means crews would have to stop traffic to repair the line,
then fix a secondary line running through a cow pasture to her
home.

For all that work, two customers would benefit.

"I got kind of discouraged, but I can't let that get me down,"
Parish said, flashing a weary smile. "I'm doing fine. I'm from
the old school where you can live on potted meat and tuna."

Nearby, Marcus Burnham felt like dancing. Standing in his socks,
fully dressed, Burnham explained he had just taken his first
warm shower in weeks. Power to his home in the Rock Hill
community near Mount Olive was restored at noon Thursday.

"We had a shouting good time when that switch worked," Burnham
said, describing how although he had a generator, it was almost
too hot to sleep at night.

At Rock Hill Baptist Church next door, where Burnham is pastor,
services were held earlier and outside  anything to avoid the
heat.

"I think it brought a lot of people closer together," he said.

But what will all this mean for electric bills?

Mississippi Public Service Commission Chairman Neilson Cochran
said it's too early to tell, but he said it is very possible
rates will go up.

"Nobody has gone through anything like this before in
Mississippi," he said. "It is certainly going to be very
expensive to the utility companies, and certainly there are
going to be inquiries into how do we handle this. This is
probably going to run in the hundreds and hundreds of millions
of dollars to restore all electrical services to pre-Hurricane
Katrina."

Jason Cuevas, spokesman for the Washington-based Edison Electric
Institute, which represents the for-profit power companies, said
the group is pushing for Congress to provide federal assistance
to these companies instead of forcing them to raise rates on
customers.

"We feel it would place an undue burden on the customers of
these companies to have to bear the cost of restoration," said
Cuevas, a native of Biloxi. "It will hamper economic development
efforts and it will hamper the efforts of the communities to
rebuild and go on."

Copyright ©2005 Clarionledger.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18798 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55427-55428] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-121]                         
 
Station, Unit 1; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 
Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) to withdraw 
its May 3, 2004, application for proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-3; for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 
Station (DBNPS), Unit 1, located in Ottawa County, Ohio.
 
The proposed amendment would have changed the facility as 
described in the DBNPS Updated Safety Analysis Report to modify 
the design requirements for the emergency diesel generators 
(EDGs).
 
Specifically, the proposed amendment would have allowed a 
departure from the regulatory position of Safety Guide 9, 
``Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for Standby Power 
Supplies,'' for the frequency and voltage transient during the 
EDG automatic loading sequence.
 
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 
25, 2004 (69 FR 29767). However, by letter dated August 29, 2005, 
the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated May 3, 2004 (Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML041260319), 
as supplemented by letter dated April 28, 2005 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML051220367), and the licensee's letter dated August 29, 2005 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML052440346), which withdrew the application 
for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the 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, or (301) 415-4737 or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
 
[[Page 55428]] Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of 
September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18798 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 37 Lib Dem conference/ Wednesday: Baker: Scrap nuclear power
 
uk politics news site politics.co.uk
 	 			 
Updated, Thursday, 22 Sep 2005 04:30 GMT+1 Debate - Issue of the
Day

For journalists, politicians, and interested members of the 
public, 'Issue of the Day' provides a snapshot of responses and 
views on the leading issues of the day. Lib Dem conference/ 
Wednesday: Baker: Scrap nuclear power Wednesday, 21 Sep 2005  

Any talk of building new nuclear power stations should end
and investment should be diverted into projects that offer
better long-term returns, Norman Baker warned today.

The Lib Dem environment spokesman said that if the government
was serious about tackling climate change it should take a "zero
tolerance" attitude to nuclear power.

"The sooner we close the debate over nuclear power, the sooner
investment in renewables can grow," he said. 

"A threat of such global proportions must be tackled through
international action. The environment must be at the heart of
government, not out on a limb."
 			 			 			 	 			 			  			 


*****************************************************************
 38 Foreign Policy: Think Again: Nuclear Energy

  By Benjamin K. Sovacool     Page 1 of 2   

  Posted September 2005   
    
  With worldwide demand for energy soaring along with oil
prices, nuclear energy is increasingly seen as the answer to
curbing greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.
Even committed greens are warming to nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, nuclear power plants are not the answer to our
energy needs, and theyre not as eco-friendly as they appear.


  [ENRICHING MATERIAL: Like India, Japan, and Russia, China
is&nbsp;planning to build more nuclear powe]   
    

  Enriching material: Like India, Japan, and Russia, China is
planning to build more nuclear power plants such as this one in
Guangan in China's Sichuan Province.   


FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images   

Nuclear Power Is Dead

False. Although most U.S. nuclear power plants are more than 20
years old, concern about climate change is reviving the nuclear
power industry. The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force for
141 countries this year, aims to cut back on global greenhouse
gas emissions. This pressure has driven interest in nuclear
reactors, which many erroneously consider a zero carbon dioxide
emission technology. Judith M. Greenwald of the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change has noted that the imperative to
decarbonize the future world energy economy to mitigate climate
change provides strong motivation to keep the nuclear power
option open. Three large U.S. utilitiesExelon, Entergy, and
Dominionhave filed early site permits with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for the construction of new nuclear plants
in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia, respectively. For its
part, the energy bill recently passed by congress provides
significant support to the nuclear industry. The legislation
extends liability limits for nuclear accidents for another 20
years, authorizes the construction of new Department of Energy
(DOE) research reactors, and establishes hefty loan and
insurance programs to make the construction of new nuclear
reactors more attractive. 

Worldwide, a total of 25 reactors are currently under
construction in 10 countries. China has nine fully operational
nuclear reactors, and it plans to build another 30 within the
next five years. New nuclear plants are also on drawing boards
in India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Russia. 

Nuclear Power Will Decrease Dependence on Oil

Not really. Oil generates only around 3 percent of U.S.
electricity (the rest comes primarily from coal, nuclear,
natural gas, and hydropower sources). Gains in electricity
generation from nuclear power do not automatically translate
into decreased oil dependence. Nuclear powers ability to reduce
oil dependence may grow as Americans purchase more hybrid
vehicles that could use either the electricity generated by
nuclear power plants or hydrogen harvested from nuclear
reactions. But the day most cars and trucks run on electricity
or hydrogen is still distant. The transition to a hybrid or
hydrogen economy is at least 20 to 30 years away, due to the
difficulty of developing cost-effective fuel cells and the
infrastructure to extract, compress, and store hydrogen. Because
most of the research and development on hydrogen takes place in
the United States, Europe, and industrialized Asia, the rest of
the world is even farther from this future. Plus, many analysts
believe that, at current consumption levels, there is only a
50-year supply of uranium, rendering social and economic
investment in nuclear plants short sighted. 

Nuclear Power Is a Clean Form of Energy

Unfortunately not. When President George W. Bush signed the
energy bill in August, he remarked only nuclear power plants can
generate massive amounts of electricity without emitting an
ounce of air pollution or greenhouse gases. This claim is
flat-out wrong. The reprocessing and enrichment of uranium often
relies on fossil fuel generated electricity. Data from the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and USEC, a
uranium enrichment company, indicate that the enriched uranium
needed to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity can require
5,500 megawatt hours of gas- and coal-fired electricity. Two of
Americas most polluting coal plants in Ohio and Indiana produce
electricity primarily for uranium enrichment. In this way, many
nuclear power plants contribute indirectly but substantially to
global warming, and fail to reduce U.S. dependence on petroleum
and coal.

The mining and milling of uranium and the operation of nuclear
reactors also present grave dangers to the environment.
Abandoned mines in the developing world, for example, can pose
radioactive risks for as long as 250,000 years after closure.
Nuclear plants release toxic pollutants and gases, such as
carbon-14, iodine-131, krypton, and xenon. They also produce
prodigious amounts of waste that remain dangerously radioactive
for more than 100,000 years. The DOE has relied upon on-site
retrievable storage as a stop-gap solution. By 2003, more than
49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel was scattered in dry
casks and storage pools in 72 different U.S. locations, with the
amount of waste expected to grow to 105,000 tons by 2035. Yucca
Mountaina federally funded permanent storage facility being
built in Nevadahas only enough space for 70,000 tons. Put
simply: We dont yet have a lasting solution to the nuclear waste
storage problem. 
  
"Nuclear Power Is Inexpensive"

False. Even modern nuclear facilities are extremely capital
intensive and take years to build. A typical 1,100 megawatt
light-water reactor plant costs between $2 and $3 billion for
licensing and construction. These costs soar even higher once
the additional expenses of storing nuclear waste and
decommissioning old plants are added. The capital intensity of
nuclear projects complicates the process of balancing capacity
with demand, meaning plants tend to overproduce electricity.
These problems help explain nuclear powers downturn in the
1980s. Moreover, such expenses are expected to increase along
with the demand for uranium, the primary source of nuclear fuel.
Experts say the cost of uranium could surpass $40 per pound in
2006, a nearly 300 percent increase since the 1990s. Fuel prices
account for a small percentage of the overall expenses for a
nuclear plant, but the costs can reach millions, as about 200
metric tons of natural uranium are required annually for a
single 1,000 megawatt light-water reactor. Its no surprise,
then, that nuclear generators need massive government subsidies
to attract investors. A 2003 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology study recommended a host of government subsidies and
a carbon tax of $200 per ton on conventional power plants in
order to help make nuclear reactors cost competitive with
existing technologies. Without heavy subsidies, its unlikely
that the U.S. nuclear industry would survive, let alone expand. 
   
    
FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor. 
Readers should address their comments to
fpletters@CarnegieEndowment.org.   
  
  1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 
202-939-2230 | Fax: 202-483-4430 FOREIGN         POLICYis 
published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All 
contents ©2005 ForeignPolicy.com. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 39 NCPA: THE RETURN OF THE MIGHTY ATOM                                                   

National Center for Policy Analysis
      
Daily Policy Digest

GLOBAL WARMING                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Wednesday, September 21, 2005                                                                                                                                                
					 							   						 					 
The threat of global warming may not have sparked a nuclear
renaissance, but it is breathing new life into the debate over
nuclear power. Skeptics, however, point out that it would take a
huge leap in the pace of plant construction to maintain nuclear
power's current global share of electric output -- about 17
percent -- let alone to increase it. 

Consider: 
  + Many aging U.S. and European reactors will have to be
dismantled in the next couple of decades; even new ones remain
more expensive than coal or gas-fired systems. 
  + Governments are not imposing stiff taxes on carbon
emissions, the one strategy some experts say would tip
investment decisions toward nuclear power. 

Even if economists were to favor nuclear power, two issues will
continue to dog the industry, say observers: fear of nuclear
weapons proliferation and disputes about how to dispose of
high-level wastes. 

Science magazine says the threat of global warming is perhaps
the key factor in rethinking nuclear power. The nuclear
industry, in particular, has seized on it as a reason to switch
from fossil fuel to the atom. Some public leaders have also
cited nuclear power as a way to reduce the impact of global
warming -- and even some environmental advocates seem to agree: 
  + U.K. ecologist James Lovelock published a broad appeal last
year, asking his friends in the movement to drop their
wrongheaded opposition to nuclear energy; others, such as
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, have made similar
statements. 
  + Robert May, president of the Royal Society, U.K. says it is
difficult to see how we can reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels without the help of nuclear power. 

Source: Eliot Marshall, "Is the Friendly Atom Poised for a
Comeback?" Science, Vol. 309, No. 5738, August 19, 2005. 

For text (subscription required): 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5738/1168 

For more on Energy: 

http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=nuclear-energy							 							  
						 						 	
12770 Coit Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75251 Phone 972/386-6272 - 
Fax 972/386-0924 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900 South 
Building, Washington, DC 20004 - 202/628-6671 - Fax 202/628-6474 
Copyright © 2003 National Center for Policy Analysis - All rights 
reserved.           
*****************************************************************
 40 NRC: Meeting of the Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18799 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55429] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-123]                         
 
Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold 
a meeting on October 5, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, October 5, 2005--12:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. The purpose 
of this meeting is to discuss the License Renewal Application and 
associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items related 
to the License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 
1, 2, and 3. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, the Tennessee 
Valley Authority, and other interested persons regarding this 
matter.
 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues 
and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Cayetano Santos (telephone 301/415-7270) five days prior to 
the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are 
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working 
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes 
to the agenda.
 
Dated: September 14, 2005.
 
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18799 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 41 HVN: Hairline cracks, radioactive moisture discovered in Indian Point
fuel storage building   

Hudson Valley News: 

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 

Unit 2 on left 
  
Crews digging up 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, discovered two cracks in four to six foot thick walls
of the spent-fuel pool and a small amount of moisture on the
newly exposed pool wall. 

Entergy spokesman James Steets said there was no leakage beyond
that area. It was radioactive; thats how we were able to
determine that the water came from the pool, but the levels are
extremely low and contained in the fuel storage building, he
said. As far as we can tell, it has not traveled beyond just the
immediate area beyond the fuel storage building. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been notified. 

Removal of spent fuel from the pool to storage casks is
scheduled to begin at the end of 2006.
 House Members Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey, both of Westchester
and Rockland counties, blasted Entergy. 

Engel said the problems never seem to end at Indian Point. It
seems to me that year after year, we find something else that
happens that lends credibility to the fact that this power plant
may not be safe and it ought to be shut down, he said. Lowey
said the leak illustrates once again that this facility is not
safe for the residents of our region. She, too, called for the
decommissioning of the plant for the health and safety of all
New Yorkers. 

    
*****************************************************************
 42 IPS: POLITICS: North Korean Atomic Deal a 'Diplomatic Coup'

Inter Press Service News Agency     

Thursday, September 22, 2005   04:00 GMT       

 Analysis by Praful Bidwai 
							 
NEW DELHI, Sep 21 (IPS) - Despite snags over the supply of a 
light-water reactor, Monday's atomic disarmament deal with North 
Korea represents a major diplomatic coup say observers in 
India,now an acknowledged nuclear player. 

The six-party Beijing agreement, involving China, the United 
States, Japan, Russia and South Korea, not only holds the 
potential of defusing regional tensions, running high ever since 
North Korea confirmed its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2002, but 
would have a bearing on Iran's equally difficult case.

 Monday's agreement in Beijing says that Pyongyang will end its
nuclear weapons programme in return for economic and energy
benefits and assurances of military security and return to the
nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 In 2003, Pyongyang defiantly walked out of the NPT. In
February, it announced that it possessed nuclear weapons and
although many South Korean analysts doubted that claim, others
believe it could have two to seven nuclear weapons.

 As an incentive to dismantling its nuclear weapons, North Korea
insisted on being provided with a light-water nuclear power
reactor for civilian use. This had become the biggest sticking
point in the four rounds of talks but, unlike in the past, the
U.S. has indicated willingness to discuss it.

 A six-party joint statement clearly says: ''The other parties
expressed their respect and agreed to discuss, at an appropriate
time, the subject'' of a light-water reactor (LWR) for North
Korea.

 Equally important in the agreement is the pledge, by the U.S.
and North Korea, ''to respect each other's sovereignty and right
to peaceful coexistence, and also to take steps to normalise
relations''. The U.S. has ''affirmed that it has no nuclear
weapons on the Korean peninsula and has no intention to attack
or invade (North Korea) with nuclear or conventional weapons''.

 ''This is probably the key to understanding how the
breakthrough took place,'' Prof. R.R. Krishnan, India's foremost
expert on the Korean peninsula, who was until recently with
Jawaharlal Nehru University's School of International Studies in
New Delhi, and is now setting up a Korean studies centre in the
southern city of Chennai.

 ''As Pyongyang saw it, the U.S. recently adopted an extremely
hostile posture towards it by calling North Korea a 'rogue
state' and an 'outpost of tyranny'. That generated enormous
insecurity in Pyongyang. Now, these concerns are beginning to be
addressed with Washington's new assurances,'' Krishan told IPS
in a interview.

 Krishnan sees the Sep.19 breakthrough as ''the most substantial
step towards normalisation of the situation in the Korean
peninsula'' since a landmark U.S.-North Korea agreement was
signed in 1994.

 The peninsula is the site of the last major cold war-era
confrontation between East and West most of which were fought
out in third countries in the developing world.

 That said, the six-party deal is yet to be hammered out into
specific agreements which have an agreed sequence and this could
pose a problem in the near future.

 Most importantly, the U.S. insists it wants to see North
Korea's weapons programme totally dismantled before delivering
material assistance to it, especially anything like a civilian
reactor. Pyongyang has since declared that the U.S. ''should not
even dream of North Korea dismantling its ''nuclear deterrent
before providing LWRs''.

 The timing of the different steps agreed to by the six parties
could cause some problems. But sincere and purposive diplomacy
should be able to sort that out. ''What North Korea is looking
for is normalisation of relations with Washington'', says
Krishnan. ''Pyongyang itself says it would not need a single
nuclear weapon if its relations with Washington were
normalised''.

 Therefore, Krishnan adds, ''It would be most appropriate if the
U.S. moves towards formally recognising Pyongyang, and welcomes
the recent thaw in North-South relations''.

 North and South Korea have narrowed their differences and
improved relations in a sustained manner over the past six
years. Washington has been lukewarm to the improvement.

 Optimistically, the latest breakthrough could pave the way for
a winding down of the fierce military rivalry on the Korean
peninsula where military budgets, relative to population, are
among the highest in the world.

 North Korea is the world's most militarised state relative to
population, with active forces of 1.14 million and reserves of
7.45 million. South Korea has about 650,000 active forces and 3
million reservists. It is also backed by 37,000 U.S. troops on
its soil.

 ''All those who favour peace and negotiated dispute-resolution
will be heartened by two other potential consequences of the
Sep.19 deal in Beijing,'' said Prof. Achin Vanaik, expert on
nuclear disarmament at the Delhi University and
internationally-known peace activist.

 If and when fully fleshed out to the satisfaction of all
concerned, the agreement could establish the basis for the
de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, and for a North-east
Asia that is free of nuclear weapons, he said.

 South Korea would be tempted to develop a nuclear weapons
capability only if the North has one. (It has reportedly
experimented tentatively with a nuclear programme.) If the North
abandons its nuclear weapons verifiably, Seoul too could be
persuaded to foreswear the nuclear option permanently. Japan is
bound under its constitution not to make, acquire or bring in
nuclear weapons.

 ''If these obligations and agreements could be sewn up into a
legal agreement for a nuclear weapons-free zone, that would make
for a secure and stable North-east Asia,'' Vanaik said adding
that such a demand has long been voiced by peace movements in
Japan and South Korea.

 A major implication of the recent deal goes beyond the Korean
peninsula and to the growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear
programme.

 If North Korea has been called the ''Hermit Kingdom'' and an
oppressively autocratic, closed society, with only a slippery
and sketchy record of abiding by its international agreements,
the same cannot be said about Iran.

 And if North Korea can be persuaded to give up nuclear weapons,
then Iran offers even greater hopes for a negotiated settlement
because Iran's is not an isolationist regime and the country is
emerging from extremism and changing into a normal and vibrant
society.

 After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared, last
Saturday, at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that
Iran had an ''inalienable right'' to make its own nuclear fuel,
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convened a
week-long, closed door meeting from Monday to decide whether to
refer Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

 Tehran has already made it clear that it looked for support
from India as a non-Western country, which not only makes its
own nuclear fuel but is also a self-declared nuclear power--all
without being a signatory to the NPT.

 But India, which recently entered into a civilian, nuclear
cooperation agreement with the U.S., ending decades of
international isolation in nuclear technology, is now expected,
as a result of the North Korean deal, to vote with the European
Union at the IAEA.

 ''India is not holding any brief for Iran's nuclear programme.
We believe that another nuclear weapon state in our
neighbourhood is not desirable. We also believe that Iran, as
signatory to the NPT, must honour all its commitments,'' said
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as he left New York after
the UNGA.

 But given the success of diplomatic and conciliatory approaches
to the Korean nuclear crisis, some pressure could now mount on
Washington not rush down the path of placing Iran under UNSC
sanctions. (END/2005) 
						 
  Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 Newsday.com: New York state chides NRC for late notification of Indian Point leak
 
September 21, 2005, 5:26 PM EDT

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) _ New York state is demanding "a full and 
open investigation" into the discovery of radioactive water 
outside the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power 
plant. 

James Tuffey, director of the state Emergency Management Office, 
complained in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about 
not being notified of the leak until Tuesday, "well after it was 
initially discovered." 

"At a time when the public is expecting the highest level of 
coordination between and among all levels of government and their 
agencies, this failure to share and coordinate this information 
is unacceptable," he said. 

The NRC and Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owner of the plant,
disclosed Tuesday that a small amount of slightly radioactive
water had been found in cracks on the buried outside wall of the
pool that holds nuclear waste at the Indian Point complex in
Buchanan, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. The NRC announced
it was undertaking a "special inspection." 

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said that while the water was first
spotted at the end of August, it was not until this week that
tests confirmed it was from the pool. 

Other officials, including county executives Andrew Spano of
Westchester and C. Scott Vanderhoef of Rockland and Rep. Nita
Lowey, also have complained about the lack of notification. 

Tuffey asked the NRC to send him copies of all its reports on
the leak and said that after consulting with Gov. George
Pataki's office, "I am calling for a full and open
investigation." 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said notification of public officials
was not immediate because of the need to find out "the extent of
the leakage and its potential impact on the environment." 

"We've been following these issues as they developed and only
recently concluded that they warranted consideration for a
special inspection," he said. 

 Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
 44 NRC: Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18800 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55429-55430] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-124]                         
 
Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will 
hold a meeting on October 5, 2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and 
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, October 5, 2005, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. The Subcommittee 
will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated
 
[[Page 55430]] Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 
301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days 
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
 
Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those 
portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are 
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working 
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes 
in the agenda.
 
Dated: September 14, 2005.
 
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18800 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 45 Newsday.com: Nuclear plant announcement coming Thursday in Washington
 
September 21, 2005, 8:07 PM EDT

JACKSON, Miss. --        NuStart Energy, a consortium of 11 
energy companies, plans to announce in Washington on Thursday the 
two sites it believes are the best to pursue advanced nuclear 
plant licenses. 

The group had been considering sites in six states: Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland and New York. 
Jackson-based Entergy Nuclear owns two of the sites _ Grand Gulf 
in Mississippi and River Bend in St. Francisville, La. Entergy 
Nuclear is part of NuStart. 

Thursday's announcement does not mean that a plant will be
built on the sites selected, however, it is another big step in
a process that could lead to a new generation nuclear facility
in a few years. 

NuStart representatives have met with officials in all six
states. 

The site NuStart is considering in Mississippi is next to the
Grand Gulf Nuclear Power plant, in a rural area near the
Mississippi River between Vicksburg and Natchez. The site is
about 60 miles southwest of Jackson. 

The state of Mississippi has offered to help with the
infrastructure, but officials haven't said specifically whether
that meant new roads, new water lines or other site
improvements. 

Other finalists for the proposed new plants are Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama; Savannah River Site near
Aiken, S.C.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, Md.;
and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Scriba, N.Y. 

The application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission would
be filed by 2008 and the license would be received by 2010. Four
years later, the plant could open. 

NuStart president Marilyn Kray was to announce the two nuclear
plant sites where the company will prepare applications for
combined construction and operating licenses during the news
conference at the National Press Club in Washington. 

Other member companies of NuStart are Constellation Energy,
Baltimore; Duke Energy, Charlotte, N.C.; EDF International North
America, Washington, D.C., the U.S. subsidiary of the large
French nuclear company AREVA; Exelon Generation, Philadelphia;
Florida Power & Light Company, Juno Beach, Fla.; Progress
Energy, Raleigh, N.C.; Southern Company, Atlanta; Tennessee
Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn.; GE Energy, Atlanta; and
Westinghouse Electric Co., Pittsburgh. 

	 
 Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
 46 Xinhua: Radioactive capsules stolen in Venezuela   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-21 11:16:19   

    CARACAS, Sept. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- An undetermined number of
containers with cesium 137 radioactive capsules were stolen from
a storage of the Venezuelan Health Ministry, officials said on
Tuesday. 

    Antonio Rivero, director of the National Civil Protection
Direction, said the storage was forced open and unknown
individuals took away the containers with the capsules used to
treat uterus cancer. 

    Police and other government departments have carried out an
emergency operation to look for the capsules, he said. 

    Radiation levels are very high at the place where the
capsules are deposited and people without special suit should
not go there, Rivero said. Long-time exposition to the
radioactive material could lead to severe health problems. 

    The local press reported that the thieves were motivated by
the value of the containers. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 47 Home buyers, beware! Straightgoods.com
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:13:08 -0500 (CDT)

 
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewLetter.cfm?REF=1520
Home buyers beware!

Vendor not required to disclose higher-than-average radon gas levels.

Dateline: Sunday, September 18, 2005

From: Craig Pittman, Port Hope ON

I very much enjoyed <http://www.straightgoods.com/item169.shtml>Janice 
Hamilton's article on Radon Gas this morning.

We recently purchased a small home in Port Hope ON only to be handed, 
within a few days of closing, a document from The Low Level Waste 
Management Group stating that the readings of radon gas in our home were 
"slightly above average."

d255f2.jpgSubsequent investigation, on our part, indicated that "average" 
meant the local average of 4.0 pCi/l, which is substantially higher than 
the national average. Our reading is 6.0 but it was taken over thirty years 
ago after it was found that contaminated soil from the Eldorado operation 
had been used for backfill and houses built on top of it. Also the readings 
were taken during the summer months, while the highest levels of radon gas 
in a home occur during the winter months.

Health Canada states that it is "up to the individual home owner to 
determine what rates of radon gas they are comfortable with." ...

whole letter at:http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewLetter.cfm?REF=1520

Penney Kome, author and journalist
http://penneykome.ca
Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com 

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of d255f2.jpg]
*****************************************************************
 48 Moscow Times: Radioactive Wire Found in Jet Crash

Thursday, September 22, 2005. Issue 3258. Page 2.     

The Associated Press 

VILNIUS, Lithuania -- Lithuanian officials suspended their work
Wednesday on the wreckage of a crashed Russian fighter jet after
a slightly radioactive wire was found at the crash site, the
lead investigator said. 

General Vitalijus Vaiksmoras said work would not resume until
Russian authorities had provided more information about any
hazardous materials that may have been on the plane. 

The Su-27 fighter bomber crashed last Thursday in Lithuania
while traveling from St. Petersburg to the exclave of
Kaliningrad. The pilot is accused of violating Lithuanian
airspace. 

Health Ministry spokesman Albinas Mastauskas said investigators
found a wire in the wreckage that emits levels of radiation
slightly above normal. 

"It is not significant radiation and does not pose any threat,"
Mastauskas said, adding that such material was not unusual in
fighter planes. 

Still, Lithuania demanded that Russia provide more information
about any other potentially hazardous substances on the plane
before they continue the investigation. 

The crash has worsened tense relations between the two
countries, with Lithuania rejecting demands to release the
pilot, Major Valery Troyanov. 

Earlier Wednesday, Vaiksmoras said Lithuania had asked its NATO
allies for help reading the jet's flight data recorders, or
black boxes, because the Baltic country lacked the technology
needed to read them properly. 	

Investigators also urged area residents to return scattered
parts of the plane that they had taken home as souvenirs. 

© Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.           
*****************************************************************
 49 Interfax: Russia hampering crash probe - Lithuanian minister

Sep 21 2005 2:16PM
 
VILNIUS. Sept 21 (Interfax) - The investigation into the crash
of a Russian Su-27 fighter jet in Lithuania is being obstructed
by Russia's unwillingness to constructively cooperate with
Lithuania, said Lithuanian Defense Minister Gediminas Kirkilas. 

"Unfortunately, we have not received correct information about
the presence of hazardous radioactive substances onboard the jet
from the Russian side, which has obstructed the investigation,"
Kirkilas told the press following a meeting with President
Valdas Adamkus on Wednesday. 

        
© 1991-2005 Interfax
 All rights reserved
 
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.   

*****************************************************************
 50 RIA Novosti: Lithuania seeks answers for radioactive metal at Su-27 crash scene
 
21/ 09/ 2005                                  

VILNIUS, September 21 (RIA Novosti) -- Lithuania is waiting for
a formal explanation from Russia over radioactive metal
recovered at the Su-27 fighter-bomber crash scene, an official
from the Lithuanian Defense Ministry said Wednesday. Rita
Apeikite said: "Earlier, Russia assured the Lithuanian
investigation commission that there were no substances on board
the plane that might be dangerous for human health." 

On Tuesday, two kilograms of a radioactive metal were found in
Lithuania's Sakiai district, where the Russian Su-27
fighter-bomber crashed on September 15. The pilot ejected and
landed safely. 

The Defense Ministry said the metal had been collected and given
to Lithuanian experts. Now it "does not pose a threat," Apeikite
said. 

In addition to the metal, a section of an air-to-air missile was
recovered from the crash scene. Prior to that, two missiles out
of the four the plane was carrying had been found. 

The Lithuanian Defense Ministry official was unable to say
whether the missiles and the metal would be transferred to
Russia.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 51 Pueblo Chieftain: Thyroid cancer conference set for Lakewood 

Online - Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A
 
Wednesday September 21, 2005    

By KAREN VIGIL THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN 

Thyroid cancer, formerly a relatively rare disease and one of
the few cancers that is increasing in overall incidence, will be
the focus of the eighth International Thyroid Cancer Survivors'
Conference on Oct. 21-23 at the Sheraton Denver West Hotel in
Lakewood. 

The conference is the first for thyroid cancer survivors, their
families and friends ever to be held in the Rocky Mountain
region, according to the sponsoring Thyroid Cancer Survivors
Association, Inc. 

The conference should be of particular interest to Coloradans. 

In 1997, a long-awaited national report showing citizens exposed
in youth to widespread radioactive fallout during the 1950s so
far had escaped the consequences of nuclear bomb tests. 

However, in the same report, the National Cancer Institute
predicted between 10,000 to 75,000 people who were exposed might
get radiation-caused, slow-growing thyroid cancer. 

The cancer institute noted everyone living in the 48 contiguous
states during the 1950s received some fallout. 

Average national exposure was 2 rads, but hot spots were exposed
to an average of 9 to 16 rads. Contaminated milk created by cows
consuming radioactive fallout on grass was the main way
iodine-131 was spread. 

Colorado is among the hot-spot states. The state's hot spot
counties are Archuleta, Conejos, Hinsdale, Saguache and Gunnison
counties. 

Other than Colorado, the 11 other, hardest-hit states from the
Nevada nuclear tests are Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada, Utah,
Kansas, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota and
Wyoming. 

Another culprit of the 1950s and 1960s era contributing to
thyroid cancer was an X-ray treatment for tonsils. 

At the thyroid cancer survivors' conference, attendees can
choose from 60-plus presentations, workshops and discussions
designed for people with every type of thyroid cancer, from
those newly diagnosed to survivors of many years, as well as
family members and friends. 

Leading pecialists will speak and answer questions about thyroid
cancer research advances, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and
future trends in thyroid cancer care. Self-care, coping skills,
emotional and physical well-being, insurance and employment
issues will be covered in sessions led by other specialists,
long-term thyroid cancer survivors and caregivers. 

Details and the registration form for the thyroid cancer
survivors' conference are available on its Web site.
Scholarships are available. Attendees may register online or by
mail in advance, or at the conference. 

For more information about the conference and the free
year-round support services, education, awareness materials and
other publications available from Thyroid Cancer Survivors
Association, e-mail thyca@thyca.org, call toll-free 1
(877)588-7904, write to PO Box 1545, New York, NY 10159-1545, or
visit the Web site, www.thyca.org.

 or e-mail our Webmaster.archive Privacy Statement/Terms of Use                                    
©1996-2005 www.chieftain.com Star-Journal Publishing Corp. 
Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A.                                                                 
*****************************************************************
 52 NRC: John Myers, Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18797 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55428-55429] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-122]                         
 
Activities (Effective Immediately) I John Myers (Mr. Myers) is 
owner, President and sole employee of Universal Calibrations, 
located in Westbrook, Maine. Universal Calibrations does not 
possess a license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
pursuant to 10 CFR part 30 or any Agreement State. Mr. Myers is 
certified by Campbell-Pacific Nuclear International, Inc. (CPN) a 
manufacturer of nuclear gauging devices, and an Agreement State 
Licensee located in California, to sell and repair their portable 
gauges and to train users in gauge operations. Mr. Myers 
performed such services for Engineering Consulting Service, (ECS, 
now ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC), an NRC licensee, based on his CPN 
certifications. These services were provided to the licensee at 
its Richmond and Chantilly, Virginia facilities.
 
II On April 9, 2004, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) 
initiated an investigation to determine if Mr. Myers (1) 
deliberately provided materially inaccurate information to staff 
at the ECS, Richmond, facility in order to purchase a portable 
nuclear gauge containing NRC licensed material with the knowledge 
that he was not authorized to possess licensed material, and (2) 
took possession of several other portable nuclear gauges from the 
ECS, Chantilly Facility without a NRC or Agreement State license. 
OI Report No. 1-2004-019 was issued on March 16, 2005, and the 
information developed during that investigation concluded that 
Mr. Myers was not licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State, to 
acquire or possess licensed material in moisture/density gauging 
devices. Based on the evidence developed during the 
investigation, the NRC concluded that Mr. Myers (1) took 
possession of a portable nuclear gauge on September 15, 2003, 
from the ECS, Richmond, facility after deliberately providing 
materially inaccurate information to facility staff, with the 
knowledge that he was not authorized to possess licensed material 
and (2) took possession of several portable nuclear gauges on 
April 29, 2004, and other undetermined dates prior to this date, 
from the ECS, Chantilly Facility and transported them to the 
State of Maine. Mr. Myers was not licensed by the NRC as required 
under 10 CFR part 30 or an Agreement State, to acquire or possess 
any of the gauges.
 
During a previous investigation (OI Case No. 1-2004-018), issued 
on November 30, 2004, the NRC also determined that in November 
2003, Mr. Myers took possession of a portable nuclear gauge from 
Triad Engineering, Inc. without a license to do so. On February 
24, 2005, a Notice of Violation was issued to Triad Engineering, 
Inc. for transferring licensed material to Mr. Myers without 
verifying that he was authorized to receive the material.
 
In all of the cases, Mr. Myers transported the portable nuclear 
gauges (containing NRC licensed radioactive material) that he 
acquired from the ECS facilities and Triad Engineering, to his 
facility (UC) in the State of Maine, knowing that he was not 
authorized to do so.
 
III Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Myers, 
owner, President and sole employee of Universal Calibrations, 
deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.3 when he took possession of 
several portable gauging devices containing licensed radioactive 
material without a NRC or Agreement State license to possess 
byproduct material. 10 CFR 30.3 requires that no person shall 
manufacture, produce, transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, 
or use byproduct material except as authorized in a specific or 
general license. This requirement is intended to assure that such 
persons have the requisite facilities, training and experience to 
protect public health and safety from any radiation hazard 
associated with the use of byproduct material. The NRC must be 
able to rely on its licensees, and employees of licensees, to 
comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement that 
licensed material cannot be acquired, possessed or transferred 
without a specific or general license. The deliberate violation 
of 10 CFR 30.3 by Mr. Myers, as discussed above, has raised 
serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with 
NRC requirements in the future.
 
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that 
licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the 
Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the 
public will be protected if Mr. Myers were permitted at this time 
to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public 
health, safety and interest require that Mr. Myers be prohibited 
from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 
five (5) years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Myers' 
conduct described above is such that the public health, safety 
and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
 
IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 
CFR 150.20, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that: 1. 
Mr. John Myers is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed 
activities for a period of five (5) years from the date of this 
Order. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are 
conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the 
NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement 
State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 
CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. John Myers is currently involved in 
NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those 
activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone 
number of the employer or other entity, and provide a copy of 
this Order to the employer or other entity.
 
3. Subsequent to expiration of the five year prohibition, Mr. 
John Myers shall, for the next five years and within 20 days of 
acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed 
activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, 
as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the 
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and 
telephone number of the employer or entity where he is, or will 
be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, 
John Myers shall include a statement of his commitment to 
compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the 
Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with 
applicable NRC requirements.
 
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or 
rescind any of
 
[[Page 55429]] the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. 
Myers of good cause.
 
V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, John Myers must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 
days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, 
consideration will be given to extending the time to request a 
hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing 
to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good 
cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. 
Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in 
writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny 
each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth 
the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Myers or other person 
adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order 
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing 
shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 
Washington, DC 20555.
 
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the 
Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and 
Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, 
NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 
and to Mr. Myers if the answer or hearing request is by a person 
other than Mr. Myers. Because of continuing disruptions in 
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is 
requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to 
the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile 
transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General 
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 
or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than Mr. 
Myers requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with 
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely 
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth 
in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Myers or a 
person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will 
issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If 
a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing 
shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Mr. Myers, may, in addition to 
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, 
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, 
or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days 
from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. 
If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been 
approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final 
when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been 
received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the 
immediate effectiveness of this order.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Dated this 9th day of September 2005.
 
Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, 
Research, State and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive 
Director for Operations.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18797 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 53 Spectrum: Funds allow for RECA testing

St. George - www.thespectrum.com
 
Wednesday, September 21, 2005   
 
By RACHEL TUELLER rtueller@thespectrum.com 

For more information or to schedule an appointment at a RESEP
clinic near you call:

+ St. George: 688-5990
+ Cedar City:868-5051
+ Hildale:874-2217 

ST. GEORGE - In 2004, Dixie Regional Medical Center opened its
Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program clinic. The
program's focus - education and screening for the region's
Downwinders; residents exposed to radiation as a result of above
ground nuclear testing. Officials estimate approximately 40,000
residents were exposed to radiation from nuclear testing
conducted in Nevada during the 1950s and 60s.

 Since its inception, the clinic has screened 980 patients and
assisted as many as 550 individuals through the compensation
process for those exposed to radiation.

 On Friday, the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, announced
that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved a
$322,000 grant for DRMC's RESEP clinic to help with screening
and education for Downwinders.

 Hatch played a crucial role in organizing DRMC's RESEP clinic.
In 1990, he sponsored legislation to establish the Radiation
Exposure and Compensation Act, which provides compensation to
thousands who were not informed of health hazards associated
with radiation and became ill from exposure. Those measures laid
the groundwork for the program. Hatch continues to support
legislation to keep the program going.

 "Sen. Hatch has always worked very hard on finding solutions
for the victims that were downwind of radiation," said Heather
Barney, Hatch's Utah communications director. "The Dixie
Regional Medical Center does very good work in this area and
Sen. Hatch is very proud of their efforts in screening patients
who are Downwinders and this grant will help them continue their
good work."

 Carolyn Rasmussen and Beck Barlow, registered nurses at DRMC's
RESEP clinic, worked hard to apply for and obtain the grant.

 "Sen. Hatch's office let us know about the grant," Barlow said.
"It was a competitive year so DRMC had to reapply for the grant."

 Hatch's letters of support to HHS helped back the staff's
efforts in the grant application process.

 Barlow, the RESEP clinic's project director, submitted a budget
detailing how grant money would be spent through the next year.
Based on that budget, officials say the approved funding will
carry the program from Sept. 1 to August of 2006. The RESEP
staff is already gearing up to reapply in January when the
process opens up again.

 Barlow and Rasmussen say though the clinic's been approved for
the money, it won't come all at once. The money comes in as a
kind of reimbursement. After patients are seen at the RESEP
clinic, staff submit the bill to the HHS.

 "The bottom line is we don't get the money in one lump sum, we
get it as we use it," said Rasmussen, who noted that funds are
regulated by the Health Resource Service Administration division
of HHS.

 Barlow and Rasmussen were happy to know the program would
continue.

 "We've put a lot of time getting to where we are, now we're
really functional," said Barlow. "We hated to see it end,
because for the people who were exposed, it's a place where they
can come and tell their story and feel like the government is
giving something back to them."

 Even though the clinic has screened and assisted more than
1,000 individuals, Rasmussen feels there are still many people
who haven't had the opportunity to be screened and receive the
educational information and compensation assistance available to
them.

 "So we're excited for the opportunity to have more time to see
more people because it's really a beneficial program for the
people here locally," she said.

 To Barlow, the assistance each person receives at the clinic is
invaluable. Every patient receives not only a cancer screening,
but one-on-one personalized cancer education specific to their
own history, compensation assistance and are encouraged to
return to the clinic each year for check-ups.

 
+ Money will provide for more testing for radiation exposure at
DRMC 

Originally published September 21, 2005 

 Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 Pacific Daily News: Bill to compensate Guam 'downwinders'

guampdn - 

www.guampdn.com
 
Thursday, September 22, 2005   
 
By Ryota Dei Pacific Daily News rdei@guampdn.com

Piti Mayor Vicente Diaz Gumataotao, 77, ate locally caught fish
and locally grown vegetables as he grew up on the island.

He has now suffered from skin cancer. He believes it was caused
by exposure to radiation fallout from nuclear bomb testing in
the Marshall Islands.

"The federal government should've looked at our situation here
and compensated fairly to all the victims who were involved," he
said. "Why haven't they expanded (the compensation program) to
Guam? To me, it's a discrimination."

Gumataotao attended the Pacific Association for Radiation
Survivors' fourth town meeting at the Asan/Maina Community
Center last night, hoping to learn if he would be eligible for
the federal compensation.

At the meeting, Robert Celestial, the association's president,
told about 20 attendees that Guam's residents, such as
Gumataotao, are not eligible for the federal compensation as
"downwinders" because the federal government has excluded Guam
from the eligibility category of the compensation law.

However, Celestial said there is still hope as the National
Research Council submitted a report to the national lawmakers in
June, recommending to include Guam in the compensation program.
A bill to include Guam also is pending in the House of
Representatives for voting, and he added the island's residents
would know whether they can start applying for compensation
probably by the end of this year.

Gumataotao said the compensation is long overdue for local
residents.

"The federal government doesn't know about the extent of the
damage they made. But now they are realizing the damage they
made and the fact that a lot of people are suffering from it,"
he said.

From 1946 to 1958, the Atomic Energy Commission detonated 66
nuclear bombs and devices in and around the Marshall Islands,
which are located about 1,200 miles east of Guam, according to
the radiation association.

Some reports by the U.S. Navy and environmental organizations
showed that radioactive materials from the testing site indeed
reached Guam and contaminated its water and soil.

In 1990, Congress passed the Radioactive Exposure Compensation
Act to accept claims by "downwinders" from the Nevada testing
site and uranium miners. This law covers 13 cancers for the
"downwinders" and several forms of respiratory illness for
uranium miners. Since 1990, the federal government has paid out
about $750 million to people who got sick after being exposed to
radiation.

However, the federal government has never acknowledged Guam as a
radiation fallout case.

"I know it's (a) difficult time because of Katrina. The federal
government is putting billions and billions of dollars into the
rescue and recovery efforts," Celestial said. "Now we just have
to wait and see. It's beyond our hands." 

Originally published September 22, 2005 

 Copyright ©2005 guampdn. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 [NukeNet] Calls Needed To Stop Yucca N-Waste Dump
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:44:09 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


  Please see bottom pf post for the two Senators to
call. Please forward this e-mail to other lists
and interested parties.

  ----- Original Message -----
From: <shundahai@shundahai.org>
To: <shundahaialert@lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:55 PM
Subject: [shundahaialert] YES! Utah Senator jumps
ship on Yucca nuke dump

   Dear friends,

Here is the latest on the fight against the
high-level nuclear dump proposed for the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah

One important development is that Utah senator Bob
Bennett just announced yesterday that he will
stand with Nevada in a united front against the
nuclear waste dumps proposed for both Yucca
Mountain, NV, on Western Shoshone land, and  Skull
Valley utah, on Goshute Indian land.

This is a fantastic reversal from his previous
position of supporting the Bush regime in it's
attack on Yucca, in order to keep waste out of
Utah.

On the issue of nuclear waste, it has long been
said that if Utah and Nevada interests "don't hang
together, they will hang seperately."

This critical need for solidarity is also
something that has been demanded by both Shoshone
and Goshutes from the beginning. It's good to see
that the politicians are finally coming around.

Unfortunately, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is still
stuck on supporting the Bush administration's
commitment to the very dangerous, misguided, and
environmentally racist Yucca Mountain nuclear
dump. This is despite the rest of Utah's federal
delegation and state government insisting that it
is time Utah stands with Nevada, just as Goshute
Indians stand with Western Shoshone Indians, to
oppose high-level nuclear waste being shipped and
dumped at either Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain.

Give Senator Bennett a thanks:

Senator Robert Bennett (R- UT)
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5444
www.bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html


Let Senator Hatch know that he'd better get over
the Yucca Mountain fixation and get on board with
proposals to keep high-level nuclear waste where
it is, and not put communities all across the
country in jeopardy just to dump America's deadly
nuclear garbage on Indian country here in the
Great Basin.

Senator Orrin Hatch, (R- UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone:(202) 224-5251
www.hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.
Contact

We can stop both the skull Valley and yucca
Mountain nuclear dumps. The momentum is shifting
toward a better way to deal with America's nuclear
problem.

Feel free to contact our office for any reason.
Also, you are welcome to send us copies of
whatever correspondence you have with these or any
other politicians.

Peace and justice,
Shundahai Network
--------------------------------------------------
-------
Latest News

9-21-05 Bennett no longer supporting Yucca site-
Ogden Standard Examiner
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_OgdenSE_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-21-05 Bennett switches, opposes Yucca- Salt Lake
Tribune
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_SLTrib_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-20-05 Utah official switches gears against Yucca
Mountain- Las Vegas Sun
http://www.shundahai.org/092005LVSun_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

You can also click on the following link for a
full news listing of the Skull Valley high-level
nuclear waste struggle!
http://www.shundahai.org/skull_valley_info.htm




--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------


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"


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 56 [shundahaialert] YES! Utah Senator jumps ship on Yucca nuke
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:44:07 -0700

 
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
Dear friends,

Here is the latest on the fight against the high-level nuclear dump 
proposed for the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah

One important development is that Utah senator Bob Bennett just announced 
yesterday that he will stand with Nevada in a united front against the 
nuclear waste dumps proposed for both Yucca Mountain, NV, on Western 
Shoshone land, and  Skull Valley utah, on Goshute Indian land.

This is a fantastic reversal from his previous position of supporting the 
Bush regime in it's attack on Yucca, in order to keep waste out of Utah.

On the issue of nuclear waste, it has long been said that if Utah and 
Nevada interests "don't hang together, they will hang seperately."

This critical need for solidarity is also something that has been demanded 
by both Shoshone and Goshutes from the beginning. It's good to see that the 
politicians are finally coming around.

Unfortunately, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is still stuck on supporting the 
Bush administration's commitment to the very dangerous, misguided, and 
environmentally racist Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. This is despite the 
rest of Utah's federal delegation and state government insisting that it is 
time Utah stands with Nevada, just as Goshute Indians stand with Western 
Shoshone Indians, to oppose high-level nuclear waste being shipped and 
dumped at either Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain.

Give Senator Bennett a thanks:

Senator Robert Bennett (R- UT)
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5444
www.bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html


Let Senator Hatch know that he'd better get over the Yucca Mountain 
fixation and get on board with proposals to keep high-level nuclear waste 
where it is, and not put communities all across the country in jeopardy 
just to dump America's deadly nuclear garbage on Indian country here in the 
Great Basin.

Senator Orrin Hatch, (R- UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Phone:(202) 224-5251
www.hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact

We can stop both the skull Valley and yucca Mountain nuclear dumps. The 
momentum is shifting toward a better way to deal with America's nuclear 
problem.

Feel free to contact our office for any reason. Also, you are welcome to 
send us copies of whatever correspondence you have with these or any other 
politicians.

Peace and justice,
Shundahai Network
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest News

9-21-05 Bennett no longer supporting Yucca site- Ogden Standard Examiner
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_OgdenSE_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-21-05 Bennett switches, opposes Yucca- Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.shundahai.org/092105_SLTrib_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

9-20-05 Utah official switches gears against Yucca Mountain- Las Vegas Sun
http://www.shundahai.org/092005LVSun_Bennett_Opposes_Yucca.htm

You can also click on the following link for a full news listing of the 
Skull Valley high-level nuclear waste struggle!
http://www.shundahai.org/skull_valley_info.htm

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" 

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 57 Deseret News: Bennett reverses: He's foe of Yucca
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

He'll support Nevada senators' nuclear storage plan 	 		 		 By

Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News                          

WASHINGTON — After years of unwavering support for White House 
nuclear waste policies, Sen. Bob Bennett announced from the 
Senate floor Tuesday he has reversed course and no longer 
supports storing spent fuel rods deep underground at Yucca 
Mountain, Nev.

Deseret Morning News graphic       

"I am making it clear that my support for Yucca Mountain . . . 
does no longer hold in the situation we find ourselves," Bennett 
said. "It makes sense for (nuclear) waste to be stored on site 
and to be shipped to a reprocessing center."

       The Utah Republican has turned away from Yucca Mountain,
both as a location and its deep underground waste storage
approach. He said he has turned toward and will lend his
unequivocal support to a proposal by Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., that all
nuclear waste be left at the power plants creating it as the
country develops a policy of reprocessing waste.

       "Sen. Bennett succinctly and clearly outlined the reasons
to oppose both the proposed Yucca Mountain and PFS facilities,"
Reid said. "The momentum is shifting and the timing is right to
address our nuclear waste challenges in a way that offers real,
long-term solutions. The safest, most reasonable and effective
solution is to store nuclear waste where it is already being
produced."

       Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said despite his continuing
support of Yucca Mountain storage, he plans to introduce
legislation this week calling for a study of waste reprocessing
options and a review of safety and operation problems posed by
storing waste at power plants and at existing U.S. Department of
Energy facilities. Hatch sought to attach that language to an
energy bill earlier this year.

       "It is important that I keep working on all options to
protect our state," Hatch said.

       Hatch is facing an intraparty challenge in his
re-election bid from Utah House Majority Whip Steve Urquhart,
R-St. George, who said the senator is now "on the end of a very
thin branch. He'll climb back to the trunk in a hurry."

       Bennett's reversal comes days after the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission voted to issue a license to Private Fuel
Storage, a consortium of nuclear power utilities, to store spent
fuel rods on Goshute tribal lands in Skull Valley, Tooele County.

       The NRC decision clearly weighed on Bennett, who cited
the risks of PFS to the Utah Test and Training Range, the
nation's "last remaining" large land-based training range.

       "More military facilities have been closed by
encroachment than by BRAC," he said, referring to the
nonpartisan commission that recommends to Congress and the White
House which bases should be closed.

       Bennett's reasoning echoes arguments made for years by
opponents of PFS, including Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s office and
the offices of the two governors who preceded him.

       The simple fact of the matter, Bennett said, is that the
volumes of nuclear waste being generated by a resurgent nuclear
energy industry means PFS will become permanent even if Yucca
Mountain opens.

       "Yucca Mountain is not going to become the single
repository for nuclear waste," he said, referring to PFS as the
alternative repository.

       News of Bennett pulling his support was welcomed by
groups against having high-level nuclear waste in both Utah and
Nevada. They have opposed storage for the same reasons that
Bennett cited in his Tuesday speech.

       The governor said in a statement that Bennett's new
position "represents a highly rational approach and a long-term
fix to a problem that promises to affect us short term. I've had
the opportunity to discuss this issue with Sen. Reid on several
occasions and agree with his conclusions," Huntsman said.

       Also welcoming Bennett's decision was Healthy Environment
Alliance of Utah, which for years has fought both the shipping
of high-level nuclear waste and the establishment of a
repository in either state.

       "We're glad to see the leadership Sen. Bennett is
showing, to work with our neighbors in the West and force the
generators of this waste to share the responsibility of managing
it," said Jason Groenewold, director of HEAL, which is based in
Salt Lake City.

       Groenewold said he hopes Hatch will soon join in "the
call for not dumping nuclear waste on the Western states." The
material should be stored where it is generated until the United
States develops a reasonable long-term solution, he said, adding
that he believes Bennett's speech was needed to help solidify
that effort.

       "No one was going to come to Utah's aid in this fight to
stop nuclear waste storage in Utah unless we reached out and
created alliances" with others with a common interest,
Groenewold said. "And Sen. Bennett's actions indicate his
willingness to extend an olive branch to those who we've
alienated in the past."

       Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and a longtime opponent of
Yucca Mountain, added that he "recognized that Utah and Nevada
should be united against the arrogance of the East Coast dumping
its waste on the West. We still have never addressed the
transportation risks, whether on the roads or rails to Skull
Valley or Yucca Mountain. That is why this lethal cargo should
stay where it is until an acceptable disposal solution can be
found."

       Sen. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has pledged to advocate for
Reid's proposal in the House. Bishop's chief of staff, Scott
Parker, said nuclear waste storage is a fight worthy of Western
states joining forces. "And Rob has said for a long time that
on-site storage seems to make the most sense."

       Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, agrees with Bennett. "For many
reasons, I feel it may be time to rethink the wisdom and
necessity of transporting nuclear material cross country and
storing it in the western United States. . . . Reprocessing is
where we should be focusing our attention, not on the unsafe and
potentially hazardous transportation of nuclear material."

       The entire issue needs to be rethought, Bennett said. The
fundamental principles of that new policy should include
unqualified support for more nuclear power, that the nation work
toward the technology that would allow reprocessing of waste and
that all nuclear waste be left where it is until reprocessing
can proceed, he said.

       If it is safe to transport nuclear waste, and it is safe
to store nuclear waste at an interim storage site like Skull
Valley, "by definition it is equally as safe to leave it where
it is," he said.

       The billions of dollars already invested at Yucca
Mountain need not be wasted, nor should the attitude be "fill it
up with dirt and leave it." He didn't say what that might be,
but a useful purpose that would benefit both Nevada and the
country could be found by Congress. Bennett said he would be
"happy to join" with the Nevada delegation to find the best
solution, admitting again that "it is now clear it (Yucca
Mountain) does not make sense."

       "Sen. Reid and Sen. Ensign have the right to say 'I told
you so,' " he said.

       Responded Reid: "I look forward to joining forces with
Sen. Bennett as we work to protect our states, the West and the
nation."

Contributing: Joe Bauman; Lisa Riley Roche
 E-mail: spang@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 			 		 			 		
*****************************************************************
 58 Brattleboro Reformer: Board hears from public on VY waste
 
September 21, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
  Reps. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, and Steve Darrow,
D-Putney, have a discussion at Brattleboro Union High School in
Brattleboro, V.T., Tuesday during a meeting of the Vermont
Public Service Board discussing the dry cask storage of spent
nuclear fuel from the Vermont Yankee power plant. An afternoon
tour of the plant and a public hearing 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. (AP
Photo/Brattleboro Reformer, Jason R. Henske)

By K. CECCAROSSI Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- The wheels are officially turning on a plan that
would put high-level nuclear waste storage bins at Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant.

 Most of the people who will decide whether installing so-called
dry cask containers at the Vernon plant is a good idea don't
live in Windham County; many of them don't even live in Vermont.

 Scrutiny of the proposal and a set of rules for the storage
will take place largely in Washington, D.C., and the state
capital.

 The people who do live around the plant and would be most
affected by any consequences of dry cask containers got one
serious shot to participate in the review process Tuesday, when
the state's Public Service Board, which must endorse the
proposal for it to fly, hosted a public hearing in the
Brattleboro Union High School auditorium. 

Overwhelmingly, the message was to deny the dry casks, or any
initiative that might extend operations at Vermont Yankee. But
if the board does decide to approve the plan, residents implored
them to do so only after a rigorous review.

 The board heard pleas from neighbors who fear the waste storage
would increase the odds of a radioactive emergency at the plant;
they also heard promises from plant employees that the dry casks
would be safe and secure.

 More than 100 people filled the auditorium, traveling from all
parts of the county, from towns across the Connecticut River in
New Hampshire and south of the Massachusetts border.

 "Is the proposal in the public good?" asked Phil Allard of
Deerfield, Mass. "It's a no brainer. When has Vermont Yankee
decided anything for the public good? They decide for profit."

 Approving a waste storage site, Allard said, is "like moving
the furniture around on the Titanic."

 Most of the 70 or so people who testified to the Public Service
Board said they are against dry casks. However, there were at
least a dozen people who urged the board to approve the plan.
Nearly all of them identified themselves as employees of Entergy
Nuclear, corporate owner of the plant.

 Former Gov. Thomas Salmon, a Democrat from Bellows Falls, also
spoke in favor of the proposal. He called dry casks a "proven
technology ... virtually impervious to threats from terrorists
or others." Salmon was also a former head of Green Mountain
Power Corp.

 The Public Service Board is a three-member, quasi-judicial
board that reviews all matters energy and ratepayer related.
It's up to them to decide if installing steel and concrete
containers to hold high-level nuclear waste is in the best
interest of the state.

 Only two members of the Public Service Board will participate
in the review process.

 Last week, Board Chairman James Volz recused himself from the
case, saying he wanted to avoid any appearance of a conflict of
interest because of his prior job. Before joining the board in
March, Volz was head of public advocacy with the Department of
Public Service, which had lobbied in favor of dry cask before
the Legislature.

 The Public Service Board will hold hearings on the proposal in
the next few months, taking testimony from plant owners Entergy
Nuclear, the state's Department of Public Service and nuclear
watchdog groups New England Coalition and Citizens Awareness
Network.

 Tuesday's meeting was a precursor. So was a tour of the plant,
Tuesday afternoon, where board members David Coen and John
Burke, got a look at the exact site where plant owners want to
store the dry cask containers.

 The site is about 200 feet from the Connecticut River. Six
containers, weighing 190 tons, standing about 20 feet high and
11 feet across, would be placed on a reinforced concrete pad
just north of the plant's turbine building.

 The pad, 76 by 132 feet, has room for up to 36 containers,
project manager John Hoffman said. Right now plant officials are
only seeking permission to erect six containers, which Hoffman
said could hold waste produced at the plant only through 2011.

 Currently, nuclear waste is stored in a spent fuel pool inside
the plant. Vermont Yankee officials have said dry cask storage
is necessary because they must move spent fuel assemblies from
the pool, which is filling up. If they can't move assemblies,
officials say they will have to shut down in 2008.

 Officials say the bins would be temporary -- a stopgap until
the federal Department of Energy takes the waste to a permanent
site. But plans for that facility, Yucca Mountain in Nevada,
have been stalled in Congress for decades.

 At the public hearing Tuesday, the Public Service Board asked
speakers to comment only on Vermont Yankee's application for dry
cask storage. Invariably, though, people opposed to the plan
made comments beyond those limitations. Many mentioned another
proposal by plant officials, still pending state and federal
approval, to increase power at the plant, or "uprate" it, to 20
percent current capacity.

 "Why can't we discuss this in the context of the uprate?"
Brattleboro resident Andrew Davis asked the board. "Entergy is
plying a careful game of chess ... [Dry cask storage] is the
next movement on the board ... I pray that you are not pawns in
this game."

 "Only now, on the brink of financial gamble for the power
output, do we suddenly need dry cask storage," Davis said.

 This year, the Legislature also tackled the dry cask storage
proposal. After months of debate, it approved a bill allowing
Vermont Yankee officials to file their application with the
Public Service Board.

 The vote followed intense negotiations between Entergy Nuclear
and the Legislature and drew criticism from some local residents
who felt it didn't go far enough to protect the state. Under the
agreement, Entergy Nuclear must pay $2.5 million per year into a
state renewable energy fund, as a sort of tax on the casks.
However, there will be no charge if Entergy's bid to boost power
by 20 percent is not approved.

 At Tuesday's hearing, state Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, called
on the Public Service Board to analyze the storage plan in a way
the Legislature wasn't able to.

 "You have the advantage ... of expert witnesses and putting
people under oath," he said. "We're depending on you."

 
The Associated Press contributed to this report. 		   	 	
 			 			
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 59 Pueblo Chieftain: Safe shipment of nuclear waste focus of two-day meet

Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A
 
Wednesday September 21, 2005    
 
  CHIEFTAIN PHOTO/CHRIS McLEAN Ruben Pena of the Transportation 
Technology Center tells a group Tuesday about a rail car built to 
transport spent nuclear fuel. A protective cylinder - the 
circular object - extends the length of the car and carries spent 
fuel rods; eyelets protrude from the top so a crane can hook the 
car.   

 By JOHN NORTON THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN 

About 140 people concerned about the safe transportation of
radioactive materials are meeting in Pueblo this week to get
updates on the industry's newest technology. 

On Tuesday, about half of the conference attendees took a tour
of the Transportation Technology Center, where they saw an
odd-shaped, prototype rail car designed to carry spent fuel rods
to a disposal site. 

The transportaton test center has been carrying out a battery of
tests on the nuclear-materials storage car for Private Fuel
Storage LLC, a company that plans to store nuclear waste in
Utah. The car is being evaluated in order to meet standards of
the Association of American Railroads. 

The attendees at the Pueblo conference represent federal, state
and tribal governments, the railroad, trucking and nuclear
industries and others. The main conference is taking place at
the Pueblo Convention Center. 

Also at the transporation test center, the visitors received a
chance to visit the center's Rail Dynamics Laboratory and to
learn about its Emergency Response Training Center. The training
center teaches courses on handling hazardous material spills. It
draws students from around the world: rail crews, police,
firemen and workers in the transportation and chemical
industries. 

J. Gary Lanthrum, director of the federal Department of Energy's
Office of National Transportation for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, said after the tour that he was
not aware until Tuesday that the center offered emergency
response training. "I think we will probably wind up using more
than one aspect of the training programs here," Lanthrum said. 

Regarding the nuclear materials rail car, Lanthrum said that
while nuclear material currently is shipped by both rail and
truck, the government has decided that rail is the preferred
method. 

There are existing rail cars certified to carry radioactive
material now but PFS plans to use its own, built by Trinity
Industries, to carry waste to a storage facility it's developing
on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County,
Utah. 

The cars carrying the casks with spent fuel rods from civilian
nuclear power plants each will be tested individually, as will
buffer cars, the cars that will carry security escorts and the
entire trains that will be used for transport. 

Because the spent fuel rods contain highly radioactive material,
including plutonium, they present a serious danger in case of an
accident. 

Ruben Pena, the transportation test cetner's manager for
business development, said that the Pueblo center is ready to
provide any testing needed, including crash tests if the
Department of Energy wants. 

For now, the cars are being tested as they run on the center's
tracks to learn how their various components hold up during use. 

The rail car prototype being tested here is basically a
depressed-center flatcar with extensions to handle an extra pair
of trucks, or wheel sets, added to balance the weight, improve
performance on curves and prevent derailments. 

Regular flat cars have two trucks with four wheels each but the
PFS cars have an extra four-wheel truck at each end. 

According to PFS' Web site, the cars also have electro-pneumatic
braking, sensors on each wheel to monitor vibration, temperature
and resistance to turning and a global positioning system unit
that show the train's location at all times. 

Later Tuesday, the conference covered issues in transportation
of radioactive material. This morning, Pena and others are
scheduled to give talks on technology and rail transportation.

©1996-2005 www.chieftain.com Star-Journal Publishing Corp. 
Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A.                                                                 
*****************************************************************
 60 Las Vegas RJ: CHANGE OF HEART: Yucca Mountain foes gain ally 
 
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
 

Utah GOP senator withdraws support for permanent nuclear waste
repository in Nevada By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
A 1998 photo shows a construction worker walking in the main
tunnel of the nuclear waste repository being build inside Yucca
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Photo by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
WASHINGTON -- A Utah senator on Tuesday announced he is
withdrawing support for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain.
 
 Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said the waste should remain at
nuclear power plants until other disposal methods are developed.
 
 Bennett cited a recent decision by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to license an interim storage facility in Skull
Valley, Utah, as one of the reasons he no longer will support
the Yucca Mountain Project, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 
"If it does not make sense for us to take this nuclear waste and
put it in a permanent repository, which is what Yucca Mountain
is, why does it make sense to put it in an interim repository
that does not have the safeguards that are built into Yucca
Mountain?" Bennett said on the Senate floor.
 
 After years of being isolated in their opposition to the Yucca
Mountain Project, Nevada's senators described Bennett's
statement as evidence that time may be on their side.
 
 "The momentum is shifting and the timing is right to address
our nuclear waste challenges in a way that offers real,
long-term solutions," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a
statement.
 
 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he is hopeful Utah's other
senator, Republican Orrin Hatch, also will oppose Yucca
Mountain. 
In 2002, Ensign thought he had convinced Bennett and Hatch to
oppose President Bush's designation of Yucca Mountain as a
nuclear waste repository.
 
 On the eve of the vote, however, the Utah senators were
summoned to the White House for a meeting with then-Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham and ended up voting for the Yucca
Mountain Project. 
"Obviously, they have this issue in their state now, and that
may make a difference," Ensign said.
 
 Bennett said he does not want nuclear waste in Utah. He noted
Skull Valley is near land used by F-16 jets for bombing practice.
 
 But Bennett also said he is now convinced Yucca Mountain is not
going to be available for nuclear waste storage.
 
 "Senator Reid and Senator Ensign have the right to tell the
rest of us, 'I told you so,' as it now becomes clear that
legally and practically, Yucca Mountain is not going to become
the single repository for nuclear waste," Bennett said. "And we
need to start thinking about new strategies and new places to
deal with this."
 
 Bennett emphasized he remains a strong supporter of nuclear
power, which he said is here to stay.
 
 But he said the radioactive waste from reactors at nuclear
power plants should remain on site, "until we can work out the
economics and the technology of reprocessing if it is the right
approach."
 
 Calls to the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Department of
Energy were not returned.
 
 Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, welcomed
Bennett's opposition to the project and said it could lead to a
Western coalition against the Yucca Mountain repository.
 
 Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both D-Calif., also
oppose the proposed storage site for 77,000 tons of high-level
nuclear waste.
 
 "There is more Yucca Mountain legislation yet to come, and
having the support of Senator Bennett and others could be very
helpful," Loux said.
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 61 Las Vegas SUN: NRC advisory panel studies Yucca issues 

 Photo: Deborah Barr listens as Doug Weaver responds 

Today: September 21, 2005 at 9:18:59 PDT 

By Launce Rake <lrake@lasvegassun.com>
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 The controversial e-mails that cast doubt on some Yucca
Mountain research, plus ongoing tests to check that research,
were among the issues discussed Tuesday at a meeting of an
advisory committee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 The Energy Department's efforts to have the NRC license Yucca
Mountain as a high-level nuclear waste dump suffered a black eye
in March with the discovery of e-mails by U.S. Geological Survey
employees that suggest several Yucca researchers did not follow
proper procedures and may have "fudged" data.

 The studies are important because critics have said water flow
inside the mountain could ultimately cause radiation to leak
from the repository.

 Russell Dyer, Department of Energy assistant deputy director,
told the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on Tuesday that his
department is conducting a "root-cause analysis" on what
happened with the flawed Geological Survey process. The analysis
should be completed in mid-October, he said.

 Doug Weaver, a Bechtel Corp. contractor working on the Yucca
project through the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico, said the Energy Department is moving forward on 20
testing procedures. Most of the tests have to do with the
contentious issue of how much water moves through the Yucca
Mountain rock, and how fast. Water could corrode the canisters
designed to hold the radioactive waste.

 Among the tests already under way, he told the advisory
committee, is monitoring of the precipitation in the desert area
to get an idea of how much water is normally in the soil;
monitoring of seepage into the testing "drifts," or testing
tunnels already bored into the mountain rock; monitoring of
seismic activity at the site; and numerous other technical test
programs.

 The advisory committee also took testimony from Jeff Ciocco,
senior project manager for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
division of repository safety. The NRC is working on a
five-step, 18-month process to ensure that its evaluation of the
Department of Energy's safety standards are sufficient, he said.

 "We're going to plan, we're going to implement, we're going to
control and we're going to track," Ciocco said of the NRC's
supervision of the process.

 The Energy Department may have received a boost last month when
the Environmental Protection Agency proposed two-tier radiation
standard for the repository. One tier would maintain the
15-millirem standard for up to 10,000 years, and the other would
allow exposure of up to 350 millirem per year for 10,000 to 1
million years.

 Yucca opponents say there is no reason the radiation limit
should increase so drastically.

 Energy Department officials told the advisory committee that
they are updating their license application so it reflects the
new proposed radiation standards -- which would have to be
implemented by the NRC -- while it continues to review the work
of the U.S. Geological Survey scientists.

 Dyer told the advisory group that the "science and design work
for the license application is technically sound and supports
robust safety analyses ... through 10,000 years."

 The agency is working to update the application for the
million-year standard, he said.

 Michael Ryan, advisory committee chairman, said the meetings in
Las Vegas are important to take comments from people in the
state. He said the committee has heard of the controversy
surrounding the U.S. Geological Survey scientists in earlier
meetings, but this is the first time the issue has been
discussed by the committee in Las Vegas.

 He said discussion of the proposed EPA million-year radiation
standard came out before the committee's meeting last month, but
this is the first meeting of the group to more fully explore the
issue.

 The radiation standard is scheduled to be discussed at the
second day of the committee's three-day sojourn in Las Vegas
today. Among the topics is a discussion of how the climate could
affect the Yucca Mountain dump over the next million years.

 "We're really interested to hear that," Ryan said.

 Time also is scheduled for the public to comment on Yucca
Mountain issues.

 The five-person Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste is made up
of scientists and engineers with backgrounds in radioactive
waste management, chemistry, geology and related issues.

 The committee meets once a year in Las Vegas to take comments
from people in the community.

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 62 Las Vegas SUN: Utah senator: Yucca 'does not make sense' 

Today: September 21, 2005 at 11:10:1 PDT 

Bennett formerly approved of site

 By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com>
 SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, once a strong
supporter of the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca
Mountain, announced a surprising change of heart on Tuesday,
arguing that the nation should rethink Yucca Mountain.

 His speech marked the first significant defection of a Senate
Yucca supporter.

 "However much the idea of a single repository may have made
sense decades ago, it is now clear that it does not make sense,
and we need to move in some future direction," Bennett said in a
Senate speech.

 Bennett essentially advocated abandoning the nation's nuclear
waste strategy set in motion by Congress in 1983 -- the
ambitious, $58 billion plan to bury the nation's most
radioactive waste in an underground repository. Congress in 1987
chose Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the
best site.

 While the nuclear industry pressured lawmakers to support
Yucca, Nevada political leaders have long argued that it was
better to leave waste where it currently sits, at the nation's
nuclear power plants. They also have advocated investing in
waste reprocessing technology used by other nations to recycle
waste.

 Bennett sided with the Nevadans on both points. He did not
unveil legislation but said he aimed to work with Senate Energy
Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., toward those goals.

 "And to those who had the vision long ago, who have earned the
right to say to the rest of us, 'I told you so,' I say I will be
happy to join with you, too, to see how we can think this thing
through and get the best solution for our nation."

 There may be a useful purpose for Yucca Mountain, but not as a
waste repository, Bennett said. The nation should try to "retain
some of the investment we have made there," Bennett said.

 "I am not one who thinks we ought to just fill Yucca Mountain
up with dirt and walk away and leave it," he said.

 The effect on other senators of Bennett's about-face was not
immediately known.

 But Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Senate support for Yucca is
eroding. Ensign said other senators have told him they do not
think Yucca Mountain will ever open because of all the problems
associated with it, although they are not saying it publicly yet.

 "We are talking about the same solution, and that is keeping it
on site," Ensign said. "We've been talking about this for a long
time."

 The Energy Department has spent about $7 billion on Yucca
research, including a research tunnel. But the underground
repository has not been constructed.

 Domenici, who has long been an advocate of both Yucca and
reprocessing, was coy when asked about Bennett's speech and
about Yucca's future.

 "Yucca Mountain must remain alive," Domenici told the Sun. When
asked why, Domenici said, "Yucca Mountain must remain alive --
quote me right."

 When pressed for clarification, Domenici smiled and said, "I
didn't say what it (Yucca) should be."

 When asked if it should be a waste repository, a laughing
Domenici ducked into an elevator and said, "It should remain
alive. You write what you want about what that means."

 Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, long a strident Yucca supporter,
said Bennett's new stance can be attributed to fears about a
ruling this week by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that voted
to license a temporary nuclear waste dump in Utah.

 Many consider the interim site as a stepping stone to Yucca.
Indeed, Bennett on Tuesday argued that it was not wise to ship
waste from plants to what amounts to another above-ground
temporary waste site.

 Craig said, "The bottom line is, we need both: Yucca Mountain
and reprocessing."

 When asked if there is still broad support for Yucca Mountain
in the Senate, Craig said, "To my knowledge there is, yes."

 Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who like Bennett has been a Yucca
advocate, also hinted that his support is wavering. He said he
was considering other approaches to dealing with the nation's
waste.

 "I never had a lot of support for it (Yucca)," Hatch said.
"I've never felt good about voting for Yucca Mountain."

 Hatch and Bennett in 2002 struck a deal with the White House to
support Yucca in exchange for White House opposition to the
temporary Utah site. But the NRC approved the Utah site, and the
project's nuclear utility company backers are pressing ahead,
despite Utah leaders who vow to continue fighting it.

 Hatch said the nation's best option for nuclear waste is
reprocessing.

 "Even if Yucca Mountain became a reality, and it may never
become such, it's full the day it opens," Hatch said, referring
to Yucca's 77,000-ton capacity.

 Nevada lawmakers heartily cheered Bennett's speech.

 Momentum is shifting in Congress to finding a waste alternative
to Yucca, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said.

 "I have spent 20 years fighting the absurd idea that massive
quantities of deadly nuclear waste can be transported across
thousands of miles," Reid said. "I look forward to joining
forces with Sen. Bennett as we work to protect our states, the
West and the nation."

 Bennett said his new stance was a "win-win situation for all."

 "Nevada can get some value out of the investment that has been
made in Yucca Mountain if we think it through carefully," he
said. "The nation can get additional power without the
greenhouse gas effects that comes from fossil fuels and we can
ultimately solve the problems of nuclear waste with
reprocessing."

 Reprocessing waste involves recovering uranium and plutonium
from waste, which is actually spent nuclear fuel rods. The
nation has not pursued reprocessing largely due to fears that
plutonium could end up in the hands of terrorists, who could
convert it into weapons.

 But Bennett downplayed the risks associated with reprocessing
waste.

 "We do not to run the risk of having weapons-grade plutonium in
the hands of private entities," Bennett said. "We want to be
sure that the government controls that."

 Bennett joined Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who last week voiced
support for legislation being planned by Reid and Ensign that
would keep waste at power plants.

 Bishop spokesman Scott Parker said much of what Reid has been
saying about Private Fuel Storage makes sense: "Don't bring it
out West." Parker said Bishop supports on-site storage and
reprocessing. 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 63 Casper Star-Tribune: Rising prices renew interest in Utah uranium
 
Casper, Wyoming - 

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 
 	   
MOAB, Utah (AP) -- 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. 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
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. 		


  Copyright © 19952005 Lee Enterprises    a subsidiary of Lee
Enterprises, Incorporated       
*****************************************************************
 64 Chemical & Engineering News: Federal Policy On Perchlorate Evolves
 
September 21, 2005

EPA, FDA, and military continue work on assessing and cleaning
up contaminant
 
Cheryl Hogue 


UNKNOWN The impact of low levels of perchlorate in drinking
water on fetuses is still being studied.   

In the wake of an influential report issued earlier this year,
federal agencies are planning new actions and policies to
address perchlorate pollution, government officials said
recently. 

The is deciding whether setting a drinking water standard for
perchlorate would help protect public health, while the
continues to determine how much perchlorate occurs in food. And
the Pentagon expects to issue a new policy that will affect
cleanup of the chemical at military facilities. Officials from
the three agencies described these activities at the American
Chemical Society's recent national meeting in Washington, D.C.,
in sessions sponsored by the Division of Environmental
Chemistry. 

Perchlorate is a highly soluble component of solid rocket fuel
and some munitions. It is also used in roadside flares and
fireworks. The compound occurs naturally in rocks, and recent
evidence suggests that perchlorate is formed in the atmosphere
(). The chemical has been found in drinking water in 34 states,
according to EPA. 

The reason for concern is that perchlorate can inhibit uptake of
iodine by the thyroid and thus may lower the body's level of
thyroid hormone. Permanent neurological damage can occur in
children with insufficient levels of thyroid hormone. 

In January, the suggested that a safe dose for human ingestion
of perchlorate would be 0.7 µg per kilogram of body weight per
day (). The exposure level was designed to protect those
believed to be most vulnerable to perchlorate's adverse effects:
fetuses of pregnant women who have iodide-deficient diets or
whose bodies fail to produce enough thyroid hormone. 

The NRC report was issued to help settle a dispute that pitted
EPA--which proposed stricter cleanup levels--against the , the ,
the , and their contractors, all of which face liability for
perchlorate pollution and wanted a more relaxed cleanup
standard. EPA adopted the NRC standard, raising the agency's
earlier safe dose estimate somewhat from 0.3 µg/kg/day (). 

EPA has not yet translated that dose into a parts-per-billion
standard that would guide cleanup of perchlorate-contaminated
water and soil. And it has not set an allowable level of
perchlorate in drinking water. 

Perchlorate is on EPA's list of some 50 unregulated contaminants
in drinking water, which the agency is reviewing for possible
regulation. 

By early 2006, EPA will issue a draft decision on whether
regulating perchlorate in drinking water would meaningfully
reduce the public's risk of adverse effects from exposure to the
chemical, said Cynthia C. Dougherty, director of , at the ACS
meeting. 

Perchlorate has been found primarily at low levels in drinking
water in the U.S., she said. A recent EPA survey found that the
chemical occurs on average at concentrations less than 10 ppb,
she said, though one locale in Florida had 420 ppb in tap water. 

MEANWHILE, FDA is investigating the occurrence of perchlorate in
food, said Henry Kim of the Office of Plant & Dairy Foods in the
agency's Perchlorate is believed to enter produce that is grown
on soil or irrigated with water containing the chemical, Kim
pointed out. 

In November 2004, FDA posted results of its initial
"exploratory" survey of perchlorate in domestically produced
milk and lettuce (C&EN, Dec. 6, 2004, page 30). Results of
initial tests on U.S.-grown tomatoes, carrots, spinach, and
cantaloupes have not been released publicly yet, Kim said,
though low levels of perchlorate were found in some samples of
each. FDA's methods can detect perchlorate in produce down to
1.0 ppb and in milk as low as 3.0 ppb, Kim said. 

For the six foods in the initial survey, the public's average
exposure to perchlorate is less than the NRC recommended
standard of 0.7 µg/kg/day, Kim said. The preliminary estimate of
the public's exposure to perchlorate in foods is undergoing peer
review, as required under the federal Information Quality Act,
he said. 

This first stab at checking for perchlorate in foods was
limited, Kim said, and FDA needs more data before it can assess
the scope and public health implications of this chemical in
foods. 

In 2005, FDA has been analyzing 500 samples of both domestic and
imported vegetables, fruits and fruit juices, grain products,
infant foods and formula, and seafood raised in aquaculture. In
addition, the agency is checking for perchlorate in raw milk as
well as water and feed given to dairy cows, Kim said. 

While FDA continues its analysis of perchlorate in foods, Kim
said, it is also studying whether the iodine levels in prenatal
vitamins are sufficient to protect fetuses of iodine-deficient
women who consume perchlorate in their diet or water. 

In addition to the work by EPA and FDA, the Pentagon is
formulating a new policy on perchlorate pollution, said Shannon
E. Cunniff, special assistant for the Defense Department's
Materials of Evolving Regulatory Interest Team. The new guidance
will clarify information on the pathways through which people
are exposed to perchlorate, Cunniff said at the meeting. 

DOD is coordinating with EPA on this policy, which will affect
the extent of the cleanup of drinking water and wastewater
contaminated with perchlorate from military sources, she said. 

PERCHLORATE IS a component of more than 350 types of munitions,
including those that make noise or flashes used in training to
inure troops to explosions, she said. 

To date, two DOD ranges have been shut down because of
perchlorate contamination, Cunniff said. Should this happen in
"several more locations," the military "will have a real
problem," she said, but did not elaborate on what sorts of
issues this might entail. 

Concern about the public's exposure to perchlorate from DOD
activities is exacerbated by "encroachment," new residential or
other civilian development that comes right to the property line
of military facilities, Cunniff said. 

The Pentagon has spent more than $60 million over the past nine
or 10 years to address perchlorate contamination, Cunniff
continued. She added that more than $40 million of that total
has gone toward treatment technology. 

DOD is conducting research on chemicals that could be
alternatives to perchlorate, Cunniff said. The goal is to find a
substance that will provide oxygen in munitions and that is safe
and stable. 

Meanwhile, the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama is recycling
perchlorate being removed from obsolete or aged missiles,
Cunniff said. This perchlorate may be sold for use in the
commercial blasting industry, she added. 

DOD is perceived as the primary source of perchlorate pollution
in the U.S. as well as the source with the deepest pockets. "We
have been responsible for some pretty big plumes" of the
chemical in groundwater, Cunniff said, but the military has not
been the source of all perchlorate pollution. 

"We'll be responsible for what we're responsible for," Cunniff
said, but added that the military will not remediate perchlorate
contamination that it did not cause. Chemical & Engineering News 
+ Copyright © 2005 
*****************************************************************
 65 Salt Lake Tribune: Bennett switches, opposes Yucca 

Article Last Updated: 09/21/2005 07:54:24 AM 

Senate speech: He wants to keep the nation's nuclear waste where 
it is 

By Judy Fahys and Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

Sen. Bob Bennett 
Change of direction 

U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett has changed his mind about the proposed 
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump and now plans to join Nevada 
lawmakers in pushing for legislation that will keep the 
radioactive fuel where it is. 

"However much the idea of a single repository may have made 
sense decades ago, it's now clear that it does not make sense 
and we need to move in some future direction," said the Utah 
Republican in a Senate floor speech Tuesday. 

In publicly renouncing his past position - a rarity in 
Congress - Bennett allied himself with Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman 
Jr. and other political leaders in the state's fight to block a 
private waste-storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute 
Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. In the 
same stroke he isolated his fellow Utah Republican, Sen. Orrin 
Hatch. 

Federal nuclear regulators rebuffed the state's protests 
against the facility and signed off earlier this month on a 
license for a consortium called Private Fuel Storage (PFS). The 
site has been designed as temporary storage for up to 44,000 
tons of spent nuclear fuel on its way to permanent disposal in 
Yucca Mountain. 

Bennett, widely regarded as a political pragmatist, also 
pledged Tuesday to back Nevada, which has successfully battled 
the Yucca Mountain repository for more than two decades. In a 
historic Senate vote three years ago, Bennett voted with the 
majority in a 60-39 decision to override Nevada's Yucca Mountain 
veto and continue federal work on the repository. 

At the time, Bennett maintained the best way to protect Utah 
from nuclear waste was to speed the stuff to Yucca Mountain. The 
vote generated friction between both Utah senators and their 
Nevada counterparts. 

But on Tuesday, Bennett acknowledged that Yucca Mountain 
probably will never be approved as the nation's nuclear 
repository. He lauded Nevada leaders' vision and said they have 
''earned the right to say to the rest of us, 'I told you so.' . 
. . I say I will be happy to join with you, too, in seeing how 
we can think this thing through and get the best solution for 
our nation and all of those who live here.'' 

Nevada Sens. John Ensign, a Republican, and Harry Reid, the 
Senate's Democratic leader, have proposed a plan that would 
prevent waste from being moved from the 65 nuclear plants where 
it is currently stored. Simultaneously, the federal government 
would be required to revisit the possibility of reprocessing 
spent fuel. 

Reid was quick to praise Bennett after the speech, saying 
the Utahn had "succinctly and clearly" laid out reasons for 
opposing both Yucca Mountain and the Skull Valley facility. 

"The momentum is shifting and the timing is right to address 
our nuclear waste challenges in a way that offers real, 
long-term solutions," he said. 

"I have spent 20 years fighting the absurd idea that massive 
quantities of deadly nuclear waste can be transported across 
thousands of miles," Reid added. "I look forward to joining 
forces with Sen. Bennett as we work to protect our states, the 
West and the nation." 

It also puts Bennett on the same page as most other Utah 
political leaders. Rep. Rob Bishop said after the PFS license 
was granted Sept. 9 that he would explore working to move Reid's 
plan in the House. Rep. Jim Matheson had previously endorsed 
Reid's proposal and Rep. Chris Cannon is warming to the idea. 

However, Bennett's switch put him at odds with key members 
of his own party, including President Bush and 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 
Hatch. 

Bennett's announcement is a rebuke to the continued policy 
of the Bush administration. In March, Bennett and Hatch met with 
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and deputy Karl Rove and 
left the meeting committed to Yucca Mountain as the best way to 
block the Skull Valley storage site. 

Then on Tuesday, Hatch restated that he would continue 
pursuing his own strategy, an increasingly isolated position 
among the delegation. He said he plans to re-introduce an Energy 
Bill amendment this week as a stand-alone bill. 

"I have very important meetings coming up concerning the 
[Skull Valley] project, and it is important that I keep working 
on all options to protect our state," Hatch said in a press 
statement from his Washington office. 

"The amendment to the Energy bill I filed would have put a 
stop to the Skull Valley site. It would begin a study of 
alternatives such as reprocessing, storing the waste onsite, and 
storing the waste at existing Department of Energy sites." 

Hatch and Bennett had previously cited assurances from the 
companies that make up PFS that they would not pursue storing 
waste in Utah if Yucca Mountain were built in a timely manner. 

Bennett's admission that Yucca is unlikely to ever be 
constructed also acknowledges the companies' promise may be 
moot. 

Huntsman was among those who backed Bennett's new position. 

"It represents a highly rational approach and a long-term 
fix to a problem that promises to affect us short-term," he said 
in a statement issued through spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi. 

Vanessa Pierce of the group Healthy Environment Alliance of 
Utah said Bennett's change of heart is a good first step. 

"We're glad to see Senator Bennett extend an olive branch to 
our neighbors," she said. "Hopefully, Senator Hatch will soon 
join the effort to keep nuclear waste out of the West." 

Bennett emphasized in his speech that he still favors 
nuclear power - both as a tool to address growing energy needs 
and to minimize the coal-power emissions that contribute to 
global warming. 

He said the United States should be using more nuclear 
energy, as other nations do, and looking harder at reprocessing. 

He also offered many reasons why the Skull Valley site is a 
bad solution. He said: 

* The site is close to the Utah Test and Training Range, the 
largest test-bombing range in the continental United States; 

l It lacks the security that Yucca Mountain or nuclear-plant 
sites provide; 

* It would be better to keep waste in the federal 
government's hands, rather then under the control of a private 
entity; and 

l There is significant danger - of a terrorist attack, for 
instance - in moving the waste from place to place. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

gehrke@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 66 Salt Lake Tribune: Stand against waste

Opinion                     
 			 			 			 				 			 			 				 				 				
Last Updated: 09/21/2005 12:09:33 AM                              
                   
  On Sept. 10, The Tribune reported that the federal government
wants to send much of the nation's nuclear waste to Skull Valley
on the Goshute Indian Reservation, just 45 miles west of Salt
Lake City. They intend to ship it by rail, which will go
directly through Salt Lake City. 
    
   I am sure we all realize the hazards and dangers that might
be posed if this site so close to Salt Lake City is officially
selected. 

   If we all unite, we can hopefully prevent this from
occurring. We must establish a united effort by our city, state
officials, all our national representatives and church officials
to work toward this common goal of preventing Utah from becoming
the nuclear waste dump for America. 

   Let's all of us in Utah unite to avoid constant fear of
becoming a major target for terrorism, accidental spills in
transit, leaking containers in storage and many other possibly
deadly situations that could endanger the residents of Utah. 
    
   Richard M. Wirick 
   Salt Lake City 
      
                  
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 67 Pahrump Valley Times: Caliente Corridor discussed in Goldfield 

September 21, 2005

OFFICIALS OUTNUMBER RESIDENTS AT 'HOT' MEETING 

By HEIDI J. BERTOLINO SPECIAL TO THE PVT 

The long anticipated meeting between the Department of Energy's
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and Esmeralda
and Nye county residents was a mellow one on Sept 13 - despite
rumblings the federal officials would be "rode out of town on a
rail."

 The Department was in Goldfield with Bureau of Land Management
and state employees to explain and collect comments on the draft
environmental assessment on the Caliente Corridor, otherwise
known as the proposed rail route that would be used to transport
the nation's high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.

 The final document is in support of a proposed land order that
would protect the proposed 308,600 acres of public land for
10-20 years from surface disturbance and new mining claims. The
mile-wide corridor is being considered for the construction of a
railroad to haul spent nuclear fuel from Caliente to the Yucca
Mountain Repository near Amargosa Valley. 

The withdrawal is necessary so the Energy Department can study
the corridor and choose a final route for the proposed railroad. 

Yucca Mountain, BLM and state representatives outnumbered the
public in attendance at any given time. Residents who asked
serious questions related to the proposed railroad, not
addressed in the draft environmental assessment, were told their
worries would be answered in the Rail Alignment Environmental
Impact Statement, which has yet to be released.

 According to representatives from the various offices, the
comments collected in written and verbal form will be collected
and assessed for preparation of the final environmental
assessment. Currently, the department has until the end of
December until its temporary withdrawal expires. When the final
document is prepared it will be issued to the Department of the
Interior, which manages the Bureau of Land Management. 

Then the assistant secretary can issue a federal land order for
withdrawal of the public lands from 10-20 years. According to
the draft, the DOE would prefer a 10 year withdrawal, as opposed
to the previously sought after 20 year withdrawal.

 According to the document, livestock grazing and existing valid
mining claims will not be affected, nor would recreation. The
document said all of the department's activities in the
corridor, during the 10-20 year withdrawal period would be
considered "casual use," such as surveying and mapping and would
not disturb any of the cultural, historic or natural resources
in the mile wide corridor. 

Only new and future mining claims and surface disturbance will
not be allowed under the land order, if it is issued. 

Allen Benson, manager of Communications for the Office of
Repository Development, said the Rail Alignment EIS would draw a
much bigger crowd than the discussion on Tuesday. He said the
process that includes the assessment of the land withdrawal is
exactly like it would be if a highway was being built. He also
said the rail impact statement would address the actual route of
the proposed railroad within that mile-wide corridor, and the
possible ramifications to the environment and citizens nearby.
The current assessment only addresses the ramifications of the
department's "casual use" of the land.

 According to Benson the information brought forth in the Rail
Alignment EIS would produce a record of decision. When the final
route for the train is designated, the department can then apply
for a railroad right of way, which includes 200-feet off the
centerline of the track, and not the mile-wide corridor that
could be withdrawn. 

It is expected that when the formal right-of-way is issued the
land order would become unnecessary. The department expects to
complete all preliminary work in the mile-wide corridor in 10
years. 

Esmeralda County Commissioners and Nye County Commissioners took
turns asking questions and relating information to the
representatives present. Esmeralda County Commissioner Bill
Kirby sat down with Benson and reminded him the commissioners
had signed a resolution that requested the DOE look at an
alternative route, not currently listed, in Esmeralda County. 

The commission proposed route is more westerly, and according to
commissioners would not impact the Goldfield Mining District to
the degree it might if the railroad is built in the current
corridor. Benson said the DOE would have to apply for a land
withdrawal of that proposed stretch if it wanted to seriously
consider the land. 

The commission suggested westerly route is supposedly addressed
in the upcoming rail alignment impact statement but has yet to
be withdrawn for study and surveying. Benson said the contents
of the draft statement for the rail alignment would not be ready
until at least spring of 2006.

 The Caliente Corridor travels through large portions of Lincoln
and Nye counties and barely turns into and then out of Esmeralda
County. Among the alternatives is one route that will butt up
against the Esmeralda County line, without entering the county.
If the department chooses this route it would leave Esmeralda
County out of the current three-county stake holder's financial
pie. With the exception of Caliente, the community of Goldfield
sits the closest to the proposed rail route at four miles.
Esmeralda County is also the least prepared to respond to a
large-scale emergency. Beatty is also within 10 miles of the
corridor and proposed railroad.

 Written comments on the draft environmental assessment for the
Caliente Corridor land withdrawal can be sent to Mr. Lee Bishop,
Office of National Transportation, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551
Hillshire Drive, M/S 011, Las Vegas, NV 89134 or faxed to
1-800-967-0739 until Tuesday's deadline. 

webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 68 Bennett: Yucca Mountain No Longer An Option

: 09/20/2005
 				 				 	 	 		 		 		 		 		 		 					 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 			
September 20, 2005 MR. BENNETT -- One of the issues that has
occupied this chamber for some time, and had a particular impact
on those of us in the western states, is the issue of storage of
nuclear waste. 

The question of where nuclear waste should be stored has been
before various administrations and various Congresses literally
for decades. And the original policy decision made by
administrations past and Congresses past is that there should be
a single repository for nuclear waste. After a study by the
National Academy of Science and others, the decision was made to
put that repository in Nevada in Yucca Mountain, and ever since
that time construction has gone forward at the Yucca Mountain
facility. 

All of that happened before I came to Congress, but when I got
here, the debate was going on and we had a particular point
where we had to vote once again on whether or not to put nuclear
waste in Yucca Mountain. At that time, as I looked at the
various alternatives, I decided that the best scientific answer
to the question of what to do with nuclear waste, was to leave
it where it was. I was assured by the scientists that it was
safe in the dry-cask storage that had been prepared for its
transportation and that it could be safely transported across
the country to Yucca Mountain. My reaction to that was, if
itâ€™s safe where it is and itâ€™s safe to transport, why
transport it at all? Why not leave it where it is? 

But it was very clear that the Congress was not going to accept
that position, that the president was not going to accept that
position, and that we were going to go ahead as a matter of
public policy and have a single repository for nuclear waste. So
I said, â€˜Well, if weâ€™re going to have a single repository
for nuclear waste, the most logical place for that is Yucca
Mountain,â€™ and I voted in favor of Yucca Mountain. Looking
back on it, the key word in that sentence is the word â€œif.â€
If weâ€™re going to have a single repository for nuclear waste,
it appeared that the logical place to put it was Yucca Mountain. 

It is now clear that we are not going to have a single
repository for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain has been challenged
on scientific grounds. Yucca Mountain has been challenged in the
court on legal grounds. And as we look at the present state of
our need for energy, Yucca Mountain will be challenged on
practical grounds because it is very clear that we are going to
need more, not less, nuclear power. 

The nuclear power is here to stay, the nuclear plants that we
have are going to be re-commissioned and re-licensed and Yucca
Mountain will be full, even if we go ahead with the existing
plans and still have storage in place. And it doesnâ€™t make
sense, from a practical point of view, to move the material all
across the country, store it in Yucca Mountain for the purpose
of ending storage in place, and then have storage in place come
back. So those who saw this in advance, Senator Reid and Senator
Ensign, have the right to tell the rest of us, â€˜I told you
so.â€™ 

As it now becomes clear, scientifically, legally, and
practically, Yucca Mountain is not going to become a single
repository for nuclear waste and we need to start thinking about
new strategies and new places to deal with this. I want to make
it very clear that I am not opposed to nuclear power; indeed I
am a strong supporter of nuclear power. Iâ€™ve supported Senator
Domenici in crafting the energy bill, to craft the bill in such
a way as to encourage America to build new nuclear power plants. 

We are behind the rest of the world on this issue. In Europe you
find that the French have something like 80 percent of their
power generated by nuclear power. The British have large amounts
of nuclear power. With the price of natural gas going as high as
it is, it becomes increasingly economically unwise for us to
continue to build gas-powered electric plants. Nuclear power is
something we should get involved in, in a big way in the future,
and the energy bill that we passed prior to the August recess
laid the groundwork for that. 

The question is, of course, if we go in that direction, what do
we do with the nuclear waste? If Yucca Mountain is not going to
be available, and Iâ€™m now convinced that it will not be, where
should it be put? There is a proposal that it should be put in
the state of Utah at an interim storage site that has just
recently been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I
put stress on the word â€œinterimâ€ because the whole idea
behind the proposed facility in Utah in a place called Skull
Valley was that it would simply be a stopover for the waste on
its way to Yucca Mountain. And so it has been designed and it
has been licensed as an interim storage facility. 

Well, if it does not make sense for us to take this nuclear
waste and put it in a permanent repository, which is what Yucca
Mountain is, why does it make sense to put it in an interim
repository that does not have the safeguards that are built into
Yucca Mountain? Yucca Mountain would put the waste below ground.
It would put the waste in vaults that have been prepared for it.
The interim facility in Skull Valley would leave the waste above
ground. It would leave the waste in the dry-casks storage
receptacles that were built for transportation. Why ship it from
its present site above ground to another site above ground to
say, â€œWell, this is an interim storage site until we put it
into permanent storage?â€ The reality is if you do that, then
you are creating a permanent storage site because there will be
no place to put it after it has been transported to the interim
storage site. 

While there are those who say, "You just donâ€™t want it in
Utah.â€ And thatâ€™s true; I donâ€™t want it in Utah. But
thereâ€™s another factor here that drives the reason why I
donâ€™t want it in Utah. This particular interim storage site is
at the portal to the Utah Test and Training Range. Now most
people, even most people in Utah, have never heard of the Utah
Test and Training Range and have no idea what it is. It is the
largest land range for bombing practice in the United States. It
goes all the way back to the Second World War. The crew that
flew the mission over Hiroshima in the Enola Gay trained at the
Utah Test and Training Range. Today it is still in use. F-16s
from Manila Air Force Base fly over the Utah Test and Training
Range and practice their bombing runs with live ordnance. 

I have flown over the Utah Test and Training Range and been
told, "We have to get out of here because the F-16s are coming
and theyâ€™re going to start bombing." It clearly does not make
sense to have an interim storage facility for nuclear waste in
an area where F-16s with live ordnance are going to be flying.
Now there are those who say, â€˜Well, the F-16s can change their
flight patterns; they can go around this area, they donâ€™t need
to pay attention to it.â€™ 

One of the things we have learned from spending time with the
BRAC process in determining which military facilities will be
retained and which ones will not, is that more military
facilities have been closed by encroachment than have been
closed by BRAC. Encroachment being development or other
activities that come close to the gate of the military base that
make it impossible for the people on the base to do their job
and they ultimately say, â€˜When we built this base, it was
surrounded by open spaces, now activity has come in, development
has come in, encroachment has happened and weâ€™re going to have
to close this base.â€™ I do not want to have to see encroachment
take away the last remaining large land base test and training
range in the United States. We need to rethink this whole thing. 

So, Mr. President, Iâ€™m now making it clear that my support for
Yucca Mountain, however well-intended it was at the time, in my
opinion does no longer hold in the situation in which we find
ourselves. I also believe that the proposal that was made at the
last time we approved Yucca Mountain, of leaving the material in
place until we can work out the economics and the technology of
reprocessing it, is the right approach. Thatâ€™s what the future
holds. 

Right now people say, â€œWell, reprocessing is too expensive.â€
But we know from a past experience that technology will find a
way around that. It will become cheaper and cheaper the more we
do it. We are already involved in reprocessing warheads from the
former Soviet Union as we go through the process of reducing
nuclear weapons and nuclear stockpiles around the world. As that
reprocessing activity goes forward we will learn how to do it
faster, we will learn how to do it cheaper, and reprocessing
will be available for the nuclear waste that is developed by our
nuclear power facilities. At that time it would make sense for
the nuclear waste that is stored on site to be reshipped to a
reprocessing center, not to an interim storage facility. 

Thereâ€™s one other factor here that needs to be stressed. At
the present time, the contract to take the nuclear waste and
ship it to the interim storage facility in Utah â€“ which, by
the way, has not been built â€“ thereâ€™s still a billion
dollars worth of investment that has to go into that, and the
process by which that will go forward will be under the
ownership of the utilities that run the nuclear plants. The main
difference between an interim storage facility and a permanent
storage facility has to do with titles. In the interim storage
facility, the utility that created the waste and ran the nuclear
plant retains title to the waste while it is being packaged,
while it is being shipped, and while it is in interim storage. 

Under the Yucca Mountain proposal, the federal government would
take title to the waste the minute Yucca Mountain would open so
the federal government would be responsible for packaging it,
the federal government would be responsible for protecting it
while transporting it, and the federal government would be
responsible for the security on the site where it would be. 

If we leave it where it is while we work on the issue of
reprocessing, title will remain with the utility that produced
it, but the security that the utility has already built into its
plant is already there. It is not exposed to any terrorist
attack while it is moving, so the utility does not have to bear
the expense of extra security in moving waste to which they
returned title. Then, when we get to the point where we can move
it to a reprocessing plant, once again the federal government
can take title to it, the federal government can provide the
security during transportation, the federal government can see
that it is kept safe from terrorist attack and bring it to the
reprocessing facility. 

One last point, one of the reasons we want to be sure the
federal government is in charge of all the reprocessing is that
the end product, after reprocessing, is not only energy,
additional energy created by the process, but the residue that
is left is weapons-grade plutonium. We do not want to run the
risk of having weapons-grade plutonium in the hands of private
entities. We want to be sure the government controls that. And
so, Mr. President, what I think we need to do â€“ â€œweâ€ being
the collective word for the administration and the Congress
general â€“ is to adopt some fundamental principles and then
rethink the whole issue to come up with the appropriate details. 

The fundamental principles that I would recommend and that I
embrace are: number one, we are in favor of nuclear power. We
want more nuclear power in this country for all of the
environmental reasons dealing with greenhouse gases; for all of
the demand reasons dealing with the increase necessity for
electric power and for all of the legal reasons having to do
with the control of the ownership of the facilities. 

Number two, I am in favor of reprocessing. I think we should
work toward that technical solution for the question of waste. 

And number three, while we are in the process of building new
nuclear plants and working toward reprocessing the waste, we
should leave the waste where it is. If, indeed, as I say, it is
safe to transport and it is safe to store in an interim facility
someplace else, by definition it is equally safe to store right
where it is. Thatâ€™s cheaper, thatâ€™s equally as safe, and
that sets us up for the solution of our problem. 

I believe that if we rethink the whole issue as to how weâ€™re
going to handle it and what weâ€™re going to do, there may very
well be a useful purpose for Yucca Mountain. We have spent, as a
nation, billions of dollars preparing that facility. We should
review the facility and what it offers and see how it might be
used at some particular point in the future and see how we might
retain some of the investments we have made there. I am not one
who thinks we ought to just fill Yucca Mountain up with dirt and
walk away and leave it. 

There can be a win-win situation for all. Nevada can get some
value out of the investment that has been made in Yucca Mountain
if we think it through carefully. The nation can get additional
power without the greenhouse gas effect that comes from fossil
fuels, and we can ultimately solve the problem of nuclear waste
with reprocessing. 

Iâ€™ve discussed this in general terms with Senator Domenici,
who is the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and I
commend him for his original thinking of moving in directions
that will make sense for the future. 

However much the idea of a single repository may have made sense
decades ago, itâ€™s now clear that it does not make sense and we
need to move in some future direction. That the degree that
Senator Domenici will allow me to participate to find the
logical solution under the three principles I have described I
would be more than happy to cooperate with him. And to those who
had the vision long ago, who have earned the right to say to the
rest of us, â€œI told you so,â€ I say I will be happy to join
with you too in seeing how we can think this thing through and
get the best solution for our nation and all of those who live
here. 

*****************************************************************
 69 AU ABC: Govt called on to investigate uranium mining. 

22/09/2005. ABC News Online
 	

There are calls from within the Western Australian Government
for a share of the state's $1.2 billion Budget surplus to be
spent researching the merits of uranium mining.

 In just his second speech to Parliament since being elected
this year, the Mining and Pastoral MP Vince Catania last night
repeated calls for the Government to reconsider its ban on
uranium mining.

 He is among a raft of Labor backbenchers who have broken ranks
and called for a public debate.

 Mr Catania has told the Upper House while he supports the ban
for now, due to safety issues, some of WA's wealth should be
spent researching what could be another mining bonanza.

 "I propose and intend to pursue establishment of a uranium safe
research centre in Western Australia," he said.

 "The centre should be funded jointly by the state and federal
governments, and I'm sure that the private mining and research
centre will make its contribution." 

*****************************************************************
 70 KVBC: Yucca Project Loses Support

September 22, 2005   

A Utah senator says he no longer supports the Yucca Mountain 
Repository. Senator Bob Bennett says nuclear waste should remain 
at individual nuclear power plants until better disposal methods 
are developed.    

Bennett originally backed the Yucca Mountain Project, but changed 
his tune after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed an 
interim storage site in his home state of Utah. Senator Harry 
Reid says that Bennet's change of heart shows that momentum is 
shifting and support for Yucca is on the decline. 
       
   All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All 
Rights Reserved.






*****************************************************************
 71 CCDR: Law could require reporting of environmental concerns to 
potential property buyers
 
Canon City Daily Record - 

  Publish Date: 9/20/2005 			 

John Fryar

 Daily Record Denver Bureau

Colorado may need a new state law requiring property owners and 
real estate agents to tell would-be buyers about possible 
environmental concerns associated with those properties, Rep. 
Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, said Monday. 

That would protect people, for example, who are thinking about
buying a home in an area like Lincoln Park, a Superfund site. 

McFadyen, whose House District 47 extends into Fremont County
and includes the Lincoln Park neighborhood, said she is opposed
to the Cotter Corp.’s proposal to dispose of radioactive
materials from a Maywood, N.J., Superfund site at Cotter’s Canon
City uranium processing mill. 

McFadyen, who testified at an administrative hearing being held
because of Cotter’s challenges to several restrictions and
conditions the state Department of Public Health wants to attach
to license renewal, said she opposed the Maywood disposal
proposal even before she ran for the Legislature in 2002 and
took office in 2003. 

She said she was “shocked” at the time to learn of Cotter’s
Maywood plan, and her impression was that “the community was
caught very unaware,” as well. 

McFadyen said she talked then-Senate Majority Leader Bill
Thiebaut, a Pueblo Democrat, into being the Senate sponsor of a
bill introduced by then-House Majority Leader Lola Spradley, a
Republican who repre-sented much of Fremont County. 

McFadeyen said Cotter’s direct-disposal proposal was one
supported at the time by a number of community members who she
said saw Cotter as “an economic driver” in the community. 

“I believe that support has since waned,” she said, although she
said she opposed the Maywood proposal in her 2002 campaign even
knowing it might cost her some Fremont County votes. 

“The issue was so important to me, it almost didn’t matter
whether I won or not,” said McFadyen, who was invited to testify
at Monday’s hearing by Concerned Citizens Against Toxic Waste. 

Once in the Legislature, McFadyen was on the House
Transportation and Energy Committee that heard a subsequent
Spradley bill, which McFadyen said was intended in part to
require the Department of Health and Environment to consider
potential social and environmental consequences of renewing
Cotter’s state license. 

CCAT co-chairwoman Sharyn Cunningham noted in her questioning of
McFadyen at Monday’s adminis-trative hearing that Cotter has
challenged the state’s right under Spradley’s bill to block the
receipt and disposal of Maywood materials. Cunningham said
Cotter contends public opinion has no statutory standing in such
state decisions. 

McFadyen, though, said the Legislature’s intent was for the
health department to consider just such local social, economic
and environmental impacts. She said that as a lawmaker who sat
on the committee that heard the bill, she disagrees with Cotter”
interpretation of the 2003 law. 

McFadyen said that while she lives in Pueblo County, “I’m also,
in a sense, married to Fremont County” because her husband Paul
was raised in Lincoln Park. 

Also, she said, “I have a strong opinion about toxic waste
because of where I grew up” – in Niagara County, N.Y., the
location of the polluted Love Canal. 				   

src="http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/images/masthead3.gif"
alt="The Daily Record" width="200" height="39" border="0">
News and Information from Cañon City and the Greater Royal Gorge
Region
   
All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 72 Canon City Daily Record: Cotter hearings come to close
 
  Publish Date: 9/21/2005 			 

Paul Kendall expresses his views to the Cotter Corp. panel on
the final day of the hearings at the Fremont County
Administration Building on Tuesday. Judge Richard Dana,
background, presided over the hearings. 
Daily Record photo by Tamara McCumber
   

Blakely Thomas-Aguilar

 Daily Record Staff Writer

Citizen testimony rounded out the Cotter Corp. hearings Tuesday, 
and Judge Richard Dana now has the task of sorting the testimony 
and mounds of exhibits to present a final recommendation to the 
executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health 
and Environment. 

In the sixth and final day of the hearings at the Fremont County
Administration Building, more than 30 citizens filled the seats
as individuals presented their final testimonies to the arbiter.
All the citizens who testified called for the decommissioning of
the uranium milling plant located outside Cañon City. 

“The time has come that the community should have the right to
determine was its identity will be,” Emily Tracy said. “At some
point, it’s up to the regulators, those who are responsible for
renewing licenses have to consider what most of us want and that
is that operations such as Cotter … do not belong here. They do
not belong so close to a community.” 

Tracy and several other citizens disclosed they had suffered
medical conditions, including cancer, over their lifetimes in
Cañon City. Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste witness D.
McKinna, a licensed professional counselor in Cañon City, said
studies have shown these could be linked to Cañon City or simply
a symptom of “slow motion technical disasters.” 

Since 1988, medical researches have been trying to label the
disorder associated with people who have symptoms similar to
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but suffer from these symptoms
without closure. “Technological disasters,” such as those from
technological breakdown causing radioactive contamination, creep
up on people who believed they were safe in their homes. Tracy
said that because of the lengthy contamination, there is no end
of this problem for those who choose to stay in their homes. 

“What I’m seeing is again a display of symptoms,” McKinna said
when asked about the behavior of Cañon City residents. “Because
of remarks made by Cotter and Colorado Department of Health
representatives who ridiculed (citizens) because of that display
of emotions, now they are struggling to maintain
creditabil-ity.” 

This ridicule, McKinna said, has given citizens a mistrust of
CDPHE and Cotter representatives and during the more than 15
public meetings, citizens have been showing signs of the
technological disaster disorder. These signs include
belligerence, agitation, depression, obsessive compulsion,
headaches, back pain, anxi-ety and many other symptoms. 

“One of the problems is that science measures things in a way we
humans do not. We really rely on our senses. And, basically, if
we can’t smell it, hear it or taste it, we become disoriented. …
No warning signs are unique to this disorder. There is no odor,
sight, sound,” McKinna said. 

A loss of sense of community identity and personal integrity,
which is “exasperated when community isn’t involved in the
decision,” is also part of the disorder, and McKinna, who has
been a resident for more than 30 years, has noticed it in Cañon
City. 

McKinna’s testimony disputed Cotter’s position that the
community has not suffered a “stigma” associated with the
milling operations, particularly the proposed direct disposal of
radioactive waste materials. Cotter is appealing the health
department’s denial of approximately 400,000 tons of waste from
the Maywood, N.J., Superfund site. 

Citizens, during the one-hour open testimony period, confirmed
McKinna’s stigma position. The negative effects of the Cotter
mill have been disputed by the corporation, but CCAT produced
witnesses stating real estate, businesses and the surrounding
communities were negatively impacted by the stigma surrounding
the alleged contamination of the water, soil and air because of
the milling operations. 

Marcy Roberts owns a rental property in the Lincoln Park area
which previously was owned by one of the citizens involved in a
lawsuit with Cotter in the 1980s. She said every renter must
sign a disclosure regard-ing the contaminants in the
Superfund-designated community. 

“Welcome to Cañon City, the radioactive dumpsite,” Roberts said
when describing the town. “It doesn’t appeal to me, and I’m sure
it doesn’t to other people.” 

William and Jeri Fry, the co-chair of CCAT, both attended the
meeting and were concerned with the ad-ministrative process and
the final results of the hearing. Cotter and the CDPHE have
negotiated through the majority of the licensing agreement. If
Richards finds in Cotter’s favor, the secondary impoundment will
remain open, the waste materials will continue to be in the form
of slurried tailings and the company will be able to directly
dispose of radioactive waste from outside facilities. 

Although Jeri notes that the CDPHE has made progress in
regulating the company, she is concerned the process is still
too bureaucratic without allowing the citizens to have a major
impact on the final decision. 

“There has been too much historical behavior that cannot be
corrected. This is a flawed process. We don’t expect a quick
fix, because we need a durable, sustainable process to deal with
the radiation and nuclear processing industry. The whole process
needs to be revamped all the way up to federal,” Jeri said. 

William directed his comments to Dana, who presided over a
similar hearing between Cotter and the CDPHE 9 years ago. He
said the situation is still the same, and the money associated
with direct disposal is still the foundation of the issues. 

“Sir, either you were wrong or you’ve been had,” William said.
“I don’t think they lived up to your expec-tations. They
certainly haven’t lived up to ours. I do not believe the state
department has been consistent in their watchdog duties. … There
is a pattern of corporate disregard.” 

Cotter Director of Environmental Affairs Steven Landau declined
comment after the hearings, but Cotter attorney John Watson
expressed satisfaction with the process. 

“We’re happy with the focus of the hearings. Everybody put their
best foot forward,” Watson said. 

Steve Tarlton, leader of the CDPHE Radiation Unit, was the only
state representative at the citizen testimony and said he was
pleased with the citizen turnout. Cotter and the CDPHE have
agreed on 57 license conditions and created an “Order on
Consent,” which allows Cotter to continue production without the
complete approval of the licensing agreement. 

“It’s been a good process and I think all the issues have been
suitably laid out, so I think it’s been very good,” Tarlton
said. 

Representatives from CCAT, Cotter and the CDPHE have until Oct.
28 to present Dana with their “Probable Findings and Conclusions
of Law.” Because the hearing did not encompass closing
arguments, the groups write up the reasons for the desirable
outcome based on their separate agendas. The judge said he
expects to take until the beginning of 2006 to read the 14
notebooks of data and write up his legal recommendation to the
executive director of the CDPHE, Douglas Benevento. 

Benevento will take this recommendation and others into
consideration before issuing the final license. Cotter then can
appeal the judge’s recommendation. 				   

All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 73 Vermont Guardian: Utility regulators not bound by states dry cask deal with VY

By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian 

Posted September 21, 2005 

BRATTLEBORO  The parameters laid out by the Legislature for the
dry storage of nuclear waste could be changed if state utility
regulators decide to do so, according to a top official with the
Department of Public Service. 

Public Service Department attorney Sarah Hoffman said the Public
Service Board (PSB), a separate entity that on Tuesday made its
first foray into the contentious issue, is not bound by a
memorandum of understanding forged last spring between Entergy
and the state as part of legislation to allow nuclear waste
storage in Vernon. 

Under state law, Vermont Yankee owner Entergy must obtain a
certificate of public good from the board before building a dry
cask storage facility in Vernon. 

Anti-nuclear activists and southern Vermont lawmakers were
furious when officials from the department negotiated away what
they considered to be key points of the memorandum, including a
requirement for earthen or concrete berms around each cask and
individual radiation monitoring devices hard-wired directly to
the Department of Health. 

Both Hoffman and state nuclear engineer Bill Sherman said they
did the best they could in the talks. Every negotiation has
gives and takes, said Sherman. 

Federal law forbids the state to deal with nuclear safety. In
the moU, Entergy pledged not to claim federal preemption on any
of the negotiated points. The company also agreed to pay $2.5
million annually into a new renewable energy fund, but only if
the uprate is approved. 

But the board is not bound by the MOU, said Hoffman, speaking to
the Vermont Guardian at the close of a lengthy PSB hearing in
Brattleboro on the waste issue, which drew more than 100 area
residents and Vermont Yankee employees. 

Many nuclear power opponents at the hearing urged the board not
to consider the storage question separate from the proposed
uprate at Vermont Yankee, which would increase power output at
the plant by 20 percent, or its possible relicensing in 2012. 

In an earlier decision, the board gave tentative approval to the
uprate, pending an independent safety assessment of the plant.
It has is not yet signed off on the assessment conducted last
summer by NRC and outside inspectors. 

This debate is a smokescreen, said Brattleboro music teacher
Andy Davis. 

Entergy is playing a chess game with the regulations and the
public is getting outplayed, he cautioned. This is the next move
on the board for uprate. I pray that youre not the next pawns
that get played. 

Davis questioned why VY owners waited until now, more than 32
years after the reactor went on line, to seek permission to
store the waste on site. Its a gamble to extend the life an
aging plant, he declared. Its about the money. 

Like all commercial reactor operators, Entergy has been paying
into a Department of Energy fund to develop Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as a nuclear waste repository. But that project has been
plagued by logistical and legal problems and is not expected to
open anytime soon, if at all. 

Entergy is also part of a coalition of nuclear power plant
owners that is developing a private waste storage site in Utah,
but VY engineer David McElwee said without elaboration Tuesday,
during a tour of the proposed Vernon site, that he didnt know if
the VY would send its spent fuel to Utah. 

Without onsite dry storage, officials say VY would have to shut
down by 2008 because there will be no room left in the pool
where the spent fuel is currently stored. 

They are seeking a certificate of public good from the PSB to
construct a 76- by 132-foot concrete pad within the security
perimeters of the Vernon site, large enough to house 40 casks,
each 19 feet high by 11 feet in diameter, and weighing 190 tons.
Each $1 million cask would hold 68 fuel rod assemblies. The
storage pad is approximately 200 feet from the bank of the
Connecticut River, and about 37 feet above the average level of
the river. The facility could provide enough fuel storage for
the plant to operate through 2032 at 120 percent of its current
generation capacity. 

The casks, manufactured by Holtec International, are also mobile
and could be moved by rail to another fuel storage site in the
future. The Holtec system carries a general license issued by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so VY officials only need
only state approval to build the storage facility. 

Critics say the casks are flimsy and cite an audit by Exelon
Energy whistleblower Oscar Shirani, who found multiple
deficiencies with the system. The NRC has dismissed the findings
as unfounded, and Shirani was fired from his job. 

But Vermont Yankee employees lined up at the hearing to endorse
the proposal and vouch for their companys safety record. 

VY assistant engineer Jeff Melvin said he worked for 12 years at
an Entergy nuclear plant in Arkansas, where his job was to
visually inspect each cask twice a day for signs of weathering,
air-flow obstructions and temperature monitors. They presented
no hazard. At no time during my hundreds of inspections did I
ever fear for my safety, he said. I dont recall ever receiving
even 1 millirem as a result of my proximity to those casks. 

Entergy bought Vermont Yankee in 2001 because it was recognized
as a well-run organization, he said. Since he transferred to
Vernon last year, he said Ive seen nothing to challenge that
conclusion. 

Referring to an international energy crisis moving toward epic
levels, former Democratic Gov. Tom Salmon said, The question
becomes what can this board do to deal with pricing issues  The
answer is, if you find it safe, proven technology, virtually
immune to serious threat by terrorists or others, you can
approve systems that are now operating at some 24 nuclear power
plants in the country and avoid the rather frightful possibility
that by no later than 2008 we find ourselves in situation where
this plant would have to close because it had no further
capacity for its wet storage. 

But Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, a member of the House Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, urged the board members to be
more rigorous than the Legislature was when presented with a
bill to allow dry cask storage just two days before adjourning
in June. 

He urged board members David Cohen and John Burke to consider
the length of time the contents of the canisters would remain
hazardous  which experts put at 100,000 years  and limitations
on Entergys liability. Vermont Yankee is owned by Entergy
Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY), a limited liability corporation
held by parent company Entergy Nuclear, which is itself a
subsidiary of the larger Louisiana-based Entergy Corp. 

The ball is in your court because Entergy gamed the political
process, Darrow said. They provided little solid information to
the legislative committees, and when they didnt like the bill
that came out, which gave them permission to do dry cask
storage, it went behind closed doors  Dont let them game you.
You have the advantage over the Legislature of having in-house
experts, being able to put people under oath and cross examine
them under oath, so were depending on you. 

Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, who voted in favor of the
bill, told Cohen and Burke that they were Vermonts last line of
defense. 

That waste may remain here forever, Edwards said. We deserve at
least what other states have gotten in assurances so that the
public is protected as much as possible. Right now we dont have
that assurance. 

Only Burke and Cohen will decide the dry cask issue. Public
Service Board Chairman James Volz earlier this month recused
himself from the case, citing a possible appearance of conflict
of interest. 
 
Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 

 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 
05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 
877.231.5382 (toll-free)

 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | 

Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
*****************************************************************
 74 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain e-mail investigation continues 

September 21, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON - The Energy Department said it turned over more than
700 pages of additional documents Friday subpoenaed by a
congressional panel investigating allegations of paperwork fraud
on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project in Nevada. 

But a spokesman for Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who is pursuing the
investigation, said the department still has not handed over
some key items the panel is seeking. Among them: a draft of the
license application the department will submit to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to get permission to open the dump 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

"The stuff that we got today, it wasn't a whole lot. We know
they have a lot more they haven't given us," said Chad Bungard,
deputy staff director and chief counsel for the congressional
panel Porter chairs. 

Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said the department
has sought to respond to the House Government Reform Committee
subpoena. 

"As more information is assembled that is responsive to the
request, we will provide it," Stevens said. 

Porter's panel, a subcommittee of the Government Reform
Committee, is investigating e-mails written between 1998 and
2000 by government scientists suggesting they made up details of
their work on Yucca and kept two sets of books, one for
themselves and one to satisfy quality-assurance officials. 

In July, when the Energy Department declined to turn over papers
he requested, Porter had them subpoenaed.

 The Energy Department turned over one large batch of papers
later in July. Friday's batch was the second. Stevens said the
new documents included glossaries and organizational charts. 

Porter's probe has been quiet during the August congressional
recess, but Bungard said another hearing would be scheduled
soon. 


For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 75 Pahrump Valley Times: New radiation safety standards for Yucca 

September 21, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS - An Environmental Protection Agency official defended
proposed new radiation safety standards for a planned federal
nuclear waste repository in Nevada, calling them the most
stringent in the nation. 

"We ensure that Yucca Mountain is as safe as any other disposal
system that could be developed," said Elizabeth Cotsworth,
director of the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

Cotsworth delivered a presentation Monday to the Nuclear and
Radiation Studies Board in Washington, D.C. The board is a
branch of the National Academies of Sciences, which monitors the
Yucca Mountain project. 

"We are proposing to protect public health up to a million
years," Cotsworth said. "Clearly no other environmental
regulation in the U.S. looking at any risk has ever attempted to
regulate for such an extended period of time." 

The EPA is taking public comment on proposed safety rules it
unveiled in August. The Energy Department would need to show it
could meet the standards to obtain a license to open the
repository. 

The department plans to ship and entomb 77,000 tons of the
nation's most highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from 39
states at the Yucca site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Cotsworth said the EPA might extend a public comment period
beyond Oct. 21, and no schedule has been set for finalizing the
regulation. 

Public hearings are scheduled Oct. 3 in Amargosa Valley, the
community closest to the Yucca repository site, and Oct. 4-5 in
Las Vegas. Another hearing is set Oct. 11 in Washington. 

The EPA proposed new Yucca Mountain radiation rules last month,
after a federal appeals court in July 2004 invalidated parts of
a previous regulation. 

Nevada opposes the repository plan, and state elected leaders
and Yucca Mountain critics dispute the EPA's characterization of
the new radiation rule. They say it was structured to ease the
Energy Department's ability to open the repository, and state
Attorney General Brian Sandoval has said the state will sue the
EPA unless the proposed regulation is changed. 

The new two-part EPA proposal calls for the Energy Department to
show that a person living about 11 miles away from the site
would be exposed to no more than 15 millirem of radiation a year
during the first 10,000 years of repository operations. 

EPA officials said a routine chest X-ray emits 10 millirem and
that a mammogram emits 30 millirem. 

After 10,000 years, EPA wants the repository exposure limit at
350 millirem. 

Cotsworth said that level was tied to what Colorado residents
get in background radiation from soil, rocks, the sun and other
natural sources. 

"For very long times, total radiation exposures to (individuals)
will be no higher than natural levels people live with routinely
in other parts of the country," she told the science panel. 

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 76 Pahrump Valley Times: Nuclear industry exec picked to head project 

September 21, 2005

 YUCCA MOUNTAIN 

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS - A nuclear industry executive from Pennsylvania has
been picked to direct plans for a national nuclear waste
repository in Nevada. 

Edward "Ward" Sproat was named Thursday by President Bush to
head the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, which oversees development of the Yucca
Mountain project and a system to transport nuclear waste to the
site from commercial power reactors and federal plants. 

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Sproat will be expected to
reinvigorate a program where recent technical and legal setbacks
have pushed back a projected opening from 2010 to 2012 or later. 

The Yucca project has been headed by interim leaders since
Margaret Chu resigned as director in February. 

Sproat is managing partner of a consulting firm, McNeil, Sproat
&Associates, in Berwyn, Pa. He has held executive posts at
Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear operator, and PECO
Energy, the largest utility in Pennsylvania. 

Industry officials said Sproat is well known as the lead
negotiator in a nuclear waste settlement that Exelon completed
with DOE in 2004. DOE agreed to pay Exelon for keeping used
nuclear fuel at its power reactors until the Yucca repository
could be opened about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

In turn, Exelon agreed to drop lawsuits charging DOE with breach
of contract for failing to meet a 1998 deadline to have a
repository ready to accept spent fuel. 

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade association,
applauded the nomination, saying Sproat's "nuclear project
managerial experience should serve him well in his new
position." 

"We expect the project will continue to move forward in the
licensing process under Ward Sproat's leadership," NEI
spokeswoman Trish Conrad said. 

Nevada officials who monitor the Yucca project said they knew
little of the nominee. 

Bob Loux, who coordinates the state's official opposition, said
it matters little who directs Yucca Mountain day by day because
it has support from the nuclear industry and higher-ups in the
Bush administration. 

"I think the die is cast relative to Yucca Mountain," Loux said,
adding, "You can't alter the fact they have a bad site, and that
is not going to change. 

"On the other hand," Loux continued, "if he is coming at it from
the experience of negotiating with DOE, maybe that is an
indicator he is going to move the department to the direction of
settling with the utilities." 

The nomination will be considered by the Energy Committee before
going to the Senate itself. 

"Any nominee will face tough questions moving through the
hearing process," said Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., a repository critic who closely watches the
project. 

Bush and Congress picked the Yucca site in 2002 as the site to
bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive commercial,
industrial and military waste now stored at sites in 39 states.
Funding and problems including a controversy over possible
paperwork fraud on the project have delayed the opening date. 

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 77 DOE: Record of Decision for the Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill 
 
                        FR Doc 05-18815 
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)] 
[Notices] [Page 55358-55365] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21se05-61]                         
 
Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, UT AGENCY: Office of 
Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Record of decision.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its 
decision to implement the preferred alternatives identified in 
the Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San 
Juan Counties, Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(DOE/EIS-0355) (Final EIS).
 
By implementing the preferred alternatives, DOE will remove the 
uranium mill tailings and other contaminated material from the 
Moab milling site and nearby off-site properties (vicinity 
properties) and relocate them at the Crescent Junction site, 
using predominantly rail transportation. DOE will also implement 
active ground water remediation at the Moab milling site. In 
reaching this decision, DOE considered the potential 
environmental impacts, costs, and other implications of both 
on-site and off-site disposal. For off-site disposal, DOE 
considered three alternative sites in Utah (Crescent Junction, 
Klondike Flats, and the White Mesa Mill) and three transportation 
modes (truck, rail, and slurry pipeline).
 
DOE identified off-site disposal as its preferred alternative for 
the disposal of mill tailings, primarily because of the 
uncertainties related to long-term performance of a capped pile 
at the Moab site. Issues, such as the potential for river 
migration and severe flooding contribute to this uncertainty. The
 
[[Page 55359]] Crescent Junction site was identified as the 
preferred off-site disposal location, rather than Klondike Flats 
or White Mesa Mill, because Crescent Junction has the longest 
isolation period (time it would take for contaminants to reach 
the ground water); the lowest land-use conflict potential; access 
to existing rail lines without crossing U.S. Highway 191; the 
shortest haul distance from the rail rotary dump into the 
disposal cell, reducing the size of the radiological control 
area; and flat terrain, making operations easier and safer. DOE 
identified rail as the preferred mode of transportation, because 
compared to truck transportation, rail has a lower accident rate, 
lower potential impacts to wildlife, and lower fuel consumption. 
In addition, compared to a slurry pipeline, rail transportation 
would have a much lower water demand and would avoid landscape 
scars caused by pipeline construction, which could create 
moderate contrasts in form, line, color, and texture with the 
surrounding landscape.
 
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared in accordance 
with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
(Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508) for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 
DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The Final 
EIS also includes a Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment and a 
Floodplain Statement of Findings in compliance with DOE's 
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review requirements (10 CFR 
Part 1022).
 
 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD may be requested 
by calling 1-800-637-4575, a toll-free number, or by contacting 
Mr.
 
Donald Metzler, Moab Federal Project Director, U.S. Department of 
Energy, by mail: 2597 B \3/4\ Road, Grand Junction, Colorado, 
81503; by fax: 1- 970-248-7636; by phone: 1-800-637-4575 or 
1-970-248-7612; or e-mail: moabcomments@gjo.doe.gov. The Final 
EIS is also available, and this ROD will be available, on the DOE 
NEPA Web site, at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documents.html and 
on the project Web site at http:// gj.em.doe.gov/moab/. FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan 
Counties, Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement, contact 
Donald Metzler, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For 
general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20585; telephone 1-202- 586-4600, or leave a 
message at 1-800-472-2756.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final EIS, DOE considers the 
environmental impacts associated with the disposal of uranium 
mill tailings currently on the Moab milling site and on vicinity 
properties at the Moab milling site or at one of three 
alternative sites in Utah: Crescent Junction, Klondike Flats, or 
the White Mesa Mill. The Final EIS also considers three 
transportation modes--truck, rail, and slurry pipeline--for 
moving the tailings from the Moab site to the off-site 
alternatives. In addition, the EIS considers active ground water 
remediation at the Moab milling site to address ground water 
contamination that resulted from past mill operations.
 
Because the activities assessed in the Final EIS could affect 
Federal, state, and private lands and pass through several local 
and county jurisdictions, 12 agencies and municipalities worked 
with DOE as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. 
These cooperating agencies are the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM); National Park Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USF); U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the 
State of Utah; the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; Grand County; San Juan 
County; the City of Blanding; and the Community of Bluff. Because 
the Crescent Junction site is currently on land managed by BLM, 
the Department of the Interior will complete a Public Land Order, 
based upon DOE's application for land withdrawal, this ROD, and 
the Final EIS, that will transfer jurisdiction of the Crescent 
Junction site to DOE. BLM will, as necessary, also grant permits 
for removal of borrow materials (such as soil, sand, gravel, and 
rock) from BLM lands.
 
Background: In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings 
Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), 42 United States Code, (U.S.C.) 
7901 et seq., in response to public concern regarding potential 
health hazards of long-term exposure to radiation from uranium 
mill tailings.
 
Title I of UMTRCA required DOE to establish a remedial action 
program and authorized DOE to stabilize, dispose of, and control 
uranium mill tailings and other contaminated material (called 
residual radioactive material [RRM]), at 22 uranium-ore 
processing sites and associated vicinity properties. Vicinity 
properties are those off-site areas near the Moab milling site 
that can be confirmed to be contaminated with RRM. UMTRCA also 
directed EPA to promulgate cleanup standards, which are now 
codified at 40 CFR Part 192, ``Health and Environmental 
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,'' and 
directed NRC to oversee the cleanup and license the completed 
disposal cells. In October 2000, Congress enacted the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398), amending UMTRCA Title I, to give DOE 
responsibility for remediation of the Moab milling site, in 
accordance with UMTRCA Title I (DOE's authority to perform 
surface remedial action at eligible uranium milling sites and 
vicinity properties expired in 1998 for all other sites.). The 
Moab milling site lies approximately 30 miles south of Interstate 
70 (I-70) on U.S. Highway 191 (US-191) in Grand County, Utah. The 
439-acre milling site is located about 3 miles northwest of the 
city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at the 
confluence with the Moab Wash. The milling site is bordered on 
the north and southwest by steep sandstone cliffs. The Colorado 
River forms the eastern boundary of the milling site. US-191 
parallels the northern site boundary, and the State Road 279 
(SR-279) transects the west and southwest portion of the 
property. Arches National Park has a common property boundary 
with the Moab milling site on the north side of US- 191, and the 
park entrance is located less than 1 mile northwest of the 
milling site. Canyonlands National Park is located about 12 miles 
to the southwest.
 
At the Moab milling site, a former uranium-ore processing 
facility was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company 
and later by the Atlas Minerals Corporation (Atlas) under a 
license issued by NRC. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has 
been dismantled except for one building that is currently used by 
DOE. During its years of operation, the facility accumulated 
uranium mill tailings, which are naturally radioactive residue 
from the processing of uranium ore. The uranium mill tailings are 
located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies much of the 
western portion of the milling site. The top of the tailings pile 
averages 94 feet above the Colorado River floodplain and is about 
750 feet from the Colorado River. The pile was constructed with 
five terraces and consists of an outer compact embankment of 
coarse tailings, an inner impoundment of both coarse and fine
 
[[Page 55360]] tailings, and an interim cover of soils taken from 
the milling site outside the pile area. Debris, from dismantling 
the mill buildings and associated structures, was placed in an 
area at the south end of the pile and covered with contaminated 
soils and fill. Radiation surveys indicate that some soils 
outside the pile also contain radioactive contaminants at 
concentrations in excess of those allowed in the EPA standards in 
40 CFR Part 192.
 
In addition to the contaminated materials currently at the Moab 
milling site, tailings may have been removed from the Moab 
milling site and used as construction or fill material at homes, 
businesses, public buildings, and vacant lots in and near Moab. 
As a result, these vicinity properties may have elevated 
concentrations of radium-226 that exceed the maximum 
concentration limits in 40 CFR Part 192. In accordance with the 
requirements of UMTRCA, DOE is obligated to remediate those 
properties where contaminant concentrations exceed the maximum 
concentration limits in 40 CFR Part 192, along with the Moab 
milling site. DOE estimates the total residual radioactive 
material at the Moab milling site and vicinity properties has a 
total mass of approximately 11.9 million tons and a volume of 
approximately 8.9 million cubic yards.
 
Ground water in the shallow alluvium at the site was contaminated 
by ore-processing operations. The Colorado River, adjacent to the 
site, has been affected by site-related contamination, mostly due 
to ground water discharge. The primary contaminant of concern in 
the ground water and surface water is ammonia. Other contaminants 
of potential concern are manganese, copper, sulfate, and uranium. 
DOE is currently conducting interim ground water remedial 
actions.
 
Previous NEPA Review In September 1998, the former Moab milling 
site owner, Atlas, filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court 
appointed NRC and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality as 
beneficiaries of a bankruptcy trust created in March 1999, to 
fund future reclamation and site closure. Later, the 
beneficiaries selected PricewaterhouseCoopers to serve as 
trustee. To support its remediation decision-making, NRC issued 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Reclamation 
of the Uranium Mill Tailings at the Atlas Site, Moab, Utah 
(NUREG-1531, March 1999), which proposed stabilizing the tailings 
impoundment (pile) in place.
 
NRC received numerous comments both in favor of and opposed to 
the proposed action. However, NRC's EIS did not address ground 
water compliance or remediation of vicinity properties. NRC 
documented USF concerns regarding the effects of contaminants 
reaching the Colorado River; specifically, the effects on four 
endangered fish species and critical habitat. (In 1998, USF had 
concluded in a Biological Opinion that continued leaching of 
existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into 
the Colorado River would jeopardize the razorback sucker and 
Colorado pikeminnow.) In accordance with Public Law 106-398, DOE 
acquired the Moab milling site in 2001 to facilitate remedial 
action. DOE's EIS built upon the analyses and the alternatives 
evaluated in NRC's EIS, and expanded the scope of the EIS to 
include remediation of ground water and vicinity properties. 
During this decision-making process, to minimize potential 
adverse effects to human health and the environment in the short 
term, former site operators, custodians, and DOE have instituted 
environmental controls and interim actions at the Moab milling 
site. Controls have included: Storm water management; dust 
suppression; pile dewatering activities; and placement of an 
interim cover on the tailings, to prevent movement of 
contaminated windblown materials from the pile. Interim actions 
have included: Restricting site access; monitoring ground water 
and surface water; and managing and disposing of chemicals, to 
minimize the potential for releases to the Colorado River.
 
DOE's EIS Process DOE began the preparation of an EIS to support 
its decision-making process for the Moab milling site with a 
Notice of Intent (NOI) published on December 20, 2002, in the 
Federal Register (67 FR 77970). Public scoping meetings were held 
in four Utah cities in January 2003, during the scoping comment 
period, which ended February 14, 2003. After considering public 
comments and input from the 12 cooperating agencies, DOE issued 
the Draft EIS in November 2004. During a 90-day public comment 
period that ended on February 18, 2005, DOE conducted four public 
hearings on the Draft EIS in Moab, Green River, Blanding, and 
White Mesa, Utah. In preparing the Final EIS, DOE considered over 
1,600 comments that it received, including late comments. In 
April 2005, DOE announced its preferred alternatives of off-site 
disposal, using predominantly rail transport to the Crescent 
Junction, Utah site and active ground water remediation. The 
Final EIS was issued in July 2005.
 
The Proposed Action DOE is proposing to clean up surface 
contamination and implement a ground water compliance strategy to 
address contamination that resulted from historical uranium-ore 
processing at the Moab milling site pursuant to NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq. and UMTRCA, 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.
 
Alternatives DOE analyzed the following alternatives in the EIS: 
No Action: Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not 
remediate contaminated material, either on the site or at 
vicinity properties. The existing tailings pile would not be 
covered and managed in accordance with standards in 40 CFR Part 
192. No short-term or long- term site controls or activities to 
protect human health and the environment would be continued or 
implemented. Public access to the site is assumed to be 
unrestricted. All site activities, including operation and 
maintenance, and ongoing interim ground water remediation 
activities, would cease. A compliance strategy for contaminated 
ground water beneath the site would not be developed, in 
accordance with standards in 40 CFR Part 192. No institutional 
controls would be implemented to restrict use of ground water, 
and no long-term stewardship and maintenance would take place. 
Because no activities would be budgeted or scheduled at the site, 
no further initial, interim, or final remedial action costs would 
be incurred. DOE recognizes that this scenario would be highly 
unlikely; however, it was included as a part of the EIS analyses, 
to provide a basis for comparison to the action alternatives 
assessed in the EIS, as required by NEPA.
 
Disposal alternatives On-site Disposal: The on-site disposal 
alternative would involve placing contaminated site materials and 
materials from vicinity properties on the existing tailings pile 
and stabilizing and capping the tailings pile in place. The cap 
would be designed to meet EPA standards for radon releases. Final 
design and construction of the cap would meet the requirements 
for disposal cells under applicable EPA standards (40 CFR Part 
192). Flood protection would be constructed along the base of the 
pile, and cover materials for radon attenuation and erosion 
protection would be brought to the site from suitable borrow 
areas.
 
 
[[Page 55361]] Off-site Alternatives: DOE evaluated three sites 
in Utah for off- site disposal: Crescent Junction; Klondike 
Flats; and the White Mesa Mill.
 
Crescent Junction. The Crescent Junction site is approximately 30 
miles northwest of the Moab milling site and 20 miles east of the 
city of Green River, just northeast of the Crescent Junction 
interchange on Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 191. The site 
consists of undeveloped land administered by BLM.
 
Klondike Flats. Klondike Flats is a low-lying plateau about 18 
miles northwest of the Moab milling site, just northwest of the 
Canyonlands Field Airport and south-southeast of the Grand County 
landfill. The Klondike Flats site consists of undeveloped lands 
administered by BLM and the State of Utah School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration.
 
White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill site is approximately 85 
miles south of the Moab site, 4 miles from the Ute Mountain 
Indian Reservation and the community of White Mesa, and 6 miles 
from Blanding in San Juan County, Utah. This commercial, 
state-licensed, uranium mill is owned by the International 
Uranium (USA) Corporation and disposes of processed tailings 
materials on-site in lined ponds. It has been in operation since 
1980. The facility would need a license amendment from the State 
of Utah, before it could accept material from the Moab milling 
site.
 
Off-site Disposal Transportation Alternatives: For each of the 
off- site disposal alternatives, DOE evaluated three modes of 
transporting RRM from the Moab milling site: truck, rail, and 
slurry pipeline.
 
Truck Transport. Trucks would use US-191, as the primary 
transportation route, for hauling contaminated materials and 
oversized debris to the selected disposal site. Trucks would be 
used exclusively for hauling borrow materials to the selected 
disposal site. Construction of highway entrance and exit 
facilities would be necessary to safely accommodate the high 
volume of traffic currently using this highway.
 
Rail Transport. An existing rail line runs from the Moab milling 
site north along US-191, and connects with the main east-west 
line near I-70. The Crescent Junction and Klondike Flats sites 
could be served from this rail line with upgrades and additional 
rail sidings.
 
There is no rail access from the Moab milling site to the White 
Mesa Mill site. Construction of a rail line from the Moab milling 
site to the White Mesa Mill site was not analyzed in detail, 
because of the technical difficulty, potential impacts, and high 
cost.
 
Slurry Pipeline. This transportation mode would require 
construction of a new buried pipeline from the Moab site to the 
selected disposal site and a buried water line to recycle the 
slurry water back to the Moab milling site for reuse in the 
pipeline.
 
Ground Water Remediation Alternative Active ground water 
remediation would be implemented under both the on-site and 
off-site disposal alternatives. DOE's proposed action for ground 
water at the Moab milling site is to apply ground water 
supplemental standards, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192, 
Subpart C, and implement an active remediation system to 
intercept and control discharge of contaminated ground water to 
the Colorado River.
 
Because of its naturally high salt content, the uppermost aquifer 
at the Moab site is not a potential source of drinking water. The 
active remediation system would extract and treat ground water, 
while natural processes act on ground water to decrease 
contaminant concentrations to meet long-term protective ground 
water cleanup goals. Active remediation would cease after 
long-term goals were achieved. Conceptually, the same system 
would be installed and operated at the Moab milling site 
regardless of whether the on-site or off-site disposal 
alternative was implemented.
 
Analysis of Environmental Impacts The Final EIS assessed 
environmental impacts in detail, including impacts to physical, 
biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and infrastructure resources 
that could occur under: the on-site disposal alternative; the 
off-site disposal alternative; three transportation modes; and 
the No Action alternative. The impact analyses in the Final EIS 
determined that there were many resource areas such as air 
quality, terrestrial ecology, land use, noise and vibration, 
visual, human health, infrastructure, waste management, and 
socioeconomics, in which the impacts would neither be significant 
nor violate any standards, or for which there would be little 
difference among alternatives and, therefore, these impact areas 
were not discriminators among the alternatives. This ROD focuses 
on the potential impacts (both adverse and beneficial) that 
discriminate among the alternatives and made the most significant 
contribution to DOE's decision-making. These impact areas 
include: ground water, surface water, aquatic ecology, 
floodplains, threatened or endangered species, cultural 
resources, traffic, and environmental justice. For the detailed 
impact analyses, the reader is referred to the Final EIS on the 
Web pages listed above under ADDRESSES.
 
Ground Water. Ground water remediation would be implemented under 
both the on-site and off-site disposal alternatives. Under the 
on-site and off-site disposal alternatives, supplemental 
standards would be applied to protect human health. Supplemental 
standards would include institutional controls to prohibit the 
use of ground water for drinking water. Under the on-site 
disposal alternative, the tailings pile would be a continuing 
source of contamination that could maintain contaminant 
concentrations at levels above background concentrations in the 
ground water and, therefore, potentially require the application 
of supplemental standards and institutional controls in 
perpetuity to protect human health. Under the off-site disposal 
alternatives, contaminant concentrations in the ground water, 
under the Moab milling site, would return to background levels 
after an estimated 150 years, by which time active ground water 
remediation would have been completed, and institutional controls 
would no longer be needed.
 
The tailings pile would not be a continuing source of 
contamination to ground water at the Moab milling site under the 
off-site disposal alternative.
 
However, under the on-site disposal and No Action alternatives, 
natural basin subsidence could result in permanent tailings 
contact with the ground water in an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 
years, at which time surface water concentrations could 
temporarily revert to levels that are not protective of aquatic 
species in the Colorado River.
 
In addition, under the No Action alternative, ground water 
beneath the Moab milling site would remain contaminated, would 
pose an increased risk to human health, and would continue in 
perpetuity to discharge contaminants to the surface water at 
concentrations that would not be protective of aquatic species.
 
Surface Water and Aquatic Ecology. Under the No Action 
alternative, surface water contamination and nonprotective river 
water quality would continue in perpetuity. DOE estimates that 
under all action alternatives, contamination of the Colorado 
River from ground water discharge would be reduced to levels that 
would be protective of aquatic species within 5 to 10 years, 
after implementation of ground water remediation because of the 
interception and containment of the contaminated ground water 
plume. DOE also
 
[[Page 55362]] anticipates that contaminant concentrations in 
surface water that are protective of aquatic species in the 
Colorado River could be maintained, under all action 
alternatives, for the 200- to 1,000-year time frame specified in 
EPA's ground water standards (40 CFR Part 192). Under the 
off-site disposal alternative, removal of the pile coupled with 
the estimated 75 years of active ground water remediation would 
result in permanent protective surface water quality. Under the 
on-site disposal alternative, active ground water remediation 
would continue for up to an estimated 80 years.
 
Floodplains. A Colorado River 100- or 500-year flood could 
release additional contamination to ground water and surface 
water under the on-site disposal or No Action alternatives. 
However, under the on-site disposal alternative, the increase in 
ground water and river water ammonia concentrations, due to 
floodwaters inundating the pile, would be minor, and the impact 
on river water quality would rapidly decline over an estimated 
20-year period. Under the No Action alternative, lesser flood 
events could also result in the release of contaminated soils to 
the Colorado River, as sediment runoff. In contrast to the on- 
site disposal and No Action alternatives, the off-site disposal 
alternative presents no risk of these recurrences of surface 
water contamination at the Moab site because the tailings pile 
would be removed to an area not located in a floodplain.
 
In accordance with its regulations in 10 CFR Part 1022, DOE has 
prepared the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment for Remedial 
Action at the Moab Site. This assessment and a Floodplain 
Statement of Findings are appended to the Final EIS.
 
Threatened or Endangered Species. In compliance with the 
Endangered Species Act, DOE prepared a Biological Assessment that 
addressed all alternatives, and USF prepared a Biological Opinion 
for the Crescent Junction off-site disposal and active ground 
water remediation alternatives. The Biological Assessment and 
Biological Opinion are appended to the Final EIS. In its 
Biological Opinion, USF determined that disposal at the Crescent 
Junction site and active ground water remediation at the Moab 
site ``may affect,'' but is ``not likely to adversely affect,'' 
the threatened bald eagle, the endangered southwestern willow 
flycatcher, the threatened Mexican spotted owl, the endangered 
Black-footed ferret, the candidate yellow-billed cuckoo, and the 
candidate Gunnison sage grouse. In addition, USF determined that 
there would be no effect for the threatened Jones' cycladenia, 
the threatened Navajo sedge, and the endangered clay phacelia, as 
these species are not known to occur in the project areas.
 
After reviewing the current status of the Colorado River fish, 
the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of 
the proposed action and the cumulative effects, the USF's 
Biological Opinion concludes that the Crescent Junction and 
active ground water alternatives are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 
bonytail, and razorback sucker and are not likely to result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The USF 
concludes that the proposed action to dispose of tailings (i.e., 
surface contamination) off site would reduce negative effects 
associated with the ongoing contamination of the Colorado River 
near the Moab site and would eliminate the potential for future 
catastrophic events associated with river flooding and river 
migration. The proposed action for ground water remediation at 
the Moab site would address the effects of ground water 
contaminants impacting endangered fish in the Colorado River. 
There would be adverse effects associated with the current levels 
of ground water contamination until ground water remediation is 
fully implemented, assuming the effects are not minimized by 
existing interim actions. The USF has determined that the amount 
of ``take'' that is occurring in the nearshore habitats will not 
jeopardize the Colorado River fish. ``Take'' is defined by the 
Endangered Species Act as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in 
any such conduct.'' In its Incidental Take Statement, the USF is 
allowing incidental take of Colorado River fish associated with 
exposure to nonprotective concentrations of contaminants in 
nearshore habitats along the north bank of the Colorado River at 
and downstream of the Moab site for 10 years from finalization of 
the Biological Opinion. ``Incidental take'' means that as a 
result of DOE's actions there will be an allowable ``take'' of 
protected fish.
 
Cultural Resources. Only the Moab site and White Mesa Mill site 
have been field-surveyed; however, cultural resources would 
probably be adversely affected under all the action alternatives. 
The numbers of potentially affected cultural resources would vary 
significantly among the action alternatives. The on-site disposal 
alternative would have the least effect on cultural resources, 
potentially affecting 4 to 11 sites eligible for inclusion in the 
National Register of Historic Places. The White Mesa Mill slurry 
pipeline alternative would have the greatest adverse effect on 
cultural resources, potentially affecting up to 121 eligible 
cultural sites. The Klondike Flats alternative could adversely 
affect a maximum of 35 (rail) to 53 (pipeline) eligible sites, 
and the Crescent Junction alternative could adversely affect a 
maximum of 11 (rail) to 36 (pipeline) eligible sites.
 
A minimum of 10 to 11 traditional cultural properties would be 
potentially affected under the White Mesa Mill truck or slurry 
pipeline alternatives, whereas no such properties would be 
affected by the other alternatives. (The term ``traditional 
cultural properties'' can include properties associated with 
traditional cultural practices, ceremonies, and customs.) 
Mitigation of the potential impacts to cultural sites and 
traditional cultural properties under the White Mesa Mill 
alternative would be extremely difficult given the density and 
variety of these resources, the importance attached to them by 
tribal members, and the number of tribal entities that would be 
involved in consultations.
 
Traffic. All the proposed action alternatives would result in 
increased traffic on local roads and US-191. Among the three 
off-site disposal locations, truck transportation to the White 
Mesa Mill site would represent the most severe impact to traffic 
in central Moab, an area that the Utah Department of 
Transportation currently considers to be highly congested. 
Transportation of contaminated materials from the Moab milling 
site to the White Mesa Mill site would result in a 127 percent 
increase in average annual daily truck traffic through Moab. In 
contrast, if the tailings were trucked to the Klondike Flats or 
Crescent Junction sites, or if either the rail or slurry pipeline 
transportation modes were implemented for any of the off-site 
disposal locations, there would be only a 7 percent increase in 
truck traffic through central Moab from shipments of vicinity 
property materials under all action alternatives, and only a 2 to 
3 percent increase from shipments of borrow materials for the 
on-site disposal alternative or for off-site disposal at the 
Klondike Flats or Crescent Junction locations. All alternatives 
would also result in an overall increase in the average annual 
daily truck traffic on US-191, both north and south of Moab, from 
shipments of contaminated material and borrow material. These 
impacts would be most severe with the
 
[[Page 55363]] off-site truck transportation mode, which would 
increase average annual daily truck traffic on US-191 by 95 
percent for the Klondike Flats or the Crescent Junction 
alternative and by 65 to 186 percent for the White Mesa Mill 
alternative, depending on the segment of US-191.
 
In comparison, the on-site disposal alternative and the rail or 
pipeline off-site alternatives would increase average annual 
daily truck traffic on US-191 only by 7 percent. DOE estimates 
that less than one traffic fatality would occur for all 
alternatives and transportation modes, with the exception of 
truck transportation to White Mesa Mill, for which modeling 
predicts that 1.3 traffic fatalities would occur.
 
Environmental Justice. Disproportionately high and adverse 
impacts to minority and low-income populations would occur under 
the White Mesa Mill off-site disposal alternative (truck or 
slurry pipeline transportation) as a result of unavoidable 
adverse impacts to at least 10 to 11 potential traditional 
cultural properties located on and near the White Mesa Mill site, 
the proposed White Mesa Mill pipeline route, the White Mesa Mill 
borrow area, and the Blanding borrow area. Moreover, if the White 
Mesa Mill alternative were implemented, it is likely that 
additional traditional cultural properties would be located and 
identified during cultural studies.
 
The sacred, religious, and ceremonial sites already identified as 
traditional cultural properties are associated with the Ute, 
Navajo, and Hopi cultures and people. Currently, there are no 
known traditional cultural properties at any other site, although 
the potential for their being identified during cultural studies 
and consultations ranges from low to high, depending on the site 
and mode of transportation.
 
The impacts to all other resource areas analyzed in the EIS (for 
example, transportation or human health) would not represent a 
disproportionate adverse impact to minority and low-income 
populations under any alternative.
 
Cumulative Impacts. The on-site and off-site disposal locations 
under consideration are located in rural areas with no other 
major industrial or commercial centers nearby. No past, present, 
or reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to 
result in cumulative impacts when considered with the 
alternatives assessed in this EIS. However, seasonal tourism in 
and around Moab, and to a lesser extent at the off-site disposal 
locations, could have a cumulative impact on traffic congestion 
in central Moab, especially under the truck transportation mode, 
in which truck traffic would increase by over 100 percent.
 
Environmentally Preferred Alternative DOE has identified off-site 
disposal at the Crescent Junction site using rail transportation 
and active ground water remediation as the environmentally 
preferred alternatives. The Crescent Junction site has the 
longest (over 170,000 years) isolation period (time it would take 
for contaminants to reach the first aquifer); the lowest land-use 
conflict potential; and the greatest distance from the public.
 
Rail transportation is environmentally preferred over truck 
because of fewer conflicts with existing highway uses, lower 
emissions and fuel demands, and reduced likelihood of wildlife 
impacts; and more favorable than slurry pipeline because of the 
significantly reduced water demand and reduced impact area; a 
rail line is already available, and a slurry pipeline would need 
to be constructed.
 
In comparison, although the Klondike Flats site provides 
significant isolation (over 25,000 years) from ground water, use 
of the site would require construction of a new public access 
road parallel to Blue Hills Road and a 1- to 4-mile truck haul 
road that would traverse the steep bluffs (20 to 30 percent 
grade) north of Blue Hills Road. The truck haul road would 
require radiological controls from a rail spur to the disposal 
cell site. These actions would be adjacent and visible to public 
access, could temporarily adversely affect recreational use of 
the local area, and could cause visual impacts to users of the 
northern areas of Arches National Park.
 
Of the three alternative off-site locations, the White Mesa Mill 
alternative would require the greatest distance for 
transportation; would have the greatest potential for adversely 
affecting cultural resources and traditional cultural properties 
at the site and along a slurry pipeline corridor; and would have 
the shortest isolation period (3,600 to 7,700 years to reach 
springs and seeps).
 
Implementation of that alternative using truck transportation 
would cause extensive adverse traffic impacts in the cities of 
Moab, Monticello, and Blanding.
 
Active ground water remediation is environmentally preferred over 
the No Action alternative because the No Action alternative would 
not mitigate or eliminate the ongoing impacts to surface water 
quality and, subsequently, to aquatic species, and in the opinion 
of the USF would violate the Endangered Species Act by 
jeopardizing the continued existence of protected fish species in 
the Colorado River.
 
Whereas, as discussed in the section on threatened or endangered 
species, active ground water remediation would mitigate ongoing 
impacts from past mill operations and, combined with off-site 
disposal, would ultimately eliminate future risks to the Colorado 
River and aquatic species.
 
Comments on the Final EIS DOE received comments on the Moab Final 
EIS from the State of Utah Representative Jim Matheson, EPA, Jean 
Binyon on behalf of the Utah Chapter Sierra Club, Jerry McNeely 
on behalf of the citizens of Grand County, Utah, and the Grand 
County Council, and Susan Breisch of San Diego, California. All 
commentors expressed support for DOE's preferred alternative 
identified in the Final EIS.
 
EPA stated that the Crescent Junction disposal alternative ``has 
the least environmental and cultural impact of any of the 
alternatives considered. The stable geologic and surface 
conditions at the Crescent Junction alternative will provide 
isolation of these tailings without public health risks for the 
long-term.'' And, ``* * * we appreciate that DOE has fully 
considered the benefits of the Crescent Junction site, using rail 
transport, which should provide a secure geologic setting that 
offers the best opportunity for long-term public health and 
environmental protection.'' Jean Binyon commented, ``You are to 
be congratulated on the careful consideration and thoughtful 
responses you gave to the large volume of comments received.'' 
Jerry McNeely commented, ``The Department of Energy's position in 
the final EIS is evidence that the DOE has listened to our 
concerns and concurs with us.'' Susan Breisch commented, ``With 
few exceptions, the document * * * was clear for a general 
reader.'' Ms. Breisch, however, questioned a reference in the EIS 
to a one time $3,800 payment by DOE as a water depletion fee. As 
explained in more detail in Section 4.1.6.1 of the Final EIS, in 
accordance with the Recovery Implementation Program for 
Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, 
activities that withdraw water from the Colorado River make a one 
time contribution of $10 per acre-foot of water used based on the 
average annual depletion during a project. This fee helps support 
the activities necessary to recover endangered fish in the 
Colorado River. The $3,800 contribution is an estimate based on 
the projected water use associated with the conceptual design of 
the preferred alternatives
 
[[Page 55364]] assessed in the Final EIS. DOE will work closely 
with the USF during the finalization of the project design and 
the determination of project water needs. Subsequently, DOE's 
actual contribution amount will be determined and the appropriate 
funding transferred to the Recovery Program.
 
Decision DOE will remove RRM from the Moab mill tailings site and 
vicinity properties located within the vicinity property 
inclusion area identified in the Final EIS and use the existing 
rail lines and extensions to existing sidings to ship the 
materials to a newly constructed disposal cell at Crescent 
Junction. Truck shipments will be necessary for some oversized 
material. Borrow materials needed to construct the disposal cell 
will be extracted from one or more of the borrow area sites 
assessed in the Final EIS. Disposal cell design features will be 
developed after issuance of this ROD, published in a Remedial 
Action Plan, and approved by the NRC.
 
DOE will also continue and expand as necessary its ongoing active 
remediation of contaminated ground water at the Moab site. As an 
interim action, DOE began limited ground water remediation that 
involves extraction of contaminated ground water from on-site 
remediation wells and evaporation of the extracted contaminated 
water in a lined pond. An expanded ground water remediation 
program may use evaporation or one or more of the other treatment 
technologies assessed in the Final EIS to treat or dispose of 
contaminated ground water. Final selection of a treatment 
technology will be documented in the Ground Water Compliance 
Action Plan that will be developed after the Remedial Action 
Plan.
 
Basis for the Decision DOE considered the analyses provided in 
the Final EIS, including the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment, 
and Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion appended to the 
EIS; the costs associated with the alternatives; significant 
input from the 12 cooperating agencies; and comments provided by 
other agencies, governors, state and Federal senators and 
representatives, and the public. DOE selected off-site disposal 
over on-site disposal because off-site disposal offers greater 
long-term isolation of the mill tailings, greater protection of 
the environment, and greater reduction in the long-term risk to 
the health and safety of the public. In addition, there are fewer 
uncertainties and differing opinions regarding the ability of an 
off-site disposal cell to meet regulatory performance 
requirements for the requisite 200- to 1,000-year performance 
period. The principal areas of uncertainty or controversy 
concerning on-site disposal that were discussed in detail in the 
Final EIS include tailings pile characteristics, ground water 
modeling, compliance standards, river migration, and future 
flooding. Off-site disposal eliminates or reduces these on-site 
disposal uncertainties.
 
As discussed in the above section on the Environmentally 
Preferred Alternative, the Crescent Junction site was selected 
because it will provide: The greatest isolation for the uranium 
mill tailings; the lowest land-use conflict potential; and the 
greatest distance from the public; and therefore, the safest site 
with the lowest long-term human health risks. Although the costs 
for the Crescent Junction site are expected to be slightly more 
than those for the Klondike Flats site, because of the increased 
transportation distance, DOE considered the decreased long-term 
risks provided by the Crescent Junction site to justify the 
selection of Crescent Junction. The higher cost of the White Mesa 
Mill alternative and the increased impacts associated with its 
implementation led DOE not to choose it.
 
Rail transportation was selected as the principal transportation 
mode because it will eliminate the significant traffic conflicts 
of truck transport, provide lower worker and public exposures to 
contaminated material than truck transport, and avoid the 
consumptive water needs of a slurry pipeline, and the increased 
costs and complexities of additional tailings drying that would 
be required before final placement in the disposal cell. In 
addition, the use of a virtually dedicated rail corridor that is 
less subject to traffic or weather delays will provide DOE better 
overall schedule control.
 
Active ground water remediation was selected because it is the 
preferred method by which ongoing impacts (resulting from the 
past operations of the uranium mill) to the Colorado River and 
aquatic organisms, including four species of endangered fish, can 
be mitigated in the near term and ultimately eliminated. The No 
Action alternative for ground water would not provide near-term 
or long-term protection of the environment and, according to the 
USF, would jeopardize the continued existence of protected 
species in the Colorado River.
 
Mitigation On the basis of the analyses conducted for the Final 
EIS, DOE will adopt all practicable measures identified in the 
Final EIS to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that 
may result from removing contaminated material from the Moab 
milling site and vicinity properties and transporting these 
materials to a new disposal cell constructed at Crescent 
Junction. Best Management Practices will be employed to control 
access to contaminated areas, minimize worker and public 
exposures to contaminated materials, minimize the extent of 
surface disturbance, and reclaim and revegetate disturbed lands 
in as timely a manner as is feasible. A storm water management 
program will be developed that complies with all Utah Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System general permit requirements, and 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements, to mitigate 
runoff, using management measures such as berms, drainage 
ditches, sediment traps, contour furrowing, retention ponds, and 
check dams. A spill prevention and contingency plan will be 
developed to minimize the potential for spills of hazardous 
material, including provisions for storage of hazardous 
materials, refueling of construction equipment within the 
confines of protective berms, and notification and activation 
protocols. A dust control system will be implemented, following 
provisions in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the Moab, Utah, 
UMTRA Project Site, which complies with State of Utah 
requirements specified in the Utah Administrative Code, 
``Emission Standards: Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust,'' and 
may include application of liquid or solid surfactants (e.g., 
sodium or magnesium chloride or water) as necessary to control 
fugitive dust. Because of the proximity of the Moab site to 
Arches National Park, activities near the site periphery will be 
minimized, and lighting will be pointed downward and use light 
shields to limit the amount of light beyond the site boundary. To 
minimize potential adverse impacts to buried archaeological or 
cultural resources that could be discovered during site 
activities, site workers will receive training on the need to 
protect cultural resources and the legal consequences of 
disturbing cultural resources.
 
DOE will develop a Remedial Action Plan, Ground Water Compliance 
Action Plan, and other planning and monitoring documents for 
remediation of contaminated materials. These planning and 
monitoring documents will provide the engineering reclamation 
design and incorporate a ground water compliance strategy and 
corrective actions. These documents
 
[[Page 55365]] will also integrate mitigation measures into the 
remediation strategy to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the 
proposed actions and, where appropriate, identify the mechanisms 
by which the success of mitigative actions will be evaluated and 
reported.
 
In addition, the ongoing impacts to the Colorado River and 
aquatic organisms that are the result of past milling operations 
will be mitigated by active ground water remediation until 
natural processes have reduced the levels of contaminants such as 
ammonia to concentrations that are below the relevant toxicity 
standards.
 
In granting an incidental take for a period of 10 years, 
following the USF Biological Opinion, during which time DOE will 
implement its ground water remediation program, the USF 
requested, and DOE will implement, the following reasonable and 
prudent measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take of 
the endangered Colorado River fishes: (1) Monitor backwater 
habitats near the Moab site for any indication of fish being 
affected by surface water contamination; (2) evaluate the 
effectiveness of DOE's initial action (diluting non-protective 
contaminant concentrations in backwater habitats by pumping clean 
river water); (3) address uncertainties associated with the 
ground water remediation program; (4) reduce effects of surface 
water contamination in habitats along the south bank of the 
Colorado River, if necessary; and (5) reduce the effects of 
entrainment at all project pumping sites.
 
Further, in accordance with the requirements of the Biological 
Opinion, and consistent with Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations in 40 CFR 1505.2, to monitor the success of the 
active ground water remedial action and enforce the provisions of 
the Biological Opinion, DOE, in coordination with USF, will 
develop a Water Quality Study Plan within 18 months of the 
finalization of this ROD that evaluates and determines: (1) The 
effectiveness of ground water remediation efforts; (2) the 
validity of the ground water to surface water dilution factor; 
(3) compliance with achieving the target goal of acute ammonia 
standards; (4) the validity of the assumption that by reducing 
concentrations of ammonia, the other constituents of concern 
(manganese, sulfate, uranium, copper, and selenium) will also be 
reduced to protective levels; (5) the requirements and schedule 
for DOE's reporting to the USF and (6) if refinement of the 
ground water conceptual model is necessary.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, this 14th day of September 2005.
 
James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management.
 
[FR Doc. 05-18815 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 78 Secretary-general Urges Key States To Ratify Nuclear Test-ban Treaty
 
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:01:18 -0400

 

 
SECRETARY-GENERAL URGES KEY STATES TO RATIFY NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY
New York, Sep 21 2005  5:00PM
Citing heightened global anxiety over weapons of mass destruction, 
particularly nuclear weapons, United Nations Secretary-General 
Kofi Annan today expressed alarm that countries whose ratification 
is essential for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) 
to enter into force had still not acted.

“The treaty was opened for signature nine years ago,” he <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1696">told 
the fourth conference 
on facilitating its entry into force at UN Headquarters in New 
York. “But after nine years, the treaty is still not in force. 
We should all be gravely concerned about that.

“The longer entry into force of the treaty is delayed, the greater 
the risk that someone, somewhere, will test nuclear weapons. That 
would be a major setback for the cause of non-proliferation and 
disarmament,” he added, noting that although the vast majority 
of the States – 176 in all – have signed it and 125 have ratified 
it, 11 of the 44 who must ratify the treaty for it to enter into 
force still had not done so.

Those States are China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, United States 
and Viet Nam, though Mr. Annan did not mention them by name.

“I call on all States that have not signed or ratified the treaty 
to do so without delay – particularly those States who must ratify 
the treaty in order to bring it into force,” he told the opening 
session of the three-day conference, which brings together representatives 
both of States who have signed and ratified the CTBT 
and those who have not as well as non-government organizations.

“Pending its entry into force, I urge all States to maintain a moratorium 
on nuclear weapons test explosions or any other nuclear 
explosions, and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object 
or purpose of the treaty,” he declared.

Mr. Annan reiterated his oft-repeated disappointment of the “significant 
failure” of last week’s UN World Summit to agree on moving 
forward on disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful uses of 
nuclear energy.

“We meet at a time of heightened global anxiety about weapons of 
mass destruction – particularly nuclear weapons,” he declared. “It 
is our collective duty to promote and strengthen the various multilateral 
instruments which reduce the threat these weapons pose 
to us all. Yet we are not, as yet, rising to this challenge.”

The conference will hear progress reports on measures seeking to 
facilitate CTBT’s entry into force and adopt a final document on 
the proceedings.
 2005-09-21 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
*****************************************************************
 79 lamonitor.com: Leadership retreat focuses on courage, team building 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
CAROL A. CLARK, , Monitor Staff Writer

Developing courage and team building was a major focus of a
Leadership Los Alamos retreat I attended at the Homewood Suites,
Towa Golf Resort, Friday evening and all day Saturday. 
The retreat kicked off the program's third season. The 29
participants make up the largest class to date.

Banking, law enforcement, fire rescue, business, park service,
education, service organizations and the media were all
represented. 

During the retreat, participants became acquainted, took part in
team-building opportunities and were provided information on
what it means to be a leader in the Los Alamos region.

Retreat facilitator Phil Bryson of On the Edge Productions Ltd.,
lead the fast-paced program. 
He stressed the need for leaders to possess courage.

"It takes courage to step out of your comfort zone and stand up
for what you believe," Bryson said. "Too often people say there
is something wrong with the community and that something should
be done but don't take steps to do anything." 
Bryson addressed the dilemma faced in communities divided by
environmentalists and those who feel growth is important.

He said both sides must be willing to meet in a spirit of mutual
respect. They must understand that both sides really do care
about their community and should work together to find the
common ground that can lead to solutions.

He said the key characteristics of community leaders include the
following:


+  They focus on serving the community.


+  They create and operate from a mutual and common vision.


+  They build relationships, trust and a network of support.


+  They collaborate, bringing people together.


+  They listen, include others and keep open minds.


+  They are accountable and focus on solutions - not blame.


+  They take action and don't let issues fester.


+  They have the courage to do the right thing; they take risks.

Bryson also spoke at length about the characteristics of high
performance teams.

The energy of extraordinary performance combines alignment and
attunement, which equals synergy.

"Alignment occurs when team members each find opportunity to
express their true purpose and achieve their goals through the
organization," Bryson said. "When alignment is present, I expand
my purpose to include the organization's purpose."

Many people confuse "expanding our purpose" with sacrificing
their identity.

Alignment comes from seeing and striving for noble purpose in
work, not from giving over individual will to collective will.

He said many organizations are not in alignment - not because
the people are unwilling to work for and with excellence, but
because some organizations have not identified any great purpose.

Making money by itself is not a great purpose.

Attunement is the quality of feeling among the members of the
team, he said. A resonance or harmony.

Attunement and alignment create the energy known as synergy.
Synergy is the dynamic state that occurs when the collective
effort of the team is greater then that of the combined
individual efforts.

Bryson said the state of support, trust, accountability, truth
and engagement equals high performance and excellent results.

Characteristics of high-performing teams include the following:


+  A high level of trust.


+  Open and honest communication.


+  Listening and understanding.


+  Empowerment: The team brings out the best in each member.


+  Commitment to do whatever it takes.


+  Integrity: Actions are in alignment with values.


+  Individual accountability: If it is to be, it is up to me.


+  Clear, focused action towards common goals.


+  Fun and celebration.


+  Appreciation and recognition.


+  Strong, mutual respect.


+  Unity, respect for each team member.


+  Collaboration, effective utilization of diversity.


+  Courage to take risks.


+  High levels of innovation and creativity.


+  Continuous learning.

"No resource is more powerful in an organization than a high
performance team," Bryson said. "What great individuals cannot
accomplish on their own can be achieved by a high performance
team."

The critical choice for success is whether teams and companies
are going to work to win, he said, and do whatever it takes and
step boldly forward. Or play it safe, be on the defensive, try
to hold on to the way it was, and stay in their comfort zone.

There were several intense team-building and courage-developing
exercises held during the retreat.

Falling backwards from a ladder into the arms of team members
was a particularly difficult task for me.

Everyone took the leap. Some actually appeared to enjoy it
proving one person's terror is another's pleasure.

Participants also learned about social styles in the workplace
and how to identify the styles in themselves and in others.

Bryson said most conflicts between people occur because of a
lack of understanding of social styles rather than a dislike of
each other.

Most people fall in varying degrees of four social styles
including analytical, amiable, expressive and driver.

Participants gained insight into identifying their own styles
and working more effectively with other styles.

Leadership Los Alamos will continue this year's program with
monthly day-long sessions on education, economic development,
cultural activities, youth, local government, regional issues
and the environment.

The next meeting is set for Oct. 28 at the University of New
Mexico-Los Alamos.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************