***************************************************************** 09/26/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.223 ***************************************************************** 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 UN Body Finds Iran's Nuclear Treaty Breaches Within Security UN Comp 2 IPS-English POLITICS: India Ditches Iran and Non-alignment for 3 [NYTr] India's Shameful Vote Against Iran 4 Reuters: Iran slams IAEA board vote, but no retaliation 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Criticizes Threat of U.N. Action 6 Guardian Unlimited: White House Warns Iran About Referral 7 Korea Times: Joint Statement of Nuke Talks Linguistic Minefield 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: China Marshaled U.S. at Six-Party Talks: 9 US: Spectrum: Senators get lesson on trust 10 US: Salt Lake Tribune: West's natural resources rediscovered by 11 Reuters: U.S. to provide atomic fuel to stop weapons spread 12 US: AFP: Scientists Dispute Hurricane Blaster Idea 13 UN Atomic Agency Hears Wide-ranging Review Of Nuclear Dangers And Be 14 Annan Urges Global Support For New Initiative On Nuclear Non-prolife 15 RIA Novosti: Russia expects $120mln-plus from abroad to scrap nuclea 16 BBC: UN nuclear head confirmed in post 17 Prague Daily Monitor: Plaque honouring A-bomb creator Placzek unveil 18 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief OK'd for Third Term NUCLEAR REACTORS 19 Shanghai Daily: Biggest nuke plant construction in '06 20 US: NRC: TXU Generation Company LP; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta 21 Xinhua: China to build biggest nuclear power plant 22 US: Hudson Valley News: Spano asks for meeting with NRC about latest 23 Korea Times: Light-Water Reactors Crucial to Nuke Deal 24 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear plant closed after leak 25 ITAR-TASS: Official calls Russian nuclear industry vital element of 26 Guardian Unlimited: Reactor Plan Haunts N. Korean Disarmament 27 Guardian Unlimited: Birt reported to be seeking £300,000 nuclear pow NUCLEAR SECURITY 28 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria-Nabbed A-bomb Material "Linked to Al-Qa NUCLEAR SAFETY 29 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $19,200 Fine Against a South Bend, Ind., Hospi 30 Bellona: Expedition examining potentially dangerous objects in Kara 31 US: Tucson Citizen: Researchers looking for ways to screen radiation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 32 BBC: Dounreay hit by radioactive spill 33 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Shining a light on nuke dump 34 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse waste slated for tribal site 35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Stand against waste PEACE 36 [southnews] Vatican Calls for End to All Nuclear Weapons US DEPT. OF ENERGY 37 DenverPost.com: Better late than never at Flats 38 lamonitor.com: Nuclear weapons talk Tuesday 39 Paducah Sun: Losing Time--DOE still stalling cleanup work ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UN Body Finds Iran's Nuclear Treaty Breaches Within Security UN Competence Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:03:40 -0400 UN BODY FINDS IRAN’S NUCLEAR TREATY BREACHES WITHIN SECURITY COUNCIL COMPETENCE New York, Sep 26 2005 10:00AM The head of the United Nations agency entrusted with curbing the spread of nuclear weapons has called on Iran to work with the international community to provide assurances that its programme is for peaceful purposes after its previous treaty breaches were found to be within the competence of the Security Council. “The ball now is with Iran to continue to co-operate with the Agency as early as possible,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said after the IAEA’s Board of Governors found Iran in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) because of its concealment of its activities over an extended period of time. In a resolution passed on Saturday, the Board did not immediately defer the issue to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, and Mr. ElBaradei said he was encouraged by this since it gave time for diplomacy and negotiation. “So all of us need to explore this window of opportunity, from now until November, to make sure that we are moving toward a comprehensive settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue,” he told journalists at IAEA headquarters in Vienna following the Board’s vote, which left the issue open until it next meeting in November. “I was assured to hear Iran here saying that they would continue to co-operate with the Agency,” he added, calling on the country to resume negotiations with the European Union (EU), which has been seeking a diplomatic solution for the past year. Iran's nuclear programme has been a matter of concern since 2003, when the IAEA determined that the country had for almost two decades concealed its nuclear activities in breach of the NPT. Iran insists the programme is for peaceful energy production only but some countries, including the United States, say is part of an effort to produce nuclear weapons. In its resolution, the Board found that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards constituted non compliance, adding “the resulting absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council.” It voiced uncertainty over Iranian motives for its concealment. It called on Iran to implement transparency measures, including access to individuals and documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations, and to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activity. Enriched uranium can be used either for the peaceful production of nuclear energy or for making nuclear weapons. It urged the country to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water and to promptly ratify and implement in full the Additional Protocol to NPT which affords inspectors greater rights of access and added authority to use advanced technologies to track that nuclear materials are not being diverted and that there are no clandestine, proscribed nuclear activities in a state. 2005-09-26 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 ***************************************************************** 2 IPS-English POLITICS: India Ditches Iran and Non-alignment for Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:03:29 -0700 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com ROMAIPS AP IP DV ML=20 POLITICS: India Ditches Iran and Non-alignment for West By Praful Bidwai=20 NEW DELHI, Sep 26 (IPS)- By voting for a Western-sponsored resolution at=20 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meant to reprimand Iran,=20 India has signalled the collapse of its long-standing policy of non- alignment. =20 Capping recent agreements signed with the United States on military and=20 civilian nuclear cooperation within an increasingly closer ''strategic=20 partnership'' with it, this constitutes the greatest shift in New=20 Delhi's foreign policy since independence from colonial rule in 1947.=20 ''By taking this disgraceful step, India is indicating that it has=20 become a camp-follower of Washington,'' said Gulshan Dietl, a West Asia=20 expert at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru=20 University here.=20 The resolution of the IAEA board of governors came at the end of a week=20 of hectic lobbying and manipulation in Vienna and other major capitals=20 of the world, centred around a draft prepared by Germany, France and=20 Britain or EU-3, a group which claims to have been playing a mediatory=20 role between the U.S. and Iran. =20 Iran insists that its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and=20 within the rights and obligations defined by the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has not held Iran to be in=20 substantive breach of the NPT, only of not disclosing everything about=20 its uranium enrichment history.=20 But the U.S. claims that Iran is bent upon developing nuclear weapons=20 and wants it hauled up before the United Nations Security Council for=20 possible sanctions. =20 The final resolution is a modified version of the EU-3's original draft.=20 It falls short of referring Iran to the Security Council. But it=20 prepares the ground for doing so while citing Iran's history=20 of ''concealment'' of its nuclear activities, and the IAEA Director=20 General's report on them. It asks Iran to stop all activity related to=20 uranium enrichment.=20 Further, it says that Iran's ''non-compliance'' with NPT safeguards and=20 the IAEA's statute ''gives rise to questions that are within the=20 competence of the Security Council'', given its responsibility for=20 maintaining ''international peace and security''.=20 The resolution furnishes the basis for the next logical step, of=20 referring Iran to the Security Council and mounting coercive pressure on=20 it to dismantle its nuclear programme.=20 The motion was passed 22:1, with 12 countries abstaining. Venezuela was=20 the only state in the 35-strong IAEA board of governors to oppose it.=20 Among those who abstained were Russia, China, Brazil, Mexico, South=20 Africa and even Pakistan.=20 The U.S. is triumphant over the passage of the resolution and has=20 expressed its gratitude to India for helping out. Iran is outraged and=20 has condemned the resolution as ''illegal and unacceptable''. India's decision to vote with the U.S. was taken even before Prime=20 Minister Manmohan Singh's visit in mid-September to France and the U.S.,=20 where he met President George W. Bush. 'The Hindu' newspaper disclosed=20 on Sep. 17 that New Delhi had already decided to vote in that manner if=20 it came to the crunch. After the resolution, the crisis over Iran's nuclear activities is=20 likely to worsen. This takes the wind out of the sails of New Delhi's=20 argument that it voted for the resolution because it expands the room=20 for diplomacy to resolve the crisis and because it avoids an immediate=20 reference to the Security Council.=20 Strangely enough, India has entered a number of caveats and reservations=20 about the resolution. India is opposed to ''Iran being declared as non- compliant with its safeguards agreements'' and does not agreed that=20 the ''current situation could constitute a threat to international peace=20 and security''.=20 ''These objections pertain to the very substance of the motion and=20 warranted at least abstention from, if not opposition to, the vote,''=20 says Hamid Ansari, India's former ambassador to Iran and a West Asia=20 expert, who has closely followed the IAEA's debate on Iran.=20 Yet, India went along with the ''yes'' vote on the plea that it had=20 persuaded the EU-3 to modify its original tough resolution; since its=20 concerns were addressed in the toned-down motion, it would not have been=20 proper to abstain.=20 ''But that original resolution was a mere ploy,'' says Ansari. ''The EU- 3 knew it wouldn't go through and sprang the already-preferred milder=20 draft at the last minute, thus forcing a vote in which India would break=20 ranks with a number of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries such as=20 South Africa, Brazil and Malaysia, the current chair of NAM''.=20 Adds Ansari, ''The EU-3 was no longer acting independently, but as a=20 surrogate of the U.S. So India ended up as the surrogate of a surrogate,=20 demeaning its policy of independence. This speaks of poor diplomacy with=20 respect to NAM, as well as a confused foreign policy.''=20 For decades, NAM acted in unison at the IAEA. Now, it stands split, with=20 countries like Peru, Ghana and Ecuador joining hands with the U.S.-EU=20 while Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, which have been pro-active=20 in NAM, abstained.=20 ''The Indian vote,'' says Dietl, ''militates against the national=20 interest and will greatly lower India's global stature and credibility.=20 If India could stab a friendly country like Iran in the back, despite=20 its close economic and political relations with it, it won't be trusted=20 by many other developing countries.'' =20 India's vote is likely to jeopardise a grand project it is currently=20 negotiating: an Iran-India gas pipeline passing through Pakistan. This=20 enjoys wide domestic support and has been seen as the key to promoting=20 peace and prosperity in the South Asia-West Asia region, as well as=20 opening a conduit to energy-rich Central Asia.=20 The Manmohan Singh government's decision has come under spirited attacks=20 domestically=F9both from the Left and the Right. The Left sees it=20 as ''betrayal'' of the legacy of solidarity with the ''non-aligned and=20 developing countries'' and succumbing to U.S. pressure. The Left, a=20 crucial ally of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, led by the=20 Congress party, says the resolution ''virtually'' converts India into a=20 U.S. ally and camp-follower. The right-wing, pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) too has opposed=20 India's decision to vote for the EU-3 resolution in Vienna and accused=20 the government of ''surreptitiously'' making a major foreign policy=20 shift. =20 Jaswant Singh, who served as foreign minister during the BJP's years in=20 power from 1998 - 2004 said the government was =94spreading confusion on=20 important policy matters impinging directly on national security''.=20 Singh said there was now a serious question mark on the proposed gas=20 pipeline from Iran, especially because the government has refused to=20 spell out whether ''it stands or not''.=20 A former senior official of the National Security Council, under the BJP=20 dispensation, said he feared that ''the vote (at the IAEA) will =20 decrease India's bargaining power vis-=E0-vis the U.S. and generate anti- India suspicions in China''. =20 India strenuously denies that the vote in Vienna is linked to its=20 eagerness to get the U.S. Congress's approval for a far-reaching nuclear=20 cooperation deal it signed in July with Washington. However, 'The New=20 York Times' and other newspapers have reported that the U.S. explicitly=20 made such a linkage and told Singh in mid-September that India ''must=20 choose'' between Iran and the U.S.=20 India's concern to have its nuclear weapons status normalised has become=20 an obsession. ''This is driving New Delhi to try to gatecrash into the=20 global nuclear order based on the NPT, although it is not even a=20 signatory to that treaty,'' argues Prof Dietl.=20 ''All in all, the Vienna vote is a remarkably bad bargain, and announces=20 India's capitulation to the U.S.,'' Dietl said.=20 (END/IPS/AP/IP/DV/ML/PB/RDR/05)=20 =20 =3D 09261741 ORP008 NNNN ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] India's Shameful Vote Against Iran Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:03:40 -0500 (CDT) autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart The Hindu - September 26, 2005 http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/26/stories/2005092606071000.htm India's shameful vote against Iran The decision to vote adversarially against Iran at Saturday's crucial meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is evidence of the Manmohan Singh Government's shameful willingness to abandon the independence of Indian foreign policy for the sake of strengthening its "strategic partnership" with the United States. Made in stealth without any broad-based discussion within the Government or with allies and national political parties, the top-level political decision (which was reported in The Hindu of September 17) conflicts with proclaimed Indian policy. It bears emphasis that the resolution adopted by the IAEA Board 22-1 with 12 abstentions has grave international implications. Specifically, it recalls Iran's alleged "failures in a number of instances," as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to meet its obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement, and its alleged "policy of concealment." Adopting a menacing tone, the resolution finds Iran in "non- compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency's Statute"; among other things, this Article allows the Board "to report the non-compliance to ...the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations." Further, the resolution finds that Iran's nuclear activities and "the resulting absence of confidence" that its nuclear programme is "exclusively for peaceful purposes" have given rise to "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Finally, it threatens that the Board "will address the timing and content of the report" to be submitted to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action. This Bush-led resolution is unjust as well as provocative - if the idea is to find a solution through intelligent negotiation. Iran and the IAEA have resolved most of the issues in dispute; in fact, the IAEA Director General reported to the Board as recently as September 2 that "good progress has been made in Iran's correction of the breaches and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations." The only major outstanding question is the extent of the Iranian centrifuge research programme. At the very least, the resolution steps up the pressure on Iran in infringement of its sovereign rights. It is possible that it is designed to short-circuit the prospect of a negotiated solution, and to push the world towards another major confrontation. Anticipating public criticism of its volte face, the Manmohan Singh Government claims it voted the way it did because the "door for dialogue" was being kept open. It also insists that the decision to abandon its earlier insistence on consensus and break ranks with Russia, China, the non-aligned bloc, and even Pakistan has nothing to do with the July 18 U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement. These arguments are disingenuous. The craven vote of September 24 underlines the fact that Indian foreign policy suffers from insecurity, a poor understanding of the realities of the international situation, a lack of confidence in the nation's strategic weight, and an absence of belief in, or commitment to, genuine independence and non-alignment. The downward trajectory initiated by the National Democratic Alliance Government in dealings with the United States, signalled by support, of all things, to 'Star Wars,' has hit a new low. It seems that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's negative remarks on the Iran-India pipeline in July were not happenstance but the opening lines of a script rewritten in Washington. In the run-up to the crucial vote, New Delhi was told in no uncertain terms that the fate of the civilian nuclear agreement would hinge on changing its line on Teheran. When Congressional hearings on the agreement began in Washington earlier this month, the Bush administration joined individual Congressmen in orchestrating exaggerated concern about India's relationship with Iran. Until then, New Delhi had been correctly insisting that the IAEA was the proper forum to resolve lingering questions about Iran's civilian nuclear programme and that equal weight needed to be given to Iranian obligations (not to produce nuclear weapons)and rights (to the full nuclear fuel cycle) under the NPT. The IAEA Director General's latest report did observe that Iran's full cooperation was overdue and indispensable but also confirmed that nine issues out of ten had been resolved. As a three-part analysis published last week in this newspaper showed, such a situation can hardly be considered "non-compliance" of a magnitude threatening international peace and security. It's a bit rich that India - which has refused to join the NPT, has turned its back on accepting full-scope IAEA safeguards, has conducted six nuclear explosions (in 1974 and 1998), and is a declared nuclear weapons state - is able to join in a 'proliferation' indictment of Iran. This means embracing the worst kind of double standards. At stake is not the danger of proliferation- nobody has produced any evidence that Iran is pursuing, or has ever pursued, a nuclear weapons programme - but the right of a sovereign country to develop peaceful nuclear power as a source of energy and engage in the nuclear fuel cycle. The NPT allows all parties to the international nuclear bargain to develop uranium enrichment facilities of the kind being built at Natanz, provided they are safeguarded. The U.S. and its allies want to rewrite the rules so that they will be able to control both the nuclear fuel cycle and the commerce around nuclear fuel and reactors. That is why the non-aligned group of countries has tended to stand with Iran on this issue. Teheran has made several positive proposals aimed at reassuring the international community that its civilian facilities will not be misused for military purposes. Washington, however, is not interested in any such proposal. Iran shall not be allowed to enrich uranium, it has decided imperiously. Beyond that, it wants to strangulate Iran's oil and gas sector, and bring about "regime change" in that country. Instead of recognising this truth, and also the fact that American demands on Iran will be unending, the United Progressive Alliance Government has compromised the national interest by helping to prepare the ground for another possible conflict in India's own region. Even at this eleventh hour, the Government must change course. When the subject of Iran comes up for discussion in the Board of Governors meeting in November, it must not support any European or U.S. move to take the matter to the Security Council. *** India Daily - September 26, 2005 http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4742.asp Indian Communists accuses Indian Government of surrendering to the West by Sonia Chaube Indian Communists did not like India voting against Iran in IAEA. According to media reports, Communist Party of India, which is supporting the Manmohan Singh government from outside, on Sunday strongly criticized India voting with US and EU on a resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program. This step of the UPA government amounts to letting down a friendly country which is today under American threat and whose President had personally pleaded with the Prime Minister of India for support," a CPI press release said. The resolution drags Iran before the United Nations Security Council, even if on an unspecified date. CPI said India acted under the nuclear deal signed recently with the US, which it had criticised as the deal would put India under US pressure. "Instead, Iran was advised by our Prime Minister to be ''flexible'', that is to surrender to the US-EU threat, and to give ''concessions'' so as to ''avoid confrontation'', that is to give up its nuclear energy programme. The suspicions about Iran's programme are not as much substantial as about finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq," the party said. CPI said the clarification by the government that it had voted with US-EU after negotiations with Germany, France and Britain and after they agreed to give some more time to Iran, was a laboured attempt to save face. The party said this was a clear sign of UPA government giving up India's foreign policy of non-alignment and support to third world countries and accomodating itself with the US and EU. "India should ponder over the fact that Russia, China and many Third World countries have abstained from voting on the resolution," he added. *** The Hindu - September 26, 2005 http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/26/stories/2005092606971100.htm India's IAEA vote was decided in advance In deciding to vote against Iran, India showed its foreign policy was not immune to outside pressure by Amit Baruah U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, in recent remarks before the House International Relations Committee, said India had to choose between the "ayatollahs" of terror in Teheran and the U.S. India's choice, in fact, was a different one: it was between an independent foreign policy and taking the line strongly suggested by the U.S. and its three European allies on Iran's nuclear programme. India's decision to vote against Iran at the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency's governing board meeting on Saturday was not taken overnight. As reported by The Hindu on September 17, India had already decided to vote with the European Union "three" and the United States at the IAEA in a crunch situation. Whatever the justification extended by the Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday night about the Indian vote, the fact is that the India-U.S. civil nuclear deal has altered New Delhi's perception about Iran, with which it has cooperated significantly on Afghanistan. India, which has championed the non-aligned cause for long, did not find itself in the company of South Africa and Malaysia at the IAEA governing board meeting in Vienna. Nor did it find itself in the company of China and Russia, which, like South Africa and Malaysia, abstained from voting against the resolution sponsored by the EU-three. According to the Malaysian representative on the IAEA board, the head of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) group, Ryma Jama' Hussein: "Due to the serious nature of the issues contained in the draft resolution, NAM had suggested that time and diplomacy be allowed for the matter to be deliberated at the November board meeting and for negotiations to proceed with a view to reaching a consensus decision. However, NAM's major concerns and those of other like-minded states were not taken on board." India itself cast a gravely qualified vote at the IAEA, revealing what a rhetorical tightrope it has had to walk in recent weeks on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme. "In our explanation of [the] vote, we have clearly expressed our opposition to Iran being declared as non-compliant with its safeguards agreements. Nor do we agree that the current situation could constitute a threat to international peace and security. "Nevertheless, the resolution does not refer the matter to the Security Council and has agreed that outstanding issues be dealt with under the aegis of the IAEA itself. This is in line with our position and therefore, we have extended our support to it," the External Affairs Ministry spokesman said on Saturday night. One can only wonder why India did not abstain from the vote at the meeting, like so many others did, when it had problems with the resolution. That would have been the honourable course to adopt. What the IAEA resolution does now is to set the stage for referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in future. It said it: "... finds also that the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities referred to in the Director General's report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council ... " The External Affairs Ministry on Saturday also revealed for the first time that India was fully embroiled in the Iranian nuclear issue and its role was not confined to carrying messages. In such a situation, India and Indian diplomacy will be directly culpable for what the EU-3 and the U.S. might do with Iran in the future. "It should also be borne in mind that India has all along been supportive of the EU-3 initiative to negotiate a fair and reasonable understanding with Iran on this issue. Our support to the resolution should also be seen against this background. We have been in close touch with the EU-3, and External Affairs Minister has himself been meeting with and talking to his French, German, and British counterparts regularly in the past couple of weeks, to try and encourage a consensus approach. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had discussed the matter with President Chirac in Paris ... " the Ministry spokesman said on record. The advice tendered by the Prime Minister to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, during the course of a telephonic conversation on Friday, that Teheran should be flexible and make concessions also revealed the Indian Government's mind. There seems little doubt that the civilian nuclear deal between India and the U.S. has begun taking atoll of New Delhi's "independent" foreign policy. While it is still in the form of a promise for Washington, India has already begun delivering its side of the deal. After all, a "responsible" state such as India, which has dealings with the U.S. on civil nuclear issues, cannot take a different position on what still are only suspicions about Iran's nuclear programme. U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, in recent remarks before the House International Relations Committee, said India had to choose between the "ayatollahs" of terror in Teheran and the U.S. India's choice, in fact, was a different one: it was between an independent foreign policy and taking the line strongly suggested by the U.S. and its three European allies on Iran's nuclear programme. On Saturday, in the IAEA board in Vienna, India failed to demonstrate that its foreign policy remained immune to outside pressure. StopNATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/ * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: Iran slams IAEA board vote, but no retaliation World Crises | Reuters.com Mon 26 Sep 2005 10:45 AM ET By Francois Murphy VIENNA, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Iran condemned a U.N. nuclear watchdog resolution requiring that Tehran be reported to the Security Council, but stopped short on Monday of announcing the retaliatory measures expected by many diplomats. Speaking to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) annual gathering of its 139 members, Iranian Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh did not say Iran would resume uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for weapons. "This resolution is based on an invalid legal precept, an unjustified technical ground and a misguided political forecast," Aghazadeh told the IAEA's General Conference. Iran said it would issue an official reaction to the resolution in the next few days and diplomats said a stronger response could yet be forthcoming. The IAEA board of governors on Saturday passed the resolution based on Iran's failure to persuade the global community that its nuclear work was entirely peaceful. Washington accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear programme which Tehran insists is solely aimed at generating electricity. Diplomats in Vienna had expected a more vehement reaction by Aghazadeh, who is also the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, to the resolution passed by majority vote. On Friday, the Iranian delegation showed some IAEA board members two letters saying Iran would begin enriching uranium, a process of making fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons, and end short-notice inspections under the IAEA's Additional Protocol if the resolution was passed. "After the vote, I had expected Iran to immediately announce that it would retaliate in some way, perhaps by enriching uranium and ending Additional Protocol inspections. But this didn't happen. We expect something soon," an EU diplomat said. The Additional Protocol provides for snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran has signed but not ratified it. Aghazadeh did caution, however, that sending the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions, would aggravate an already tense political situation. "There is no doubt that a report to the Security Council initiates a chain of actions and reactions that breed tension and add volatility to an already vulnerable political situation in the region," he said. The IAEA board resolution requires that Iran be referred to the Security Council at an unspecified date. "PATH OF CONFRONTATION" EU diplomats said they expected the board would decide to send its report on Iran's nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty breaches to the U.N. Security Council during the agency's next board meeting in November. Aghazadeh said his country needed to see European goodwill. "We need to be convinced of Europe's intention to reverse the dangerous path of confrontation and see their firm willingness to work ... towards an arrangement on our nuclear fuel cycle programme," he said. Talks between the European Union and Iran collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of political and economic incentives aimed at convincing it to scrap enrichment and other activities that could be used to make bombs. It then restarted uranium conversion, the step before enrichment, prompting the U.S.-backed diplomatic push by France, Britain and Germany that resulted in the resolution. Conversion and enrichment were suspended under a November deal with the Europeans. Enrichment remains under suspension, though Iran has said that will not last forever. The EU said it was up to Iran to return to its suspension and cooperate fully with the IAEA for talks to resume. "We ... welcome the adoption by the board of the resolution on Sept. 24 and urge Iran to implement the confidence-building measures set out in that resolution to enable the resumption of negotiations," Britain's governor on the IAEA board, Rob Wright, said on behalf of the EU. (Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in Berlin) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Criticizes Threat of U.N. Action From the Associated Press [UP] Monday September 26, 2005 5:16 PM AP Photo VIE106 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran's vice president on Monday blasted the ``absurdity'' of moves toward referring his country to the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities but stopped short of announcing that Tehran had retaliated by resuming uranium conversion. U.S. and British representatives at a 139-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency asserted that only Tehran - and its disregard for international concerns about its nuclear program - were to blame for a weekend decision that clears the path for hauling Tehran before the Security Council as early as next month. The resolution by the nuclear watchdog's board of directors setting up Tehran for referral ``demonstrates how issues can reach the borders of absurdity, when politics overwhelm the work of the agency,'' Vice President Reza Aghazadeh told the meeting, insisting the Security Council motion had no legal base. ``Why ... such a forceful push to resort to the Security Council?'' said Aghazadeh, who also is head of his country's nuclear program. ``What magical means can the council offer for a settlement ... except to ... provoke an unwanted crisis?'' Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating electricity, but the United States and others accuse it of seeking to develop atomic weapons. Despite the rhetoric, Iran did not seem eager to deepen the crisis - for now. Diplomats close to the IAEA told The Associated Press that as of Monday, Iran had not acted on a weekend threat to notify the agency of Tehran's intention to resume uranium conversion - which can generate nuclear fuel or the fissile core of warheads - and reduce agency access to its nuclear activities. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal IAEA issues. The resolution adopted Saturday by the agency's 35-nation board of directors could lead to Iran's referral to the Security Council. While the 15-nation council could impose sanctions, that is unlikely because of opposition by veto-wielding members Russia and China. But the referral would still increase pressure on Tehran. British delegate Robert Wright said the resolution reflected the fact that in the past two years, ``Iran has failed to honor its commitments'' to fully dispel suspicions its nuclear activities were a cover for a weapons program. Gregory Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, said Iran served as an example of the ``pernicious and defiant misuse of nuclear technology'' threatening to irreversibly damage nonproliferation efforts. ``The onus is on Iran to come into compliance with its international obligations'' to dispel fears about its nuclear intentions, he said. ``By virtue of its long history of deception and concealment, Iran is a special case that requires special measures to ensure ... that Iran will not subvert so-called 'peaceful use' for military ends.'' The issue was not formally on the agenda of the IAEA's general conference but spilled over into Monday's opening session. Among other key areas of concern, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei named North Korea's nuclear weapons threat and the existence of nuclear black market networks, which he said pose ``an unprecedented array of challenges to the nonproliferation and arms control regime.'' Earlier Monday, the conference approved the reappointment of ElBaradei for a third four-year term. The move, by acclamation, had been expected after Washington dropped its opposition and the IAEA's board agreed to the reappointment earlier this year. Much of previous U.S. opposition to ElBaradei was because Washington viewed the Egyptian diplomat as being too soft on Iran for not declaring it in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That stance has blocked a U.S. bid to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for more than two years. He also disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein's former regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program - a claim that remains unproven. --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: White House Warns Iran About Referral From the Associated Press [UP] Monday September 26, 2005 9:46 PM By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Armed with fresh international backing for bringing Iran before the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities, the White House on Monday warned Tehran it has just one chance left to avoid referral for possible economic sanctions. ``The world is saying to Iran that it is time to come clean. The world has put Iran on notice,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. ``It is unacceptable the way Iran is behaving.'' On Saturday, a majority on the 35-nation board of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency approved a resolution that cited Iran for ``a long history of concealment and deception'' in a nuclear program Tehran insists is only for the peaceful production of nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency resolution found Tehran at odds with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed. According to the resolution, Iran's past failings already set it up for consideration by the Security Council - though there was no immediate referral. Instead, the resolution asked IAEA members to look at the issue again at a future, unspecified meeting. It wasn't the decisive rebuke desired by U.S. officials - who allege Iran has a secret illicit program to build a nuclear bomb and have long wanted Tehran reviewed by the Security Council and possibly punished with economic sanctions. While India switched its position to support the resolution, U.S. allies Russia, China and South Africa abstained from the vote. The Bush administration focused on what it portrayed as an internationally backed choice that the resolution presents to Iran. Tehran can either, by resuming negotiations with Europeans, agree to cut off any weapons ambitions and go before the Security Council with that to mitigate its past activities. Or it can be hauled before the Security Council - as early as November, according to some diplomats - without showing new cooperation. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack noted that Iran has control over what the IAEA reports to the Security Council and urged Tehran to discontinue ``its defiant actions.'' ``What is contained in that report and the timing of that report will depend on what Iran does,'' he said. Iran needs to ``heed the signal'' the resolution sent, McCormack said. ``And that is, `Get back to the negotiating table.''' McClellan said, ``There is a growing majority of nations that recognize Iran's noncompliance must be addressed.'' Britain, France and Germany are the three key European countries that were negotiating with Iran to try to avert referral to the Security Council. Over the summer, Iran rejected a package of economic and security guarantees, walked away from the talks and resumed nuclear fuel production activity it had voluntarily suspended during negotiations. McClellan said the United States ``will not tolerate'' Iran's ``pattern of deception and concealment.'' Bush has refused to rule out a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails, but has also said repeatedly that there is no plan to do so. --- On the Net: White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov CIA Factbook on Iran: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Times: Joint Statement of Nuke Talks Linguistic Minefield Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter Tong Kim speaks in an interview with The Korea Times. The joint statement from the six-nation talks in Beijing Sept. 19 is a linguistic minefield that reveals just how low the level of trust is between the two primary players at the talks _ the United States and North Korea, a former senior Korean language interpreter at the U.S. State Department said. ``If you look at the statement, there¡¯s a whole bunch of stuff that is nebulous and is what they call diplomatic ambiguity,¡¯¡¯ said Tong Kim, 69, who retired in June from the U.S. government after 27 years of service, in an interview with The Korea Times. He is currently staying in Seoul. Kim has sat in on not only U.S.-South Korea summits beginning from the one between Ronald Reagan and Chun Doo-hwan in 1983 but has also been a witness to almost every high-level U.S.-North Korea meeting. Linguistic minefield The veteran interpreter pointed out part of the six-point statement¡¯s first clause is problematic, saying that the Democratic People¡¯s Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to ``abandoning¡¯¡¯ all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. ``Now the statement was written in English first and discussed and agreed upon in English. In English, `abandon¡¯ means you just leave it there where and as whatever they are,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. ``In Korean, we normally say pogi, or giving up, for that. That doesn¡¯t mean `dismantling¡¯ of nuclear facilities or programs.¡¯¡¯ The shift of terms from ``dismantle¡¯¡¯ to ``abandon¡¯¡¯ has also caused a controversy during last week¡¯s National Assembly inspection of the Unification Ministry. Opposition lawmakers expressed concern over the change, while Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said the following phrase ``existing programs¡¯¡¯ would make it up. ``We all assume that the two mean the same thing, but when you come to technical analysis on what the terms literally mean, there is a distinction,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. Similarly, the part where the goal of the six-party talks is stated as ``the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula¡¯¡¯ can be a problem as it gives North Korea room to demand that the southern part of the peninsula should also be subject to ``verification¡¯¡¯ of some form, Kim said. In addition, part of the second clause that says ``the DPRK and the United States undertook to¡¦ take steps to normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies¡¯¡¯ is also a good example of diplomatic ambiguity. This means that according to their respective bilateral policies, whatever they are, the steps may proceed or not, Kim said. He added that while these ambiguities are sometimes necessary when two parties cannot exactly agree and instead come out with the mutually acceptable, this kind of approach is open to problems. Deep distrust Aside from the terminology, however, there is one more thing that troubles the seasoned interpreter¡¯s mind. Most people would go over without noticing anything special when it comes to a statement such as ``the six parties undertook, in their relations, to abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognized norms of international relations.¡¯¡¯ Things are different for Kim. ``The problem I have is why do you have to state what is so obvious? The implication is that you guys, especially you North Korea, have not behaved like that in the past and therefore we want to pin it down on the record,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. ``I mean, those statements have no meanings other than bringing up dissatisfaction, or disappointment, with the way North Korea has behaved internationally. ``Another part of this is where the U.S. made it clear it has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK. This is what President Bush has repeatedly said publicly,¡¯¡¯ Kim went on. ``But North Korea cannot trust the face value of the U.S. commitment not to invade them, they needed to include it.¡¯¡¯ While these clearly demonstrate how much distrust prevails in the current U.S.-North Korea relationship, there was once a time when the process of trust building, or at least lessening of the distrust, seemed to dawn, Kim said. It was when former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang and met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in October 2000, following the historic inter-Korean summit four months before. The reclusive dictator spent more than 10 hours with Albright, during which Tong Kim duly interpreted and felt the cordial mood. But then the administration under President George W. Bush was inaugurated, and the pendulum swung over. Words may have not been decisive factor, but they cannot be dismissed in significantly deteriorating relations between the U.S. and North Korea since then. In addition to the famous coining of ``axis of evil,¡¯¡¯ Bush called Kim Jong-il names such as ``pygmy,¡¯¡¯ ``tyrant¡¯¡¯ and ``a spoiled child,¡¯¡¯ to which North Korea¡¯s response was undoubtedly even harsher. ``Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan also once called the former Soviet Union an `evil empire,¡¯¡¯¡¯ Tong Kim said. ``But he didn¡¯t call Gorbachev names.¡¯¡¯ Evidence of HEU In October 2002, James Kelly, then U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, traveled to Pyongyang and confronted North Korea with ``a compelling evidence¡¯¡¯ on the Stalinist country¡¯s highly enriched uranium (HEU) programs. It was the beginning of the second nuclear crisis involving the Korean Peninsula. Seoul¡¯s media have recently cast doubt on whether North Korea really has HEU programs. Kim¡¯s remarks made in Washington in June in a meeting with correspondents from Seoul have been quoted quite often, as he said at that time that the U.S. did not actually produce the evidence of HEU programs, only telling North Koreans that they had it. Kim tried to clear away the U.S. position, saying that the U.S. still believes North Korea has HEU programs and that they should be a part of the nuclear programs it pledged to dismantle. ``The words themselves can be sometimes nebulous, so you need the tone of voice, the setting, and the context of what had happened, what led up to the point,¡¯¡¯ he recalled of Kelly¡¯s charge and response from North Korean officials. ``If I say I have evidence you committed such and such crime on such and such date, then you have to think, what do they know about what I did? So they responded and our interpretation of their response was acknowledgement of our accusation. `Admitted¡¯ is a little bit stronger than what they actually said.¡¯¡¯ It might still sound somewhat arbitrary for such a grave situation. But then again, Kim understands ``North Korean¡¯¡¯ well and speaks it with such a fine Pyongyang accent, that Kim Yong-nam, chairman of the North¡¯s Presidium of the Supreme People¡¯s Assembly, impressed, once asked the U.S. interpreter if his hometown was Pyongyang. ``But I think it took North Koreans at least 10 years to regard me as part of U.S. delegation at the talks,¡¯¡¯ said Kim, who is now a U.S. citizen but originally a native of Seoul, South Korea. ``They were at first very weary of me, thinking I might be a South Korean informant and would give Seoul some sensitive information about the bilateral talks with the U.S.¡¯¡¯ With all of this experience and so much left to say, Kim plans to spend two years in South Korea mostly researching, writing and giving lectures to Korean audiences on Korea-U.S. relations. He said he would also like to learn about Korean society since he left the country in 1971. Kim is about to join Korea University in Seoul and the Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. soon as a research professor. saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 09-26-2005 20:56 ***************************************************************** 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: China Marshaled U.S. at Six-Party Talks: Newsweek Home> National/Politics Updated Sep.26,2005 19:29 KST China flexed its political muscle at the last round of six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear program, persuading the U.S. to accept the terms of a statement of principles in a move that may have subtly altered the balance of power between Beijing and Washington, Newsweek claims. In its latest issue, the current affairs weekly says while the U.S. appeared to call the shots as the North Korean problem took center stage in the last two years, the latest round of talks saw China taking the initiative and start guiding the U.S. When on Sept. 16 U.S. officials once again rejected a draft accord, the fifth, put forward by Beijing, China¡¯s chief negotiator Wu Dawei put pressure on Washington, saying, "This draft is the final draft," according to the weekly. Confronted with Chinese stubbornness, the U.S. worried it could become isolated in the talks with only Japan on its side and being blamed if talks broke down. The Bush administration, weakened by the Iraq and Katrina fiascos and facing declining support at home, was more willing to compromise, Newsweek says, and signed off on the statement. This was the first time America hewed to the Chinese line rather than the other way around. Once a timid and indecisive giant, Beijing was at last asserting itself as a great power, it said. "The Chinese understand they hold more cards here," it quoted Jonathan Pollack of the U.S. Naval War College as saying. "America is a little distracted these days and China knows that." (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 9 Spectrum: Senators get lesson on trust Editorials - St. George - www.thespectrum.com Monday, September 26, 2005 Sen. Orrin G. Hatch Utah offices - Room 2 Washington County Administration Building, 197 E. Tabernacle, St. George, UT 84770; (435) 634-1795; Fax: (435) 634-1796. Post Office Box 99; 2390 W. Highway 56, Cedar City, UT 84720; (435) 586-8435; Fax: (435) 586-2147. Washington office - 104 Hart Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C. 20510; 202-224-5251; Fax: 202-224-6331. E-mail available via Web site: www.senate.gov/~hatch/ Sen. Robert F. Bennett Utah Offices - 196 E. Tabernacle, Suite 24; St. George, UT 84770-3474; (435) 628-5514; Fax: (435) 624-4160. 2390 W. Highway 56, Suite 4B; Cedar City, UT 84720; (435) 865-1335; Fax: (435) 865-1481. Washington Office - 431 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-4403, 202-224-5444; Fax: 202-224-4908. E-mail: senator@bennett.senate.gov Many years ago, Southern Utah found out that the government's assurances about fallout from nuclear testing in Nevada couldn't be trusted. Just days ago, Utah's senators found out that promises by the Bush administration to keep nuclear waste out of the Beehive State couldn't be relied upon, either. We thank Sen. Bennett for speaking out against the plan last week. We thank Sen. Hatch for beginning the process of using legislation to keep the nuclear waste out of Utah. But it shouldn't have come to this. In 2002, Bennett and Hatch voted in favor of sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, Nev., in exchange for a promise by the Bush administration that nuclear waste would not be sent to Skull Valley Goshute tribal lands, located just 50 miles from Salt Lake City. While the decision may have been a good one for Utahns on the Wasatch Front, it was not necessarily in the best interests of Southern Utahns, since it would mean we were more likely to have nuclear waste trucked through our communities on the way to Yucca Mountain, which isn't all that far away from Washington County when one thinks of distances in nuclear terms. This editorial board voiced steep opposition to the deal in July of 2002 by pointing out that the government has a poor track record for keeping its promises. Unfortunately, our fears have come to fruition. It was never a good idea to ship nuclear waste to either Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain for storage, but Hatch and Bennett were willing to accept one if it meant the other got crossed off the list. However, the deal between the senators and the Bush administration broke down Sept. 9 when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 to allow nuclear waste to be stored at Skull Valley. Sen. Bennett admitted his mistake on the floor of the Senate and vowed that he would join with Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign to try to keep nuclear waste out of Yucca Mountain. Bennett also put forward the sensible solution that nuclear waste should be kept where it is produced so that it can be reprocessed. Hatch hasn't joined Reid's camp yet, but he is pushing for legislation to keep nuclear waste out of Utah. Everyone makes mistakes. What is important is to learn from them. Hopefully, our senators have discovered what many suspected in 2002: A deal made with the government today is one that will be forgotten tomorrow. Originally published September 26, 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 Salt Lake Tribune: West's natural resources rediscovered by industry Article Last Updated: 09/25/2005 10:46:18 PM By Sandy Shore The Associated Press PARACHUTE, Colo. - John Loschke climbs out of his truck in the cramped parking lot outside the Outlaws restaurant and surveys the collection of cars, trucks and RVs. It's lunch hour on a hot summer day and he figures about 70 percent of the vehicles bear the unmistakable signs of oil and gas country. It reminds Loschke, the town's mayor, of the chaotic scene when Parachute's fortunes were changed during an oil shale boom some 30 years ago. Today's energy boom, he says, is ''managed chaos.'' ''We're better prepared. It's 25 years later and we've got infrastructure,'' he said. Some two decades after the West's last oil bust, production of coal, natural gas, oil and uranium is on the upswing as the world's energy supplies dwindle and demand rises unabated. Even oil shale is getting a fresh look. Operations are scattered across the sparsely populated land, prompting concern about potential impacts on land, water, air and even the communities, says Pete Kolbenschlag of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. ''Communities in the West are not being given the opportunity to really see what this package of possibilities means,'' he said. Others worry about the landscape, noting that oil wells seem to be sunk every few acres in the Grand Valley area. Natural resources have helped sustain the West's economy since it was settled - gold, silver, copper, coal, natural gas and oil. It has proven to be a roller-coaster ride with thousands of jobs created during prosperous times and then lost as demand ebbed. A recent example occurred when Middle East oil producers shut off oil supplies to the United States in 1973 over U.S. support of Israel. The move sent companies scrambling to develop domestic supplies as gas was rationed and prices skyrocketed. Thousands of workers filled housing complexes; city and state coffers were bolstered with revenue and government began bolstering infrastructure. Then the price free fall began, sending the West spiraling into economic doldrums as tens of thousands of jobs were lost, bankruptcies jumped and businesses were shuttered. Difficult years followed as the region eased its reliance on natural resources by diversifying the economic base to include tourism, manufacturing, technology, construction and services. As the United States and other countries search for reliable energy sources, the West's industry has turned around yet again with a new demand for oil, natural gas, coal and uranium. Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association said the resurgence in mining is ''almost unprecedented in modern times.'' The bulk of the nation's electricity is produced in coal-generated plants, with nuclear power plants generating about 20 percent and natural gas, 17 percent to 18 percent, Arch Coal Co. spokesman Deck Slone said. St. Louis-based Arch, which operates the world's largest coal mine near Gillette in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and three other mines in Colorado and Utah, is gearing up to open other facilities. With most industry watchers predicting production will continue for years, government leaders and residents are hoping they can strike a balance between the need for energy and the desire to protect the environment. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: U.S. to provide atomic fuel to stop weapons spread World Crises | Reuters.com Mon 26 Sep 2005 1:50 PM ET By Francois Murphy VIENNA, Sept 26 (Reuters) - The United States said on Monday it would provide nuclear reactor fuel to countries that refrain from enriching uranium in an effort to prevent the process from being used to make atomic weapons. Enrichment purifies uranium to levels at which it is useable in power plants or, if enriched further, in atomic bombs. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei has suggested setting up an independent, international system to provide states with a guaranteed fuel supply if they abandoned enrichment. "We are working with major suppliers and the IAEA on a back-up supply mechanism for states that forgo investment in indigenous enrichment or (plutonium) reprocessing capability," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement issued at the annual IAEA General Conference. "The United States Department of Energy will reserve up to 17 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium for an IAEA verifiable assured fuel supply arrangement," he said. It was unclear how or whether this would fit into any future plan for a fuel supply as envisioned by ElBaradei, who was re-elected to a third four-year term as IAEA chief on Monday. ElBaradei, in a written statement to the IAEA's 139 members, said that operations related to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation are "a vulnerability" in the non-proliferation regime. North Korea and Iran are recent examples. North Korea withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and expelled U.N. inspectors on December 31, 2002, after which it announced that it had built nuclear weapons. Washington accuses Iran of using its nuclear programme as a cover for an atomic weapons programme and wants Iran to give up uranium enrichment. It believes Tehran would use this for a bomb. Iran says it only wants to generate electricity. The cornerstone of ElBaradei's idea is the notion that the supply must be guaranteed and free from political influence. "How do you convince a country to give up enrichment if the fuel supply isn't guaranteed?" a Western diplomat close to the IAEA said on condition of anonymity. The diplomat said ElBaradei hoped to receive a clearer mandate on the issue from this week's meeting of the IAEA. The U.S. offer would be the first step towards a "neutral bank" of reactor fuel, a senior official from the U.S. Department of Energy said on condition of anonymity. "The United States felt it was important to show leadership and begin the process of converting some of the discussions ... into actual implementation," the official said. The fuel would be enough for 10 reactor cores, he said, adding that Washington estimated it would be ready by 2009. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Scientists Dispute Hurricane Blaster Idea By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer Fri Sep 23,11:11 AM ET DENVER - It sounds like a great idea: Let's just blast hurricanes like Rita and Katrina out of the sky before they hurt more people. Or, at least weaken the storms and steer them away from cities. Atmospheric scientists say it's wishful thinking that we could destroy or even influence something as huge and powerful as a hurricane. They abandoned such a quest years ago after more than two decades of inconclusive government-sponsored research. Private companies have conducted tests on a much smaller scale, but have made little progress despite initially claiming to erase storm clouds from the atmosphere. "It would be like trying to move a car with a pea shooter," said hydrometeorologist Matthew Kelsch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. "The amount of energy involved in a hurricane is far greater that anything we're going to impart to it." The federal government's hurricane modification program was called Project Stormfury. The idea was raised during the Eisenhower administration after several major storms hit the East Coast in the mid-1950s, killing 749 people and causing billions in damages. But it wasn't until 1961 that initial tests were conducted on Hurricane Esther with a Navy plane releasing silver iodide crystals. Some reports indicate winds were reduced by 10 percent to 30 percent. During Stormfury, scientists also seeded hurricanes in 1963, 1969 and 1971 over the open Atlantic Ocean far from land. Researchers dropped silver iodide, a substance that serves as an effective ice nuclei, into clouds just outside of the hurricane's eyewall. The idea was that a new ring of clouds would form around the artificial ice nuclei. The new clouds were supposed to change rain patterns and form a new eyewall that would collapse the old one. The reformed hurricane would spin more slowly and be less dangerous. Sometimes, the experiments appeared to work. Hurricane Debbie in 1969 was seeded twice over four days by several aircraft. Researchers noted that its intensity waxed and waned by up to 30 percent. For cloud seeding to be successful, clouds must contain sufficient supercooled water that is still liquid even though it is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Raindrops form when the artificial nuclei and the supercooled water combine. But scientists also learned that hurricanes contain less supercooled water than other storm clouds, so seeding was unreliable. And, hurricanes grow and dissipate all on their own, even forming new walls of clouds called "concentric eyewall circles." This made it impossible to determine whether storm reductions were the result of human intervention. Project Stormfury was abandoned in the 1980s after spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Other storm modification methods that have been suggested include cooling the tropical ocean with icebergs and spreading particles or films over the ocean surface to inhibit storms from evaporating heat from the sea. Occasionally, somebody suggests detonating a nuclear weapon to shatter a storm. Researchers say hurricanes would dwarf such measures. For example, Hurricane Rita measures about 400 miles across. According to the center for atmospheric research, the heat energy released by a hurricane equals 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 UN Atomic Agency Hears Wide-ranging Review Of Nuclear Dangers And Benefits Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:02:22 -0400 UN ATOMIC AGENCY HEARS WIDE-RANGING REVIEW OF NUCLEAR DANGERS AND BENEFITS New York, Sep 26 2005 12:00PM >From the dangers of terrorism and proliferation to the benefits of enhanced energy, health care and food production, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency today opened its annual General Conference with a wide-ranging review of the full spectrum of the nuclear “As we look to the future, it is important that our vision be clear and ambitious - for much remains to be done,” International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/dg_gc49.html">IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the opening session of the week-long meeting in Vienna. Appointed to a third consecutive four-year term, Mr. ElBaradei outlined visions for the fields of nuclear power, nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear safeguards, and applications of nuclear science and technology. He cited priorities for universalizing additional protocols to strengthen safeguards for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and investigating the nature and extent of the illicit procurement network. “The current challenges to international peace and security, including those related to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms control, cannot be wished away, and will continue to stare us in the face,” he said citing challenges such as those presented by the nuclear programmes of Iran and the Democratic People’s republic of Korea (DPRK). “All States must step up and pursue, at the highest policy levels, the urgently needed reforms to our global security system,” he added, stressing the need to “secure radioactive sources, assess the vulnerabilities of nuclear facilities, bolster physical protection, and improve capabilities for detecting illicit activity involving nuclear and radioactive material” in the fight against terrorism. On nuclear power, he urged greater focus on “energy for development,” calling energy shortages in developing countries a “major impediment” to efforts to end poverty. “Fast growing global energy demands, an increased emphasis on the security of energy supply, and the risk of climate change are driving a reconsideration, in many quarters, of the advisability of investment in nuclear power,” he said. “It is clear that nuclear energy is regaining stature as a serious option.” On health care, Mr. ElBaradei cited the limited or non-existent access in many areas to life-saving radiotherapy in fighting cancer, noting that while Austria has one radiotherapy machine for every 270,000 people, in most African countries, the ratio is about 1 machine for every 10 million people, and some countries have no such facilities. “The Agency´s Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) is designed to increase our capacity to assist developing Member States, by mobilizing more resources to address personnel, infrastructure, technology and training needs,” he declared. Research is progressing on using the sterile insect technique (SIT) against malaria-bearing mosquitoes, with a feasibility study under way in the Nile region of northern Sudan, he added. On food and agriculture he pointed to continued rich results from research and development in the use of isotopes and radiation in creating new crops as well as applying SIT to create zones free of the tsetse fly. “We should continue to seek out new applications in which nuclear technology can offer tangible benefits to society,” he said. 2005-09-26 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 ***************************************************************** 14 Annan Urges Global Support For New Initiative On Nuclear Non-proliferation Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0400 ANNAN URGES GLOBAL SUPPORT FOR NEW INITIATIVE ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION New York, Sep 26 2005 3:00PM Reiterating his disillusionment that this month's United Nations World Summit failed to address nuclear proliferation, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today called on the international community to throw its weight behind a new multi-state initiative led by Norway to chart a way ahead. "The Summit made progress on a number of important issues facing the international community," Mr. Annan said in a <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm10126.doc.htm">message to the annual General Conference of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna. "But when it came to the challenge of strengthening all three pillars of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear technology – the Summit was a failure. "States were not able even to reaffirm existing commitments, or find a way forward even at the level of principles," he added in the message delivered by Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe. He noted that a group of states led by Norway and including Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Romania, South Africa and the United Kingdom is working to try to chart a way forward, and he cited the risks of nuclear and radiological terrorism as well as proliferation. "I encourage all IAEA Member States – and, indeed, all States – to support their initiative. And I hope that this IAEA conference can send a signal of the international community's seriousness and determination to strengthen the NPT," he said. 2005-09-26 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 ***************************************************************** 15 RIA Novosti: Russia expects $120mln-plus from abroad to scrap nuclear submarines 26/ 09/ 2005 ST. PETERSBURG, September 26 (RIA Novosti-North-West, Olga Vtorova) - Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency Rosatom is expecting more than $120 million from a number of countries to scrap decommissioned nuclear submarines, a Rosatom spokesman said Monday at an international conference on nuclear security economics in St. Petersburg. According to deputy head of Rosatom Sergei Antipov, the governments of Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, France, Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union will allot the funds, with talks on South Korea joining the program already underway. Antipov also said about $70 million was to be allocated for scrapping nuclear submarines from the 2006 Russian budget. The Russian Navy has decommissioned a total of 196 atomic submarines since the 1980s, but only scrapped 115 of them. "The government ordered the disposal of all [decommissioned] nuclear submarines by 2010. Eighteen submarines will be dismantled this year and some 15 others next year," Antipov said. The aggregate capacity of all the 250 reactors on board the submarines equals that of the country's nuclear power plants, making disposal a huge problem, he said. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 16 BBC: UN nuclear head confirmed in post Last Updated: Monday, 26 September 2005 [Mohamed ElBaradei] Mr ElBaradei has supervised UN probes into Iran and Iraq The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has been formally re-appointed for a third term. Mr ElBaradei, 63, named as director of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1997, was confirmed in the role by a conference of the IAEA's 139 members. His re-appointment had been in doubt until a few months ago amid UN concerns Mr ElBaradei was too soft on Iran. The US eventually dropped objections to Mr ElBaradei's candidacy because many IAEA members did not share that view. After his confirmation, Mr ElBaradei told the IAEA conference in Vienna that his work would continue to be guided by "independence and impartiality". Last week the IAEA voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council because of alleged breaches of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty and evasiveness about the extent of its nuclear programme. ***************************************************************** 17 Prague Daily Monitor: Plaque honouring A-bomb creator Placzek unveiled - The Czech Republic's English- language electronic newspaper TUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER www.praguemonitor.com BRNO (PDM staff with CTK) 26 September - A plaque honouring physicist and Brno native Georg Placzek (1905-1955), who participated on the construction of the first atomic bomb, was unveiled on Namesti Svobody in Brno on Friday. Apart from participating in the development of the first nuclear weapon, Placzek also contributed to the research of atomic fission for use in power plants, Petr Dub of the Brno University of Technology said. The Brno University of Technology is currently hosting a symposium devoted to Placzek. Placzek also focused on the issue of transferring light via solid substances. The result of his research into this issue forms the basis of today's modern micro-electronics, said Dub. Experts say the significance of Placzek's work has not yet been fully appreciated. "Today's unveiling of a plaque on the physicist's house, commemorating the 100th anniversary of his birth, is a partial repayment of this debt," said Brno city councillor Barbora Javorova. Placzek came from an important Jewish family. His devotion to science had been nurtured by his grandfather Baruch Placzek, who had been head rabbi of Moravia and a close friend of Johann Georg Mendel (1822-84), founder of genetics, who was an Augustinian abbot in Brno. As a boy Placzek had better grades in language classes than in math or physics. Placzek left for the United states in 1939. During World War II he took part in the Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of the first atomic bomb. Experts say Placzek was among the scientists who significantly contributed to ensuring the US government did not allow Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union to win the race to develop the first A-bomb. Placzek did not return to his native country after the war. He gained US citizenship and headed a group of theoretical physicians at Los Alamos. He died in Zurich in 1955. CTK news edited by the staff of the Prague Daily Monitor, a ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief OK'd for Third Term From the Associated Press [UP] Monday September 26, 2005 11:01 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The 139-nation International Atomic Energy Agency approved the appointment of Mohamed ElBaradei as its head for a third term on Monday, reflecting formal backing of his leadership after the United States ended its opposition to his tenure. The IAEA general conference approved a third four-year term unanimously, by acclamation, at the start of its plenary meeting. The move had been expected after the IAEA's executive board agreed to the reappointment earlier this year. The United States dropped opposition to a third term for ElBaradei several months ago, recognizing it lacked the backing of a majority of other board member nations to prevent his reappointment. Washington viewed ElBaradei as being too soft on Iran for not declaring it in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That stance blocked a U.S. bid to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for more than two years. Last week's meeting of the IAEA board agreed to a resolution that clears the path for such action as early as November unless Iran meets international concerns about its nuclear program. The United States wanted someone in the post who shares its view of which countries represent nuclear threats and what to do about them. ElBaradei has challenged that view, particularly over Iran and Iraq. He refused to endorse Washington's contention that Iran was working to make nuclear weapons and disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program - both claims that remain unproven, despite growing suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 19 Shanghai Daily: Biggest nuke plant construction in '06 Wenhui-Xinmin United Press Group 2005-09-27 Beijing Time CONSTRUCTION of China's largest nuclear power plant, in Yangjiang, a port city in south China's Guangdong Province, is expected to begin early next year, said Vice Mayor Zhong Yi. The nuclear plant, China's fifth, will have six reactors with a total installed capacity of six million kilowatts and a budget of US$9.86 billion. More than 90 percent of the infrastructure for the plant, approved by the State Council, has been completed. International bidding for equipment was announced last September and remains open. More than a dozen international nuclear power giants have placed bids. The winners will be announced by the end of the year. Shanghai Daily Home | Copyright © 2001-2005 Shanghai Daily Company ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: TXU Generation Company LP; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, FR Doc 05-19236 [Federal Register: September 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 185)] [Notices] [Page 56191-56193] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26se05-71] [[Page 56191]] Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-87 Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-87, issued to TXU Generation Company LP (the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 1, located in Somervell County, Texas. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' by adding topical report WCAP-13060-P-A, ``Westinghouse Fuel Assembly Reconstitution Evaluation Methodology,'' to the list of NRC approved methodologies to be used at CPSES, Unit 1. By application dated April 27, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated July 20, 2005, the licensee requested the approval of the proposed amendment by October 8, 2005. The approval of the proposed amendment is needed to permit the licensee to use the reconstitution method of fuel assembly repair at CPSES Unit 1. The NRC staff inadvertently did not publish a Federal Register notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, in time to permit a 30 days period for prior public comment as required by Section 50.91 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The Commission finds that exigent circumstances exist, in that the licensee and the Commission must act quickly and that time does not permit the Commission to publish a Federal Register notice allowing 30 days for prior public comment, and it also determines that the amendment involves no significant hazards. 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. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change is administrative in nature and as such does not impact the condition or performance of any plant structure, system or component. The core operating limits are established to support Technical Specifications 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.9. The core operating limits ensure that fuel design limits are not exceeded during any conditions of normal operation or in the event of any Anticipated Operational Occurrence (AOO). The methods used to determine the core operating limits for each operating cycle are based on methods previously found acceptable by the NRC and listed in TS section 5.6.5.b. Application of these approved methods will continue to ensure that acceptable operating limits are established to protect the fuel cladding integrity during normal operation and AOOs. The requested Technical Specification change does not involve any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect system reliability, performance, or possibility of operator error. The requested change does not affect any postulated accident precursors, does not affect any accident mitigation systems, and does not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms. As a result, the proposed change to the CPSES Technical Specifications does not involve any increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated since neither accident probabilities nor consequences are being affected by this proposed administrative change. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change is administrative in nature, and therefore does not involve any change in station operation or physical modifications to the plant. In addition, no changes are being made in the methods used to respond to plant transients that have been previously analyzed. No changes are being made to plant parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints, which initiate protective or mitigative actions, and no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed administrative change to the CPSES Technical Specifications does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not impact station operation or any plant structure, system or component that is relied upon for accident mitigation. Furthermore, the margin of safety assumed in the plant safety analysis is not affected in any way by the proposed administrative change. Therefore, the proposed change to the CPSES Technical Specifications does not involve any 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 14 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 the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should [[Page 56192]] the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 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, 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 and Issuance of Orders'' 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 01F21, 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 requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific 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/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide 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 amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/ requestor 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 George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated April 27, 2005, and supplement dated July 20, 2005, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/ [[Page 56193]] reading-rm.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 21st day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05-19236 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 Xinhua: China to build biggest nuclear power plant www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-26 15:16:28 GUANGZHOU, Sept. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The construction of a nuclear power plant in Yangjiang, a port city in south China's Guangdong Province, is expected to begin early next year, said Zhong Yi, vice mayor of the city. It will be the largest nuclear power plant in China. The plant will have six reactors with a total installed capacity of six million kilowatts and a budget of 80 billion yuan (about 9.86 billion US dollars). According to Zhong, 93 percent of preparatory infrastructure for the the plant, which was approved by the State Council, has been completed. International bidding for plant equipment supplies was announced last September and remains open. So far, a dozen international nuclear power giants have placed bids. Winners of the bidding will be chosen and announced before the end of the year. China currently operates nuclear power plants at Daya Bay and Ling'ao, both in Guangdong Province, and Qinshan, in eastern Zhejiang Province, and has been building a fourth one at Lianyungang, in east China's Jiangsu Province. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 Hudson Valley News: Spano asks for meeting with NRC about latest Indian Point leaks Monday, September 26, 2005 Saying he remained alarmed about the revelation last week of a leak of radioactive water at Indian Point, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano has written to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ask for an immediate meeting. The leak, although characterized by both Entergy and the NRC as insignificant, is anything but that, Spano said in a letter to Nils Diaz, the chairman of the NRC. The fact that this condition was first reported to the NRC in late August or early September and local officials werent informed of its existence until September 20th has left us questioning the effectiveness of the NRC as an industry regulator. It also questions how we can continue to assure our citizens that the NRC is closely monitoring the licensee and plant operations. Saying he was writing in his capacity as chairman of the Four County Nuclear Committee for the Indian Point Nuclear Plants, Spano said he was concerned about the revelation last week of an ongoing leak of radioactive water from an excavation site near the spent fuel pool of Indian Point Reactor #2. He said to Diaz, I genuinely appreciated your visiting Westchester to meet and provide us with security information. During that visit you encouraged me to never hesitate to contact you in the future with any concerns. I am asking that you come again to Westchester to meet with me and the county executives of Rockland, Putnam and Orange to discuss the details of this fuel pool leak. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 23 Korea Times: Light-Water Reactors Crucial to Nuke Deal Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation This is the fourth in a series of articles analyzing the implications of the recent six-party agreement on dismantling North Korea¡¯s nuclear programs._ED. By Peter Hayes and Nautilus Institute Associates Professor Peter Hayes North Korea took less than 24 hours to dispel any illusions that the joint statement released at six-party talks on Sept. 19 had resolved the nuclear confrontation between it and the international community. The media and American analysts in particular have suggested that North Korea¡¯s declarations after the joint statement were made in bad faith. We suggest otherwise _ that North Korea was simply following the formula suggested by the United States to clarify the issues that remain to be resolved. The joint statement amounted to a North Korean committal to ``abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs,¡¯¡¯ and the U.S. expressing its ``respect¡¯¡¯ for the North¡¯s claimed right to ``peaceful uses of nuclear energy.¡¯¡¯ Containing five points, the joint statement carefully finessed the issue of provision of power reactors to the North. Under the October 1994 Agreed Framework, the U.S. took responsibility for provision of two light-water reactors (LWRs). This task was undertaken but never completed by the Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). KEDO was to provide two South Korean-built nuclear power plants based on U.S. designs. But the project was frozen by the Bush administration as part of its response to North Korean enrichment activity. In previous six-party talks, the U.S. has simply refused to countenance resumption of nuclear power in the North of any type and U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill stated recently that the U.S. favors terminating KEDO by the end of 2005. In order to obtain any joint statement at all, Hill shifted from the Bush administration¡¯s ``never again¡¯¡¯ position to one of agreeing to discuss the provision of LWR technology at an ``appropriate¡¯¡¯ time. It is not surprising that North Korea immediately declared in a Foreign Affairs Ministry statement on Sept. 20 that the time for such a discussion is now. The North¡¯s Foreign Ministry argued the right modality for LWR provision is for the U.S. to take the responsibility for achieving it. They have not, however, demanded that the LWRs be of American origin, as was practically the case in the LWR transfer undertaken by KEDO. Here, the story gets a bit arcane. In 1985, Pyongyang struck an agreement with the former Soviet Union to obtain two Russian light-water reactors. Indeed, at that time the Russians surveyed the seismic suitability of the site at which KEDO later began to construct American-style reactors. However, lack of North Korean financing then stalled the Soviets¡¯ sale of LWRs. The joint statement specifies neither the source of the LWR technology nor who would provide it. But the North¡¯s demand on Sept. 20 that the U.S. be responsible for the provision implies several outcomes. First, the institutional vehicle for such provision likely would be KEDO, which is headed by the U.S. and backed by South Korea, Japan, and a raft of other smaller donors, such as the European Union. Second, given the political and legal near-impossibility of obtaining American congressional approval for American LWR technology exports to North Korea, KEDO would switch from American to Russian LWRs. Neither Pyongyang nor KEDO sought such approval for the KEDO project by the time it was shelved because construction had not progressed to transfer of the LWR nuclear steam supply system. It remained an open, highly political and now moot question as to whether this approval would have been given by the U.S. Congress. But if Russian technology is what North Korea has in mind, then the latest North Korean statement is neither impractical nor implausible on these scores. The U.S. could remain a significant player in the project, both as head of KEDO and as supplier of enriched uranium should it decide that such is desirable. Of course, the primary obstacle to KEDO playing this role would be American opposition to LWR transfer to the North under any circumstances into the indefinite future, based on the view that indefinite parole is justified for states that routinely and repeatedly break nuclear proliferation rules. The problem with such a rigid stance is twofold. First, it would leave Washington isolated at the six-party talks. Second, it would miss the opportunity to use sequenced and contingent steps to achieve the actual dismantlement of North Korea¡¯s nuclear weapons program, leaving it home free to build and run its graphite reactors to make large amounts of plutonium and whatever enrichment capacity it has acquired. For its part, North Korea will also have to be less rigid in the way that it interprets point five of the joint statement that calls on the six parties to implement the agreement ``in a phased manner in line with the principle of `commitment for commitment, action for action.¡¯¡¯¡¯ The North has specified its preferred sequence in a very particular manner that will be unacceptable to the other five parties. It asserts vaguely that the U.S. must provide LWRs to North Korea ``as early as possible.¡¯¡¯ But then it drops the bombshell that the U.S. should ``not even dream of the issue of the (North Korea¡¯s) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs, a physical guarantee for confidence-building.¡¯¡¯ Taken at face value, this wording implies that Pyongyang envisages not completing or commencing dismantlement of all its existing nuclear weapons programs before LWRs are completed in North Korea _ that is, at least five years, which is after the Bush administration expires and hardly ``as early as possible.¡¯¡¯ This would be risky for the North as previous U.S. administrations have shown no compunction in abandoning past sovereign commitments to it. Therefore, one must conclude that North Korea has a more reasonable position in mind. To infer what the North might be thinking about a meeting of minds on this score, one must return to the joint statement. Therein, it committed ``to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date¡¯¡¯ to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. What might be an ``early date¡¯¡¯ acceptable to the six parties? Clearly, waiting for provision of LWRs, even Russian LWRs, to be built would not be an ``early date.¡¯¡¯ From a practical perspective, and therefore the one that will inform an American view on the ``appropriate¡¯¡¯ time for such discussion, dismantlement could take between three months and a year, based on the South African and Libyan precedents. However, certification that North Korea is in compliance with its full NPT and IAEA safeguards obligations will take much longer _ at least one and more likely two or three years Thus, if the warring parties should decide to identify a mutually acceptable ``early¡¯¡¯ and ``appropriate¡¯¡¯ time, then they might settle on commencing discussion of the timing and modality of LWRs to be provided to North Korea after dismantlement but before completion of the compliance certification; with provision of LWRs to commence after certification is complete. The faster the dismantlement, the faster the North would get to the LWR discussion, in principle, within a few months. The Foreign Affairs Ministry also explains why North Korea insists that U.S. provision of LWRs is the critical pivot for its willingness to enact the points contained in the joint statement. It says that it seeks a ``physical¡¯¡¯ confidence building measure between the U.S. and North Korea that goes beyond words to actions that demonstrate that intentions have changed. In this way, the LWR issue is simply the ``barrier that makes the water flow¡¯¡¯ from a North Korean perspective. Like a pitbull with jaws locked on America¡¯s leg, the North is determined that the U.S. will not secure its nuclear disarmament for a mere pile of carrots or lemons. Rather, it seeks a security relationship with the U.S., and it will not let go until it achieves this goal. We believe that this is the reason for North Korea¡¯s insistence on continuity with the past _ that the U.S. must lead the provision of the LWRs, as in the Agreed Framework, an approach also blessed by former leader Kim Il-sung and therefore highly legitimate inside the North¡¯s polity. If this is its primary goal and if the U.S. shuns them and is willing to pay the price with the other parties at the six-party talks for its obduracy, then no alternative formula for the provision of LWRs will work as North Korea will not be interested. For the U.S. to take this stance would represent the victory of ideology over pragmatism in the global war on terror, and would accelerate the collapse of the global non-proliferation regime, at least in East Asia. Although there is clearly a path forward that is consistent with the joint statement, it will require the White House to make choices that it has hitherto avoided. This is a condensed version of an essay entitled ``Light Water Reactors at the Six Party Talks: The Barrier That Makes the Water Flow.¡¯¡¯ The full version can be found on the Nautilus Institute¡¯s Web site, www.nautilus.org. The authors are participants in the East Asia Science and Security collaborative, a Nautilus initiative funded by the MacArthur Foundation. - ED. 09-26-2005 20:55 ***************************************************************** 24 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear plant closed after leak Mon 26 Sep 2005 A nuclear treatment plant has been shut down after a leak of radioactive liquid during decommissioning work. The cementation plant at UKAEA Dounreay was closed off after a batch of hazardous, dissolved spent fuel spilled onto a floor. Officials at the Caithness site said the incident had been contained within the cell and no-one had been harmed or exposed to radioactive material. But they added that the leakage was a "setback" to the decommissioning of Dounreay, of which the cementation plant plays a key role. The radioactive spill comes just days after the site was served with an enforcement order after it broke rules which allowed it to dispose of radioactive waste. The liquid, which is kept in underground tanks, is pumped to the plant where it is mixed with cement then stored in 500-litre drums. A Dounreay spokesman said: "A batch was about to be poured into a drum when a quantity of liquid waste landed on the floor of the cell. An alarm was activated and the operators became aware of a problem. The plant has been shut down and our people are investigating what action we can take. "All the radiation is contained within the cell and there was no danger to any individual as the walls are about 4ft thick and work is done robotically. It is undoubtedly a setback to the decommissioning of the site because one of the highest priorities is to convert liquid waste into solid waste." He added that an internal investigation was under way and that the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had been informed. A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive confirmed an investigation would be launched, but that its officers would not visit the site until next week. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 ITAR-TASS: Official calls Russian nuclear industry vital element of world energy 26.09.2005, 20.28 VIENNA, September 26 (Itar-Tass) - Russian nuclear industry is a crucial element of the world atomic energy sector, the Director of Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev said Monday at a session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference. “Russia is ready to remain an active participant in developing global atomic energy for the benefit of entire humankind,” he said. The Russian delegation welcomed the efforts of the IAEA Secretariat to promote international projects in the area of innovative nuclear reactor technologies and fuel cycles. “We’d like to say in this connection the Secretariat might consider a program of assistance to the IAEA member-states in doing expert assessments of their nuclear industry systems on the basis of innovative technology methods,” Rumyantsev said. Russia submitted to the General Conference a draft resolution on supporting the innovative methodology that takes account of the tasks the global nuclear industry will have to solve in 2006 and 2007. “We’d be glad to see adoption of the draft resolution at this session,” he said. Russia also hopes that an agreement on building an international thermonuclear reactor will be signed in the short term, Rumyantsev said. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: Reactor Plan Haunts N. Korean Disarmament From the Associated Press [UP] Monday September 26, 2005 10:16 AM AP Photo NY112 By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - North Korea sees a tantalizing vision of its nuclear future rising from a coastal plain 125 miles from its fortified southern border: two light-water nuclear reactors bestowed upon the reclusive communist state and built by South Korea, Japan, America and Europe. But it is a mirage. The unfinished reactors near the city of Sinpo are cold, sealed for two years since the breakdown of a deal for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the electricity-producing reactors. Now the United States, Japan, EU, and most crucially, South Korea have turned their backs on the $4.6 billion project. On Monday and Tuesday, the four partners in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization meet in New York to consider whether to kill the deal for good in wake of the nuclear disarmament deal announced last week in Beijing. Under the new arrangement, reached at six-party talks involving the Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China, electric cables from South Korea would send 2 million kilowatts to North Korea as soon as 2008. The United States supports terminating KEDO by the end of the year, said Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator at the six-party talks. But North Korea continues to insist on its right to a peaceful nuclear power program. The six parties had no sooner left Beijing than North Korea said it must receive light-water reactors - either the KEDO project or a replacement - before it will re-enter the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow U.N inspectors back into the country. The KEDO project was cobbled together in 1994 as the Clinton administration laid plans to go to war over North Korea's secret reprocessing of plutonium at a research reactor at Yongbyon. U.S. intelligence estimated North Korea had separated enough plutonium in 1993 for at least one or two nuclear weapons. As Clinton and his advisers watched in amazement and alarm, former President Carter flew to North Korea on an impromptu peace mission, and struck a deal with North Korean ruler Kim Il Sung: In exchange for abandoning nuclear weapons development and allowing International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, North Korea would receive 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually from the United States to meet its woeful energy shortage until it got the two light-water atomic power plants. They would be built and paid for primarily by South Korea and Japan, with some EU funding. Light-water reactors are more difficult to use for nuclear weapons production. The United States delivered the fuel oil shipments until 2002 but halted them when new suspicions arose that the North had embarked on a second, secret weapons development program by covertly enriching uranium. The Bush administration has been suspicious of North Korea's nuclear program since it took office in 2001. John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for disarmament and nonproliferation affairs, immediately launched a campaign to have the IAEA declare North Korea in violation of the treaty, former KEDO chief Charles Kartman told The Associated Press. The Bush administration was not united however. Kartman said he had been asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2001 to keep the KEDO program running in case it became useful to further negotiations with North Korea. The groundbreaking ceremony at Sinpo was in 2002 and construction on the reactors began. But Kartman regarded Powell's retirement in 2004 as the death knell for KEDO. The United States ended the fuel oil shipments in 2002 and prodded KEDO to agree to freeze construction of the light-water reactors in December 2003. North Korea retaliated by pulling out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and barring U.N. inspectors. North Korea also said it had pulled 8,000 spent plutonium fuel rods from its Yongbyon research reactor and later announced it had reprocessed them for weapons material, and had restarted the reactor. A 2002 Congressional Research Service report said the reactor could annually produce enough plutonium for one bomb, and the CIA said in 2002 the spent-fuel rods contained enough plutonium for several more nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, now with Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, decided to renew efforts to negotiate a new energy-for-disarmament deal. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Birt reported to be seeking £300,000 nuclear power job Whitehall David Hencke, Westminster correspondent Monday September 26, 2005 The Guardian John Birt, the prime minister's unpaid adviser, is reportedly seeking a £300,000 a year job as head of one of the world's biggest uranium enrichment companies. The Anglo-Dutch-German company Urenco owns one of Britain's nuclear enrichment research plants in Capenhurst, Cheshire, and is bidding for a licence to open a nuclear enrichment plant in the US. Lord Birt appears to have applied to become chairman of Urenco after leaving his paid post with management consultants McKinsey. This followed suggestions that he could be perceived to have a conflict of interest because a number of its consultants were advising ministers, particularly after one consultant, David Bennett, became chief policy adviser to Tony Blair. Lord Birt, who is known to support the controversial policy of expanding nuclear power, would join the company at a crucial time. His position in government has been controversial ever since he left the BBC, where his costcutting made him unpopular with many staff. He always keeps his advice to the prime minister confidential, but it has been known to upset senior civil servants, particularly in the Home Office and the Department for Transport, where he made a number of controversial proposals. These included policies on defeating crime by actively targeting the worst 100,000 criminals in Britain and backing a private high-speed rail link from London to Edinburgh. Urenco is seeking a bigger role for nuclear power now that oil and other fossil fuels are beginning to run out and there are growing concerns about global warming. It already has nearly 20% of the world market and if it gets a licence to build a US plant it will be a big player in supplying uranium in America. The company is also at the forefront of the technology used to enrich uranium and has a stake in an energy company in Louisiana. Part of the state-owned assets of the company is due to be privatised, which could bring a windfall for its six directors. The directors' package already includes performance bonuses, which can be worth up to half their salaries, a final salary pensions scheme, private health insurance and a company car. Downing Street yesterday denied reports in the Mail on Sunday that the prime minister was pushing Lord Birt for the job to replace the present British chairman, Neville Chamberlain. A spokeswoman said she was "unaware of the application". The Cabinet Office said it was up to the company to comment on the application but there was no one available at Urenco's British headquarters in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, to discuss it. Lord Birt never confirms or denies any story written about him. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 28 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria-Nabbed A-bomb Material "Linked to Al-Qaeda" Politics: 26 September 2005, Monday. The potentially lethal nuclear enrichment material that Bulgarian customs prevented from crossing into Romania is linked to Iran's nuclear quest, the Sunday Herald reported, citing Romanian sources. "The sources could not give the intended final destination of the consignment, but the "working hypothesis" of Balkan police forces is that "it is linked to Iran's nuclear quest". Then again, there are always al-Qaeda armourers keen to buy dirty bomb material." According to the reports an Arab-dominated Bucharest mafia was the inter mediary in the hafnium deal. A week ago Bulgaria's police in the northeastern Danube city Russe nabbed 3.5kg of hafnium, a material that could be used in the manufacture of radioactive "dirty bombs". The article raises a number of questions over the releasing of the smuggler's Romanian companions after the Bulgarian driver of the smugglers' car admitted that the hafnium consignment was his property. "The sudden and unconditional freeing of the smuggler's Romanian companions raises justifiable fears about the financial clout of the mafias apparently involved, and the legendary corruptibility of Balkan police forces. Bulgaria, like Romania, is hoping to join the EU in 2007, but corruption is seen as one of the main stumbling blocks in its path." novinite.com All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2005 - Copyright ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC Proposes $19,200 Fine Against a South Bend, Ind., Hospital for Unintended Radiation Doses to Five Patients News Release - Region III - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-039 September 26, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov fine against St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in South Bend, Ind., for unintended radiation doses to several patients undergoing radiation therapy last year. The patients received the radiation exposures to their legs during treatment for cervical cancer. The unintended exposures occurred when a small sealed capsule containing a radiation source shifted during treatment, resulting in the unintended radiation doses to the skin of each patients leg. The capsule with a radiation source shifted because it was not the appropriate size for the treatment device. The radiation doses resulted in injury to a small area of three patients skin requiring followup treatment. Radiation doses received by two other patients did not cause visible injuries and did not require special treatment. The NRC conducted two special inspections that reviewed the causes and the circumstances around these incidents and the hospitals response. The NRC also retained an independent medical consultant to evaluate the radiation doses to the patients. NRC inspectors identified violations of NRC requirements that included the unintended radiation doses; failure to develop proper procedures and to train hospital staff in the procedures and requirements; failure to report the unintended radiation doses promptly after discovery; and failure to ensure that radiation safety activities were performed in accordance with procedures and regulatory requirements. The NRCs regulations are designed to protect public health and safety. We expect our license holders to adhere to these regulations to avoid situations such as this one, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The hospital implemented immediate and extensive improvements to address the causes of the treatment problem and to enhance their radiation therapy program. The unintended radiation doses to the five patients occurred under very specific circumstances that have since been corrected, said Caldwell. Our inspectors have reviewed the hospitals enhanced radiation therapy program and found it to be in compliance with NRC requirements, he added. The hospital has until Oct. 24 to either pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the hospital may request a hearing. The letter notifying St. Joseph Regional Medical Center of the proposed fine has been posted to the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html #materials. Last revised Monday, September 26, 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 Bellona: Expedition examining potentially dangerous objects in Kara Sea The scientific expedition on board Professor Shtokman research ship left Arkhangelsk on September 8 in order to examine the zones with potentially dangerous objects in the Kara Sea near Novaya Zemlya archipelago. 2005-09-26 08:33 In particular, the members of the expedition will confirm or disprove the data about the places where after the second world war chemical weapon, radioactive waste, parts of the submarines and nuclear icebreakers were sunk. During the 23 days expedition the scientists should examine, evaluate the state of the objects and make the forecast for the nearest years, Interfax reported. The research ship Professor Shtokman is well equipped and allows to conduct research in many various ways: geolocation, electrochemical (measurement of salinity, oxygen and hydrogen content etc.), magnetometric. The tests of the water and sediments will be taken for further examination. The analysis on the sites will be carried out with the help of probes. The reports will be handed over to the Russian Emergency Ministry in order to issue a registry of the underwater potentially dangerous objects. 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 ***************************************************************** 31 Tucson Citizen: Researchers looking for ways to screen radiation victims www.tucsoncitizen.com Sept. 26, 2005 The Associated Press PHOENIX - Two Phoenix-area research organizations have won federal grants to develop devices that can quickly screen possible radiation victims in case of terrorist attacks. The grants put Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute and the Translational Genomics Research Institute into a consortium that also includes Columbia and Harvard universities. Columbia will lead the consortium, to be called the Center for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiation, which is intended to come up with ways to spare Americans from the effects of "dirty bombs" or other attacks involving radioactive materials. The results also could be applied more broadly, being used to monitor patients' exposure to X-rays or even astronauts' exposure to radiation in space. Current methods for screening people for radiation exposure can test only a few hundred people a day, while tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people might need screening if radiation were unleashed on a U.S. city. That would mean big delays in identifying and treating people exposed to high dosages. ASU researchers hope to come up with testing devices that would be simple, affordable and effective. "The ultimate goal is you could have a kit in every home," said Frederic Zenhausern, director of the Biodesign Institute's Center for Applied NanoBioscience. "When you get the alarm, you could use it to see if you were exposed." The Translational Genomics Research Institute, also known as TGen, is getting $3 million over five years for its part of the research. President Jeffrey Trent and senior investigator Michael Bittner of the Phoenix-based institute will use mathematical tools to help identify genes that respond to radiation, both immediately and in the longer term. Zenhausern's center is getting $5.9 million over five years to develop the devices to the point where they can be mass-produced. On the Net: TGen: www.tgen.org ASU Biodesign Institute: www.asu.edu/biodesign www.tucsoncitizen.com | Copyright © 2005 Tucson Citizen, ***************************************************************** 32 BBC: Dounreay hit by radioactive spill Last Updated: Monday, 26 September 2005 [Dounreay Nuclear Power Plant] The Caithness site is in the process of being decommissioned Part of the Dounreay nuclear site in Caithness has been shut down after a radioactive spill. A treatment plant was closed after an alert involving a batch of hazardous, dissolved spent fuel. Officials said nobody had been harmed, or exposed to radioactive waste, as a result of the problem in the cementation area. It happened during decommissioning work at the complex, which is run by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The liquid, which is kept in underground tanks, is pumped to the area, where it is mixed with cement then stored in 500-litre drums. The work is done by robot but early on Monday morning, 266 litres of radioactive material and 300 kgs of cement were spilled. The material has solidified onto the floor of a treatment cell. The authority said the spill was "contained within the cell", but admitted it was a "setback" to the 30-year decommissioning programme. All the radiation is contain within the cell and there was no danger to any individual as the walls are about 4ft thick and work is done robotically Dounreay spokesman The unit at the centre of the alert plays a key role in the operation to clear Dounreay of radioactive material. A Dounreay spokesman said: "An alarm was activated and the operators became aware of a problem. "The plant has been shut down and our people are investigating what action we can take. "All the radiation is contained within the cell and there was no danger to any individual as the walls are about 4ft thick and work is done robotically." 'No immediate implications' A Health and Safety Executive spokesman said: "On the basis of what we know, there are no immediate safety implications either for the workers, the public or the environment. "Our Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) will go to the site next week." The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) have also been alerted. The latest problem came only days after managers were served with an enforcement order, after breaking rules which allowed the disposal of radioactive waste. ***************************************************************** 33 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Shining a light on nuke dump Today: September 26, 2005 at 10:20:57 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN The state of Nevada has won a victory in its efforts to get the U.S. Energy Department to release a draft license application to build a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel has ruled that the Energy Department can no longer keep secret the 5,800-page draft application. Although it's not the final document that will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, lawyers for Nevada say it will be extraordinarily helpful once the state receives it because the draft application will reveal what direction the Energy Department will be taking in trying to get the dump approved. The Energy Department has vigorously fought attempts by state officials and Nevada's congressional delegation as they tried to get a copy of the draft application, with Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., likening it to "pulling teeth." The reason for the Energy Department's stonewalling is simple: It wants to steamroll its application through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the regulatory agency that will have the final say on Yucca Mountain -- without giving Nevada officials enough time to raise substantive scientific objections to the proposed dump. There have been serious questions raised about the project, including the danger of shipping nuclear waste thousands of miles cross-country to burying it in a seismically active location, where concerns have been raised that the 77,000 tons of nuclear waste planned for the dump might leak into the environment . The desperate attempt by the Energy Department to keep such important information from seeing the light of day is proof that the agency is worried about the viability of the Yucca Mountain project, which recently has been beset by regulatory and legal setbacks. Why, otherwise, would it be so afraid to let the public take a look at its draft application to open a nuclear waste dump? All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse waste slated for tribal site Article published Monday, September 26, 2005 By BLADE STAFF WRITER Spent reactor fuel from the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Ottawa County could be en route to tribal land in Utah within three years if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent authorization of a storage license stands up in court. In a 3-1 vote, a majority of NRC commissioners ordered the agency's staff to prepare a license for Private Fuel Storage LLC to build and operate a storage facility on a reservation owned by the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. In so doing, the NRC's top brass rejected Utah's argument that the public stands an unreasonable risk of being exposed to radiation by up to 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel that could be stored in bunkers on the reservation for up to 40 years. Though Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman vows to challenge the NRC's decision in a federal appeals court, Private Fuel Storage believes it has won a big battle in its quest to help utilities get spent fuel off their nuclear complexes. The decision also opens the possibility of having other nuclear plants east of Toledo put their highly radioactive waste on the Ohio Turnpike sooner than anticipated. Private Fuel Storage is an eight-utility consortium to which FirstEnergy Corp. belongs. Although those eight utilities have funded the consortium since it was formed in the fall of 1996, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be the first in line to send their waste to the West, said Sue Martin, a Private Fuel Storage spokesman. The group will court other utilities as well. "The next thing we have to do is market the facility. We have to round up enough customers to make the project viable," she said. Richard Wilkins, a FirstEnergy spokesman, called it a contingency move for Davis-Besse and other nuclear plants the utility owns. Davis-Besse, which was opened in 1977, is the nuclear plant under FirstEnergy's corporate umbrella that is most pressed for space. The utility's predecessor, Toledo Edison Co., spent $5 million in the mid-1990s to remove some of the decaying fuel assemblies in Davis-Besse's spent fuel pool. They were encapsulated outdoors in storage bunkers and put under 24-hour surveillance. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates 78 of the nation's 103 nuclear plants could fill their spent fuel pools by the end of the decade, forcing them to either move waste or shut down. Detroit Edison Co.'s Fermi II nuclear plant in northern Monroe County is a decade younger than Davis-Besse and says it has enough room in its spent fuel pool to continue putting waste there until 2010. On a national scale, the space crunch has evolved into something the government didn't want to see happen: Decentralized storage of the only material in civilian hands that's classified as high-level radioactive waste. Questions about what to do with tons of decaying fuel from the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors have long been one of the greatest impediments for an industry that wants to expand. The government was supposed to start accepting the waste at a single repository by Jan. 31, 1998. The U.S. Department of Energy for years has focused on Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a dry and isolated area between Las Vegas and California's Death Valley. As part of the government's Nevada Test Site once used to test nuclear bombs, Yucca Mountain remains under military control. Utilities, frustrated over the research and development pace at Yucca Mountain, got restless. A lease that the consortium privately negotiated with the Skull Valley Goshute Indian tribe in Utah calls for use of their domestic sovereign land at an undisclosed price. The license to be issued by the NRC will be valid for 20 years, with an option for a 20-year extension. Private Fuel Storage has just about everything in place except for final approval on the proposed lease from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and authorization from the Bureau of Land Management for a 32-mile rail spur, Ms. Martin said. The consortium would like to start construction within a year and have the facility operating in 2008, she said. In addition to Utah politicians, it will face opposition from residents and environmental groups. Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy program, called the consortium's effort an "unnecessary, irresponsible, and unethical proposal." The Goshute reservation is 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, but only 11 miles from one of the nation's largest military test and bombing ranges where pilots at Hill Air Force Base are trained to fly F-16 fighter jets. Opponents claim the possibility of jets crashing into the concrete-and-steel bunkers poses an unacceptable risk of radiation exposure to the public. The site will be allowed to hold up to 4,000 such vaults, each holding an individual canister of spent reactor fuel. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Stand against waste - Opinion Article Last Updated: 09/25/2005 10:46:20 PM Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and his staff will be using every legal means possible to try and stop Private Fuel Storage's attempts to bring plutonium rods to the Goshute Reservation in Skull Valley. Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch must join with Gov. Huntsman to find a way to halt the placement of the storage facility in Utah. There is nothing safe about storing plutonium in above-ground casks which could become terrorist targets. Just because the current testing to try and blow up these casks has not damaged them does not mean that terrorists don't already have the means to do the job. These plutonium rods will travel by rail and can contaminate and kill anything in their path in our cities, rural farmlands or wilderness areas that are adjacent to picturesque towns. This site is so close to densely populated Salt Lake City that it would have devastating consequences for the entire community should any type of terrorist attack, leak or accident occur on-site. And remember that none of the nuclear waste that would be stored at this facility was generated in Utah. Because there may never be any storage at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, we must all be willing to join together now and speak out about this dangerous proposal before Utah becomes the nation's repository for nuclear waste. Diane Mellen Park City © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 36 [southnews] Vatican Calls for End to All Nuclear Weapons Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:52:52 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. http://us.click.yahoo.com/ons1pC/lbOLAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Ending nuclear weapon testing should be aim of every state, says Vatican's U.N. representative Vatican City, Sep. 23, 2005 (CNA) - Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations is currently in New York for the U.N. conference: "Facilitating the Entry-into-Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)," at which, he told participants yesterday that states must clear the way to ending "forever the testing of nuclear weapons." In his address, the Archbishop pointed that, at the last CTBT meeting in 2003, "168 States had signed and 104 States had ratified the treaty. Today ... 176 States have signed and 125 have ratified. It is clear that the treaty is growing in impact. The growth of the CTBT shows that the great majority of States wants to move toward a nuclear weapons-free world." He said that "The goal of the CTBT - to put an end forever to the testing of nuclear weapons - should be the aim of every State. ... Yet the movement to CTBT entry-into-force is impeded by the lack of universality. "The Holy See", he said, "adds its voice in appealing to the States whose ratification is necessary for the entry-into-force of the treaty." The Archbishop pointed out that next year will mark the tenth anniversary of the CTBT. He also recalled that the 2003 conference had reaffirmed the importance of implementing the treaty which favors systematic efforts toward nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. "However," he lamented, "the persisting blockage impedes progress of the world community." "Nuclear deterrence, as an ongoing reality after the Cold War, becomes more and more untenable even if it were in the name of collective security," he said. "Indeed, it is threatening the existence of peoples in several parts of the world and it may end up being used as a convenient pretext in building up nuclear capacity." The response to these "growing dangers," the U.N. observer said, is to increase "our resolve to build a body of international law to sustain a nuclear weapons-free world. The CTBT, once in effect, would be a pillar of international law." "Courage and vision", he stressed, "are required to move forward. Although the century opened with a burst of global terrorism, this threat must not be allowed to dilute the precepts of international humanitarian law, which is founded on the key principles of limitation and proportionality." The conference is being held in New York City from September 21st to the 23rd. Ending nuclear weapon testing should be aim of every state, says Vatican's U.N. representative The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 37 DenverPost.com: Better late than never at Flats OPINION Article Launched: 09/26/2005 01:00:00 AM We're not sure why there was any hesitation in the first place, but the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has stepped up to the plate by agreeing to clean up 13 radioactive "hot spots" at Rocky Flats. Few places at Rocky Flats more harshly symbolize the site's sorry environmental history than the area known as the 903 pad. Starting in the 1950s, government contractors buried barrels of radioactive chemical wastes near the concrete slab. The barrels oozed toxins into the ground before the government dug them up but left contaminated soil in place. As Rocky Flats has been cleansed, mopping up the 903 pad mess was a key goal. The DOE's lead contractor, Kaiser-Hill, believed it had removed the contamination enough to meet appropriate standards. But the government hired another consultant to verify the results, and Tennessee-based Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education found the hot spots this summer. Initially, the DOE seemed to balk at taking remedial action. There was a dispute about whether Oak Ridge had used the proper method for testing contamination, but the department's first reaction looked like bureaucratic quibbling. The government had embraced Oak Ridge's earlier reports that supported the statistical sampling methods used to test for contamination. The DOE looked hypocritical for praising Oak Ridge when it produced favorable results and criticizing it when the reports were less optimistic. More was at stake than a dispute among engineers and cleanup specialists. The issue became a test of the government's trustworthiness. A 2003 pact the DOE signed with cities and counties near Rocky Flats said soils at the site should be left with no more than 50 picocuries per gram of radioactivity, but the 903 pad's hot spots registered as high as 400. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said discovery of the hot spots "raises several concerns, the foremost being whether the site has been sufficiently cleaned up." Independent sources close to the situation say Allard's reaction was key in making the DOE agree to clean up the mess. Department officials say they intend to clean up any problems uncovered in the future. Fulfilling that pledge will be crucial to maintaining the trust surround Rocky Flats. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 38 lamonitor.com: Nuclear weapons talk Tuesday The Online News Source for Los Alamos The public is invited to attend a talk on "Nuclear Weapons and the United States" by John L. Richter, a former technical staff member and manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Richter, who is widely recognized for his broad background in nuclear weapons design, has also served nationally as an advisor and technical expert. The program will be given at a meeting of the Los Alamos Committee on Arms Control and International Security at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in Room 115 at the United Church's Christian Education Building. The presentation will following a brief business meeting at 7 p.m. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Paducah Sun: Losing Time--DOE still stalling cleanup work Paducah, Kentucky Sunday, September 25, 2005 For the bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Energy, time is a very elastic concept. The agency began reconsidering a ban on recycling contaminated scrap metal at nuclear facilities more than three years ago. Last month, a DOE official visiting the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant said the agency still had not established a time frame for deciding whether to lift the ban. In the world of DOE, a time frame could last for years, perhaps even decades. The Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization, which was created by DOE to help the region recover from job losses associated with the privatization of the uranium enrichment industry, has been counting on the recycling of radioactive nickel and other metals at the gaseous diffusion plant site to bolster its economic mission. An American subsidiary of a Canadian company wants to build a factory to recycle radioactive nickel at the Paducah plant. The company began negotiating with PACRO officials several years ago. A recycling operation would create at least 50 jobs and generate millions of dollars in sales. Local officials contemplating the eventual loss of 1,000 jobs when the gaseous diffusion plant shuts down understandably are eager to cultivate alternative uses for the huge DOE installation. With USEC Inc. planning to end production at the Paducah plant by 2011, local officials' job replacement efforts are gaining urgency with each passing day. The proposed nickel recycling plant wouldn't be a major source of jobs, but it would help the community move toward a new era in nuclear-related industrial activity. The federal energy bureaucracy is a large obstacle to the redevelopment of the gaseous diffusion plant site. Officials at DOE clearly are in no hurry to help Paducah or to remove contaminated material from the plant. In the late 1980s, DOE began studying and categorizing contaminated waste at the plant. A decade passed before the agency removed a single barrel of waste. U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and 1st District Congressman Ed Whitfield fought for five years to get DOE to comply with a congressional mandate on building a facility in Paducah to convert depleted uranium into a safer form for disposal or reuse. The DOE ban on recycling scrap metal resulted from political jockeying by the Clinton administration to win favor with environmentalists and other Democratic Party constituencies. A trumped-up scare about contaminated metal winding up in children's braces was used to justify the ban, which had no basis in empirical data. Studies showed that the decontamination process reduced radioactivity in the recycled nickel below background radiation levels. The president of the company interested in building a plant in Paducah says lab tests prove the company's recycling process can remove all traces of radioactive isotopes from the metal. But an unimpressed DOE is still studying the decontamination issue. Local officials saw a light at the end of the tunnel when DOE included metal recycling in the scope of its plant cleanup work. It's a logical assumption that the agency eventually will lift the politically motivated ban, given that a Republican administration is calling the shots in the executive branch of the federal government. But who knows how much time will pass before DOE takes action. The Paducah area is trapped in DOE's bureaucratic time zone, which is years behind even the normal pace of government work. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************