*****************************************************************
09/29/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.226
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] Why Iran Isn't a Global Threat
2 [NYTr] Cuba, Syra, Belarus on IAEA Board Helps Iran
3 Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis (1/3)
4 [NYTr] Tehran Protestors Vent Anger at Brits over Nuke Policy
5 Asia Times Online: Iran backpedals, for now
6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hill боTold N.Korea Off Over Nuclear Umbr
7 Boston Globe: Stormy outlook for Korea accord 
8 Guardian Unlimited AP: China Differs on N.Korea Nuke Issues
9 Where Taste Buds Fail, Nuclear Technology Succeeds In UN Water Age T
10 TheStar.com: Liberals abandon long-held nuclear policy
11 Japan Times: Toward a nuclear Japan?
12 UK: Telegraph: Russia retrieves nuclear fuel 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 Hindu News: Jaitapur chosen as site for reactor 
14 US: Northwest Indiana News: What was the FBI really protecting in Ne
15 US: the chattanoogan: TVA Reports Records In Year-end Results
16 US: toledoblade.com: Court asked to roll back electric rates
17 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
18 US: NRC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Bu
19 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Procedures for Me
20 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the 
21 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
22 US: Hudson Valley News: Indian Point opponents point to hurricane ev
23 US: Middletown Press: Plant decommissioning on schedule
24 US: Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuke plant work on schedule
25 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
26 Life After Chernobyl: A Surprising Ecosystem Flourishes In No-Man's 
27 Whitehaven News: PM puts nuclear issue to the fore
28 US: NRC: Draft Report for Comment: Office of Nuclear Material Safety
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
29 NAS: Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Nuclear Materials in Russi
30 Deccan Herald: Rise in N-trafficking: IAEA   
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
31 US: NRC Sr official says PA kids not protected  during an
32 US: Buffalo News: Are we ready to evacuate?
33 US: Minnesota Daily: Killing our own with depleted uranium          
34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Federal downwinder program improving 
35 US: Libertyville Review: How prepared is County for disaster? - 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
36 US: Rocky Mountain News: Low-level waste not a threat
37 London Times:  BNFL board opts for sale of nuclear clean-up company 
38 US: Sidney Morning Herald: Uranium, fuel search pushes floats to suc
39 AU ABC: Hawke's nuclear waste idea has merit - Nelson
40 MSN-Mainichi Daily News: Panel recommends greater use of nuclear fue
41 Independent: BNFL board agrees sale of clean-up 
42 The Rebel Yell: New club organizes students against Yucca Mountain
43 US: DenverPost.com: Radioactive wastes need safe disposal 
44 US: Asia Times Online: China wants a slice of the uranium cake
45 Las Vegas Business Press: NOT IN HIS BACKYARD
46 AU ABC: Australia's Science Minister supports nuclear dump idea
47 UK: News & Star: г1bn power station a step closer for N-plant
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
48 Rocky Mountain News: CU to hold hearing tonight on its role at Los A
49 KIFI: INL Director Discusses Lab's Future
50 RURALNORTHWEST.COM: Idaho Defense Projects Cleared by Committee
51 KnoxNews: No Silence Here
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Why Iran Isn't a Global Threat
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:24:02 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
excerpted from Abunimah News - Sep 28, 2005

Christian Science Monitor - 29 September 2005

Op Ed

Why Iran isn't a global threat

By Ray Takeyh

WASHINGTON--Last week's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency
branding Iran in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
commitments has given impetus to the United States to call for the deferral
of Iran to the UN Security Council. Tehran is adamant that it wants nuclear
power for generating electricity. Yet, Washington policymakers and their
European counterparts subtly argue that Iran's previous treaty violations
indicate a more sinister motive to subvert its neighbors and export its
Islamic revolution.

Such alarmism overlooks Iran's realities. In the past decade, a fundamental
shift in Iran's international orientation has enshrined national interest
calculations as the defining factor in its approach to the world.
Irrespective of the balance of power between conservatives and reformers,
Iran's foreign policy is driven by fixed principles that are shared by all
of its political elites.

The intense factional struggles that have plagued the clerical state during
the past decade obscure the emergence of a consensus foreign policy. Under
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a loose coalition emerged around the
notion that Iran cannot remain isolated in the global order.

By cultivating favorable relations with key international actors such as
China, Russia, and the European Union, Tehran has sought to craft its own
"coalition of willing" and prevent the US from multilateralizing its
coercive approach to Iran. Although the Islamic Republic continues its
inflammatory support for terrorist organizations battling Israel and is
pressing ahead with its nuclear program, its foreign policy is no longer
that of a revolutionary state.

This perspective will survive Iran's latest leadership transition. The
demographic complexion of the regime's rulers is changing. As Iran's
revolution matures and those politicians who were present at the creation of
the Islamic Republic gradually recede from the scene, a more austere and
dogmatic generation is beginning to take over the reins of power. In
response to Iran's manifold problems, newly elected President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his cabinet frequently criticize their elders' passivity in
imposing Islamic strictures and for the rampant corruption that has engulfed
the state. They are determined to reverse the social and cultural freedoms
of the reformist period and to institute egalitarian economic policies.

On foreign policy issues, however, the new president has stayed well within
the parameters of Iran's prevailing international policy. In his August
address to the parliament, Mr. Ahmadinejad echoed the existing consensus,
noting the importance of constructive relations with "the Islamic world, the
Persian Gulf region, the Caspian Sea region, Central Asia, the Pacific area,
and Europe." Moreover, the most important voice on foreign policy matters,
recently appointed head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali
Larijani, has reiterated these same themes.

Although the assertive nationalists who have taken command of Iran's
executive branch have dispensed with their predecessor's "dialogue of
civilizations" rhetoric, and display a marked indifference to
reestablishment of relations with America, they are loath to jeopardize the
successful multilateral detente that was the singular achievement of the
reformist era.

All this is not to suggest that the current negotiations between Iran and
the EU-3 (France, Britain, and Germany) designed to resolve the nuclear
stalemate will resume. More than two years of talks have failed to bridge
the essential differences.

Iran continues to assert its right under the NPT to enrich uranium and has
accepted an intrusive inspection regime, while the Europeans insist that
Iran must atone for its previous treaty violations by permanently suspending
such activities. Ultimately, it appears impossible to reconcile these
positions.

It is important to note, however, that the divergence between the European
and Iranian perspective predated the rise of Ahmadinejad. This highlights a
worrisome convergence in Iranian political thought over the past two years:
Somehow - as a result of misguided nationalism or a genuine sense of
necessity - mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle has become a sine qua non of
modern Iranian politics.

Its nuclear ambitions will continue to irritate the international community,
but the days when Iran wantonly sought to undermine established authority in
the name of Islamic salvation are over. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's
disciples have long abandoned the mission of exporting the revolution,
supplanting it with conventional measures of the national interest.

Despite the chorus of concern, Iran's new president has demonstrated no
interest in substantially altering the contours of Iran's international
policy - nor has the country's ultimate authority, the Supreme Leader. To be
sure, the new president's well-honed reactionary instincts will be felt by
his hapless constituents as he proceeds to restrict their political and
social prerogatives.

But the notion that Iran's foreign policy is entering a new radical state is
yet another misreading of the Islamic Republic and its many paradoxes.

[Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and is
currently completing a book on Iran's foreign policy.]
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Cuba, Syra, Belarus on IAEA Board Helps Iran
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:23:40 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
excerpted from VIO Venezuela News Roundup - September 29, 2005
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Venezuela_News/

AP via Dow Jones - Sep 29, 2005

Cuba, Syria, Belarus Join IAEA Board, Boosting Iran

VIENNA (AP)--Cuba, Syria and Belarus joined the International Atomic Energy
Agency's 35-nation board Thursday, bolstering the ranks of countries
expected to oppose any decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council
in November.

The three nations were among 10 approved as new board members at the IAEA's
139-nation general conference as part of rotation that results in some board
seats changing hands each year.

Although the board doesn't have permanent members, the U.S., Russia, China,
the U.K., France, Germany, Canada and Japan effectively enjoy that status
because of their nuclear or economic standing.

The three new board member nations' differences with Washington almost
guarantees they will oppose any effort to haul Iran before the top U.N.
decision-making body at the next board meeting in November - a likely
development unless Tehran meets international demands about its nuclear
program.

But they're not expected to actively prevent any Western-initated effort to
refer Tehran to the Security Council.

Five of the 10 countries that were replaced by Thursday's rotation also
oppose referral. They abstained at Saturday's vote by the board on a
resolution clearing the path for such a move.

In all, 12 nations - including China and Russia -abstained. Venezuela cast
the only vote against. But even abstentions are considered disapproval at
board sessions, which usually make decisions by consensus.

Of the 35 board members, 22 voted in favor of the motion backed by the U.S.
and the E.U, among others.

"Given the large number of countries that either voted for the resolution or
abstained, I would expect you would have enough votes in favor of reporting
Iran to the Security Council, should Iran not make progress," said a Western
diplomat.

Washington suspects Iran is trying to develop atomic bombs, while Tehran
maintains its activities are for generating electricity.

The resolution adopted Saturday was drafted by the E.U. and backed by the
U.S. and its allies. It called on the board to consider reporting Iran to
the council for noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
suspicions that Iran's nuclear activities - including those linked to
uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear arms - could threaten
international peace and security.

The Security Council could impose sanctions if it determines that Iran
violated the treaty, but the draft didn't mention sanctions, in recognition
of Russian and Chinese opposition.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis (1/3)
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:00:51 -0500 (CDT)

 
	version=3.0.4

www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=987

Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis
Part I of a Three Part Series

By Siddharth Varadarajan

September 23, 2005
The Hindu

BARELY TWO years after the United States invaded Iraq in the name
of weapons of mass destruction which never existed, the world is
being pushed towards a confrontation with Iran on a similarly flawed
premise.

On September 17, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the
United Nations General Assembly that his country would not give up
its sovereign right to produce nuclear power using indigenously
enriched uranium. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which
Iran signed in 1974, allows Iran to build facilities involving all
aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, subject
to international safeguards. Given the fact that the U.S. continues
to impose sanctions on the development of Iran's oil and gas sector
(under the extra-territorial `Iran Libya Sanctions Act'), it is
only logical that the Iranians should seek a civilian nuclear energy
industry in which they won't have to be dependent on the West for
fuel like enriched uranium.

However, as a major concession to Britain, France and Germany  the
so-called EU-3 which has sought to prevail upon Iran to abandon
enrichment in exchange for guarantees of assured fuel supply  Mr.
Ahmadinejad offered to run his country's enrichment plants as joint
ventures with private and public sector firms from other countries.
Britain and France have rejected this offer, which the Iranians say
is a demonstration of their intent to be as transparent as possible.
The EU-3 and the U.S. insist Teheran must not work on enrichment
because once the technology is mastered, the same facilities could
be used to produce not just low enriched uranium (LEU) for energy
reactors but highly enriched uranium (HEU) for bombs. Accordingly,
they have circulated a resolution in the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting  which began Monday  calling
for Iran's civilian nuclear programme to be referred to the U.N.
Security Council as a potential threat to international peace and
security.

It is not difficult for the U.S. and its European allies to get a
majority of the 35-nation Board of Governors to recommend referral;
however, the board has operated on the basis of consensus for the
past 12 years  ever since the forced vote referring North Korea to
the UNSC split the IAEA  and the non-aligned group of countries and
China remain opposed to taking Iran to the Security Council. If the
U.S. is convinced a consensus will elude it for the foreseeable
future, it could push for a vote this week rather than wait any
longer. Next month, following the annual IAEA General Conference,
a new Board of Governors will take over. And with Cuba and Syria
entering the Board in place of Peru and Pakistan, the ranks of those
firmly opposed to an SC referral are likely to increase.

Although the immediate trigger for the European and American pressure
is Teheran's decision last month to end its voluntary suspension
of uranium conversion at its Esfahan facility, the Iranian case
cannot be referred to the Security Council on this ground.

First, the NPT allows uranium conversion and other processes central
to enrichment. Secondly, the Esfahan facility is under IAEA safeguards
and as recently as September 2 , i.e. nearly a month after Iran
resumed uranium conversion there, the Director-General of the Agency,
Mohammad El-Baradei, certified that "all the declared nuclear
material in Iran has been accounted for and, therefore, such material
is not diverted to prohibited activities." Thirdly, the agreement
to suspend enrichment, which Iran reached with the EU-3 at Paris
last November, clearly states that "the E3/EU recognize that this
suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a
legal obligation." In other words, if the voluntary suspension was
not a legal obligation, the ending of that suspension can hardly
be made the grounds for legal action by either the IAEA or the UN.

Myth of 'concealment'

If at all Iran is to be referred, then, its desire to pursue a
complete fuel cycle for its civilian nuclear energy programme cannot
be cited as legal grounds. Nor can the hitherto "secret" nature of
its fuel cycle facilities currently under construction. Though there
has been a surfeit of motivated and ill-informed commentary about
how Iran "concealed" its uranium enrichment programme from the IAEA
"in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002,
the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about
those facilities at the time. David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
who first provided the international media with satellite imagery
and analysis of the unfinished fuel fabrication facility at Natanz
and heavy water research reactor at Arak on December 12, 2002
themselves noted that under the safeguards agreement in force at
the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new
nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is
introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform
the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain
and the European Union at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting.
The Arak reactor is planned to go into operation in 2014. As for
the pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) at Natanz, it is still not
operational today.

This `six months' clause was a standard part of all IAEA safeguards
agreements signed in the 1970s and 1980s. It was only in the 1990s,
following the Iraq crisis, that the Agency sought to strengthen
itself by asking countries to sign `subsidiary arrangements' requiring
the handing over of design information about any new facility six
months prior to the start of construction. Many signed, some did
not. Iran accepted this arrangement only in February 2003. Later
that year, it signed the highly-intrusive Additional Protocol.
Though it has yet to ratify it, Teheran has allowed the IAEA to
exercise all its prerogatives under the protocol, including more
than 20 "complementary accesses," some with a notice period of two
hours or less. Dr. El-Baradei also reported that "Iran has, since
October 2003, provided the Agency upon its request, and as a
transparency measure, access to certain additional information and
locations beyond that required under its Safeguards Agreement and
Additional Protocol."

What Iran has yet to do is provide the IAEA sufficient information
on the history of its centrifuge programme for it to satisfy itself
that there are no "undeclared nuclear materials or activities."
However, this alone can hardly constitute grounds for referring the
country to the Security Council under Article III.B.4 of the Agency's
Statute since the IAEA, in the past two years, has found discrepancies
in the utilisation of nuclear material in as many as 15 countries.
Among these are South Korea , Taiwan , and Egypt . In 2002 and 2003,
for example, South Korea refused to let the IAEA visit facilities
connected to its laser enrichment programme. Subsequently, though
Seoul confessed to having secretly enriched uranium to a 77 per
cent concentration of U-235  a grade sufficient for fissile material
neither the U.S. nor EU suggested referring the matter to the UNSC.

In contrast, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has produced
weapon-grade uranium. Despite intrusive inspections, no facility
or plan to produce weapon-grade uranium has been discovered, nor
have any weapon designs surfaced.

Global Research Contributing Editor Siddharth Varadarajan s a leading
Indian journalist and editor of Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy
published by Penguin

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles
in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet
sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source
must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the
original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in
print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available to our readers under the
provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding
of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If
you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at
Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

 Copyright Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, 2005

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=987

Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
*****************************************************************
 4 [NYTr] Tehran Protestors Vent Anger at Brits over Nuke Policy
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:17:41 -0500 (CDT)

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by mart

Tehran Times - Sept. 29, 2005
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/29/2005&Cat=4&Num=023 

Protestors vent anger over Britain's policy toward Iran

TEHRAN - On Wednesday, protesters expressed their anger with Britain for the
leading role it played in drawing up an illegal IAEA draft resolution about
Iran's nuclear program by hurling stones and smoke bombs over the walls of
the British Embassy compound in central Tehran.

"Nuclear energy is our legitimate right," they chanted. "We will fight, we
will die, we will never surrender." The students shouted that Iran would
trample upon the resolution, which they said had been written based on the
"law of the jungle" and had been passed to Britain by the U.S.

The protesters also burned British and U.S. flags. Groups of protesters
hurled stones, tomatoes, and smoke bombs into the walled compound, and some
tried to push past police to reach the embassy's main gate.

"The second den of spies should be shut," read a banner, in reference to the
former U.S. embassy in Tehran.

"We are your serious enemies", they shouted and, "The den of the old fox
should be closed" - a reference to London's reputation for cunning and
deceit in Iran.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 5 Asia Times Online: Iran backpedals, for now

By Safa Haeri 

PARIS - With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
poised to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council over
its nuclear program, Iran's newly installed President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad and his government, comprising middle-ranked
personalities with military backgrounds, on the surface have a
clear choice to make. 

Either the clerical-led leadership stands by its word and
continues sensitive nuclear activities that major Western
nations plus Israel suspect of hiding military purposes, or it
bows down and reaches a compromise. (The ayatollahs have shown
in the past their ability for last-minute, 180-degree changes of
direction.) 

As things stand, the leaders are keeping these two options wide
open. 

Already, an initially highly angered Tehran is pulling back from
some of the belligerent statements it made in the wake of events
at the weekend's IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna.
 																	
IAEA members voted to adopt a resolution stating that "Iran's 
many failures and breaches of its obligations [under the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty - NPT] ... constitute noncompliance." 

IAEA chief Mohammad elBaradei will deliver another report on
Iran in November, at which time it will be decided whether to
send the matter to the Security Council, where sanctions could
be imposed on Iran. 

India was one of the countries that voted for Tehran's case to
possibly be referred to the Security Council. Iran responded by
saying that a US$22 billion deal with Delhi to buy liquefied
natural gas would be scrapped. But on Thursday a senior Iranian
energy official said that "there has been no order for a change
of policy regarding natural gas projects with India". 

Iran put on a bold face following the IAEA vote, pointing out
that the "fact that so many important nations of the world did
not approve of the resolution [China and Russia abstained] was a
big defeat for the West's efforts to deprive Iran from its
natural nuclear rights". 

Nevertheless, despite some choice rhetoric, Iran said that the
door was still open for negotiation, although it would like to
extend any talks beyond its original EU-3 (Britain, France and
Germany) interlocutors. 

On the home front, though, the official line is uncompromising. 

In an article published in the radical daily Keyhan, the editor,
Hoseyn Shari'atmadari, a former intelligence officer appointed
by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on both the
government of Ahmadinejad and the conservatives-controlled
majlis (parliament) to ignore the IAEA resolution and
immediately leave the NPT and end all negotiations. 

Criticizing Iranian lawmakers for their "leniency" and "absence
of brinkmanship", Shari'atmadari, an influential supporter of
the president, urged them to vote a "very urgent" bill
compelling the government to withdraw from the NPT and to reject
its Additional Protocol, which allows for intrusive inspections
at Iran's nuclear facilities. 

His calls were clearly heeded. On Wednesday the majlis approved
a motion that paves the way for the government to suspend
implementation of the Additional Protocol until Tehran succeeded
in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear
fuel cycle. 

Speaking after the parliamentary session, Ali Larijani, Iran's
secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief
nuclear negotiator, said that Iran should do its best in
defeating "Western plots" to take Iran to the Security Council. 

In the very next breath, though, when asked if Iran would reduce
the level of its diplomatic and economic relations with the
countries that voted for the IAEA resolution, particularly India
and the EU-3, Larijani, a former Revolutionary Guards officer
like the president, dismissed the reports, saying the government
was against taking hasty decisions. 

In an interview with the semi-independent student news agency
ISNA, Mahmoud Dehqan, a professor at Tehran University, urges
the decision-makers to be "realistic" and not "idealist",
hinting at Pakistan's open talks with Israel and India's vote
against Iran as examples of realpolitik and national interests. 

But perhaps Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are being supremely
realistic. By insisting on Iran's "legitimate right" to possess
the full nuclear cycle, they have transformed the nuclear
problem into a national issue, which the populace at large has
embraced with vigor. 

But the leaders have not yet painted themselves too far into a
corner - until November at least, their options are still open,
and they could yet reconcile the push and pull of domestic and
international demands. 

Safa Haeri is a Paris-based Iranian journalist covering the
Middle East and Central Asia. 

(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 											  
*****************************************************************
 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hill боTold N.Korea Off Over Nuclear Umbrellaбп
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Sep.29,2005 20:36 KST   
 
   
  The U.S chief negotiator at six-party talks on North Koreaбпs
nuclear program, Christopher Hill, said Wednesday he told
Pyongyang the Seoul-Washington alliance was not on the agenda
when, during the last round of talks in Beijing, it raised the
issue of the nuclear umbrella the U.S. provides for the South. 

In a lecture at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Hill also made it
clear that the Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization
(KEDO), which handled construction of civilian nuclear
facilities for the North until they were suspended, was
established in accordance with the 1994 Geneva Accords and not
related to the six-party talks. There was no change in
Washingtonбпs decision to terminate KEDO by the end of the year,
he said. 

Hill again upped pressure over a uranium enrichment program the
U.S. claims North Korea operates, saying the other five parties
at the talks agreed that the Stalinist country purchased related
technology and equipment; they only disagreed on how far the
program has progressed. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 7 Boston Globe: Stormy outlook for Korea accord 

  + Opinion> 

By Jonathan Power  |  September 29, 2005 

PERHAPS YOU need to be a long-range meteorologist to understand
US-North Korean diplomacy on nuclear weapons. The scene changes
as swiftly as the sky over the ocean on a windy autumn day. One
thing we should all agree on: The weather is worse than a decade
ago when President Bill Clinton, aided by the intervention of
former President Jimmy Carter, manage to negotiate with the late
President Kim Il Sung a nuclear freeze that has probably stopped
the North building a good 30 nuclear weapons; and South Korea
embarked on its so-called ''sunshine" policy of political
reconciliation.

Early in its tenure, the Bush administration decided to throw
the Clinton agreement out the window, and North Korea followed
suit. Still, despite all the posturing by both sides since then,
a nuclear winter has been avoided. It seemed all along that both
North Korea and the United States have wanted an agreement. But
macho politics trumped common sense, until last week when the
outlines of a new deal appeared to take shape.

But one key issue is holding up a final accord. The
administration is balking at the North Korean demand to build it
two modern, non-plutonium-producing nuclear power plants. This
is just nonsensical. This was part of the original
Clinton-Carter deal. Indeed, soon after the administration came
to power, it proudly sent a deputy assistant secretary of state
to be photographed standing by the half-built reactors. But at
that time it looked as if Secretary of State Colin Powell had a
fair chance of winning the internal battle with Vice President
Dick Cheney not to abort the Clinton deal.

The Republicans from the beginning have had a powerful internal
lobby out to sabotage all deals. A Republican controlled
Congress made it often impossible for the Clinton administration
to honor the deal in the way it was conceived. Promised oil
deliveries and food supplies were repeatedly delayed at
Congress's instigation. The Republicans forced Clinton to break
his promise to end sanctions, delaying action on this until 1999
when they were only partially lifted. There was the blockage on
talking about ways to help the North with outside electricity
supplies from the South, to tide it over until the new reactors
were built. Not least there was a slowdown on the building of
the new reactors. By 2002 construction was five years behind
schedule.

The slowdowns persuaded North Korea to ratchet up confrontation.
Confrontation, they obviously decided, was the only way to get
results. Whether it was digging an enormous hole that convinced
the CIA the North was about to test nuclear triggers (wrongly as
it turned out, after paying a huge sum to be allowed to inspect
it). Or test flying a long-range rocket over Japan, which was
what persuaded Congress finally to ease the economic embargo.

All these delaying tactics of the Republican Congress in
Clinton's time were then subsumed into the active hostility of
the Cheney-John Bolton-George Bush policy of the ''axis of
evil." Powell was pushed aside and Washington leaned on Seoul to
slow down its policy of political reconciliation and prohibited
it from keeping a promise to send electricity to the North.

For those few who watched the changing weather pattern in the
North it came as no big surprise that in 2002 Pyongyang decided
to abrogate the 1994 agreement and take its plutonium-producing
plant out of mothballs, in order, it said, to provide much
needed electricity from its own resources. It is also argued --
though this is disputed -- that the North threatened to build as
well an enriching plant capable of producing weapons-grade
uranium. In September last year Pyongyang told the UN that it
had built a number of nuclear weapons.

It has taken us all this time to get back to square two. Thanks
to some clever Chinese diplomacy both sides have agreed on the
framework of a new deal. But still Washington demands that it
will only take a new look at the building of civilian nuclear
power generating plants once Pyongyang agrees to return to
membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agree to
the safeguards of the International Atomic Agency.

To get to square one Washington will have to take one more jump
and join each side's demands as a package deal, and quickly too.
So much time has been wasted in useless and unproductive
posturing. What has been gained? Nothing, except that the even
more complicated negotiations with Iran, a potentially much more
dangerous adversary, has been made more difficult.

 Jonathan Power is a London-based syndicated columnist. [ /] й
Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: 
                    
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited AP: China Differs on N.Korea Nuke Issues
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday September 29, 2005 12:31 PM

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A split between China and the four other
countries that negotiated with North Korea on scrapping its
nuclear arms could doom efforts to come up with a resolution
welcoming the North's decision at a meeting of the U.N. nuclear
agency, diplomats said Thursday. 

The diplomats, who requested anonymity in exchange for
discussing the confidential details of the dispute over a North
Korean resolution, said China wanted it to mention a light-water
nuclear reactor and other commitments made to the North in
exchange for its decision - something the four other nations
opposed. 

Chinese and U.S. negotiators were meeting on the sidelines of
the 139-nation International Atomic Energy Agency conference to
try and find common language on the resolution, the diplomats
told The Associated Press. 

The Chinese want all the commitments agreed to by the other
nations to be listed in detail, said one of the diplomats. ``But
the others think this should be a resolution over North Korea
and not over the six-party talks,'' the diplomat said. 

China is Pyongyang's last major ally and its chief source of
food and other assistance, and its influence over the reclusive
Stalinist regime remains pivotal. 

Beijing has hosted four rounds of six-nation talks aimed at
persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions - a
position that has boosted China's role as a peacemaker in the
region. 

During the last meeting, delegates reached a landmark accord in
which North Korea pledged to abandon all its nuclear programs in
exchange for economic aid and security assurances. 

In return, it won recognition of its desire to keep its civilian
nuclear program and a pledge to discuss its demand for a
light-water nuclear reactor that is less easy to misuse for a
weapons program - after it meets international safeguards and
rejoins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

But just hours after, Pyongyang said it will not dismantle its
nuclear facilities until it gets light-water reactors from the
United States, casting a shadow on the agreement. Washington has
rejected that demand. 

The agreement also bound all six nations to cooperate in the
energy, trade and investment sectors and committed Pyongyang and
Washington to normalize relations. Additionally the United
States declared it had no intentions of attacking the North. 

Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi will visit North Korea next week,
China's Foreign Ministry said Thursday, amid the ongoing
international push to convince the reclusive regime to give up
nuclear weapons development. 

While the conference has no authority to enforce resolutions it
adopts, failure to agree to a common approach on North Korea at
the meeting would be an embarrassing reflection of differences
among the five states that negotiated the agreement with
Pyongyang. 

Since North Korea quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in
2003, the annual general conferences have routinely adopted
resolutions calling on it to reverse its decision and recommit
to nonproliferation. 

---- 

Associated Press Writer Audra Ang contributed to this report
from Beijing. 

--- 

On the Net: www.iaea.org 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited й Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 9 Where Taste Buds Fail, Nuclear Technology Succeeds In UN Water Age Test
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:00:10 -0400

 
WHERE TASTE BUDS FAIL, NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY SUCCEEDS IN UN WATER AGE TEST
 
New York, Sep 29 2005  4:00PM
As far as water vintage goes, age makes no difference, according 
to a 'taste test' exhibit at the United Nations nuclear watchdog 
agency's General Conference in Vienna today. But what the taste buds 
fail to pick up on, nuclear technology discerns, helping countries 
to better manage their freshwater sources.

At the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) exhibit, three glasses 
from around the world sat on a table waiting for the water 
experts. They looked identical and smelled alike, and all originated 
from local rain. But one was five-year-old tap water from Vienna, 
another a 25,000-year-old sample the Kufra aquifer in Libya, 
and the third 140,000-year-old rain from the Great Artesian Basin 
in Australia.

But the experts were fooled, finding no gustatory clue to betray 
which was which, even if the Aussie water perhaps tasted a little 
saltier. But age-revealing chemical isotopes are eminently transparent 
to nuclear technology and that's where countries can benefit.

The younger the water is, the more communities can pump away with 
the confidence that rainfall is replenishing their water supply, 
but ancient waters are limited resources. By knowing the age countries 
can better sustain their freshwater sources.

Scientists are sharing vital information through IAEA-supported projects 
around the world. If you look at the Middle East, everywhere 
you are using old water, said Pradeep Aggarwal, who heads the 
<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/water_exhibit.html">IAEA 
isotope hydrology unit.

"It is rainfall from 10,000, maybe 100,000 years ago. So countries 
have to understand there's a limit to how long this will last," 
he added.

The natural isotopes of water are studied using techniques collectively 
known as isotope hydrology. Cheap and reliable, they tell 
scientists how much water is available, how often it is replenished, 
where it comes from and if there is any more to be found.

"Isotope hydrology offers a way to better manage the planets water 
resources and help prevent future crisis," IAEA said.
 2005-09-29 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
 10 TheStar.com: Liberals abandon long-held nuclear policy
 
September 29, 2005Updated at

JAMES TRAVERS

In diplomacy, principles are like gas: Governments hold them as
long as they can before letting them go as quietly as they can.
That odious comparison between international affairs and
anatomical control pretty well explains the near silence
surrounding Canada's sudden shift on the spread of nuclear
weapons.

Just months after a tortured foreign policy review confirmed
non-proliferation as a "key initiative," and only days after
Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke eloquently of the rising Asia
challenge without mentioning arms control, this country is
discreetly rewriting a policy that guided it for more than 40
years. 

Following Washington's summer lead, the Liberal administration
announced without prior warning or public debate that it will
again transfer to India dual-use civilian and military nuclear
technology and may try to sell it reactors.

 Time may prove that embracing reality rather than clinging to
aging treaties is good sense as well as good business and good
politics. Meanwhile, the decision comes loaded with concerns.

 On one end of that list is Liberal confidence that the public
and press, distracted and entertained by gossamer things,
including a vivacious new governor general, wouldn't worry much
about more substantive matters. On the other is that, 60 years
after Hiroshima, the international effort to stigmatize the use
of nuclear weapons is losing its energy. That Canada until this
week had a place in that effort's vanguard is less important
than what its decline means for the spread of the weapons of
mass destruction that George W. Bush said he went to Iraq to
neuter.

 Along with effectively rewarding India for thumbing its nose at
arms protocols, giving a now more mature New Delhi access to the
most sophisticated technology is the most dramatic new feature
of a rapidly changing nuclear landscape.

 In this post-Cold War universe, the brinkmanship of the MAD
(mutually assured destruction) doctrine is no longer the primary
worry. 

What matters now is keeping catastrophic weapons away from
terrorists and convincing generals that battlefield nuclear
weapons are not legitimate parts of their arsenals.

Despite India's promise to transparently isolate nuclear power
production from arms development, it's a long leap of faith to
assume the result won't be more doomsday weapons drifting around
the world's roughest, most unstable neighbourhoods. 

Worse still, India's alleged experiments with "low-yield"
weapons mirrors Washington's renewed spending on a range of
sci-fi horrors that, despite their misleading name, promise to
be more powerful and deadly than the bombs dropped on Japan.

 What frets those worried that this century will finally host
Armageddon is that the U.S. is on course to become more, rather
than less, dependent on nuclear weapons.

 The failure of history's most powerful military to counter
insurgencies from Vietnam to Iraq and the increasing reluctance
of ordinary Americans to die for their leader's rhetoric are
increasing military interest in weapons that, theoretically,
could win wars with minimal loss of U.S. lives. 

Those are still only worries and are far out of scale with
concerns about the new willingness in Ottawa and Washington to
forgive and forget India's past nuclear betrayals. 

Apart from ignoring how it illegitimately used '70s Canadian
technology to build its first nuke and tested much more
sophisticated bombs as recently as 1998, this new easygoing
policy makes the informed guess that countries now standing on
the nuclear threshold won't conclude they too can have it both
ways  world-class power generation and weapons programs. 

That assumption may ultimately prove right. But there is plenty
wrong with using nuclear technology as a prize to draw India
closer to North America and further away from China.

As much as it recognizes the world as it is rather than how we
would like it to be, Ottawa's nuclear reversal also pulls back
from the multilateralism that offers Canada the best protection
from its neighbour's determined pursuit of self-interest.
Stripped to metal, it accepts that Washington now writes and
enforces the rules.

That's an awfully large principle to let go so quietly.

James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday,
Thursday and Saturday. jtraver@thestar.ca.

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of
any material from www.thestar.comis strictly prohibited without
*****************************************************************
 11 Japan Times: Toward a nuclear Japan?

  Thursday, September 29, 2005   
  
 By ROBYN LIM

The United States cannot stop nuclear proliferation, even though
Japan and others will expect it to keep trying. The Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) has allowed North Korea and Iran
to develop nuclear weapons on the sly. What will Japan conclude
from this?

 Japan, in order to balance the rapidly growing power of a
nuclear-armed China, will have to acquire offensive
capabilities. That may include nuclear weapons, although that is
not yet inevitable.

 The so-called breakthrough in the six party talks on North
Korea did not last even 24 hours. Last week, the board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution saying
Iran had violated the NPT by secretly developing nuclear
weapons. But lacking consensus on the board, the IAEA could not
report Iran to the United Nations Security Council, where
sanctions might be imposed.

 True, the NPT has been one of the more successful arms control
agreements, and helped to slow the pace of nuclear proliferation
after China "went nuclear" in 1964. But no arms control
agreement can survive a sea change in the strategic
circumstances that gave rise to it. In the case of the NPT, the
"enforcement mechanism" of the Treaty was the willingness and
ability of the two Cold War superpowers to enforce discipline
within their respective blocs. The non-Soviet members of the
Warsaw Pact would not have dreamed of acquiring nuclear weapons
on their own. For its part, the U.S. discovered and terminated
nuclear-weapons programs in Taiwan and South Korea.

 With the end of the Cold War, that discipline has gone. As can
be seen in the case of North Korea and Iran, the so-called
international community lacks the will and ability to enforce
the NPT.

 And what is striking about the Six Party talks is the degree to
which China has established itself as arbiter of peace and war
on the Korean Peninsula. If China were able to insist that North
Korea get rid of its nuclear weapons, it would do a huge service
to itself and others. None could then accuse China of acting
irresponsibly. But even in the unlikely event that were to
happen, would it reduce the pressure on Japan to acquire nuclear
weapons?

 It might, but it might not. It might not because China's
actions would illustrate for Japan the benefits of possessing
nuclear weapons and thus exerting the influence that goes with
them. If Japan passively accepted China's actions, it would be
going a long way toward accepting China's regional dominance.

 And if Japan loses confidence in extended deterrence (the U.S.
"nuclear umbrella"), the logical response is not to seek to
appease China, but the reverse. The Democratic Party of Japan
seems to have accepted this logic when it elected the hawkish
Seiji Maehara as its leader. Thus a sea change is occurring in
Japanese politics. That's because China has been provoking Japan
ever since the Cold War ended. 

Whatever happens, the U.S. will have to get used to the idea
that Japan will acquire offensive capabilities. It won't be
long, for example, before Japan asks to be allowed to purchase
the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile. So far only Britain has
been allowed to buy this weapon. But if Japan asks, can the U.S.
say no?

 True, missile defense meets some of Japan's strategic needs
because it is nonnuclear and defensive. But it is designed to
protect against ballistic missiles. It won't work against the
strategic cruise missiles China is developing, with Russian
help, as a form of asymmetrical warfare. Moreover, for Japan,
acquiring conventional offensive capabilities may not be enough
to balance Chinese power if Japan no longer believes that the
U.S. would "sacrifice New York to save Tokyo."

 A nuclear Japan that remained a U.S. ally would be vastly
preferable to a nuclear Japan that was strategically
independent. After all, Britain (after the U.S. tried to stop it
but failed) acquired nuclear weapons in the form of a sea-based
deterrent. That met Britain's strategic needs because (like
Japan) Britain is a small populous island lacking strategic
depth. And Britain remained a U.S. ally, its nuclear weapons
serving usefully to complicate Soviet strategic planning.

 The East Asia regional security equation is now changing
rapidly. North Korea's having acquired nuclear capabilities as a
means of regime survival is setting off a series of consequences
that may soon be irreversible. So it's up to China, the U.S. and
Japan to decide how they respond to these changes. But if
present trends continue, a nuclear Japan seems more likely than
not.

 Robyn Lim is a professor of international relations at Nanzan
University, Nagoya, and the author of "The Geopolitics of East
Asia." 

The Japan Times: Sept. 29, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 12 UK: Telegraph: Russia retrieves nuclear fuel 

2005/09/29/

Enough HEU to make several nuclear bombs is still in storage
plants across the former Soviet Union and its satellite states,
almost 16 years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain. 
The secret operation in Prague, which took place on Tuesday, was
part of a joint long-term nuclear clean-up programme by Russia
and the United States. 

Fears that terrorists could get their hands on HEU held in often
poorly-guarded storage facilities prompted the Bush
administration to pledge г255 million last year to help to
repatriate Russian-origin HEU. 

Under the gaze of Russian, American and Czech experts, about
31lbs of highly-enriched reactor fuel were retrieved under armed
guard from the KV-2 Sparrow reactor at the Czech Technical
University in Prague. About 55lbs are sufficient to make a
nuclear device. 

Three large steel drums holding 20 fuel rods were loaded on to a
Russian cargo plane and flown to a high-security storage centre
at Dimitrovgrad in Russia. There they will be reduced to a lower
enrichment level, making them unsuitable for use in a nuclear
weapon. 

The KV-2 is to continue operating and will, like 130 similar
reactors worldwide, be converted to use low-enriched fuel from
next month. Other reactors are being closed down. 

The programme is part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative,
which President George W Bush and President Vladimir Putin
agreed to speed up during a meeting in Bratislava earlier this
year. The onus is on Russia, which originally supplied the
nuclear fuel, to recover it. 

This week's mission was the eighth so far since 2002 and the
second to take place in the Czech Republic this year. 

Previous secret shipments, largely paid for by America, have
taken place from Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan,
and Latvia. They yielded almost 270lbs of HEU - enough to make
five nuclear bombs. 

A further 16 missions are scheduled to take place until 2013
involving the "down-blending" of an undisclosed quantity of fuel
from countries including Poland, Kazakhstan and Vietnam. 

12 August 2005: Bill to clear nuclear sites rises to г60bn  

й Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions
*****************************************************************
 13 Hindu News: Jaitapur chosen as site for reactor 

Friday, September 30, 2005 : 0300 Hrs
 
Mumbai, Sep 30. (PTI) Jaitapur in Maharashtra will be one of the
four sites identified for setting up Light Water Reactors (LWRs)
as part of the government's plan to enhance nuclear power
capacity in the country by 6,800 MW, according to Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). 

The other three sites will be the already existing nuclear
islands --Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, Kakrapar in Gujarat and
Rawalbhata in Rajasthan. 

Detailed proposals regarding nuclear power plants to be set up
at these sites are under preparation and would be submitted by
NPCIL and Department of Atomic Energy to the Union government
for approval, a NPCIL release said on Thursday. 

One of the options being considered is indigenously designed 700
MW Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor in the inland nuclear islands
while "Jaitapur is likely to get LWRs)," it said. 

The site selection and approval process is a pre-project
activity for identifying potential sites where nuclear power
plants can be set up, it said adding: "It is part of long-range
plan for nuclear power in the country. Pre-selection and
approval of potential sites greatly reduces the time-frame for
setting up of nuclear power plant. 

The site selection was carried out by a high powered committee
constituted by the government which consisted of experts from
various fields including R and D and health, safety and
environment, it said. 

In addition, it had representatives from the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Central Electricity Regulatory
Authority and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the release
added. 

Copyright й 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of
*****************************************************************
 14 Northwest Indiana News: What was the FBI really protecting in New Orleans? 

nwitimes.com

Richard Forster Portage

This story ran on nwitimes.com on Thursday, September 29, 2005
12:49 AM CDT 

In regard to an interview of an FBI agent by MSNBC's Rita
Crosby, she didn't get the big picture when all he said was that
the FBI was there since day one in New Orleans to protect an
asset of the United States.

That asset is the cooling towers of Southern Bell. 
If I were a reporter in the Gulf region, I would ask, besides
the dirty toxic water of New Orleans, if anyone in state or
federal government worried about all the dangerous nuclear waste
we dumped in the Gulf during the Cold War.

Oh. I forgot the U.S. government doesn't want you to know about
the cooling towers or thousands of barrels of nuclear waste in
the Gulf. Shame on me for letting you know.

Also, I am watching to see if the Posse Comitatus laws are
trashed. I don't want U.N. troops on U.S. soil.

Richard Forster, Portage 

  Copyright й 1996-2005 nwitimes.com. Reproduction or
*****************************************************************
 15 the chattanoogan: TVA Reports Records In Year-end Results
                
Chattanoogan.com
 	
posted September 28, 2005
 		
The combined performance of TVAТs fossil, nuclear and 
hydroelectric plants during the 2005 fiscal year resulted in TVA 
setting numerous records in supplying power to its customers, TVA 
President and Chief Operating Officer Tom Kilgore told the TVA 
Board today. 
		 
In an operational report to the Board at its meeting in 
Knoxville, two days before the end of the fiscal year, Mr. 
Kilgore said TVA plants are expected to generate more than 160 
billion kilowatt hours this year, which is equivalent to 12 
percent of electricity consumption by all U.S. households.
		 
УThis is the best that TVAТs integrated power system has ever 
performed,Ф said Mr. Kilgore. УTVA employees kept more than 50 
generating units running and 17,000 miles of transmission lines 
delivering electricity through the challenging summer.Ф
 		
Mr. Kilgore added that in addition to the production and delivery 
of affordable, reliable energy, TVA continued its historic 
mission to improve the quality of life in the Tennessee Valley, 
deliver cleaner air and water, and bring jobs to the southeast 
region by helping Valley communities compete nationally and 
globally.
		 
Power demand records for this fiscal year include:
		 
Meeting a peak demand in excess of 29,000 megawatts for eight 
straight days in July for the first time in TVAТs history. TVA 
had never before had power demand that high for more than two 
consecutive days.
		 
Setting an all-time power demand record for two consecutive days 
in July. TVA met its highest demand for electricity ever of 
31,924 megawatts on July 26. The record demand a day earlier had 
surpassed the previous record by more than 1,700 megawatts.
		 
Total power sales for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends Friday, 
Sept. 30, are projected to be more than 170 billion kilowatt 
hours with revenues in excess of $7.7 billion. TVAТs 11 fossil 
plants will generate almost five percent more power than they did 
in 2004, and hydro generation is expected to be 13 percent above 
normal. 
		 
Mr. Kilgore reported that TVA will reduce its total financing 
obligations by $300 million for a total reduction of $2.1 billion 
since 1996. He also reported on improvements in air quality and 
reduction in potential flood damage from TVAТs management of the 
Tennessee River system.
		 
Mr. Kilgore said TVA is working to meet future challenges by 
focusing on operational excellence, achieving financial 
flexibility, stimulating economic development and providing 
environmental stewardship.
		 
In other business, the Board authorized a public auction sale
of approximately 578 acres of land on Nickajack Reservoir in
Marion County in return for exchange of land that would allow
construction of a residential development on the reservoir.

(423) 266-2325
 й 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by Three HD
*****************************************************************
 16 toledoblade.com: Court asked to roll back electric rates

Article published Thursday, September 29, 2005
 
 PUCO accused of giving FirstEnergy illegal approval to add
$2.9B surcharge
 
By JIM PROVANCE BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday received a crash
course on electricity competition as it pondered the question of
whether FirstEnergy Corp. was illegally granted approval to
surcharge customers $2.9 billion over the next three years.

 The Ohio Consumers' Counsel, Lucas County, Toledo, Maumee,
Sylvania, Oregon, Perrysburg, and Holland argue that the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio simply renamed and extended the
"stranded costs" utilities have been allowed to pass on to
customers since 2002 to recoup the cost of nuclear power plant
and other improvements.

"The commission has approved a $2.9 billion insurance premium,"
Assistant Consumers' Counsel Kimberly Bojko said. "This premium
fails to offer any insurance for protecting consumers. The
so-called rate stabilization plan does not stabilize rates. In
fact, it allows increases in rates."

She said the plan could cost a residential customer $15 to $20
each month. The surcharge would apply to customers to whom the
Akron parent of Toledo Edison delivers power, often regardless
of whether the customer purchased that power from another
supplier.

At issue is whether the 1999 law partly deregulating the
electricity industry authorizes the PUCO, which was convinced a
competitive electricity marketplace had yet to materialize, to
ask utilities to submit alternative plans offering consumers
stable rates.

In exchange for approval of the surcharge, FirstEnergy would
freeze its current rates through 2008, with the exception of
possible increases for rising fuel costs. FirstEnergy already
has such a request before the commission, although deals have
been worked out with some northwest Ohio mayors to defer those
billings until 2009.

"As citizens, we were scratching our heads when [lawmakers] were
doing this because the whole California fiasco was unfolding as
they were going full speed ahead," Justice Paul Pfeifer said.

"I think some of the public utility companies even advised
against it."

PUCO attorney William Wright countered, "But for this plan,
FirstEnergy could charge what it wantsЕ. They didn't have to
come forwardЕ."

"You told them to," said Justice Pfeifer, who at one point
referred to the rate stabilization charge as "a little extra
booty."

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer said opponents to the rate plan have
a "high hurdle" to clear to convince the court to break from
precedent of deferring in such matters to the expertise of the
commission.

To test whether competition was out there, the PUCO ordered a
competitive auction last December in FirstEnergy's territory,
which has the highest rates in the state. The resulting bids
were higher than the generation rate offered by FirstEnergy.

"The OCC is standing here today and telling you: 'We wanted a
competitive bid auction. We want our customers to pay more,' "
Mr. Williams told the court. "That's a nonsensical argument."

The Consumers' Counsel, however, countered that the commission
has taken away a consumer's choice between FirstEnergy's rate of
4.6 cents per kilowatt hour, a rate that could rise with fuel
costs, and the closest bid of 5.5 cents that would be locked in
for three years.

"They have a right to that choice," said Kerry Bruce, attorney
for the Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition, which seeks bulk
electricity rates for 130,000 residential and small-business
customers in Lucas and Wood counties.

All seven justices presided over the arguments, despite a
request from government watchdog Ohio Citizen Action that five
of them, all Republicans, remove themselves from the case.

Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton,
Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell, and Judith Lanzinger
accepted a total of $125,000 in campaign contributions from
FirstEnergy's political action committee, executives, and
employees over the last 10 years.

Of the three contested court seats on the ballot last year, at
least two, Chief Justice Moyer and Justice O'Donnell, attended
an Aug. 6, 2004, fund-raiser at the home of FirstEnergy CEO
Anthony Alexander at which roughly $61,000 was raised. Court
spokesman Chris Davey, however, said court rules dictate they
would not have been present when checks changed hands.

Justice Lanzinger was unsure if the Alexander event was among
many fund-raisers she attended, but she indicated she was likely
there.

"She said she wouldn't know Tony Alexander if she passed him on
the street," Mr. Davey said.

Contact Jim Provance at:
jprovance@theblade.com
or 614-221-0496.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                        FR Doc 05-19444 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56938-56939] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-72]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
Series.
 
This series has been developed to describe and make available to 
the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's 
regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the 
staff needs in its review of applications for permits and 
licenses.
 
Revision 33 of Regulatory Guide 1.84, ``Design, Fabrication, and 
Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,'' lists the 
NRC- approved Code Cases from Section III, ``Rules for 
Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' of the Boiler 
and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code promulgated by the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). In so doing, this guide 
identifies the Code Cases that nuclear power plant applicants and 
licensees can use to comply with the NRC's requirements in Title 
10, Section 50.55a(c), of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR 
50.55a(c)], ``Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary.'' Specifically, 
10 CFR 50.55a(c) requires, in part, that components of the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary must be designed, fabricated, 
erected, and tested in accordance with the ASME Section III 
requirements for Class 1 components (or equivalent quality 
standards). The ASME publishes a new edition of the BPV Code 
(which includes Section III) every 3 years, new addenda every 
year, and Code Cases every quarter.
 
Revision 33 of Regulatory Guide 1.84 identifies the Code Cases 
that the NRC has determined to be acceptable alternatives to 
applicable provisions of Section III. For this revision, the NRC 
staff reviewed Section III Code Cases listed in Supplement 12 to 
the 1998 Edition of the ASME BPV Code through Supplement 6 to the 
2001 Edition.
 
The newly approved Code Cases and revisions to existing Code 
Cases will be incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(b), 
which identifies the latest editions and addenda of Section III 
that the NRC has approved for use. Code Cases approved by the NRC 
may be used voluntarily by licensees as an alternative to 
compliance with ASME Code provisions that have been incorporated 
by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(b). Section III Code Cases not 
yet endorsed by the NRC may be implemented through 10 CFR 
50.55a(a)(3), which permits the use of alternatives to the Code 
requirements referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, provided that the 
proposed alternatives result in an acceptable level of quality 
and safety, and their use is authorized by the Director of the 
NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
On August 3, 2004, the NRC staff published a draft of this guide 
as Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1124. Following the closure of the 
public comment period on September 2, 2004, the staff considered 
all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Revision 33 
of Regulatory Guide 1.84. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes 
comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to 
published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in 
regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may 
submit comments by any of the following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
 
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 
415-5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Revision 33 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.84 may be directed to Wallace E. Norris, at 
(301) 415-6796 or WEN@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available 
for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site 
in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies 
of Revision 33 of Regulatory Guide 1.84 are also available in the 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , under Accession 
ML052130562. Note, however, that the NRC has temporarily 
suspended public access to ADAMS so that the agency can complete 
security reviews of publicly available documents and remove 
potentially sensitive information. Please check the NRC's Web 
site for updates concerning the resumption of public access to 
ADAMS.
 
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is 
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached 
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 
415-3548, and by email to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single copies 
of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for 
placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of 
future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in 
writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section; by email to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 
415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory 
guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not 
required to reproduce them.
 
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of 
August, 2005.
 
 
[[Page 56939]] For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Carl 
J. Paperiello, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19444 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Bureau 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5316 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56935-56936] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-69]                         
 
of Standards Reactor; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly 
known as the National Bureau of Standards, has submitted an 
application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. TR-5 
for an additional 20 years of operation at the National Bureau of 
Standards Reactor (NBSR). The NBSR is located in Montgomery 
County in Maryland, about 20 miles northwest of Washington, DC. 
The operating license for the NBSR expired on May 16, 2004. The 
application for license renewal, which included an environmental 
report (ER), was received on April 9, 2004. A notice of receipt 
and availability of the application was published in the Federal 
Register on May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26414). A notice of acceptance 
for docketing of the application and a notice of opportunity for 
hearing regarding renewal of the facility operating licenses was 
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2004 (69 FR 
56462). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be preparing an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) in support of the review of 
the license renewal application and to provide the public an 
opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, 
as defined in 10 CFR 51.29. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 
800.8, ``Coordination with the National Environmental Policy 
Act,'' the NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act in meeting the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA).
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.20 and 10 CFR 51.45, NIST submitted 
the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant 
to 10 CFR part 51 and is available for public inspection at the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or 
from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is 
accessible at , which provides access through the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room link. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the 
information necessary to prepare an EIS documenting the staff's 
environmental review of the application for renewal of the NBSR 
operating license for an additional 20 years. Alternatives to the 
proposed action (license renewal), including the no-action 
alternative will be considered. The NRC is required by
 
[[Page 56936]] 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2) to prepare an EIS in connection 
with the renewal of the operating license for a testing facility. 
This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the 
NRC's regulations found in 10 CFR part 51.
 
The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the EIS and, as 
soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft EIS for 
public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members 
of the public and local, State, tribal, and Federal government 
agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the EIS will be 
used to accomplish the following: a. Define the proposed action 
which is to be the subject of the EIS; b. Determine the scope of 
the EIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in 
depth; c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues 
that are peripheral or that are not significant; d. Identify any 
environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will 
be prepared that are related to, but are not part of the scope of 
the EIS being considered; e. Identify other environmental review 
and consultation requirements related to the proposed action; f. 
Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation 
of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative 
planning and decisionmaking schedule; g. Identify any cooperating 
agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for 
preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and 
any cooperating agencies; and h. Describe how the EIS will be 
prepared, and include any contractor assistance to be used.
 
The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping: 
a. The applicant, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology; b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or 
special expertise with respect to any environmental impact 
involved, or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant 
environmental standards; c. Affected State and local government 
agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce 
relevant environmental standards; d. Any affected Indian tribe; 
e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to 
participate in the scoping process; and f. Any person who has 
petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene.
 
Members of the public may send written comments on the 
environmental scope of the NBSR license renewal review to the 
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite 
the publication date and page number of this Federal Register 
notice. Comments may also be delivered to the NRC, Room T-6D59, 
Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays. To be 
considered in the scoping process, written comments should be 
postmarked no later than 60 days after the date of this Notice. 
Electronic comments may be sent by e-mail to the NRC at  and 
should be sent no later than 60 days from the date of this 
Notice, to be considered in the scoping process. No public 
scoping meeting is planned. Comments will be available 
electronically and accessible through ADAMS at .
 
Participation in the scoping process for the EIS does not entitle 
participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the EIS 
relates. Notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the 
renewal application was the subject of the aforementioned Federal 
Register notice (69 FR 56462).
 
At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will prepare a 
concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached, 
including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy 
of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The 
summary will also be available for inspection in ADAMS at .
 
The staff will then prepare and issue for comment the draft EIS, 
which will be the subject of a separate notice. Copies will be 
available for public inspection at the above-mentioned addresses, 
and one copy per request will be provided free of charge. After 
receipt and consideration of the comments, the NRC will prepare a 
final EIS, which will also be available for public inspection.
 
Information about the proposed action, the EIS, and the scoping 
process may be obtained from NRC Environmental Project Manager, 
Mr. James H. Wilson, at (301) 415-1108, or via e-mail at . Dated 
at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Section Chief, Research and Test Reactors 
Section, New, Research and Test Reactors Program, Division of 
Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5316 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Procedures for Meetings
 
                         FR Doc E5-5317 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56936-56937] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-70]                         
 
Background This notice describes procedures to be followed with 
respect to meetings conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC's) Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 
(ACRS) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 
These procedures are set forth so that they may be incorporated 
by reference in future notices for individual meetings.
 
The ACRS is a statutory group established by Congress to review 
and report on nuclear safety matters and applications for the 
licensing of nuclear facilities. The Committee's reports become a 
part of the public record.
 
The ACRS meetings are conducted in accordance with FACA; they are 
normally open to the public and provide opportunities for oral or 
written statements from members of the public to be considered as 
part of the Committee's information gathering process. ACRS 
reviews do not normally encompass matters pertaining to 
environmental impacts other than those related to radiological 
safety.
 
The ACRS meetings are not adjudicatory hearings such as those 
conducted by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel as 
part of the Commission's licensing process.
 
General Rules Regarding ACRS Full Committee Meetings An agenda 
will be published in the Federal Register for each full Committee 
meeting. There may be a need to make changes to the agenda to 
facilitate the conduct of the meeting. The Chairman of the 
Committee is empowered to conduct the meeting in a manner that, 
in his/her judgment, will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business, including making provisions to continue the discussion 
of matters not completed on the scheduled day on another meeting 
day. Persons planning to attend the meeting may contact the 
Designated Federal Official (DFO) specified in the Federal 
Register Notice
 
[[Page 56937]] prior to the meeting to be advised of any changes 
to the agenda that may have occurred.
 
The following requirements shall apply to public participation in 
ACRS full Committee meetings: (a) Persons who plan to make oral 
statements and/or submit written comments at the meeting should 
provide 35 copies to the DFO at the beginning of the meeting. 
Persons who cannot attend the meeting but wish to submit written 
comments regarding the agenda items may do so by sending a 
readily reproducible copy addressed to the DFO specified in the 
Federal Register Notice, care of the Advisory Committee on 
Reactor Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Comments should be limited to items 
being considered by the Committee. Comments should be in the 
possession of the DFO five days prior to the meeting to allow 
time for reproduction and distribution.
 
(b) Persons desiring to make oral statements at the meeting 
should make a request to do so to the DFO. If possible, the 
request should be made five days before the meeting, identifying 
the topic(s) on which oral statements will be made and the amount 
of time needed for presentation so that orderly arrangements can 
be made. The Committee will hear oral statements on topics being 
reviewed at an appropriate time during the meeting as scheduled 
by the Chairman.
 
(c) Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the 
agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and 
the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by 
contacting the DFO.
 
(d) The use of still, motion picture, and television cameras will 
be permitted at the discretion of the Chairman and subject to the 
condition that the use of such equipment will not interfere with 
the conduct of the meeting. The DFO will have to be notified 
prior to the meeting and will authorize the use of such equipment 
after consultation with the Chairman. The use of such equipment 
will be restricted as is necessary to protect proprietary or 
privileged information that may be in documents, folders, etc., 
in the meeting room. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
 
(e) A transcript will be kept for certain open portions of the 
meeting and will be available in the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR), One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852-2738. A copy of the certified minutes of the 
meeting will be available at the same location three months 
following the meeting. Copies may be obtained upon payment of 
appropriate reproduction charges. ACRS meeting agenda, 
transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC 
Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, by calling the PDR at 
1-800-394-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System 
(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is 
accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & 
oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
 
(f) Video teleconferencing service is available for observing 
open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service 
for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS 
Audio Visual Technician, (301) 415-8066 between 7:30 a.m. and 
3:45 p.m. eastern time at least 10 days before the meeting to 
ensure the availability of this service.
 
Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be 
responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the 
equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video 
teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing 
services is not guaranteed.
 
ACRS Subcommittee Meetings In accordance with the revised FACA, 
the agency is no longer required to apply the FACA requirements 
to meetings conducted by the Subcommittees of the NRC Advisory 
Committees, if the Subcommittee's recommendations would be 
independently reviewed by its parent Committee.
 
The ACRS, however, chose to conduct its Subcommittee meetings in 
accordance with the procedures noted above for ACRS full 
Committee meetings, as appropriate, to facilitate public 
participation, and to provide a forum for stakeholders to express 
their views on regulatory matters being considered by the ACRS. 
When Subcommittee meetings are held at locations other than at 
NRC facilities, reproduction facilities may not be available at a 
reasonable cost. Accordingly, 50 copies of the materials to be 
used during the meeting should be provided for distribution at 
such meetings.
 
Special Provisions When Proprietary Sessions Are To Be Held If it 
is necessary to hold closed sessions for the purpose of 
discussing matters involving proprietary information, persons 
with agreements permitting access to such information may attend 
those portions of the ACRS meetings where this material is being 
discussed upon confirmation that such agreements are effective 
and related to the material being discussed. The DFO should be 
informed of such an agreement at least five working days prior to 
the meeting so that it can be confirmed, and a determination can 
be made regarding the applicability of the agreement to the 
material that will be discussed during the meeting. The minimum 
information provided should include information regarding the 
date of the agreement, the scope of material included in the 
agreement, the project or projects involved, and the names and 
titles of the persons signing the agreement.
 
Additional information may be requested to identify the specific 
agreement involved. A copy of the executed agreement should be 
provided to the DFO prior to the beginning of the meeting for 
admittance to the closed session.
 
Dated: September 23, 2005.
 
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5317 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the 
 
                         FR Doc E5-5318 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56937-56938] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-71]                         
 
Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems; 
Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital 
Instrumentation and Control Systems will hold a meeting on 
October 20-21, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that will be closed on Thursday, October 
20, 2005, 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. to discuss safeguards 
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3). The agenda for the 
subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, October 20, 
2005--8:30 a.m. until the close of business Friday, October 21, 
2005--8:30 a.m. until the close of business The purpose of the 
meeting is to review selected digital instrumentation and control 
research projects and related matters. The Subcommittee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
 
[[Page 56938]] and other interested persons regarding this 
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Eric A. Thornsbury (telephone (301) 415-8716), five days 
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be 
permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official or the Cognizant Staff 
Engineer between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning 
to attend this meeting are urged to contact one of the above 
named individuals at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
 
Dated: September 21, 2005.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5318 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                        FR Doc 05-19445 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56939] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-73]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
Series.
 
This series has been developed to describe and make available to 
the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's 
regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the 
staff needs in its review of applications for permits and 
licenses.
 
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.193, ``ASME Code Cases Not 
Approved for Use,'' lists the Code Cases that the NRC has 
determined are not acceptable for generic use as specified in 
Section III, ``Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant 
Components,'' and Section XI, ``Rules for Inservice Inspection of 
Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' of the Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel (BPV) Code promulgated by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME). (In so doing, this guide complements 
Revision 33 of Regulatory Guide 1.84, ``Design, Fabrication, and 
Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,'' and 
Revision 14 of Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice Inspection 
Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,'' which 
list the Code Cases that the NRC has determined to be acceptable 
alternatives to applicable provisions of Section III and Section 
XI, respectively.) Licensees may request NRC approval to 
implement one or more of the Code Cases listed in Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.193, as provided in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), which 
permits the use of alternatives to the Code requirements 
referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, provided that the proposed 
alternatives result in an acceptable level of quality and safety. 
To do so, a licensee must submit a plant-specific request that 
addresses the NRC's concern about the given Code Case.
 
On August 3, 2004, the NRC staff published a draft of this guide 
as Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1126. Following the closure of the 
public comment period on September 2, 2004, the staff considered 
all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.193. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes 
comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to 
published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in 
regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may 
submit comments by any of the following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
 
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 
415-5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Revision 1 of Regulatory 
Guide 1.193 may be directed to Wallace E. Norris, at (301) 
415-6796 or WEN@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available for 
inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site in 
the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. 
Electronic copies of Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.193 are 
also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , under Accession 
ML052140501. Note, however, that the NRC has temporarily 
suspended public access to ADAMS so that the agency can complete 
security reviews of publicly available documents and remove 
potentially sensitive information. Please check the NRC's Web 
site for updates concerning the resumption of public access to 
ADAMS.
 
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is 
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached 
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 
415-3548, and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single 
copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for 
placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of 
future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in 
writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 
415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory 
guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not 
required to reproduce them.
 
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of 
August, 2005.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl J. Paperiello, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19445 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 Hudson Valley News: Indian Point opponents point to hurricane evacuation issues   

Thursday, September 29, 2005 

  
(L-R) Ulster County legislator Hector
Rodriguez, van Roestenburg Zimet 

Better planning by local officials in Texas meant a better
evacuation in advance of Hurricane Rita than what was observed
in Louisiana, ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. 

Hudson Valley opponents of the Indian Point nuclear power plants
point to the Katrina experience as yet another reason to shut
down the nuclear plant. 

Billiam van Roestenberg, a Democrat candidate for Ulster County
Legislature, says the message is clear. New Orleans had levies
filled with water. Ladies and gentlemen, we have levies filled
with radiation. 

Incumbent County Legislator Susan Zimet, also a Democrat, says
claims that there is no safe level of assurance that an
emergency around Indian Point would be any better. People of
Chernobyl did not expect Chernobyl to happen. They didnt go to
sleep that night and expect to wake up the next morning with a
hundred square miles surrounding Chernobyl to be permanently
uninhabitable for the rest of civilization. 

Hoy chats with IP
opponent Michelle Riddell 
  
The only solution, they said, is to close Indian Point now and
focus on cleaner alternative energy. 

Watching the news conference near New Paltz were some members of
the New Paltz College Republicans. Ryan Hoy is a member of that
group, and also chairman of the Ulster County Young Republicans.
Instead of going about the issue of nuclear power plants, how
about acting on the issue of transportation. They have already
commented on how New Paltz has a bad transportation issue. 

Hoy also said nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel power
because of lower greenhouse gas emission.   
  
                                

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
                only Internet radio news report. 
*****************************************************************
 23 Middletown Press: Plant decommissioning on schedule

News - 09/29/2005 

By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown Press Staff

HADDAM -- A tractor scooped bedrock on Wednesday from an area 
where the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant had stored 
radioactive material in eight large tanks.                                                       

The scoops of bedrock were brought to a pile slightly northwest 
of a 180-foot tall containment dome. Eventually the bedrock, like 
the tons ofother debris, will be shipped out from the plant which 
is undergoing decommissioning. 

Connecticut Yankee stopped operating in 1996. Demolition of the 
plantТs buildings and other equipment began in 2004.

All structures will be destroyed by the fall of 2006. The 
demolition will create a total of 365 million pounds of debris.

With only five structures remaining, the size of the plant seems 
somewhat smaller and less crowded. 

"When you had all the buildings, it seemed a lot bigger," said 
Joseph Bourassa, director of nuclear safety and regulatory 
affairs.

Some of the plant site looks like it is an open field spotted 
with construction equipment, ruts, puddles and workers who wear 
brightly colored safety vests. Buildings have been knocked down 
and do not block the view of the Connecticut River as they did 
for years.

"Basically, weТre a construction site," said Kelley Smith, 
Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman.

Though decommissioning is nearly complete, Connecticut Yankee 
still has work to do including tearing down the containment dome.

Most of the equipment inside the domed building has been removed. 
Workers entered the dome through an about 30-foot by 30-foot hole 
that was created with a hole ram machine in about 36 hours.

"Right now weТre working on the interior demolishing," said 
Bourassa.

The containment dome, made of about 77 million tons of reinforced 
concrete, will be destroyed by the fall of 2006. 

Liquid and solid waste was processed in buildings that sat near 
the containment dome during plant operations. One of the tanks 
that stored the waste leaked, causing the bedrock beneath it to 
test positive for low radioactivity. Ground water in the area 
tested positive for Strontium 90.

As the tractors bought the bedrock from the pit next to the dome 
on Wednesday, workers continued to build wells which will be used 
to monitor the ground water.

The parts of the plant property effected by plant activity will 
be remediated, including a mile-long discharge canal.

A paved walkway that runs along the canal will be reopened to the 
public when decommissioning is complete.

Federal authorities closed the path after the Sept. 11, 2001 
attacks.

Slightly to the east of the canal the south access road stretches 
three-quarters of-a-mile to the storage pad area.

In March the last cask of spent-fuel and radioactive reactor 
vessel metal pieces were brought to the pad, which is surrounded 
by multiple levels of security.

To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or 
e-mail jmrozinski@middletownpress.com 

йThe Middletown Press 2005                                      

*****************************************************************
 24 Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuke plant work on schedule

News - 09/29/2005 - 

Kimberly K. Barlow, Times Staff

 SHIPPINGPORT - Plans to replace three steam generators and a
reactor unit head on Unit 1 at the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power
Station remain on schedule despite the effects of Hurricane
Katrina.
 
The steam generators, en route from their manufacturer in Spain,
were to be shipped through New Orleans and up the Mississippi
River to the Ohio River and Shippingport. Katrina, which closed
the Port of New Orleans for two weeks, changed all that. The new
components, fabricated by Equipos Nucleares of Maliano, Spain,
left Maliano on Sept. 3. The 1,100-ton cargo was diverted to
Mobile, Ala., because of hurricane damage at New Orleans.
 
The ship docked in Mobile on Sept. 19, and last week the
components were transferred to a barge that will bring the parts
to Shippingport via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the
Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
 
The generators are expected to arrive at the power plant on Oct.
8, where a tentlike temporary storage structure awaits. The
components will be prepared for installation in the new
structure erected on the plant site near Route 168.
 
The steam generators, each 68 feet long, 15 feet in diameter and
weighing 368 tons, use water heated in the nuclear reactor to
produce the steam that drives electrical generating equipment at
the power plant. 

The reactor vessel head is the cap for the metal vessel where
the nuclear reaction takes place and provides access for the
control rods that regulate the reaction. It is more than 15 feet
in diameter and weighs nearly 80 tons.
 
The components are to be installed during a scheduled refueling
outage in February as part of a $250 million upgrade to the
power plant. The steam generators and reactor unit head that
will be replaced have been in the plant since Unit 1 went online
in 1976. 

йBeaver County Times Allegheny Times 2005                                       

*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                        FR Doc 05-19446 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56939-56940] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-74]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
Series.
 
This series has been developed to describe and make available to 
the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's 
regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the 
staff needs in its review of applications for permits and 
licenses.
 
Revision 14 of Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice Inspection 
Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,'' lists the 
NRC- approved Code Cases from Section XI, ``Rules for Inservice 
Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' of the Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code promulgated by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME). In so doing, this guide identifies 
the Code Cases that nuclear power plant applicants and licensees 
can use to comply with the NRC's requirements in Title 10, 
Section 50.55a(g), of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR 
50.55a(g)], ``Inservice Inspection Requirements.'' Specifically, 
10 CFR 50.55a(g) requires, in part, that Class 1, 2, 3, MC, and 
CC components and their supports must meet the requirements of 
ASME Section XI (or equivalent quality standards). The ASME 
publishes a new edition of the BPV Code (which includes Section 
XI) every 3 years, new
 
[[Page 56940]] addenda every year, and Code Cases every quarter.
 
Revision 14 of Regulatory Guide 1.147 identifies the Code Cases 
that the NRC has determined to be acceptable alternatives to 
applicable provisions of Section XI. For this revision, the NRC 
staff reviewed Section XI Code Cases listed in Supplement 12 to 
the 1998 Edition of the ASME BPV Code through Supplement 6 to the 
2001 Edition.
 
The newly approved Code Cases and revisions to existing Code 
Cases will be incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(b), 
which identifies the latest editions and addenda of Section XI 
that the NRC has approved for use. Code Cases approved by the NRC 
may be used voluntarily by licensees without a request for NRC 
authorization, provided that they are used with any identified 
limitations or modifications. Section XI Code Cases not yet 
endorsed by the NRC may be implemented through 10 CFR 
50.55a(a)(3), which permits the use of alternatives to the Code 
requirements referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, provided that the 
proposed alternatives result in an acceptable level of quality 
and safety, and their use is authorized by the Director of the 
NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
On August 3, 2004, the NRC staff published a draft of this guide 
as Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1125. Following the closure of the 
public comment period on September 2, 2004, the staff considered 
all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Revision 14 
of Regulatory Guide 1.147. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes 
comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to 
published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in 
regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may 
submit comments by any of the following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
 
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 
415-5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Revision 14 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.147 may be directed to Wallace E. Norris, at 
(301) 415-6796 or WEN@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available 
for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site 
in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Electronic copies 
of Revision 14 of Regulatory Guide 1.147 are also available in 
the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , under 
Accession ML052510117. Note, however, that the NRC has 
temporarily suspended public access to ADAMS so that the agency 
can complete security reviews of publicly available documents and 
remove potentially sensitive information. Please check the NRC's 
Web site for updates concerning the resumption of public access 
to ADAMS.
 
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is 
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached 
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 
415-3548, and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single 
copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for 
placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of 
future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in 
writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 
415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory 
guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not 
required to reproduce them.
 
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of 
August, 2005.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Carl J. Paperiello, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19446 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 26 Life After Chernobyl: A Surprising Ecosystem Flourishes In No-Man's Land

PhysOrg.com                  

September 29, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                     

When the Chernobyl nuclear reactor melted down in 1986, dozens of 
people died, more became ill with acute radiation sickness, and 
135,000 people were evacuated. The blast spread more than 200 
times the radioactivity than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki combined.                                                                                             

The prognosis for Chernobyl and its environsЧsuccinctly
dubbed the Zone of AlienationЧwas grim.

If fears of the Apocalypse and a lifeless, barren radioactive
future have been constant companions of the nuclear age, almost
twenty years later Chernobyl shows us a very different view of
the future.

In Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl (October
2005, Joseph Henry Press), journalist Mary Mycio vividly
describes an extraordinaryЧand at times unearthlyЧnew ecosystem
that is flourishing in this no-man's land, with radiation too
intense for people to live there safely.

Ten years after the Chernobyl disaster, journalist Mary Mycio
made her first trip to the Chernobyl region. Equipped with
dosimeter [describe what this is used for] and protective gear,
Mycio set out to explore the world's only radioactive wilderness
environment and the defiant local residents who remained behind
to survive and make their lives in the Zone."

She discovered a wilderness teeming with large animals, more
than before the nuclear disaster and many of them members of
rare and endangered species. Like the forests, fields, and
swamps of this unexpectedly inviting habitat, both the people
and animals are radioactive. Cesium-137 is packed in their
muscles and strontium-90 in their bones. But, quite
astonishingly, they are also thriving.

Chernobyl's flourishing new ecosystem is "one of the first
examples of how, in the absence of human intervention, nature in
the zone could recover its balance," writes MycioЧeven in the
face of radioactive "ghost towns and villages [that] stand in
tragic testimony to the devastating effects of technology gone
awry.

A vivid blend of reportage, popular science, and illuminating
encounters that explode the myths of Chernobyl with facts that
are at once beautiful and horrible, Wormwood Forest brings a
remarkable landЧand its people and animalsЧto life to tell a
unique story of science, surprise, and suspense.

Mary Mycio is a pioneering American reporter who first visited
the city of Kiev in 1989 to do a semi-clandestine interview
about the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl. She later became the
Kiev correspondent for the Los Angeles Times and a contributor
to a variety of newspapers around the world. With her background
in journalism, a B.A. in biology, and a law degree from New York
University, she was uniquely positioned to write the story of
Chernobyl. She has accumulated reams of material about the
disaster's environmental and health effects and filled numerous
notebooks with details of her many journeys into the Zone of
Alienation. She currently lives in Kiev where she is also
director of the IREX ProMedia Legal Defense and Education
Program for Ukrainian journalists.

Copyright 2005 by Space Daily, Distributed United Press
International 		 	 	

PhysOrgForum.
*****************************************************************
 27 Whitehaven News: PM puts nuclear issue to the fore
 						
Published on 29/09/2005

By David Siddall
 
PRIME Minister Tony Blair used his keynote speech to the Labour
party conference to push the nuclear energy issue higher up the
agenda.
 
Copeland MP Jamie Reed seized on the PremierтАЩs remarks as
showing support for new nuclear reactors.
 
Mr Blair told the conference in Brighton: тАЬFor 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?тАЭ
 
Commenting on the Prime MinisterтАЩs intention to reappraise
nuclear power as part of a new energy policy scheduled to appear
in 2006, Mr Reed said: тАЬThe case for civil nuclear power for
Britain in the modern world is irrefutable. There is obviously
significant potential for the enhanced development of Copeland
and West Cumbria with any new energy policy. The Prime
MinisterтАЩs announcement is a bold one тАУ but it is the right
one.тАЭ
 
West Lakes Regeneration manager Alan Smith said: тАЬWe see this
as a good sign that the Government is prepared to re-open the
debate on building new nuclear stations.тАЭ
 
But Jean McSorley of Greenpeace said: тАЬTony BlairтАЩs
enthusiasm for nuclear power is not shared by everyone in
Cumbria and we should be aware that it would not automatically
mean a new station would be at Sellafield.тАЭ
 
						 					 				 				 					
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Draft Report for Comment: Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19447 
[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)] 
[Notices] [Page 56940-56941] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29se05-75]                         
 
Safeguards Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Updates To 
Implement the License Termination Rule Analysis AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) has issued 
NUREG-1757, Supplement 1, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 
Guidance: Updates to Implement the License Termination Rule 
Analysis, Draft Report for Comment'' for public comment.
 
 
DATES: Comments on this draft document should be submitted by 
December 30, 2005. Comments received after that date will be 
considered, if it is practical to do so.
 
 
ADDRESSES: NUREG-1757, Supplement 1, is available for inspection 
and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, 
NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal 
holidays. NUREG-1757 is also available electronically on the NRC 
Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757 
/s1/ , and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web 
site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html .
 
Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit 
written comments. Comments may be accompanied by additional 
relevant information or supporting data. A number of methods may 
be used to submit comments. Written comments should be mailed to 
Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. 
Comments may be submitted electronically to the NRC staff by the 
Internet at: decomcomments@nrc.gov. Comments also may be 
submitted electronically through the comment form available on 
the NRC Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757 
/s1/ .
 
Please specify the report number NUREG-1757, Supplement 1, draft, 
in
 
[[Page 56941]] your comments, and send your comments by December 
30, 2005.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duane W. Schmidt, Mail Stop 
T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6919; Internet: dws2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 2003, the NRC published a 
three-volume NUREG report, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance.'' That report provides guidance on: 
planning and implementing license termination under the License 
Termination Rule, in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; complying with 
the radiological criteria for license termination; and complying 
with the requirements for financial assurance and recordkeeping 
for decommissioning and timeliness in decommissioning materials 
facilities. The draft Supplement 1, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance: Updates to Implement the License 
Termination Rule Analysis'' (NUREG-1757, Supplement 1), is the 
first of periodic updates to reflect current NRC decommissioning 
policy.
 
Draft Supplement 1 provides proposed additions and updates to 
guidance addressing the following issues, which were explored in 
an NRC staff analysis of the implementation of the License 
Termination Rule: restricted use and institutional controls; 
on-site disposal of radioactive materials; scenario justification 
based on reasonably foreseeable land use; intentional mixing of 
contaminated soil; and removal of material after license 
termination. It also provides new and revised guidance to address 
several other issues. NRC is seeking public comment in order to 
receive feedback from the widest range of interested parties and 
to ensure that all information relevant to developing the 
document is available to the NRC staff. The NRC will review 
public comments received on the draft document. Suggested changes 
will be incorporated, where appropriate, and a final document 
will be issued for use. When finalized, the guidance is intended 
for use by NRC staff, licensees, and the public.
 
Draft Supplement 1 is issued for comment only and is not intended 
for interim use.
 
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 23rd day of September, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrew Persinko, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19447 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 NAS: Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Nuclear Materials in Russia

 <IMG SRC="http://www.nationalacademies.org/elements/topnav.gif"


 Date Posted: <Posted: 01/22/2003>
-
 Project Identification Number: DSCX-N-01-11-A	
 
Major Unit: 
Policy and Global Affairs Division

Sub Unit: 
Division for Development/ Security/ and Cooperation



Links to Project Information:
 <B>Project Scope</B>

<B>Committee Membership</B>

<B>Meeting 1</B>- 02/24/2003
 <B>Meeting 2</B>- 06/17/2003
 <B>Meeting 3</B>- 09/08/2003
 <B>Meeting 4</B>- 10/27/2003
 <B>Meeting 5</B>- 02/19/2004
 <B>Meeting 6</B>- 05/18/2004
 
Reports:
 Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records
Office
 Strengthening Long-Term Nuclear Security:  Protecting
Weapon-Usable Material in Russia  
<B>FEEDBACK</B>
.Viewers may use this FEEDBACK button to provide comments on the
project at any time over its duration.
 
Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or
to schedule an appointment to view project materials available
to the public. 


Overview of CPS | Browsing for projects | Searching for project
information| Communicating with the National Academies   

*****************************************************************
 30 Deccan Herald: Rise in N-trafficking: IAEA   

  United Nations, PTI: 
  
  If terrorists laid their hands on radioactive material, they 
could trigger a dirty war, warned the UN agency. 

In a development that could cause worldwide concern, the United
Nations atomic watchdog agency has reported a substantial
increase in illicit trafficking and unauthorised activities in
nuclear and other radioactive materials in 2003-2004. 

Countries reported 121 incidents to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2004, according to new statistics from
the agency's Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB). 

One case, the Vienna-based agency said, involved weapon-grade
material. 

Conceding that the majority of the incidents reported by states
showed no criminal activity, the IAEA warned that in the hands
of terrorists or criminals, some radioactive sources could be
used for malicious purposes, for example in a radiological
dispersal device or dirty war. 

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 cases
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. 

Criminal activity 

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. Apart from possible terrorist use,
radioactive sources have the potential to harm human health or
the environment. 

Unlawfully discarded or disposed of radioactive sources, when
melted at scrap metal recycle plants, may lead to severe
environmental and economic consequences, the agency said. 

Activity levels of the majority of these sources were too low to
pose serious radiological risk if used for malicious purposes,
but some 50 incidents involved high-risk dangerous radioactive
sources, presenting considerable radiological danger if so used.
The overwhelming majority of such cases were reported over the
last six years.   

  Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G.
Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001
 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523   
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC Sr official says PA kids not protected  during an
 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:28:33 -0700

 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.4

<x-flowed>




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 PA╣s 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 │Emergency Planning for Preschool 
Children▓ 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 Platt╣s Office who are in 
possession of this DPO.

The DPO was marked by NRC Congressional Affairs Director of Communications 
William Outlaw, as │For Official Use Only, Not For Public Release▓.

Due to this notation on the DPO, Congressman Platt╣s 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 it╣s 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 Platt╣s 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 it╣s licensing decisions on, I believe that the 
criteria in FEMA GM EV2 must be codified into NRC╣s emergency planning 
regulations, in order to permit the NRC to make a finding that │there is 
reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken.▓

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 │review 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 licensee╣s 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 
it╣s licensing process.▓ In 45 FR 55403 dated August 19, 1980, the 
Commission emphasized the importance of preplanning for emergencies by 
stating, │In 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.▓ 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 FEMA╣s 
regulations and guidelines. FMEA╣s 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 Commission╣s 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 
│school▓ 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 │there 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 │Municipalities 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.▓

The TMI Exercise report further state that │Each 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 
procedures▓.

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. │Please 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, │Parents 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.▓                 v
Also from FEMA letter dated July 29, 2004 to NRC │parents 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.▓

In a letter from PEMA to the petitioners dated July 30, 2004, PEMA stated 
that │Childcare 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 them▓.

│Childcare facilities are, for the most part, private entities who should 
assume responsibility for their charges. As mentioned in the Daycare 
planning guide that╣s on PEMA╣s web site │municipal emergency management 
agency may be able to help, but it won╣t be able to guarantee that you will 
remain in one group, thus complicating your accountability problems.▓ 
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.▓

│If 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 PEMA╣s web site lists considerations 
(Part II, Check list A) that will help the daycare provider to make that 
decision.▓


                       vi


In a letter from the Mayor of Harrisburg to the NRC dated December 3, 2002, 
he stated │The 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.▓

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  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 32 Buffalo News: Are we ready to evacuate?

PREPAREDNESS
 										
The evacuations spurred by recent hurricanes raise the question:
Is our area prepared for such a possibility?
 										 										News Staff Reporter
9/29/2005 				 					   									 									
 										  [ border=]    					
 Emergency Services Commissioner Michael Walters, right, goes
over plans with his deputy fire coordinator Tiger Schmittendorf.

 This sign marks Delaware Avenue as an evacuation route. In the
wake of two hurricanes, officials are rethinking preparedness.
 
Hurricanes recently prompted the evacuations - sometimes with 
much chaos - of New Orleans, Houston and other communities in the 
Gulf states. 

Could it happen here? 

A hurricane probably not. But evacuation, yes. 

Think of a monster snowstorm. Or a hazardous spill in Buffalo's
rail yards. Just last week, a railroad car that regularly
carries nuclear materials overturned here. Fortunately, it was
empty. 

But what would happen if it were not? Is there an evacuation
plan in place? Is the community prepared? Where would people go? 

In fact, a regional team of emergency responders meets regularly
to go over those questions. Their plans try to address potential
dangers and conform to guidelines developed by the federal
National Incident Management System. 

"I'll put not only Buffalo but Erie County and Western New
York's emergency plans against any other state in this country,
and I've been in this business for 30 years," said Roger Lander,
Buffalo's director of the state Office of Homeland Security. 

The response to a toxic chemical spill at the CSX rail yard in
East Buffalo, for instance, would begin with a call to 911,
activating a network of emergency responders, including the
Buffalo Fire Department's Hazardous Materials Unit. 

The chemical plume would be tracked by the National Weather
Service at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, and a
mapping program would allow planners to quickly see what
schools, nursing homes or critical infrastructure were in its
path. 

The commander in charge of making decisions would be the Buffalo
fire chief and, if deemed a public health emergency, county
Health Commissioner Dr. Louis Billitier IV. 

If it were a terrorist attack, the FBI would be in charge. 

The state would be asked to provide assistance if deemed
necessary, and the state could in turn request federal help. 

County Executive Joel A. Giambra or Mayor Anthony M. Masiello
could issue a state of emergency if an evacuation were needed. 

NFTA and school buses, rail and wheelchair vans would be used to
transport people without cars to other counties through a mutual
aid agreement. The Red Cross and an array of relief
organizations would be called upon to help provide food and
water. 

Local shelters could extend from hotel rooms and churches to the
armories and HSBC Arena. 


Many helping hands 

Surrounding communities would also be counted on to chip in,
from lending firefighters and police officers to providing
shelter and supplies. The most likely scenarios for larger
disruptions involve a weather-related event such as a major
snowstorm. Other more likely possibilities are ice storms that
cause power outages, or localized flooding from spring snow
melts. 

"We could talk about tornadoes and other weather events, but the
chances of them are slim to none. There's some potential out
there for earthquake activity, but that's pretty low down on the
scale, too," said Homeland Security's Lander. 

Steven S. Baum, a Niagara Falls police officer who lectures on
emergency readiness, said the city is prepared for a disaster. 

"We don't have the shortcomings they do down South, where we
live under so much water that we're going to drown. We don't
have to be worried about having boats available or the levees
breaking. 

Lander said he was disturbed, like most people, by the handling
of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. 

"Command, control and communication went wrong, right back to
the basics," Lander said. "Will there be glitches in a major
event here? Sure, but not to the level we saw down there." 

There have been 30 federally declared disasters, including in
Western New York, and 134 activations of the emergency
operations center in New York State since 1995, according to the
New York State Emergency Management Office. 

Dennis Michalski, the agency spokesman, said learning
experiences like Hurricane Katrina provide opportunities to
revise plans. "Are we going back and tweaking our plans? Sure we
are. Plans are not static and shouldn't sit on a shelf,"
Michalski said. 

Michael Walters, commissioner of Erie County's Department of
Emergency Services, said Katrina helped raise public awareness
of the importance of civic readiness. 

"Was it a wake-up call? I hope so. Every time an event like this
happens, it moves [emergency response] up to the forefront. It
takes major events for not only the public but elected officials
to recognize those needs," Walters said. 

The Department of Emergency Services' 2005 budget is $750,000 -
a drop of 32 percent from 2004 when budget cuts forced all
county departments to take a hit. The drop-off has been a
hardship for administrative work such as accounting and records
management, Walters said, but it hasn't weakened the
department's ability to respond to an emergency. 

The past three years have seen some $30 million in Homeland
Security funds flow into the area for special projects, Walters
said. The money - split between Buffalo, and Erie and Niagara
counties - has been used to improve communication systems, train
first responders and pay for sophisticated equipment. 

That includes helping to finance improvements to the Erie County
Emergency Training and Operations Center in Cheektowaga and the
new Public Safety Center in Buffalo, which the Department of
Emergency Services is moving into. 

The emergency operating centers serve as mutual backup systems
in the event one becomes disabled during an emergency, Walters
said. 

Wireless network 

A newly announced $2 billion statewide wireless communications
network will be starting in Erie and Chautauqua counties. The
public safety radio network is intended to improve emergency
response and homeland security efforts by replacing outdated
systems with an advanced digital network. 

School districts have evacuation plans developed by the county
Department of Emergency Services, emergency planners in towns
and the Board of Cooperative Educational Services. 

In West Seneca, for instance, each school has an alternate in
the district it regards as a safe haven where children can be
transferred if necessary. West Seneca Supervisor James Brotz
said bus gas tanks are kept full in case of an emergency, and
two-way radio systems are ready to be used for communication. 

Brotz said his biggest worry in a disaster would be reaching
enough bus drivers. He said he would use the media and phone
calls to get the word out. To avoid people staying behind with
their pets - as happened in New Orleans - the county's
Comprehensive Emergency Management includes evacuation and care
plans for animals. 

Northtowns Bureau reporter Niki Cervantes contributed to this
report. 

e-mail: msommer@buffnews.com

Copyright  1999 - 2005 - The Buffalo News 
*****************************************************************
 33 Minnesota Daily: Killing our own with depleted uranium           

  September 29, 2005    Rate this Article  

 EDITORIAL

The United States has no business employing such weapons. 
		  
[I] magine a weapon equivalent to Agent Orange combined
with a nuclear bomb. Such weapons exists Ч and are in regular
use. They are depleted-uranium weapons, made from the waste
products of nuclear power plants and weapons facilities. U.S.
forces are using them in Iraq, even after horrific side effects
of their use surfaced during the 1991 Gulf war. The United
States has no business employing such cruel weapons. 

The United Nations classifies depleted-uranium ammunition as an
illegal weapons of mass destruction because of their long-term
impacts on the land over which they explode and the long-term
health problems they cause when people are exposed to them.
Apparently, the United States is hypocritical enough to
disregard a plea not to use weapons of mass destruction. 

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers suffer from Gulf war
syndrome and have had children with severe birth defects after
being exposed to depleted uranium; other health risks include
cancer and radiation sickness-like syndromes. Enough studies
have confirmed these harmful effects of radiation and heavy
metal toxicity. It is not just U.S. soldiers who will feel the
effects this time. While much of the depleted uranium use in the
Gulf war occurred over desert, in Iraq the weapons are exploding
over heavily populated civilian areas. Iraqis will feel the
effects of the radiation and uranium years after the United
States leaves the scene Ч U.S. forces are poisoning the very
population they are supposedly seeking to liberate. And while
U.S. citizens and Iraqis are dying, the Pentagon insists
depleted uranium is УsafeФ for U.S. troops. This blatant
disregard for scientific, medical proof that these weapons are
damaging is a crime against humanity Ч some justifiably label it
a war crime. 

Just as Agent Orange still affects Vietnam veterans and
radiation sickness remains in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, depleted
uranium-related illnesses will haunt thousands of soldiers and
civilians for years to come. And the number of those affected
will steadily increase the longer these weapons remain in use in
Iraq. The U.S. armed forces must cease their use and regain an
iota of compassion for human suffering. 		 		   		

й Copyright 2005 The Minnesota Daily - 	 	   
*****************************************************************
 34 Salt Lake Tribune: Federal downwinder program improving 

Article Last Updated: 09/29/2005 12:59:07 AM 

By Thomas Burr The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - The federal program to compensate atomic 
downwinders has improved in recent years, according to a new 
report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. 

The program, which pays victims of the effects of past 
nuclear weapons testing and uranium mining, is processing claims 
faster and has enough funding to ensure checks for those who 
qualify, the GAO says. 

That's a turnaround from a past report showing a funding 
shortage and backlog of claims. In April 2003, the GAO said 
funding estimates for payoffs may be inadequate, but now says 
actions taken ensure the program will be fully funded in 2005 
and future years. 

УIt's good to see that there won't be any more IOUs sent to 
people who are sick and dying from cancer,Ф said Alyson Heyrend, 
spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who has fought for 
more funding for downwinders and against further testing of 
nuclear weapons. 

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act passed Congress in 
1990 as a way to pay partial restitution to victims of radiation 
caused by above-ground nuclear weapons testing from 1945 to 1962 
in Nevada. The act was expanded in 2000, and Congress later moved
to have three of the five possible claimant categories paid out 
of another fund. 

The GAO also said that the average number of days to process 
a claim has been reduced from the 2000 averages. In 2000, it 
took 244 days to process a claim for a downwinder, compared to 
222 now, the GAO said. The average time to process a claim for a 
uranium miller dropped by 124 days from 2000 through June 2005, 
the report says. 

The number of pending cases is also down, the GAO found. In 
2000, about 18 percent of claims were awaiting a decision 
compared with about 8 percent currently pending. 

tburr@sltrib.com 

┬й Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 35 Libertyville Review: How prepared is County for disaster? - 

[09-29-05]
 	 	 
BY JOHN ROSZKOWSKI STAFF WRITER 

In the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, officials say
they are updating county emergency preparedness and evacuation
plans but believe the county is already well prepared to respond
to a major disaster. 

"I think we're way ahead of the curve," said David Christensen,
director of the Lake County Emergency Management Agency. "We're
not just ahead of the curve because we plan, we're ahead of the
curve because we practice." 

Plan & drill 

Christensen said the county's disaster plan is more than 200
pages long and addresses everything from how to respond to
natural disasters such as tornadoes, severe weather and flooding
to terrorists attacks and chemical spills. 

The plan is used to coordinate response efforts of police, fire
departments and other emergency providers in the county in the
event of a major disaster. Most municipalities also have their
own local disaster plans. 

The county's Emergency Management Agency, part of Lake County
Sheriff's Department, works closely with local police and fire
departments and other emergency services and potentially could
mobilize hundreds of area police and firefighters in a
wide-scale emergency, as well as thousands of volunteers. 

The agency also would set up staging areas for first responders,
and coordinate communications through its Emergency Operations
Center in Libertyville. 

Police, fire and other first responders practice for different
disaster scenarios through mock disaster drills and large-scale
exercises, Christensen said. One such drill involved a simulated
bioterrorism release at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee this
spring, and about two weeks of severe weather drill was
conducted at a grade school in Lake Zurich. 

"We plan, we prepare and we drill," said Lake County Sheriff
Gary Del Re. "Those are essential elements of a good plan. You
just can't have a plan and let it sit on the shelf." 

Evacuations 

County and local officials say they will review emergency plans
in the wake of the Katrina disaster to determine where
improvements can be made. 

"One of the things we are going to take a look at is what
lessons can we take from the Katrina disaster and how it applies
to Lake County," said Del Re. 

One area that may be updated is evacuation planning and
providing shelter for victims after a catastrophe. 

Christensen said more than 200 different potential sites have
been identified to provide shelter for residents in the event
they need to evacuate in a disaster. For example, county
emergency management officials had considered using the Lake
County fairgrounds in Grayslake if temporary shelter had been
needed for large numbers of Katrina evacuees, but the numbers
turned out to be relatively small and the fairgrounds was not
needed. 

Christensen said a few scenarios where he could foresee a need
for large-scale evacuations would be a major train derailment
involving the release of hazardous materials, a terrorist
attack, or some type of accident or release of radioactive
material at the Zion Nuclear Plant. 

"We do have a plan specifically for the plant in Zion that
includes transportation and evacuation routes," said Del Re. 

Del Re said he could not discuss specific aspects of the
evacuation plans or routes for security reasons, but indicated
evacuees could be moved as far as 15 miles away from the plant
to temporary shelters, which might include school auditoriums or
gymnasiums. 

Del Re said the county also has plans to provide transportation
to residents who may be immobile, such as residents of nursing
homes, or individuals with no other means of transportation. 

Ambulances and other emergency vehicles from fire departments
throughout the county could be used to transport large numbers
of elderly or infirm residents, and there also are
transportation arrangements with PACE and other area bus
providers to assist if large-scale evacuations were required, he
said. 

Getting the word out 

Christensen said the county should also review passing along an
evacuation order. Methods include the media, by sirens or public
announcements, phone calling, or police going door-to-door to
evacuate residents. 

Another issue is providing long-term housing to potential
disaster evacuees. 

"We know we have shelters for three or four days, but we want to
make sure we have places to house people for long periods of
time," said Lake County Board Chairman Suzi Schmidt, R-3rd, of
Lake Villa, noting that some Katrina survivors may require
housing for several months or even permanently. 

"I think because of this catastrophe, we know we need to be
prepared for that," she said. "You never think it's going to hit
you but you'd better be ready in case it does." 

  
  Copyrightй 2005, Digital Chicago Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 36 Rocky Mountain News: Low-level waste not a threat

Opinion
                     
Withdrawing permit would make no sense

September 29, 2005

The state needs to save money where it can these days. That's
one reason to support the Colorado Health Department's plan to
ship low-level radioactive waste to a landfill near the tiny
town of Last Chance. 

But of course that reason would have no weight whatsoever if the
plan itself were in any way unsafe. Fortunately, it's not. Right
now it costs the state's Hazardous Substance Response Fund $2
million a year to ship the waste to Idaho. The main roadblock to
saving much of that money seems to be possible opposition from
the Adams County commissioners - and, by the way, the people who
run the similar site in Idaho, who apparently are afraid of
losing business. 

 The radioactive waste, according to health department director
Doug Benevento, is primarily the radium-bearing pavement used
for Denver streets many decades ago. Those streets are being
torn up and repaved now, and the waste has to go somewhere. 

The landfill, run by a firm called Clean Harbors out of
Massachusetts, would also take sludge from water treatment
plants around the area. 

Health department approval is expected next month, but the Adams
commissioners could presumably stop it by revoking the current
"certificate of designation." That certificate has been around
in one form or another for more than 20 years. Benevento
maintains that as currently written, it would permit the waste,
although there seems to be some dispute about that. 

Adams County may not be fully consistent should it oppose waste
at the landfill. Benevento has found at least three letters from
the county approving the dumping of similar materials at another
landfill near Bennett. 

"The state would appreciate knowing what distinction you are
drawing when opposing waste going to one facility in your county
while supporting the same kind of waste going to another
facility in your county," Benevento wrote to the commissioners. 

The materials are so low-level that they would emit less
radioactivity than the average Coloradan receives in a year just
from being outdoors, according to the health department. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall has written the health department
expressing his concern that because of an interstate compact
regarding radioactive wastes the landfill would be required to
take similar waste from all over the region. Benevento denies
this is the case, there being no other wastes that resemble
what's found in old Denver paving material. 

It's true there has been local opposition from the Last Chance
area, but only three people commented on the project at a
hearing Monday night. 

If the waste were lethal or its storage unsafe, we'd be happy to
see its continued shipment to Idaho. But it's safe to bury it
here.  

й Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
 37 London Times:  BNFL board opts for sale of nuclear clean-up company - 

Angela Jameson

Utilities, Utility news, Times Online 

BNGТs 15,000 staff, of whom 10,000 work at Sellafield, are
expected to be informed today that a decision has been taken to
proceed with a 100 per cent disposal of the company, which is
expected to raise more than г100 million. 

Likely buyers are expected to include Amec, the British project
management and engineering group, Serco, the British support
services company, and a handful of American engineering groups
including Fluor, Bechtel, Jacobs and the Washington Group. 

Mike Graham, national secretary of Prospect, the scientific and
technical union that has 4,000 members in BNG, said last night
that the Government must lay down strict financial, technical
and safety criteria for bidders. 

УThere are some huge questions to be asked here, not only on the
part of the workforce but also on behalf of the nation,Ф he
said. 

УThe British nuclear crown jewels are being sold off only days
after Tony Blair talked about the possibility of a new
generation of nuclear power stations.Ф 

BNG was formed last year in advance of the transfer of all
BNFLТs assets and liabilities to the new Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority. It began operating as a subsidiary company this
April, with its own chief executive, Lawrie Haynes, a BNFL
director and former chief executive of the Highways Agency. 

The company has a turnover of almost г2 billion and has legacy
contracts to begin the clean-up of BNFLТs 14 sites, which
include BritainТs magnox nuclear stations as well as the
Sellafield complex. 

Most of the legacy contracts will run for three years before
they are put out to competitive tender. 

The Sellafield clean-up contract, the most difficult and
expensive, will not be put out to tender for at least four
years. 

Fluor, Amec, Serco and Jacobs have all expressed an interest in
bidding for clean-up contracts and may see buying BNG as a
short-cut to acquiring skills and inside knowledge of the former
BNFL sites. 

BNG has contemplated joint ventures or partnerships with all
these companies, but sources say that this route has been
rejected in favour of an outright disposal.   	 		

*****************************************************************
 38 Sidney Morning Herald: Uranium, fuel search pushes floats to success - 

 smh.com.au
 
 By Leon Gettler

September 30, 2005
 
Investors are cleaning up from the boom in uranium exploration
and the search for fossil fuel alternatives. 

Figures from Deloitte yesterday showed new stocks in the
September quarter gained an average of 45 per cent from their
issue price. 

A total of 43 companies are expected to list by the close of the
quarter today, raising a total of $1.94 million. This is well
ahead of the $1.25 million raised by the 47 initial public
offerings in the September 2004 quarter. 

And while the 45 IPOs in the June quarter raised $2.93 million,
the share price performance in September was more impressive. 

The luckiest investors were those who had backed uranium
explorer Energy Metals, which soared 472 per cent from its 25c
issue price to $1.43, and gold explorer Monaro Mining, up by 127
per cent from 20c to 45.5c. 

Deloitte Corporate Finance partner Steve Woosnam said: "More
than 80 per cent of September quarter IPOs were trading at or
above their issue price at the end of the survey period, with an
average gain of 45 per cent against issue price. 

"This is the strongest performance in the history of the
Deloitte IPO survey and represents a big improvement over the
June 2005 quarter, when 60 per cent of IPOs traded at or above
issue price for an average gain of 14 per cent." 

Mr Woosnam said the boom in uranium exploration and the hunt for
fuel alternatives were key factors in the exceptional returns. 

"Uranium exploration was a factor in four of the 10
best-performing IPOs in the September quarter, while another one
of the quarter's best performers was a developer of solar cell
technology," he said. "However, there is a wide range of
companies among the top price performers, including a biotech, a
scrap-metal recycler and explorers for gold, oil and gas." 

Copyright й 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. 
*****************************************************************
 39 AU ABC: Hawke's nuclear waste idea has merit - Nelson
 
(AEDT)Thursday, 29 September 2005. 18:04 (AWST)

 The federal Science Minister, Brendan Nelson, says there is
some merit in former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke's call for
Australia to store the world's nuclear waste. 

Mr Hawke argues that Australia could make a lot of money out of
storing the world's nuclear waste and that the income could be
spent on environmental problems and could be given to Aboriginal
people. 

The current Labor leader, Kim Beazley, has laughed off the idea
as not being party policy. 

Dr Nelson says Mr Hawke's views could have been better directed. 

"Whilst I think there is some merit in the long-term objectives
that Mr Hawke has set out, I think the first thing that I'd
appreciate is Mr Hawke's assistance in persuading Mr Beazley and
the Labor Party and the Northern Territory Government to support
a safe repository for intermediate and low-level waste in one of
the three remote locations that we've found," he said.

*****************************************************************
 40 MSN-Mainichi Daily News: Panel recommends greater use of nuclear fuel 

September 30, 2005                                                                                                                                                      National                        

An expert panel from the governmental Atomic Energy Commission
on Thursday announced guidelines for Japan's nuclear energy
policies that state the country should reprocess spent nuclear
fuel.

The nuclear energy policy guidelines also state that
fast-breeder reactors (FBRs) should be put into operation
sometime around 2050.

Use of FBRs has been suspended in Japan since the Monju reactor
in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, was shut down in 1995 because of a
sodium leakage accident.

The use of FBRs has been deemed a key process for Japan's
nuclear fuel recycling program.

"Japan aims to operate FBRs on a commercial basis sometime
around 2050 under the premise that certain economic conditions
are met," the guidelines said.

The guidelines also state that power generation based on nuclear
energy should continue to be Japan's main source of power after
2030, adding that the amount of electricity generated by nuclear
power plants should be maintained at 30 to 40 percent of the
total. (Mainichi)<img src="/image/icon_Japan.gif" alt="Click
here for the original Japanese story" width="19" height="13"
border="0" />Click here for the original Japanese story 

September 29, 2005 				   

Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All
*****************************************************************
 41 Independent: BNFL board agrees sale of clean-up 

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 

Published: 30 September 2005 

The state-owned company that manages most of Britain's civil
nuclear sites, including the Sellafield waste reprocessing plant
in Cumbria, is to be privatised. 

The board of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) agreed yesterday to
put its subsidiary British Nuclear Group (BNG) up for sale in a
move expected to raise г100m to г150m. 

The decision comes days after Tony Blair indicated his backing
for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power
stations in Britain and was fiercely criticised by Prospect, the
trade union that represents BNFL's scientists and engineers. 

BNG is likely to attract bids from overseas companies including
Bechtel and Fluor of the US, and the UK contractors Amec and
Serco. The company is responsible for 14 nuclear sites around
the country, including the fleet of Magnox power stations. It
has 15,000 employees and the cost of cleaning up the sites on
which it operates is estimated at г48bn. 

Prospect said it was concerned the taxpayer could lose out
through the sale of BNG to a foreign buyer just as the Prime
Minister had signalled a renaissance for nuclear power. It
claimed the sale of the business would raise concerns about the
Government's ability to protect the public interest. 

BNFL is selling off its US division Westinghouse, which designs
and manufactures reactors and fabricates nuclear fuel. After the
sale of BNG, its only remaining asset will be its one-third
stake in the uranium-processing venture Urenco, which is jointly
owned with the Dutch and Germans, but this too is slated for
disposal. 

Meanwhile, Urenco named Christopher Clark as its next chairman
in preference to Lord Birt, the former BBC director general who
had been tipped for the job. 

й 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 42 The Rebel Yell: New club organizes students against Yucca Mountain

  [----]     Current Issue: 09/29/2005     [----]   

  Issue: 09/29/2005

 STAND created by Nevada-based Citizen Alert founder

 Frances Vanderploeg, Staff Writer

 A new club is starting on campus targeted at informing students
about political issues in Nevada as well as giving them a chance
to advocate what they believe in.

 Students have tentatively adopted the name STAND (Students Take
Action for New Directions) after one of their parent groups of
the same name.

 The original idea for starting the club came when a
representative of the national chapter of STAND approached
Citizen Alert, a Nevada-based grassroots environmental group, in
hopes to start a youth organization that would target political
issues.

 Tony Guzman, who is in charge of public outreach for Citizen
Alert, was given the project and is currently acting as
facilitator for the group.

 "I'm here to provide support and any resources they may need,
but eventually it will be student-run," Guzman said.

 Though STAND is traditionally a female-based group, Guzman has
openly invited everyone to join, including not only males and
females but high school and CCSN students as well.

 Currently the students are focused on the issue of whether or
not nuclear waste should be stored at Yucca Mountain.

 In 1997, Nevada Gov. Bob Miller issued a proclamation stating
that Sept. 30 would be deemed Nevada Is Not a Wasteland Day,
which Nevadans have celebrated ever since.

 Citizen Alert has taken the initiative in the past to organize
various activities celebrating Nevada Is Not a Wasteland Day and
trying to raise awareness about Yucca Mountain.

 This year, the holiday happens to coincide with a public
hearing being held Oct. 4 by the EPA regarding amendments made
to the Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Yucca Mountain.

 Essentially, the protection standards lay out what level of
radiation can be released from the site without harming anyone.

 The original proposal was released in 2001 but numerous
organizations, including Citizen Alert, decided to sue the EPA
because of their worry that the standards set forth were unsafe.

 They won the lawsuit last year, forcing the EPA to amend their
proposal. The new protection standards were released earlier
this year, but some people feel the amended version is worse
than the original, Guzman said.

 The standards currently being proposed can be found at
epa.gov/radiation/yucca/.

 At the hearing, the EPA will be accepting any comments the
public may have regarding the new standards. Comments can also
be submitted via the Internet or ground mail.

 STAND will be on campus Sept. 30 to answer any questions
students have on this issue or any others, as well as
encouraging them to let the EPA know what they think, Guzman
said.

 "It's something that's going to affect our generation as we get
older," said culinary arts junior Josh Clark.

 Generations before have neglected the issue, Clark said, so it
is up to younger people to make the difference.

 Despite their current focus on Yucca Mountain, STAND plans to
also discuss any other issues that may come up, including
elections and how the various candidates may affect Nevada.
Additional issues to be discussed are education, public health
and community issues.

 "We want to motivate people to do something," said political
science sophomore Owen Sherwood. "A lot of the things we've
talked about are issues that need to be advocated."

 Meetings for STAND are currently being held Wednesdays at noon
in Lied Library. Any students interested in joining are
encouraged to contact Guzman at 796-5662.   

  Copyright й 2005 The Rebel Yell | Privacy Policy | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 43 DenverPost.com: Radioactive wastes need safe disposal 

OPINION                        

Article Launched: 09/29/2005 01:00:00 AM                                                        

Options are few for disposal of radioactive materials. A 
hazardous waste site in Adams County seeks to accept 
out-of-state, low-level material.
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
Colorado has shipped literally tons of atomic materials to other
states, so we can't just say no if waste dumps that are located
here want to take in low-level radioactive material - especially
if the stuff was generated in Colorado. But we can insist that
state officials decide each case on specific circumstances. 

The state is taking public comment until Oct. 11 on whether to
let a dump in eastern Adams County accept low-level radioactive
materials in addition to the chemical and industrial garbage
				 				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 now
stored there. If the state says yes, the dump could accept soils
that were removed from some Denver streets because they contain
radium and other naturally radioactive elements. The dump also
would take sludge from municipal water systems, which under new
federal rules must remove radioactive contaminants. 

Adams County officials oppose the plan by Clean Harbors
Environmental Services Inc. The county says that in 1983 it
approved the facility on condition it wouldn't accept
radioactive wastes, a restriction 				 				 					 					 					
				 				 				 					 					 				 officials consider binding even
though the dump has changed ownership several times. Clean
Harbors says there's no such restriction. Some county residents
also fear the dump would break its promise to accept only
low-level wastes and eventually take more dangerous material. 

Doug Benevento, head of Colorado's Department of Public Health
and Environment, says the state hasn't made a decision, but he's
leaning toward Clean Harbors' interpretation of the dispute. He
is trying to allay the county's fears by saying the state will 
ensure that the company follows all the applicable environmental 
standards. 

Colorado has very limited options to deal with its growing
volume of low-level radioactive wastes. Some communities,
including Denver, now send their waste to a site in Idaho, but
Benevento frets that the high costs of shipping discourages
small towns from properly disposing of their sludge. 

And not all waste facilities are equal. Operations like Last
Chance are equipped with special liners and other safety
features to properly handle hazardous 				 				 					 					
					 				 				 				 					 					 				 materials. Ordinary
landfills don't often meet such strict standards, and Benevento
says Adams County is already allowing an ordinary landfill to
take radioactive municipal sludge. If that's the case, it's hard
to justify not having a better-equipped hazardous waste dump do
the same. 

County officials should be realistic about the options
available. We wonder if health and safety concerns are really
addressed by the county's opposition. On balance, logic now
tilts toward the state giving a go-ahead to Clean Harbors' 
hazardous site proposal.                                                                                                                                                                  
 			   				 					 					 					 				 			   			   				 					 					
  All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 44 Asia Times Online: China wants a slice of the uranium cake

By Alan Boyd 

SYDNEY - Through the darkest days of the Cold War, the world's
largest uranium reserves stayed mostly untouched in their
underground deposits, in a silent warning of the dangers of
nuclear proliferation. 

But a different kind of fright factor has dredged up a new
debate over what to do with thousands of tons of Australian
uranium. If the deposits are now opened to all-comers, the
biggest slice could go to countries that were on the other side
during the ideological standoff - especially China. 

Canberra wants to lift decades-old restrictions on the mining of
uranium to counter the threat of global warming, which is
raising the political heat on dirty fossil fuels like coal and
oil. And it has found an unlikely ally in the trade union 
movement. 

An estimated 40% of the world's proven uranium reserves are
found in Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and the
Northern Territory. Sprawling Roxy Downs, in South Australia,
alone accounts for one-third of known deposits. But only two of
dozens of potential mines are in operation and they produce a
modest 20% of the global supply, thanks to a 1984 accord between
unions and the Labor Party government of the time that severely
restricted export sales. 

Australia is the only major uranium producer that doesn't have
nuclear-fired power stations - another legacy of the labor pact
and strong opposition by environmental groups. [1] But this
could now change. 

In the first break in labor ranks, the powerful Australian
Workers Union (AWU) has called on the Labor government in
Queensland to end its opposition. Queensland and Western
Australia both have blanket bans on mining. 

"I think we should have a practical debate about this and not an
emotional one," said AWU national president Bill Ludwig. "We've
got no in-principle opposition to nuclear power, provided it is
done in a responsible way." 

The AWU was motivated by recent studies by the scientific
community that argued nuclear fission offered the only realistic
means of Australia meeting its future energy needs without
relying on fossil fuels. Prime Minister John Howard had already
come to the same conclusion - publicly at least - though some
might want to question his sincerity on the global warming
issue, given the government's patchy record. 

Australia was one of only two developed nations - the other was
the US - that did not sign the Kyoto Treaty on reducing
greenhouse gases. Instead, it has helped found a breakaway
movement that critics charge could undermine that pact. 

In July, Canberra drew up the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate with the US, Japan, South Korea, China
and India, aiming to confront global warming through the softer
option of technology transfers. Together these countries account
for almost half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. 

While Japan and Korea ratified the the Kyoto Treaty, India and
China were both exempt as its provisions applied only to
developed countries. 

Washington and Canberra cited the absence of big Third World
polluters like China and India as their prime reason for not
signing the treaty. The critical element of the breakaway
agreement is that it encourages the two Asian giants to
progressively switch to cleaner fuels, including nuclear energy. 

China obtains only 2.2% of its power from nuclear energy, mostly
relying on domestic coal supplies that are cheap but of
notoriously poor quality. It has nine operating reactors, with
two more under construction and a further 27 in medium-term
growth plans. 

State-owned China National Nuclear announced in July that $64
billion would be invested in nuclear power between 2005 and
2020, boosting output from reactors by almost 400%. 

Most Indian power output also comes from non-renewable sources
and there are plans for a major escalation of nuclear power.
Currently 2.8% of energy is derived from 18 reactors and another
32 are either under construction or proposed. 

Beijing has been lobbying Canberra for years to retract the
uranium export restrictions. It finally broke through in August,
when the federal government quietly opened exploratory
negotiations on an export license without telling the labor
movement. 

And it may not stop there. A consortium of Chinese companies
also wants to take direct shareholdings in Australian uranium
mines as part of a $7.5 billion package of minerals investment
aimed at ensuring long-term raw material supplies for industry. 

There are already low-level Australian exports to 28 countries,
headed by the US, western Europe, Japan and Korea. Much of the
US and European uranium has traditionally been used in weapons
systems. 

The most obvious objection to a broader export policy is a
security one: how to ensure that China - and possibly India,
further down the track - do not divert their shipments for
military use, which could draw Canberra into tensions over
Taiwan and Kashmir. 

Australia's policy is that uranium oxide - yellowcake, the
exportable form of the mineral - is sold only for power
generation, scientific research or medical needs, and
exclusively to countries that have ratified the United Nations'
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This immediately
excludes India and Pakistan, which are not NPT members. 

The NPT signatories are bound by a system of safeguards against
the onward sale or diversion of nuclear materials that might be
used by other states to produce weapons. Nuclear weapons states
face additional checks. 

Shipped uranium may not be sent to a third party, reprocessed or
generally enriched beyond 20% uranium-235, the level needed to
transform yellowcake into fissionable material. Other leading
producers, including Canada and the US, have similar export
codes. 

An accounting system follows the ore from the time it is mined
until it is reprocessed or stored as nuclear waste. But in
practice, it has proved almost impossible to ensure that
material is not diverted, as there are no identifying
characteristics that distinguish particular uranium shipments. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the NPT,
lacks enforcement powers, relying instead on a raft of
diplomatic, political and economic measures that were found
wanting in North Korea, Iraq and Iran. As China is Australia's
biggest trading partner, it is likely the mining companies will
prevail. 

Before negotiations begin in earnest, Canberra will have to
convince a skeptical electorate, especially in resource-rich
Queensland and Western Australia, that national interests would
be served by bringing the Chinese in as junior partners in an
industry that already has equity from European and North
American firms. 

Howard's dilemma is that the two big mining states already earn
billions for dollars from coal exports to the same countries
that would be targeted for uranium shipments. Hence the
reluctance to commit to emission controls under the Kyoto Treaty
that might affect coal sales. 

Not all labor unions are on side, and nor are the two bigger
state governments. Production could be stepped up in South
Australia and the Northern Territory, which don't have coal
deposits, but eventually a national policy will be needed. 

Canberra doesn't have a lot of time to work on public opinion,
as Australian producers could miss the export boat if they don't
gear up production soon. 

Global spot prices for uranium oxide have surged by 200% in the
past two years as reserve stockpiles, mostly accumulated from
decommissioned Soviet nuclear weapons and recycled material,
have become depleted. Mine output only meets 50% of demand by
the power sector. 

In Australia's absence, Canada has cornered the biggest market
share with a far smaller resource base, though Australian
exports are expected to triple by 2010 with or without the
restrictions. 

Mining conglomerates, which won't put serious money in until the
political dust has cleared, want Canberra to remove
uncertainties over the security issue by taking the lead in
upgrading international safeguards on the handling of uranium. 

"Australia has some fairly stringent standards in terms of the
mining of uranium, as well as the export licenses that go with
that," Arafura Resources chief Alastair Stevens said after his
firm raised $1.5 million in a shares offer to fund more
exploration. "We are a responsible member of the international
community, especially in radioactive sources, so were seeing
that as being a role that Australia could foster." 

Note 
[1] Lucas Heights near Sydney has been the center of the
Australian government's nuclear operations since 1956. The focus
of the facility has changed from preparing for nuclear power in
Australia to a broader range of nuclear activities including
nuclear power, uranium mining , nuclear medicine and nuclear
research, industrial uses, and environmental management of
former uranium mining sites. Two nuclear reactors have been
built at Lucas Heights. 

Alan Boyd, now based in Sydney, has reported on Asia for more
than two decades. 

(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 											  
*****************************************************************
 45 Las Vegas Business Press: NOT IN HIS BACKYARD

Once-time supporter of the nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain has
changed his mind. Utah Republican Robert Bennett told the Senate
the nation should rethink the whole idea of a single repository.

Bennett has jointed Nevada representatives in arguing that waste
should be stored temporarily where it is at nuclear plants and
the problem should be resolved with reprocessing technology.

Critics said the approval for storage facilities on an Indian
reservation in the Beehive State may have concentrated Bennett's
mind on the problems of nuclear storage.

Bennett is still hoping to salvage something from the project:
"I am not one who thinks we ought to just fill Yucca Mountain up
with dirt and walk away and leave it," he said.







*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: Australia's Science Minister supports nuclear dump idea
 
 [29/09/2005]     

Australia's science minister Brendan Nelson says there's some
merit in former Labor Party Prime Minister Bob Hawke's call for
Australia to store the world's nuclear waste.

Earlier this week, Mr Hawke argued Australia could make a lot of
money out of storing the world's nuclear waste and that the
income could be spent on environmental problems and given to
Aboriginal people.

The current opposition Labor leader Kim Beazley has laughed off
the idea as not being party policy.

Doctor Nelson says Mr Hawke's views could have been better
directed, and he'd like the former Prime Minister to convince
the current Labor leader to adopt the ideas.. 





*****************************************************************
 47 UK: News & Star: г1bn power station a step closer for N-plant

Published on 29/09/2005                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                        
[Likely site? SellafieldтАЩs nuclear power station, Calder Hall, 
shut down two years ago]                                                                   

By Andrea Thompson
 
SELLAFIELD has moved a step closer to getting a г1billion power
station after Tony Blair gave his most public support yet for
the nuclear industry.
 
The Prime Minister told the Labour Party Conference in Brighton
that the Government would assess all options for future power
generation тАУ including civil nuclear power. He said: тАЬFor
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? 

тАЬFor 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, and that means an assessment
of all options, including civil nuclear power.тАЭ
 
Most existing nuclear power stations are to shut by 2020,
leaving Britain largely dependent on gas and coal-fired power
and renewable energy like wind. Industry experts say each new
nuclear power station could cost between г1bn to г2bn.
 
SellafieldтАЩs nuclear power station, Calder Hall, shut down two
years ago and was the oldest station in the Magnox fleet when it
ceased generating in March 2003. It was commissioned in 1956.
 
Trade unions at Sellafield have welcomed the Prime MinisterтАЩs
pledge.
 
Amicus convener, John Tear, said тАЬWhat Tony Blair said fits in
with all that we have been saying as a trades union тАУ that we
need a balanced energy policy and that we canтАЩt rely on gas
from unstable parts of the world.тАЭ
 
Peter Kane, of the GMB union, said a new nuclear power station
would have massive benefits for Sellafield, which is expected to
shed up to 8,000 jobs over the next 10 years through
decommissioning. But he warned that it was too early for people
to start getting excited.
 
тАЬWe have campaigned for a replacement for Calder Hall and
while we welcome Tony BlairтАЩs speech there is still a lot of
work to do.тАЭ
 
Copeland MP Jamie Reed said the case for civil nuclear power for
Britain in the modern world is irrefutable.
 
тАЬI will continue to work hard to ensure that the logic of the
case is understood and the merits of the industry embraced.
There is obviously significant potential for the enhanced
development of Copeland and West Cumbria.тАЭ 

But Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive
Environment, says the proposal to bring back nuclear power is
not well founded.
 
тАЬThere are a huge number of tests that the nuclear industry
would have to go through first before we get any signs of
rebuild. That includes public acceptability, the cost of
building power stations and the length of time it would take to
build them.тАЭ
 
*****************************************************************
 48 Rocky Mountain News: CU to hold hearing tonight on its role at Los Alamos lab

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News

September 29, 2005

A device that screens for anthrax molecules. A computer model for 
monitoring groundwater. A way of measuring the role of "dark 
matter" in the accelerating expansion of the universe. 

These are just a few of the projects that CU professors and 
doctoral students have been involved in over the past 25 years at 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 

 Tonight in Boulder, CU holds the first of three public hearings
on whether the university should consolidate and expand its
research role at the nuclear weapons lab. 

CU is one of 19 universities that have joined a consortium
organized by the University of Texas to provide research support
for defense contractor Lockheed Martin's bid to operate the lab. 

They are competing with a bid by Bechtel and the University of
California. The Department of Energy is expected to make a
decision by Dec. 1. 

The University of California has run Los Alamos for the federal
government since the lab's inception in 1943. But its management
was questioned after a series of security and financial lapses,
which prompted DOE to put the contract out to bid. 

For some, the lab's history and ongoing role in nuclear weapons
research, are reason enough to shun the Lockheed bid. 

"LANL's mission is 'national defense' and most of its work is
secret. It seeks to create another generation of nuclear
weapons," LeRoy Moore wrote on the Web site of the Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center. 

"Thus any association between CU and LANL will inevitably link
CU's name to nuclear weapons," Moore wrote. 

But professors and scientists at CU say all the work they have
pursued has been unclassified and not related to weapons
research. 

Jerry Peterson, a physics professor, has been working at Los
Alamos since he first arrived at CU in 1970. For more than 15
years, he conducted basic research in nuclear science using the
lab's particle accelerator."No money changed hands. We didn't
have to pay for access. They didn't charge for the beam time,"
Peterson said. 

During the past 35 years, his work at Los Alamos enabled
Peterson to involve his physics students in research projects,
including nine who went on to obtain doctorates. 

CU professor Margaret Murnane has worked at Los Alamos with
former students doing post-doctorate research on topics such as
how light can be used to detect selected molecules. 

Some of that research contributed to pollution-sensing devices
or a way to tell whether a white powdery substance was anthrax
or talcum powder. 

Stein Sture, associate dean for research at CU's College of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, has used the lab's
supercomputer to develop models such as how rock mass moves in
an earthquake. 

The model enables him to do a tomographic map, similar to a CAT
scan, that measures the stresses inside an object. 

"No other agency, certainly not the University of Colorado, has
anything quite like that," Sture said. "It has helped me in my
research profoundly." 

On-campus forums 

The University of Colorado will hold forums on each of its three
campuses to allow public comment on CU's possible involvement in
managing Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Х Boulder 

Today: 7 to 8:30 p.m. 

Mathematics Building, Room 100 on the Boulder campus 

Х Colorado Springs 

Friday: 10 to 11:30 a.m. 

University Center Theater 

Х Denver Health Science Center 

Friday: 2 to 3:30 p.m. 

King Academic and Performing Arts Center Recital Hall  

   
й Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
 49 KIFI: INL Director Discusses Lab's Future

www.localnews8.com   
      
 September 28, 2005

 At the INL on Wednesday, the director of the lab started
meeting with employees about the future of the site.

John Grossenbacher says in the seven months since the INEEL
became the INL, a lot has changed.

He says theyтАЩve gone through the complicated process of
combining two labs as well as separating out the cleanup project.

While he wants to congratulate employees on everything theyтАЩve
done, he also says they have a lot of work ahead of them.

Grossenbacher said, тАЬWeтАЩre headed towards being the
preeminent world-class nuclear research facility. Those are not
small words so thereтАЩs a lot of work to be done now to
transform our laboratory.тАЭ

Grossenbacher planned to meet with employees all day Thursday. 


*****************************************************************
 50 RURALNORTHWEST.COM: Idaho Defense Projects Cleared by Committee
 
Benewah News   
  
 Kathy Nussberger Editor 208-267-5550 PO Box 1107 Bonners Ferry, 
ID 

Posted: Sep 29, 2005, 14:17
 
By: 

The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved several
projects for Idaho in the fiscal year 2006 Defense
Appropriations bill. Idaho Senator Larry Craig is a member of
the Committee, which wrote the bill.
 
УIdaho has long played a key role in the nationТs defense
efforts and will continue to do so, and IТm pleased the
Committee agrees,Ф said Craig. УThe research, development and
training in these projects will help keep our men and women in
uniform on the cutting edge of technology and safety. With
IdahoТs help, they will remain the best-equipped, best-trained
forces in the world.Ф 

Idaho projects include:
 
Critical Infrastructure Test Range at the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL) ($10 million) Funds will be used to upgrade and
apply capabilities at the INL Critical Infrastructure Test Range
to support Department of Defense critical infrastructure
requirements. 

Medical Modeling and Simulation through Synthetic Digital Genes
($1.75 million) This initiative continues research and
development on ways to provide a risk-free, realistic learning
environment for medical skills training, from buddy aid to
trauma surgery procedures, using high fidelity modeling. 

Characterization, Reliability, and Applications of
Three-Dimensional Micro-Structures Ц Boise State University ($3
million) This is part of a multi-year funding effort. BSU is
developing layered microchips, which will allow chip designers
and manufacturers to pack increasingly more electronics into the
same footprint. Much like a city will build taller buildings to
put more in less space, this approach seeks to layer chips Ц a
technology still very much under development. 

Rural Electronic Medical Record/Teleradiology System ($2
million) This project would upgrade the current teleradiology
and EMR technologies to allow the continuation of these services
to rural areas. 

Read Out Integrated Circuit (ROIC) Manufacturing Improvement ($4
million) This initiative seeks to improve the manufacture of
read out integrated circuit (ROIC) semiconductors, which is
vital to the development of the new Joint Strike Fighter. AMI
Semiconductor of Idaho is nationally preeminent in this
technology. The Air Force is expected to work with AMI on this
project. 

Advanced Materials Deposition for Semiconductor Nanostructures
Using Supercritical Fluids Ц University of Idaho ($1.4 million)
Supports critical research and testing to incorporate these
technologies into the manufacturing process for semiconductor
products like computer chips and sensors. 

Advanced Unmanned Vehicle System Development ($7 million)
Utilizing the assets of INL, this proposal would develop, test,
and evaluate an integrated unmanned protection system in support
of transport security missions. 

Small Accelerators and Detection Systems for Homeland Defense
and National Security Applications ($2.5 million) The Idaho
Accelerator Center at Idaho State University will continue to
develop portable, high-intensity, radiation producing
accelerators that can be used to destroy a wide variety of
chemical and biological agents. Idaho State University would use
its state-of-the-art pulsed electron accelerator to research and
develop radiation-producing, high-dose rate accelerators capable
of destroying chemical and biological agents without harming
nearby materials, people, or facilities. 

Advanced Lead Acid Battery Development for Military Vehicles Ц
University of Idaho ($1.5 million) The U of I has a renowned
history in battery development, and is a logical partner in the
research and design of increasingly superior batteries for our
military. 

Naval Acoustic Research Detachment (Bayview) ($8 million) This
will fund ongoing research and development of quiet hull and
propulsion designs for the next generation of naval vessels,
including the SeaJet model of the DDX destroyer. 

Magnetic Random-Access Memory (MRAM) Innovative Communications
Materials Ц University of Idaho ($1 million) This ongoing
research will combine MRAM cells, which are intrinsically
radiation-hard, with radiation-tolerant microelectronics,
leading to low power, nonvolatile memories that function in
space. 

Information Therapy Program ($2.6 million) Funding will help the
Department of Defense improve healthcare quality through the use
of electronic health records and other health information
technology initiatives. 

Credibility Assessment Research Initiative - Boise State
University ($1.75 million) Supporting research to improve the
reliability of polygraph screenings. 

Advanced Microwave Ferrite Research for RF Systems ($2.5
million) Critical to point-to-point communication and RADAR
systems are the class of microwave devices that employ ferrite
materials. Incorporating these into smaller and more portable
microwave communication devices is an important research thrust
of the military. 

Remediation of Environments Contaminated by Ammonium Perchlorate
Ц University of Idaho ($1 million) This project will
characterize at the molecular level the microbial populations
most successful and efficient at promoting the degradation of
perchlorate to innocuous products. 

Systematic Hierarchical Approach to Radiation Hardened
Electronics (SHARE) ($4 million) Consistent, reliable
performance of integrated circuitry used in space-deployed
communication, surveillance, and guidance systems is a
persistent problem for the military services. The Air Force is
pursuing technologies and techniques that will ensure a ready,
economical, domestic capability for producing radiation-hardened
circuitry using the most advanced commercial processes. SHARE
has been identified by the Air Force as a critical capability
that will facilitate collaboration among commercial circuit
designers, simulation software vendors, and fabrication
facilities. 

Naval Surface Warfare Center at INL ($3 million) To continue
research and manufacture engineering of frequency selective
surfaces for absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. 

Molecular Approach to Hazardous Materials Decontamination ($1
million) This fundamental research is needed to formulate a new
generation of decontamination solutions that will be faster,
more efficient, versatile, stable, environmentally friendly, and
easy to use, as well as effective against the threats of today
and unknown, future threats. 

Smart Prosthetic Devices Technology Ц Idaho State University ($1
million) The goal of this project is to research, develop, and
demonstrate a УsmartФ prosthetic device that provides people who
are missing limbs Ц whether they are veterans with combat
injuries or non-veterans with other injuries Ц the ability to
have natural/human-like motions using synergy of mycology,
signal processing, robotics, control, and micro-technology. 

DNA Safeguard Project Ц Boise State University ($1 million) The
DNA safeguard marker is a DNA-based label that will be included
in sample collection vessels used in DNA collection. The marker
will assure the public that the blood or cheek samples they
provide cannot be planted or accidentally contaminate evidence. 

As members of their respective Appropriations Committees,
Senator Craig and Idaho Representative Mike Simpson cooperate to
ensure federal spending is restrained, tax dollars are
appropriately spent, and that high-priority Idaho projects are
included. 

More information on the appropriations process is available at
craig.senate.gov.
 
Copyright й 1999-2005, by Woodbury 
*****************************************************************
 51 KnoxNews: No Silence Here
 
[knoxnews.com ]          

The News Sentinel's Michael Silence blogs on blogs.

September 29, 2005
 
Homeland Insecurity?
 
OAK RIDGE Ч An investigator with a government watchdog group
says he parked his car within 10 feet of the most sensitive
nuclear facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and walked
around the building unimpeded, raising serious concerns about
the labТs security. 

"A truck bomb could have leveled the place," Peter Stockton of
the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) said today. 

A U.S. Department of Energy spokesman hotly disputed POGOТs
account of the events and accused Stockton and his companion of
making false statements and misleading their hosts in order "to
create an incident." 

John Shewairy of DOE said the visitors were watched during their
entire visit and that security was never threatened. "We know
how these groups operate," Shewairy said. 

The incident occurred earlier this week when Stockton and Ronald
Timm, a security analyst, were in Oak Ridge to visit the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant and ORNL. 

Story . 

The blogger formerly known as South Knox Bubba has a related
from the Service Employees International Union. 

Glenn Reynolds : The source is a union that's crossways with the
feds, but given the experience at Los Alamos this bears
scrutiny. Posted by Michael Silence at September 29, 2005 01:33
PM 

Comments 

Welcome to George Bush's America. Katrina and Rita have
demonstrated how well prepared America is to protect its
citizens from natural disasters or terrorist attacks. 

If we get attacked by terrorists again it would only serve to
enable the neo-cons to invade another middle east nation so they
don't care. 

Bush and the neo-cons want to destroy our govermment and
privatize everything. Posted by: yeula at September 29, 2005
02:39 PM 

I think the guy from POGO is flat-out lying. There is no way
that I believe his claim that he parked his car within 10 ft of
"...the most sensitive nuclear facility at Oak Ridge...". He
probably didn't know what the facility was, and just made up the
claim. I cannot recall reading anything from POGO of late that
wasn't either simple misinformation or sometimes a deliberate
lie. They're even worse than CBS News, which is saying a lot.
Posted by: Henry Bowman at September 29, 2005 03:44 PM 

Just think, yeula, if the 4-day response time of the Bush
administration had been any slower, it would have been up there
with the 5-day response time to Hurricane Andrew during the
Clinton administration. Posted by: webfire at September 29, 2005
03:45 PM 

Just think, yeula, if the 4-day response time of the Bush
administration had been any slower, it would have been up there
with the 5-day response time to Hurricane Andrew during the
Clinton administration. Posted by: Anonymous at September 29,
2005 03:46 PM 

Regardless of which version is accurate, statements like this:
 "We know how these groups operate," Shewairy said" 

make my skin crawl. The reason terrorists managed to hijack and
crash on target 3 of 4 aircraft on 911 was because everyone
'knew how hijackers operate'. Sit quiet and let the negotiations
take place, right? The last thing I want is the security at our
nuclear facilities thinking they know what an attack will look
like. Typical beaurocratic blinders. Posted by: Mark Buehner at
September 29, 2005 04:45 PM Post a comment 	Name:
 	
Copyright 2005 - KnoxNews.com is an website. 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************