*****************************************************************
11/21/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.271
*****************************************************************
   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 Independent: White House used 'gossip' to build case for war 
2 [NYTr] Iranian parliament votes to end UN nuclear checks
3 IPS-English POLITICS: Solving the Iranian Nuclear Issue -- Or
4 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran May Get Off Nuclear Issue Hook
5 BBC: More time for Iran in nuclear row
6 IRNA: India's vote against Iran - report 
7 IRNA: India favors resolution of Iran nuclear issue within IAEA 
8 AFP: US signals headway with Russia, China on Iran
9 IRNA: EU seeks diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue 
10 Guardian Unlimited: EU Calls on Iran to Live Up to Obligations
11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Won't Push for Move on Iran
12 US: Bizjournals: House OKs nuclear wharf at Mayport - 
13 Helsingin Sanomat: Government sets energy and climate policy goals 
14 AFP: Bush has little to show for Asia trip -
15 Asian Tribune: "Nuclear contamination threat in Pakistan's Northern 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 Guardian Unlimited: Meacher condemns pro-nuclear 'spin'
17 BBC: PM 'convinced' on nuclear future
18 US: Metro Pulse: Are New Nukes Good Nukes? TVA's region is about to 
19 US: NRC: Docket Ohio reactor licenses
20 US: NRC: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Considera
21 CBC New Brunswick: Lepreau office could turn N.B. into nuke hub - un
22 PRN: Callaway Nuclear Plant Returns to Service Following Refueling
23 UK: News & Star: Nuclear stations set for Blair go-ahead
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
24 [du-list] Discovery of "Kinetic penetrators"
25 [du-list] battlefield radiation - du vet: My days are numbered
26 [du-list] UK's deadly legacy: the cluster bomb
27 US: KRT Wire: Inquiry spurs fears about security at bomb plant
28 Bellona: Members of the Russian Duma to clear polluted air
29 US: reviewjournal.com: Ex-test site worker critical of compensation 
30 US: Las Vegas SUN: Properly cooked bird is the word in new campaign 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
31 US: [NukeNet] Zimbabwe to Process Newly Found Uranium
32 US: Guardian Unlimited: Mugabe hails uranium find and vows to pursue
33 AU ABC: ACF warns Govt over nuclear waste dump
34 Korea Herald: [Junior Herald]Nuclear waste dumpsite to open in Gyeon
35 Bellona: Liquid waste treatment plant at Kola NPP to be completed by
36 Las Vegas SUN: EPA to review Yucca input 
37 US: Cinncinnati Enquirer: Fernald waste cleanup progressing
38 Independent: Riot police seize protesters blocking shipment of Frenc
39 US: Tri-Valley Herald: Recycling nuclear fuel draws fire
40 AU ABC: NT nuclear waste dump sparks science debate. 
41 AU ABC: ACF warns Govt over nuclear waste dump. 
42 AU ABC: Territorians treated as 'second class citizens', says Martin
43 NEWS.com.au: Abandon NT nuke dump plan - Martin - 
44 DW: Protestors Halt Nuclear Convoy en Route to Storage Site |
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
45 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
46 Tri-Valley Herald: Anxiety, fear set the tone in Los Alamos
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Independent: White House used 'gossip' to build case for war 

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 

Published: 21 November 2005 

The controversy in America over pre-war intelligence has
intensified, with revelations that the Bush administration
exaggerated the claims of a key source on Iraq's alleged weapons
of mass destruction, despite repeated warnings before the
invasion that his information was at best dubious, if not
downright wrong. 

The disclosure, in The Los Angeles Times, came after a week of
vitriolic debate on Iraq, amid growing demands for a speedy
withdrawal of US troops and tirades from Bush spokesmen who all
but branded as a traitor anyone who suggested that intelligence
was deliberately skewed to make the case for war. 

Yesterday Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, joined the
fray, saying that talk of manipulation of intelligence "does
great disservice to the country". 

In Beijing, President George Bush said that a speedy pullout was
"a recipe for disaster" - but the proportion of Americans
wanting precisely that (52 per cent according to a new poll) is
now higher than wanted similar action in 1970, at the height of
the Vietnam war. 

In an extraordinary detailed account, the Times charted the
history of the source, codenamed Curveball, an Iraqi chemical
engineer who arrived in Germany in 1999 seeking political
asylum, and told the German intelligence service, the BND, how
Saddam Hussein had developed mobile laboratories to produce
biological weapons. 

But by summer 2002, his claims had been thrown into grave doubt.
Five senior BND officials told the newspaper they warned the CIA
that Curveball never claimed to have been involved in germ
weapons production, and never saw anyone else do so. His
information was mostly vague, secondhand and impossible to
confirm, they told the Americans - "watercooler gossip"
according to one source. 

Nonetheless the CIA would hear none of the doubts. President
Bush referred to Curveball's tale in his January 2003 State of
the Union address, and the alleged mobile labs were a central
claim in the now notorious presentation to the United Nations by
Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, in February 2003, making
the case for war. 

The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball's case said he
was aghast when he watched Mr Powell overstate Curveball's case.
"We were shocked," he said. "We had always told them it was not
proven ... It was not hard intelligence." 

The Iraqi, it now is clear, told his story to bolster his quest
for a German residence visa. According to BND officials, he was
psychologically unstable. 

The debacle became complete when American investigators, sent
after the invasion to find evidence of the WMDs, instead
discovered Curveball's personnel file in Baghdad. It showed he
had been a low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or
site manager, as the CIA had insisted. Moreover he had been
dismissed in 1995 - just when he claimed to have begun work on
bio-warfare trucks. 

Curveball was also apparently jailed for a sex crime and then
drove a Baghdad taxi. 

The latest disclosures come at an especially delicate moment, as
the Senate Intelligence Committee is about to resume a
long-stalled inquiry into the administration's use of pre-war
intelligence. Committee members said last week that the
Curveball case would be a key part of their review. House
Democrats are calling for a similar inquiry. 

Washington is also still reverberating from the outburst of John
Murtha, the veteran Democratic Congressman and defence hawk with
close ties to the Pentagon, who last week urged an immediate
"redeployment" of the 160,000 US troops in Iraq. Administration
attempts to label him a defeatist have abjectly backfired. "I've
never seen such an outpouring" of support, the decorated Marine
Corps veteran, now 73, declared on NBC's Meet the Press
programme yesterday. "It's not me, it's the public that's
thirsting for answers." 

No longer could President Bush "hide behind empty rhetoric". Mr
Murtha said that his vote for war in October 2002 "was obviously
a mistake. We were misled, they exaggerated the intelligence".
He forecast that whatever the Bush administration said, "We'll
be out of there by election day 2006" - a reference to next
November's mid-term elections, when many Republicans fear that
the Iraq debacle could drag the party down to defeat. 

Intelligence red herrings 

* Curveball: The Iraqi chemical engineer in his late twenties
who defected to Germany in 1995, with tales of mobile germ
weapons laboratories that were dubious before the invasion, and
later shown to be false. The CIA brushed aside all doubts. 

* Ahmed Chalabi: The exiled Iraqi leader won his way into the
favour of the Pentagon. Defectors he brought to US attention
proved to be false, as was his claim that US invaders would be
met with bouquets. 

* Iraq's quest to buy uranium from Niger: This claim was based
on forged documents originating in Italy, but President Bush
repeated it in his 2003 State of the Union speech. 

* The aluminium tubes affair: Saddam was said to be seeking
parts for a centrifuge for use in making a nuclear weapon.
Analysts' doubts were disregarded. 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Iranian parliament votes to end UN nuclear checks
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:18:30 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Reuters via The Irish Times, Mon, Nov 21, 05 
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/1121/1851329348FRIRAN.html

Iranian parliament votes to end nuclear checks

Iran: Iranian lawmakers voted yesterday to resume uranium enrichment and
end snap UN checks of its nuclear sites if Tehran is referred to the UN
Security Council for possible sanctions.

In the vote, broadcast live on state radio, 183 out of 197 lawmakers
present favoured the Bill. The legislation must now be approved by
Iran's constitutional watchdog, the conservative 12-man Guardian
Council.

Iran faces referral to the world body for possible sanctions after
failing to convince the world that its atomic scientists are focusing on
power stations rather than warheads.

The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency meets
in Vienna on Thursday to decide what steps to take with Iran's case. The
Bill is intended to give leverage to Iran's negotiators.

Lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of parliament's foreign policy and
security commission, urged opposition parliamentarians from the
reformist camp to show a united front in the national interest.

"This is not a factional, political issue - it is a national issue," he
said in the debate.

The Bill calls for Iran's government to stop following the Additional
Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows snap UN
checks of atomic sites.

It also calls on Iran to resume all nuclear activities that it stopped
voluntarily. Foremost among these is the moratorium on enriching
uranium.

Iran's chief atomic negotiator, Ali Larijani, has previously threatened
to end snap checks and resume enrichment if Tehran's case is sent to the
Security Council.

But parliament's Bill turns this threat into law which the government
must follow.

Despite Western pressure to halt its nuclear activity, Iran earlier this
week said it had begun processing a new batch of uranium. Iran insists
on developing its own nuclear fuel cycle to produce fuel for power
stations.

But Washington fears Iran will enrich uranium to a high, weapons-grade
level, rather than the low level needed for power stations such as the
one it is building with Russian help at the Gulf port of Bushehr.-(Reuters)

) The Irish Times  
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 IPS-English POLITICS: Solving the Iranian Nuclear Issue -- Or
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:03:37 -0800

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS EU MM WD IP=20
POLITICS: Solving the Iranian Nuclear Issue -- Or Not
By Milla Sundstr=F6m

HELSINKI, Nov 21 (IPS) - Differences over Iran's nuclear programme stand =
stark ahead of a crucial meeting this week at the International Atomic En=
ergy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA board of directors are due to meet Nov. 23 to decide whether Ira=
n's refusal to comply with its guidelines should be referred to the UN Se=
curity Council.

The main players all spelt out their positions at a meeting organised her=
e by The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA). The meeting u=
nder the ambitiously named title 'Solving the Iranian Nuclear Issue' conf=
ronted the deadlock whether or not Iran is developing its nuclear power p=
rogramme to give it weapons capacity.=20

Much of the dispute centres on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)=
  of 1970, which Iran says gives signatories the right to develop nuclear =
energy for peaceful purposes. But Iran is under pressure to open up this =
programme for inspection.

Three European powers -- Britain, France and Germany -- known as the EU-3=
  have since 2003 tried to persuade Iran to be more transparent for IAEA s=
crutiny.

Peter Jenkins, British representative at the IAEA said Article IV of the =
NPT, which guarantees the right to develop nuclear energy, =94cannot and =
should not be read in isolation.=94 Article IV was never intended to be =94=
at the expense of the non-proliferation objective,=94 he said.

=94From this it follows, in our view, that the Article IV rights of a sta=
te which, through its own action, bring into question its commitment to t=
he non-proliferation objective, are compromised until such time as confid=
ence in its commitment to non-proliferation is re-established,=94 Jenkins=
  said.

Iran insists that it wants fissile material production capability in orde=
r to become self-sufficient in nuclear energy production. Last week it re=
sumed preparation for uranium enrichment at its nuclear plant at Isfahan,=
  in the face of a directive from the IAEA Sep. 24 to halt all enrichment =
activities.

Dr. Mostafa Zahrani, director of the Institute for Political and Internat=
ional Studies (IPIS) in Tehran pointed to deep differences in perceptions=
  between Iran and the West. The very idea of the =94international communi=
ty=94 is =94ethnocentrically western=94 in Iranian eyes, and =94nobody bu=
ys it in the Islamic world,=94 he said.

Zahrani pointed out that Iran has signed the NPT but Israel, the undeclar=
ed nuclear power in the Middle East, has not. Why is it now so important =
that Iran sticks to the NPT while nobody seems to blame Israel, Zahrani s=
aid.

=94In Egypt and in the region in general we are encouraged to acquire nuc=
lear weapons,=94 he said. Iran sees the United States and Israel as the m=
ain threats to its security. But he pointed out the limited potential of =
an Iranian atomic bomb: it would never be capable of second strike.=20

The reason Iran has not opened up to the IAEA is that it was isolated and=
  needed to survive, Zahrani said.

He warned the international community against trying to push Iran too far=
  by threatening use of force. He said there are =94powers=94 within Iran =
that would like to see an increase in tension.

But what is the way out of the stalemate?=20

=94You have to know the Iranian people,=94 Zahrani said. He pointed out t=
hat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has upset the West on several occa=
sions since coming to power in June, was elected democratically. The West=
  is on a collision course with the Iranian people and not just its presid=
ent, Zahrani said.

=94What the people want is to develop and have technology, and not rely o=
n the international community which has isolated and sanctioned Iran earl=
ier,=94 he said.

Dr George Perkovich from the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for Inte=
rnational Peace said ambiguities in the NPT were partly to blame. The tre=
aty =94never defined what a nuclear weapon was,=94 he said.  The IAEA was=
  tasked to verify that technology is used for peaceful purposes only, but=
  it has no access to military sites, he said.

Perkovich said the IAEA board meeting this week will be marked by =94a se=
nse that one can't pretend any more that this should not be reported to t=
he Security Council..=94 The United States is looking to the Security Cou=
ncil to slap sanctions on Iran.

At its Sep. 24 meeting the IAEA board broke its usual search for consensu=
s and voted whether it should consider referring Iran to the Security Cou=
ncil.=20

Of the 35 IAEA board members 22 voted in support of the referral, one - V=
enezuela - against, and 12 abstained. Those included China and Russia, wh=
o may use their veto in the Security Council against any sanctions. (END/=
IPS/EU/MM/WD/IP/MS/SS/05)



=20
=3D 11211527 ORP002
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 4 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran May Get Off Nuclear Issue Hook
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:03:37 -0800

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP IP DV IF ML=20
POLITICS: Iran May Get Off Nuclear Issue Hook
Praful Bidwai=20

NEW DELHI, Nov 21 (IPS)- As the fraught question of Iran's nuclear=20
activities comes up before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)=20
on Thursday, there are indications of a softening up of the stands of a=20
number of countries on the issue.=20

If present trends continue, Iran may not immediately face the threat of=20
being referred by the IAEA to the United Nations Security Council for=20
sanctions, according to analysts in this nuclear-armed country, which=20
signed a deal with the United States, in July, for the transfer of=20
civilian nuclear technology.=20

India had voted along with the U.S., and the EU-3 (Britain, France and=20
Germany), against Iran in September at a meeting of the IAEA's board of=20
governors, preparing the ground for Tehran's possible referral to the=20
Security Council.=20

But India has just announced that it will keep the Iran issue within=20
the =94IAEA's jurisdiction=94 and not send it to the U.N. The decision wa=
s=20
taken under the weight of domestic public opinion.=20

The U.S., which inaugurated a vigorous effort to isolate Iran and freeze=20
its nuclear programme, has endorsed a compromise proposal made by=20
Russia, under which Iran would be allowed to convert uranium oxides=20
(yellow cake) to hexaflouride gas, but not to enrich it. Instead, Russia=20
would enrich the gas and send the uranium back to Iran to be used as=20
fuel in nuclear power plants.=20

Indications of a change in Washington's stand have come from senior U.S.=20
officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National=20
Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.=20

Last week, President George W. Bush met Russian President Vladimir Putin=20
in South Korea and soon after the meeting, Hadley said: =94We hope that=20
over time, Iran will see the virtue of this approach and it may provide=20
a way out=94.=20

The EU-3 have also backed the Russian-brokered compromise. Iran first=20
rejected the proposal but subsequently said it would consider it.=20

=94Evidently, the U.S. and the EU-3 have decided that their hardline=20
stance towards Iran isn't working,=94 says A.K. Pasha, professor at the=20
Centre of West Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New=20
Delhi. =94The U.S. is in deep trouble in Iraq, where its policies have=20
created a deep Shia-Sunni rift. It knows Iran wields great influence=20
among the Iraqis and can create further trouble for Washington. So it's=20
willing to revise its earlier tough policy and give a negotiated=20
compromise a chance.''=20

Russia and China have also made known their opposition to Iran's=20
referral to the Security Council. In September, they both abstained from=20
voting against Iran, along with a majority of Non-Aligned states, a=20
glaringly notable exception being India.=20

Their hands, as well as those of the Non-Aligned Movement, were=20
strengthened by the latest report of the IAEA's director-general. This=20
noted the =94progress=94 made by Iran in addressing =94outstanding issues=
=94=20
about its nuclear programme, including delivering additional documents=20
to the IAEA.=20

The IAEA's report came in handy for the Indian government, which has=20
been under unprecedented pressure to modify its stand on Iran. New=20
Delhi's stand is seen as unacceptably pro-Western and a breach of faith=20
with Non-Alignment and independence in foreign policy--of which India=20
has long been fiercely proud.=20

Opposition to New Delhi's Sep.24 vote at the IAEA has been spearheaded=20
by India's communist parties, which provide critical support to the=20
minority, Congress party-led coalition government of Prime Minister=20
Manmohan Singh.=20

Late last month, the communist parties set up a joint front with some=20
centrist parties to initiate a concerted campaign for a change in=20
India's stand on Iran and for the restoration of autonomy in foreign=20
policy, which has been leaning towards Washington over the past year.=20

The new front commands the support of more than 100 members in India's=20
545-strong lower house of parliament, in which the Congress party=20
commands 140-odd seats. The Left's support is critical, not just in=20
numerical terms, but also because it carries enormous moral-political=20
weight.=20

On Monday, the coordination committee of the ruling United Progressive=20
Alliance(UPA)and the Left met and hammered out the new =94consensus=94, t=
hat=20
India would oppose the transfer of the Iran issue outside the IAEA=20
framework.=20

=94This is definitely a victory for the Left and for many progressive=20
causes,'' says Pasha. =94It could also pave the way for a partial healing=
=20
of the damage done in the recent past to India-Iran relations by New=20
Delhi's tilt towards the U.S.=94=20

India's pro-U.S. tilt is reflected in a number of recent agreements=20
signed between the U.S. and India, in particular a nuclear cooperation=20
deal agreed in July, which makes a one-time exception for India in the=20
global nuclear control order and permits the sale of civilian nuclear=20
materials and equipment to India.=20

U.S.lawmakers have linked Congressional approval for the deal to a shift=20
in India's policy towards Iran from a friendly posture to an adversarial=20
one. One of them said India must choose between the Iran of the=20
Ayatollahs with its oil and gas, and the West with its advanced=20
technology and mastery of nuclear power.=20

=94India's September vote at the IAEA was the price it was paying for the=
=20
nuclear deal with America,=94 said Hamid Ansari, former Indian ambassador=
=20
to the United Nations and to Iran. =94India is under growing pressure fro=
m=20
Washington to give up economic and energy cooperation with Iran, in=20
particular the proposed 2,670-km long, seven billion dollar oil pipeline=20
that would pass through Pakistan.=94=20

India and Iran have close political relations. They worked together in=20
Afghanistan to contain the influence of the Taliban. They have been=20
discussing various proposals for cooperation in energy, trade and=20
transit. The U.S. has told India it is uncomfortable with these=20
proposals.=20

India's new decision will help Iran temporarily. But it is far from=20
clear that Iran's reprieve from Western pressure will last.=20

=94Iran is playing a complex game,'' says Ansari. =94On the one hand, it =
is=20
cooperating with the IAEA and has offered it access to certain key=20
individuals in the nuclear programme, as well as atomic facilities,=20
including a military installation at Parchan.''=20

But at the same time, its parliament has passed a tough resolution which=20
asks the government to stop allowing surprise checks by the IAEA of its=20
atomic sites and to resume uranium enrichment if Teheran is referred to=20
the Security Council, Ansari observed.=20

Iran is unlikely to go the whole hog with the Russian proposal because=20
it implicitly denies what Iran considers to be its right to peaceful=20
nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.=20

=94This is a sensitive issue,'' says Ansari, =94because Iran is being tol=
d=20
it cannot be trusted with peaceful nuclear technology on its own soil.=20
It will probably push for a modification of the Russian formula=94.=20

Whether the U.S. adopts a flexible stance towards Iran, and whether=20
Tehran succeeds in reaching an acceptable compromise, will be determined=20
by a number of factors, including U.S. geopolitical calculations, the=20
situation in Iraq, behind-the-scenes talks between Iran, Russia and the=20
EU-3, and the ability of the West to split the ranks of the Non-Aligned=20
Movement. (END/IPS/AP/IP/DV/IF/ML/PB/RDR/05)

=20
=3D 11211623 ORP003
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 5 BBC: More time for Iran in nuclear row
 
Last Updated: Monday, 21 November 2005
 
[Iran's uranium conversion plant at Isfahan]

An IAEA plan proposes switching enrichment work to Russia                                            
		
The US and three major European nations are to postpone moves to 
refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, 
diplomats have said. 

The UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, is due to meet in Vienna on 
Thursday. 

Iran's parliament voted on Sunday to end co-operation with UN 
inspectors and press ahead with uranium enrichment if it is 
referred to the Security Council. 

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy only, 
but the US fears it could be used for weapons. 

Diplomats close to the negotiations said Iran would be given more 
time to consider a compromise that would move the most sensitive 
part of nuclear fuel production - uranium enrichment - to Russia. 

Under the plan, Iran would be allowed to engage in uranium 
conversion, but Tehran has resisted the proposal since it was 
first mooted two weeks ago. 

Tehran argues that it has a legitimate right to peaceful nuclear 
technology. 

IRAN'S NUCLEAR STANDOFF                  

September 2002: Wor begins on Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr 

December 2002: Satellite photographs reveal nuclear sites at Arak 
and Natanz. Iran agrees to an IAEA inspection 

September 2003: IAEA gives Iran weeks to prove it is not pursuing 
atomic weapons 

November 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows 
tougher inspections; IAEA says no proof of any weapons programme 

June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating with 
nuclear inquiry 

November 2004: Iran suspends uranium enrichment as part of deal 
with EU 

August 2005: Iran rejects EU proposals and resumes work at 
Isfahan nuclear plant           

         Any eventual referral to the Security Council could lead 
to economic sanctions. 

"There will be no resolution for sure. The Russians and Chinese 
oppose this," one EU diplomat told the Reuters news agency. 

Direct negotiations with the US and the EU - the UK, France and 
Germany - broke down in August when Iran resumed converting 
uranium into gas form at a plant in Isfahan. 

In September the IAEA's board called on Iran to cease all nuclear 
fuel work, and threatened to refer Tehran to the Security 
Council. 

An interim report last week revealed that Iran had information on 
how to build a key part of an atomic weapon from the network of 
disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan. 

Iran insisted it neither requested the information nor used it. 

The disclosure heightened concerns among some IAEA members that 
over Iran's processing activities. 

Tehran announced last week that it had begun processing a new 
batch of uranium, which can be used in a weapon in a highly 
enriched form. 

The country's nuclear negotiators have regularly said they want 
to re-start enrichment, but have so far held back from unilateral 
moves. 
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: India's vote against Iran - report 

New Delhi, Nov 21, IRNA                                                                                                                  

India-Iran-Vote 

The increasing pressure of America on India to change its
foreign policy on Iran is regarded nowadays as a very important
subject for discussion at different political levels and in the
eyes of the Indian media.

 Although Indian authorities refute every policy imposed by
America, some informed sources of diplomatic activities say
American and Israeli relatios are growing particularly with
regard to the Iran nuclear issue on the eve of the scheduled
meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.

 It is said that America and Israel, as superpower and puppet
state respectively, are striving to execute political plans
intended to damage relations between India and Iran.

 An analysis of the prevailing attitude in the Indian media
points to the fact that America, in order to influence Indian
foreign policy, carries out programs that serve to warn New
Delhi against support for Iran as well as encourage it to
attract western-oriented politicians in the country.

 The situation applies not only to foreign diplomats but to the
Indian press as well and points to the fact that Washington is
trying to influence India to vote in the IAEA board in
accordance with its wishes and against Iran.

 After moving aside from the political scene, Natwar Singh, the
ideal foreign minister of India, in the current week expressed
the view that America had carefully planned in the past to enter
Indian politics and that its efforts to weaken and perhaps
breach relations between New Delhi and Tehran had increased in
vigor.

 American pressure on the idealist politicians of India, who
follow the viewpoint of non-alignment and liberal foreign
policy, as against the supportive position of young,
western-oriented politicians who regard the non-alignment policy
as "old" and favor closeness to the west can feel the current
atmosphere prevailing in the Indian media.

 Some diplomats and experts regard the dismissal of Natwar Singh
from the foreign policy seat as a para-coup in favor of the
faces favoring the west against the idealists and others who
support Iran.

 An Indian newspaper, in an article, admitting the pressure of
America on the framework of Indian foreign policy writes:
"India's vote against the Iranian nuclear program was not a
sudden decision." Furthermore, the Urdu daily `Monsef',
published from Andhra Pradesh, in a report further said that
America "wants to keep India away from Iran."
 On July 18 this year, when the nuclear treaty discussions of
India and America was in progress, Washington clarified that if
India wants to have a nuclear reactor it must vote against
Iran's nuclear program.

 A joint working committee and international relations of
America had announced that New Delhi, 11 days before the voting
on the Iran nuclear issue, that is, on September 8, had
perceived that India would support America at the vote.

 Nicholas Burns, US assistant secretary of state, in a special
discussion on the nuclear treaty with India, had said the treaty
would not be signed along with other cases of Washington if
India supported Iran.

 On September 24, India supported the US position to refer the
record of Iran to the Security Council and on September 30 the
US president, in a telephonic contact with the Indian prime
minister, announced that their joint statement on nuclear
cooperation of July 18 would be reviewed.

 Indian diplomacy under the charge of Manmohan Singh, the prime
minister of India, has been challenged by political parties,
especially the Left front, because of its support for the idea
of referring Iran to the Security Council.

 An article on the Front Line magazine, in its latest issue,
wrote that the breaking of the bones of India as a result of
American pressure within and outside the country were highly
audible.

 Some experts of international relations, expressing their
opinion on the changing relations of India and America, say that
the September meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on Iran's
nuclear case has been dragged along opposite lines within India
by idealists and western-oriented people.

 According to them, western-oriented people with good
credentials are struggling with foreign help to change the
situation that perhaps would be a big gift in terms of US
charisma.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: India favors resolution of Iran nuclear issue within IAEA 

New Delhi, Nov 21, IRNA

India-Iran Vote-Left 

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, in its meeting 
with Left parties today, has agreed to support a proposal to 
settle the Iran nuclear issue within the framework of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 Briefing reporters after the UPA-Left Coordination Committee 
meeting held this noon and chaired by Indian Prime Minister Dr.

 Manmohan Singh, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said that views 
were exchanged on India's stand on the Iran nuclear issue, adding 
that the government of India's latest position is in favor of 
having the issue remain within the jurisdiction of the IAEA.

 He said that the Indian government is not in favor of having 
Iran's nuclear case referred to the United Nations Security 
Council as it believes it can be peacefully resolved through 
diplomatic efforts within the IAEA framework as well.

 Sitaram Yechuri, spokesman of the Left parties in the 
Coordination Committee meeting, also emphasized that India ought 
to support Iran's genuine and legal endeavor toward acquiring 
peaceful nuclear capability.

 He said Iran is an "old friend" of India and has stood by New 
Delhi on various occasions and, therefore, "deserves our support 
at this point of time." The Left parties in recent weeks had been 
arranging meetings and holding protest marches against India's 
vote in favor of the EU-3 resolution against Iran's nuclear 
program on September 24 at the meeting of the Board of Governors 
of the IAEA in Vienna.

 The Left parties have strongly demanded that the UPA government 
reverse its position in favor of Iran at the upcoming November 24 
scheduled meeting of the IAEA or face their ire.

*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: US signals headway with Russia, China on Iran

 Mon Nov 21, 6:46 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States reported progress in lining 
up support from reluctant countries such as China and Russia for 
a united front in the row over Iran's suspected nuclear arms 
program. 

Senior State Department official Nicholas Burns was upbeat after 
what he called "excellent discussions" Friday in London with 
representatives of China, Russia and India as well as US European 
allies negotiating with Iran.
 
"I was encouraged by those discussions on Friday because I think 
that there is a wider circle of countries now working all 
together to send one message to Iran," Burns told a news 
conference here.
 
Burns said the London group supported a solution to allow Iran to 
maintain a peaceful nuclear program but move sensitive uranium 
enrichment activities to another country such as Russia.
 
"What I heard in those conversations in London on Friday was 
agreement that those are the essential elements of some type of 
negotiation," said Burns, under secretary of state for political 
affairs.
 
China, Russia and, for a while, India have been cool to US moves 
to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions 
for its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is strictly 
civilian.
 
Burns' optimistic comments came amid reports the United States 
and its allies France, Germany and Britain were ready to delay 
referral of Iran to the UN Security Council to allow more time 
for negotiations.
 
The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency " /> 
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), the UN nuclear 
watchdog, was due to meet Thursday in Vienna to discuss Iran, but 
US officials said their focus was on resuming stalled talks with 
Tehran.
 
"We're trying to encourage Iran to get back to the negotiating 
table," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
 
"We're trying to work with the international community to give 
the Iranians every opportunity to avail themselves of the 
negotiating mechanism that is out there and to avail themselves 
of some potentially very interesting offers."
 
France, Germany and Britain, the EU-3, have been offering Tehran 
security and economic incentives in an unsuccessful effort to 
wean Iran off its suspected program to build a nuclear bomb.
 
But Washington and its allies have seen a new opening in Russia's 
attempt to broker a compromise that would move enrichment of 
Iran's uranium to its soil. "It's a period of great fluidity, 
diplomatically," Burns said.
 
The United States has long pushed for UN action and claimed 
victory at an IAEA board meeting in September that found the 
Islamic republic in breach of its international obligations on 
the use of nuclear power.
 
There has been little movement since but diplomats in Vienna said 
the Europeans and Americans were willing to put off a UN referral 
again to give Russia a chance to broker a compromise deal.
 
McCormack reaffirmed the US position that there were enough votes 
within the IAEA's 35-member board to go to the UN Security 
Council. But he added, "We will reserve the right to seek that 
action at the time of our choosing."
 
He would not predict the action to be taken at the IAEA meeting 
opening Thursday. "I think at this point we're going to wait to 
see how the diplomacy unfolds over the next several days," 
McCormack said.
 
Burns said the Americans would be in touch with their allies 
Tuesday after what he said was a meeting of European foreign 
ministers scheduled for Monday. There were no details available 
on that meeting.
 

*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: EU seeks diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue 

Nov 21, IRNA                                                                                                           

-- 
European Union Foreign Ministers discussed Monday a report
prepared by the EU-3 (France, Germany and the UK) on the latest
situation on Iran's nuclear program ahead of the meeting of the
IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna on Thursday.

 "We are all concerned about recent developments by which Iran
appears to be isolating itself by its own decisions," British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told a press conference in Brussels
Monday afternoon following a regular meeting of the EU Foreign
Ministers' Council.

 "The aim of the EU-3 initiative was to bring international
pressure on Iran to meet its obligations," he said adding that
decisions will be taken at the IAEA Board meeting.

 Replying to a question by IRNA on the letter sent recently by
the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali
Larijani to the EU-3 linked with the nuclear issues, Straw
replied: "The response will be given in due course. With due
respect, I am not going to announce the response at this press
conference."
 Meanwhile, EU diplomatic sources told IRNA that the EU Foreign
Ministers discussed a common position on Iran's nuclear program
in coordination with other international players like Russia,
China, South Africa, Brazil.

 "We agreed on a diplomatic solution. The IAEA has to take the
lead," said the sources speaking on condition of anonymity.

 "We understand the aspirations of Iran, but they have to abide
by the IAEA resolution," added the sources.

*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: EU Calls on Iran to Live Up to Obligations
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday November 21, 2005 11:01 AM
 	
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Union called on Iran Monday 
to live up to ``clear obligations'' made to the international 
community to allow international inspectors to see its nuclear 
facilities. 

Iranian lawmakers on Sunday approved a bill requiring the 
government to block inspections of atomic facilities if the 
agency refers Iran to the Security Council for possible 
sanctions. 

The session came four days before the International Atomic Energy 
Agency board considers referring Tehran to the Security Council 
for violating a nuclear arms control treaty. The council could 
impose sanctions. 

When the bill becomes law, as expected, it likely will strengthen 
the government's hand in resisting international pressure to 
permanently abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can 
produce fuel for either nuclear reactors or atomic bombs. 

The 25-nation EU said it hoped U.N. talks this week would make 
progress despite the Iranian parliament's threat to block 
inspections. 

``We will be considering what the Iranian parliament said,'' said 
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country holds the EU 
presidency. ``The government of Iran is a signatory to the 
nonproliferation treaty. It has got clear obligations. It was 
declared noncompliant with its obligations, because of its 
failure to meet various undertakings in the safeguards agreement. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said of Iranian vote: 
``This is not good news.'' 

Solana said he still hopes for progress in talks on Iran's 
nuclear program before key U.N. talks planned at the 
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Thursday. 

Solana said he hoped a showdown could be avoided with the help of 
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. 

The EU ministers intend to agree on a common position before 
Thursday's meeting at IAEA headquarters in Vienna. Britain, 
France and Germany, who have been negotiating with Iran on behalf 
of the EU, were expected to brief the other EU nations on talks 
they held Friday in London on the issue. 

The Iranian bill now will go to the Guardian Council, a hard-line 
constitutional watchdog, for ratification. The council is 
expected to approve the measure. 

``If Iran's nuclear file is referred or reported to the U.N. 
Security Council, the government will be required to cancel all 
voluntary measures it has taken and implement all scientific, 
research and executive programs to enable the rights of the 
nation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,'' lawmaker 
Kazem Jalali quoted the bill as saying. 

Canceling voluntary measures means Iran would stop allowing 
in-depth IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and would 
resume uranium enrichment. Iran has been allowing short-notice 
inspections of those facilities. 

Iran resumed uranium-reprocessing activities - a step before 
enrichment - at its Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in 
August. It has said it preferred a negotiated solution to begin 
uranium enrichment. 

The United States and Europe want Iran to permanently halt 
uranium enrichment. 

But Iran says the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows it to 
pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes, and it will never 
give up the right to enrich uranium. 

``Through this bill, we are declaring to Europe that referring 
Iran to the U.N. Security Council means Europeans are pushing the 
region toward a crisis,'' Jalali told the chamber before the 
vote. 

``If it happens, it will impose a heavy cost on the world, the 
region and European countries themselves.'' 

Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also oversees the 
nuclear program, said the vote sends a message that Iran will not 
give up its legitimate rights to develop a nuclear fuel cycle.   
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Won't Push for Move on Iran

From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Monday November 21, 2005 7:46 PM
 	
AP Photo VAH108 
By GEORGE JAHN 
Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Washington and its European allies will
forgo pushing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council
later this week, giving Russia more time in persuading Tehran to
give up technology that could make nuclear arms, diplomats and
officials told The Associated Press on Monday. 

For the Americans and the European Union, the plan holds the
promise of success even if Iran continues to reject the proposal
that would move its uranium enrichment program to Russia. 

The acceptance of that plan, in theory, would deprive the
Iranians of the chance to enrich uranium to weapons grade,
suitable for use in the core of nuclear warheads. 

But if the Russians fail to win over the Iranians, Washington
and the Europeans hope Moscow and other key board members of the
International Atomic Energy Agency now opposed to Security
Council referral will moderate their opposition. 

The comments by the diplomats and U.S. and European government
officials came three days before the IAEA board meets to ponder
options on Iran that at least formally still included a decision
on Security Council action. 

But the diplomats and officials, who spoke on condition of
anonymity because the strategy on Iran is confidential, said
referral was now off the table at the meeting. 

Instead, they said Washington as well as Britain, France and
Germany - representing the European Union - would probably
settle for a statement critical of recent IAEA findings showing
the Iranians in possession of what appeared to be drawings of
the core of an atomic warhead and of other worrying nuclear
activities. 

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also
suggested the focus had shifted from an all-out push for
referral, saying: ``We're encouraging Iran to get back to the
negotiating table with the EU-3 at this point.'' 

Iran says it only wants to enrich to lower levels to generate
energy. Still, it has resisted the plan to move enrichment to
Russia since it was floated several weeks ago, insisting it has
the right to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Iran in August resumed uranium reprocessing, which is one step
before uranium enrichment. 

European Union foreign ministers urged Iran on Monday to live up
to ``clear obligations'' to allow U.N. inspectors to see its
nuclear facilities. On Sunday, Iran's parliament voted to
require the government to block any in-depth U.N. inspections of
its nuclear facilities if Iran is referred to the Security
Council. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hoped to avoid a
showdown with Tehran. ``We still have time to continue work.'' 
The EU ministers were working on a common position before
Thursday's meeting at the IAEA headquarters. 

Russia, Iran's key partner in building Tehran's first nuclear
power plant, has considerable clout with Tehran, but the
officials and diplomats said other considerations also went into
the decision to postpone a showdown on referral at the board
meeting opening Thursday. 

Belarus, Cuba and Syria joined Venezuela on the IAEA board in
September. With those anti-U.S. nations on board, any vote on
referral would be more strongly opposed than the resolution
passed at the last board meeting two months ago that cleared the
path for hauling Iran before the council by declaring its past
activities in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

A vote with less nations in support of referral than in
September ``would look like a step backward,'' the U.S. official
said. 

With President Bush under growing criticism from the war in
Iraq, his administration was ready to wait and build
international consensus over what to do about Iran rather than
settle for the negative implication of a narrow board vote on
referral, he suggested. 

A European diplomat in Brussels also suggested the U.S.-European
coalition was willing to wait to see the Russian plan succeed -
or if it failed, to hope for extra support for referral from key
board nations such as Russia, China, India, Brazil and South
Africa and others that now oppose such a move. 

``They're trying to build a wider coalition,'' she said of the
waiting game. 

Moscow's support is particularly important. It and China wield
vetoes on the Security Council, and as such could cripple any
attempt to pressure Iran to compromise on its nuclear activities
through sanctions or political pressure. 

Before the board meeting, the Americans have begun to draft a
resolution setting a timetable for Iran to accept the plan
involving enrichment on Russian soil and related issues - and
threatening with Security Council referral unless those
conditions were met, the diplomats and officials said. 

Still, that document was unlikely to see the light of day, they
said, with the meeting likely agreeing on a statement
criticizing Iran on a broad range of suspect nuclear issues. 
--- 

Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard contributed to this
report from Brussels. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 12 Bizjournals: House OKs nuclear wharf at Mayport - 

2005-11-21
 
The Business Journal of Jacksonville

A Congressional conference committee report on the 2006 Military 
Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill includes 
$500,000 to plan and design a nuclear aircraft carrier wharf at 
Naval Station Mayport. The funding is among $80 million earmarked 
for projects in Northeast Florida. 

The compromise bill, approved by the House Nov. 18, also
includes $4.4 million for Mayport's Consolidated Maintenance
Facility. U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw said the size of the
facility, though not nuclear-specific, is designed to
accommodate maintenance on a variety of Navy ships, including
nuclear carriers. 

"This affirms my position that the future of Mayport is a
nuclear future," said Crenshaw, a Republican member of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for writing the
legislation. "There is still a lot of work to be done in terms
of seeing Mayport become fully nuclear-capable. The first step
has been cleared." 

Other projects funded include: 

• $45 million for helicopter hangar replacement at Naval Air
Station Jacksonville. 

• $20 million for a regional training institute complex at Army
National Guard-Camp Blanding. 

• $7.8 million for bachelor enlisted quarters at Mayport. 

• $2.9 million to expand the flight trainer at Mayport. 

• $41 million for land acquisition for six new national veterans
cemeteries, including one in Jacksonville. 

The bill also includes more than $1.2 billion in emergency
funding for veterans health care. The Department of Veterans
Affairs in June announced a billion-dollar-plus shortfall in
veterans healthcare due to a problem in the department's funding
projection formula. 
			 			 			 			 

© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines 
			 	 
*****************************************************************
 13 Helsingin Sanomat: Government sets energy and climate policy goals 

International Edition - Business &Finance
 	 	 	 
Tuesday 22.11.2005 	 	   

Energy tax for industry to be cut in half in 2008 to compensate 
for emissions trade 
	
Political party groups in the Finnish government reached
agreement on Friday over a report to Parliament on energy and
climate issues.

      Minister of Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen (Centre)
said that he was pleased that political consensus had been
reached.

      The focus of the report is on the years 2008-2012, the
period in which the measures required by the Kyoto Climate
Treaty are to be implemented.

      "The implementation of these obligations is a big national
task", Pekkarinen emphasised.

      The Ministry of Finance did not put forward any extra
funding for the energy projects of the near future, which are to
be implemented within the agreed-upon budget framework.

      Minister of Finance Eero HeinÃ¤luoma (SDP) praised what he
saw as the "constructive" way that Pekkarinen was promoting the
report.
      
Helsingin Sanomat has learned that the government plans to put
forward its third supplementary budget in the coming week. The
money is to be used for the purchase of emission rights under
the terms of the Kyoto treaty.

      The government is to consider buying carbon dioxide
emission rights worth up to about EUR 30 million. Everything
depends on whether or not appropriate emission shares can be
found for purchase.

      The unexpectedly high tax revenues this year give the
government more leeway than before in buying emission rights
from countries emitting fewer greenhouse gases. The government
would like to buy emission rights from a Third World country,
for instance, which could be used for improving that countrys
energy infrastructure.
      
Key aspects of the energy report include improving efficiency in
energy consumption and the utilisation of renewable sources and
biological fuels.

      The report takes no stand on the construction of more
nuclear power, because building a sixth reactor would not come
up during the first Kyoto period in any case. However, the
government emphasises that "no form of production with few
emissions, or whose emissions are harmless and which is cost
effective" would be ruled out in the near future.

      The use of renewable forms of energy is to be increased by
2012 by 25 percent. The use of felling waste is to nearly triple
by 2012.

      Pekkarinen does not see any possibilities to increase the
use of hydroelectric power.
      
The electricity tax for industry is to be cut in half as of
2008. The aim is to offset the monetary losses incurred by trade
in emissions. The move will reduce state revenue by about EUR
100 million a year.

      About EUR 60 million a year is to be provided for energy
technology projects.
      
The government remained divided over a proposal by Pekkarinen
for measures to help homeowners replace oil heating equipment
with a heating system using wood pellets. A working group of the
Ministry of Trade and Industry is continuing to study the matter
through late January.

      Later the government is to decide whether or not money
will be provided for such replacements, and whether or not it
should take the form of direct subsidies or tax deductions.
      
Also unresolved was the issue of the taxation of windfall
profits resulting from emissions trade. While the political will
is there to tax unearned profits of industry, the matter may be
legally difficult to implement. The issue is currently under
consideration.

      Pekkarinen said on Friday that there are no guarantees
that a solution can be found for the windfall profits issue. He
pointed out that the possibility of taxing windfall profits has
been taken up in Sweden, Germany, and The Netherlands. 

    21.11.2005 -

*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Bush has little to show for Asia trip -

 Mon Nov 21, 3:00 PM ET 
		 	 
ULAN BATOR, Mongolia (AFP) - US President George W. Bush wrapped 
up a week-long trip to Asia, where he trumpeted shows of unity on 
Iran and North Korea and made little concrete progress on trade 
disputes. [

Even before Bush left Washington, White House national security 
adviser Stephen Hadley had made no secret that the president's 
trip to Japan, South Korea, China and Mongolia would yield few 
tangible benefits.

 
By the time the visit wrapped up, with Bush becoming the first
sitting US president to visit this former land of Genghis Khan,
US officials were playing up dialogue, pledges to keep talking,
and declarations of common purpose.
 
"North Korea must abandon (its) nuclear weapons programs," Bush
said in Beijing. "The fact that China and the United States can
work on this issue as equal partners is important for the
stability of this region and the world."
 
On Iran, which denies US charges that it is developing nuclear
weapons, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
" /> said that the United States, China, Russia and the European
Union
" /> were "all in the same place right now."
 
Despite a Washington axiom that politics stops at the water's
edge, Bush never fully escaped from a festering bitterness over
the war in Iraq
" /> even as he toured storied Buddhist temples thousands of
kilometers (miles) away.
 
"This is a debate worthy of our country; it's an important
debate," he said in Beijing. "Leaving prematurely will have
terrible consequences ... And that's not going to happen so long
as I'm the president."
 
Bush came home with at least one US victory: A
four-billion-dollar deal Chinese deal with Boeing to buy 70 737
aircraft between 2006 and 2008 as part of a broader arrangement
to eventually supply 150 737s.
 
But he also suffered one diplomatic embarrassment, when South
Korean officials unveiled plans to cut its troop level in Iraq
by one third -- one day after Bush praised the deployment after
talks with President Roh Moo-Hyun
" /> .
 
And Chinese President Hu Jintao
" /> rebuffed his appeals for wider religious and political
freedom for China's 1.3 billion people while offering only
flexibility, not concessions, in a series of trade disputes.
 
Bush said he had sought clemency for political dissidents who
"we believe are improperly imprisoned" and urged Beijing to
reach out to the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader,
and the Catholic Church.
 
Rice said Washington was protesting "quite vociferously" to
Beijing after Chinese authorities took forceful steps to keep
dissidents and activists out of sight during the US president's
visit.
 
US officials said they were pleased that Hu had taken a more
aggressive tone -- in private -- about rampant counterfeiting of
US goods, but said much more work remained on currency issues
and China's yawning trade surplus.
 
Bush, who sought out US allies' take on Beijing's rising
political, economic, and military clout, heard generally
reassuring assessments, senior White House aides told reporters.
 
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said worries about
China hollowing out Japan's economy had not borne out. Roh said
Beijing was playing a key role in the six-country talks with
North Korea.
 
Still, Rice said in Beijing that "one has to be concerned" about
China's military buildup because "there's a question of intent"
but that Washington was confident of keeping the region in
balance.
 
Hu and Bush said they would continue their discussions in the
United States in early 2006.
 
On another front, the US president brought back renewed pledges
from Asian countries at an Asia-Pacific summit in Busan, South
Korea, to step up cooperation in the face of deadly bird flu.
 	 		 			
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 Asian Tribune: "Nuclear contamination threat in Pakistan's Northern Areas" 

Date : 22/11/2005 , Tue     

A Newspaper Published by World Institute for Asian Studies.     
Vol. 5 No. 211      

By M Rama Rao – Reporting from New Delhi

New Delhi, 22 November, (Asiantribune.com):

 Pakistani nuclear facilities and storage sites at Skardu,
Chitral and Doran in the backward Northern Areas were damaged in
the recent earth quake and pose a threat of nuclear
contamination to the locals, reports here say. 

There is no word on the subject from Islamabad, even a month
after the October 8 quake left a huge trail of destruction in
PoK, Northern Areas and NWFP. The damage to nuclear facilities
and storage sites is put at anywhere between 15 and 20 per cent.
Western sources have confirmed that missile silos had developed
cracks and storage facilities had taken a hit. 

Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said on Monday that all
nuclear installations were safe. He did not elaborate. 

Pakistan's silence is in contrast to the media focus and
government's response on reports of damage to the Kalpakkam
nuclear plant near Chennai, immediately after the Tamilnadu
coast was hit by Tsunami in 2004. Transparency was the buzz word
even though the core of the reactor was untouched and thus there
was no cause for any concern. 

News Black Out

 For reasons unclear, Pak authorities have virtually clamped a
'blackout' on Northern Areas for close to a month and when they
allowed international agencies for relief work, they kept them
out of Skardu, Chitral, Doran and other 'sensitive' areas. One
report, unconfirmed though, said a curfew has been imposed and
the locals are being actively prevented by the authorities to
leave the 'contaminated' area. 

Experts point out that the October 8 earthquake's epicentre was
in POK and Northern Areas, this belt will be seismically active
for another two years and may record several aftershocks. And
these will heighten the danger of collapse of the already
'weakened' nuclear missile silos and other facilities. 

Northern Areas are under the direct rule of Islamabad unlike
'Azad Kashmir' which has a local government. It was a part of
the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. For some
years, Northern Areas has been witnessing an agitation for
independence. 

IAEA Disclosure 

To the acute discomfiture of Pak President Musharraf,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has come up with
document to show that AQ Khan Network provided detailed
instructions to Iran on setting up uranium enrichment process. 

A report of IAEA Director General states that the agency has
been able to interview individuals involved in procurement in
nuclear field who have not been previously made available. It
also refers to additional documents being made available to the
agency in a variety of areas. The report on 'Implementation of
the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran'
has been presented to IAEA Board of Governors. It is said to
shed greater light on clandestine activities of 'foreign
intermediaries', particularly the Pakistan-based AQ Khan
network. 

-Asian Tribune-   

*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Meacher condemns pro-nuclear 'spin'
 
Matthew Tempest

Monday November 21, 2005                
 		
The former environment minister Michael Meacher today accused 
Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser of being a spin doctor for 
the nuclear industry amid reports that the prime minister plans 
to sanction a new generation of nuclear reactors.

According to today's Times, Mr Blair is preparing to approve an 
expansion after Sir David King advised that this would be the 
best way safeguarding energy supplies while cutting carbon 
emissions.

Downing Street this morning said only that the government needed 
to "look at all the options". Article continues for nuclear power 
was contributing to the government's failure to meet its targets 
on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and that faced with the 
reality of global warming, "the equation is simple".

Today Mr Meacher, a champion of renewable energy, said: "I fear
that David King has really taken on the role of spin doctor by
suggesting that there is no other way by which we can meet our
carbon reduction target under the Kyoto protocol."

"That is completely untrue: it certainly can be met if we go
down the renewables route."

A move to commission a new generation of nuclear reactors as
Britain's existing ones are decommissioned would put Mr Blair on
a collision course with most environmentalists and many Labour
party members.

However, the CBI today called for a decision on nuclear energy
to be taken as a matter of urgency.

Having first promised a decision on new stations by the end of
this parliament, then by the end of next year, Mr Blair is now
expected to set up a government review within the next two weeks
and ask it to reach conclusions by the early summer.

Mr Meacher told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme the
review must be balanced, independent, impartial and credible.

He said nuclear power was hugely expensive and he pointed to
"unresolved" problems over waste. "We need nuclear like a hole
in the head," he warned. "The fact is, the 21st century, in the
end, is going to be powered by solar."

This morning Mr Blair's office said: "The prime minister's view
is that we need to look at all the options, and everybody knows
that is what we are going to do. "The important thing is we look
at this both in terms of the energy security of this country and
in terms of climate change."

Anne Moffat, a Labour backbencher, urged the PM to grasp the
nettle. She said nuclear power was not the "awful option" it had
once been seen as, and had been proved to be safe.

"If we don't make some decisions, and some tough decisions, then
we are going to have an energy crisis," she told the BBC.
But the environmental group Friends of the Earth branded nuclear
power "unnecessary, unsafe and uneconomic".

Its director, Tony Juniper, said: "The government must invest in
cleaner and safer alternatives to nuclear power, not waste yet
more money on nuclear white elephants.

"Ministers should champion renewable energy and energy
efficiency as the means to achieve a low-carbon economy while at
the same time creating jobs and export opportunities."

But Helen Vassie, the GMB union's national officer for the
nuclear industry, said: "GMB welcomes moves to commission a new
generation of nuclear power stations if this is done on existing
sites.

"This will improve the UK's security of energy supply and
preserve our nuclear technology industry. It should also
maintain existing jobs and, in the longer term, create new ones.

"However, GMB believes it is vital that expenditure on the new
nuclear programme is not at the expense of investment in other
equally important energy sources. The current level of
investment in renewables and biofuels must be maintained."

If new stations are built, this is likely to happen on existing
sites in order to reduce public opposition and hasten the
planning process.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 17 BBC: PM 'convinced' on nuclear future
 
Last Updated: Monday, 21 November 2005
 
[Dounreay nuclear power plant]                                  

The debate over nuclear fuel has gone on for too long, the CBI 
says                                                             

Tony Blair is believed to be convinced over the need for nuclear 
power to tackle the UK energy crisis. 

The government is to announce a review of energy policy, 
including nuclear power, after being urged by business leaders to 
tackle the UK energy crisis. 

Concerns have been growing over future power supplies and rising 
gas costs. 

The BBC's Nick Robinson said despite the prime minister's 
support, no decision has yet been made on Britain's nuclear 
future. 

Tony Blair's spokesman said: "The prime minister's view is that 
we need to look at all the options and everybody knows that is 
what we are going to do." 

He said it was important to look at it in terms of the UK's 
energy security and also "in terms of climate change". 


Government Chief Scientist Sir David King told the BBC that a 
"fresh look" was needed at the situation but denied that any firm 
decisions had been made ahead of the review. 

"My advice has been clear for some time, but I don't believe that 
decisions have been made, " he said. 

Earlier he had urged the government to "give the green light" to 
more power stations. 

Business pressure 

The CBI, the business lobby organisation, says energy 
requirements are now top of the business agenda as fuel costs 
rise and worries grow over gas supplies this winter. 

Mr Blair is expected to use the CBI annual conference next week 
to announce the energy review and signal the government's change 
of direction. 

BBC political editor Nick Robinson says that the Prime Minister 
has been convinced that building more nuclear power stations is 
the only way to meet the country's energy needs and stick to the 
targets on climate change. 

Cost study 

The CBI has stressed a firm decision on a new generation of 
nuclear stations must be made urgently. 

It said one-third of the UK's generating capacity would have to 
be replaced by 2020 and called on the government to commission a 
study into the cost of nuclear energy compared with alternative 
sources of power. 

This government is going have to hold a proper constructive 
debate on nuclear power              [ src=] Sir Digby Jones, CBI    

"A decision on the future of nuclear power has been allowed to 
drift too long," said the CBI's director general Sir Digby Jones. 

"Potential investors and the British public both deserve 
certainty." 

He told BBC Radio Five Live: "It is high time this nation had an 
integrated coherent energy policy." 

And he warned that high-use large industrial outfits would have 
to "throw the switch" if the price of gas continued to rise. 

"This government is going to have to hold a proper constructive 
debate on nuclear power. We want them to have a public debate and 
stop prevaricating." 

Gas supplies 

The call comes as the price of wholesale gas has almost doubled 
during the past week, prompting fears about winter supplies to 
industry in the UK. 

Experts believe tight supplies have triggered the rise. 

UK supplies are low as a pipeline from Europe is running at half 
capacity and shiploads of gas are being diverted to Spain and the 
US where prices are high. 

We have got a tight equati between supply and demand of gas 
Malcolm Wicks, Energy Minister          

UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks said the government was looking 
into why the gas interconnector was not working properly, but 
said it was operated by private companies and "is not something 
the government switches on and off". 

He admitted that the rundown in North Sea supplies and the delay 
in getting new pipelines from Norway up and running meant that 
some sectors of UK industry may experience a difficult winter or 
two. 

"We have got a tight equation between supply and demand of gas," 
he said. 

'Clear steer' 

Former Labour energy minister, Brian Wilson, told the Midday News 
on Radio Five Live he hoped the government would "give a clear 
steer in favour of nuclear power stations". 

He added: "Both in order to meet our environmental 
responsibilities but also to maintain security of supply and 
avoid this gross over-dependence on gas." 

But former environment secretary Michael Meacher said that while 
the government had "to act quickly... I think we need nuclear 
like a hole in the head".                                                        



*****************************************************************
 18 Metro Pulse: Are New Nukes Good Nukes? TVA's region is about to find out - 

metropulse.com   

 by Barry Henderson 

Nuclear electric-power generation, which supplies about 20
percent of the nations electricity, has remained essentially
dormant for decades as an option for addressing growing demand
for new power supplies. 

It is now being rejuvenated with federal assistance, and the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the nations largest public utility,
is looking to be a contributing part of that resurgence. 

Once a leading proponent of nuclear energy among the
nationsindeed the worldselectric utilities, TVA is embarking on
a course that could bring the nuclear alternative back into the
forefront of options for new, large-scale power-generation
facilities. Under the impetus of a utility consortiums selection
process, its unfinished Bellefonte plant site near Scottsboro,
Ala., is under consideration for a fresh licensing application
and a total redesign. 

And while environmentalists and their organizations have been
traditionally opposed to nuclear energy, the air pollution from
coal-fired power plants and the threat it poses to public health
and to the planet itself in the form of global warming has
caused a rift among greens as to the advisability of pursuing
new nuclear-electric plants. Regardless of the opposition, and
on top of its own attempts to improve the effluents of its
smokestacks, TVA is going ahead with its own nuclear agenda. 

The Knoxville-based utility, which generates up to 30 percent of
the electricity for its seven-state region at its three existing
nuclear plants and about 60 percent at its 11 coal-fired plants,
had gone through a painful reduction in its ambitious nuclear
program in the 1980s. Saddled by what was then more than $30
billion in debt and demoralized by the length and costs of
licensing and construction, the utility quit thinking in terms
of new nuclear plants and mothballedseveral that were under
construction. 

Its debt reduced by more than $5 billion and demand for power
increasing, TVA crept into the nuclear rehabilitation picture in
May of 2002 when its leadership decided to reactivate Unit I at
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in North Alabama. Idled since 1985 by
safety concerns, the first TVA reactor, dating from the 1960s,
has been undergoing $1.8 billion in modifications, including
enlarged capacity, since then and could go back on line in 2007.

It will be the first nuclear unit to start up in this country in
the 21st century, just as Watts Bar Unit I [near Spring City,
Tenn.] was the last unit to go on line in the 2Oth century, says
Bill Baxter, chairman of the TVA board of directors. He looks
forward to more nuclear generation, including the Bellefonte
possibility and the idea that Watts Bar Unit II could be put
into service, possibly by 2010. 

The return to the nuclear option is being fueled by two federal
government decisions. 

First, in 1994, the year Watts Bar Unit I began generating
power, the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission agreed to combine and streamline the licensing
process, putting construction and operating permits together
under a single application for the first time. That alone did
not stimulate new applications from the utility industry, still
stymied by cost and risk factors and by undeveloped rules and
regulations. 

As the DOE added to that incentive with its Nuclear Power 2010 
program, in which the federal government would share 50-50 in the 
development costs of detailed advancements in nuclear engineering 
designs, such energy engineering giants as General Electric and 
Westinghouse renewed their efforts to produce better, more 
efficient and safer nuclear reactors. 

So, in November of 2003, a consortium of electric utilities 
formed under the name NuStart. It now includes Constellation 
Energy of Baltimore, Duke Energy of Charlotte, EDF International 
North America, which is a D.C.-based French subsidiary, Entergy 
Nuclear of Jackson, Miss., Exelon Generation of Philadelphia, 
Florida Power & Light, Westinghouse Electric of Pittsburgh, 
Progress Energy of Raleigh, Southern Co. and GE Energy of 
Atlanta, along with TVA. 

  Bill Baxter, TVA chairmanBrowns Ferry Unit Iwill pay for
itself in 84 months, then will help to pay down debt   


Marilyn Kray, the Entergy official who is president of the
NuStart consortium, says the group recognized that additional
baseload power was required from the nuclear industry. We put GE
and Westinghouse on notice that engineering for advanced
technology would be needed, she says, and the group began
looking for the best possible sites for new nuclear plants. 

The search was narrowed to six sites, mostly in the southeastern
United States, and NuStart picked two, including Bellefonte and
Entergys Grand Gulf nuclear plant site in Mississippi, as the
two to pursue. 

Bellefonte was selected, in TVAs estimation, because of its
geographic location within transmission reach of most major
power markets in the eastern United States and its existing
infrastructure, including river intakes, cooling towers and an
electric switchyard. Also important considerations were
community support from the Scottsboro area and the state of
Alabama, and the potential for partnerships, with TVA being open
to partnering with other nuclear operating companies or possibly
some of its own 168 power distributors. Baxter says the new
plant itself, which would be built adjacent to the incomplete
and obsolete reactor building, could cost somewhere between $1.5
and $2.5 billion to construct, but the electricity it produces
will be cheap in terms of fuel and plant operation. 

Meanwhile, Congress added to the incentive pot. Most recently,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows for more than $13 billion
worth of grants, subsidies, loan guarantees and tax breaks to
the nuclear industry to help it pay for research and
development, construction, operating and decommissioning,
shut-down and clean-up costs. Risk insurance to cover any delays
in licensing and construction of the first few new reactors is
also included.Opponents of nuclear power and any expansion of
its uses are disturbed by the federal incentives and their costs
to taxpayers, as well as the risks associated with nuclear
energy and its role in the potential proliferation of nuclear
weaponry. 

Brendan Hoffman, campaign organizer for PublicCitizen, a
35-year-old, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization with
about 150,000 members nationwide, says there are dozens of
reasons to shrink away from the nuclear option, but foremost is
cost. 

Its the most expensive and most convoluted way to boil water,
Hoffman says of the nuclear process. He says no new nuclear
plants would be built in the United States without major
subsidy. The only way is if the government pays them to do it. 

They (in the nuclear industry) like to tell you the operating
costs are low, and they are, Hoffman says, but the construction
costs are too high to make those plants economically feasible. 

Hoffman says his organization is among 313 groups in all 50
states that signed onto a petition this past June that terms
nuclear power the least attractive, least economic and least
safe avenue to pursue. 

Likewise, Stephen Smith, executive director of the
Knoxville-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, opposes new
nuclear investment, preferring that the money be spent on
research into cleaning up coal-burning for power production or
other power sources, including renewables, such as wind and
solar power. 

Smith says he realizes that the renewables would not currently
meet a significant percentage of power demand, but he believes
coal could if its gasification technology were perfected and
applied to future power-plant construction. 

And theyre not even thinking about efficiency, Smith says,
citing such energy economies as using fluorescent, rather than
incandescent lighting in homes as well as commercial and
industrial buildings. He says government or utility incentives
toward energy conservation could make a huge dent in power
demand, but those options are hardly being explored. 

Smith does concede that, in the short run, the utilities are
bound by demand to stay with a mix of power-producing options
that includes existing, aging, coal-fired power plants and
nuclear generating facilities. 

  Skila Harris, TVA directorIn the utility business you have to
be looking out there, a few years ahead   


Skila Harris, the other director, along with Baxter, remaining
from the three-member board thats to be expanded to nine
part-time directors within the next several months, says that
mix is essential. A supporter of nuclear expansion if it proves
feasible, Harris says, We need to make sure we continue that
diversification. If you are too dependent on one fuel or
technology, it makes you more vulnerable. 

Harris, who formerly worked with the national synthetic fuels
(Synfuels Corp.) effort, says nothing would make her happier
than to see an emerging technology such as coal gasification
become economically viable. We looked at the possibility of an
integrated coal gasification plant for Bellefonte, she says, but
the numbers didnt work, and the Texaco, Inc., technology on
which it was based has been bought by GE for further
development. 

GE has an attitude that theres going to be a breakthrough
somewhere, and they want to be there, Harris says. She says that
as a country weve been distracted by current needs and we tend
to lose track of long-term goals. 

In the utility business you have to be looking out there a few
years ahead, Harris says, and Baxter concurs. Of gasification
technology, Baxter says, Were keeping a very close eye on that,
and he suggests that TVAs next coal-burning plant, if there is
ever to be one, could well take advantage of developing
gasification techniques. 

Baxter says the utility has to turn toward nuclear power.
Hydroelectric power, TVAs original underpinning, is not
expandable at its current level, producing up to 20 percent of
the valleys electricity demand. Wind power is now good for only
a tiny fraction of the TVA load, and solar has a very limited
application. What are your realistic options todayand for our
lifetimes? Baxter asks. Solar and hydrogen are not economic
alternatives today, leaving nuclear generation as the prime
candidate, despite TVAs heralded attempts to clean up its
coal-plant emissions at a claimed expense of $1 million per day. 

Baxter and company have gained some unlikely supporters. 

Patrick Moore, a founder of the ultra-environmentalist
Greenpeace movement and now the head of an organization called
Greenspirit Strategies, asks his own question: What does
environmental extremism have to do with nuclear energy? And he,
too, provides his own answer: There is now a great deal of
scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an
environmentally sound and safe choice. 

I believe the majority of environmental activists, including
those at Greenpeace, have now become so blinded by their
extremist policies that they fail to consider the enormous and
obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure
Americas growing energy needs. Moore says in a statement
delivered to the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and
Resources last April. 

Moore, who is accused by some activists of selling out to the
industry, is joined by James Lovelock, a revered British
environmentalist and scientist who has come to call nuclear
power the one safe, available energy source. 

The Times of London said of his 2004 reversal of position on
nuclear power, in which he called the Greens misguided, that, to
Lovelocks legions of admirers, it was as if the Pope had changed
his mind on abortion. 

In Lovelocks words, Opposition to nuclear energy is based on
irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green
lobbies and the media. Those fears are unjustifiednuclear energy
from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy
sources. 

By all means, Lovelock says in a position paper published last
year, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly. But
only one immediately available source does not cause global
warming, and that is nuclear energy. 

Those sentiments from former nuclear opponents are music to the
ears of such advocates as Sherrell Greene, director of nuclear
technology at Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory. Greenes view is that
if we are to reduce greenhouse gases in significant quantities,
there is, as Lovelock says, no sensible alternative to nuclear
energy. 

In fact, Greene says, I look at the alternatives and there arent
any. 

Greenhouse gases include the carbon dioxide released in vast
quantities in the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or
natural gas to produce electricity.  Also included is the CO2
from fuels burned to propel motor vehicles or produce heat for
homes and industries, among other things. That CO2 is the
principal culprit in the theory that global warming, a threat to
global ecosystems, is a manmade phenomenon. As that theory is
ever more widely accepted by scientists and industrialists and
laymen, ways other than burning fossil fuels are being explored
in attempts to ameliorate the effect. In Greenes estimation,
global warming has made nuclear energy the only reliable,
environmentally sustainable and economical choice left to power
producers, and he deems it acceptable, from a [nuclear]
proliferation standpoint. 

Citing facts, figures and legitimate fears of both proliferation
and the thousands of years of potential hazards from storing
high-level nuclear wastes which emit ionizing radiation for
almost unimaginably lengthy half-lives, the nuclear detractors
remain firm. 

The fear level has increased since Sept. 11, 2001, when the
specter of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant  was
raised and many thousands of deaths could be projected as a
result. Though no nuclear plant accidents have resulted in
deaths in this country, a frightening fire beneath a Browns
Ferry control room in 1975 disabled the emergency cooling system
and caused an immediate, successful shutdown. And the 1979
partial core meltdown at Three-Mile Island, Pa., released
radioactive gases into the air but was contained and caused no
deaths or serious injuries. The Chernobyl reactor meltdown
disaster in the Ukraine in 1986 killed between 45 and 56
persons, depending on the source, but may have  lingering health
effects that are as yet undocumented. 

TVA and the power industry in general consider the technology
much safer today than when those accidents occurred, but
opponents decry what they perceive as lax security surrounding
nuclear plants and the handling of the byproducts of reactor
fission. 

The Public Citizen-endorsed petition/statement refers to nuclear
power as unnecessary, too expensive, too dangerous, and the use
of which to address global warming would exacerbate the problems
by diverting resources from development of technologies needed
to truly mitigate the warming effect. 

The statement contends that CO2 emissions caused by electricity
generation could be nearly halved by 2025, when most of a new
generation of nuclear plants could be on line, by instead
addressing renewables, curbing auto emissions, and stimulating
conservation measures and efficiency in electrical appliances
nationwide. 

Worldwide, the statement says, it would require 1,000 new
reactors at a cost of trillions of dollars, to impact global
warming significantly, and the production of weapons-grade
plutonium in such a scenario would make security from weapons
proliferation nearly impossible. 

    
  SmithNuclear power plants are as vulnerable to Murphys Law as
anything else designed, built and managed by humans   

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Smith, who has served as
a TVA watchdog and whose organization has branched out across
the South, says the sheer expense of such a commitment in dollar
terms is a pipedream, and that proliferation remains a
nightmare. 

In this country, Smith says, the opposition to additional
nuclear plants has been damped by the streamlined licensing
procedure, leaving detractors less opportunity to oppose new
plants on either general or specific (as in location) terms. 

He says that, since no one has applied under the new procedure
and the rules seem unclear both to the NRC and the utilities, he
is uncertain how the permit process will play out, but hes
skeptical whether public input will be taken into account. 

Smith views the whole notion of federally sponsored nuclear
expansion as a shame on the nation that poses a security risk
all across the globe. 

Strong arguments on both sides of the nuclear issue may leave an
uncomfortable cloud in the minds of many Americans, but those
whove endorsed the Bellefonte project in Jackson County, Ala.,
are effusive in their praise of the idea. Goodrich Rogers,
president of that countys Economic Development Authority, says
the area has been supportive of nuclear power since the 1970s
and there is hope there that a plant will be built and operated
there this time. 

TVA is writing down the $4.6 billion it has invested in
Bellefonte, which was mothballed in 1988, but hopes to recoup
part of its investment by donating the property to the
consortium as its in-kind contribution to up-front costs, if the
consortium is successful. 

Operation of the plant, if it is built on that site, might be
the responsibility of TVA or some other utility, depending on
what contracts are worked out. 

Jack Bailey, TVAs vice president for nuclear assets and
strategic projects, is the TVA representative on the NuStart
consortiums board. He says NuStart is expected to develop the
license, get final design engineering completed, then transfer
the license to TVA or some as-yet-undetermined partnership that
could include other utilities, private financial interests, or,
possibly, TVA power distributors. Any contracts that derive from
those partnerships will determine who gets what shares of
electricity produced at the plant. 

There is also the possibility, Bailey says, that if someone
other than TVA or a TVA partnership ends up owning and operating
the Bellefonte plant, they could sell power to TVA or ship it
out of the TVA region. All of those options should be resolved,
Bailey says, in the next couple of years. 

The government incentive package that was advanced by the Bush
administration and put in place by Congress after four years of
wrangling over it, Bailey says, has been put in place to
minimize the risk and let the market solve the problems. 

The proposal on the table, he says, is for a two-unit plant
using Westinghouse AP 1,000 pressurized-water reactors. They
would have passive, gravity-fed, rather than active, pump-driven
and redundant emergency cool-down systems, which would reduce
cost. 

  Brendan Hoffman, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen

There are all kinds of reasons not to do nuclear, but cost is the 
only thing they [the utility industry] thinks about   

Each unit would produce about 1,130 megawatts of electricity
when fully operational. By comparison, TVAs three operating
nuclear plants produce a total of about 5,700 megawatts of
power. The existing TVA reactors at Browns Ferry, Watts Bar and
the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant at Soddy-Daisy near Chattanooga have
the redundant, fail-safe pumped-water system for emergency
cool-down conditions. 

The pressurized-water reactor style has been prevalent in this
country, where a total of 64 nuclear plants are in operation,
while other sorts of reactors have been tested and used
successfully in Japan, Europe, and elsewhere. 

China has an aggressive nuclear energy program, hoping to meet
its wildly expanding energy needs. Other nations, mindful of
Chinas coal reserves and worried that the mostly low-grade,
dirty coal there would be burned without full consideration of
its environmental impact, are not officially or unofficially
opposing nuclear plant construction in China, or in India for
that matter. Those billion-plus populations and their rising
economic expectations and their maturing nuclear energy programs
make nuclear power look good there to the environmentalists
whose heads have turned toward nuclear, ORNLs Greene says. 

So, TVA and the NuStart consortium are hardly the only electric
power interests in the world aiming toward new nuclear power
plants. 

Even within the consortium, but separate from the reactor
program TVA is participating in, Duke Power and Progress Energy,
two North Carolina companies, say they are preparing a site
application for a new reactor. And Constellation Energy, another
NuStart member, says it has plans to work with AREVA, a French
reactor manufacturer, on a possible future reactor to be located
on U.S. soil. 

Close to home, the Watts Bar Plants Unit II has TVAs attention
because it already has a construction permit that could be
updated in order to bring that reactor on line several years
before the Bellefonte proposal could be realized and put into
service, perhaps by the time actual construction could start at
the Alabama plant. 

The best estimates from NuStarts President Kray are that
construction at Bellefonte, following the licensing procedure
and financing arrangements, would not begin until 2010. 

That schedule fits with the TVA projection of its need for new
baseload generation capability. Bailey says that projection
calls for increased baseload demand in 2015. 

It may seem a long way down the road, but as Harris says, TVA
has to look down that road. She and Baxter, whose appointments
to the board run until 2008 and 2010 respectively, will have to
convince a majority of the soon-to-be-appointed nine-member
board to go along with their appraisal of the nuclear option.

But since President Bush, an advocate of the expansion of
nuclear-power generation,  will be making those appointments,
there is little doubt that the bigger board will be nearly
unanimous on that issue. 

Nuclear power in the valley appears here to stay, and with
continued federal support, its likely to keep growing.
   
  ©1991-2005 Metro Pulse LLC   
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: Docket Ohio reactor licenses

 
                         FR Doc E5-6394 
[Federal Register: November 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 70107-70109] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21no05-88]                         
 
No. 50-346, License No. NPF-3; Docket No. 50-440, License No. 
NPF-58]

 
In The Matter of Pennsylvania Power Company; Ohio Edison Company; 
OES Nuclear, Inc.; The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; 
the Toledo Edison Company; Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company; 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Davis-Besse Nuclear 
Power Station, Unit 1; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Order 
Approving Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments I.
 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and Pennsylvania 
Power Company (Penn Power), Ohio Edison Company (Ohio Edison), 
OES Nuclear, Inc. (OES Nuclear), the Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Company (Cleveland Electric), and the Toledo Edison 
Company (Toledo Edison), are holders of Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, NPF-3 and NPF-58, which authorize 
the possession, use, and operation of Beaver Valley Power 
Station, Units 1 (BVPS 1) and 2 (BVPS 2; together with BVPS 1, 
BVPS), Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Davis- Besse), 
and Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Perry), respectively. 
FENOC is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 
the Commission) to operate BVPS, Davis-Besse, and Perry (the 
facilities). The facilities are located at the licensees' sites 
in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, Ottawa County, Ohio, and Lake 
County, Ohio, respectively.
 
II.
 
By letter dated May 18, 2005, FENOC submitted an application 
requesting approval of direct license transfers that would be 
necessary in connection with the following proposed transfers to 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. (FENGenCo), a new nuclear 
generation subsidiary of FirstEnergy: Penn Power's 65-percent 
undivided ownership interest in BVPS 1, 13.74-percent undivided 
ownership interest in BVPS 2, and 5.25-percent undivided 
ownership interest in Perry. By letter dated June 1, 2005, FENOC 
submitted a second application requesting approval of direct 
license transfers that would be necessary in connection with the 
following proposed transfers to FENGenCo: Ohio Edison's 
35-percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 1 and 20.22- 
percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 2; OES Nuclear's 
17.42- percent undivided ownership interest in Perry; Cleveland 
Electric's 24.47-percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 2, 
44.85-percent undivided ownership interest in Perry, and 
51.38-percent undivided ownership interest in Davis-Besse; and, 
Toledo Edison's 1.65-percent undivided ownership interest in BVPS 
2, 19.91-percent undivided ownership interest in Perry, and 
48.62-percent undivided ownership interest in Davis-Besse.
 
Supplemental information was provided by letters dated July 15 
and October 31, 2005, (hereinafter, the May 18 and June 1, 2005, 
applications and supplemental information will be referred to 
collectively as the ``applications''). FENOC also requested 
approval of conforming license amendments that would reflect the 
proposed transfer of ownership of Penn Power's interests in BVPS 
and Perry to FENGenCo; delete the references to Penn Power in the 
licenses; authorize FENGenCo to possess the respective ownership 
interests in BVPS and Perry; reflect the proposed transfer of 
ownership interests in BVPS, Davis- Besse, and Perry from Ohio 
Edison, OES Nuclear, Cleveland Electric, and Toledo Edison (Ohio 
Companies) to FENGenCo; delete the Ohio Companies from the 
licenses; and, authorize FENGenCo to possess the respective 
ownership interests in BVPS, Davis-Besse, and Perry being 
transferred by the Ohio Companies. Ohio Edison's 21.66-percent 
leased interest in BVPS 2, Toledo Edison's 18.26-percent leased 
interest in BVPS 2, and Ohio Edison's 12.58-percent leased 
interest in Perry would not be changed. No physical changes to 
the facilities or operational changes were proposed in the 
applications. After completion of the proposed transfers, 
FENGenCo and, to a limited extent, Ohio Edison and Toledo Edison, 
would
 
[[Page 70108]] be the sole owners of the facilities; the role of 
FENOC would be unchanged.
 
Approval of the transfer of the facility operating licenses and 
conforming license amendments is requested by FENOC pursuant to 
Sections 50.80 and 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR). Notices of the requests for approval and 
opportunity for a hearing were published in the Federal Register 
on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44390-44395). No comments were received. 
Two petitions for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309 
were received on August 22, 2005, from the City of Cleveland, 
Ohio, and American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. A joint motion to 
lodge by the City of Cleveland, Ohio and Municipal Power Ohio, 
Inc., was received on September 12, 2006. The petitions and 
motion are under consideration by the Commission.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the 
application and other information before the Commission, and 
relying upon the representations and agreements contained in the 
application, the NRC staff has determined that FENGenCo is 
qualified to hold the ownership interests in the facilities 
previously held by Penn Power and the Ohio Companies, and that 
the transfers of undivided ownership interests in the facilities 
to FENGenCo described in the applications are otherwise 
consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and 
orders issued by the Commission, subject to the conditions set 
forth below. The NRC staff has further found that the 
applications for the proposed license amendments comply with the 
standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set 
forth in 10 CFR Chapter I. The facilities will operate in 
conformity with the applications, the provisions of the Act and 
the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable 
assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license 
amendments can be conducted without endangering the health and 
safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted 
in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of 
the proposed license amendments will not be inimical to the 
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the 
public; and the issuance of the proposed amendments will be in 
accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations 
and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
 
The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety 
evaluation dated November 15, 2005.
 
III.
 
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Act, 
42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 
50.80, it is hereby ordered that the direct transfers of the 
licenses, as described herein, to FENGenCo are approved, subject 
to the following conditions: (1) On the closing date(s) of the 
transfers to FENGenCo of their interests in BVPS 1, BVPS 2, 
Davis-Besse, and Perry, Penn Power, Cleveland Electric, Ohio 
Edison, OES Nuclear, and Toledo Edison shall transfer to FENGenCo 
all of each transferor's respective accumulated decommissioning 
funds for BVPS 1, BVPS 2, Davis-Besse, and Perry, except for 
funds associated with the leased portions of Perry and BVPS 2, 
and tender to FENGenCo additional amounts equal to remaining 
funds expected to be collected in 2005, as represented in the 
application dated June 1, 2005, but not yet collected by the time 
of closing. All of the funds shall be deposited in separate 
external trust funds for each of these four reactors in the same 
amounts as received with respect to each unit to be segregated 
from other assets of FENGenCo and outside its administrative 
control, as required by NRC regulations, and FENGenCo shall take 
all necessary steps to ensure that these external trust funds are 
maintained in accordance with the requirements of the order 
approving the transfer of the licenses and consistent with the 
safety evaluation supporting the order and in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.75, ``Reporting and 
recordkeeping for decommissioning planning.'' (2) By the date of 
closing of the transfer of the ownership interests in BVPS 1, 
BVPS 2, and Perry, from Penn Power to FENGenCo, FENGenCo shall 
obtain a parent company guarantee from FirstEnergy in an initial 
amount of at least $80 million (in 2005 dollars) to provide 
additional decommissioning funding assurance regarding such 
ownership interests. Required funding levels shall be 
recalculated annually and, as necessary, FENGenCo shall either 
obtain appropriate adjustments to the parent company guarantee or 
otherwise provide any additional decommissioning funding 
assurance necessary for FENGenCo to meet NRC requirements under 
10 CFR 50.75. (3) The Support Agreements described in the 
applications dated May 18, 2005 (up to $80 million), and June 1, 
2005 (up to $400 million), shall be effective consistent with the 
representations contained in the applications. FENGenCo shall 
take no action to cause FirstEnergy, or its successors and 
assigns, to void, cancel, or modify the Support Agreements 
without the prior written consent of the NRC staff, except, 
however, the $80 million Support Agreement in connection with the 
transfer of the Penn Power interests may be revoked or rescinded 
if and when the $400 million support agreement described in the 
June 1, 2005 application becomes effective. FENGenCo shall inform 
the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in 
writing, no later than 10 days after any funds are provided to 
FENGenCo by FirstEnergy under either Support Agreement.
 
(4) Prior to completion of the transfers of the licenses, 
FENGenCo shall provide the Director of the Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation satisfactory documentary evidence that it has 
obtained the appropriate amount of insurance required of 
licensees under 10 CFR Part 140 of the Commission's regulations.
 
(5) It is further ordered that, consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), 
license amendments that make changes, as indicated in Enclosures 
2 through 5 to the cover letter forwarding this Order, to conform 
the licenses to reflect the subject direct license transfers are 
approved. FirstEnergy has indicated that the Pennsylvania 
transfers described in the May 18, 2005, application and the Ohio 
transfers described in the June 1, 2005, application, will take 
place at the same time. The amendments shall be issued and made 
effective at the time the proposed direct license transfers are 
completed.
 
It is further ordered that FENOC shall inform the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of the date of 
closing of the transfer of the Penn Power, Cleveland Electric, 
Ohio Edison, OES Nuclear, and Toledo Edison interests in BVPS 1, 
BVPS 2, Davis-Besse, and Perry no later than 5 business days 
prior to closing. Should the transfer of the licenses not be 
completed by December 31, 2006, this Order shall become null and 
void, provided; however, that upon written application and for 
good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.
 
This Order is effective upon issuance.
 
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial 
applications dated May 18 and June 1, 2005, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 15 and October 31, 2005, and the 
non-proprietary safety evaluation dated November 15, 2005, which 
are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
 
[[Page 70109]] adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15 day of 
November 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-6394 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration 
 
                         FR Doc E5-6395 
[Federal Register: November 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 70104-70107] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21no05-87]                         
 
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed 
No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to 
Facility Operating License Nos. NFP-35 and NFP-52 issued to Duke 
Energy Corporation (the licensee) for operation of the Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 located in York County, South 
Carolina.
 
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 
Sections 3.7.16, ``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,'' and 4.3, 
``Design Features: Fuel Storage.'' This License Amendment Request 
(LAR) presents revised storage criteria for low-enriched uranium 
fuel stored at Catawba. This is accomplished by taking partial 
credit for soluble boron in the Catawba spent fuel pools (SFPs), 
in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 
50.68(b). The TS bases for 3.3.15 and TS 4.3.3 would also be 
revised to change the number of usable storage cells in each of 
the Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in
 
[[Page 70105]] the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided 
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below: First Standard Does 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No.
 
The addition of the amount of soluble boron specified by 
Specification 4.3 has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of any previously evaluated accident. This addition 
of soluble boron requirements is not considered to be an 
initiator of any accidents, nor does it influence how previously 
evaluated accidents are mitigated.
 
The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of the 
Catawba SFPs [spent fuel pools] from 1418 to 1421 has no impact 
on the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated 
accident. This change makes the TS accurate based on the 
discussion in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage 
cells is not considered to be an initiator of any accidents, nor 
does it influence how previously evaluated accidents are 
mitigated.
 
There is no increase in the probability of a fuel assembly drop 
accident in the spent fuel pools when allowing for credit to be 
taken for soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of 
subcriticality in the spent fuel pool. The method of handling 
fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool is not affected by the 
changes made to the criticality analysis for the spent fuel pool 
or by the proposed TS [technical specification] changes. The 
handling of fuel assemblies during normal operation is unchanged, 
since the same equipment and procedures will be used.
 
The radiological consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident 
will not be adversely impacted due to taking credit for soluble 
boron for criticality control in the spent fuel pool in the 
criticality analysis. The criticality analysis showed that the 
consequences of a fuel assembly drop accident in the spent fuel 
pools are not affected when allowing for credit to be taken for 
soluble boron to maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality 
in the spent fuel pool. As discussed in section 4.0 [ADAMS 
Accession No. ML052590247], the radiological consequences of a 
weir gate drop accident will not be adversely impacted due to the 
proposed TS changes.
 
There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool 
racks when allowing for credit to be taken for soluble boron to 
maintain an acceptable margin of subcriticality in the spent fuel 
pool. Fuel assembly placement and storage will continue to be 
controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and 
other approved processes to ensure compliance with the Technical 
Specification requirements. These procedures and processes will 
be revised as needed to comply with the revised requirements 
which would be imposed by the proposed Technical Specification 
changes.
 
Therefore, it is concluded that operation of Catawba Units 1 and 
2 in accordance with these proposed changes does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of occurrence or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
 
Second Standard Does operation of the facility in accordance with 
the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
Criticality and other related accidents within the spent fuel 
pool are not new or different types of accidents. They have been 
analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and in 
criticality analysis reports associated with specific licensing 
amendments. Specific accidents considered and evaluated include 
fuel assembly drop, accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into 
the spent fuel pool racks, significant changes in spent fuel pool 
water temperature, and a heavy load (weir gate) drop onto the 
spent fuel racks. The accident analysis in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report remains binding.
 
For the proposed amendment, the spent fuel pool dilution 
evaluation demonstrates that a dilution of the boron 
concentration in the spent fuel pool water which could increase 
the rack keff to greater than 0.95 continues to be a non-credible 
event. The proposed amendment regarding fuel storage 
requirements, number of usable storage cells, and amount of 
soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water specified by 
Specification 4.3 will have no effect on normal pool operations 
and maintenance. There are no changes in equipment design or in 
plant configuration. The Technical Specification changes will not 
result in the installation of any new equipment or modification 
of any existing equipment. Therefore, the proposed amendment will 
not result in the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident.
 
Third Standard Does operation of the facility in accordance with 
the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The proposed Technical Specification changes and the resulting 
spent fuel storage operating limits will provide adequate safety 
margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array will always 
remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a plant specific 
criticality analysis (Attachment 4 [ADAMS Accession No. 
ML052590247]) . This methodology takes partial credit for soluble 
boron in the spent fuel pool and requires conformance with the 
following NRC acceptance criteria for preventing criticality 
outside the reactor: 1. keff shall be less than 1.0 if fully 
flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for 
uncertainties at a 95% probability, 95% confidence (95/95) level; 
and 2. keff shall be less than or equal to 0.95 if flooded with 
borated water, which includes an allowance for uncertainties at a 
95/95 level.
 
The criticality analysis utilized partial credit for soluble 
boron (200 ppm) to ensure the maximum 95/95 keff will be less 
than or equal to 0.95 under normal circumstances, and storage 
configurations have been defined using a 95/95 keff calculation 
to ensure that the spent fuel rack keff will be less than 1.0 
with no soluble boron. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble 
boron from the spent fuel pool which could lead to exceeding a 
keff of 0.95 has been evaluated and shown to be not credible. 
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
 
The increase in the number of usable storage cells in each of the 
Catawba SFPs from 1418 to 1421 has no impact on the margin of 
safety. This change just makes the TS accurate based on the 
discussion in Reference 2. This correction in usable storage 
cells does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after
 
[[Page 70106]] issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact and that the 
issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the 
NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the 
proceeding. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the 
scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must 
be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. 
A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements 
with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to 
participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Ms. Lisa 
F. Vaughn, Legal Department (PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006, 
attorney for the licensee.
 
The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding 
on an application for a license amendment falling within the 
scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the 
Commission, at the request of any party to the proceeding, must 
use hybrid hearing procedures with respect to ``any matter which 
the Commission
 
[[Page 70107]] determines to be in controversy among the 
parties.'' The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral 
argument on matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under 
the Commission's rules and the designation, following argument of 
only those factual issues that involve a genuine and substantial 
dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to be 
resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings 
are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of 
section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
 
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures 
for Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear 
Power Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding 
may invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the 
presiding officer a written request for oral argument under 10 
CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be filed together with 
a request for hearing/petition to intervene, filed in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is determined a hearing will be held, 
the presiding officer must grant a timely request for oral 
argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely request for 
oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the requesting 
party for the failure to file on time and after providing the 
other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. 
If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any 
hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance 
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures 
limit the time available for discovery and require that an oral 
argument be held to determine whether any contentions must be 
resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the 
proceeding timely requests oral argument, and if all untimely 
requests for oral argument are denied, then the usual procedures 
in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L apply.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 13, 2005, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to

 
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of 
November 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Farideh E. Saba, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate 
II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-6395 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 CBC New Brunswick: Lepreau office could turn N.B. into nuke hub - union
 
www.cbc.ca

  Last updated Nov 21 2005 03:05 PM AST
 CBC News  

  Atomic Energy of Canada will open an office in Saint John
early next year to oversee the refurbishment of the aging Point
Lepreau nuclear power plant.

 The new office will employ 50 people and will have an annual
payroll of $5 million, but politicians and union officials alike
predicted the move could position New Brunswick to become a
small but important hub in the area of overhauling nuclear power
plants.

 "It's expected that the bulk of the fleet of U.S. reactors -
over 200 plants - is going to need refurbishement, too, and I
believe that when local companies achieve the certification to
work in those industries, they're going to get some of that
work," said Ross Galbraith, an official with the union
representing workers at Point Lepreau.
 
  + FROM JULY 29, 2005: Province decides to refurbish Point
Lepreau 

The Liberal MP for Saint John Paul Zed had similar comments.

 "We're hoping to bid competitively on new refurbishment projects 
throughout the world, but with a centre of excellence being 
established here. I think that gives us great opportunities," 
said Zed, in town for the announcement. Premier Bernard Lord 
promised to refurbish the 22-year-old plant after Ottawa refused 
to pay for the project. 

Lepreau, which provides 30 per cent of the province's energy 
requirements, was due to shut down in 2008 at a cost of $500 
million. But a study found that upgrading the plant made more 
economic sense than decommissioning it, and building a coal-fired 
plant as a replacement. The plant will keep operating until April 
2008, when the 18-month overhaul begins. The refurbishment will 
cost $1.4 billion and should be completed by 2009. Lepreau 
employs 700 people.
   
  Copyright © CBC 2005   

*****************************************************************
 22 PRN: Callaway Nuclear Plant Returns to Service Following Refueling
and Maintenance; Sets World Record for Steam Generator Replacement

PR Newswire 

TITLE="http://www.ameren.com"> 

FULTON, Mo., Nov. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AmerenUE's 
Callaway Nuclear Plant, located near Fulton, Mo., has returned to 
service after shutting down Sept. 17 for refueling, maintenance 
and major equipment upgrades. The plant began generating 
electricity again at 1:31 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 19. 

The outage duration of 63 days and 13 hours set a new world 
record for the shortest time it took to conduct an outage that 
included replacement of four steam generators -- the giant 
"boilers" that produce steam for generating electricity. The 
previous record was 64 days and 17 hours, set by the South Texas 
Project in October 2002. 

Refueling outages at the 1,147-megawatt plant occur approximately 
every 18 months, and this was the plant's 14th refueling since it 
began operating in 1984. 

As in past refueling outages, thousands of maintenance 
activities, modifications, inspections and tests were performed 
throughout the plant. About 3,000 people worked on the project, 
including more than 2,000 contractors and Ameren employees from 
other locations who joined the plant's regular staff to help 
handle the large volume of work. 

Replacement of the plant's four steam generators was the biggest 
job due to their huge size. Measuring 70 feet tall and 17 feet in 
diameter at their widest part, and weighing 400 tons each, the 
new steam generators feature the latest technology for efficiency 
and reliability. 

Another major upgrade performed during the outage involved 
replacing all four turbine rotors with new, more-efficient 
models. Each turbine rotor is 35 feet long. Three are 15 feet 
wide and weigh 164 tons, while the other is eight feet wide and 
weighs 70 tons. The rotors spin by steam pressure to turn an 
electric generator and produce electricity. 

Like the replacement steam generators, the new turbine rotors are 
designed to provide increased efficiency and durability compared 
to the original units manufactured in the 1970s. 

The refueling, itself, involved replacing 88 of the 193 fuel 
assemblies in the reactor core. A fuel assembly is an 8 
1/2-inch-square bundle of 12-foot- long metal tubes containing 
ceramic pellets of uranium dioxide fuel. Each fuel pellet is 
about the size of a pencil eraser. 

Used fuel assemblies removed from the reactor will be stored 
temporarily in the spent fuel pool -- a stainless steel-lined 
water pool inside the fuel building. The pool -- about the size 
of a tennis court -- has enough space to safely store all the 
used fuel that accumulates at the plant until 2020, with the 
capability for additional storage capacity through 2024 when the 
plant's current operating license expires. 

Eventually, AmerenUE plans to ship the used fuel to a permanent 
disposal facility licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. In early 2002, Congress and the president approved 
Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the site for this facility, and the U.S. 
Department of Energy is currently preparing a license 
application. 

The Callaway Plant generates enough electricity to power 830,000 
average homes. While the plant was out of service, its generation 
was replaced by other plants. 

AmerenUE is a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation 
(NYSE: AEE). Ameren owns a diverse mix of electric generating 
plants strategically located in its Midwest market with a 
capacity of more than 15,200 megawatts. The Ameren companies 
serve 2.3 million electric customers and more than 900,000 
natural gas customers in a 64,000-square-mile area of Missouri 
and Illinois. 

	 SOURCE Ameren Corporation 

Web Site: http://www.ameren.com 

        Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights 
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 23 UK: News & Star: Nuclear stations set for Blair go-ahead
 						
Published on 21/11/2005                                                                                                                                              
                                                        
TONY Blair will reportedly build new nuclear power stations after 
his chief scientific adviser urged him to â€œgive the green 
lightâ€.
 
The move would face fierce opposition from environmental groups 
and many in the Prime Ministerâ€™s own Labour Party.
 
But Mr Blair has become convinced that a new generation of 
reactors is the only way to secure energy needs and cut 
greenhouse gas emissions, according to The Times today.
 
And the PM will stir up more anger by pushing for quicker 
planning procedures so that the first stations could be under 
construction in under 10 years, the paper reports.
 
Stations are expected to be built on existing sites to reduce 
public opposition and planning procedures can be speeded up.
 
Downing Street declined to comment ahead of an energy review that 
is due to be launched shortly.
 
The review would look at the full mix of possible energy sources, 
a No 10 spokesman said.
 
Chief scientific adviser Sir David King yesterday said that faced 
with the reality of global warming, â€œthe equation is simpleâ€.
 
Nuclear power met almost a quarter of Britainâ€™s energy needs in 
recent years but that will fall to just 4% by 2010 if reactors 
are not replaced.
 
â€œAll of that is coming from a CO2 free source. I think we need 
every tool in the bag to tackle this problem,â€ Sir David told 
BBC1â€™s Sunday AM programme.
 
The decline in nuclear power was contributing to failure to meet 
the Governmentâ€™s targets on reducing carbon dioxide emissions 
by 2010, Sir David said.
 
â€œWe have to take decisions very quickly. I think the important 
thing here is give the green light to the private sector and the 
utilities and give them nuclear as an option.â€
 
Studies prepared by Sir David reportedly played a part in 
convincing Mr Blair to opt for new nuclear power stations.
 
Environment minister Margaret Beckett has long been seen as an 
opponent to nuclear power.
 
Ms Beckett said yesterday: â€œNo one disputes that nuclear power 
is a low carbon energy source.
 
â€œBut equally, I donâ€™t think anyone disputes that it brings 
other problems in its train.â€
 
The issues of the cost and what to do with waste had never been 
properly explored, she said.
 
â€œBut Iâ€™ve always accepted and it says it explicitly in our 
Energy White Paper of a couple of years ago, that particularly 
because of climate change, we could come to a position where we 
and other governments were driven back towards nuclear.
 
â€œIâ€™ve always accepted we canâ€™t afford to close the door on 
nuclear.â€
 
Business leaders are urging the Government to reach a decision on 
the future of nuclear energy within the next year amid fresh 
concerns about power supplies.
 
The CBI said energy needs were now top of the business agenda 
because of rising costs and worries over gas supplies this 
winter.
 
Ministers were pressed to draw up a coherent energy policy as a 
matter of urgency, including a decision on whether to back a new 
generation of nuclear power stations.
 
In a separate report, the Engineering Employersâ€™ Federation 
said the Government should back replacement nuclear build, adding 
that it could be the most competitive form of energy.
 
CBI Director General Sir Digby Jones said: â€œA decision on the 
future of nuclear power has been allowed to drift too long. 
Potential investors and the British public both deserve 
certainty.
 
â€œNuclearâ€™s position as a reliable, low-carbon energy source 
is without doubt, but understandable concerns exist about costs 
and waste.
 
â€œWithout a coherent and integrated energy policy there is a 
risk that the billions of investment required will not come at 
the right time or at the most efficient cost.â€
 
The EEF warned that the competitiveness of the power industry was 
threatened by a more expensive and less reliable supply of energy 
unless the Government finalised a long-term strategy.
 
Director General Martin Temple said: â€œEnergy is now right at 
the top of the agenda and there is no time to lose in putting in 
place a long-term strategy that will provide a competitive, 
reliable and secure supply and generate significant reduction in 
emissions.
 
â€œFailure to do so will mean relying on new technology and 
energy efficiency to come to our aid which alone is unlikely to 
deliver on any of these fronts.â€
 
						 					 				 				 					
*****************************************************************
 24 [du-list] Discovery of "Kinetic penetrators"
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:10:50 -0800

<x-flowed>
Dear vlario

"Kinetic" refers to energy. The "potential energy" of any projectile
transfers to "kinetic energy" the moment it hits something. Your post
may refer to DU but it can as easily refer to any projectile.

Kinetic penetrators (steel, uranium, tungsten, lead) work by
transferring "velocity X's mass" of a small diameter projectile to
the target. The velocity X's mass focused into a narrow point of
contact delivers a kinetic force that disrupts the targets molecular
structure, parting and vaporizing the molecules rather than breaking
them. DU self-sharpens so its kinetic energy is not degraded as
quickly as compared to other kinetic penetrator metals which mushroom
and or fracture on contact.

Kinetic penetrators are distinguished from explosive charges that
transfer chemical energy to the target. Rocks fired by catapults
against enemy fortresses are kinetic energy penetrators. But they
lack the velocity, density per volume of projectile and the l/d
(length/diameter) ratio to cause a phase change in the target like
todays high efficiency DU rounds.








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 25 [du-list] battlefield radiation - du vet: My days are numbered
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:12:09 -0800

<x-flowed>
   http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20051120x1.htm
The Japan Times: Nov. 20, 2005
BATTLEFIELD RADIATION
DU vet: 'My days are numbered'
By ERIC PRIDEAUX
Staff writer

   Gerard Matthew has broad shoulders and beefy hands. He's built like a
bear. Yet as sturdy as this 31-year-old may look, he is a very sick
man.

   Matthew suffers, for example, from facial swelling, double and triple
vision, muscle weakness, bouts of extreme anger that sometimes cause
him to lash out at his wife, erectile dysfunction and, most serious of
all, a tumor in the pituitary gland at the base of his brain.

   "And these are just the big ones," he told the audience at the
Foreign
Correspondents' Club Japan in Tokyo earlier this month.

   At home in New York, he said, he's got "a pharmacy" of medication --
and he worries both for himself and his family that his "days are
numbered."

   All the more reason to speak at this media venue now, before things
get worse.

   Matthew was a specialist in the U.S. Army National Guard's 719th
Transport Unit, and his job, from April-September 2003, was to drive
trucks collecting war debris from around southern Iraq. He thinks that
Samawah, the city where Japan has some 550 SDF members participating in
the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing," was among the many locations
he passed through.

   Matthew believes the dust from spent depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition
in his cargo accumulated in his lungs, irradiating his body and causing
most of the ailments that trouble him today. Urine tests taken as part
of a New York Daily News story investigation in 2004 showed that DU
levels in his sample were up to eight times higher than in control
samples from Daily News journalists. Matthew showed reporters a letter
from the Department of the Army that rejected this claim.

   Most pertinent to his audience at the FCCJ: Matthew worries that
radiological contamination may be afflicting Japanese troops posted to
Iraq -- not to mention local Iraqis.

   "I came all the way to Japan to convey the message," said Matthew,
who, with his wife Janise was the guest of Tokyo-based activist group
Campaign for Abolition of Depleted Uranium Japan. In other words, he
believes that Japanese troops should be warned: "They may be
susceptible to it."

   With Janise, also 31, seated beside him on the dais, the couple
together held up glossy photographs of their 1-year-old daughter
Victoria, who was born without a right hand. It is a birth defect they
both blame on DU.

   "Yes, the military has paid for my education," said Matthew. "But I
would give all of that up to have my daughter with five fingers on her
hand."

   The Matthew family is caught up in a raging worldwide debate over DU
that extends into areas both scientific and geo-political.

   Depleted uranium, an enormously dense and hard biproduct of
converting
naturally occurring uranium into fuel for nuclear reactors, is used by
the U.S. military both in supertough armor plating for fighting
vehicles and in "penetrators" -- ammunition fired against armored
vehicles and concrete emplacements that, instead of mushrooming on
impact as regular bullets do, grows sharper as it bores forward and
through.

   According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 290.3 metric tons of DU
projectiles were fired by U.S. forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War. By
press time, the department had not responded to repeated requests for
comment on Matthew's case and current use of DU by the U.S. military.

   Whatever the strategic benefits of DU ammunition, critics --
including
many in the scientific community -- claim that particles of it released
upon impact are easily inhaled by humans, either then or much later,
and remain in the body for years, possibly causing cancers and many
other health problems. With local Iraqis in mind in particular, Matthew
said: "We're hurting innocent civilians, and we don't need to do that."

   The United Nations would seem to agree.

   A 2002 working paper by the UN Commission on Human Rights itemized a
long list of diseases and birth defects among Gulf War veterans, Iraqis
and the offspring of both -- linking them strongly to the use of DU.

   The same UN working paper concluded that use of DU in warfare
contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
the Charter of the United Nations itself; and, "in certain situations
of armed conflict," the Genocide Convention. The working paper, if read
closely, also suggests violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

   The Pentagon, for its part, says on its Web site that radiation is
not
a "primary hazard" with DU "under most battlefield exposure scenarios."
Citing its own and several high-profile international studies, it
concludes that DU is "40 percent less radioactive than natural
uranium," and is "not considered a serious external radiation hazard."

   That stance is, in large part, supported by the World Health
Organization which, in its 2003 fact sheet No. 257, title "Depleted
Uranium," said that "for the general population, neither civilian nor
military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly
above normal background levels of uranium."

   Consequently, some tough questions were to be expected at the
Matthews' news conference.

   "How can you scientifically establish that the syndrome you claim has
been caused by depleted uranium was caused by depleted uranium?" asked
Naoaki Usui, a freelance reporter who described himself as a proponent
of nuclear energy.

   Matthew fixed his eyes squarely on his questioner. "Look at my
daughter, and that should answer your question about the exposure," he
said. "My daughter is the evidence."

   Matthew said that his and Janise's other children from earlier
relationships were born without deformity, while genetic screening at a
New York hospital turned up no predisposition to birth defects on
either side of the family.

   That being the case, Matthew said that he and eight other soldiers
with similar symptoms -- all of whom, except Matthew, were stationed at
Samawah -- have each sued the Department of Defense for $5 million. His
daughter Victoria, who to date has been denied disability benefits by
the Social Security Administration, is also a coplaintiff with her
father -- claiming an additional $5 million. The cases are pending.

   The plaintiffs are not alone in their battle. For years, U.S. and
British veterans of the first Gulf War have demanded that their
governments grapple more aggressively with the mysterious illnesses
collectively known as Gulf War Syndrome -- symptoms of which Matthew
says match his own.

   Movement on this front is afoot: BBC News reported earlier this month
that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Britain had ruled that Daniel
Martin, an ex-soldier and Gulf War veteran, could use Gulf War Syndrome
as an umbrella term to cover the diverse health problems afflicting
him. As a result, other British veterans hope this will improve their
access to disablement pensions.

   At his FCCJ talk, Matthew said he expected news from his lawyer upon
his return home to the Bronx.

   While he was still here, though, there was something else Matthew
wanted to tell the Japanese. Describing his visit to the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial some days earlier, he said: "I felt like I made a
connection . . . because I was exposed to radiation just like they
were. My own government did it to them.

   "My government probably would not say sorry," he added. "But I say
sorry."




		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 26 [du-list] UK's deadly legacy: the cluster bomb
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0800

<x-flowed>
UK's deadly legacy: the cluster bomb
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article328300.ece
It is feared that thousands of bomblets lie unexploded in Iraq, capable of 
maiming or killing innocent civilians. This week, more than two years after 
they were dropped, Britain is finally being held to account
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Published: 21 November 2005
Tony Blair is facing fresh fury over the use of controversial munitions in 
the Iraq war. Campaigners lambasted the Ministry of Defence over its use of 
deadly cluster bombs and shells during the invasion, warning that they 
could contravene international law.

MPs are to table a raft of new questions today over the affair amid fears 
that thousands of bomblets released during the war will leave a deadly 
legacy for Iraqi civilians. They warned that any unexploded bomblets could 
kill or maim civilians for years to come.

The dispute over British use of cluster bombs will be intensify this week 
with the publication of a report by the pressure group Landmine Action, 
which raises questions over the efforts made to ensure that the weapons did 
not harm civilians. It comes as international signatories to the 
international convention on conventional weapons meet in Geneva this week, 
amid pressure for a moratorium on the production of cluster bombs and tough 
new limits on their use.

The report, funded by the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, said 
British officials had failed to gather field data about the failure rates 
of cluster bomblets, and had done "little or nothing to gauge the 
humanitarian impact of these weapons".

It said that the UK had "failed to undertake any significant effort to 
understand better the impact of cluster munition use and has continued to 
use them. As was foreseeable, these cluster munitions have been a cause of 
civilian casualties."

Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "This is a 
very significant report which raises some very serious issues. There is 
clearly a lack of information and I will be tabling questions and writing 
to the Secretary of State with a copy of this report seeking detailed 
answers to the questions it raises. The jury may be out on the political 
legacy of the coalition's time in Iraq but the military legacy could be 
absolutely devastating."

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, also said he would raise 
fresh questions about the affair. He said: "My concerns about the issue of 
cluster bombs are as strong as they ever were. Unexploded bomblets lying 
around can be picked up by farmers and children in the community and can be 
lethal. They can be buried and can be as bad as land mines."

A report published in 2003 by the group Human Rights Watch said British 
forces had killed dozens of civilians in and around Basra using ground 
launched cluster munitions.

Britain confirmed in 2003 that it dropped substantial numbers of cluster 
bombs during the campaign. The Ministry of Defence said that 2,000 bomblet 
shells were fired by artillery on the ground and 68 cluster bombs were 
dropped from the air during the war.

Ministers insisted that the weapons were targeting "specific military 
targets", but later confirmed that British troops used cluster bombs in 
built up areas. The revelation sparked a storm of protest after The 
Independent revealed in 2003 that Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, 
had admitted that the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets would 
not be legal.

Parliamentary written answers released at the time also confirmed that the 
MoD had carried out no reviews or assessments of the civilian casualties 
caused by unexploded bomblets used in the Gulf region, Kosovo or 
Afghanistan. The Ministry insisted last year that it had cleared more than 
one million unexploded bombs in southern Iraq, including 6,000 
sub-munitions, or bomblets.

Ministers insist that the cluster bombs are not indiscriminate and 
represent an acceptable "balance between the threat to civilians and the 
need to protect British forces". But critics said the answer provided too 
little detail to determine whether British forces had removed all threats 
to Iraqi civilians.

The Landmine Action report also warned yesterday that the bomblets could 
have a 10 per cent failure rate, and said that in conflict zones such as 
Kosovo unexploded munitions were still being found years after the end of 
hostilities.

It said a British Government report had acknowledged that airborne cluster 
bombs had an "unacceptable" failure rate, and warned: "It is far from clear 
that those making decisions about the use of cluster munitions routinely do 
so or even could do so with a serious sense of the possible effects of the 
weapons."

Simon Conway, the acting director of Landmine Action, said: "These weapons 
were designed for use against columns of vehicles on the German plains. If 
you fire an artillery shell into a populated area fighting irregular troops 
like in 2003 and you use a weapons system like this in that context it can 
be indiscriminate."

A spokesman for the MoD insisted: "Cluster munitions are entirely lawful 
weapons. If we did not use them we would have to use something much more 
hazardous to civilians."

Tony Blair is facing fresh fury over the use of controversial munitions in 
the Iraq war. Campaigners lambasted the Ministry of Defence over its use of 
deadly cluster bombs and shells during the invasion, warning that they 
could contravene international law.

MPs are to table a raft of new questions today over the affair amid fears 
that thousands of bomblets released during the war will leave a deadly 
legacy for Iraqi civilians. They warned that any unexploded bomblets could 
kill or maim civilians for years to come.

The dispute over British use of cluster bombs will be intensify this week 
with the publication of a report by the pressure group Landmine Action, 
which raises questions over the efforts made to ensure that the weapons did 
not harm civilians. It comes as international signatories to the 
international convention on conventional weapons meet in Geneva this week, 
amid pressure for a moratorium on the production of cluster bombs and tough 
new limits on their use.

The report, funded by the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, said 
British officials had failed to gather field data about the failure rates 
of cluster bomblets, and had done "little or nothing to gauge the 
humanitarian impact of these weapons".

It said that the UK had "failed to undertake any significant effort to 
understand better the impact of cluster munition use and has continued to 
use them. As was foreseeable, these cluster munitions have been a cause of 
civilian casualties."

Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "This is a 
very significant report which raises some very serious issues. There is 
clearly a lack of information and I will be tabling questions and writing 
to the Secretary of State with a copy of this report seeking detailed 
answers to the questions it raises. The jury may be out on the political 
legacy of the coalition's time in Iraq but the military legacy could be 
absolutely devastating."

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, also said he would raise 
fresh questions about the affair. He said: "My concerns about the issue of 
cluster bombs are as strong as they ever were. Unexploded bomblets lying 
around can be picked up by farmers and children in the community and can be 
lethal. They can be buried and can be as bad as land mines."

A report published in 2003 by the group Human Rights Watch said British 
forces had killed dozens of civilians in and around Basra using ground 
launched cluster munitions.

Britain confirmed in 2003 that it dropped substantial numbers of cluster 
bombs during the campaign. The Ministry of Defence said that 2,000 bomblet 
shells were fired by artillery on the ground and 68 cluster bombs were 
dropped from the air during the war.

Ministers insisted that the weapons were targeting "specific military 
targets", but later confirmed that British troops used cluster bombs in 
built up areas. The revelation sparked a storm of protest after The 
Independent revealed in 2003 that Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, 
had admitted that the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets would 
not be legal.

Parliamentary written answers released at the time also confirmed that the 
MoD had carried out no reviews or assessments of the civilian casualties 
caused by unexploded bomblets used in the Gulf region, Kosovo or 
Afghanistan. The Ministry insisted last year that it had cleared more than 
one million unexploded bombs in southern Iraq, including 6,000 
sub-munitions, or bomblets.

Ministers insist that the cluster bombs are not indiscriminate and 
represent an acceptable "balance between the threat to civilians and the 
need to protect British forces". But critics said the answer provided too 
little detail to determine whether British forces had removed all threats 
to Iraqi civilians.

The Landmine Action report also warned yesterday that the bomblets could 
have a 10 per cent failure rate, and said that in conflict zones such as 
Kosovo unexploded munitions were still being found years after the end of 
hostilities.

It said a British Government report had acknowledged that airborne cluster 
bombs had an "unacceptable" failure rate, and warned: "It is far from clear 
that those making decisions about the use of cluster munitions routinely do 
so or even could do so with a serious sense of the possible effects of the 
weapons."

Simon Conway, the acting director of Landmine Action, said: "These weapons 
were designed for use against columns of vehicles on the German plains. If 
you fire an artillery shell into a populated area fighting irregular troops 
like in 2003 and you use a weapons system like this in that context it can 
be indiscriminate."

A spokesman for the MoD insisted: "Cluster munitions are entirely lawful 
weapons. If we did not use them we would have to use something much more 
hazardous to civilians."

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date: 11/18/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 27 KRT Wire: Inquiry spurs fears about security at bomb plant

| 11/21/2005 | 

BY JACK DOUGLAS JR.

 Knight Ridder Newspapers

AMARILLO, Texas - A federal worker entrusted with one of the
most secretive jobs in U.S. government has been relieved of his
duties as authorities investigate the disappearance of high-tech
combat equipment used to help guard nuclear warheads as they are
transported across the country from a West Texas bomb plant. 

At the sprawling Pantex Plant near Amarillo - the nation's only
nuclear weapons assembly facility - federal agents are trying to
determine whether an armed courier had help in acquiring and
selling or trying to sell such items as laser aiming devices, a
specialized rifle scope, body armor and 50-round ammunition
drums for assault weapons. 

Joe Sizemore, the suspect, had top-secret credentials during his
10 years as a courier for Pantex, where he helped in the
clandestine transportation of nuclear materials on the nation's
highways. 

Believing that Sizemore, 40, was selling sensitive military
equipment over the Internet, federal agents raided his
ranch-style home in south Amarillo on Oct. 20. Among the items
seized were computer records, ammunition, machine guns, security
credentials and a "Moonlight Night Vision" device, records show. 

Investigators say they don't believe that the radioactive
components of an atomic bomb - uranium and plutonium - have
fallen into the wrong hands. 

But the investigation into the missing gear and the suspicion of
inappropriate actions by someone with such easy access to
nuclear components have raised questions about who is minding
the store at the 9,100-acre facility, where atomic warheads are
assembled, disassembled and stored. 

"The last thing the government wants is for this to come to
trial, because they wouldn't want any of it to become public
record," said Mavis Belisle, an opponent of the production of
nuclear weapons and the director of the Peace Farm, a small
compound across U.S. 60 from the plant. 

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, another critic of nuclear
proliferation, said he fears that there will one day be a "dirty
bomb" attack in the country. 

"And it's probably going to be as much our fault as others',
because we have been so haphazard in our management of nuclear
materials," Burnam said. 

Sizemore, a Marine veteran who has not been charged with a
crime, said in a brief telephone interview last week that he has
done nothing wrong. 

"Nobody stole anything. It was stuff that was given out," he
said, declining to elaborate. 

Asked whether he fears that he will be charged, Sizemore said:
"I don't know. My life is at a standstill right now. It seems
they (federal authorities) need blood or a pound of flesh. I
feel slighted." 

Sizemore was a member of an elite crew that worked under the
direction of the government's Office of Secure Transportation.
According to a government report, the operation "is responsible
for safeguarding and transporting nuclear weapons and components
and special nuclear materials for the DOE." 

The operation also "conducts other missions supporting the
national security of the United States," the report says. 

The suspected security breach is being taken seriously, said
Christy Drake, assistant U.S. attorney in Amarillo and the lead
prosecutor in the case. 

Drake said Sizemore would have needed help at Pantex to get the
necessary acquisition orders, under special government
letterhead, to acquire some of the items he is accused of
putting up for sale. It has not been determined, she said,
whether Sizemore tricked someone into giving him the documents
or whether he had an accomplice. 

"We're investigating whether it does involve more people. If it
does, we'll take the appropriate action," Drake said. 

She said it is also "quite important" to determine the names and
whereabouts of everyone who purchased the government items. 

At the top-secret plant, security is always an issue. Armed
soldiers patrol the perimeter in military Humvees. And the
grounds are dotted with "Danger" signs and posted warnings to
employees that if they misplace their credentials, it can give a
"potential terrorist" easy access to the plant. 

Even at the visitors station, there is evidence of just how
skittish plant officials are of outsiders. "Are you a U.S.
citizen?" the sign-in sheet reads, with a footnote: "Foreign
national visitors require prior approval of DOE for visit. If
not a U.S. citizen, please speak to receptionist." 

A Pantex official, who identified himself as a plainclothes
security officer but declined to give his name, said no one
could comment on the investigation. He referred all questions to
the Department of Energy. 

Denise Smith, a spokeswoman for the department in Washington,
said, "Our practice is to not comment on ongoing investigations,
especially if it could, in fact, be a matter that is referred to
the U.S. attorney's office." 

A person familiar with Sizemore's job, who spoke on condition of
anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said
the courier job is cloaked in secrecy for obvious reasons: to
keep from tipping off terrorists who would want to hijack a
mission. 

Sizemore and other heavily armed drivers and guards - traveling
in trucks, armored vans and sometimes decoy vehicles - would
often go 70 hours without rest, with the belief that no hotel
parking lot was safe to leave nuclear-laden cargo in, the person
said. 

In an affidavit to support the issuance of a search warrant,
Brandon Currie, a special agent with the Energy Department,
wrote that Sizemore was not nearly as concerned about security
while off duty. 

According to Currie, Sizemore openly advertised on the Internet
and sold two "PAQ-4C Laser Aiming Devices" for $6,225. He posted
on one Web site: "Selling for a friend ... This is the hard to
get model, same as used by our forces in Afghanistan." 

The aiming devices, used with night-vision goggles to direct
weapons fire, were "government owned" and "can only be used for
official agency use," Currie's affidavit says. 

The agent also wrote that Sizemore initially agreed, in an
exchange of e-mails, to sell a suit of "Second Chance Body
Armor" to an undercover FBI agent in Fort Worth. 

Later, the affidavit says, Sizemore e-mailed the undercover
agent, saying he was "torn" about whether to sell "Gov't stuff
... not that I am doing anything wrong, it could just be seen
that way, make sense?" 

Despite Sizemore's hesitancy to sell the armor, he continued to
sell or try to sell a powerful assault-weapon scope, once issued
by the government to members of the Office of Secure
Transportation, Currie wrote. 

The affidavit also says Sizemore was able to acquire, and sell
on the Internet, 50-round drums of ammunition that were
"restricted" to use by government agents equipped with military
assault weapons. The document says Sizemore got the ammunition,
using government letterhead, by claiming that he would use it
only for "duty," "training," "evaluation" and "testing"
purposes. 

In addition, Currie wrote that a former Pantex courier, acting
as a "cooperative witness," told federal agents that Sizemore
was "keeping ... government property for personal use, or
selling it" and that he had "a lot of weapons, an 'arsenal,' at
his house." 

An Amarillo neighbor said Sizemore kept to himself. 

"I can't even tell you what he looks like. We would just see
cars coming and going," said Stuart Bracken, who lives across
the street. 

In fact, Bracken said, Sizemore drew attention in the
neighborhood only when he left the doors open to his back shop,
revealing what was inside. 

"There were guns hanging all over the walls," the neighbor said.
"Some of the guns I saw looked like the type the Army personnel
might use."   

*****************************************************************
 28 Bellona: Members of the Russian Duma to clear polluted air
 
  You are here:  www.bellona.no : Energy : News story     |

The Ecological Committee of the Russian State Duma held a
Parliamentary hearing on the state of ecological safety in
Russia, UCS-INFO reported.

2005-11-21 13:08

Members of the Duma have been concerned of late about air
pollution in big Russian cities. They put an offer on the table
to substitute petroleum with environmentally clean fuel, raise
taxes on old cars and forbid import of second-hand cars to
reduce smog and dirty air. 

According to the committee chairman, Vladimir Grachev, 60
percent of the Russian population lives in high level air
pollution. Deputies of the State Duma see two main reasons for
ecological crises in big cities: strong run-out of vehicles and
the low quality petroleum produced in Russia. 
Deputies have offered to toughen legislation governing oil
refineries and to make operation of environmentally unfriendly
vehicles expensive.   

  
  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 29 reviewjournal.com: Ex-test site worker critical of compensation program
 
Nov. 21, 2005

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 

64-year-old still not eligible after re-evaluation       

Former Nevada Test Site employee John Funk, shown Aug. 4, says a
government compensation program has political undertones.
According to Labor Department records, Nevada Test Site workers
have the lowest percentage of illness compensation claims
approved, yet they have the highest death rate from occupational
hazards.

Photo by SAMANTHA CLEMENS/REVIEW-JOURNAL           

When former Nevada Test Site worker John Funk complained his
bout with bone cancer was overlooked in his first claim under a
federal program, he hoped a re-evaluation would make him
eligible for at least $150,000 in compensation.
 
As it stood in August, he had a rating of more than 46 percent
for contracting skin cancer and two colon cancers. He thought
the diagnosis of a type of bone cancer called
"myeloproliferative" disorder, stemming from exposure to
radioactive materials or benzene at the test site, would push
him over the 50 percent rating needed for compensation.
 
His hopes were dashed last month when analysts at the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health determined he had
only an 11 percent rating, 35 percentage points below his
initial rating.
 
In an interview last week, Funk, 64, said he thinks the figures
were manipulated to prevent him from qualifying.
 
When Funk sought an explanation he said he was told by a NIOSH
office manager that "when we know you're not going to qualify
we're very liberal, but when you get close to qualifying then we
have to take a more realistic look at the exposure ratings."
 
"I can't believe a government agency would be allowed to operate
like this," Funk said Thursday. 

A call about Funk's case to Richard Toohey, leader of the Dose
Reconstruction Project for the NIOSH Operations Center in
Cincinnati, was referred to communications specialist Amanda
Harney.
 
While she couldn't comment on the case specifically, Harney said
former workers in Funk's situation can take the process one step
further by filing for "special exposure cohort" status.
 
Special exposure cohort status eliminates the need for dose
reconstruction. Instead, petitioners are awarded compensation
based on their presence under certain time periods at facilities
in the nuclear weapons complex where radioactive or toxic
materials might have caused specific illnesses.
 
Four sites were granted special exposure cohort status in the
initial Energy employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000 and others were later added. They include:
 
j Gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Ky.; Portsmouth, Ohio;
and Oak Ridge, Tenn.
 
j Amchitka Island, Alaska, for workers before Jan. 1, 1974, who
were exposed to ionizing radiation related to three below-ground
nuclear tests.
 
j Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Destrehan Street Facility in St.
Louis.
 
j Iowa Ordnance Plant.
 
Funk said he intends to enlist former Nevada Test Site workers
and Nevada's congressional delegation to file a petition for
special exposure cohort status.
 
An analysis in August by the Review-Journal of six sites where
radioactive and toxic materials were used to make or test
nuclear warheads shows only 6 percent of test site workers have
been approved for compensation claims, many of those were for
silicosis, which is unrelated to exposure to radioactive
materials.
 
Funk estimates that compensation for cancer caused by exposure
to radioactive materials among former Nevada Test Site workers
is probably only one-half of a percent of claims awarded
compensation at those six sites.
 
Of those six sites -- Nevada Test Site; Hanford, Wash.; Savannah
Rive, S.C.; Paducah, Ky.; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn.
-- the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was the only
one where employees worked in areas where nuclear devices had
been detonated.
 
Funk also said he thinks the compensation program run first by
the Energy Department and now by the Labor Department has
political undertones.
 
"I believe a lot of this is a result of personal animosities
between (President) Bush and (Senator) Harry Reid as a result of
Yucca Mountain and other matters," Funk said.
 
Reid, D-Nev., is an outspoken critic of the controversial
nuclear waste project, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
 
Amy Maier, chief of staff for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., leading
author of the provisions in the compensation act, said she
couldn't comment on Funk's remark about political undertones.
 
But, she said, "The concerns expressed by Mr. Funk are certainly
concerns to the congressman as well and he will look into it."
 
-- KEITH ROGERS
 
Wondering how a local story turned out or what happened to
someone in the news? Call the City Desk at 383-0264, and we will
try to answer your question in this column.
 	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
 30 Las Vegas SUN: Properly cooked bird is the word in new campaign 

Today: November 21, 2005 at 8:51:56 PST 

By Ben Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> and Suzanne Struglinski 
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

Sun Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON -- The federal government has unveiled a new cartoon 
campaign to educate Americans about food safety for the 
Thanksgiving holiday. 

The campaign's star is the creatively named Thermy, a grinning, 
chef's hat-wearing cartoon character food thermometer. His 
nemesis: the creatively named Bac, a little green snarling glob 
of food bacteria. 

The characters were unveiled in a goodie bag of pamphlets and 
other swag distributed to the media this week by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

The service notes that turkey is ready for consumption only 
after it has cooked and reached an internal temperature of 180 
degrees. "You can't tell by looking," the service says. "Use a 
food thermometer to be sure." 

Or as Thermy says: "It's safe to bite then when the temperature 
is right!" 

Thermy's friends -- a wildly grinning bottle of soap, a cutting 
board and a refrigerator -- remind people to "Clean!" 
"Separate!" and "Chill!" This being Washington, the characters 
are unnamed -- anonymous sources. 

The USDA has plenty of tips on how to avoid getting sick from 
food during the holidays, but no advice on dealing with airport 
lines or annoying relatives. 

Holiday cooks with meat and poultry safety questions can call 
the USDA Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline. 

Reid vs. Cheney 

Senate Minority Leader Reid has been taking some vicious swings 
at Vice President Cheney. 

Reid in recent days has linked Cheney to government contracting 
abuse as a former Halliburton executive, accused him of 
conspiring with energy companies on policies that hurt 
consumers, and painted him as a role player in the CIA leak case 
in which Cheney aide Lewis Libby was indicted. 

Last week, the Nevada Democrat demanded that Cheney hold a 
press conference to explain his comments about Iraq intelligence 
prior to the war. 

Cheney swung back, bemoaning attacks from senators who voted to 
authorize war. "The president and I cannot prevent certain 
politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone -- but 
we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," Cheney 
said in a speech Wednesday. Reid that night went to the Senate 
floor to throw his counterpunch, saying: "Tired rhetoric and 
political attacks do nothing to get the job done in Iraq." 

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said that Reid's attacks 
are "unconscionable and beneath the office of the Minority 
Leader of the Senate." 

And the GOP is dismissing Reid's attacks in part by suggesting 
he's off the deep end. At Reid's weekly press conference in the 
Capitol last week, Republican aides quietly distributed a copy 
of a Nov. 11 Investor's Business Daily editorial critical of 
Reid for "playing Capt. Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick Cheney." 
Reid sounds like a "whacked out conspiracy buff," the 
publication said. 

Despite the scrape, the Veep himself doesn't seem stressed. 
Fresh from a South Dakota hunting trip, Cheney and his wife 
Lynne last weekend went to a Georgetown cinema to see the movie 
"Derailed," Roll Call reported. Maybe he thought the Jennifer 
Anniston thriller was about knocking political opponents off 
message. 
Oil Company Tax Unlikely 

Irked by a lack of attention to high gas prices in Congress -- 
and ever mindful that the issue is a top voter concern -- Reid 
on Oct. 12 proposed a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. 

But the proposal is sputtering on an empty tank. A number of 
lawmakers, including Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the 
Senate Energy Committee, have said a profits tax will not bring 
down prices at the pump. 

Critics say a profits tax levied in 1980 failed to lower prices 
and actually decreased domestic production, increasing 
dependence on foreign sources. In a Senate hearing Nov. 9, five 
top oil company executives downplayed their record profits, 
explained booms and busts in their industry and said they were 
investing heavily in new production. 

So Congress is not moving too fast to punish them. Of course, 
voter-conscious lawmakers also are mindful of another 
constituency -- campaign donors and lobbyists. And some top 
money men and K Street heavyweights were not happy about Reid's 
proposal. The oil and gas industry gave $10.2 million to federal 
candidates in the 2004 election cycles, and it's time to call in 
the favor. 

Publicly and privately, industry chiefs have been pressuring 
lawmakers to drop the proposal. As part of an advertising 
campaign, five leading lobby groups took out a full-page ad in 
the Washington Post. "A windfall profits tax is a failed relic 
of a bygone era," the ad said. 

In other words: hands off our cash. 
Dems: No turkey break 

Reid said Democrats have no intention of letting up their 
aggressive attack on the White House and congressional 
Republicans just because lawmakers will be adjourned next week 
for the Thanksgiving holiday, Roll Call reported. Reid sent the 
Senate Democrats back to their states with marching orders to 
keep the pressure on Republicans, on issues ranging from Iraq to 
GOP corruption. 

"Recess makes no difference," Reid told Roll Call. "If they 
think by adjourning that we are going to leave, they are wrong." 

New Yucca chief? 

Edward Sproat moved one notch closer to taking over the Yucca 
Mountain project when a Senate panel approved him Wednesday with 
no opposition. Or did he? 

Whether the full Senate will get to vote on Sproat's nomination 
to be the new director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management remains to be seen. 

Ensign and Reid have placed a hold on Sproat's nomination until 
they get more answers on the department's plans for the proposed 
nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas. 

Based on answers Sproat gave to the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, which approved him, the senators may not 
receive answers they like. Sproat remains committed to opening 
the repository, and will "aggressively pursue the submittal of 
the license application." 

He also said he was not aware of any nuclear waste reprocessing 
technology that would eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. 

Sproat plans to do a thorough review of the program and 
formulate a plan "that will have specific, measurable goals and 
objectives for all parts of the OCRWM organization." 

All contents © 1996 - 2005 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 31 [NukeNet] Zimbabwe to Process Newly Found Uranium
 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:12:05 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Zimbabwe-Uranium.html
    Zimbabwe to Process Newly Found Uranium
   a..              E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 20, 2005
Filed at 11:15 a.m. ET

HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) -- President Robert Mugabe
said Zimbabwe will turn to nuclear power by
processing recently discovered uranium deposits to
resolve its chronic electricity shortage, state
radio said Sunday.

Mugabe, who has close ties with two countries with
controversial nuclear programs -- Iran and North
Korea, spoke of his intention Saturday, the radio
station reported.

It was not clear how Mugabe intended to use any
uranium deposits since the country does not have a
nuclear power plant. The president announced plans
in the 1990s to acquire a reactor from Argentina,
but nothing else was ever heard about the
proposal.

''Zimbabwe will develop power by processing
uranium, which has recently been found in the
country,'' Mugabe said, according to the radio.
''The discovery of uranium will go a long way in
further enhancing the government rural
electrification program.''

Zimbabwe was not previously known to have any
workable deposits of uranium.

South Africa has the region's only nuclear power
station at Koeberg.

Zimbabwe has been plagued by a chronic shortage of
foreign exchange since Mugabe's seizure of 5,000
white-owned farms and the collapse of an
export-oriented agricultural industry. It
currently falls short of generating the 2,100
megawatts it needs daily by 400 to 450 megawatts.

Zimbabwe has had great difficulty meeting bills
from Mozambique, South Africa and Congo for
imports from the regional electric power grid.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 32 Guardian Unlimited: Mugabe hails uranium find and vows to pursue nuclear power
 
Andrew Meldrum in Pretoria
Monday November 21, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Zimbabwe has recently discovered uranium deposits and
plans to process the mineral in order to resolve its chronic
power shortages, state radio quoted President Robert Mugabe as
saying yesterday.

"The discovery of uranium will go a long way in further
enhancing the government's rural electrification programme," he
was quoted as saying, according to Associated Press.

It has been known for many years that uranium deposits lie in
the Zambezi river valley in northern Zimbabwe. But mining
experts in Harare say these were not thought to be large enough
to support a viable mine.
 			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
"It is a huge step from locating some uranium deposits to 
developing a working uranium mine and refinery, and it is an even 
bigger leap to establish a nuclear reactor," said John Robertson, 
an economist in Harare. "Where would Mugabe source the 
substantial finance and technical expertise needed to build a 
nuclear reactor?"

It could take four to five years to set up a uranium mine.
Considerable technical skills would then be needed to produce
the uranium concentrate needed for a nuclear reactor, said Mr
Robertson.

Zimbabwe has poor relations with Britain, the European Union and
the United States, but has close ties with two countries that
have controversial nuclear programmes - Iran and North Korea.

Mr Mugabe made mention of Zimbabwe's uranium deposits once
before, in the 1990s, when he announced plans to acquire a
nuclear reactor from Argentina, but nothing else was ever heard
about the proposal. Neighbouring Namibia has a uranium mine near
the port of Walvis Bay. South Africa has southern Africa's only
nuclear power station at Koeberg and is currently developing a
new "pebble-bed" design of reactor.

Zimbabwe has been plagued with a shortage of electricity for
several years, resulting in power blackouts to industrial and
residential areas across the capital. The country currently has
a shortfall on mosy days of 400 to 450 megawatts of its
requirements of 2,100 megawatts.

The state-owned power company, the Zimbabwe Electric Supply
Authority, has imported power from South Africa, Mozambique and
Congo on the regional grid, but has been late in paying its
bills to those countries.

By suggesting that Zimbabwe will develop its own source of
nuclear power, Mr Mugabe may be seeking to offer a glimmer of
hope to frustrated citizens coping with worsening shortages of
electricity, water, fuel and food.

"Perhaps Mr Mugabe is also trying to get Zimbabwe to be
considered as a strategically important state in the
international community," said Mr Robertson. "He can see how
Iran and North Korea are using the threat of developing nuclear
power as a bargaining chip with the United States."

The real concern of the international community would be if
Zimbabwe built a nuclear reactor that produced, as a by-product,
high-grade plutonium that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Zimbabwe has rich mineral resources, including the world's
second-largest platinum deposits, high-quality chrome, gold and
several other metals.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 33 AU ABC: ACF warns Govt over nuclear waste dump

 Tuesday, 22 November 2005. 00:37 (AEDT)Tuesday, 22 November

 The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says the Federal
Government's plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern
Territory, in the face of community opposition, is heavy-handed
and unwise. 

The ACF is among a number of groups that will appear before a
Senate inquiry today examining a bill designed to give the
Commonwealth the power to override objections to the dump. 

The group's nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney says the Government
has not made a compelling case for why its waste should be moved
from Lucas Heights in Sydney. 

"The international experience is very clear on this: that when
there are attempts... and real and genuine attempts... at
consultation and inclusion then you get good outcomes," he said. 

"The international experience also says when you try and
bulldoze, you get bad outcomes, bad environmental outcomes, bad
social outcomes." 

The Northern Territory's Chief Minister will also appear before
the hearing into the bill that opens the way for the facility to
be built in the Territory. 

Clare Martin says the crux of her argument will be that the
location for the dump should be chosen based on science not on
politics. 

"This is about science, I mean this is not about some facility
that is storing old socks," she said. 

Ms Martin says if the science shows a dump could be placed in
the Territory, she would have to accept that decision. 

*****************************************************************
 34 Korea Herald: [Junior Herald]Nuclear waste dumpsite to open in Gyeongju 

By Yun Hyo-won (lovely217@heraldm.com) 

2005.11.21

The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy has announced that
a nuclear waste dumpsite will open in Gyeongju, North Gyongsang
Province, by 2008. 

Korea currently has 20 nuclear power plants. Ten more plants are
expected to be completed by 2015. But there is currently no
place to put nuclear waste. 

The government has sought to find a place for nuclear waste
since 1986. Envi- ronmentalists and local residents, however,
have opposed the government¡¯s efforts. 

The bid to build a nuclear waste dumpsite was started in August.
Four cities -- Gunsan, Yeoungdeok, Pohang and Gyeongju --
competed for the right to construct the dumpsite. 

Gyeongju scored the highest in a ranking system with 89.5
percent. Gunsan had 84.4 percent, Yeoungdeok 79.3 and Pohang
67.5 percent. 

The government will give Gyeongju various economic benefits,
including subsidies amounting to 300 billion won. Gyeongju will
also receive between 5 billion and 10 billion won annually to
cover storage fees. 

The Korea Hydro &Nuclear Power Co., which oversees all of the
nation? power plants, will be relocated to the city. Government
officials expect the move will create thousands of new jobs in
Gyeongju. 

The government has promised that only low-and intermediate-level
radioactive wastes will be stored at the new dumpsite. 

Environmentalists and some civic groups, however, are still
concerned. They say the dumpsite will lead to increased
pollution and environmental destruction. 

 
*****************************************************************
 35 Bellona: Liquid waste treatment plant at Kola NPP to be completed by December 30
 
  You are here:  www.bellona.no : Russia : Russian NPPs : Kola

Last month the Kola NPP welcomed the representatives of the
German firm RWE NUKEM, a supplier of a number of systems for the
newly constructed Liquid Waste Treatment Plant. 

2005-11-21 14:40

The scientists suggest to treat nuclear waste by tempering it,
i.e. to transfer it into safer forms, convenient for all stages
of handling: storage, shipment and final disposal. This approach
assumes different methods of treatment. 

After all methods were thoroughly studied, Russian and German
specialists developed the one that is the most adequate for the
plant. At the moment finishing and main equipment mounting works
are in progress inside the huge LRWT building: ventilation,
cabling, piping and installation of radionuclides purification
system. 

The main purpose of RWE NUKEM visit to the Kola NPP was
negotiating on warranty services of the supplied equipment, so
called A1/A4 facility (radioactive substances extraction plant)
and A2 (conditioning system). The Kola NPP informed their German
partners on the coming comprehensive tests of the system on
December 22, 2005. LRWT plant commissioning terms is December
30, 2005, the Kola NPP press department informed. The TACIS
program and the Rosatom Company sponsor the project. 
  

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 36 Las Vegas SUN: EPA to review Yucca input 

Today: November 21, 2005 at 8:51:55 PST 

Public weighs in on proposed radiation standards 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

Sun Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON -- By the end of today, the Environmental Protection 
Agency will add its last pages to the stack of public comments 
on the proposed radiation protection standards for the Yucca 
Mountain project. 

Today marks the end of an almost four-month comment period on 
the standards, proposed in August. The agency has to create a 
new standard after a federal appeals court threw out the 
existing ones last year. 

The EPA received at least 120 written comments, according to 
its Web site. 

As expected, those who support and oppose the standard 
expressed their thoughts, although those against it have 
different stances on what is wrong with it. 

The agency proposed a two-tiered standard. One tier maintains a 
15-millirem standard for up to 10,000 years and the second 
limits exposure to 350-millirem per year for 10,000 to 1 million 
years for those living in a certain area around Yucca Mountain, 
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Yucca critics, including state officials, strongly oppose the 
standard for a number of reasons. They claim the proposed rules 
do not satisfy what the court ordered last July, do not protect 
health and safety of future Nevadans and is written in a way to 
automatically let the mountain "pass." 

But some opposed the standard because of the 1 million year 
time frame, saying it was ridiculous to try to regulate 
something that far into the future. 

"I find the extension of the time frame for the Yucca Mountain 
rules to 1 million years to be absolutely preposterous," wrote 
Frank A. Albini, a retired research professor of mechanical 
engineering at Montana State University, Bozeman. 

"The rules should apply no longer than the current life of the 
nation, about 200 years. By then, the people of the U.S., if 
such still exists, will probably not even be able to read, much 
less interpret, the rules. This is silliness in the extreme." 

Others rejected the Yucca Mountain project outright, with some 
suggesting their own alternatives for storing nuclear waste, 
including creating "atomic batteries" that future generations 
could use to generate electricity or putting waste in steel 
containers wrapped in concrete with a sign in several languages 
saying to not go inside the mountain. 

Some used the opportunity to urge the completion of the project 
and get waste there as fast as possible. 

Other excerpts from comments submitted include: 

* "Are you seriously insane!?" said someone identified only as 
Jeremiah. "Quit laughing. Look at the real data. Quit dismissing 
it. And do your damn jobs. Your current proposal is dangerous 
and ludicrous. That anyone could propose it with a straight face 
is hideous and offensive in the extreme." 

* "10,000 years is a convenient threshold regardless of what 
the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) or Nevada has to say," 
wrote K. Halac. 

"NAS and Nevada are entitled to an opinion. ... But rational 
decisions should be made by the EPA, even if they are not 
directly in line with the hypothetical arguments. Nevada is 
crying foul solely to stop construction of Yucca. Shall we allow 
one state out of fifty to drive public policy on this issue? 
While the wheels of motion are stopped by lawyers (making over 
$500 per hour each) to ponder time frames of 10,000 years-plus, 
the other 49 states in the union are concerned about the next 10 
to 20 years of public health and safety." 

In a second, separate comment, Halac added: "I personally would 
much rather have a very large radiological event in the Nevada 
location rather than a smaller radiological event at Indian 
Point in New York." 

* "The EPA appears to be pandering to the needs of the 
Department of Energy (DOE) and nuclear industry by tailoring 
this proposed radiation exposure standard to fit the Yucca 
Mountain site so that it could be licensed," wrote R. Kaplan. 

Comments submitted by Friday ranged from barely legible 
handwritten pages to quick e-mails to carefully-worded typed 
documents. A few contained profanity. And some included warnings 
on what would happen if Yucca opened, while others warned what 
would happen if it did not open. 

It is not clear when the agency will finish reviewing the 
comments and issue its final rule. 

The last time the agency proposed a radiation standard, it took 
two years to take public comment, respond and make the final 
standard public. 

Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at 
suzanne@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 37 Cinncinnati Enquirer: Fernald waste cleanup progressing

Monday, November 21, 2005 

Key step reaches halfway point 
By Dan Klepal

Enquirer staff writer    

The Enquirer/Brandi Stafford
  
  Scott Kiser,of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio uses a
survey meter to measure the radiation limits coming from the
canisters of removed waste at the Fernald cleanup site. When
filled, the canisters will be buried whole.
  	 
  FERNALD BY THE NUMBERS   
  	 

Acres: 1,050
Opened: 1951
Silos filled: 1952-57
Cost of silos project: $400 million
Number of canisters shipped: 2,000
Cost per canister: $11,000   
    
  The Fernald cleanup in Crosby Township is halfway completed.
During the Cold War, the plant processed high-grade uranium from
raw ore. This weekend, the 2,000th shipment of silos waste left
the facility.
   
The Enquirer/Brandi Stafford
  
  Control room operators Shawn McCarty and Dave Zahner remotely
monitor the Fernald cleanup from the silo remediation facility
control room.
   
CROSBY TWP. - The tanks are half empty at Fernald, the
long-closed uranium plant that served as a vital link in the
U.S. nuclear weapons program during the Cold War.
At last.

The tanks are four 750,000-gallon steel storage containers that
now hold the most dangerous waste ever produced at Fernald,
which in its day was a top-secret facility where thousands
toiled to process high-grade uranium from raw ore.

The removal and disposal of the so-called silos waste - which
got its name from the two concrete storage "silos" that held it
for more than 50 years, before it was moved into the steel tanks
earlier this year - are the last major hurdles in completing the
$4.4 billion site cleanup that started a decade ago. The waste
is the ore debris and toxic chemicals used to melt the ore.

The Fernald cleanup goes far beyond silos waste, and includes
1,050 acres of contaminated soil, an underground lake of spoiled
drinking water and dozens of buildings to raze before the rubble
and soil are hauled away.

But no other project at Fernald has had more problems, or
presented the level of risk to workers and the public, as the
silos project.

That job reached the halfway mark this weekend, when the 2,000th
shipment of silos waste rolled out of Fernald on a flatbed
semi-trailer en route to Texas.

Rudy Crawford knows all about silos waste. He was a supervisor
at Fernald in the 1950s, when the waste was pumped into the
silos.

Today, Crawford leads a group of retired workers who are trying
to get government compensation for cancers and other illnesses
they said they believe were caused by the work.

"It's certainly something to cheer," Crawford said. "From my
point of view, I don't want to see anybody else get knocked down
by that stuff like we did. When it's gone, it will be an
easement of mind for everyone in the local area."
Halfway was a long journey.

The original plan to clean up the silos was devised in 1993 and
involved turning the waste into glass, a process known as
vitrification.

After four years, the government ended it, deciding it was
financially and technically unfeasible.

A 1997 General Accounting Office investigation found lax
oversight by the U.S. Department of Energy led to $65 million in
overruns before the project was abandoned. Taxpayers lost
another $30 million in research and study.

The process being used today is different. It involves computer
operators using joysticks and banks of video monitors to
remotely mix the material with concrete and fly ash, then pour
it into 4,000-pound steel shipping canisters.

The mixture has to be precise, so radiation coming out of the
canisters is below government safety levels. The canisters will
eventually be buried whole.

Taxpayers spent $400 million on the buildings, pipes, computers
and massive infrastructure that support that process. Come
February, when the waste is gone, it all will be torn down and
hauled away as hazardous waste.

Con Murphy, president of government contractor Fluor Fernald,
said turning $400 million of infrastructure into debris after
just two years is rare in the construction business.

"It's served its designed life," Murphy said. "But it's a little
sad. Some people build a skyscraper and everyone says you did a
great job. In this business, we show you a green field, and
everyone says 'So what?'"

That's the plan for Fernald - lots of green fields. The cleanup
plan calls for a transformation of weapons to wetlands - turning
the vast majority of the site into a natural park with bogs,
forest and wildlife - a job about 70 percent complete, officials
said.

Lisa Crawford, who is not related to Rudy, said she couldn't
wait for the last truck of silos waste to rumble past her house.
She, like many people around Fernald, drank contaminated well
water for years before finding out and suing the government in
the mid-1980s.

Crawford has served as a watchdog of the cleanup since.
"That light at the end of the tunnel is getting a little
brighter every day," Lisa Crawford said. "I think we've finally
figured it out. When it's all over, I don't know what I'll do
... crochet, maybe?"

[Cincinnati.Com]     

*****************************************************************
 38 Independent: Riot police seize protesters blocking shipment of French nuclear
waste 

By Tony Paterson in Berlin 

Published: 22 November 2005 

Riot police equipped with water cannons and tear gas removed
hundreds of protesters attempting to block the delivery of
atomic waste from France to a storage depot near the north
German town of Gorleben yesterday. 

Police said they had arrested 26 protesters and confiscated 79
farmers' tractors that formed a barricade along the route,
delaying delivery of the waste by several hours. Protest groups
said a number of activists had been injured.
 
Further blockades were expected last night as the waste was
transferred from a 12-wagon train on to a truck that was due to
take it the remaining 12 miles to a storage depot in a disused
salt mine.
 
More than 3,000 people protested against the waste delivery at a
rally in the region on Saturday. Anti-nuclear activists also
staged a series of sit-down blockades on the rail track as the
waste transport approached its destination on Sunday. A
15,000-strong force of riot police was deployed to guard the
delivery.
 
The Gorleben waste depot has been the focus of anti-nuclear
protests for over a decade. Last year, a French activist was run
over and killed after he chained himself to a railway line at
Nancy in eastern France in an attempt to stop a nuclear
transport.
 
Environmentalists fear the storage facility will become
permanent and contaminate the local water supply. But the German
government has refused to shut down the site, despite its
long-term commitment to end nuclear power.
 
The waste is produced in Germany but sent to the French nuclear
facility at La Hague in Normandy for reprocessing. France
insists that the waste return to its country of origin.
 
Anti-nuclear activists said yesterday they feared Germany's new
grand-coalition government, headed by Angela Merkel, would
renege on the previous Social Democrat-Green administration's
plans to end nuclear power.
 
Ms Merkel is due to be sworn in as Germany's first female
chancellor during a special session of parliament today. 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 39 Tri-Valley Herald: Recycling nuclear fuel draws fire

Article Last Updated: 11/21/2005 08:16:57 AM
			 		

Scientists attack proposal by two congressmen
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER   

Reversing 30 years of nuclear policy, federal lawmakers
last week ordered the U.S. Energy Department to start designing
experimental separation plants for spent nuclear fuel and by
July to open a competition for one or more nuclear-fuel
recycling parks. 

The nation's return to reprocessing of spent fuel is the most 
controversial among several opening moves in a resurgence of 
nuclear power, driven partly by concern about greenhouse warming 
and rising oil and gas prices. 

But a nuclear renaissance faces several obstacles — nuclear
power remains too costly to compete with fossil-fueled
electricity, questions loom over producing more nuclear-weapons
materials, and waste disposal remains largely unresolved. 

The U.S. government's plan to dispose of spent fuel in
underground caverns of Yucca Mountain has faltered against stiff
political opposition. The planned opening of Yucca Mountain has
been delayed from 1998 to 2007, and that date also appears
unlikely. 

By then, electrical utilities will have 60,000 tons of spent fuel 
piled up at 72 reactor sites. That is close to the point at which 
a federal nuclear-waste law says the nation must begin finding a 
second repository for its high-level nuclear waste, in essence, 
another Yucca Mountain. 

Two powerful lawmakers in Congress are frustrated and driving to
make chemical reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel part of
the solution. 

"Right now this fuel is sitting around all these power plants in
this country, and we're incurring a cost to those powercompanies
because the government agreed to remove that material," Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, told National Public Radio this summer. 

Hobson and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairmen of the House and
Senate Energy and Water appropriations committees, respectively,
led colleagues last week in cutting $200 million from the Yucca
Mountain project for this year. They ordered $130 million spent
on new reprocessing research and told the Energy Department to
deliver a national blueprint for reprocessing by March. 

In 2007, they want the department to choose a reprocessing 
technology and start searching for one or more sites for an 
"integrated fuel recycling" center. Such a center would have a 
reprocessing plant to separate plutonium and possibly other 
materials from the fuel rods, plus a recycling plant to turn the 
recovered plutonium into the fresh reactor fuel and a 
vitrification plant to entomb the remaining ceramics for 
disposal. 

Domenici and Hobson set aside $20 million for potential sites,
at $5 million each, to start obtaining the necessary permits. 
Neither committee held hearings on reprocessing, and the Energy
Department has not weighed its cost, environmental impacts and
proliferation risks against those for storing the spent fuel.

But such centers are likely to be expensive. France spent $6
billion on a reprocessing plant alone; it cost Japan $20
billion. 

The move dovetails with ideas that the Bush administration has
for discouraging other countries from engaging in reprocessing
by offering to process the fuel in the United States as a way of
limiting the spread of separated plutonium. 

Details of the administration's proposal, known as the Global
Nuclear Energy Initiative, have been closely held and are
expected to be released early next year. But President Bush
already has suggested that developing nations look to the United
States and other developed nuclear powers for uranium enrichment
and spent-fuel reprocessing. 

The United States tried civilian reprocessing briefly in New
York and North Carolina. But the plants either never opened or
were shut down due to safety problems. 
				 				 					 					 					 						 					 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 		 		
Presidents Ford and Carter started a U.S. moratorium on
reprocessing after India harvested weapons plutonium from its
spent fuel and exploded a nuclear bomb in 1974. The United
States has discouraged Brazil, South Korea and other nations
from starting reprocessing but has failed to dissuade North
Korea and Iran. 

The latest push for reprocessing is not coming from the nuclear
industry, which says the technology may be promising decades in
the future but today is neither economical nor a solution to the
need for a secure storage of spent fuel. The biggest proponents
of reprocessing are federal nuclear laboratories such as
Argonne, Idaho, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national
laboratories. 

Studies by Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and the American Physical Society recommend against
reprocessing until it is less expensive and less prone to spread
weapons materials more widely. 
Instead, those three studies recommend continuing U.S. practice
of running nuclear fuel through a reactor once, then storing the
spent fuel rods if not in Yucca Mountain then in dry casks at a
secure central or regional repository, for 50 years or more. 


MIT physicist and former Energy Department Undersecretary Ernie 
Moniz says reprocessing technologies that are economical and 
resistant to proliferation are perhaps 20 years away. 

Moniz favors an expansion of nuclear power to replace fossil-fuel 
power plants that contribute to global warming. But reprocessing 
will not significantly help the nuclear waste problem and create 
political problems that could hobble any growth in U.S. nuclear 
energy, he said. 

"I believe in fact it would put movement on this front at great 
risk," he said. 

The federal government already spends about $1 billion annually
guarding weapons-grade plutonium and uranium at its own
facilities, and Harvard physicist Matthew Bunn said it is a bad
idea to create new stores of weapons plutonium in
private-sector, civilian reprocessing centers. 

Argonne lab scientists say they have new reprocessing techniques
that can make the plutonium unattractive for bombs by keeping it
mixed with other materials from the spent fuel. But at least one
of those materials, neptunium, is as good or better than uranium
for building atom bombs, by itself or mixed with plutonium. 

"The history of the nuclear industry is littered with examples of 
rushing to judgment on new technologies, with bad results ," said 
Harvard's Bunn. 

He, Moniz and other researchers said resurrecting reprocessing
will make it harder for the United States to persuade other
nations that they should not reprocess for their own energy
needs. 

"It's craziness," said Princeton University physicist Frank von
Hippel. "What's in this package actually makes the waste problem
worse unless you invest huge amounts in recycling this stuff.

This would increase the amount of nuclear-weapons materials
loose in the world, and that's the last thing we need right
now." 

Tri-Valley Herald All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: NT nuclear waste dump sparks science debate. 

21/11/2005. ABC News Online

The Northern Territory Government has rejected Opposition claims
it is softened its stance against the proposed national nuclear
waste dump.

 The Chief Minister will tomorrow appear before a Senate hearing
into the bill that opens the way for the facility to be built in
the Territory. 

Clare Martin says the crux of her argument will be that the
location for the dump should be chosen based on science not on
politics. 

NT Opposition Leader Jodeen Carney says the Government should
have focused on the scientific argument all along. 

"What she should have been doing is working with the
Commonwealth, instead she's been almost hysterical," she said.

 Ms Martin maintains science has always been a key aspect of her
campaign.

 "This is about science, I mean this is not about some facility
that is storing old socks," she said.

 Ms Martin says if the science shows a dump could be placed in
the Territory, she would have to accept that decision. 


*****************************************************************
 41 AU ABC: ACF warns Govt over nuclear waste dump. 

22/11/2005. ABC News Online

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says the Federal
Government's plan to build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern
Territory, in the face of community opposition, is heavy-handed
and unwise.

 The ACF is among a number of groups that will appear before a
Senate inquiry today examining a bill designed to give the
Commonwealth the power to override objections to the dump.

 The group's nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney says the Government
has not made a compelling case for why its waste should be moved
from Lucas Heights in Sydney.

 "The international experience is very clear on this: that when
there are attempts... and real and genuine attempts... at
consultation and inclusion then you get good outcomes," he said.

 "The international experience also says when you try and
bulldoze, you get bad outcomes, bad environmental outcomes, bad
social outcomes."

 The Northern Territory's Chief Minister will also appear before
the hearing into the bill that opens the way for the facility to
be built in the Territory.

 Clare Martin says the crux of her argument will be that the
location for the dump should be chosen based on science not on
politics.

 "This is about science, I mean this is not about some facility
that is storing old socks," she said.

 Ms Martin says if the science shows a dump could be placed in
the Territory, she would have to accept that decision. 

*****************************************************************
 42 AU ABC: Territorians treated as 'second class citizens', says Martin.
                   
22/11/2005. ABC News Online

The Northern Territory Chief Minister has described the Federal
Government's process for finding a site for a national nuclear
waste dump as the worst possible approach.

 Clare Martin has appeared before a one day Senate hearing on
the issue in Canberra.

 Ms Martin said the Commonwealth went through an extensive
scientific process to find the best site and found the Territory
was not the best place. 

She told the hearing the Commonwealth changed its tune and
informed her government through a press release that the dump
would be built in the Northern Territory.

 "Territorians know only to well that they are being treated as
second class citizens and that the Northern Territory is being
used as a dumping ground," she said.

 "Should the Commonwealth return to a process of objective
scientific selection, the Northern Territory Government
undertakes to fully engage in that process." 


*****************************************************************
 43 NEWS.com.au: Abandon NT nuke dump plan - Martin - 

From: AAP                       
November 22, 2005   		 		 		 

THE rejection of an open selection process for choosing a
nuclear waste dump had left Northern Territorians confused and
upset, NT Chief Minister Clare Martin told an inquiry today.

 Ms Martin told the Senate committee looking into the site
selection that the NT wanted the Federal Government to return to
an independent, objective process of site selection.

 The House of Representatives has given the Government the
go-ahead to build a nuclear waste dump at one of three sites in
the NT. The Senate has yet to approve to the Bill.

 It is a big step in the long search for a place to secure
Australia's low and intermediate level radioactive waste, which
was started by the Hawke government in 1992.

 Ms Martin said the NT Government rejected the Federal
Government's imposition of the site for a number of reasons.

 "It's the abandonment of an open, transparent, inclusive
process of rigorous scientific assessment," she told the inquiry.

"It is the adoption of a process that has been described as 
'decide, announce, defend'.

 "It's about backroom decisions being made without consultation
and without discussion.

 "It's about the imposition of the nation's radioactive waste on
Territorians without their representatives involvement in any
shape or form."

 Ms Martin said the territory Government recognised the benefits
that flowed from radiopharmaceutical medical procedures and the
variety of industrial, scientific and domestic applications that
used radioactive materials.

 "I have a lot of concerned, confused and upset constituents who
have no clear understanding of what is going on," she said.

 "But they do know political expediency when it's landed on them.

 "If you had to nominate one single issue where it was
absolutely essential that the public knew what was going on, had
confidence in the process and understood the issues, then
dealing with radioactive waste would have to be at the top of
that list."

 Ms Martin said the International Atomic Energy Agency had
warned that increasing public confidence at the local level, and
step by step approaches, were important steps in any disposal
siting process.

 An earlier independent, exhaustive site selection process had
followed that kind of public awareness process, she said.

 "Compare that process with the process now before you.

 "On the one hand, a considered, transparent, inclusive process,
on the other, a fait accompli.

 "It is the NT's strong position that this pre-emptive decision
should be abandoned and that the Commonwealth return to an
independent, objective process of site selection." 		  		 		

*****************************************************************
 44 DW: Protestors Halt Nuclear Convoy en Route to Storage Site |
    
Germany | 

Deutsche Welle | 21.11.2005
 	 	 	
Protestors Halt Nuclear Convoy en Route to Storage Site 
[Around 150 activists blocked the tracks in Harlingen]
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Around 150
activists blocked the tracks in Harlingen 

 Anti-nuclear protestors repeatedly halted a controversial
shipment of highly radioactive nuclear waste from France Monday
bound for a temporary storage facility in northern Germany.
 
The activists said the train with 12 containers carrying more
than 170 tons of treated nuclear power plant waste was stopped
in the city of GÃ¶ttingen for about 30 minutes and then later in
the village of BienenbÃ¼ttel en route to the Gorleben site.
 
Eighteen demonstrators were briefly detained in GÃ¶ttingen.
Police also cleared a blockade of 160 tractors near the town of
Klein Gusborn on the last leg of the 600-kilometer (370-mile)
odyssey, where more than 600 people joined the protest following
demonstrations throughout the weekend. 
 
In the town of Harlingen, police removed 150 activists
performing a sit-in on the tracks and detained 23. Authorities
had to forcibly clear the blockade, with more than 70 of the
tractors seized and taken to a nearby field. Some 15,000
officers had been mobilized on the German side to secure the
passage of the train.
 
The coalition of activists argues that the shipments are
dangerous and that their lengthy storage could allow radioactive
material to seep into the water supply in the region.
 
"The radioactivity of these 12 containers is two and a half
times higher than that of Chernobyl," said Thomas Breuer, a
nuclear expert with environmental watchdog Greenpeace.

Nuclear phase-out in danger?

[Merkel wants to extend the deadline for nuclear phase-out]
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift:  Merkel wants to extend the deadline for
nuclear phase-outThe demonstrators are also trying to put
pressure on Angela Merkel's incoming left-right government to
maintain the previous administration's two-decade timetable for
phasing out all the country's nuclear power plants and find
another permanent dump for the nuclear waste.
 
The train left the La Hague treatment center in western France
Saturday and arrived around midday in the town of Dannenberg,
traditionally a hotbed of anti-nuclear protests. The waste
containers will be loaded onto trucks there and finish the final
20-kilometer (12-mile) stretch of the journey. The shipment, the
ninth since 1996, is due Tuesday morning in Gorleben, where
there are already 56 containers of radioactive waste stored.
 
The transports were interrupted in 1998 following a scandal over
radioactive contamination on the surface of the containers. They
resumed in 2001.
 
[Workers check the train carrying 12 containers of nuclear waste
to Germany] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift:  Workers check the train carrying 12
containers of nuclear waste to GermanyDuring the last such
shipment to Germany in November 2004, a French anti-nuclear
activist was killed when he was run over by a train in the
eastern French city of Nancy.
 
The nuclear waste is produced in power plants in Germany, but
sent to France because the country has no waste re-processing
plants. France insists that the waste be returned to the
countries that produced it.
  
DW staff / AFP (ncy) 

DW-World: Green Groups Urge Coalition to Consider Environment 

German environmental organizations appealed to the two main
parties embroiled in coalition talks to stick to the nuclear
phase-out agreement and to consider other ecological issues
which the talks have yet to address.(Nov. 2, 2005) 

    + 
DW-World: Germany Shuts Down Atomic Reactor 

Germany closed down a second atomic reactor -- also the
country's oldest -- on Wednesday. The move is part of a
government policy to phase out nuclear power. (May 11, 2005) 

    + 
DW-World: Protestor Killed in Castor Transport 

A train carrying "castors" of nuclear waste from France to
Germany ran over a protestor who had chained himself to the
tracks, severing both of his legs. He died of his injuries a
short while later, police reported. (Nov. 7, 2004) 
Audios and videos on the topic 
    + 
Video: Protesters blocked a train carrying nuclear waste in
Germany 

Your Comments 
*****************************************************************
 45 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
 
                        FR Doc 05-23005 

[Federal Register: November 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 70071] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21no05-37] [[Page 70071]]
 
Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, December 14, 2005, 6 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 
576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site 
at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: Oak Ridge Reservation Planning--Integrating 
Multiple Land Uses Public Participation: The meeting is open to 
the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information 
Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on November 15, 2005.
 
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-23005 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 46 Tri-Valley Herald: Anxiety, fear set the tone in Los Alamos

Article Last Updated: 11/21/2005 08:17:10 AM
			 		
Bids for lab have many residents, workers wondering what the 
future holds

By Heather Clark, Associated Press   

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — Many people in this isolated mesa-top
community are anxious or fearful about who will win a contract
to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Others have had enough of the speculation. 

"It's at the top of every grocery line conversation, every
coffee shop conversation right now," said Los Alamos County
spokeswoman Julie Habiger, whose husband works at the nuclear
weapons lab. 

Loan activity at a local bank is down and retailers say
customers are waiting for the announcement before they make
expensive purchases. 

The main contenders for the contract are two limited liability
corporations, one headed by Lockheed Martin Corp. and the
University of Texas and the other led by Bechtel Corp. and the
University of California, which has been the sole manager of the
lab since Manhattan Project scientists gathered in World War II
to develop the world's first atomic bomb. 

No matter which team wins the contract worth up to $79 million,
both recognize it's in the nation's interest to ease anxiety
among 9,500 lab employees to en-sure a smooth transition for
scientists charged, in part, with maintaining the nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. 

Many scientists are tired of the buzz surrounding the
competition announced in April 2003 by then-Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham. The announcement of the winner is expected by
Dec. 1. 

Debbie Clark, an engineer in the Physics Division, said
scientists "are concentrating on their first love — science —
and not thinking about these changes." 

Other employees say work is stressful. John Horne, a 22-year lab
veteran who was disciplined for his role in a 2004 security
lapse, said his co-workers in the lab's DX Division are
despondent. 

"People are basically dazed and walking around in a state of
shock," he said. 

Lab spokesman Kevin Roark denies the contract change is
affecting the lab's work. He says the fiscal year ending Sept.
30 saw no major milestones slip and the results were "excellent
given the turmoil in the early part of the fiscal year." 

But the first contract competition in the lab's 62-year history
is expected to usher in change, especially since either team
will bring a corporate presence to the lab for the first time. 

"There's a lot of fear because of the uncertainty of who's going 
to get the contract," said Ingrun Roberts, a Los Alamos teacher 
and wife of a computer scientist who hosts a popular Web log that 
has been critical of the lab. 

"What benefits will remain?" she wondered. "Will my husband have
to transfer? What kind of jobs will remain? ... Is the focus of
the lab changing?" 

Both teams have opened offices in Los Alamos to answer such
questions from the community. 

Maintaining the quality of science at the lab is top of the
agenda for visitors to a storefront office run by the
Lockheed-UT team called Los Alamos Alliance, said Rod Geer, a
Sandia Laboratories employee who helps staff the office. 
Office visits are averaging eight people a day since its opening
Oct. 5, he said. 

When Geer, who grew up in Los Alamos, asks employees what their
top concern is during this transition, "overwhelmingly, we're
hearing people say ... the ability to do great science work." 

Maintaining top-flight benefits to retain and recruit scientists
was of secondary concern, Geer said. 

Retirements from the lab were up slightly in the fiscal year 
ending Sept. 30. Six percent of the lab's work force resigned, up 
from a 4 percent annual norm over the last decade. 

But lab spokesman James Rickman said the increase was due more
to an aging work force than worries about the contract. 
Still, many current and retired scientists fear the lab could
see an exodus of its brightest scientists next spring, when the
bid winner puts its benefits to paper. 

Scientists have until the end of May to decide whether to sign
on with the new manager. 

Across town, the UC-Bechtel team, known as Los Alamos National
Security, LLC (LANS), has opened its doors across the street
from the main laboratory complex. 

Joe Scarpino, senior executive for LANS, said that in August
shortly after their bid was submitted, up to 20 people a week
visited the office, but that number has dropped somewhat in
recent weeks. 

"I think everybody's kind of getting to the point where they're
waiting for the conclusion," he said, noting some are saying
"they're tired of talking about it." 

Doug Roberts, a 20-year lab veteran who retired from the lab
this year — but still hosts a Web log for lab employees called
LANL: The Real Story — said Los Alamos Alliance's choice for lab
director, C. Paul Robinson, has engaged in a dialog with blog
readers, while LANS has remained distant. 

Lab officials have dismissed the blog as containing posts from a
handful of disgruntled lab employees. 

Geer explained the dialog started after a letter from Robinson
was downloaded 1,800 times from the blog. The office itself
handed out only 20 hard copies. Robinson then issued a second
letter addressing concerns posted on the blog, Geer said. 

"There's a big difference between the two LLCs and how they are
interacting with the community," Roberts said. "One of them is
very open and is encouraging people to engage in discussions
regarding areas of interest. ... The other is behind a locked
door that requires a badge to get in. They're discouraging
discussion with the community." 

Both teams are tight-lipped about specific changes they would
make, should they be chosen. Both say that such information is
proprietary until the winner is named. 

Some lab employees and retirees welcome a new corporate presence 
at the lab. 

They say poor business practices at the lab led to a purchasing
scandal and a series of embarrassing security and safety lapses
that culminated in a seven-month shutdown, which the Department
of Energy estimated cost about $367 million. UC put the cost at
$110 million. 

Both teams stress they will stop the safety and security lapses
and update the lab's business practices. 

Whichever team wins, Los Alamos residents agree the handover will 
mean the end of era where UC was the exclusive operator to run 
the lab. 

"It will have a different feel from this day forward," Habiger 
said, "but how different it will be is what remains to be seen."
				 				 				 			   		 		 		
© 2005 ANG Newspapers 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************