*****************************************************************
09/28/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.225
*****************************************************************
   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 The unravelling of India's Persian puzzle
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Angry at India's Vote for U.N. Action
3 BBC: UK rules out Iran military action
4 NewsFromRussia.Com: Iran might agree to suspend nuclear cooperation 
5 Xinhua: No signal from Iran on review of trade ties - Indian officia
6 IRNA: No indication from Iran that it would review ties - India
7 Asia Times: The high price of hounding Iran
8 Guardian Unlimited: Military action against Iran 'inconceivable', 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Britain: Military Action Vs. Iran Is Out
10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Uranium Enrichment
11 Korea Herald: Nuclear facilities, capacities in North Korea 
12 Korea Herald: Nuclear facilities, capacities in North Korea 
13 Scoop: DPRK's Stand on Nuclear Issue Reiterated
14 [DU-WATCH] Canada Secretly Makes Nuclear Triggers
15 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Ambassador Bolton Says Reforms Begun
16 HindustanTimes.com: After vote, India seeks lifting of nuke bans
17 Bahrain News Agency: Saudi Arabia on nuclear deployment prevention 
18 Guardian Unlimited: MoD shuns Trident debate
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
19 US: NRC: RC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet Oct. 6-
20 US: Deseret News: N-economy must begin now
21 Bellona: Russian energy resources underestimated8
22 RIA Novosti - Opinion: Russian nuclear industry turns sixty
23 RIA Novosti: Survey: two-thirds of Russians in favor of nuclear 
24 Platts: Blair says UK needs to consider building new nuclear power p
25 NewsFromRussia.Com: Ukraine found radioactive material believed
26 FT.com: Decision on UK nuclear power by end of 2006
27 Independent: British Energy calls on Blair to give nuclear go-ahead 
28 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Group wants justices out of utility case
29 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Sale of Iowa's only nuclear power plant i
30 Mos News: New Evidence Found in Chernobyl Fuel Theft Case - 
31 US: NRC: General Electric Company; Notice of Receipt of Application 
32 Asia Times: Payback time
33 US: York Daily Record: ENERGY: GE to upgrade PPL plants - 
34 News & Star: Blair makes nuclear pledge
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
35 NewsFromRussia.Com Illegal trading of nuclear materials concerns UN 
36 Korea Times: US Uranium Exported to Korea Missing 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
37 [NYTr] DU tests to be offered to US troops returning from Iraq
38 [DU-WATCH] 198 March Photos; Galloway Tour Finale; DU exhibit
39 [du-list] Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A
40 US: [NukeNet] NRC Senior official says PA kids not protected
41 [du-list] Depleted uranium tests for US troops returning from
42 [DU-WATCH] World full of Fear
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
43 [NukeNet] Japanese uranium contaminated soil
44 [DU-WATCH] Bertell on Canadian Reactor Fuel Enrichment
45 [DU-WATCH] Uranium Enrichment in Canada
46 US: AU ABC: ERA to plead guilty to Ranger injury charge
47 reviewjournal.com: EPA extends comment on Yucca safety
48 US: Dow Jones: AUSTRALIA WATCH: Hawke Comments Heat Up Uranium Debat
49 BBC: Australia could be 'nuclear dump'
50 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files opposition to Yucca rail corridor 
51 Japan Times: France proposes joint use of Monju
52 UK: News & Star: Nuclear mentors help trainees
53 Business Weekly: TWI solves Sweden’s nuclear dilemma
54 Guardian Unlimited: Store world's nuclear waste here, says ex-pm
 
                           PEACE
 
55 Times of Oman: Egypt calls for N-free Middle East   
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
56 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact
57 DOE: Environmental Impact Statement: Site Selection for the Expansio
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 The unravelling of India's Persian puzzle
 
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:15:34 -0500 (CDT)

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/09/27/stories/2005092703011000.htm

Online edition of India's National Newspaper 
The Hindu  Tuesday, Sep 27, 2005 
	by Siddharth Varadarajan

By voting against Iran in the IAEA, India has put its alliance with the
United States above any concern of national interest, energy security or
international law.

FOR ALL its pretensions to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council, India on Saturday flunked its first real test as a rising world
power. Where no less than 11 countries smaller and less powerful than us
-- Venezuela, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Yemen -- had the courage and good sense
to join Russia and China in refusing to endorse the U.S.-backed agenda of
confrontation with Iran, India threw in its lot with Washington and the
European troika.

Scared by a well-choreographed bout of shadow boxing at the start of
Congressional hearings on the July 18 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the Manmohan
Singh Government convinced itself that it had to side with Washington's
unreasonable pressure on Iran. In doing so, the Government has betrayed
its own lack of strategic confidence -- this at a time when the fine print
of the nuclear deal is about to be negotiated and the slightest sign of
diplomatic weakness will be used by Washington to push the envelope on
issues like the scope of international safeguards and inspections India
must accept in order to see the July 18 agreement through.

Moreover, the Government has chosen to go along with a confrontationist
move against Iran, which undercuts a key legal argument India has been
making for 50 years -- that countries can only be held to account for
international agreements they sign. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) gives Iran the right to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle subject to
safeguards. It gives Iran the right to build a heavy water reactor. The
Additional Protocol Iran has signed specifies the kind of intrusive
inspections it must allow. But the International Atomic Energy Agency
resolution India voted for makes demands that go far, far beyond Iran's
legal obligations. This is a dangerous precedent for India to agree to
since this means the safeguards agreement and additional protocol it has
committed to sign with the IAEA also one day need not be the final word on
its legal obligations.

The vote India cast in the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG) was in favour of
a resolution finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its safeguards
obligations under the NPT and expressing "the absence of confidence that
Iran's nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful purposes." The finding
is under two Articles, XII and III, of the IAEA Statute, both of which
mandate referral of the matter to the Security Council. Unlike the
referral under Article XII.C, which is more of a procedural nature, the
referral under III.B.4 invokes the Security Council's responsibilities for
maintaining international peace and security and holds out a thinly veiled
threat of sanctions and other punitive measures.

In what is supposed to be a major "compromise," Britain, France, and
Germany (the E-3) dropped earlier language stipulating that the referral
to the Security Council should be immediate. The timing of this referral
has been left to a future BoG meeting, presumably the one that will be
convened in November. The Indian Government, in justifying its decision to
back the resolution, has cited this two-step approach as a big concession.
Indian officials claim this delay provides the time and space needed for
dialogue and diplomacy to work, a claim of extraordinary naivety and even
double-speak. First, Saturday's resolution is more likely to close the
door on dialogue than re-open it since it demands Iran surrender even more
of its rights under the NPT than ever before. Secondly, the U.S. itself
did not necessarily want an immediate referral because there is little
practical significance to dragging Iran before the UNSC where China and
Russia would exercise their veto. What it really wanted was for the
international community to recognise Iran's civilian nuclear energy
programme as a threat to international peace and security requiring
potentially endless "special verification" inspections, which go far
beyond that required under the normal safeguards agreement and Additional
Protocol. Armed with this broad endorsement, Washington can now choose the
time and place for the political -- and even military -- escalation that
is surely in the offing.

Given the composition of the BoG, securing a majority had never been an
issue for the U.S. and its allies. But in the absence of consensus, which
was an impossibility anyway, engineering India's defection from the ranks
of the developing countries was crucial. The U.S. needed to undercut the
charge that the West was ganging up on the Third World in denying Iran the
right to nuclear fuel cycle-related facilities. Winning over Ecuador,
Peru, Ghana, and Singapore was not good enough since these are not
countries known for the independence of their foreign policy. The U.S.
needed India to provide a cover of credibility for the unreasonable
indictment against Iran and the Manmohan Singh Government happily went
along. That is why U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has hailed
India's vote as "a blow to Iran's attempt to turn this into a developed
world versus developing world debate."

Of all the demands the IAEA resolution makes, three are highly problematic
and ultra vires. First, it says Iran must implement "transparency measures
.. which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards
Agreement and Additional Protocol." Calling Iran a "special verification
case," the BoG said this requires an expansion in the "limited" legal
authority of the IAEA to conduct inspections. Specifically, this must
include "access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement,
dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and
development locations." In this way, the road has been cleared for an
Inspection Raj of the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC type, which, even after physically
checking every possible location in Iraq several times over, never had the
ability to say Baghdad possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The
resolution's demand for access to individuals is also quite rich,
considering that the source of the technology Iran is suspected of
possessing -- A.Q. Khan -- is sitting pretty in Pakistan, beyond the reach
of IAEA inspectors.

Secondly, Iran has been told to resume the suspension of
enrichment-related and reprocessing activity. Unlike all previous
resolutions of the BoG, which called on Iran to suspend its enrichment,
this resolution makes no explicit mention of the voluntary, non-legally
binding nature of Iran's commitment to suspend those activities. By this
subtle act of elision, a voluntary, non-legally binding undertaking is
being elevated to the status of a legally binding commitment. Thirdly, the
resolution says Iran must "reconsider the construction of a research
reactor moderated by heavy water." This is a new and illegal demand that
did not figure in the last resolution passed by the BoG on August 11,
2005, and represents a further shift of the goalpost.

The irony of the Indian capitulation on Iran is that its display of
political weakness comes at a time when the U.S. has finally become aware
of India's strategic weight and significance and is attempting desperately
to harness these for its own ends. When President George W. Bush offered
Dr. Manmohan Singh full civilian nuclear cooperation, he did so in full
knowledge that India has tended to side with the rest of the developing
world on the question of Iran. Either his decision to support India's
nuclear industry was taken independently of the Iran equation or it was
conditional on New Delhi ditching Teheran both as a source of energy
security and as a conduit for the integration of India and Central Asia.
If the former is the case, the Manmohan Singh Government had nothing to
fear from sticking to its earlier stand of "consensus" in the IAEA BoG.
And if it was the latter, then surely this amounts to a hidden -- and
onerous -- cost India is now being forced to pay in order to see the
nuclear deal through.

Any deal or partnership that hangs on such a slender thread, which
attempts forcibly to rewrite India's strategic equations, and undermines
the country's strategic autonomy cannot possibly be in the national
interest. Nuclear power of the kind that might flow from this deal will
never be a substitute for hydrocarbons in the medium-term. Even in the
long-term, India will depend on gas imports from Iran and Central Asia,
preferably via pipeline.

If not today, then five years from now, the logic of India's economic
growth will compel a rewriting of the rules of international nuclear
commerce for the country -- this time not as a concession or favour from
the U.S. but as the product of objective market forces. By blackmailing
India into voting against Iran, the U.S. hopes to undermine Indo-Iranian
economic relations to such an extent that New Delhi becomes a stakeholder
in the drive for "regime change" there. How much the world has changed in
a year. A country that once condemned the invasion of Iraq and refused to
send its soldiers there is today in danger of becoming an accessory to the
strangulation and targeting of Iran.
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/09/27/stories/2005092703011000.htm

Online edition of India's National Newspaper The Hindu Tuesday, Sep 27,
2005 Google

The unravelling of India's Persian puzzle
	Siddharth Varadarajan

By voting against Iran in the IAEA, India has put its alliance with the
United States above any concern of national interest, energy security or
international law.

FOR ALL its pretensions to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council, India on Saturday flunked its first real test as a rising world
power. Where no less than 11 countries smaller and less powerful than us
-- Venezuela, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Yemen -- had the courage and good sense
to join Russia and China in refusing to endorse the U.S.-backed agenda of
confrontation with Iran, India threw in its lot with Washington and the
European troika.

Scared by a well-choreographed bout of shadow boxing at the start of
Congressional hearings on the July 18 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the Manmohan
Singh Government convinced itself that it had to side with Washington's
unreasonable pressure on Iran. In doing so, the Government has betrayed
its own lack of strategic confidence -- this at a time when the fine print
of the nuclear deal is about to be negotiated and the slightest sign of
diplomatic weakness will be used by Washington to push the envelope on
issues like the scope of international safeguards and inspections India
must accept in order to see the July 18 agreement through.

Moreover, the Government has chosen to go along with a confrontationist
move against Iran, which undercuts a key legal argument India has been
making for 50 years -- that countries can only be held to account for
international agreements they sign. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) gives Iran the right to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle subject to
safeguards. It gives Iran the right to build a heavy water reactor. The
Additional Protocol Iran has signed specifies the kind of intrusive
inspections it must allow. But the International Atomic Energy Agency
resolution India voted for makes demands that go far, far beyond Iran's
legal obligations. This is a dangerous precedent for India to agree to
since this means the safeguards agreement and additional protocol it has
committed to sign with the IAEA also one day need not be the final word on
its legal obligations.

The vote India cast in the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG) was in favour of
a resolution finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its safeguards
obligations under the NPT and expressing "the absence of confidence that
Iran's nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful purposes." The finding
is under two Articles, XII and III, of the IAEA Statute, both of which
mandate referral of the matter to the Security Council. Unlike the
referral under Article XII.C, which is more of a procedural nature, the
referral under III.B.4 invokes the Security Council's responsibilities for
maintaining international peace and security and holds out a thinly veiled
threat of sanctions and other punitive measures.

In what is supposed to be a major "compromise," Britain, France, and
Germany (the E-3) dropped earlier language stipulating that the referral
to the Security Council should be immediate. The timing of this referral
has been left to a future BoG meeting, presumably the one that will be
convened in November. The Indian Government, in justifying its decision to
back the resolution, has cited this two-step approach as a big concession.
Indian officials claim this delay provides the time and space needed for
dialogue and diplomacy to work, a claim of extraordinary naivety and even
double-speak. First, Saturday's resolution is more likely to close the
door on dialogue than re-open it since it demands Iran surrender even more
of its rights under the NPT than ever before. Secondly, the U.S. itself
did not necessarily want an immediate referral because there is little
practical significance to dragging Iran before the UNSC where China and
Russia would exercise their veto. What it really wanted was for the
international community to recognise Iran's civilian nuclear energy
programme as a threat to international peace and security requiring
potentially endless "special verification" inspections, which go far
beyond that required under the normal safeguards agreement and Additional
Protocol. Armed with this broad endorsement, Washington can now choose the
time and place for the political -- and even military -- escalation that
is surely in the offing.

Given the composition of the BoG, securing a majority had never been an
issue for the U.S. and its allies. But in the absence of consensus, which
was an impossibility anyway, engineering India's defection from the ranks
of the developing countries was crucial. The U.S. needed to undercut the
charge that the West was ganging up on the Third World in denying Iran the
right to nuclear fuel cycle-related facilities. Winning over Ecuador,
Peru, Ghana, and Singapore was not good enough since these are not
countries known for the independence of their foreign policy. The U.S.
needed India to provide a cover of credibility for the unreasonable
indictment against Iran and the Manmohan Singh Government happily went
along. That is why U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has hailed
India's vote as "a blow to Iran's attempt to turn this into a developed
world versus developing world debate."

Of all the demands the IAEA resolution makes, three are highly problematic
and ultra vires. First, it says Iran must implement "transparency measures
.. which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards
Agreement and Additional Protocol." Calling Iran a "special verification
case," the BoG said this requires an expansion in the "limited" legal
authority of the IAEA to conduct inspections. Specifically, this must
include "access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement,
dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and
development locations." In this way, the road has been cleared for an
Inspection Raj of the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC type, which, even after physically
checking every possible location in Iraq several times over, never had the
ability to say Baghdad possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The
resolution's demand for access to individuals is also quite rich,
considering that the source of the technology Iran is suspected of
possessing -- A.Q. Khan -- is sitting pretty in Pakistan, beyond the reach
of IAEA inspectors.

Secondly, Iran has been told to resume the suspension of
enrichment-related and reprocessing activity. Unlike all previous
resolutions of the BoG, which called on Iran to suspend its enrichment,
this resolution makes no explicit mention of the voluntary, non-legally
binding nature of Iran's commitment to suspend those activities. By this
subtle act of elision, a voluntary, non-legally binding undertaking is
being elevated to the status of a legally binding commitment. Thirdly, the
resolution says Iran must "reconsider the construction of a research
reactor moderated by heavy water." This is a new and illegal demand that
did not figure in the last resolution passed by the BoG on August 11,
2005, and represents a further shift of the goalpost.

The irony of the Indian capitulation on Iran is that its display of
political weakness comes at a time when the U.S. has finally become aware
of India's strategic weight and significance and is attempting desperately
to harness these for its own ends. When President George W. Bush offered
Dr. Manmohan Singh full civilian nuclear cooperation, he did so in full
knowledge that India has tended to side with the rest of the developing
world on the question of Iran. Either his decision to support India's
nuclear industry was taken independently of the Iran equation or it was
conditional on New Delhi ditching Teheran both as a source of energy
security and as a conduit for the integration of India and Central Asia.
If the former is the case, the Manmohan Singh Government had nothing to
fear from sticking to its earlier stand of "consensus" in the IAEA BoG.
And if it was the latter, then surely this amounts to a hidden -- and
onerous -- cost India is now being forced to pay in order to see the
nuclear deal through.

Any deal or partnership that hangs on such a slender thread, which
attempts forcibly to rewrite India's strategic equations, and undermines
the country's strategic autonomy cannot possibly be in the national
interest. Nuclear power of the kind that might flow from this deal will
never be a substitute for hydrocarbons in the medium-term. Even in the
long-term, India will depend on gas imports from Iran and Central Asia,
preferably via pipeline.

If not today, then five years from now, the logic of India's economic
growth will compel a rewriting of the rules of international nuclear
commerce for the country -- this time not as a concession or favour from
the U.S. but as the product of objective market forces. By blackmailing
India into voting against Iran, the U.S. hopes to undermine Indo-Iranian
economic relations to such an extent that New Delhi becomes a stakeholder
in the drive for "regime change" there. How much the world has changed in
a year. A country that once condemned the invasion of Iraq and refused to
send its soldiers there is today in danger of becoming an accessory to the
strangulation and targeting of Iran.
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Angry at India's Vote for U.N. Action
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 28, 2005 3:01 PM

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG 

Associated Press Writer 

NEW DELHI (AP) - Iran expressed disappointment at India's
support for the U.N. atomic agency's putting Tehran on notice
over its nuclear program, officials said Wednesday, amid reports
that a lucrative natural gas deal between the two countries
could be in doubt. 

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran held talks with Iranian
Ambassador Siyavash Zargar Yaghoubi on Tuesday, as Iran
threatened to review trade deals with countries that voted
against it at the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

In a surprise move, India angered Iran by joining the United
States, Britain, France, Germany and other nations in backing
the IAEA resolution on Saturday. The resolution called on the
agency to consider reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council
for allegedly not complying with the nuclear nonproliferation
treaty. 

The Indian foreign ministry said in a statement released
Wednesday that Saran had explained to Yaghoubi the reason for
India's decision. 

While the statement did not detail their conversation, Indian
officials have insisted its vote helped avert a confrontation
between Iran and the international community. 

Saran said earlier this week that India only sided with the
European countries after they agreed to water down the
resolution so as to delay referring Iran to the Security
Council. 

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told
reporters Tuesday that his country was considering reducing
trade with countries that voted in favor of the resolution -
particularly India. 

An Indian newspaper, The Hindu, reported Wednesday that Iran has
scrapped a $20 billion deal to export natural gas to India
because of the vote, saying the decision was conveyed to India's
permanent representative at the Vienna-based IAEA by Iran's
ambassador in Austria. 

But the office of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh denied the
report, calling it inaccurate, and the Indian foreign ministry
said it had received no such indication from Iran, although the
ambassadors of India and Iran to Austria had met. 

``We have been given no indication in these interactions of
Iran's intentions to review its long-standing and extensive
cooperation with India which is of benefit to and in the
interest of both countries,'' the ministry said in a statement. 

However, another Indian foreign ministry official, speaking
anonymously because of the sensitivity of the matter, said The
Hindu's report was ``not entirely inaccurate.'' He declined to
elaborate. 

At stake for India is a deal signed in June under which India
planned to import 5 million tons of liquefied natural gas
annually for 25 years with deliveries from Iran starting in
2009. India also plans to import gas through a pipeline from
Iran via Pakistan.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 BBC: UK rules out Iran military action
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 September 2005
 
[Jack Straw, surrounded by Iranian officials in London]                                 
Straw says an attack on Iran would not solve the problem                                                                 

The UK foreign secretary says military action is still
inconceivable against Iran and he hopes diplomacy can solve
deadlock over its nuclear programme. 

US President George W Bush has refused to rule out military
strikes against Iran, which Washington accuses of wanting to
develop nuclear weapons. 

"It is not on the agenda, I happen to think that it is
inconceivable," Jack Straw told BBC radio. 

Iran insists its nuclear activities are purely peaceful, to
produce fuel. 

Last week the United Nations nuclear watchdog passed a
resolution that took Iran a step closer to sanctions if it did
not ease suspicions about its intentions. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency resolution orders Iran to
suspend enrichment activities, stop building its heavy water
nuclear reactor and open up to inspections. 

Mr Straw said that European negotiators - with US backing - had
"left the door open for further diplomatic action with Iran and
I hope that they take this opportunity". 

Snap inspections 

Iran has rejected the IAEA vote, with its foreign minister
calling it "political, illegal and illogical". 

Tehran is threatening to cease application of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty's additional protocol, which allows
snap inspections of nuclear sites, if the IAEA reports Tehran to
the Security Council. 

A bill has been presented to the Iranian parliament aimed at
suspending implementation of the additional protocol until Iran
completes the nuclear fuel cycle. 

So far, parliament only voted to consider the bill as an urgent
piece of legislation and now it goes to several committees. 

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says it is not clear how
long the process will take, but if put to a vote in parliament
it is certain to be passed. 

Iran has signed - but not ratified - the additional protocol. 

Tehran recently restarted work on the early stages of uranium
enrichment. 

Such work had been suspended since November 2004 while talks
were held with the UK, France and Germany about its long-term
nuclear plans. 

Iran hid an uranium enrichment programme for 18 years until its
activities were exposed in 2002. 		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 4 NewsFromRussia.Com: Iran might agree to suspend nuclear cooperation 
with U.N.
 
 16:23 2005-09-28

 Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday agreed to urgently debate a bill
demanding that the government suspend cooperation over
inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog. 

If approved, the bill will oblige the government to suspend the
implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, which grants U.N. nuclear experts
unfettered inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities at short
notice, the AP informs. 

"The parliament intends to block the misuse of the Additional
Protocol," Speaker Golam Ali Haddad Adel said. 

The move by parliament is likely to place the government under
pressure to maintain, and even further harden, its stance on its
nuclear program. Iran insists that the program is for peaceful
purposes, but the United States suspects Iran's Islamic regime
is seeking nuclear arms capability. 

The additional protocol requires any signatory country to report
all its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy
Agency. It also obliges signatories to admit short-noticed
intrusive snap inspections of the facilities. 

On Saturday, an IAEA resolution put Iran on the verge of
referral to the U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases
suspicions about its nuclear activities. 

The resolution ordered Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol in
its parliament, suspend all uranium enrichment activities,
including uranium conversion, abandon the construction of a
heavy water nuclear reactor and grant access to certain
locations and documents. 

Iran threatened Tuesday to resume and block U.N. inspections of
its nuclear facilities unless the U.N. nuclear agency stepped
back from its resolution to refer the country to the Security
Council for possible sanctions. 

On Saturday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected the
resolution and said Iran was considering taking punitive
measures against the European Union troika that proposed the
resolution. 

T.E.

Pravda.RU   
*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: No signal from Iran on review of trade ties - Indian official   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-28 18:52:23   

    NEW DELHI, Sept. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- India Wednesday said that
it did not get any signal from Iran, suggesting review of
economic and trade ties in the wake of India openly siding with
US and voting in favor of the resolution on the Iranian nuclear
cooperation program at the IAEA. 

    "We have been given no indication in these interactions of
Iran's intentions to review its long-standing and extensive
cooperation with India which is of benefit to and in the
interest of both countries, Indian foreign office spokesperson,
Navtej Sarna said Wednesday while stating that India's foreign
secretary Shyam Saran Tuesday explained the background to
India's decision during a meeting with Iranian ambassador S Z
Yaghoubi. 

    Indian government's reaction came following reported remarks
of the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hamid Raza Asefi
Tuesday that Iran was very surprised by India, and it could
reconsider its economic cooperation, economic ties with the
different countries who have acted in this regard rather
hostile. 

    On reports that India's envoy in Vienna had been told by his
Iranian counterpart that the 21-billion dollar deal to supply
liquefied natural gas from Iran, from 2009, is off, the
spokesman said India was aware of the remarks. 

    Asefi also reportedly said Iran would send a letter of
objection to the countries that voted for the resolution. 

    However, Indian government contends that its decision to
support the resolution was aimed at averting a major
confrontation between Iran and the international community.
Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: No indication from Iran that it would review ties - India
 
New Delhi, Sept 28, IRNA                                                                                                                 

India-Iran-Nuclear 

With Iran threatening to reconsider its economic and trade ties 
with countries that voted against its nuclear program at the 
IAEA, India today said it had not been given any indication by 
Tehran it would review its longstanding cooperation with India 
which was in the interest of both countries, reports Press Trust 
of India.

 India's clarification came following reports that Iran had 
conveyed that the 21-billion-dollar deal to supply LNG was off 
following India voting in favor of the IAEA resolution.

 In response to questions, External Affairs Ministry Spokesman 
Navtej Sarna said Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had yesterday 
explained the background of India's decision during a meeting 
with Iranian Ambassador S.Z. Yaghoubi.

 "The importance which India attaches to maintaining 
traditionally close relations with Iran has also been 
reiterated," he said.

 "We have been given no indication in these interactions of 
Iran's intentions to review its longstanding and extensive 
cooperation with India which is of benefit to and in the interest 
of both countries," Sarna said.

 On reports that India's envoy in Vienna had been told by his 
Iranian counterpart that the LNG deal, under which supplies were 
slated to start in 2009, is off, the spokesman said: "we are 
aware of the remarks." 

He said: "We have also seen remarks made by the Iranian spokesman 
concerning economic cooperation with countries that had voted in 
favor of the resolution on the Iranian nuclear program at the 
IAEA." "We were very surprised by India," Iranian Foreign 
Ministry Spokesman Hamid Raza Asefi stated in Tehran.

 He said "We will reconsider our economic cooperation, economic 
ties with the different countries who have acted in this regard 
rather hostile," adding that Iran would send a letter of 
objection to the countries that voted for the resolution.

 New Delhi has contended that India's decision to support the 
resolution was aimed at averting a major confrontation between 
Iran and the international community.

*****************************************************************
 7 Asia Times: The high price of hounding Iran

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi 

The Middle East powder keg is now one step closer to explosion
as a result of the impending showdown at the United Nations and
beyond between Iran and its nuclear detractors, given the latest
resolution of the UN atomic agency finding Iran in breach of its
obligations and non-compliance. But the real question is, can
this lead to anything but a lose-lose situation? 

A clue to the inverted, Orwellian universe in which we live:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spokeswoman Melisa
Fleming has tried to put a positive spin on the said resolution
decried by Iran as "unfair" and "political", by saying that it
has "opened a new window of opportunity" for Tehran. 

Yet, from Iran's vantage point, the only window opened by the 
tough IAEA stance, ignoring the positive developments in 
Iran-IAEA cooperation of the past couple of years, is the window 
to the inferno of sanctions and international isolation or, 
alternatively, coerced submission to the will of Western nuclear 
haves too immersed in this bifurcated worldview to respect Iran's 
right to nuclear technology. 

The European Three (EU-3 - France, Germany and Britain) have by
all indications prioritized their transatlantic ties with the US
over their relations with Iran, trying to outdo each other in
appeasing the US in its unilateral march toward anti-Iran
sanctions at the UN. 

This is precisely where the word "multilateralism" begins to
lose some of its luster, seeing how the collapse of European
diplomacy in the cesspool of unilateralism is nicely covered by
the make-believe concerns of top European diplomats over the
fate of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

Make no mistake, Europe is fizzling apart and the panacea of
anti-Iranianism throwing them into the US's bosom can hardly
suffice to glue its structural rifts. For what else can explain
the French turnabout, from a few months ago when President
Jacques Chirac, in a meeting with Iran's nuclear negotiator,
Hassan Rowhani, agreed to Iran's proposal for an IAEA-led system
of nuclear verification to satisfy the "objective guarantees"
mentioned in the Paris Agreement, to the present hardline
approach devoid of the slightest flexibility. Independent
European diplomacy toward Iran is finished. 

The stakes are getting increasingly high, with Iran now
contemplating exiting the NPT and stopping all cooperation with
the IAEA. 

Well, if the Europeans' real concern is to keep the IAEA intact,
their action is hardly going to have the desired result, as the
North-South divide within the IAEA will sharpen dramatically and
qualitatively, as explicitly feared by IAEA chief Mohammad
ElBaradei. 

In his latest report, ElBaradei cited good progress in Iran's
cooperation with the IAEA and stated that Iran's nuclear program
would be subjected from now on to routine inspections. How will
he react a few weeks or months from now when Iran is no longer a
part of the IAEA and the whole Muslim world is blaming the IAEA
of indiscrete double standards? 

Not exactly bright prospects for the IAEA and its Western
composition, and all the more reason for the IAEA to amend
itself and step back from the confrontational path it has chosen
in regard to Iran. 

Conveniently overlooked by both the IAEA and the European trio
is a proposal made by Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in his
recent UN speech for the involvement of foreign (state and
private) companies in Iran's nuclear fuel fabrication which, if
implemented, would further guarantee that no diversion to
illicit purposes occurs. 

Unfortunately, no serious consideration was given to
Ahmadinejad's proposal and, understandably, the US and European
media were more fixated on his criticisms of "nuclear
apartheid". 

At this point, a pertinent question: what exactly will be
achieved by referring Iran's nuclear case to the UN, other than
angering Iran to the point of exiting the NPT? A former top IAEA
official, Pierre Goldschmidt, has recently written an article in
the New York Times stating that the purpose would be not to
impose sanctions but to force Iran toward greater transparency. 

Right, Goldschmidt, you are asking the Security Council to
supplant the IAEA, as if you were blind to the machinations of
superpower politics and the explicit expressions of joy by US
officials at the IAEA, who relish a new isolation of Iran in the
international community. 

At this point, all roads lead to the Security Council, but where
do they go from there? In the absence of any smoking gun and
Iran's steady cooperation with the IAEA inspections since 2003,
this would be a huge leap backward, exacerbating global
tensions, particularly if Iran acts on its threats to cease its
cooperation with the IAEA and discard its adherence to the
Additional Protocol, causing a tougher Security Council
backlash, including sanctions. 

But since Iran has already been under the sword of US economic
sanctions for a long time, a UN sanction regime on Iran could
only be effective if it covered Iran's energy industry, on which
Europe and China, among others, count so much. 

UN sanctions on Iranian oil and gas would cause havoc on the
volatile global energy market, driving energy prices much higher
than they are now, thus hurting Western consumers and
energy-dependent industries. 

It would not be unrealistic, according to one international oil
consultant who spoke to Asia Times Online, to see an increase of
15% to 20% in oil prices in the event of such a scenario. That
would mean somewhere between $80 to $90 per barrel of oil, quite
burdensome on the non-oil developing nations which nowadays are
weighing how to behave at the next IAEA meeting in November. 

And as if Middle East tensions are not already high enough, with
clashes in Iraq and Afghanistan seemingly increasing, who can
deny the negative side-effect of the nuclear crisis in terms of
a qualitative sharpening of these tensions, particularly in Iraq
where Iran exercises considerable clout? 

Already, Iran-Britain ties have suffered a big blow, with London
leading the march against Iran within the IAEA, and there is
anti-British turmoil in Basra, with Iranian accusations of
British complicity in disturbances in southern Iran. Can Prime
Minister Tony Blair, his country already a target of terrorist
attacks in London and his party losing votes due to his
unpopular common cause with the White House, really afford to
take on Iran simultaneously, risking lucrative Iranian trade and
having his paratroops in southern Iraq battling pro-Iranian
groups? Clearly not. 

Nor are President George W Bush's options any better, in the
light of natural disasters forcing domestic priorities. Bush
seemingly could not muster enough troops to collect the dead in
New Orleans; how in the world is he going to tackle a major
crisis with a nation of 70 million? Isn't it better for both
Iran and the US to engage in direct dialogue and to try
resolving their differences in a more civil and non-coercive
way? 

The answer is, not as long as the US government and its army of
analysts stubbornly cling to the much-refuted notion of an
Islamic regime in Iran on the verge of collapse (See The Persian
puzzle, or the CIA's?, Asia Times Online, December 3, 2004.) 

The Iranian regime is not about to collapse, at least not out of
its own volition or internal dynamics, and after a quarter
century of state-building it has weathered enough internal and
external crises to master the game of survival. No doubt it will
survive the coming showdown at the UN, perhaps with more popular
backing to compensate for its legitimation deficits, all the
more reason why some hardline editorials are even yearning for
this battle at the UN. 

Their views are not shared by everyone, however, and there are
emerging voices of dissent that warn of negative ramifications
for Iran's economy and Ahmadinejad's promises of jobs for
millions of Iranian unemployed youths. 

This external crisis has the potential to seriously derail the
domestic priorities of the former mayor-turned president, much
to the chagrin of Iran's moderate politicians who are against
allowing the nuclear priority to set the country back
economically and diplomatically. 

In conclusion, maybe Melisa Fleming is right after all. There is
a window of opportunity to resolve the nuclear crisis, though it
is closing rapidly. After all, there is usually a healthy side
to any crisis. One only hopes that this particular crisis is not
terminal. 

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and
co-authored "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", The Brown
Journal of World Affairs, Volume X11, issue 2, Summer 2005, with
Mustafa Kibaroglu. 

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
 											   												Head 															Office: Rm 202,
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Military action against Iran 'inconceivable', 
says Straw
 
Staff and agencies
Wednesday September 28, 2005 		
 		
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today said military action 
against Iran was "inconceivable".

Mr Straw said he hoped diplomacy could still end the 
international stand-off over the country's nuclear programme.

Western governments fear Iran is trying to build atomic bombs, 
and the US president, George Bush, has said all options for 
dealing with the issue are on the table.

However, Mr Straw told the BBC's Today programme: "The truth is, 
as Condoleezza Rice has said, military action in respect of the 
Iran dossier is not on anybody's agenda.

 			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
"All United States presidents always say all options are open. 
But it is not on the table, it is not on the agenda. I happen to 
think that it is inconceivable."

Mr Straw, at the Labour party conference in Brighton, was
speaking after moves were made to report Iran to the UN security
council over its nuclear programme.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) passed a resolution at the weekend stating that Iran had
failed to comply with its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty.

The country will be reported to the security council, although
that will not happen immediately. Tehran insists the nuclear
programme is peaceful and is only intended for the generation of
electricity.

Mr Straw also addressed the threat of terrorism, and said it was
"impossible" to say whether the war in Iraq had made Britain
more of a target for terrorists.

"I don't know is the answer ... and I don't think any of us
know," he said. "It is impossible to answer that. But this
international terrorism, al-Qaida based terrorism, goes back at
least a dozen years."

Mr Straw said Islamist terrorism preceded the Iraq war, and
countries that opposed the US-led military action were not
immune from it. "Even if there had not been international action
in Iraq, we would still be facing this kind of terrorism," he
said.

"My own belief is that this phenomenon would have been there in
any event. Nothing justifies this terrorism. I think we have to
examine the responsibility of the terrorists for it ... there is
this kind of moral relativism which suggests that we who
represent the victims are somehow responsible for this
phenomenon."

The foreign secretary also defended controversial new laws to
crack down on terrorists. Plans to allow police to hold terror
suspects without charge for three months have been condemned by
civil liberties groups, but Mr Straw said other European
countries had been able to take far tougher action than Britain.

Next month, the government will publish a report on anti-terror
measures taken by other countries, and Mr Straw admitted there
were difficulties over the new offence of glorifying terrorism.
However, he said there was a case for such a move.
 	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Britain: Military Action Vs. Iran Is Out
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 28, 2005 11:46 AM

By ED JOHNSON 

Associated Press Writer 

BRIGHTON, England (AP) - Military action against Iran is
inconceivable and diplomacy could still end the international
standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, said British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw, whose country plays a key role in
negotiations. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating
electricity, but the Bush administration believes Tehran intends
to produce atomic weapons and has refused to rule out military
strikes. 

``All United States presidents always say all options are open.
But it is not on the table, it is not on the agenda. I happen to
think that it is inconceivable,'' Straw told British
Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday. 

Britain, France and Germany are leading European Union
diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium
enrichment activities. Uranium enriched to low levels can be
used as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but
further enrichment makes it suitable for a nuclear bomb. 

On Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a
resolution putting Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N.
Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its
nuclear activities. 

The resolution ordered Iran to suspend all enrichment
activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon
construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor and to grant
access to certain military locations, individuals and documents. 

Iran has rejected the resolution, protesting it was politically
motivated and without legal foundation. 

``The truth is, as (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice
has made clear, military action in respect of the Iranian
dossier is not on anybody's agenda. I believe it is
inconceivable,'' Straw told the BBC. 

Straw, who is in Brighton, southern England for the governing
Labour Party's annual conference, said the IAEA resolution left
the ``door open for further diplomatic action with Iran'' and
urged the country to take that route. 

He insisted the way the international community dealt with the
nuclear standoff was of fundamental importance and could affect
the ``geopolitical landscape for years to come.'' 

``There is no question of us going to war against Iran. Why?
Because it's not going to resolve the issue. No one is talking
about going to war against Iran,'' he later told Sky Television
News. ``This can only be resolved by diplomatic means and by
diplomatic pressure.'' 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Resume Uranium Enrichment
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 28, 2005 7:01 AM

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran broadened its threats Tuesday over a
move to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, saying that
unless the U.N. atomic watchdog agency backs down, it will
resume uranium enrichment, block inspections of its nuclear
facilities, and cut trade with countries that supported the
resolution. 

Despite the threats, Russia's minister of atomic energy and
Vienna-based diplomats said Iran does not have ability to resume
enrichment immediately. 

``Currently Iran has no enrichment capacity - there is no
possible way Iranians can enrich uranium,'' said Alexander
Rumyantsev, Russia's minister of atomic energy and an expert on
Tehran's nuclear program. He said Iran's only known enrichment
facility - a small pilot project at Natanz - would take more
than a year to begin operations. 

In another move that suggests a toughening of Iran's position,
the hard-line dominated parliament was considering a measure to
force the government to bar short-notice intrusive U.N.
inspections of its facilities if Tehran's right to enrich
uranium is not respected by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran was
considering reducing its trade with those countries that voted
for Saturday's resolution, particularly India. 

``We will reconsider our economic relations with countries that
voted against us,'' he told a news conference. 

``We were very surprised by India,'' he said. The country is
interested in importing Iranian natural gas through a pipeline
that will pass through Pakistan. 

In India, The Hindu newspaper reported on Wednesday that Iran
had scrapped a gas export deal signed in June with India. Under
the deal, India had planned to import 5 million tons of
liquefied natural gas a year from Iran for 25 years starting in
2009. 

Separately, the Hindustan Times newspaper reported that Iran's
ambassador in New Delhi met Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran
to convey his government's ``deep sense of hurt and
disappointment'' over India's vote. 

The Indian government would not immediately confirm the reports. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating
electricity, but the United States and others accuse it of
seeking to develop atomic weapons. 

``Iran has every right for enrichment ... for peaceful use of
nuclear energy,'' said Rumyantsev, the Russian minister. 

His comments on Iran's enrichment capabilities were backed by
diplomats accredited to the IAEA who were briefed on the state
of Iran's conversion efforts. The diplomats said the tons of
uranium gas produced since Iran resumed that activity last month
was contaminated and therefore unusable as the feedstock for
enrichment. 

``It would need purification before it would be suitable,'' said
one of the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity as a
condition of discussing the confidential information. 

Still he warned against dismissing the conversion efforts. 

``They need to work on their ... production, but they're getting
expertise'' - learning through their mistakes, said the
diplomat. 

The IAEA resolution put Iran on the verge of referral to the
U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its
nuclear activities. The resolution ordered Iran to suspend all
enrichment activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon
construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor and to grant
access to certain military locations, individuals and documents. 

Iran has rejected the resolution, protesting it was politically
motivated and without legal foundation. 

Asefi said Tuesday that Iran was asking its European negotiating
partners - Britain, France and Germany - and the IAEA for two
things. 

``First, they should not insist (on the terms of the
resolution). Second, they should correct it,'' Asefi said. 

He said Iran would otherwise cease to abide by the ``voluntary
measures'' that it has been implementing as an expression of
good will. 

Effectively, this means that Iran would resume enrichment of
uranium, which is currently suspended, and disregard the
Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,
under which it grants IAEA inspectors the right to unfettered
inspections of its nuclear facilities at short notice. 

``The timing for Iran to resume some voluntary suspended
activities depends on the behavior of the Europeans. We don't
accept the language of force,'' Iran's top nuclear negotiator
Ali Larijani told reporters after addressing a closed session of
the parliament Tuesday. 

Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday were considering legislation that
would force the government to bar intrusive inspections as long
as Iran's right to possess the whole nuclear fuel cycle - from
extracting uranium ore to enriching it - is not recognized. 

--- 

Associated Press writer George Jahn conributed to this report
from Vienna, Austria. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Herald: Nuclear facilities, capacities in North Korea 
 
With North Korea having agreed to dismantle whatever nuclear
weapons and programs it has, focus is now shifting back to what
kind of nuclear facilities and activities it runs, and whether
it does indeed have or is capable of possessing nuclear weapons.

 Cutting to the chase, none of the governments involved in the
six parties talks have offered any clarification or figures,
saying they lack intelligence information to guesstimate the
exact number of nuclear weapons in the North.

 The International Atomic Energy Agency, which handles nuclear
inspections worldwide, also says in its report that it was not
given enough opportunity to get a complete picture of the
North's nuclear activities during its searches between 1992 and
2002, when it was forced by the communist state to leave the
country.

 Nuclear activities are basically categorized into two programs
- plutonium and uranium. 

There are currently 16 plutonium-related nuclear facilities
reported by North Korea to the IAEA according to the
stipulations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 The IAEA divides the North's nuclear programs into two phases,
the first one starting in the late 1950s, when a nuclear complex
was constructed in Yongbyon with the help of the Soviet Union.

 The second phase, began in 1979, and involved the construction
of a 5 megawatts electric natural uranium, graphite moderated
reactor, an ore processing plan and a fuel rod fabrication
plant. 

The 5 megawatt reactor was completed for operation and two
larger gas-graphite reactors were begun in 1986. In 1987, a
radiochemical laboratory with reprocessing capacity began. 

Uranium plants and uranium refinery plants in Sunchon, Bakchon
and Pyongsan are also scheduled to be dismantled. 

Upon announcing its withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea
extracted 8,000 spent fuel rods from the 5 megawatt reactor. 

Fuel rods are made by distilling natural uranium, which are then
burnt at a nuclear power reactor to become spent fuel rods. 

Each spent fuel rod contains about 1 percent of Plutonium 239,
which can be converted into nuclear weapons by reprocessing them
to contain over 90 percent of Plutonium 239. 

Manufacturing a high-quality nuclear warhead requires at least
99 percent of Plutonium 239 purity. 

This method of developing nuclear weapons is relatively simple
and cheap compared to another manufacturing process whereby
uranium is enriched.

 Plutonium-based production is not easy to hide from satellite
detection, while uranium enrichment processing can easily be
covered. 

Experts estimate that based on North Korea's assertion in May
this year that it finished extracting 8,000 spent fuel rods, it
may have the capacity to create up to eight nuclear warheads. 

The United States claimed the North admitted to having a program
to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in 2002, leading to a
suspension of the 1994 Agreed Framework and later an evacuation
of the IAEA inspectors. 

Enriching uranium only requires a small-scale centrifuge that
can be hidden underground, meaning it is crucial for North Korea
to report the facility voluntarily should it have any such
facilities when the IAEA inspections begin. 

Debate has brewed over whether the joint statement signed by the
six parties last week in Beijing included enrichment of uranium
in its phrase "existing nuclear programs." 

The matter is likely to be among the heated points of
negotiation when the fifth round of talks resume in November.

 Top U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks Christopher Hill had
said last week that his government did not wish to play
hide-and-seek with the North anymore and that the North should
report all the nuclear programs it carries. 

(angiely@heraldm.com)

By Lee Joo-hee

2005.09.29
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Herald: Nuclear facilities, capacities in North Korea 
 
Now that North Korea has agreed to dismantle whatever nuclear
programs it has, focus is now shifting onto what kind of nuclear
facilities and activities it operates and whether it does in
fact possess or is even capable of producing nuclear weapons.

 However, none of the governments involved in the six-party
dialogue have been able to confirm the existence or numbers of
nuclear weapons that may lie in the North, saying they lack the
intelligence information to do so.

 The International Atomic Energy Agency, which handles nuclear
inspections worldwide, also reports that it was not given
adequate opportunity to get a comprehensive picture of the
North's nuclear activities during searches it carried out
between 1992 and 2002, when the IAEA was forced to leave the
communist state.

 Nuclear activities are basically categorized into two types of
programs - plutonium and uranium. 

There are currently 16 plutonium-related nuclear facilities
reported by North Korea to the IAEA according to the
stipulations of the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The IAEA divides the North's nuclear programs into two phases:
the first one started in the late 1950s when a nuclear complex
was constructed in Yongbyon with the help of the Soviet Union.

 The second phase began in 1979 and involved the construction of
a 5 megawatt electric natural-uranium, graphite-moderated
reactor, an ore processing plant and a fuel rod fabrication
plant. 

The 5 megawatt reactor was completed and ready for operation and
two larger gas-graphite reactors were begun in 1986. In 1987,
the construction of a radiochemical laboratory with reprocessing
capacity was begun. 

Uranium plants and uranium refinery plants in Sunchon, Pakchon
and Pyongsan are also scheduled to be dismantled. 

Upon announcing its withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea
extracted 8,000 spent fuel rods from the 5 megawatt reactor. 

Fuel rods are made by distilling natural uranium, which are then
burnt at a nuclear power reactor to become spent fuel rods. 

Each spent fuel rod contains about 1 percent of Plutonium 239,
which can be converted into nuclear weapons by reprocessing them
to contain over 90 percent of Plutonium 239. Manufacturing a
high-quality nuclear warhead requires at least 99 percent of
Plutonium 239 purity. 

This method of developing nuclear weapons is relatively simple
and cheap compared to another manufacturing process whereby
uranium is enriched.

 Plutonium-based production is not easy to hide from satellite
detection, while uranium enrichment processing can easily be
hidden. 

Experts estimate that based on North Korea's assertion in May
this year that it finished extracting 8,000 spent fuel rods, it
may have the capacity to create up to eight nuclear warheads. 

The United States claimed the North admitted to having a program
to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in 2002, leading to a
suspension of the 1994 Agreed Framework and later the
deportation of the IAEA inspectors. 

Enriching uranium only requires a small-scale centrifuge that
can be hidden underground, meaning it is crucial for North Korea
to report the facility voluntarily should it have any such
facilities when the next round of IAEA inspections begin. 

Debate has arisen over whether the joint statement signed by the
six parties in Beijing incorporated a caveat on the enrichment
of uranium within the phrase "existing nuclear programs."

 The matter is likely to be among the heated points of
negotiation when the fifth round of talks resume in November.

 Top U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks Christopher Hill
said last week that his government does not wish to play
hide-and-seek with the North anymore and that the North should
report all the nuclear programs it carries. 

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said yesterday that
his government has commenced planning on how to implement in
detail the set of principles agreed among the six parties
including the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and
Russia in Beijing.

 "We have begun to prepare the implementation plan that includes
detailed measures and sequences focused around nuclear
dismantlement and compensations," Ban said at the weekly news
briefing.

 He added that the government was pushing to hold prior meetings
with relevant counterparts before the opening of the next round
of talks and that it expected due efforts made by all parties to
bring about positive action and smooth negotiations. 

(angiely@heraldm.com)

By Lee Joo-hee 

2005.09.29
*****************************************************************
 13 Scoop: DPRK's Stand on Nuclear Issue Reiterated

Wednesday, 28 September 2005, 10:25 pm

Press Release: Democratic People's Republic of Korea       

DPRK's Stand on Solution to Nuclear Issue Reiterated

 The DPRK will closely follow how the U.S. will move at the
phase of "action for action" in the future. A DPRK delegate
declared this at a plenary session of the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament on September 22, referring to the close of the
second phase of the fourth six-party talks on the nuclear issue
between the DPRK and the U.S. The DPRK approached the talks with
magnanimity, patience and sincerity, proceeding from the
principled, fair and aboveboard stand to achieve the general
goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula at any
cost, and at last succeeded in meeting all the challenges,
making it possible to agree on the joint statement, "verbal
commitments," he noted, and went on: 

The joint statement reflects the DPRK's consistent stand on the
settlement of the DPRK-U.S. nuclear issue and, at the same time,
the commitments of the U.S. and south Korea responsible for
denuclearizing the whole of the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK will
feel no need to keep even a single nuclear weapon if its
relations with the U.S. are normalized, bilateral confidence is
built and it is not exposed to the U.S. nuclear threat any
longer. 

What is most essential is, therefore, for the U.S. to provide
light water reactors to the DPRK as early as possible as
evidence proving the former's substantial recognition of the
latter's nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose. 

Motion Calling for Nat'l Assembly's Ratification of Proposal for
Rice Negotiations under Fire in S. Korea


 Pyongyang, September 27 (KCNA) -- The lawmakers from the
Democratic Workers' Party of south Korea occupied the place
where government policies are examined by the Unification,
Diplomacy and Trade Committee of the National Assembly (NA) and
went on a sit-in struggle there in protest against the motion
calling for the NA ratification of the proposal on rice
negotiations on Sept. 23, according to south Korean KBS. They
charged that the NA should not take up the above-said proposal
unless the demands of the peasants are reflected in it. 

Earlier, the Democratic Workers' Party and peasants bodies
called a press conference at which they held that the suspicion
about the agreement reached at the rice negotiations has not yet
been clarified and the adverse impact it will have on the living
of the peasants has not been examined, holding that there is no
ground to introduce the motion to the NA.

*****************************************************************
 14 [DU-WATCH] Canada Secretly Makes Nuclear Triggers
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:13:32 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Canadian's don't know they are making uranium triggers and other 
almost pure 235U nuclide components for US fission and fusion bombs.

Zircatec Precision Industries and Cameco Fuels Division, in sleepy 
little Port Hope, 45 miles east of Toronto on north shore of Lake 
Ontario is where DU, NDU and HEU all come together to make secret 
metal components for US nuclear weapons and fuel bundles for military 
reactors. The good people of Port Hope had no idea.

Cameco and Zircatec admit freely in Canadian Nuclear Safety 
Commission hearing that they have been routinely working with 93% 
enriched uranium since mid 1960's. 93% HEU has three uses: fission 
and fusion weapons components, Trident sub reactor fuels and 
tranuranics production.

Official Canadian and US federal, state/provincial and regulatory 
agencies as well as commercial industry reports are now rendered 
false. They were based on natural uranium emission factors and 
ignored HEU's contribution to the Great Lakes environment and human 
exposure rates. 

Just two examples of reports/regulatory models and organizations that 
made decisions based on false information:

Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin 
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1995/Suppl-9/ahier-full.html

Inventory of Radionuclides for the Great Lakes
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/ijc9th/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Affected by disease? Support health awareness efforts at Network for Good.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/qnM_qD/cnQLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Ambassador Bolton Says Reforms Begun
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday September 28, 2005 10:46 PM

AP Photo NY113 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - John R. Bolton allowed only one crooked grin
of satisfaction Wednesday as he faced members of Congress from
behind a small placard that read ``Ambassador Bolton.'' 

Bolton, President Bush's hard-charging choice to be the U.S.
ambassador at the United Nations, has been pulling long hours
and winning respect if not friends among U.N. diplomats in the
nearly two months since Bush went around Senate Democrats to
give Bolton a rare recess appointment to the U.N. job. 

Back on Capitol Hill for the first time since his long and
fruitless attempt to win Senate confirmation, Bolton was all
business as he answered questions about management problems,
scandals and bureaucratic intransigence at the United Nations. 

Several Republicans on the House International Relations
Committee congratulated Bolton and made indirect reference to
his bitter confirmation battle, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif. 

``I can't tell you how happy we are to have you here with us
today,'' Rohrabacher said theatrically. Smiling widely,
Rohrabacher paused to let a murmur of laughter pass through the
packed hearing room. 

``I'm happy to be here, too,'' Bolton said, flashing that grin. 

And that was it. No rerun of the unflattering stories about
Bolton's hot temper and provocative quotes about the United
Nations being irrelevant, bloated or hamstrung. No mention of
Democrats' unproved allegations that Bolton may have manipulated
government intelligence and misused his influence in his
previous job as a high-ranking State Department official. 

After months of jokes about Bolton on late night television,
accompanied by pictures of the perpetually rumpled conservative
at his last congressional appearance, Bolton even had a fresh
haircut before Wednesday's session. 

Democrats on the House committee didn't give Bolton much
trouble, although Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., challenged Bolton
to explain how a nuclear treaty review faltered on Bolton's
watch as the State Department's top arms control officer. 

Bolton was so diplomatic in that answer, and most others, that
it was hard to recall that he was picked for the U.N. post
precisely because of his reputation as a bull in a china shop.
When Bolton's nomination hit the Senate skids last spring, Bush
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood by him as the best
choice to shake up a U.N. bureaucracy that the Bush
administration and many in Congress find maddening. 

Bolton was in Washington to report on U.S. efforts toward
overhauling U.N. management and operations after scandals in the
U.N.'s oil-for-food program in prewar Iraq and in international
peacekeeping operations. 

Now part of the bureaucracy he had long criticized, Bolton chose
his words carefully as he acknowledged that the reform agenda
hit a speed bump this month. U.N. member countries approved a
watered-down version of a broad reform plan proposed by U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and largely backed by the United
States, with Bolton voting yes despite reservations. 

``We didn't get everything we wanted, but we made progress,''
Bolton told the committee. He offered a checklist of
requirements for U.N. management that were part of the document
the world body approved, and said the United States will not
stop there. 

Bolton's trademark bluntness surfaced now and again, but a
fellow Republican probably felt the sharpest sting. 

Bolton didn't try to cushion the blow for the committee's
chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., when explaining Bush
administration opposition to Hyde's bill directing automatic
withholding of full U.S. dues if U.N. reform targets fall short. 

``I've been an executive branch official my entire public career
and, for both constitutional and historical reasons, the
executive branch appropriately has typically opposed automatic,
nondiscretionary directions from all of you esteemed ladies and
gentlemen,'' Bolton said. ``That's our position. I support it
emphatically.'' 

Hyde knew it was coming, but he still looked momentarily
startled. 

``There's something sticking in my back,'' Hyde joked. 

--- 

On the Net: 

House International Relations Committee:
http://www.house.gov/international-relations 

United Nations: http://www.un.org 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 16 HindustanTimes.com: After vote, India seeks lifting of nuke bans

  India seeking early lifting of nuke technology restrictions

Press Trust of India

Vienna, September 28, 2005
   
Seeking early lifting of all nuclear technology restrictions
against it, India on Wednesday said it will be prepared to take
"reciprocal" steps in a phased manner, which will include
"safeguards on facilities of a civilian nature".

India also said that it was looking forward to joining the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactors (ITER) project
as a full partner.

Currently the ITER project -- building a fusion reactor by
pooling scientific and financial resources -- involves the US,
European Union, Russia, South Korea, China, Japan and
Switzerland.

Addressing the 49th general conference of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission and leader of the Indian delegation, Anil Kakodkar,
welcomed statements of the US and France and the positive and
cooperative approach of several key countries on nuclear energy
production. "We are happy that we are now feeling the winds of
change," he said.

"We look forward to a rapid growth in nuclear power generation
capacity in India based on full international civilian nuclear
cooperation," he said.

Kakodkar's statement comes close on the heels of India voting in
favour of IAEA resolution on Iran's controversial nuclear
programme.   
    

© HT Media Ltd. 2005. 
*****************************************************************
 17 Bahrain News Agency: Saudi Arabia on nuclear deployment prevention 

date: 28 09, 2005   
 
Vienna, Sep. 28 (BNA) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reiterated its
position calling for nuclear deployment prevention, asserted its
keenness for peaceful and civilization co existence among the
world peoples and vowed its belief in the importance of
concerting all countries' efforts to evade risks and
repercussions incurred from the proliferation of mass
destruction weapons. 

The Kingdom also expressed hope that it is gearing forward to
see all peace-loving countries working, in collaboration with
the International Atomic Energy Agency, to bar the proliferation
and get rid of nuclear weapons so as to achieve peace, security
and stability to the world community. Addressing the 49th
general conference of the IAEA in Vienna, Dr. Salih bin
Abdulrahman Alazl, Chairman of the Riyadh-based King Abdulaziz
City for Sciences and Technology, said the Kingdom has joined
all international treaties and agreements curbing the
proliferation of mass destruction weapons and is hoping that the
international efforts could lead to the creation of mass
destruction- free Middle East, particularly the nuclear weapons. 

 Publishing Rights Reserved to Bahrain News Agency © 2003 - 2004
             Best viewed by IE 5.0 or later 800* 600 
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: MoD shuns Trident debate
 
Richard Norton-Taylor

Wednesday September 28, 2005
 		
The Ministry of Defence is refusing to release any information 
about the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system, 
including the costs and even whether it is needed to deter an 
enemy.

Its blanket dismissal of requests under the Freedom of 
Information Act was posted yesterday on the MoD's website. 
Officials said refusal was on the grounds of national security 
and the public interest, though they admitted that Trident 
replacement is a "topical issue at present".

The MoD said its decision was taken with the approval of the 
defence secretary, John Reid. The department was asked to release 
assessments it has made of the threats that might be deterred by 
any Trident replacement. Though there was a "strong public 
interest" in having a "credible nuclear deterrent", it was not in 
the public interest to publish its assessments about what threats 
a Trident replacement could deter.

The MoD refused to disclose the nature of discussions with 
America on Trident on the grounds that "there is a public 
interest in the UK maintaining strong relations with the US". 
That would be prejudiced if any information about talks was 
released.

It "neither confirms nor denies" whether it holds information on 
the costs of replacing Trident. The government says a decision 
whether to replace Trident will have to be taken during this 
parliament.
 	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: RC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet Oct. 6-8 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2005-13
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-132     September 28, 2005   
  

Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting Oct. 6-8 in
Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the license
renewal application for the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant,
units 1, 2 and 3, in Alabama. The committee will also discuss
pressure vessel head integrity calculations related to the
Davis-Besse nuclear power plant and be briefed by NRC staff on
licensee response to an agency bulletin on emergency
preparedness and response actions for security-based events. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at
8:30 a.m. each day and end at 7 p.m. on Thursday and Friday; the
session on Saturday will end at 12:30 p.m. A complete agenda is
available on the NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/.
Anyone with questions or those wanting to make public statements
during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364. 

The ACRS, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, advises the Commission on licensing, the operation of
nuclear power plants and related safety issues.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, September 28, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 20 Deseret News: N-economy must begin now
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, September 28, 2005                            

Two events are inevitable and will occur during the first half of 
the 21st century. First, world population — presently over 6 
billion — will approach 10 billion. The greatest increase will 
occur in the developing nations such as China and India. Second, 
fluid fuels, oil and natural gas, will approach exhaustion with 
coal the only significant remaining fossil fuel. Technology can 
convert coal to a fluid fuel but with a marked greenhouse gas 
impact. Fluid fuels needed for the second half of the 21st 
century can be supplied by a hydrogen economy, but only if 
nuclear energy is the primary energy source to produce hydrogen.

A nuclear-hydrogen economy must begin now if we are to avoid 
irreparable environmental impacts from greenhouse gases and 
economic and military conflict from dwindling fluid fossil fuels.

 Gary M. Sandquist
 professor
 mechanical engineering department
 University of Utah
 			  		 		   

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 21 Bellona: Russian energy resources underestimated8
 
Russian reserves of energy resources are “underestimated”,
Vladimir Putin said in a live call-in TV program. 

2005-09-27 17:58

The Russian president is sure that "the reserves are bigger than
we think. They are big enough for us and future generations”. He
also said that it is necessary to treat natural resources
carefully and change energy balance step by step in order to
make coal resources as economically demanded as oil and gas,
RusEnergy informs.   

  
  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





*****************************************************************
 22 RIA Novosti - Opinion: Russian nuclear industry turns sixty
 
28/ 09/ 2005

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatiana Sinitsyna). The history
of Russia's nuclear industry has many heroic and tragic
episodes. Suffice it to recall the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl
blast that shocked the world. 

 It seemed that the nuclear industry would never recover from
that disaster of huge proportions. Fortunately, Russia managed
to cope with the "Chernobyl syndrome" and choose a pragmatic
sectoral development strategy. 

In 2003 the Government of Russia noted the need for the nuclear
industry's sustainable development as a stabilization factor.
Moreover, the nuclear industry would more effectively protect
Russia from any future energy crises. "We must face the facts:
There exists no economically and environmentally sound
alternative to the civilian nuclear industry in regards to human
civilization's sustainable development," Alexander Rumyantsev,
full-time member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and head of
the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said. 

Russia now has ten nuclear power plants that annually generate
up to 150 billion kWt/hr of power. This makes up for only 16% of
national power-generation volumes. Hydroelectric stations and
thermal power plants that have already attained peak capacity
provide the rest. And the national energy strategy calls for
generating 230 billion kWt/hr per year by 2020. Consequently,
Russia will have to build at least ten new nuclear power units. 

Right now, I would like to say a few words about the history of
the Russian nuclear program. It began in 1942, that is, when
Hitler's divisions were approaching Stalingrad. The program
received top-priority status, after the crews of American B-29's
dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
At that time, the USSR's State Defense Committee established the
top-secret First Main Department responsible for developing the
atomic bomb. Subsequently, on August 29, 1949 the first Soviet
atomic bomb was tested successfully . The A-Bomb project also
created civilian spin-offs. In 1954 the Russians commissioned
its first nuclear power plant in Obninsk near Moscow. Three
years later the first nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers
made their appearance . 

The First Main Department was reorganized more than once and is
now called the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or Rosatom. Today
the Russian nuclear industry consists of 100 enterprises
employing 335,000 workers in different parts of the country.
These enterprises produce and process uranium and specialized
nuclear materials. They also turn out nuclear weapons and
nuclear fuel, as well as enriched-uranium products. These
enterprises also prospect for new uranium deposits. The Russian
nuclear industry builds NPP-s and loads fuel inside nuclear
reactors. It also extracts spent nuclear fuel and subjects it to
radio-chemical processing. Moreover, sectoral entities bury all
radioactive waste. This powerful science-and-engineering complex
boasts an impressive intellectual potential. The nuclear
industry has 305 full-time members of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, as well as several thousand doctoral candidates. 

Rosatom implements a large-scale export program and builds NPPs
in other countries. Russia builds its advanced VVER-1000
water-cooled and water-moderated reactors in India, China and
Iran. Moreover, Rosatom delivers NPP fuel to Eastern and Western
Europe and CIS countries. It also offers uranium-enrichment
services. 

Rosatom favors both state and private partnership in conditions
of market economics. For instance, it buys heavy-duty NPP
equipment, such as turbine generators and turbines, from the
Silovye Mashiny (Power Machines) holding in St. Petersburg.
Rosatom also boasts two shareholding enterprises with 100% state
capital that operate at a profit. They are the TVEL corporation
which manufactures NPP reactor rods and the Tekhsnabexport
trading house that sells all Rosatom products on the world
market. 

"Subsequent market operations are an involved issue because all
nuclear materials and nuclear facilities are federal property
under the Law on Nuclear Energy ," Rumyantsev admitted. The
Rosatom chief prefers shareholding companies to unitarian
enterprises. 

Rosatom implements conversion problems worth $140 million each
year. These programs are financed on a fifty-fifty basis by
Russia and the international community. According to Rumyantsev,
the Russian Navy's North and Pacific Fleets annually scrap up to
20 submarines. Rosatom coordinates all these operations, and is
responsible for unloading, transporting and radio-chemical
processing of nuclear fuel. All in all, 195 submarines have been
phased out to date. Russia has scrapped 121 submarines by
mid-2005. Eighty more submarines must be dismantled. Work is now
proceeding to dismantle 34 of them. 

"Speaking of our entire nuclear industry, one should not doubt
the fact that Russian nuclear weapons have ensured global parity
and global peace for the last 60 years. And this is its main
achievement," Rumyantsev stressed.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 23 RIA Novosti: Survey: two-thirds of Russians in favor of nuclear 
engineering development

28/ 09/ 2005
           
MOSCOW, September 28 (RIA Novosti) - A survey released Wednesday
by a leading Russian polling agency shows that nearly two-thirds
of Russia's residents favor further development of the nuclear
power industry, while only a quarter want all nuclear programs
scrapped. 

Forty-nine percent of those interviewed by VTsIOM believe the
government should focus on developing new, environmentally
friendly energies, including solar, wind and tidal power. 

More than a half of the respondents (57%) think a nuclear
accident on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster could happen,
but 28 % argue a repeat is unlikely. Just 6% are almost certain
there will be no reoccurrence. 

Forty-seven percent believe the biggest threat to the
environment comes from the shipment and storage of nuclear
waste, but 32-35% contend that industrial production, logging
and household waste dumping cause more environmental and health
hazards than the nuclear industry does. 

Twenty-nine percent call nuclear power stations the main source
of environmental hazards and one-quarter (25%) see means of
transportation like motor vehicles, trains and airplanes as the
most damaging. 

A sample of 1,600 adults from 153 urban and rural communities
across Russia were polled September 24 and 25, with a
statistical error of 3.4%.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 24 Platts: Blair says UK needs to consider building new nuclear power plants
 
+ UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Tuesday said Britain would have
to consider a new generation of civil nuclear power plants if it
wanted to address the twin issues of energy policy and global
warming. 

Addressing his ruling Labour Party's annual conference in 
Brighton, Blair asked: "For how much longer can countries like 
ours allow the security of our energy supply be dependent on some 
of the most unstable parts of the world?" He called for "an 
assessment of all options, including civil nuclear power."

Blair twinned the energy and climate change issues, saying that 
in 2006, "building on Britain's Kyoto commitments, we will 
publish proposals on energy policy." He said global warming was 
"too serious for the world any longer to ignore its danger or 
split into opposing factions on it." 

In order to combat global warming and develop energy security, 
Blair called for implementation of the deal on climate change 
agreed by the industrialized world's leaders at the recent G8 
summit in Scotland. Some UK political analysts, during the run-up 
to the Brighton conference, suggested Blair had been won round to 
the Bush Administration view that technological development, 
rather than adherence to specific targets of the kind set down in 
the Kyoto Protocol, was the way to tackle climate change. 

In his speech, although he mentioned Kyoto, Blair stressed 
technology more, saying: "The G8 Agreement must be made to work 
so we develop together the technology that allows prosperous 
nations to adapt and emerging ones to grow sustainably." In the 
energy section of his speech, Blair also said his government was 
continuing to develop proposals for a fundamental change in 
transport funding--"including road pricing." John Roberts, 
john_roberts@platts.com For more information, take a trial to 
Platts Nucleonics Week at http://nucweek.platts.com. 

Edinburgh (Platts)--27Sep2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
*****************************************************************
 25 NewsFromRussia.Com: Ukraine found radioactive material believed
to be stolen from Chernobyl nuclear power plant
 
 16:35 2005-09-28

 Ukrainian authorities retrieved radioactive material believed
to have been stolen from the now-defunct Chernobyl nuclear power
plant a decade ago, an official said Wednesday. 

Security officers discovered a plastic bag with 14 pieces of
nuclear fuel during a routine search of the damaged reactor's
perimeter last week, said Stanislav Shektela, a spokesman for
the plant. 

He said that the radioactive material "was probably missing
since 1995" when a group of people was arrested and convicted of
stealing nuclear fuel from the destroyed reactor's central hall. 

Experts are now trying to positively identify the material while
police investigate, Shektela said. 

pravda.ru 
	   	 
  Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU".
*****************************************************************
 26 FT.com: Decision on UK nuclear power by end of 2006

By Jean Eaglesham, Political Correspondent 

Published: September 28 2005 22:05 | Last updated: September 28
2005 22:05

[uk nuclear] The government will give a â€œyes or noâ€ to 
nuclear power by the end of next year following a decision by 
Tony Blair to inject â€œgreater urgencyâ€ into the nuclear 
debate. 

Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, said on Wednesday a government
review of energy policy next year would â€œhave to include a
proposal about nuclearâ€. He added: â€œThe proposal could be no
it could be yes.â€

At this week's Labour party conference, the prime minister
appeared to give a strong signal of support for replacing the
UK's ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which is due
to be decommissioned by 2023.

Previously, Mr Blair had committed to making a decision on new
nuclear stations by the end of this parliament.

 The acceleration of the timetable reflected the importance Mr
Blair attached to energy policy, Mr Wicks said in an interview
with the Financial Times. Mr Blair is chairing a new cabinet
committee on energy and the environment, which will drive next
year's review.

 In his speech to the party conference, Mr Blair referred
explicitly to nuclear power and emphasised two planks of energy
policy climate change and security of supply. On both counts
nuclear power is seen as having an edge on alternative energy
sources.

 Mr Wicks also suggested that nuclear and renewable energy were
complementary. â€œSome people are fearful that what Tony Blair
said undermines the renewables industry. Well, it doesn't. I'm
confident that by 2020, we're going to be getting 20 per cent
[of electricity] from renewables.â€

 The decision to build new nuclear stations was not a foregone
conclusion. â€œI happen to be nuclear-neutral and so is Alan
Johnson [trade and industry secretary]. I think that's
helpful.â€  
  
Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 27 Independent: British Energy calls on Blair to give nuclear go-ahead next year 

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 

Published: 29 September 2005 

Tony Blair must give the go-ahead for a new generation of
nuclear power stations by the end of next year if the Government
is to meet its climate-change targets and safeguard security of
supply, the chief executive of British Energy, Bill Coley, said
yesterday. 

His comments follow the Prime Minister's announcement at the
Labour conference this week of a wide-ranging review of
Britain's energy needs which would assess "all options,
including civil nuclear power".
 
Mr Coley said that even if British Energy, the country's main
nuclear electricity generator, extended the lives of most of its
stations, the contribution from nuclear energy would dip sharply
by 2020, making the UK more reliant on imported gas and
jeopardising its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
 
"It is going to take 10 years from the point when a decision is
made to get new nuclear capacity built and operating so the
sooner there is a decision, the better," Mr Coley said. Asked
whether that meant by 2007 or 2008, he replied: "It really needs
to be earlier."
 
Mr Coley added that it would be possible to build a new
generation of nuclear stations without direct financial support
from government, because of the increased efficiency and lower
cost of new reactor designs. Including financing and
construction costs, new nuclear stations were capable of earning
a 8-10 per cent rate of return, making them competitive with
combined cycle gas-fired plant.
 
But he indicated the Government would have to provide some kind
of guarantees to those financing and developing new stations,
such as long-term supply contracts for the baseload power they
produce.
 
He also said the Government would have to address the issue of
nuclear waste disposal, for which there is still no agreed
policy much less an agreed site where the waste could be stored,
although British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant in Cumbria is
seen by many as the obvious location.
 
Mr Coley was speaking as British Energy unveiled a turnaround in
its financial performance since last January's capital
reconstruction of the business which transferred £4bn in
historic liabilities to the taxpayer and wiped out £1bn of debt.
 
The company returned to the black for the three months to 3
July, recording a £64m pre-tax profit compared with losses the
year before. The improvement was due, in large part, to soaring
wholesale electricity prices and increased output which lifted
British Energy's revenues during the period by 7 per cent to
£521m.
 
The company said it now fixed 85 per cent of its planned output
for the year to next March at an average price of 31.8p a unit.
However, British Energy cautioned that unplanned shutdowns of
its Hartlepool and Heysham 1 reactors, would increase the amount
of lost output to 1.5 terrawatt hours.
 
As a result of the government-backed bail-out, the taxpayer took
just under 65 per cent of British Energy's free cash-flow for
the period and the company reiterated that it did not intend to
resume dividend payments to shareholders until after March,
2007. 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 28 Chillicothe Gazette: Group wants justices out of utility case

www.chillicothegazette.com

   Wednesday, September 28, 2005   
 
COLUMBUS (AP) - Ohio Citizen Action is calling on five
Republican Supreme Court justices to remove themselves from a
FirstEnergy Corp. rate case that's before the court today.

The watchdog group, which is not a party to the case, said
Monday the five received $125,000 in campaign contributions from
people connected to FirstEnergy in the last nine years.

Nearly half the money, $61,000, went to Chief Justice Thomas
Moyer and Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Lanzinger from
an August 2004 fundraiser arranged by FirstEnergy Chief
Executive Anthony Alexander.

The other justices are Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Maureen
O'Connor.

Only Stratton responded on Monday, saying she would not step
aside. Court spokesman Chris Davey said Moyer will also
participate in the case and that the other justices are likely
to as well.

"Campaign contributions alone are not a basis" for removal,
Davey said. "There are a number of different parties to this
litigation, and none of the parties have requested" removal.
Sandy Buchanan, executive director of Citizen Action, said the
justices "at the very least need to recognize the appearances of
this. It is an extremely tight relationship with incoming
contributions and a case before the court."

Justices Alice Robie Resnick, a Democrat, and Paul Pfeifer, a
Republican, did not receive campaign money from FirstEnergy
interests.

The FirstEnergy case was filed by state Consumers Counsel Janine
Migden-Ostrander to challenge an Aug. 4, 2004, ruling by the
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The PUCO agreed the utility
could continue to bill for a "transition charge" through 2008 to
pay for past nuclear and other construction.

The additional charge, which was set to expire at year's end,
will continue to cost the average residential customer from $15
to $20 per month, which translates to about $1 billion for
residential customers and nearly $2 billion for commercial and
industrial users, Migden-Ostrander said.

FirstEnergy generating companies regulated by the PUCO are Ohio
Edison in Akron, Toledo Edison and The Illuminating Co. serving
the Cleveland area.

---
Information from: The Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com
  
Originally published September 28, 2005
 
 Copyright ©2005 Chillicothe Gazette. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 29 DesMoinesRegister.com: Sale of Iowa's only nuclear power plant is opposed
                       
By REGISTER STAFF WRITER
 
September 28, 2005      

The state agency representing consumers is opposing the sale of 
Iowa’s only nuclear power plant.

 The Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, which represents the 
public in utilities matters, said Wednesday afternoon that if the 
Duane Arnold Energy Center were sold, Alliant Energy customers 
can expect rate increases. Those increases would be beyond what 
power would cost if Alliant continued its majority ownership of 
the plant.

 Alliant officials last year announced plans to sell the plant 
saying the company did not want the expense of owning a nuclear 
plant. Florida based FPL Group won an auction for the plant this 
summer, bidding $380 million. 

The license expires in 2014. FPL officials have said they would 
relicense the facility.

Alliant president Tom Aller has said that if the company cannot 
sell the plant, it will not relicense the facility, in effect, 
shutting it down. 

Any sale must meet state and federal regulatory approval. The 
Iowa Utilities has scheduled a hearing for Nov. 1. Regulatory 
delays could cost Alliant money. According to the agreement 
Alliant reached with FPL, for each day after Dec. 31, 2005 that 
the deal is not closed, the purchase price drops $128,000.
 	 	 	      	   		 		 		
Updated June 7, 2005.
*****************************************************************
 30 Mos News: New Evidence Found in Chernobyl Fuel Theft Case - 

MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 28.09.2005 16:08 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:08 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	 
	 	 		 	
The director of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Igor
Gramotkin, said Wednesday there was new evidence that nuclear
fuel was stolen from the plant in 1995. 

“In the Shelter zone of the plant we found a plastic bag with 13
tubes and a 10-centimeter offcut, closely resembling fuel
element fragments,” Gramotkin said in an interview published on
the Ukranian Emergencies Ministry website.

Back in 1995 fresh nuclear fuel was stolen from the central hall
of the 4th damaged block of the reactor. Part of the fuel was
returned, and the staff members responsible for the incident
were put on trial and convicted.

The investigation is still in progress.
 	 	
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: General Electric Company; Notice of Receipt of Application for 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5285 
[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)] 
[Notices] [Page 56745-56746] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28se05-192]                         
 
Final Design Approval and Standard Design Certification of the 
ESBWR Standard Plant Design Notice is hereby given that the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) has received 
an application from the General Electric Company (GE) dated 
August 24, 2005, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic 
Energy Act and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR) part 52, for the final design approval and standard design 
certification of the ESBWR Standard Plant Design.
 
The ESBWR design is an approximately 1550 megawatts electric 
boiling water reactor plant design in which passive safety 
systems are used for the ultimate safety protection of the plant. 
All of the safety systems are designed to be passive, where 
natural forces, such as gravity, natural circulation, and stored 
energy (in the form of pressurized accumulators and batteries), 
are used as the motive forces of these systems. The ESBWR 
application includes the entire power generation complex, except 
those
 
[[Page 56746]] elements and features considered site-specific. 
The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing and 
other matters relating to the requested rulemaking pursuant to 10 
CFR 52.51 for design certification, including provisions for 
participation of the public and other parties, will be the 
subject of subsequent Federal Register notices.
 
A copy of the application will be available on CD-ROM for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at 
the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The 
accession number for the application is ML052450245. Future 
publicly available documents related to the application will also 
be posted in ADAMS. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or 
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room 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 19th day of 
September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
William D. Beckner, Program Director, New, Research and Test 
Reactors Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5285 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 32 Asia Times: Payback time

By Siddharth Srivastava 

NEW DELHI - The reaction has been quicker than expected, and at
stake is India's energy security. Stung by what Iran considers a
betrayal by India's anti-Iran vote last week on Tehran's
possible referral to the UN, Tehran has hit back where it hurts
most. 

Several reports in the Indian media have said that a miffed Iran
has already initiated action to stall India's energy plans,
including any hope of implementing the $7 billion
Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, which is still at the
discussion stage. Pakistan issued a statement after the Iran
vote that it is prepared to go ahead with the IPI pipeline
without India. 

The immediate impact could, however, be on deals that are
already concluded. According to a front-page report in the
 																	
September 28, and also independently confirmed by Asia Times
Online, Tehran has already conveyed to India that a
five-million-tonne a year liquefied natural gas (LNG) export
deal, with deliveries scheduled to begin in 2009 for a 25-year
period, is off. 

India signed the deal worth $22 billion with Iran in June this
year, fending off stiff competition from China. According to the
report, Ali Larijani, who is Iran's top nuclear negotiator,
conveyed Tehran's decision to New Delhi immediately after the
anti-Iran vote cast on Saturday by India at the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) governing board meeting in Vienna.
On September 2, Larijani had said in Tehran: "The issue of
exporting LNG to India has been finalized." 

With this move, India will lose any chance of procuring the
additional 2.5 million tonnes of LNG a year that it is seeking.
India produces about 90 million standard cubic meters of natural
gas per day as against its daily demand of 120 million standard
cubic meters - demand that is likely to grow in the coming
years. The projected demand of natural gas in India by 2020
stands at a huge 400 million standard cubic meters a day, which
cannot be met domestically. 

India might not be the only country to feel the sting of Iran's
wrath. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Tehran
would reconsider economic ties with countries that voted against
it. New Delhi and Tokyo were among the 22 out of 35 delegations
that voted against Iran. China abstained. 

Iran is already Japan's number-three oil supplier, but Tokyo is
pursuing a $2 billion development project at Azadegan in
southwest Iran, claimed to be one of the world's largest
untapped oilfields. 

China could be a big beneficiary as it already has extensive
investments in Iran and could expand them. In March 2004,
China's state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai Zhenrong
Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tons of
LNG from Iran. 

This was followed by a much larger deal between another of
China's state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran, signed in
October 2004. This deal, worth about $100 billion, allows China
to import a further 250 million tons of LNG from Iran's
Yadavaran oilfield over a 25-year period. In addition to LNG,
the Yadavaran deal provides China with 150,000 barrels per day
of crude oil over the same period. 

This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in
Iranian energy exploration, drilling and production as well as
in petrochemical and natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese
investment targeted toward Iran's energy sector could exceed a
further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China
became Iran's top oil export market. 

After the IAEA vote, Tehran conveyed to India in no uncertain
terms that it was "surprised and disappointed", by India's vote
in favor of reporting Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security
Council. Iran has said that it would have been "happy" if India
had voted against the resolution, yet "satisfied" if Delhi had
abstained, but the anti-Iran vote was "disturbing". 

Iran's ambassador to India, Siavash Zargar Yaghoub, met Foreign
Secretary Shyam Saran in New Delhi and told him that Tehran was
"very disturbed" by India's stance. "It is surprising that a
founder of the Non-Aligned Movement such as India had voted
against another member nation like Iran," Yaghoub said. 

Stung by the backlash, including criticism by the opposition
parties and the ruling Congress Party's left allies, New Delhi
has been trying to do some fire-fighting, claiming that much of
its diplomatic effort was made "on behalf" of Tehran and that
India acted in "Iran's interests". Saran, who has been defending
India's stand, has said that New Delhi was successful in
persuading the European Union Three (EU-3 - France, Germany and
Britain) not to refer Iran immediately to the Security Council
and allow time for discussions. 

"Having got them [the EU-3] to agree to what we wanted, then to
say we will only abstain on the resolution, would not have been
the correct position for us to take," Saran said. Saran also
said that uranium conversion activities restarted by Iran in
August did not constitute a violation of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. "It is not. I have already said it is
not." This is despite India's concern in the past that Iran's
nuclear program has been secretly promoted by Pakistan and
China, which was a crucial factor for the anti-Iran vote. 

The tussle over Iran is not over yet. The IAEA governing board
has to vote again in November before any UN referral takes place
and there is no way to know which way India, which actually
surprised the West, and some other countries who voted in favor,
will turn. The pressure will be from both sides - the US and
Iran. It will not be easy for New Delhi to keep both happy. 

Indeed, expert opinion is sharply divided on India's vote at the
IAEA last week. Those who have defended New Delhi do so in terms
of the burgeoning ties with the US, and by extension Israel,
which now sees Iran as its main threat. In this context, it is
important that India is seen as a "responsible" and "sensible"
country that is prepared to address the problem of nuclear
proliferation and at the same time soften the impact of the IAEA
resolution against long-time friend Iran. 

The IAEA vote also makes it apparent that in its relationship
with nations, India values the US the most, with Washington also
inclined to build new strategic ties with New Delhi to balance
the growing influence of China in the region. 

In an interview, Michael Krepon of the Stimson Center, which
focuses on conflict resolution, has said, "Had India not voted
to support the IAEA resolution, the nuclear cooperation
agreement [between India and the US] would have been in big
trouble on Capitol Hill. The [George W] Bush administration
defended the deal on the basis of a new strategic partnership
with India. If, on the first test of this partnership, India
lined up with Beijing and Moscow instead of Washington, the
administration's rationale would have been dynamited." 

On the other hand, others have talked about the historical and
commercial ties between India and Iran, accusing New Delhi of
"caving in" to the pressure by Washington. In the past, Tehran
and New Delhi have joined hands against the Taliban in
Afghanistan, where India disliked the Sunni hardliners as much
as Shi'ite Iran did. This set the ball rolling after years of
mistrust during the Cold War when Tehran, ironically, had sided
with the US against Moscow. 

India relies heavily for its energy needs on Iran and has signed
a memorandum of cooperation over building the IPI gas pipeline.
India imported Iranian crude oil worth $1.67 billion in
2003-2004, with a total volume of annual bilateral trade $2.8
billion in same year, a 24% growth over the previous year. 

The dependence is only going to increase. India imports nearly
70% of its energy needs, with estimates suggesting that by 2020
the country will be importing 85% of its energy requirements. 

Observers also refer to domestic politics impinging on foreign
policy that may finally tilt the balance in Iran's favor. 

One aspect is elections to the important north Indian state of
Bihar, due next month, where Muslims will play a critical role
in deciding who forms the government. Thus, New Delhi may be
averse to taking a strong stand against an Islamic state such as
Iran. There are close to 150 million Muslims in India, out of
which over 25 million are Shi'ites. 

By the same logic, elections in the near future are also due in
the states of West Bengal, Kerala and possibly Uttar Pradesh,
where the Muslim population is known to vote en masse and play a
pivotal role. 

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. 

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
														
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 33 York Daily Record: ENERGY: GE to upgrade PPL plants - 

[ydr.com]

GE to upgrade PPL plants

 Wednesday, September 28, 2005 

GE Energy's nuclear business has been awarded a contract valued
at more than $10 million to support implementation of an
extended power uprate for PPL's Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 near
Berwick.

        PPL is seeking to increase the output of its boiling-water
reactor plant by approximately 200 megawatts.

        GE Energy, the plant's original equipment manufacturer, will
work with PPL to prepare for the uprate, which will be
implemented in phases during several refueling outages.
 

ETC. (2005-09-28)       GULF COAST (2005-09-28)   

Copyright © York Daily Record 2005
122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122
York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
 34 News & Star: Blair makes nuclear pledge

Published on 28/09/2005   
                                                                                                                                           
The nuclear industry tonight welcomed a pledge by the Prime 
Minister to assess all options for future power generation, 
including civil nuclear power.
 
Tony Blair said in his speech to the Labour conference in
Brighton that the Government will publish proposals on its
energy policy next year.
 
â€œGlobal warming is too serious for the world any longer to
ignore its danger or split into opposing factions on it.
 
â€œFor how much longer can countries like ours allow the
security of our energy supply to be dependent on some of the
most unstable parts of the world?
 
â€œFor both reasons the G8 agreement must be made to work so we
develop together the technology that allows prosperous nations
to adapt and emerging ones to grow sustainably, and that means
an assessment of all options, including civil nuclear power.â€
 
The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the announcement and
said it hoped an urgent debate would now be held.
 
Chairman Philip Dewhurst said it was the first time he had heard
the Prime Minister mention nuclear power in a keynote conference
speech.
 
â€œA lot of people have been looking for a signal from the
Government and we welcome what Mr Blair said today.â€
 
Around a quarter of Britainâ€™s energy is nuclear generated but
most of the power stations are ageing and are being closed at
the rate of around one a year.
 
The industry is calling for a replacement programme, especially
as power stations go off stream.
 
It argues that technology has improved, making nuclear power
stations safer, cheaper to run and more environmentally friendly.
 
*****************************************************************
 35 NewsFromRussia.Com Illegal trading of nuclear materials concerns UN 

12:15 2005-09-28

 The United Nations atomic watchdog agency has reported a
substantial increase in illicit trafficking and unauthorised
activities with nuclear and other radioactive materials in
2003-2004, including one case involving weapons-grade material. 

The majority of the incidents reported by states showed no
evidence of criminal activity, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) said. But, it warned: "In the hands of terrorists
or other criminals, some radioactive sources could be used for
malicious purposes, for example in a radiological dispersal
device or 'dirty bomb'."

Countries reported 121 incidents to the IAEA in 2004, according
to new statistics from the agency's Illicit Trafficking Database
(ITDB). The case involving fissile material - highly enriched
uranium (HEU) or plutonium - needed to make a nuclear weapon,
occurred in June 2003 when an individual was arrested in
possession of 170 grams of HEU, attempting to illegally
transport it across the border from Georgia.

The increased number of incidents during 2003-2004 could in part
be due to improved reporting, IDTB said.

Since IDTB started in 1993, there have been 18 confirmed case of
trafficking in HEU and plutonium. A few of these involved
kilogram quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material but most
involved very small quantities. In some cases the material was
allegedly a sample of larger quantities available for illegal
sale or at risk of theft.

In the past 12 years, 220 incidents involved nuclear materials,
mainly low-grade and mostly reactor fuel pellets, natural
uranium, depleted uranium and thorium. While the quantities were
rather small to be significant for nuclear proliferation or use
in a terrorist bomb, they indicate gaps in control and security
of nuclear material and facilities.

The majority of confirmed nuclear incidents during 1993-2004
involved criminal activity, such as theft, illegal possession,
illegal transfer or transaction. Where data on motives is
available, it indicates profit seeking as the principal goal.

In the 12 year period, 424 incidents were reported involving
other radioactive materials, mostly radioactive sources, which
are used worldwide in a host of legitimate applications, such as
radiography. Measures to protect and control their use, storage
or disposal are much less strict than those applied toward
nuclear materials.

As well as possible terrorist use, radioactive sources also have
the potential to harm human health or the environment, AKI
reports. 

  Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU".
*****************************************************************
 36 Korea Times: US Uranium Exported to Korea Missing 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter

 The United States says it sold 69 tons of natural uranium
fluoride, which can be enriched to build nuclear bombs, to South
Korea. But no institute in South Korea says that it has the
material. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce recently reported on its
Internet site () that the country exported 68.693 tons of
natural uranium fluoride to Korea last July for $24 million, or
$349 per ton.

 However, the Korean government flatly rebuffed any possibility
of the deal as the state-sponsored Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power
(KHNP) likewise claims.

 ``We have no reason to purchase uranium fluoride since we have
no ability to enrich the substance. Without enrichment
capability, it is useless,¡¯¡¯ KHNP official Lee Seung-chul
said. 

Uranium fluoride, sometimes called uranium hexafluoride, refers
to the compound used in the uranium enrichment process to
produce fuel for nuclear reactors or weapons.

 ``We think the Department of Commerce may have made an error
and already asked the U.S. government to correct the wrong
data,¡¯¡¯ Lee said.

 He claimed the hefty price tag of $349 a ton does also not make
sense because the international market price of uranium fluoride
was between $30 and $40 a ton last year.

 In fact, the Department of Commerce data shows the price stood
at $47 for France, $36 for the Netherlands and $37 for the
United Kingdom.

 Professor Hwang Yong-seok of Seoul National University concurs. 

``South Korea has no facilities to enrich natural uranium
fluoride. I do not think the government made a deal to acquire
the material in this climate,¡¯¡¯ Hwang said. 

When contacted, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul said it would conduct
investigations on the issue, which it said would take a
considerable span of time. 

voc200@koreatimes.co.kr 09-28-2005 17:21         
  
*****************************************************************
 37 [NYTr] DU tests to be offered to US troops returning from Iraq
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:08:48 -0500 (CDT)

 
	UNDISC_RECIPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

The Independent - 28 September 2005 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article315508.ece

Depleted uranium tests for US troops returning from Iraq 

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 

US troops returning from Iraq are for the first time to be offered
state-of-the-art radiation testing to check for contamination from
depleted uranium - a controversial substance linked by some to cancer
and birth defects. 

Campaigners say the Pentagon refuses to take seriously the issue of
poisoning from depleted uranium (DU) and offers only the most basic
checks, and only when it is specifically asked for. But state
legislators across the US are pushing ahead with laws that will provide
their National Guard troops access to the most sophisticated tests.

Connecticut and Louisiana have already passed such legislation and
another 18 are said to be considering similar steps. Connecticut's new
law - pioneered by state legislator Pat Dillon - comes into effect on
Saturday.

"What this does is establish a standard," said Mrs Dillon, a
Yale-trained epidemiologist. "It means that our Guardsmen will have
access to highly sensitive testing that can differentiate between
background levels of radiation." DU - a heavy metal waste-product of
nuclear power plants - has been used by the US military since the 1991
Gulf War. It is used to tip tank shells and missiles because of its
ability to penetrate armour. On impact DU burns at an extremely high
temperature and is widely dispersed in micro particles.

The science surrounding DU remains hotly contested though the majority
of studies have concluded there is no genuine risk from battlefield
contamination. One 2001 study by the Royal Society, concluded: "Except
in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as
a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from
battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be
detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal
lifetime."

But, campaigners such as the British-based Campaign Against Depleted
Uranium (CADU), cite other studies which suggest a risk. In 2003,New
Scientist reported that a study by the Armed Forces Radiobiology
Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, found that human bone cells
could suffer genetic damage when exposed to DU, even at levels deemed to
be non-toxic.

Gerard Matthew has no doubts about the effect of DU. The former member
of the New York National Guard served in Iraq from April to September
2003. On his return he was not offered testing until a New York
newspaper offered to arrange it for him and some friends. "[With the
military] it never came up. They suppressed the whole DU thing," he
said.

Mr Matthew, who said he was found to have considerable radiation
exposure, said two years on he suffers from migraines, erectile
dysfunction and a swollen face - conditions that have developed since he
returned from Iraq. But his conviction about the dangers of DU was fixed
when his daughter, Victoria Claudette, was born with only two digits on
her right hand.

Whatever debate may be going on among scientists, Mr Matthew is
convinced his daughter - conceived the month after he returned from Iraq
- suffered because of his own exposure to DU.

"It's concealment," he said. "We have 18 and 19-year-old coalition
forces out there fighting and they should not be exposed to this." Dr
Doug Rokke, a health physicist who was part of a Pentagon team that
studied DU in the mid 1990s, concluded that there was no way DU weapons
could be used without the risk of contamination. He said the Pentagon
responded to his conclusions by denouncing him.

He told the In These Times newspaper: "DU is a war crime. It's that
simple. Once you've scattered all this stuff around and then refuse to
clean it up you've committed a war crime." 
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 38 [DU-WATCH] 198 March Photos; Galloway Tour Finale; DU exhibit
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:33:31 -0500 (CDT)

 
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Follow links to original reports at http://www.traprockpeace.org

George Galloway and Friends Rock the House to Close Historic Day in
Washington, D.C. Hear the diverse voices, and see the photos - of this
unforgettable program. (more below)
http://www.traprockpeace.org/george_galloway_dc_92405.html

See 198 Photos - virtually the entire DC march, including coverage of the
huge "College Not Combat - Relief Not War" contingent called by Campus
Antiwar Network. The contingent drew over 2000 students and supporters to DC
and San Francisco marches. http://www.traprockpeace.org/march_dc_092405/

National Exhibit on uranium weapons educates hundreds of activists on these
illegal and inhumane weapons. See photos and links to resources:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_092405/

##

More on George Galloway Tour Finale: (first some quotes from the evening)

"We have to raise our demands. We don't want Bush out of the Whitehouse, we
want Bush in prison with Blair and all the other war criminals who have
brought us to this pass." - George Galloway

As Muhammed Ali said: "No Viet Cong ever called me nigger. And I will not
fight for Democracy in Vietnam when I cannot fight for Democracy in
Mississippi." Prophetic words coming after Hurricane Katrina showed the
world that the government that claims to be able to rebuild nations, cannot
save its own citizens..." - Ahmed Shawki

"I have asked Tony Blair to meet me for a year, and his answer always is 'I
don't wand to debate a grieving mother.' We know why he doesn't want to
debate a grieving mother." - Rose Gentle

"Only when the the United States is at peace with itself can it be at peace
with this world. We cannot allow the administration to deny the people of
the Gulf Coast and New Orleans the right to return as they deny the
Palestinians the right to return." - Elias Rashmawi

"They hated the occupation, they hated the power that oppressed them. But
whenever there was room for dialogue, there was dialogue. Whenever there was
room for tea, there was tea. Whenever there was room for food, there was
food and they shared it with us. They shared their Holy Koran with me, a
Christian occupier of their land. So the notion that they need 160,000
foreign troops in order to succeed is offensive to me." - Camilo Mejia

George Galloway, Member of Parliament - UK (Respect Unity Coalition), spoke
to a capacity audience at the First Congregational Church in Washington, DC.
Ralph Nadar and Dennis Brutus were special guests, while Louisiana activists
were honored (see below). Appearing with Galloway were, in order of
speaking, Virginia Harabin (moderator); Mounzer Sleiman, PhD, who made
welcoming remarks on behalf of National Council of Arab Americans; Camilo
Mejia, Army soldier who refused to fight in Iraq; he is a conscientious
objector and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War; Elias Rashmawi,
National Council of Arab Americans; Rose Gentle, founding member of Military
Families Against the War (UK); and Ahmed Shawki, Editor, International
Socialist Review and Board member of National Council of Arab Americans - he
introduced George Galloway.

Download audio and see photos at
http://www.traprockpeace.org/george_galloway_dc_92405.html

High bandwidth for radio airplay
mp3 1:35:00 minutes; 96 kbps mono; 65.3 mb

Medium bandwidth for broadband and radio airplay
mp3 1:35:00 minutes; 48 kbps mono; 37.2 mb

Low bandwidth for dial-up connections
mp3 1:35:00 minutes; 16 kbps mono; 10.9 mb

Copyright Notice: Non-commercial use only; all rights reserved. Radio
stations may play audio with notification (not permission) to Traprock Peace
Center (413-773-7427 or charles@mtdata.com). Any use requires this
attribution and notice: "Copyright 2005 Traprock Peace Center; all rights
reserved." Any request for permission to use commercially must be made to
George Galloway.

##

Charlie Jenks
Website Manager; Past President
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427 (Traprock office)
413-773-5188, ex. 2 (personal messages)
Fax 413-773-7507
http://www.traprockpeace.org

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Need Help?  Get Help! Tools and Strategies for Healthy Drug-Free Living</a>.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/v8.vgB/dbOLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 39 [du-list] Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:32:15 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an
epidemiological perspective

http://www.traprockpeace.org/1476-069x-4-17.pdf

Rita Hindin , Doug Brugge and Bindu Panikkar
Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2005, 4:17 doi:
10.1186/1476-069X-4-17
Published 26 August 2005

See Open Access on use of this work - http://www.biomedcentral.com/
info/about/openaccess/







Charles Jenks
Chair of Advisory Board and Web Manager
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427
fax 413-773-7507
http://www.traprockpeace.org



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 40 [NukeNet] NRC Senior official says PA kids not protected
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:32:16 -0700

 
	WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Subject: NRC Sr official says PA kids not protected  during an evacuation

                EFMR Monitoring Group, Inc.
                                       4100 Hillsdale 
Road


                             Harrisburg, PA 17112

                                       efmr.org



                              PRESS  RELEASE 

                             September 27, 2005

    Contact: 
(717)-541-1101
Eric Joseph 
Epstein 
ericepstein@comcast.net



               Children vulnerable during nuclear accident

  NRC official states that  PA lacks  plan for preschool children

A senior Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff Member has filed a NRC 
Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) determining that:

1. The children in PA are not safe during a nuclear emergency because they 
are unplanned for; and

2. The NRC 120 day count down for pulling all of PA¹s nuclear power 
licenses should start immediately; and

3. PA never has, and continues not to comply with the Federal Regulations 
requiring emergency planning for preschool children, and

4. FEMA has been reaching a false finding for emergency planning compliance 
for the past 19 years; and

5. Petition for rulemaking PRM 50-79 ³Emergency Planning for Preschool 
Children² should be approved and GM EV-2 should be codified into NRC 
Regulations; and

6. NRC Review of Public Comments on PRM 50-79 leads itself to believe that 
this violation is shared by other states.

                           1



The DPO was filed by Michael Jamgochian who is the NRC Senior Nuclear 
Engineer who authored all NRC Emergency Planning Guidelines and Requirements.

This information came from Congressman Todd Platt¹s Office who are in 
possession of this DPO.

The DPO was marked by NRC Congressional Affairs Director of Communications 
William Outlaw, as ³For Official Use Only, Not For Public Release².

Due to this notation on the DPO, Congressman Platt¹s staff was unable to 
give me, the petitioner of (PRM 50-79), a copy of the document. However, 
they were willing to read the DPO and allow it¹s transcription.

Attached/below is the transcription of this DPO.

For more information on this DPO, contact:

NRC DPO Author - Michael Jamgochain: (301) 415-3224

Petition PRM 50-79 Author - Larry Christian: (717) 245-2662

Co sponsor of Petition PRM 50-79 - Eric Epstein: (717) 541-1101























                           2

9/26/05 DPO Transcription of NRC Senior Nuclear Engineer Michael Jamgochian 
from Congressman Todd Platt¹s Office phone conversation


Differing Professional Opinion
NRC FORM 680
Filed by Michael Jamgochian
9/7/05

 From Block 10: Describe the present situation, condition, method, etc, 
which you believe should be changed or improved.

I believe that FEMA and the State of Pennsylvania does not comply with FEMA 
guidance that NRC bases it¹s licensing decisions on, I believe that the 
criteria in FEMA GM EV2 must be codified into NRC¹s emergency planning 
regulations, in order to permit the NRC to make a finding that ³there is 
reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.²

I also believe that the 120-day clock contained in 10 CFR 50.54 (s)(2) 
should be implemented in Pennsylvania during the rulemaking. My beliefs are 
base on the fact that in 45 FR 55406, dated August 19, 1980 the Commission 
state that the NRC will ³review FEMA findings and determinations on the 
adequacy and capability of implementation of State and local plans (and 
will) make decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency 
preparedness (i.e. integration of the licensee¹s emergency preparedness as 
determined by the NRC and of the State/local governments as determined by 
FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and issuance of operating licenses or shutdown of 
operating reactors. FEMA will approve State and local emergency plans and 
preparedness, where appropriate, based upon its findings and determinations 
with respect to the adequacy of State and local plans and the capabilities 
of State and local governments to effectively implement these plans and 
preparedness measures.


                       i
These findings and determinations will be provided to the NRC for use in 
it¹s licensing process.² In 45 FR 55403 dated August 19, 1980, the 
Commission emphasized the importance of preplanning for emergencies by 
stating, ³In order to discharge effectively its statutory responsibilities, 
the Commission must know that proper means and procedures will be in place 
to assess the course of an accident and its potential severity, that NRC 
and other appropriate authorities and the public will be notified promptly, 
and adequate protective actions in response to actual or anticipated 
conditions can and will be taken.² Since September 2002, I have been 
responsible for evaluating the merits of a Petition For Rulemaking (PRM 
50-79). After evaluating all public comments received, along with several 
discussions with the petitioners, FEMA, several state and local governments 
and NRC staff and management.

I developed a Commission paper recommending that the petition be denied 
(SECY-05-0045). This SECY was concurred in by FEMA, NRC Office directors 
and the EDO. I based my recommendations to deny this petition on my 
fundamental belief that current requirements and guidance, along with state 
and local government established emergency plans provide reasonable 
assurance of adequate protection of all members of the public, including 
all public and private schools, daycare centers and nursery schools, in the 
event of a nuclear power plant incident, and that no new regulations were 
required. The petition did raise questions about implementation and 
compliance with relevant requirements and guidelines that were thought to 
be previously determined to be adequate in the petitioners state and local 
area.

Accordingly, the petition was recommended to the Commission to be denied 
and forwarded to FEMA for investigation into implementation problems 
relating to the preplanning of protective actions for daycare centers and 
nursery schools. Because the real problem is implementation and not 
regulations, FEMA committed to the NRC and the petitioners that the 
implementation concerns relating to the elements in GM EV2 would be full 
demonstrated and evaluated during the May 5, TMI exercise. The 
demonstration of the elements in GM EV2 for nursery schools and daycare 
centers was not adequately demonstrated during the TMI exercise.          ii
Therefore, I can no longer support the stat[e] position to deny PRM 50-79. 
I believe that my current position is confirmed by letters from PA and 
supported by the following:

The petitioner stated, and the comment letters from FEMA, PEMA, PA Governor 
and The Harrisburg Mayor confirmed that the preplanned protective measures 
for public and private elementary, middle and high schools is very 
different then the preplanned protective measures for licensed daycare 
centers and nursery schools. This is not consistent with NRC and FEMA¹s 
regulations and guidelines. FMEA¹s GME EV2 require that sate and local 
emergency plans address, at a minimum, preplanned transportation resources 
that are to be available for evacuating all schools including daycare and 
nursery schools. Preplanned evacuation centers will be established for all 
schools, preplanned alert and notification procedures are to be established 
for all schools and preplanned public information for parents and guardians 
for all schools including daycare and nursery schools.

The petitioner state that all the above does not exist for nursery schools 
and daycare centers in PA. FMEA, PEMA, the PA Governor and the Mayor of 
Harrisburg have confirmed that all of the above exist only for public and 
private elementary, middle or high schools and does not exist for nursery 
schools and daycare centers.

FEMA and PEMA has documented that PEMA will notify daycare and nursery 
schools of an existing emergency but that it is the responsibility of the 
daycare and nursery schools and the parents to take the necessary 
protective actions instead of the state or local government. In a letter 
dated March 24, 2005, the NRC told the petitioner that protective actions 
for nursery schools in accordance with GM EV2 would be evaluated in the May 
05 TMI offsite exercise. The FMEA report on the TMI exercise did not show 
an evaluation of all the requirements in GM EV2 for nursery schools and 
daycare centers.

                            iii

 From Block 11: Describe your differing opinion in accordance with 
the             guidance presented in NRC management directive 10.159

The Commission¹s emergency planning regulations, specifically 10 CFR 
50.47(a)(1), require nuclear power plant licensees develop and maintain 
emergency plans that provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective 
actions can and will be taken for the protection of the public in an 
emergency. Section 50.47 (a)(2) states that the NRC will base its findings 
regarding adequacy of these plans on a review by NRC of FEMA, who will 
determine if the plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable that 
they can be implemented. NRC and FEMA promulgated NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1 to 
provide detailed guidance on the development and implementation of these 
plans.

Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654 details the requirements for the identification 
and planning for special facility populations and schools. FEMA GM EV2 
provides guidance to assist federal officials in evaluating adequacy of 
state and local government offsite emergency plans and preparedness for 
protecting school children during a radiological emergency. The term 
³school² refers to all public and private schools, preschools, and licensed 
daycare centers with 10 or more students.

The state and local government offsite emergency plans shall address, at a 
minimum, preplanned transportation resources available for evacuating all 
schools including the licensed daycare and nursery schools; preplanned 
reception and care centers for all schools including daycare and nursery 
schools, alert and notification procedures for all schools including 
daycare and nursery schools and public information for parents and 
guardians of all schools including daycare and nursery schools. No evidence 
has been presented to show that PA complies with these emergency planning 
requirements.


                         iv

The consequences of not codifying the state and local government specific 
resources for daycare and nursery school children is that these children in 
PA will not have preplanned evacuation capabilities in the event of an 
emergency. Therefore, the NRC would not be able to find that ³there is 
reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken in the 
event of an emergency, Thus requiring NRC to implement the 120-day clock 
contained in 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) and to grant the petition for PRM 50-79 to 
codify the criteria contained in GM EV2. The protective actions that were 
described in the TMI exercise report for nursery schools and daycare 
centers is that ³Municipalities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are the 
responsible offsite response organizations for notifying daycare centers 
located in their geographical/political boundaries in the event of an 
incident occurring at TMI. The municipal plans and procedures require that 
daycare centers be notified in an incident at TMI at the Alert, Site Area 
and General Emergency and/or when Protective Action Decisions are announced.²

The TMI Exercise report further state that ³Each municipality has a 
Notification and Resources Manual that lists the names, address, point of 
contact and phone number of the daycare center locate in their portion of 
the EPZ. In every case, the municipalities simulated notification of the 
daycare centers in a timely manor pursuant to their codified plans and 
procedures².

The above TMI Exercise descriptions of how the state and local government 
will protect the health and safety of the nursery school children taken in 
conjunction with the following quote from a FEMA letter dated April 29, 
2004 to NRC, illustrates a definite lack of compliance with the regulations 
and guidelines. ³Please keep in mind that daycare centers and nursery 
schools are considered private business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
as opposed to elementary, middle and high schools that are considered 
public institutions. As was stated in a letter dated January 10, 2003, from 
acting Director of PEMA to the NRC, ³Parents are legally required to send 
their children to public schools unless they opt to enroll them in private 
institutions. The use of private daycare facilities is voluntary on the 
parents. There is no legal requirement to send children to 
them.²                 v
Also from FEMA letter dated July 29, 2004 to NRC ³parents should review 
with daycare centers and nursery schools procedures and plans for the 
safety and protection of their children, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
Department of Public Welfare issued a bulletin on December 27, 2003, 
requiring daycare centers to develop an EOP. The enclosed Draft EOP for 
nursery schools delineates a listing of transportation providers and 
contact lists for drivers.²

In a letter from PEMA to the petitioners dated July 30, 2004, PEMA stated 
that ³Childcare facilities are, for the most part, private business 
entities who in conjunction with the parents, should assume responsibility 
for the safety of their charges. Local government will not treat these 
business any differently than it does any citizen. Especially in rural 
areas, municipal government simply may not have the resources to provide 
shelter. In so far as municipal shelters are available, childcare providers 
are encouraged to use them².

³Childcare facilities are, for the most part, private entities who should 
assume responsibility for their charges. As mentioned in the Daycare 
planning guide that¹s on PEMA¹s web site ³municipal emergency management 
agency may be able to help, but it won¹t be able to guarantee that you will 
remain in one group, thus complicating your accountability problems.² 
Childcare providers should coordinate with municipal government and decide 
whether to use government provided resources, or to make separate 
arrangements. Also care of their charges is ultimately the responsibility 
of the daycare provider and the parents of the children.²

³If time allows, municipal officials will issue a protective action 
decision. However, localized emergencies or severe time constraints may 
dictate that the daycare facility operator must choose the most prudent 
course of action. The sample plan on PEMA¹s web site lists considerations 
(Part II, Check list A) that will help the daycare provider to make that 
decision.²


                              vi


In a letter from the Mayor of Harrisburg to the NRC dated December 3, 2002, 
he stated ³The exclusion of such facilities in present Radiological 
Emergency Plans is an omission that is certain to create confusion and 
chaos in the event that an evacuation would ever be ordered in on of the 
affected evacuation zones near a nuclear power station. Parents and others 
would be attempting to reach the nursery schools and daycare centers have 
thus far generally not put into place any evacuation plan, which means 
there would be an onsite confusion regarding the safety of the children 
entrusted to these facilities.²

All of the above documentation, along with the TMI exercise results lead me 
to conclude that state and local emergency plans do not address preplanned 
transportation resources available for evacuating all public and private 
schools including daycare centers and nursery schools established 
preplanned resources and care centers for all public and private schools 
including daycare and nursery schools has not been addressed and alert and 
notification procedures for these schools and public information for 
parents and guardians of daycare and nursery school children has not been 
preplanned.

-end


                            vii
Suzanne Leta
Clean Energy Advocate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
<mailto:sleta@njpirg.org>sleta@njpirg.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 41 [du-list] Depleted uranium tests for US troops returning from
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:32:13 -0700

 
	version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article315508.ece

Item begins..

US troops returning from Iraq are for the first time to be offered 
state-of-the-art radiation testing to check for contamination from depleted 
uranium - a controversial substance linked by some to cancer and birth 
defects.

Campaigners say the Pentagon refuses to take seriously the issue of 
poisoning from depleted uranium (DU) and offers only the most basic checks, 
and only when it is specifically asked for. But state legislators across 
the US are pushing ahead with laws that will provide their National Guard 
troops access to the most sophisticated tests....................

Feedback.

newseditor@independent.co.uk

and/or

Letters for publication in the print edition. Note: If you wish to submit a 
letter for publication in the newspaper, it must include the sender's name, 
postal address and daytime telephone number - letters@ independent.co.uk



   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 9/27/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 42 [DU-WATCH] World full of Fear
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:13:37 -0500 (CDT)

 
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Chris Busby has recently recorded "World Full of Fear" - offered for public domain use (commercial copyrights reserved).

http://www.afon.org/peace/worldfear03.htm

The quest for truth and justice goes on.

Dai Williams
eosuk@btinternet.com
www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Dying to be thin? Anorexia. Narrated by Julianne Moore.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pL1caD/sbOLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 43 [NukeNet] Japanese uranium contaminated soil
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:32:10 -0700

 
	SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_GROUP,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

We have sent several messages to this list regarding the plans of the
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Organization (JNC) to ship 290 cubic
meters of uranium contaminated soil to the US for refining and
disposal. Background information is available on the following pages:

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/
nit107uraniumsoil.html

http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/uransoil7Sep05.html

JNC continues to refuse to publish the name of the company to which the
soil is being sent, but information obtained through a freedom of
information inquiry seems to narrow the possibilities to two US uranium
mills in Utah: Shootering Canyon and White Mesa. Of these, according to
DOE's Domestic Uranium Production Report (2003-2004), the operational
status of the former is 'reclamation', whereas the operational status
of the latter is 'standby'. We deduce from this that JNC has contracted
with the owners of the White Mesa mill to refine the above soil. The
name of this company is White Mesa LLC. JNC has neither confirmed nor
refuted this deduction.

   It is expected that the soil will be shipped from Kobe Port early in
October. Previously, newspaper reports suggested that the soil would be
shipped to Seattle, however we don't know whether this is accurate.

As we have stated previously, CNIC opposes this method of disposing of
JNC's radioactive waste. It goes against the principle of not dumping
radioactive waste in another country. JNC has conveniently changed its
labeling of the waste to call it 'uranium ore', but the motivation for
sending the waste to the US is simply to escape an intractable waste
problem caused by its own shoddy practices back in the 1950s and 60s.
JNC is paying for the soil to be taken off its hands, so clearly it has
no value as ore for the US company.

We have continued to relay information obtained from other groups,
which are following this issue more closely, on the assumption that the
above principle is worth defending, regardless of the level of
radioactivity involved (3-4 becquerels per gram). We are also concerned
about the bad precedent that this case sets.

We would be keen to hear of any developments at the US end.

Philip White
International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 44 [DU-WATCH] Bertell on Canadian Reactor Fuel Enrichment
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:13:38 -0500 (CDT)

 
	SUBJ_GROUP,UNDISC_RECIPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

In the matter of the proposed SEU and BDU production at the CAMECO 
Facility in Port Hope Ontario, I submit, as an intervener text for 
the October 20, 2005 Hearing, of the Canadian Nuclear Safety 
Commission (CNSC), the following text:.

My name is Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Ph. D., I am a Canadian citizen, now 
living in the United States, and have some thirty five years of 
experience with the health and environmental concerns associated with 
uranium and nuclear industries. I have been a consultant to various 
groups in Port Hope for the last 30 years. My background is in 
environmental epidemiology, biostatistics, public health and physics.

My first major concern relative to this screening document, is with 
the somewhat hidden breadth of the issues raised by this proposal. 
According to the AECL web page:

 	(Error! Bookmark not defined.)
  
"SEU (slightly enriched uranium) will be used in the ACR, replacing 
natural uranium (NU) fuel that has been traditionally used in CANDU 
reactors. This enrichment (2%) provides enough additional reactivity 
to allow light water to be used as the ACR-700's reactor coolant 
instead of heavy water."

I understand that only about 1.2% enrichment of fuel has been 
actually tested in a reactor.

This raises serious questions about a major change in technology for 
the CANDU reactor, and whether this change can be retroactively 
applied to operating CANDU facilities in Canada, South Korea and 
elsewhere. CANDU has a two loop circulation, so that the heavy water, 
which circulates in the primary loop, is heated to its boiling point, 
a temperature above the temperature of the light water boiling point 
in the secondary loop. Due to heat transfer to the light water in the 
secondary loop, the light water boils. The boiling of the water in 
the secondary loop is, of course necessary to operate the steam 
turbine and generate electricity. 

Although the screening document implies that these problems will be 
considered in other hearings, they are important here. The economic 
viability of this fuel production facility depends heavily on the 
need and market for its product!  It appears now to be relying on 
many unproven myths and dreams of new markets, and specifically the 
retrofitting of older CANDU reactors.

 If the CANDU begins to use light water in the primary loop, it will 
be necessary to put that water under pressure in order to increase 
the boiling temperature enough to boil the light water in the 
secondary loop. This is a conversion of the CANDU to a (light water) 
pressurized water reactor system, with a lower enrichment needs then 
US light water reactors. It raises new and different safety questions 
at older reactors, and will likely require new licensing requirements.

This is a significant change in the CANDU and cannot be initiated 
through a screening review of a new fuel production at Port Hope. It 
is a question which needs to be before the population of Canada, 
exposed to CANDU reactors, as well as foreign governments which 
operate CANDU reactors.

Page 16 and 18 of the Proposed Screening Report (August 2005), the 
document refers to "natural ceramic grade UO2" - This is an 
expression which the Harvard Business School would call: "strategic 
misrepresentation". It is extremely misleading for the public, but 
probable will legally protect the company from a charge of lying in 
an official document. Ceramic means that the uranium was subjected to 
high temperatures, meaning that CAMECO intends to use uranium 
extracted, through reprocessing, from spent nuclear fuel rods from 
light water reactors,.  The contamination of this reprocessed uranium 
is always fission products, and this hazard was no where discussed in 
the screening document. 

On 16 March, 2005, CAMECO announced that it had signed an agreement 
with British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) to acquire uranium conversion 
services (UF6) from BNFL's Springfields plant in Lancashire, U.K..  
Under the 10-year agreement, BNFL will annually convert a base 
quantity of 5 million kilograms of uranium as UO3 to UF6 for CAMECO. 
This predates the Port Hope approval of the new CAMECO conversion. 
Where will BNFL plc acquire the uranium to convert? This will be 
examined later in this document.

At the end of its March 2005 Press Release, CAMECO added:
"Statements contained in this news release which are not historical 
facts are forward-looking statements that involve risks, 
uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to 
differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward 
looking statements. Factors that could cause such differences, 
without limiting the generality of the following, include:
7	Volatility and sensitivity to market prices for uranium,
7	Electricity in Ontario and gold; [I fail to understand the 
relevance of gold in this context]
7	The impact of the sales volume foreign currency exchange 
rates and interest rates;
7	Imprecision in reserve estimates;
7	Environmental and safety risks including increased regulatory 
burdens;
7	Unexpected geological or hydrological conditions;
7	Political risks arising from operating in certain developing 
countries;
7	A possible deterioration in political support for nuclear 
energy
7	Changes in government regulations and policies, including 
trade laws and policies;
7	Demand for nuclear power;
7	Replacement of production and failure to obtain necessary 
permits and approvals from government authorities;
7	Legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding 
deregulation, regulation or restructuring of the electricity utility 
industry in Ontario;
7	Ontario electricity rate regulations;
7	Weather and other natural phenomena;
7	Ability to maintain and further improve positive labour 
relations;
7	Operating performance of the facilities;
7	Success of planned development projects;
7	And other development and operating risks".

Furthermore, CAMECO disclaims any intention or obligation to update 
or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new 
information, future events or otherwise." This is an amazing self 
protecting statement, probably written by a corporate lawyer. 
However, the emphasis here is on variables: economic profit, labour 
relations and government regulation.  Also, political will to follow 
a nuclear policy is essential, because of the obvious disenchantment 
of the public with everything about this nuclear industry, especially 
its waste.  It appears that the government watch dog agency, CNSC has 
not understood the big picture of CAMECO's intentions.

Because volatility in the uranium market was the number one CAMECO 
concern, I checked the market. in August 2001, uranium spot price in 
US $ per pound of U3O8 was $9.10; in August 2002, it was $9.85; In 
August 2003, it was $11.30; in August 2004, it was $19.25, and in 
August 2005, it was $30.20.  CAMCO has its eye on making a profit in 
a rising market (which may be a bubble)!  It also seems to be more 
concerned about regulatory changes than health and safety, which is 
understandable given its monetary goals. However, the responsibility 
of the Canadian government to speak for the health of the people, the 
integrity of the environment, especially Lake Ontario and local food 
growers, has not been forthcoming by CNSC reviewers of this COMECO 
screening document. It seems that the Canadian people will be stuck 
for the cost of this ten year contract should the industry fold, as 
many are predicting.

The press release does not indicate that BNFL had announced in 2001, 
that the Springfield facility's fluoride conversion  would cease in 
2006. However it is being kept open because of this agreement with 
CAMECO. (See. The Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.07.17 - 13 
February 2001: "BNFL will cease uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion 
operations at the Springfield facility after March 2006") 

According to this same notice, BNFL sold its uncommitted UF6 
conversion capacity to CAMECO Corp, and all production other than 
that needed to fill existing contract requirements is committed to 
CAMECO, which MUST take a specified minimum quantity of conversion 
product yearly (Fresh FUEL 12 February).   BNFL will be adding a 
second head-end to its Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield to 
allow Thorp to reprocess both the oxide fuel from British Energy and 
its overseas customers, as it does already, and Magnox fuel from its 
two youngest first-generation Magnox plants, Wylfa and Oldbury. This 
would enable Wylfa to continue operating until 2021, if it remained 
economic to do so, and Oldbury for a few years less. (Nucleonics 
Week, 1 February p. 7). These are unchangeable "facts". It appears 
that Springfield's source of uranium being sold to CAMECO is BNFL 
reprocessing.  It also appears that CAMECO is taking the bulk of the 
economic risk.

It is difficult to tell whether CAMECO is taking advantage of the 
increase in the price of uranium, the shut down of the two 
reprocessing facilities in the U.K. (and availability of extracted 
uranium), or the bailing out of a failing British nuclear industry. 
Are these corporate goals true concerns of the people of Port Hope? 
Who will benefit from this project? Who will have to suffer the 
health, environmental and economic risks for CAMECO's activities?

I note that this plan, dating from at least 2001, seems not to have 
been reported to the people of Port Hope and it is not covered under 
the section on "Necessity for the Project". There was also no 
discussion in the screening document of the uranium feed being 
contaminated with fission products, or even of its being post-burn in 
a light water reactor. There was no discussion of the health hazards 
of contamination with fission products, or of fluorides from the 
highly toxic UF6. Moreover, the use of "natural" in this context is 
outrageous. The uranium has been removed from its nature state, 
pulverized, chemically changed, burned in a nuclear reactor, and 
retrieved through nuclear reprocessing. It is no longer "natural" in 
any sense! It is even a stretch to call it "technologically enhanced 
natural uranium".

Even honesty about the total plans for Port Hope, as were explained 
by D.F. Torgerson et. al, from AECL Research , Chalk River 
Laboratories,  in "CANDU Fuel Cycle Flexibility", a talk delivered at 
the 9th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, Sydney, Australia May 1-4, 
1994, is absent from the screening document. In this address, from 
Sydney, it is stated: 
"CANDU technology can be fuelled with a wide variety of fuel types 
including slightly enriched uranium and recovered uranium from 
reprocessed spent Light Water Reactor fuel types".."Plutonium and 
other actinides arising from various sources, including LWR fuel can 
be accommodated, and weapons-originated plutonium"and."including 
the thorium cycle would be of interest." [to AECL and therefore to 
CAMECO].

In this address, it is stated that an increase of U235 to 1.2% would 
increase burn-up in CANDU by a factor of three. On page 13 of the 
proposed screening document, it is stated that the use of new SEU 
fuel in Bruce B reactors, would allow the reactors to run at full 
power, increasing their output efficiency by approximately 10%.  
Efficiency of a reactor is the percentage achieved, of its potential 
capacity output, in a year. By increasing the reactor's output 
capacity, you do not automatically achieve better efficiency. This 
seems to be a confusion of capacity using NU fuel, with output using 
SEU fuel, which is an error. 

Health Risk:

I found at no place in the proposed screening document, an 
explanation that the Radiation Safety Standards used in Canada, were 
not health based standards. Nor did I find an explanation for 
Canada's using ICRP recommendations, based on external high dose 
radiation exposure from the atomic bomb studies and medical radiation 
therapy, for chronic internal exposure to alpha particle emitting 
uranium. Canada has had uranium and radium mining, milling and 
processing for more than 70 years, and has had the potential for 
being the world authority on internal chronic alpha radiation 
exposure. Instead of studying the health of those exposed to its 
activities over the last 70 years, Canada had continued to use an 
extrapolated guess based on external high dose rapidly delivered 
exposure as a Standard Radiation Protection criteria for internal 
uranium exposure!. This demonstrates an insincere concern about 
uranium poisoning of Canadian people, by the government agency 
responsible for protecting the heath of Canadians, and carelessness 
in failing to set health protective regulations. The Canadian Nuclear 
Safety Committee does not show any results of learned from health 
problems of the Dene people in the Northwest Territory, the people 
exposed to uranium in Saskatchewan, at Elliott Lake or Port Hope. 
These sufferings go unnoticed before the economic promise of a 
lucrative industry hopeful for continued government favour. The 
nuclear industry has never succeeded on its own record of achievement.

CNSC still has to opportunity to demand health related documentation:

CAMECO routinely does urine sample analysis for uranium, for its 
workers. It would be relatively easy for this company to test four or 
five long term exposed residents of Port Hope for uranium body 
burden. Certainly the body burden of the people is equally important 
with the burden borne by the environment! It is the only decent thing 
to do before asking the people to accept further pollution of their 
living space in order to increase CAMECO profits and perpetuate 
nuclear/uranium job. I see no attempt to listen to the health 
concerns of the people and respond in a constructive way.  

There would also be relatively easy blood tests which could be 
undertaken to gauge the somatic chromosome damage already suffered by 
this population or the damage to monocyte precursor stem cells caused 
by uranium incorporation in the bone..

The screening document contained no discussion of Dysprosium, a toxic 
rare earth element. There was no discussion of the toxicity of 
fluorides, especially for children already exposed to numerous 
sources of fluoride in water and processed food. Nor were the many 
somatic effects of uranium toxicity, other than cancer discussed. 
Focus only on cancer death was an administrative decision of the 
atomic bomb researchers, not a scientifically based proven 
conclusion. 

Where is the proof that ceramic uranium, burned in a reactor and 
extracted by reprocessing, has the same toxic properties as natural 
uranium as it comes from mining? What is the expected size of the 
atmospheric particles emitted by this CAMECO process? Ceramic 
nanometer particles can penetrate the lung-blood barrier, the blood-
brain barrier, the seminal and placental membranes and the cell 
membrane. Moreover they are too small to be captured by the kidney 
filters. There is no discussion of these problems.

I find that those organizations which speak for the protection of the 
health of people of Port Hope, the flora and fauna of the region and 
the health of Lake Ontario, who are calling for a full environmental 
review of this project, have justice on their side. Clearly neither 
the need, scope nor the implications for health and environment were 
fully covered in this screening document.

This screening of the new CAMECO undertaking fails totally to take a 
preventive health approach. It does not evidence any recognition of 
regard for the Precautionary Principle, adopted by Canada at the Rio 
Summit of 1992, or the Convention for the Rights of the Child that 
entered into international law, with Canadian acceptance, in 1990. It 
is assuming safety based on unreliable regulations and outdated 
assumptions which have favoured an unacceptable industry for 60 years.

Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Rosalie Bertell,
Retired President and Current Consultant to the IICPH, Toronto 
Current Member of the International Science Oversight Committee,
Of the U.S. National Association for Public Health Policy

  

 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Affected by disease? Support health awareness efforts at Network for Good.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/qnM_qD/cnQLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 45 [DU-WATCH] Uranium Enrichment in Canada
 
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:13:27 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com

http://www.cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2005/news_release.ph
p?id=125

Read the words and admire the dance of an uncomfortable Bob Stean of 
Cameco Fuels Division in Canada weaseling out of the EA they know 
would expose an underbelly of illegal and dangerous practices, and 
community and worker health problems, including decades of secret 
manufacturing of HEU metals and DU rods for US fissile and non-
fissile uranium weapons.  

CNSC and Cameco recently inadvertantly admit (in regulatory screening
documents) to working with 90% enriched U without a public disclosure 
or licensing protocol. Cameco and CNSC acutally lost touch with 
reality by revealing the historical processing of 90% HEU in order to 
make a case for why they (Cameco) were safe to get a licence to 
downblend 5% HEU. They forget that no one knew or even imagined HEU 
was processed in Port Hope for all these years. Opp! A few 
bureaucratic heads may roll along with a few corporate heads. 

This throws a monkey wrench in a neat misinforamtion program of years 
of quarterly and annual public uranium and radiation exposure and 
environmental accumulation reports calculated according to natural 
uranium isotopes emission levels.  Now thye find that HEU was being 
released in Cameco's smoke stack.

Cameco is the largest U metal processor/fabricator in North America. 
Looks like there has been a secret production of nuclear weapons 
components in sleepy little Port Hope. 

It was only a few months ago it became public that Port Hope was 
hosting the manufacturing of DU and NDU rods that went to US DoD 
subcontractors and weapons plants (Mcalister. for example?) for 
grinding into penetratrors. 

It was only a few months ago that neutron radiation released from a 
UF6 container was detected by an independent field survey in public 
parking area outside the plant.

And here is a special announcement for R Holloway and friends. Lookie 
here ... neutrons are up to 200 times more "effective" at ionizing 
cells than gamma photons. That's surprising since the official Q 
factor for neutrons by ICRP and all is 3 - 10. 

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10109115-
aGk0R9/webviewable/10109115.pdf

Since neutrons were detected n Port Hope public right or way last 
November, the CNSC has made it Cameco's requirement to report 
fenceline neutron levels each quarter. I though UF6 and cencentrated 
pure U did not emit neutorns. Oh dear, has an industry and health 
physics coverup been decloaked.  

 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Does he tell you he loves you when he hits you? Abuse. Narrated by Halle Berry.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CjRcdD/rbOLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: ERA to plead guilty to Ranger injury charge
 
(AEDT)Wednesday, 28 September 2005. 14:00 (AWST)

 The operator of the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern
Territory has told the Darwin Magistrates Court that it will
plead guilty to a charge of failing to operate and maintain a
site. 

The new charge against Energy Resources of Australia (ERA)
relates to an incident last year in which a worker was injured
by a falling feeder chute at the mine site. 

Prosecutors told the court that the original complaint had been
replaced with a new one. 

Lawyers representing ERA said the company would plead guilty to
the new charge. 

The case was adjourned until October 14.
[ more news ] 


*****************************************************************
 47 reviewjournal.com: EPA extends comment on Yucca safety
 
Sep. 28, 2005

STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday
announced it will accept public comments on proposed Yucca
Mountain radiation safety standards for an additional 30 days. 

The official comment period is being extended to Nov. 21, the
agency announced in a Federal Register notice. 

The EPA has scheduled public hearings at Amargosa Valley on Oct.
3, and in Las Vegas on Oct. 4-6. A hearing in Washington will be
held on Oct. 11. 

The agency is extending the comment period in recognition of
"the high level of interest in Yucca Mountain." 

"It is important to allow adequate time for public information
to readily reach more rural areas," the EPA said. 

Nevada leaders had lobbied for a longer comment period. 

The EPA in August proposed new radiation safety limits for the
nuclear waste repository the Department of Energy plans to build
at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

The EPA proposed a unique two-part standard, with one set of
limits for the first 10,000 years of repository operation and a
second set for the succeeding years. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
 		 
*****************************************************************
 48 Dow Jones: AUSTRALIA WATCH: Hawke Comments Heat Up Uranium Debate

  Wednesday September 28, 11:14 PM 
 
SYDNEY (Dow Jones)--Former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke
gave the uranium debate a nudge this week by suggesting the
country's remote interior should be used to store the world's
nuclear waste. 

 His comments could reenergize the debate, not on nuclear waste
storage but on Australia's restrictive uranium export policy,
which Hawke himself wrestled into place in 1984 as a Labor prime
minister against left-wing opposition. 

As long as the policy stands - and it's still supported by key
state Labor-led governments - it blocks any likelihood of new
uranium producers grabbing a share of the increasing global
demand for the commodity. 

The so-called Three Mines policy - which is essentially a No New
Mines policy - limits Australia, the world's largest source of
uranium deposits, to developing mines at Ranger in the Northern
Territory and Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia. 

In 2004, those three mines produced 10,591 tons of uranium oxide
for export to energy companies in Japan, South Korea, the U.K.,
France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the U.S. 

Despite having the world's largest uranium deposits, Australia
accounts for only 22% of global exports due to the restrictions
on new mining capacity. 

Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. (ERA.AU), a 68.4% subsidiary
of Rio Tinto Plc (RTP), operates the Ranger mine in the Northern
Territory. 

BHP Billiton (BHP) owns the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South
Australia, where the Beverley mine owned by General Atomics of
the U.S. is also located. 

Renewed talk of uranium exports has been supportive of mining
stocks, particularly any company prospecting for reserves in the
Northern Territory, where the federal government is expected to
be more likely to override any opposition from the local Labor
administration. 

The current restrictions on the number of mines and Australia's
stringent export safeguards haven't prevented existing operators
from tapping the growing global demand for nuclear fuel. 

Australia's commodity industry forecaster, the Australian Bureau
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, found export earnings
from uranium rose 29% in the financial year ending June 30,
2005, to a record of $67.4 billion. 
    State Govts Key To Unlocking Three Mines Policy
 

Rising power-generation costs due to higher world prices for
oil, natural gas and coal have made nuclear energy affordable
and prompted policy-makers around the globe to consider stepping
up investments in newer, more efficient reactors. 

China has announced plans to increase its nuclear
power-generating capacity during the next decade. 

That would give Australia a potential new customer and a chance
to surpass Canada, which leads the world in uranium exports with
a 31% share of the global market in 2003. 

China's nuclear power ambitions have already prompted Australia
to begin negotiations on agreed industry safeguards that could
form the basis of a uranium trade deal. 

An agreement to supply China's power-generation sector could
intensify existing pressure on Australia's state governments and
the Labor Party to amend the Three Mines policy. 

While the Liberal-National coalition of center-right parties
hold sway nationally, Labor is still in charge in all Australian
states which are key to determining mining licenses. 

Any move toward expanding the number of uranium-producing mines
in Australia would first require Labor to ditch its long-held
policy in the face of almost certain opposition from the Left
wing of the party. 

Labor's swift move to kill Hawke's proposal on using Australia's
wilderness as a depository for international nuclear waste
highlights how sensitive the uranium issue remains. 

That internal division hasn't prevented the mining industry from
lobbying for change. 

Minerals Council of Australia Chief Executive Mitchell Hooke has
argued the exploration, production and processing of uranium
should be treated no differently from any other mineral
commodity. 

Hooke recently told a parliamentary committee inquiry into the
development of non-fossil fuel energy that the US$30 per pound
price for uranium oxide is a threefold increase since early
2003. 

Rather than relying solely on economic grounds to push for an
expansion of uranium mining in Australia, Hooke also pointed to
the capacity for nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gases. 

"The arithmetic is simple," he told the parliamentary committee. 

"Twenty-two tons of uranium saves the emission of 1 million ton
of CO2 (carbon dioxide) relative to coal, as used in today's
coal-fired power generation technologies." 

Copyright © 2005Dow Jones &Company Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Pte Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
 Privacy Policy- Terms of Service- Community- Help  

*****************************************************************
 49 BBC: Australia could be 'nuclear dump'
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 September 2005
 
		   		 		 		 
[Bob Hawke]                             
Hawke sees his plan as an act of "environmental responsibility"                                                          

Australia should offer to store the world's nuclear waste in its 
vast desert interior, says former prime minister Bob Hawke. 

The country provided the safest geological location in the world 
to store such waste, Mr Hawke said. 

The scheme would also mean "a massive bonus" for the Australian 
economy, the former Labor Party leader added. 

But the idea has been dismissed by current Labor politicians, 
aboriginal leaders and environmentalists. 

Mr Hawke said his plan made sense from an environmental point of 
view. 

"It follows from that that if you are environmentally conscious 
and you believe that environmental issues are global in their 
dimension and you have the safest way possible of dealing with 
this issue - then I think you have an obligation to consider 
doing it," he told the BBC. 

Environmentalists disagreed, with Greenpeace Australia describing 
Mr Hawke as having an "outdated mentality." 

National dump 

Australian Health Minister Tony Abbott said Mr Hawke's idea was a 
"visionary suggestion," but added that were "a lot of politics in 
this." 

Our country, our water sourc our lifestyles are more important 
than money Nina Brown, Aboriginal Activist         

Mr Hawke's remarks came after the government recently failed to 
agree a scheme for a national dump to store Australia's own 
nuclear waste. 

The plans were scrapped after Australian states failure to agree 
on a location, although three potential sites in the Outback are 
being considered. 

Current Labor leader Kim Beazley described Mr Hawke's idea as 
"well outside" party policy. 

Nuclear tests 

Mr Hawke, who served as prime minister for eight years to 1991, 
also said the funds generated by the plan could be used to help 
Australia's underprivileged Aboriginal communities. 

But Aboriginal leaders remain unconvinced. 

"Our country, our water source, our lifestyles are more important 
than money. They know about atomic tests, they know about the 
effects and they've heard these lines before that they will be 
remunerated and that it will be safe, " said Aboriginal activist 
Nina Brown. 

Nuclear tests carried out by the UK in the Australian Outback in 
the 1950's remain controversial.                                                         



*****************************************************************
 50 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files opposition to Yucca rail corridor 

Today: September 28, 2005 at 11:11:39 PDT 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 The federal Energy Department hasn't laid the proper groundwork
to justify restricting public land use along a proposed railroad
corridor to Yucca Mountain, Nevada argues in a statement
opposing the plan.

 "It's poor planning and the wrong agency is in charge," Bob
Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, said Tuesday of the Energy Department plan to build a
railroad to haul radioactive waste across the state.

 Loux filed a seven-page letter Friday opposing the Energy
Department proposal to withdraw 308,600 acres from public use
across parts of Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties.

 "Apart from causing impacts and disruption to existing land
users, the proposed action has the potential to negatively
affect the environment, grazing allotments, mining and energy
development activities, property values, the economy, important
cultural resources and more," the state said.

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 51 Japan Times: France proposes joint use of Monju

  Wednesday, September 28, 2005   
  
VIENNA (Kyodo) A French energy official proposed Monday that
France and Japan jointly use the Monju experimental fast-breeder
nuclear reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, a Japanese
official said.

 Akira Shichijo, senior vice minister of the Cabinet office,
said French Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Alain Bugat
proposed the idea to him on the sidelines of an International
Atomic Energy Agency meeting in the Vienna.

 The French proposal came in response to Shichijo's calls for
Japan and France to promote cooperation on the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project in Cadarache, France,
the world's first nuclear fusion reactor, which Paris won the
bid for in June.

 Shichijo replied that it is important to make wide use of the
Monju reactor and that Japan does not plan to monopolize the
research results obtained through the Monju project, he told
reporters.

 The Monju is designed to generate more plutonium for power than
it consumes. It was shut down in 1995 due to a sodium leak and
is expected to go back on line in 2008.

 The Japan Times: Sept. 28, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 52 UK: News & Star: Nuclear mentors help trainees

Published on 28/09/2005 
                                                                                                                                             
CRAFT apprentices and new entrants at Sellafieldâ€™s Thorp plant 
are being taken under the wings of more experienced workers in a 
new mentoring scheme.
 
Organisers hope to improve the skills of newcomers and support 
their career in the nuclear industry. They learn local rules and 
arrangements, maintenance and diagnostic techniques.
 
Rob Little, head of engineering at Thorp, said: â€œThe scheme is 
intended to build on the skills developed on the apprentice 
programme through hands-on experience and broader skills 
development.â€
 






*****************************************************************
 53 Business Weekly: TWI solves Sweden’s nuclear dilemma
 
By Lautaro Vargas, 28 September 2005

After 30 years of intensive R &D, extensive public consultation 
and tens of millions of krona in funding, Sweden has chosen TWI’s 
innovative friction stir welding technique as the best method of 
safely encapsulating high-level nuclear waste for the next 
hundred millennia.
 
['A technician at SKB’s canister laboratory inspects a copper
canister, similar to the ones that will be used to store
Sweden’s high-level nuclear waste.' width='150'] 
A technician at SKB’s canister laboratory inspects a copper
canister, similar to the ones that will be used to store
Sweden’s high-level nuclear waste.

After 30 years of intensive R &D, extensive public consultation
and tens of millions of krona in funding, Sweden has chosen
TWI’s innovative friction stir welding technique as the best
method of safely encapsulating high-level nuclear waste for the
next hundred millennia.

 The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co – SKB – has
spent recent decades working on developing the right seal. It
went with friction stir welding (FSW) over Reduced Pressure
electron beam welding (EBW) following a head to head ‘weld-off’
under production like conditions.

 It is a highly significant achievement for the TWI team and its
FSW technology as the technique is relatively new and wasn’t
initially considered suitable. 

Both techniques have been developed by TWI’s research
&development team at the Granta Park headquarters in Cambridge
and EBW has already been picked as a preferred solution for the
US’s nuclear waste.

 SKB president Claes Thegerström, said: "We have reached an
important milestone in the method development work by solving
this key problem. Now we know that it is possible to weld
canisters in serial production with high quality. With the
nuclear fuel enclosed in tightly sealed canisters, no
radionuclides can escape."

 Before the spent nuclear fuel is buried deep in an underground
granite bedrock repository it will be enclosed in 50mm thick
copper canisters. SKB has a canister laboratory in Oskarshamn,
where it has been working for several years with the two
different welding methods for sealing the copper canister.

 The canister laboratory was inaugurated in 1998 with the
assistance of TWI, which has been in a joint venture with SKB
for over two decades, starting before FSW had even been invented.

 In the early ’80s, SKB raised the question of which available
welding process was most applicable to welding of thick section
copper. 

At the time, the only process that showed promise was EBW which,
due to the high power density in the focused beam, was capable
of efficient coupling with the workpiece and the generation of
narrow, deep welds by the keyhole welding process.

 In parallel with the EBW work, TWI researchers were busy
developing the innovative FSR process that has made such an
impact in welding of aluminium alloys for the aerospace and
transportation industries.

 Dick Andrews, TWI’s principal project leader, said: "Wayne
Thomas invented FSW in 1991. Initially it was just regarded as a
laboratory curiosity, and to tell the truth, we all sniggered at
first. 

"However, I’ve been working for 43 years in R &D and I’ve never
seen anything like it. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and all the rest
were all queued up at our door."

 Early results on flat plate copper material were sufficiently
encouraging for SKB to commission the design and build of an
experimental prototype FSW machine at TWI to weld
circumferential parts representative of full sized canisters.

 This machine proved capable of welding 50mm thick material and
the experience gained was used to specify a bespoke machine,
installed in Oskarshamn for further tests in 2003. A period of
further process proving followed and the two candidate processes
went head-to-head in a test to produce a score of full diameter
welded joints in production-like conditions earlier this year.

 SKB chose FSW as the process produces a solid state weld – no
melting takes place – and can be regarded as a highly robust,
machine tool process. 

It offered the potential to be the more reliable and
reproducible in the welding of thick section copper, which is
recognised as being particularly difficult to weld using fusion
techniques.

 SKB now expects to submit a permit application for the
encapsulation plant, which is intended to be located next to the
existing interim storage facility in Oskarshamn, in 2006. 

A permit application for the deep repository itself is planned
to be submitted in 2008.

 All Swedish spent nuclear fuel is stored in Clab, a central
interim storage facility near the Oskarshamn municipality, where
water cools the fuel and provides radiation shielding. 

Eventually it will be encapsulated in copper canisters that will
then be deposited in the bedrock, embedded in clay, at a depth
of 500 metres in a repository that requires no monitoring by
future generations.

 Andrews said: "The licensing follows a very careful
certification process, including full-scale crush tests on the
weld, which is designed to take it. 

"The copper corrosion barrier is for 100,000 years and the hope
is that by then technology has moved on to the point that
nuclear waste can be neutralised."

 Finland will also use techniques based on TWI’s technology.
Andrews said: "The Swedes and Finns have a technology transfer
programme and SKB has been working with Posiva Finland. They
have been looking at EBW but I think they will adopt the same
FSW technology Sweden is using.

 "I’m impressed by the way Sweden has gone about the issue of
nuclear power. It has actually done something about the waste
issue and kept the public 100 per cent informed; it has worked
exceptionally well. 

"Finland, Sweden and the US are the only countries with storage
programmes in sight." 

*****************************************************************
 54 Guardian Unlimited: Store world's nuclear waste here, says ex-pm

Associated Press in Sydney

Wednesday September 28, 2005
 		
Australia should consider becoming the world's nuclear rubbish 
collector because its geology makes it an ideal place to store 
radioactive waste, a former prime minister for the opposition 
Labour party, Bob Hawke, told Oxford University graduates in 
Sydney.

Australia's longest-serving Labour prime minister said income
could be gained from promoting itself as a secure nuclear waste
site.

"What Australia should do, as an act of economic sanity ... and
environmental responsibility, [is] say we will take the world's
nuclear waste." The health minister, Tony Abbott, praised the
idea as "visionary".
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 55 Times of Oman: Egypt calls for N-free Middle East   

  Thursday, September 29, 2005             
  

VIENNA — Egypt has proposed the creation of a nuclear-free zone
in the Middle East and blasted Israel for standing in the way,
at a meeting in Vienna of the UN atomic watchdog. 

Israel, believed to be the only state in the region with nuclear
weapons, said yesterday it was not against such a zone but that
there must first be an overall peace agreement in the Middle
East.

Israeli Atomic Energy Commission chief Gideon Frank also said
another Arab initiative to name Israel as a nuclear threat was
unacceptable as it was “politically and cynically motivated”.

Egyptian Ambassador Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy told the 139-nation
general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency
that “Egypt will be tabling a draft resolution on . . . a
nuclear-free zone” and hopes for “a serious international
commitment in this area.”

Ramzy appealed to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei “to continue his
efforts to persuade the country which is standing in the way of
the creation of such an area to display good will,” in a clear
reference to Israel. The annual IAEA general conference has in
past years adopted Egyptian-inspired resolutions calling on
states to work towards a Middle East nuclear-free zone but the
texts never mention Israel by name.

Israel has in the past joined in consensus on the resolution, as
it promised yesterday to do again, in return for another
resolution that seeks to have “Israeli Nuclear Capabilities and
Threat” discussed at the conference being dropped.

Diplomats said the IAEA conference gives Arab states a chance to
vent anger at Israel, while preserving consensus at the UN
atomic monitoring agency. Arab states resent the fact that the
IAEA is cracking down on Iran for what the United States charges
is a covert nuclear weapons programme while US ally Israel
avoids such scrutiny.

Israel is believed to have some 200 nuclear weapons, although it
neither confirms nor denies this.

Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and so is not subject to IAEA verification inspections, even
though it is a member of the UN agency.

“We have one state in the area that constitutes an exception in
Israel which remains outside the NPT regime and any legal
framework in the area of nuclear disarmament,” Ramzy said.

“To build confidence . . . you must have one element — renounce
possession of nuclear weapons, create an area free of weapons of
mass destruction” and agree to “full verification on the part of
the IAEA,” Ramzy said. The Egyptian draft resolution “calls upon
all states in the region to take measures . . . aimed at
establishing a NWFZ in the 

Middle East” but does not specify any obligations.
Israel atomic chief Frank said “alarming proliferation
developments in Middle East” in recent years do not “involve
Israel but all of them challenge our security.”

Frank said that the Arab resolution naming Israel as a nuclear
threat and “efforts to challenge Israel’s credentials . . .
inevitably cast a serious doubt on the sincerity of its sponsors
and their willingness to make any real progress towards
cooperative security in the Middle East.” The Arab resolution
for an agenda item on an Israeli nuclear threat is accompanied
by a letter from 15 Arab states plus Palestine which says:

“Israel alone possesses nuclear capabilities, which are
undeclared and not subject to international control and which
constitute a permanent threat to peace and security in the
region.”

Frank said Israel supported “the principle of converting the
Middle East into a zone free of all kinds of weapons of mass
destruction as well as ballistic missiles.” 

But he said Israel took issues with this resolution’s portrayal
of a nuclear weapons free zone “as an end in itself rather than
as a desirable outcome of a fundamental regional political
transformation of relations.” — AFP
   
*****************************************************************
 56 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19375 
[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)] 
[Notices] [Page 56647-56649] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28se05-46]                         
 
Statement, Amend Relevant Agency Land Use Plans, Conduct Public 
Scoping Meetings, and Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands 
Involvement AGENCIES: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability, Department of Energy (DOE) and the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), Department of the Interior (DOI).
 
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental 
impact statement, amend relevant agency land use plans, conduct 
public scoping meetings, and notice of floodplain and wetlands 
involvement.
 
SUMMARY: Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act), 
Public Law 109-58 (H.R. 6), enacted August 8, 2005, directs the 
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the 
Interior (the Agencies) to designate under their respective 
authorities corridors on Federal land in the 11 Western States 
for oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission 
and distribution facilities (energy corridors). The Agencies have 
determined that designating corridors as required by Section 368 
of the Act constitutes a major Federal action which may have a 
significant impact upon the environment within the meaning of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
 
For this reason, the Agencies intend to prepare a programmatic 
environmental impact statement (PEIS) entitled, ``Designation of 
Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States'' 
(DOE/EIS-0386) to address the environmental impacts from the 
proposed action and the range of reasonable alternatives. DOE and 
BLM will be co-lead agencies for this effort, with the Department 
of Agriculture's Forest Service (FS) participating as a 
cooperating agency.
 
The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to inform the public 
about the proposed action, announce plans to conduct 11 public 
scoping meetings, invite public participation in the scoping 
process, and solicit public comments for consideration in 
establishing the scope and content of the PEIS. Because the 
proposed action may involve actions in a floodplain or wetland, 
the draft PEIS will include a floodplain and wetlands assessment 
and the final PEIS or Record of Decision will include a 
floodplain statement of findings.
 
The Agencies will prepare the PEIS in accordance with NEPA, the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 CFR 
1500-1508, DOE's regulations developed pursuant to NEPA, 10 CFR 
1021, BLM's planning regulations 43 CFR 1600 and applicable FS 
planning regulations to amend land use plans.
 
 
DATES: The Agencies invite interested agencies, states, 
organizations, Native American tribes, and members of the public 
to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying 
significant environmental issues and in determining the scope of 
this PEIS. The public scoping period starts with the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue until 
November 28, 2005. Written and oral comments will be given equal 
weight, and the Agencies will consider all comments received or 
postmarked by November 28, 2005 in defining the scope of this 
PEIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable.
 
Dates for the public scoping meetings are: 1. October 25, 2005, 
Denver, Colorado 2. October 26, 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico 3. 
October 26, 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah 4. October 27, 2005, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 5. October 27, 2005, Helena, Montana 6. 
November 1, 2005, Boise, Idaho 7. November 1, 2005, Sacramento, 
California 8. November 2, 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada 9. November 2, 
2005, Portland, Oregon 10. November 3, 2005, Phoenix, Arizona 11. 
November 3, 2005, Seattle, Washington The Agencies will announce 
the times and locations of the public meetings through the local 
media, newsletters, and the project Web site () at least 15 days 
prior to the meeting.
 
Requests to speak at a public scoping meeting(s) should be 
received by Julia Souder at the addresses indicated below on or 
before October 18, 2005. Requests to speak may also be made at 
the time of registration for the scoping meeting(s). However, 
persons who submitted advance requests to speak will be given 
priority if time should be limited during the meetings.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments or suggestions on the scope of the PEIS and 
requests to
 
[[Page 56648]] speak at the scoping meeting(s) should be sent to: 
Julia Souder by mail at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; by facsimile at (202) 586-1472 
or phone at (202) 586-9052.
 
Please note that regular postal mail to DOE tends to be delayed 
because of anthrax screening. In order to avoid these delays, if 
you wish to comment or request to speak at the scoping meeting(s) 
by mail, we suggest that your submission be sent by using 
overnight service, or that your letter first be sent to us by 
facsimile or electronic mail, and then followed by regular 
mailing of the original documents.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed 
project or to receive a copy of the Draft PEIS when it is issued, 
contact Julia Souder by any of the means indicated in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice. A complete description of the 
proposed action also may be found on the project Web site at .
 
For general information on the DOE NEPA process please contact: 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 
Compliance (EH- 42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, Phone: 202-586-4600; or 
leave a message at 1-800-472-2756; Facsimile: 202-586-7031.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Need for Agency Action 
Section 368 of the Act, entitled ``Energy Right-of-Way Corridors 
on Federal Land,'' and specifically subsection 368(d) require the 
Agencies to designate energy corridors, taking into account the 
``need for upgraded and new electricity transmission and 
distribution facilities'' in order to ``improve reliability,'' 
``relieve congestion,'' and ``enhance the capability of the 
national grid to deliver electricity.'' See Electricity 
Modernization Act, Pub. L. 109-58 (H.R. 6) section 368(d)(1)-(3). 
Section 368 applies only to Federal lands. Specifically, Section 
368 requires the Agencies to cooperate using their respective 
authorities to (1) ``designate corridors for oil, gas, and 
hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution 
facilities on Federal land in the eleven contiguous Western 
States (as defined in Section 103(o) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(o)); (2) perform any 
environmental reviews that may be required to complete the 
designations of such corridors; and (3) incorporate the 
designated corridors into the relevant agency land use and 
resource management plans or equivalent plans''. See Pub. L. 
109-59 Sec.  368(a)(1)-(3). Section 368 divides the Agencies' 
schedules for designating transmission corridors on public lands 
into two groups: (1) ``Western States'', consisting of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; and (2) all other states. This 
PEIS relates solely to corridors in the Western States.
 
Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action in this PEIS 
is to designate corridors on Federal land in the eleven Western 
States for oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electricity 
transmission and distribution facilities. Based upon the 
information and analyses developed in this PEIS, each Agency 
would amend its respective land use plans by designating a series 
of energy corridors effective upon signing of the Record(s) of 
Decision.
 
No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, no new 
energy corridors would be designated through this coordinated 
approach. The No Action alternative will identify the 
environmental impacts associated with each of the Agencies 
continuing to designate energy corridors through use of their 
present practices. These practices would include the application 
of local planning criteria by each regional land management 
office.
 
Increased Utilization Alternative Under the Increased Utilization 
alternative, the Agencies will assess the environmental impacts 
associated with increasing the capacity of existing energy 
corridors through the application of new technologies and/or 
operational techniques. This alternative will assesss the impacts 
of developing multiple projects within existing corridors and 
rights-of-way and the application of new technologies to increase 
the energy capacities of existing facilities within those 
corridors.
 
New Corridor Alternative Under the New Corridor alternative, the 
Agencies will assess the impacts associated with designating new 
energy corridors on Federal land. A preliminary set of new 
corridors will be identified through information obtained through 
scoping as well as information from the energy transport industry 
including, but not limited to: The Western Utility Group; the 
Seams Steering Group--Western Interconnection; Colorado 
Coordinating Planning Group; the Northwest Transmission 
Assessment Committee; the Southwest Area Transmission Study; the 
Southwest Transmission Expansion Plan; and the Rocky Mountain 
Area Transmission Study. The scoping process will afford other 
stakeholders such as environmental groups, counties, states, 
Native American tribes, and interested citizens an opportunity to 
propose new corridors.
 
The Agencies will use this information to identify new energy 
corridors that will be analyzed in the PEIS.
 
Optimization Criteria Alternative Under the Optimization Criteria 
alternative, the Agencies will assess the impacts of new energy 
corridors that will be identified through a combination of new 
and existing corridors based on a set of criteria and strategies 
that incorporate environmental concerns, projected supply and 
demand, network efficiencies, landscape features, the 
availability of new technologies, and costs.
 
The Agencies will consider any additional reasonable alternatives 
that result from comments received in response to the scoping 
process described in this notice.
 
Identification of Environmental Issues Note that environmental 
issues identified should be related to: Restriction of 
conflicting uses within the corridors, adequacy of potential plan 
direction within the corridors, any identifiable environmental 
concerns within the potential corridors. Any corridor 
designation, and subsequent incorporation into an agencies land 
use plan by this plan amendment process does not, itself, 
authorize project activities. Any new proposed project 
activities, such as construction of a new pipeline or electric 
transmission line or retrofitting utilities within an existing 
corridor, would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA analyses which 
would also involve public notice and comment. This PEIS is for 
corridor designation only.
 
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments and suggestions 
for consideration in the preparation of the PEIS. As background 
for public comment, this notice contains a list of potential 
environmental issues that the Agencies have tentatively 
identified for analysis. This list is not intended to be 
all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. 
Following is a preliminary list of issues that may be analyzed in 
the PEIS:
 
[[Page 56649]] (1) Socioeconomic and recreational impacts of 
development of the land tracts and their subsequent uses; (2) 
Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive 
species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats; (3) 
Impacts on floodplains and wetlands; (4) Impacts on 
archaeological, cultural, or historic resources; (5) Impacts on 
human health and safety; (6) Impacts on existing and future land 
uses; (7) Visual impacts; and (8) Disproportionately high and 
adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations, also 
known as environmental justice considerations.
 
Scoping Process Interested parties are invited to participate in 
the scoping process, both to refine the preliminary alternatives 
and environmental issues to be analyzed in depth and to eliminate 
from detailed study those alternatives and environmental issues 
that are not feasible or pertinent. The scoping process is 
intended to involve all interested agencies (Federal, State, 
county, and local), public interest groups, Native American 
tribes, businesses, and members of the public.
 
Public scoping meetings will be held as indicated above under the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections. These scoping meetings will be 
informal. The presiding officer will establish only those 
procedures needed to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has 
a chance to do so and that the Agencies understand all issues and 
comments. Speakers will be allocated approximately 5 minutes for 
their oral statements. Depending upon the number of persons 
wishing to speak, the presiding officer may allow longer times 
for representatives of organizations. Consequently, persons 
wishing to speak on behalf of an organization should identify 
that organization in their request to speak. Persons who have not 
submitted a request to speak in advance may register to speak at 
the scoping meeting(s), but advance requests are encouraged.
 
Meetings will begin at the times specified and will continue 
until all those present who wish to participate have had an 
opportunity to do so. Should any speaker desire to provide for 
the record further information that cannot be presented within 
the designated time, such additional information may be submitted 
in writing by the date listed in the DATES section.
 
Oral, written, and electronic (i.e., by facsimile or by e-mail) 
comments will be impartially considered and given equal weight by 
the Agencies.
 
A complete transcript of the public scoping meetings will be 
retained by the Agencies and made available to the public for 
review on the DOE Web site at , on the project Web site at , and 
during business hours at the Department of Energy, Freedom of 
Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Draft PEIS Schedule and Availability 
The Draft PEIS is scheduled to be issued in early spring 2006. 
The availability of the Draft PEIS and dates for public hearings 
soliciting comments on it will be announced in the Federal 
Register and local media. Comments on the Draft PEIS will be 
considered in preparing the Final PEIS.
 
Those interested parties who do not wish to submit comments at 
this time, but who would like to receive a copy of the Draft PEIS 
and other project materials, please contact Julia Souder as 
provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
 
Tom Lonnie, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource 
Protection, Bureau of Land Management.
 
John Spitaleri Shaw, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety 
and Health, Department of Energy.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19375 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE: Environmental Impact Statement: Site Selection for the Expansion 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19507 
[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)] 
[Notices] [Page 56649-56650] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28se05-47]                         
 
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve AGENCY: Department of Energy 
(DOE).
 
ACTION: Notice to extend the public scoping period and reschedule 
public scoping meetings.
 
SUMMARY: Due to the extraordinary circumstances created by 
Hurricane Katrina in the region where the proposed action and 
public scoping meetings will take place, DOE has extended the 
public scoping period and revised the dates and locations of the 
public scoping meetings originally announced in the Notice of 
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (70 FR 52088; 
September 1, 2005).
 
 
DATES: Extended: The public scoping period is extended by 2 weeks 
to October 28, 2005.
 
Cancelled: The public scoping meeting at Hattiesburg, 
Mississippi, originally scheduled on October 4, 2005, is 
cancelled.
 
Cancelled: The public scoping meeting at Pascagoula, Mississippi, 
originally scheduled on October 5, 2005, is cancelled.
 
Rescheduled: The public scoping meeting at Houma, Louisiana, 
originally scheduled on October 6, 2005 has been rescheduled to 
October 19, 2005, at the Ramada Inn, 1400 West Tunnel Boulevard, 
from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Telephone: (985) 879-4871. No Change to 
Original Schedule: The public scoping meeting at Lake Jackson, 
Texas, will take place as originally scheduled on October 11, 
2005, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Cherotel Brazosport Hotel and 
Conference Center, 925 Hwy 332. Telephone: (979) 297-1161. New 
Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting will be held at 
Jackson, Mississippi, on October 18, 2005, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at 
the Jackson Marriott Downtown, 200 East Amite Street. Telephone: 
(601) 969- 5100.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments or suggestions on the 
scope and content of the EIS and requests to speak at the scoping 
meetings should be directed to Donald Silawsky, Office of 
Petroleum Reserves (FE-47), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0301; telephone: 
(202) 586-1892; fax: (202) 586- 4446; or electronic mail at 
Donald.Silawsky@hq.doe.gov. Envelopes and the subject line of 
e-mails or faxes should be labeled ``Scoping for the SPR EIS.'' 
Please note that conventional mail to DOE may be delayed by 
anthrax screening.
 
For information on the proposed project or to receive a copy of 
the Draft EIS when it is issued, contact Donald Silawsky by any 
of the means listed above. Additional information may also be 
found on the DOE Fossil Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
proposed expansion Web site at 
http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2005/tl_spr_noi.html. For 
information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol M. Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0119; telephone: (202) 586-4600; fax: (202) 586-7031; or 
leave a toll-free message at: (800) 472-2756.
 
 
[[Page 56650]] Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2005.
 
Mark J. Matarrese, NEPA Compliance Officer, Office of Fossil 
Energy.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19507 Filed 9-26-05; 2:34 pm] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************