*****************************************************************
10/04/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.230
*****************************************************************
   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 Fisk: How The World Was Duped: The Race To Invade Iraq 
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ready to Reopen Talks With Europeans
3 RIA Novosti: Tehran ready to hear Russian proposals on nuclear progr
4 Xinhua: Russia urges further cooperation between Iran, IAEA   
5 Khaleej Times: Iran wants unconditional nuclear talks with EU
6 IRNA: UPA won't change vote on Iran nuclear issue 
7 Korea Herald: [Guest Column]Toward nuclear-free Korean Peninsula   
8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Keeps Up Pressure on N.Korea Ahead o
9 Xinhua: US urges DPRK to abandon nuclear weapons   
10 AFP: US, North Korea hold direct talks on nuclear weapons - Yahoo!
11 US: GREENPEACE UK: New Nuclear Stance                               
12 [du-list] WORKSHOP GENEVA 9 NOV 2005/INVITATION
13 Bellona:  Italy to allocate 360m euro for submarine dismantling in R
14 Bellona: Russia to reduce nuclear fuel export
15 RIA Novosti: UPDATE: Russian justice minister doubts U.S. will 
16 RIA Novosti: What the Russian papers say
17 Mos News: The Case of the Ex-Nuclear Minister - 
18 Indian Express: Musharraf wants India-US-type nuclear deal
19 Mickey Z.: Hiroshima 59 Years Later
20 AFP: Kazakhstan to Recycle Weapons-Grade Uranium for Peaceful Applic
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
21 US: [epa-impact] Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant
22 US: NRC: NRC Staff Seeks Input on Brunswick Nuclear Plant Draft Envi
23 US: Arizona Republic: Nuke unit shut down a 3rd time
24 US: NRC: NRC Establishes Web Page for Information on Spent Fuel Pool
25 US: Times Record: Decommission accomplished   
26 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Partial Withdrawa
27 Shoreline Beacon: Wind energy catching on in Canada 
28 US: Record Online: Indian Point reactor shut 
29 ITAR-TASS: Russia's 1st nuclear industry eqt exhibition to open in M
30 US: St. Petersburg Times: Second nuclear plant in the works
31 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings
32 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; 
33 NEWS.com.au: Coal boom to outlast nuclear energy 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
34 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Report for Comment: ``Estim
35 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
36 [du-list] catalogue of blunders at Sellafield (formerly
37 US: HeraldNet: Uranium-tainted soil Everett bound
38 US: Deseret News: Nuclear waste sign of eroding ethics
39 reviewjournal.com: NRC appeals posting draft Yucca document on the I
40 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN HEARING: Residents not worried
41 Bellona: BNFL board puts British Nuclear Group up for sale
42 US: BBC: Uranium High Court battle resumes
43 US: Olympian: EPA to clean Spokane uranium mine
44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: DOE to hold meetings on Atlas tailings
45 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's contribution
46 US: LA Daily News: Firm can't say no to feds
47 US: Lincoln Journal Star: Nebraska utilities say how they'll spend n
48 KVBC: Hearings:  Voice Your Opinion On Yucca Mountain
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
49 KIFI: Nuclear Engineer Scholarships Being Offered
50 LongmontFYI - Flats official: Hot spots history
51 lamonitor.com: Lab puts brakes on new hiring 
52 lamonitor.com: Feds help state oversee LANL monitoring 
53 WBIR.COM: ORNL helps scientist displaced by Hurricane Katrina
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Fisk: How The World Was Duped: The Race To Invade Iraq 

By Robert Fisk

04 October, 2005

 The Independent 

The 5th of February 2003 was a snow-blasted day in New York, the
steam whirling out of the road covers, the US secret servicemen
- helpfully wearing jackets with "Secret Service" printed on
them - hugging themselves outside the fustian, asbestos-packed
UN headquarters on the East River. Exhausted though I was after
travelling thousands of miles around the United States, the idea
of watching Secretary of State Colin Powell - or General Powell,
as he was now being reverently redubbed in some American
newspapers - make his last pitch for war before the Security
Council was an experience not to be missed. 

In a few days, I would be in Baghdad to watch the start of this
frivolous, demented conflict. Powell's appearance at the
Security Council was the essential prologue to the tragedy - or
tragicomedy if one could contain one's anger - the appearance of
the Attendant Lord who would explain the story of the drama, the
Horatio to the increasingly unstable Hamlet in the White House. 

There was an almost macabre opening to the play when General
Powell arrived at the Security Council, cheek-kissing the
delegates and winding his great arms around them. CIA director
George Tenet stood behind Powell, chunky, aggressive but
obedient, just a little bit lip-biting, an Edward G Robinson who
must have convinced himself that the more dubious of his
information was buried beneath an adequate depth of moral fury
and fear to be safely concealed. Just like Bush's appearance at
the General Assembly the previous September, you needed to be in
the Security Council to see what the television cameras missed.
There was a wonderful moment when the little British home
secretary Jack Straw entered the chamber through the far
right-hand door in a massive power suit, his double-breasted
jacket apparently wrapping itself twice around Britain's most
famous ex-Trot. He stood for a moment with a kind of semi-benign
smile on his uplifted face, his nose in the air as if sniffing
for power. Then he saw Powell and his smile opened like an
umbrella as his small feet, scuttling beneath him, propelled him
across the stage and into the arms of Powell for his big
American hug. 

You might have thought that the whole chamber, with its toothy
smiles and constant handshakes, contained a room full of men
celebrating peace rather than war. Alas, not so. These elegantly
dressed statesmen were constructing the framework that would
allow them to kill quite a lot of people - some of them Saddam's
little monsters no doubt, but most of them innocent. When Powell
rose to give his terror-talk, he did so with a slow athleticism,
the world-weary warrior whose patience had at last reached its
end. 

But it was an old movie. I should have guessed. Sources, foreign
intelligence sources, "our sources", defectors, sources,
sources, sources. Ah, to be so well-sourced when you have
already taken the decision to go to war. The Powell presentation
sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the
front page of The New York Times - where it was, of course,
treated with due reverence next day. It was a bit like heating
up old soup. Hadn't we heard most of this stuff before? Should
one trust the man? General Powell, I mean, not Saddam. Certainly
we didn't trust Saddam, but Powell's speech was a mixture of
awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone
intercepts à la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some
terrifying proof that Saddam really was conning the UN
inspectors again, and ancient material on the Monster of
Baghdad's all too well known record of beastliness. 

If only we could have heard the Arabic for the State
Department's translation of "OK, buddy" - "Consider it done,
sir" - this from the Republican Guard's "Captain Ibrahim", for
heaven's sake. The dinky illustrations of mobile Iraqi bio-labs
whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition
suggested the Pentagon didn't have much idea of the dilapidated
state of Saddam's railway system, let alone his army. It was
when we went back to Halabja and human rights abuses and all
Saddam's indubitable sins, as recorded by the discredited Unscom
team, that we started eating the old soup again. Jack Straw may
have thought all this "the most powerful and authoritative case"
for war - his ill-considered opinion afterwards - but when we
were forced to listen to the Iraqi officer corps communicating
by phone "Yeah", "Yeah" , "Yeah?", "Yeah . . ." - it was
impossible not to ask oneself if Colin Powell had really
considered the effect this would have on the outside world. 

From time to time, the words "Iraq: Failing to Disarm - Denial
and Deception" appeared on the giant video screen behind General
Powell. Was this a CNN logo? some of us wondered. But no, it was
the work of CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State. 

Because Colin Powell was supposed to be the good cop to the
Bush- Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The
Iraqi officer's telephone-tapped order to his subordinate -
"Remove 'nerve agents' whenever it comes up in the wireless
instructions" - seemed to indicate that the Americans had indeed
spotted a nasty new line in Iraqi deception. But a dramatic
picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying poison
chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon
artist. And when Secretary Powell started talking about
"decades" of contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, things went
wrong for the " General ". Al-Qa'ida only came into existence in
2000, since bin Laden - " decades" ago - was working against the
Russians for the CIA, whose present-day director was sitting
grave-faced behind Mr Powell. It was the United States which had
enjoyed at least a "decade" of contacts with Saddam. 

Powell's new version of his President's State of the Union lie -
that the " scientists" interviewed by UN inspectors had been
Iraqi intelligence agents in disguise - was singularly
unimpressive. The UN talked to Iraqi scientists during their
inspection tours, the new version went, but the Iraqis were
posing for the real nuclear and bio boys whom the UN wanted to
talk to. 

General Powell said America was sharing its information with the
UN inspectors, but it was clear already that much of what he had
to say about alleged new weapons development - the
decontamination truck at the Taji chemical munitions factory,
for example, the "cleaning" of the Ibn al- Haythem ballistic
missile factory on 25 November - had not been given to the UN at
the time. Why wasn't this intelligence information given to the
inspectors months ago? Didn't General Powell's beloved UN
Resolution demand that all such intelligence information should
be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately? Were the
Americans, perhaps, not being "proactive" enough? Or did they
realise that if the UN inspectors had chased these particular
hares, they would have turned out to be as bogus as indeed they
later proved to be? 

The worst moment came when General Powell discussed anthrax and
the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York,
pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and -
while not precisely saying so - fraudulently suggesting a
connection between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax scare. But
when the Secretary of State held up Iraq's support for the
Palestinian Hamas organisation, which has an office in Baghdad,
as proof of Saddam's support for "terror" - he of course made no
mention of America's support for Israel and its occupation of
Palestinian land - the whole theatre began to collapse. There
were Hamas offices in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran. Was the 82nd
Airborne supposed to grind on to Lebanon, Syria and Iran? 

How many lies had been told in this auditorium? How many British
excuses for the Suez invasion, or Russian excuses - the same
year - for the suppression of the Hungarian uprising? One
recalled, of course, this same room four decades earlier when
General Powell's predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photographs
of the ships carrying Soviet missiles to Cuba. Alas, Powell's
pictures carried no such authority. And Colin Powell was no
Adlai Stevenson. 

If Powell's address merited front-page treatment, the American
media had never chosen to give the same attention to the men
driving Bush to war, most of whom were former or still active
pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years they had advocated destroying
the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most
influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton
and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of
Iraq long before George W Bush was elected US president. And
they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A
1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm, called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but
for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
and produced by a group headed by Perle. The destruction of Iraq
would, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons -
always supposing Saddam also possessed them - and allow it to
defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement
Sharon had in store for them. 

Although Bush and Blair dared not discuss this aspect of the
coming war - a conflict for Israel was not going to have
Americans or Britons lining up at recruiting offices -
Jewish-American leaders talked about the advantages of an Iraqi
war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous
Jewish-American groups who opposed this madness were the first
to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresaw Iraq not only
as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not
link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then,
that any discussion of this topic had to be censored, as
Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University tried to do in
The Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen
suggested that European nations' objections to the war might -
yet again - be ascribed to " anti-Semitism of a type long
thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a
malignant intent". This nonsense was opposed by many Israeli
intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argued that an Iraq war
would leave Israel with even more Arab enemies. 

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lay behind Rumsfeld's insulting
remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old"
Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the
France and Germany that opposed this war were the "new" Europe,
the continent that refused, ever again, to slaughter the
innocent. It was Rumsfeld and Bush who represented the "old"
America; not the " new" America of freedom, the America of F D
Roosevelt. 

Rumsfeld and Bush symbolised the old America that killed its
native inhabitants and embarked on imperial adventures. It was
"old" America we were being asked to fight for - linked to a new
form of colonialism - an America that first threatened the
United Nations with irrelevancy and then did the same to Nato.
This was not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it
might well have been the last chance for America to be taken
seriously by her friends as well as her enemies. 

Israeli and US ambitions in the region were now entwined, almost
synonymous. This war, about oil and regional control, was being
cheer-led by a president who was treacherously telling us that
this was part of an eternal war against "terror". The British
and most Europeans didn't believe him. It's not that Britons
wouldn't fight for America. They just didn't want to fight for
Bush or his friends. And if that included the prime minister,
they didn't want to fight for Blair either. Still less did they
wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner
who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, was
now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that had
nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11
September 2001. 

Those who opposed the war were not cowards. Brits rather like
fighting; they've biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian
Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis
included. But when the British are asked to go to war,
patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons
and many Americans were a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They
do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All
Seasons, tales to frighten children. Perhaps Henry VIII's
exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of
Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British,
like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their
opposition to this war might ultimately have made them feel
more, not less, European. 

* Extracted from 'The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest
of the Middle East' by Robert Fisk, published by 4th Estate on 3
October, £25. To buy the book at the special price of £22.50,
including p&p, call Independent Books Direct on 08700 798897, or
visit www.independent booksdirect.co.uk 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Ready to Reopen Talks With Europeans
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Tuesday October 4, 2005 10:01 PM

AP Photo VAH101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran reiterated Tuesday that it was ready to
reopen talks with Europeans over its nuclear program, which
Washington says is aimed at producing a nuclear bomb. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also suggested that
the uranium gas Iran has produced is low quality and needs
purification before it can be injected into centrifuges to
enrich uranium. Iran says it needs to enrich uranium to produce
fuel for its future nuclear power plants. 

Talks between Britain, Germany and France - which negotiated on
behalf of the 25-nation European Union - and Iran collapsed in
early August after Iran resumed uranium reprocessing activities
at its Uranium Conversion Facility in Isfahan, in central Iran.
Tehran had suspended uranium conversion work under a November
2004 deal with the European nations. 

``Iran has no problem with resuming negotiations, but the
Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't accept pressure and conditional
talks,'' Asefi said at a news conference. 

The Europeans have said in the past that negotiations would not
resume unless Iran stops uranium reprocessing in Isfahan. Tehran
says it will never again stop uranium conversion but is ready
for dialogue. 

Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a
resolution warning Iran that it would be referred to the U.N.
Security Council unless it allayed fears about its nuclear
program. In response, Iran has threatened that unless the IAEA
backs down, it will resume uranium enrichment, block short
notice intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities and cut
trade with countries that supported the resolution. 

Uranium enrichment does not violate the terms of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. But with
world suspicions high following 18 years of nuclear secrecy by
Tehran, key IAEA members, including the U.S. and European
nations, want Iran to scrap enrichment plans. Tehran has
refused. 

Also Tuesday, Asefi hinted that production of low-quality
uranium gas at early stages was natural for a program like the
one pursued by Iran but said his country needs to encourage its
scientists and complete its uranium enrichment program. 

Iran has said in the past that it has already achieved
proficiency in the whole nuclear fuel cycle - from extracting
uranium ore to enriching it. 

Diplomats accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency
confirmed last week that tons of uranium gas Iran has produced
since it resumed uranium conversion in August was contaminated
and unusable as feedstock for enrichment. 

``Initially, things are at the preliminary level, then, after
duration of time, are completed. This is not an exception (in
our case),'' Asefi said when asked if Iranian uranium gas was of
low quality.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 RIA Novosti: Tehran ready to hear Russian proposals on nuclear program
 
04/ 10/ 2005                                  

TEHRAN, October 4 (RIA Novosti) - Tehran is ready to consider
Russian proposals to settle problems with Iran's nuclear
program, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday. "If
Russia wants to play a more effective role in settling the issue
of Iran's nuclear program, it must present proposals on solving
the problem in question," Hamid Reza Asefi said. "The Islamic
Republic, in turn, is ready to consider these proposals." 

On Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry called on Tehran, which
says its nuclear programs are peaceful, to adhere to an
additional protocol to an agreement with the International
Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. 

"The continuation of Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA on
remaining issues and Iran's observance of voluntary obligations,
including the additional protocol to the IAEA Safeguards
Agreement, will normalize the situation involving Iran's nuclear
program," the ministry said. 

The Iranian parliament is currently finishing work on a document
that would force the government to terminate the validity of the
protocol if external pressure were to be put on Iran to end its
nuclear program.
 

 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 4 Xinhua: Russia urges further cooperation between Iran, IAEA   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-05 05:35:32   

    MOSCOW, Oct. 4 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia sees the recent
resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on
Iran as a signal for further cooperation between the two sides
in resolving the nuclear issues, a senior Russian diplomat said
Tuesday. 

    Late last month, the IAEA passed a resolution warning of
referring Iran to the UN Security Council unless it allays fears
about its nuclear programs. Russia, which opposed such a move,
abstained from voting. 

    "The IAEA has sufficient potential for settling the Iranian
problem within its framework," Anatoly Antonov, director of the
security and disarmament department of the Foreign Ministry, was
quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as telling the 60th session
of the UN General Assembly in New York. 

    "We want to intensify dialog between all the interested
parties and make decisions that would disperse any doubts about
the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear activities and meet the
lawful energy needs of Iran," Antonov said. 

    Challenges to nuclear non-proliferation can and should be
dealt with in accordance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, he said. Enditem      
  
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 Khaleej Times: Iran wants unconditional nuclear talks with EU

    (Reuters)

    4 October 2005


    TEHERAN - Iran said on Tuesday it was willing to resume 
unconditional talks with the European Union over its nuclear 
programme, which Washington says is a cover to make atomic bombs.

    "Iran has no problem with resuming talks. But it will not 
accept conditional talks under pressure," Asefi told a weekly 
news conference.

    The European Union has said it was up to Iran to suspend 
conversion again and cooperate fully with the IAEA for talks to 
resume.

    Washington and the EU are trying to persuade the governing 
board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send 
Iran to the UN Security Council in November for violating 
international nuclear obligations.

    They say Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists 
its nuclear programme is dedicated solely to generating 
electricity.

    Asefi said his country needed to see Europe's goodwill, 
demanding more practical and meaningful steps from the EU.

    "Instead of sending mixed signals, the EU should practically 
show it is interested in talks," he said.

    Ali Larijani, secretary-general of the Supreme National 
Security Council, said on Monday Tehran would review its 
membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if its case was 
reported to the council.

    Hardline parliamentarian Mehdi Kouchakzadeh said on Tuesday 
talks with the Europeans were a "waste of time".

    "Iranian officials should not wait for the EU's shallow 
promises any more," he told the official IRNA news agency.

    "We should also start uranium enrichment in Natanz and think 
about ending snap (UN) inspections."

  © 2005 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: UPA won't change vote on Iran nuclear issue 

, Oct 4, IRNA                                                                                                            

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is not willing to review his
decision in support of the EU-3's resolution at the IAEA Board
of Governors' meeting in Vienna.

 According to the English daily `Asian Age', the tone and tenor
of recent meetings held by him with the core group of senior
ministers that had not been consulted prior to the decision
indicates that the prime minister was not willing to back off
from what he had earlier projected as a considered decision, and
that it is unlikely the government will support Iran in the
November vote.

 The Prime Miniter's Office is leading a campaign against those
opposing the decision, with CPI(M) General-Secretary Prakash
Karat being singled out for specific mention in informal
briefings.

 Following a meeting of the core group led by Congress President
Sonia Gandhi, there are indications Dr Manmohan Singh is not at
all willing to bow to pressure and move back from the decision
when the IAEA Board of Governors meets again in November to
discuss the issue of referring Iran to the UN Security Council.

 In the process, a question mark has been raised over the Iran-
Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Pakistan, which abstained in the
Vienna voting, has again reiterated that it will go ahead with
the project regardless of the Indian position.


*****************************************************************
 7 Korea Herald: [Guest Column]Toward nuclear-free Korean Peninsula   

 Editorial/Op-Ed   
    
While the international headlines of the past few weeks have
been dominated by news of continuing violence in Iraq and the
devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina on the U.S. Gulf Coast
region, the negotiations between South and North Korea, the
United States, Russia, China and Japan gave ample reasons for
optimism. This fourth round of six-party talks in Beijing on
North Korea's nuclear program has resulted in a joint statement
in which North Korea essentially agreed to give up nuclear
weapons. This historic statement presents the best chance yet to
resolve diplomatically the nuclear standoff on the Korean
Peninsula. 

The most important part of the Beijing declaration reads, "the
DPRK (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons
and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date,
to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to
IAEA safeguards." For its part, the United States "affirmed that
it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no
intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or
conventional weapons." The six parties also reaffirmed their
commitment to the "verifiable denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula in a peaceful manner." The Beijing statement is
strategically important for at least two reasons.

 First and foremost, this substantial diplomatic breakthrough by
way of a multilateral mechanism (the six-party talks) sends an
important signal to potential proliferators. This message,
according to Adam Ereli, the U.S. State Department deputy
spokesman, is: "The international community can work together to
confront a common threat and produce concrete results that
enforce respect of international norms and obligations." The
Beijing statement comes at a particularly opportune time,
highlighting the potential of multilateral diplomacy, when
diplomatic options have not worked well with Iran. Indeed, the
board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted on Sept.
27 to report the country to the U.N. Security Council for
violating its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT). 

Second, the Beijing declaration also importantly strengthens the
hand of Washington diplomats and substantially weakens the
position of hawks in the U.S. government who prefer forcible
regime change to negotiations with Pyongyang. Crucially, the
United States and North Korea agreed, in the Beijing statement,
to "take steps to normalize their relations subject to their
respective bilateral policies." The United States is the
critical party to the talks in that the nuclear crisis on the
Korean Peninsula is, fundamentally, a standoff between the
United States and DPRK. This standoff was badly exacerbated by
President George W. Bush's assertion in the 2002 State of the
Union Address that North Korea was part of an "axis of evil,"
along with Iraq and Iran. The U.S. active participation in the
six-party talks and, as of recently, increasingly flexible
diplomatic gestures have no doubt played a vital part in
bringing about the important diplomatic victory on Sept.19. 

The Beijing accord presents an unprecedented opportunity as well
as a unique challenge. The opportunity is the renewed
possibility of peaceful resolution of the nuclear crisis on the
peninsula. The challenge is to translate the ebullience over
this diplomatic victory into pragmatic thinking and dialogue
about how to maximize the returns from the next round of talks,
scheduled to take place in early November. In short, the
challenge is getting from one-time victory to a long-term
success.

 The period before the talks resume in November is crucial, and
South Korea is uniquely positioned to play a lead role in
bringing together Russia, China, the United States and Japan to
discuss the common approach to the negotiations with North
Korea. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has wisely started
this process by personally communicating with leaders of the
parties to the negotiations. On Sept. 20, President Roh spoke
with U.S. President George W. Bush, expressing his gratitude for
U.S. flexibility in the talks. On Sept. 21, President Roh spoke
with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the two leaders
agreed to continue working on drawing up a concrete plan for the
denuclearization agreement in the coming negotiations. The next
day President Roh spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi, agreeing to continue cooperating closely in negotiating
with Pyongyang. Such personal diplomacy will be critical as the
parties prepare for the next round of negotiations with North
Korea.

 U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is going to be in
Seoul on Oct. 21 for the annual Korea-U.S. defense ministerial
talks (officially known as the Security Consultative Meeting or
SCM). The SCM would be an opportune moment for Rumsfeld,
Minister of National Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and other South
Korean government officials to discuss several important issues
related to the six-party talks. The SCM will be just one
opportunity for bilateral U.S.-South Korean dialogue about the
six-party negotiations. South Korea should propose several
further five-party dialogues before the negotiations resume in
November.

 An important topic of discussion at these forums should be an
agreement on a common approach to North Korea. The Bush
administration has recently been drawing unusual attention to
the issue of human rights in North Korea, which, while
important, is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the
problem du jour - North Korea's nuclear program. It is important
that all parties focus all of their energies on achieving the
goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and leave all of the
other considerations, however important, aside for separate
negotiation forums. South Korean officials would be well advised
to communicate this message to Secretary Rumsfeld when he visits
Seoul in October.

 In order to effectively formulate a common diplomatic approach,
the five parties negotiating with North Korea must once again
take stock of the history behind North Korea's drive to become a
nuclear power.

 North Korea has been shopping around for a nuclear bomb
intermittently 

since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Kim Il-sung, North
Korea's leader (and father of DPRK's current leader, Kim
Jong-il), made two requests to share nuclear technology to the
Chinese leader Mao Zedong in 1964 and in 1974. Historian Don
Oberdorfer writes in his book The Two Koreas: A Contemporary
History (2001) that Kim was rebuffed both times because,
according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry official, "North Korea
is a very small country. (Chinese leaders thought) it wasn't
needed." Kim was more successful as he approached his other
nuclear neighbor, the Soviet Union. The two countries signed two
agreements on cooperation in nuclear research, and the Soviets
provided Pyongyang with a small experimental nuclear reactor. 

After the Soviets agreed to provide four light-water nuclear
reactors (LWRs) to North Korea, the latter joined the NPT on
Dec. 12 1985. The end of the decade witnessed the demise of the
Soviet empire, and the Soviets thus failed to provide the
nuclear reactors, while North Korea, according to Oberdorfer,
"was stuck with the treaty commitments it had made." Pyongyang
withdrew from the NPT on Jan.10, 2003 during an escalation of
tension with the United States.

 In his lucid account of North Korean negotiation strategy, How
Communists Negotiate (1955), Admiral C. Turner Joy, chief U.S.
delegate to the Korean Armistice Conference, wrote that
"distortion of truth as practiced by Communists is a science."
North Koreans cheat systematically, but, from their point of
view, they also have been cheated. The first instance was the
unfulfilled Soviet promise of four LWRs. Pyongyang also claims
that it was cheated by the United States in the 1994 Agreed
Framework, which said the "two sides agreed to move toward full
normalization of political and economic relations." North Korea
used the non-fulfillment of this clause as one justification for
declaring in May 1998 that it was no longer bound by its
Framework obligations.

 The history of North Korea's drive to join the nuclear club
holds important lessons for November's talks aimed at
eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear capability. First, DPRK is
afraid to be cheated. In this regard, two issues warrant a
mention. 

The first issue is the provision of LWRs. According to the
Beijing declaration, "The other parties expressed their respect
and agreed to discuss, at an appropriate time, the subject of
the provision of light water reactor to the DPRK." While
initially insisting that the reactors be provided before it
dismantles its nuclear capabilities, North Korea has recently
softened its stance, demanding that the reactors be provided "as
soon as possible." Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura
has called "unacceptable" Pyongyang's demand for reactors before
disarmament. Ereli, State Department spokesman, likewise
insisted on Sept. 20 that the Beijing statement indicated the
willingness of the parties to discuss the possibility of
provision of LWRs only after North Korea disarms. Asked by press
corps what concrete steps might be taken to provide those
reactors, Ereli responded: "All we're saying is there's going to
be a discussion what that discussion might entail, should it
take place, who knows." 

The five-party position on LWRs must be clarified. Statements
coming from Washington indicate U.S. willingness to hold talks
on LWRs after Pyongyang disarms, but suggest that the talks
might not actually lead to specific actions. DPRK may well see
this as an attempt to cheat it out of having a LWR. 

In addition to LWRs, security concern profoundly affect
Pyongyang's decision-making. This is the second factor that the
five parties to the talks must keep in mind. Thus, Kim Jong-il
sees Washington's sequencing of the disarmament proposal as a
trap - expecting the United States first to disarm his regime
and then to destroy it. To this end, it is important to note
that, in the Beijing declaration, Washington went a long way -
but not all the way - in assuring North Korea of its peaceful
intentions. While the United States stated that it "has no
intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or
conventional weapons," it has specifically refused to claim "no
hostile intent" toward Pyongyang. The declaration also stated
that Washington and Pyongyang "undertook to respect each other's
sovereignty, exist peacefully together, and take steps to
normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral
policies." While important as a confidence-building measure,
this statement brings little actual security assurance to the
table. The intention of the parties to move towards
normalization of relations "subject to their respective
bilateral policies" is especially fluid and open to
interpretation. 

According to Konstantin Pulikovsky, Russian President Vladimir
Putin's envoy to Russia's Far East Federal District, who met
with Kim Jong-il several times recently, "He (Kim) said that he
doesn't need a single nuclear warhead if the United States drops
its threats toward his country." President George W. Bush's
appointment of a special envoy on human rights in North Korea -
the issue on which the Stalinist regime feels extremely
sensitive - has aroused further suspicions in Pyongyang about
Washington's true intentions. Somewhat predictably, DPRK used
the fact of the appointment as one justification for postponing
the resumption of the last round of negotiations. 

Underlying the debate over the sequencing of the disarmament
proposal is a fundamental question of strategy. According to the
Beijing declaration, North Korea has made a strategic choice to
give up nuclear weapons. Historical and current evidence
suggests that whether DPRK will actually act on this stated
intention depends on Pyongyang's vision of its strategic
environment where the United States is the principal player,
and, most importantly, the existential threat to the regime.

 The Bush Administration has yet to make its own strategic
decision that, all else (e.g., human rights) being equal, a
denuclearized North Korea is acceptable to the United States.
The administration made this strategic choice vis-a-vis Libya in
December 2003 when Moammar al-Ghadafi, the Libyan leader, has
agreed to give up all weapons of mass destruction programs.
However, where North Korea is concerned, Washington has been all
but unequivocal on this issue. U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice's remark that "let's first get the North to
give up its nuclear weapons (before dealing with this question)"
lends support to the view that Kim is a realist rather than a
paranoiac. Given Washington's ambivalent attitude towards his
regime, it comes as no surprise that he is reluctant to give up
his nuclear deterrent - the magic wand that keeps the
hyper-power at bay. Especially after the United States defied
the international community in starting a preventive war against
Iraq, no multilateral security guarantees short of a full U.S.
security assurance (i.e., "no hostile intent") are likely to
convince Pyongyang that it is safe to disarm itself. 

In the short term, confidence-building measures are needed to
keep Kim convinced that the talks are aimed at his weapons and
not his regime. The good news is that the Bush Administration
increasingly has been exhibiting rhetorical discipline in its
approach to DPRK. For instance, the Bush Administration largely
dropped references to the regime in Pyongyang as a "threat." The
change in the rhetoric coming from Washington reflects a late,
yet welcome, improvement in the Bush Administration's
understanding of what kind of a negotiating partner the North
Koreans are. 

A second lesson to be learned from the history of Pyongyang's
pursuit of a nuclear capability is that sometimes an imperfect
option is better than none at all. The U.S. demand for a
complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID)
should remain the end goal of negotiations. In the meantime, the
six parties must negotiate a secure freeze of North Korea's
weapons programs. 

It is George W. Bush's presidential trademark to take on big
challenges, persevere (or, as he likes to say, "stay the
course") in solving them, and make bold decisions. This approach
may earn the President brownie points in American domestic
politics, but Washington's insistence on resolving the nuclear
crisis once and for all (i.e., the U.S. demand for a CVID) has
so far played into Pyongyang's hands by giving it ample
opportunity to get the U.S. and its allies bogged down on issues
of intermediate importance. (The "stalling" issue during the
next round of negotiations in November is likely to be whether
and when to allow the North Koreans to have LWRs.) This stalling
tactic and, after the talks break down, DPRK's repeated refusals
to return to the negotiating table, time and again have given
Pyongyang the opportunity to continue building its nuclear
arsenal. (Since the last round of talks in June 2004, North
Korea's stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium increased up to
fourfold, according to expert estimates.) 

A freeze of North Korea's weapons programs is desirable for at
least two reasons. First, it will give the U.S. and its regional
allies the breathing space they require to plan for the next
steps in negotiations, while arresting the growth of Pyongyang's
deadly arsenal. Second, this will be a test of Pyongyang's
strategic outlook, and, if DPRK refuses to freeze, it will help
the U.S. persuade China - Washington's pivotal regional ally -
to exert more robust pressure on Pyongyang. 

A freeze will be a bitter, but strategically necessary pill for
the Bush Administration to swallow. This decision will be
similar to the Clinton Administration's when it negotiated the
Agreed Framework with Pyongyang. The common sense prevailed in
1994 that freezing the growth of North Korea's atomic arsenal
was preferable to allowing the regime to become a full-blown
nuclear power. As Robert Gallucci, the chief U.S. negotiator
with North Korea during the 1993-1994 nuclear crisis, stated in
a testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations on May 23, 2001: "(In 1993) we were looking down the
throat of a (North Korean) nuclear weapons program that was
going to be producing 30 nuclear weapons a year with the
capability to transfer fissile material and nuclear weapons
around the world. ...that program has been verifiably frozen
since 1994. That is not nothing. That is close to, in terms of
negotiating objectives, everything." (Upon signing the Agreed
Framework, North Korea froze its plutonium-based nuclear program
until 1997-1998 when it clandestinely started to enrich uranium.
Thus, the Agreed Framework worked well for at least three years
- something that the Bush Administration is loath to acknowledge
and learn from.) 

If realism, not human-rights-driven moralism, forms the
foundation of the Bush Administration's policy, this same common
sense must prevail today especially since President Bush's
options are more constricted than President Clinton's. For
instance, during the 1993-1994 nuclear crisis, Clinton
Administration officials developed contingency plans (e.g.,
OPLAN 5026) for surgical strikes on the Yongbyon nuclear
reactor, which, if carried out, could effect a major regional
conflagration with Pyongyang. Since American forces are
overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush Administration
simply does not have this option.

 During the next one and a half months, South Korea must play a
leading role in bringing the five parties together in order to
agree on a common approach to negotiations with North Korea. In
particular, South Korea must urge its allies to focus on
disarmament (not human rights) and move towards negotiating a
freeze of Pyongyang's ever-growing plutonium-based nuclear
arsenal. This will lay a foundation for the next round of talks
where issues like DPRK's uranium enrichment program, LWRs,
permanent dismantlement and verification issues can be addressed.

Eugene B. Kogan is senior political analyst at Americans for
Informed Democracy. - Ed.
 
2005.10.05
 
*****************************************************************
 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Keeps Up Pressure on N.Korea Ahead of Talks
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Oct.4,2005 19:29 KST   
 
  The U.S. State Department on Monday kept up pre-negotiation
pressure on North Korea over a uranium enrichment program
Washington claims it operates. Stephen Rademaker, the acting
assistant secretary of state for international security and
nonproliferation, said Pyongyang must comply with the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and abandon all its nuclear weapons
programs, both plutonium and uranium based. 

Rademaker was speaking at the UN General Assembly ahead of a
fresh round of six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing in November. 

"We and our partners in the six-party process were able to agree
on a joint statement that, we hope, will provide a path to the
realization of these objectives," he said. "In the case of North
Korea, our goal is to preserve the NPT by insisting on the
complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of both the
plutonium and the uranium nuclear weapons programs in that
country, as well as the dismantlement of all nuclear weapons," 

The official reaffirmed Washington¡¯s decision to wind up the
Korean Energy Development Organization, which was in charge of
building civilian nuclear facilities for North Korea before they
were suspended. "We think the time has come to shut the door,"
he said. 

Rademaker reiterated his government¡¯s fear that ¡°rogue
states¡± could supply terrorists with weapons of mass
destruction. 

On Iran, Rademaker insisted governments must not transfer new
nuclear technology to the country while it is in breach of the
NPT and all projects now underway should be frozen. Russia is
pushing ahead with a project to build a nuclear power plant in
Iran. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
*****************************************************************
 9 Xinhua: US urges DPRK to abandon nuclear weapons   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-05 05:32:35   

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States said on
Tuesday that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
must abandon its nuclear weapons program first and then the
United States will possibly discuss with it the issue of
light-water reactor. 

    "The DPRK must abandon its weapons, abandon all its existing
nuclear programs, get itself back into the Nonproliferation
Treaty(NPT), a treaty that it withdrew from earlier," said
Christopher Hill, US chief negotiator at the six-party talks,
said at a briefing. 

    "And only after that and at an appropriate time, we will
consider having the discussion about the subject of the
provision of a light-water reactor," Hill said. 

    "Once they are back into the NPT in good standing and IAEA
safeguards, can we look at other elements," he said. 

    The DPRK has insisted in the six-party talks that it will
not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United
States gives it civilian nuclear reactors. Enditem      
  
    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: US, North Korea hold direct talks on nuclear weapons - Yahoo!
     
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and North Korea have begun
direct talks for the first time since the Stalinist state's
pledge two weeks ago to abandon its nuclear weapons program, a
top US envoy said.

Christopher Hill, the chief US negotiator to the Beijing-hosted
multilateral meeting aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear
weapons network, said that the bilateral talks were held between
his staff and officials from North Korea's UN mission in New
York.

The talks came ahead of Hill's much-speculated trip to North 
Korea to push through with international efforts prodding North 
Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program in return for 
security guarantees, energy aid and normalization of relations.

"We have had contacts through the New York channel," Hill, the
chief US diplomat for East Asia, said Tuesday, without
specifying when or how many round of the talks were held.

This is the first time the United States had announced it had
held direct meetings with North Korea since the hardline
communist regime agreed to give up its nuclear program at the
end of the fourth round of the six-party talks in Beijing on
September 19.

The two countries do not have diplomatic relations.

On his trip to Pyongyang, which Hill has hinted since his return
from Beijing, the senior diplomat said he had "not finalized my
travel plans yet."

He had indicated earlier that the trip to the North Korean
capital -- the first in three years by a top US official --
would take place before the fifth round of nuclear talks in
early November.

Ahead of the next round of talks, "I would look forward to an
intensified diplomatic calendar and hope to have US-DPRK
contacts," Hill said.

The last time a US official visited Pyongyang was in October
2002 when Hill's predecessor, then-Assistant Secretary of State
James Kelly, accused the North of hiding a program for enriching
uranium, triggering the current nuclear crisis.

The North responded to the accusation by throwing out weapons
inspectors and leaving the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In
February this year North Korea admitted having built nuclear
weapons.

Although North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear arms in
return for a range of incentives under the six-party accord, it
insisted that any dismantlement would only begin after it
received light-water reactors from the United States to allow it
to generate power under a civilian atomic scheme.

The United States maintains however that any discussions on a
peaceful nuclear program for North Korea can take place only
after Pyongyang disbands its nuclear weapons arsenal.

As for other benefits, such as normalization of relations with
the United States and energy aid, Hill indicated that North
Korea would simultaneously receive them while it dismantles its
nuclear program.

The "sequencing of various obligations" of North Korea and the
other parties under the accord reached two weeks ago would be
discussed in Beijing next month, Hill said, adding that the
talks were going to be "tough."

"The urgent issue, the number one issue is denuclearization and
so, we certainly need the DPRK (North Korea) to be
denuclearizing. We understand we also have undertakings as well
and in the course of the implementation and as we negotiate
through the timing of the sequencing and time flow of this, we
will fulfill our obligations," he said.

"I am prepared to say that all of our undertakings, we will
definitely undertake," he added. 
 
    Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP 
*****************************************************************
 11 GREENPEACE UK: New Nuclear Stance                                                                                              

 Environmental Issues | GM Food | Nuclear Power | 

[Donald Rumsford]   

The Truth Is Out: Bush's New Nuclear Stance

Last edited: 04-10-2005
 
The truth is out. According to a confidential Pentagon document,
the US government's masterplan for total global domination now
includes using its nuclear weapons pre-emptively - even in
conventional war situations. 

A draft of "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" shows that
instead of reducing the role of nuclear weapons as originally
promised, the Bush administration is pushing aggressive new
policies that are set to become normal US military practice. 

The document - the final version of which will go out to all US
military commands as 'operational guidance' later this year -
was removed from the Pentagon's website earlier this month,
prompting a Pentagon Spokesman to admit that "even in an
unclassified world this is not the kind of thing you want flying
around the Internet". Well we think it's exactly the kind of
information that people should know about - which is why we've
put it up on our website for you to read. 

What the document shows is how the threshold for actually using
nuclear weapons has been lowered dramatically. For instance, the
document seeks to justify pre-emptive nuclear strikes against
nations (even those without nuclear weapons) which the US thinks
might use chemical or biological weapons against US forces or
allies. It also positions nuclear weapons as just another item
in the military's box of tricks, even underscoring the
importance of US troops being able to continue functioning in a
highly irradiated battle zone. 

In a chilling finale, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations"
concludes that the United States is legally free to use nuclear
weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, "no customary or
conventional international law prohibits nations from employing
nuclear weapons in armed conflict". 

An earlier internal draft of the doctrine was sent to Greenpeace
by some friendly soul - it includes suggested edits and comments
by all the major military commands (we've also uploaded this
version to our website). 

This feuding is interesting, as it reveals strong internal
disagreement amongst US military commanders about the new
strategy. The disputes are over the document's enthusiasm for
using nuclear weapons in attacks leading to massive civilian
casualties. In addition, some commanders expressed extreme
doubts over both the legality of the new nuclear doctrine, and
that the threats used to justify this new doctrine actually
exist. 

Greenpeace disarmament campaigner Dominick Jenkins said, "These
documents should send a shiver down the spine of everyone. They
show that the highest levels of the Pentagon have undergone a
major shift in thinking and now view nuclear weapons no longer
as a weapon of last resort but a weapon that can and should be
used." 

"This means a US military machine prepared use nuclear weapons
first, against non nuclear countries and non military related
civilian targets". 

He continued, "Historically, where US nuclear policy leads the
UK generally follows. And with the UK facing a choice of whether
to build a new nuclear weapon system in this parliament it is
crucial that both MPs and the public seriously examine these
documents". 

"The UK can't allow itself to be dragged down this path. We must
step back from the brink of a new nuclear arms race - by taking
Trident off patrol, stopping all preparations to build a new
atomic bomb and restarting the multi-lateral disarmament
negations which have already helped to eliminate over half the
world's nuclear arsenals". 

Make sure the Pentagon's plans for nuclear war fly around the
internet 

Nuclear warfighting plans concern all of us -- they shouldn't be
kept secret. Help ensure that these unclassified documents are
exposed to plenty of sunlight by sending this article to a few
friends. 

Send the link to this article to a friend 

More Information 

Download the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - an
unclassified draft of a US nuclear doctrine review that spells
out conditions under which US commanders might seek approval to
use nuclear weapons. 

Download the Comment matrix on Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations - Comments from the US military branches to the
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, which outlines how and
under what circumstances nuclear weapons might be deployed by
the US military. 

Read the Arms Control Association story - The Role of U.S.
Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge
 "Instead of reducing the role of nuclear weapons, the new
doctrine reaffirms an aggressive nuclear posture of modernized
nuclear weapons maintained on high alert. Conventional forces
and missile defenses merely complement instead of replace
nuclear weapons." 

*****************************************************************
 12 [du-list] WORKSHOP GENEVA 9 NOV 2005/INVITATION
 
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:14:12 -0700

 
<x-flowed>




                                             We kindly invite you to

the Workshop :      TOWARD A BAN ON DU WEAPONS   -   NOVEMBER 9th,  2005 GENEVA

On the occasion of
'the international day for preventing the exploitation of the environment in
war and armed conflicts'

and on the occasion of

'the international action day to Ban Uranium Weapons'

the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)
organises in cooperation with
the International Peace Bureau (IPB),
a workshop and press conference at the International Conference Center in 
Geneva
on the 9th of November 2005.

address:

CCV
Centre de Conferences de Varembé
1211 Geneva.

please find registration form and all details in attachment

sincerely,

for ICBUW
Ria Verjauw
ria.verjauw@telenet.be
www.bandepleteduranium.org  (+online petition)

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/117 - Release Date: 10/3/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 13 Bellona:  Italy to allocate 360m euro for submarine dismantling in Russia
 
The Italian government approved an agreement with Russia
concerning dismantlement of the Russian nuclear submarines and
safe handling of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. 

2005-10-04 18:28

The agreement stipulates allocation of 360m euro from 2005 to
2013. The Russian-Italian agreement is a part of the Italian
Global Partnership pledge. The agreement was approved in June by
the Russian Parliament. The Russian President signed it on July
1, ITAR-TASS reported. 

Italian Sogin Spa Company will take part in the dismantling
projects in Russia. The company provides safety at the four
Italian nuclear reactors shut down in 1987 after the referendum.
The Italian company will take part in the dismantlement of
vessels, radioactive waste treatment, transport and storage of
spent nuclear fuel, physical security measures, and
infrastructure, ITAR-TASS reported. 
  

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 14 Bellona: Russia to reduce nuclear fuel export
 
The Russian company TVEL intends to reduce nuclear fuel export
in 2006. 

2005-10-04 19:03

The head of the Federal Nuclear Agency Alexander Rumyantsev
stated this to journalists on September 14: ”We do all to expand
the nuclear fuel delivery market for Russia, but I think, for
the first time the Russian company TVEL will slightly reduce the
export of the fuel assemblies in 2006”. He did not name the
reasons for such reduction. The TVEL company produces nuclear
fuel and delivers it to the Russian nuclear plants and for
export, RIA Novosti reported.   

  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway


*****************************************************************
 15 RIA Novosti: UPDATE: Russian justice minister doubts U.S. will 
extradite ex-minister Adamov
 
04/ 10/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, October 4 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Minister of Justice
Yury Chaika said Tuesday that he doubted the United States would
extradite former Nuclear Power Minister Yevgeny Adamov to
Russia. 

"We do not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S., so
we have doubts that America will extradite Adamov to Russia,"
the minister said, adding that Adamov knew "state secrets." 

"We should act in line with international law," Chaika said. 

He also said that Russia and the U.S. were working on a
bilateral extradition procedure but "had failed to reach
agreement so far." 

Adamov, who was minister from 1998 to 2001, was arrested on May
2 in the Swiss capital, Berne, at the request of the U.S.
authorities, which suspect him of embezzling $9 million. 

Switzerland decided to extradite Adamov to the United States
Monday. 

The U.S. filed an official extradition request on June 24, and
Russia did so on May 17. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office
has charged the ex-minister with fraud and abuse of office. 

Adamov's lawyers have 30 days to appeal Monday's decision. 


© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 16 RIA Novosti: What the Russian papers say

Opinion &analysis - 
 
MOSCOW, October 04 (RIA Novosti) 

Nezavisimaya Gazeta 

WILL U.S. TRADE FORMER NUCLEAR MINISTER FOR DISGRACED OLIGARCH? 

Switzerland's decision to extradite Yevgeny Adamov to the United
States may conceal the West's desire to take advantage of the
criminal persecution of Russia's ex-nuclear minister to
alleviate the fate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the convicted
ex-head of Yukos. Russian experts consider the possibility of
such a development of events. 

Stanislav Belkovsky, director of the National Strategy
Institute, says: "These two events are totally unrelated. The
U.S. needs Adamov on the state level, and so does Russia. But
Putin as head of a certain economic group has no need for
Adamov. Putin has made no efforts to try and get Adamov
released, because Adamov is not one of his business partners.
How much the state needs Adamov is not Putin's concern. There is
no link to Khodorkovsky here. The U.S. does not support
Khodorkovsky on the administration level. Putin as the incumbent
president suits it all right. So the U.S. will never take any
radical steps in Khodorkovsky's interests." 

Sergei Markov, director of the Institute for Political Studies,
says: "Adamov's extradition is the reply not directly to the
trial of Khodorkovsky, but to the Russian law enforcement system
which is seen as politicized and illegitimate. Nor does the West
respect Russia's judiciary. Besides, Adamov is useful to the
U.S. as a person knowing nuclear secrets, and this is a good
occasion to show to Russia that despite all else it is under the
U.S. thumb." 

Alexei Makarkin, deputy general director of the Center for
Political Technologies, says: "The Swiss department of justice,
which took the decision, just as Swiss authorities in general,
bear no relation to Khodorkovsky and are no parties to any
intrigue. I think Switzerland decided that since Adamov's arrest
was made on U.S. initiative, so here too the priority is
American." 

Prof. Inga Mikhailovskaya, the Institute of the State and Law of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, says: "If the U.S. wants to
learn some of our secrets from Adamov, this is by far more
important for its interests than releasing Khodorkovsky from
jail. " 

Novye Izvestia / Kommersant 

KREMLIN TO REFORM POWER SYSTEM IN GERMAN STYLE 

Yesterday the president submitted new amendments to the law "On
the Parties" to the State Duma. If passed, parties which win the
regional parliamentary elections will be entitled to nominate
their candidates for the gubernatorial post. Some experts say it
is a German-style reform of the Russian power system. 

In the opinion of Maxim Dianov, director of the Regional
Problems Institute, President Putin has been consistent in
introducing the German electoral model in Russia since 2000: the
German president also appoints chief executives for Lands from
the list of candidates submitted by the winner party. Dianov
says that Putin's next step may be to adopt a similar model at
the federal level: nomination of the prime minister by the party
which wins the Duma elections. 

"This is an imitation of a democratic procedure, needed today to
legitimate a new mode of shaping regional executive power," said
Sergei Mitrokhin, deputy chairman of the Yabloko party. In his
opinion, the president's initiative does not change anything,
because governors will be appointed by the United Russia party,
which is certain to win the elections in every region due to its
administrative resource. 

Supporters of the president believe that the amendments should
be seen as an interim step towards a new model of post-2008
power. The Duma first vice-speaker, Oleg Morozov of the United
Russia faction, said that the amendments "are designed to
advance the president's idea of forming the government by the
parliamentary majority." The ruling party's general council
secretary, Vyacheslav Volodin, says the presidential bill may be
the first step towards a new state party model. "Formation of
party-based executive power entails a similar process for the
appointment of the government and, eventually, the election of
the president," he explained. 

Vremya Novostei 

EU WOULD NOT PAY FOR FLIGHTS OVER SIBERIA 

The European Union has made another attempt at opening the
Russian sky for foreign airlines. 

On the eve of the Russia-EU summit due to open in London on
Tuesday, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroza
demanded from Russian President Vladimir Putin to backdate to
last January, a stage-by-stage canceling of payments for
non-stop flights across the trans-Siberian route and drop
limitations on flight frequencies operated by European air
carriers over Russia. He also threatens to prevent Russia's
entry into the World Trade Organization for not meeting EU
demands. 

Way back in the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union allowed European,
Asian and U.S. airlines to make non-stop flights from Western
Europe to North-East and South-East Asia over Siberia. In
return, they were to reimburse Aeroflot for lost profits.
Otherwise, Western carriers would have had to land in Moscow,
disembark passengers who would have to continue their journeys
on Soviet airliners. After the breakup of the USSR,
Aeroflot-Russian Airlines has been getting the payments. 

In different years these revenues were between $120 million and
$240 million. According to unofficial information, no more than
a quarter of the reimbursements go into Aeroflot's coffers. The
major part of the money goes "for the sector's needs", such as
developing the state air navigation system in Russia. 

For Russia it means not merely hundreds of million dollars but
the existence of a major national airline. Financially better
off in recent years, Aeroflot has not yet reached profitable
operations. Only payments made by Western airlines for their
flights over Siberia make it profitable. The leader of Russian
civil aviation, Aeroflot, may not survive this huge immediate
loss. 

Business 

FINANCE MINISTRY AGREES TO LOWER TAX RATE ON AMNESTIED CAPITAL 

The Finance Ministry has asked for a grace period to update its
bill on a tax amnesty. Alexei Kudrin needs the time to examine
the possible effects of a 9%, instead of a 13%, income tax on
declared capital. Experts, however, do not think the government
will see a massive legalization of stowed-away capital. 

Igor Lavushchenko, an analyst with Prospekt brokerage, is sure
the Ministry will not radically cut the tax rate on amnestied
capital. "The rate is most likely to be above 9% but below 13%,"
he supposes, explaining that a reduced tax rate is not the
decisive motive for paying it. Alexander Sotov, an expert at FBK
brokerage, shares his view: "The size of the tax does not, as a
rule, matter. What citizens fear is to disclose their source of
income." 

The tax rate is indeed not the crucial factor in deciding to
declare one's income, agrees Yevsei Gurvich, the head of the
Economic Expert Group. "Some people may take advantage of this
mechanism, but I do not think there will be many," the expert
believes. "There are far more effective ways of legalizing one's
money - for example, through investments in Russian
enterprises." 

If the rate is fixed too low, it will be unfair to other
citizens who have paid taxes regularly on all their incomes,
reasons Pavel Vorozhtsov, an analyst with Russkiye Finansovye
Traditsii (Russian Financial Traditions) brokerage. But if it is
left at 13%, that will be a poor incentive for capital to return
to Russian bank accounts. "I think the 9% is the golden mean,"
the analyst believes. 

Everything will depend on the kind of mechanism chosen by the
Ministry, warns Sotov: "It may opt for terms that will keep the
tax amnesty only on paper." 

Izvestia / Russian Newsweek 

DEMAND FOR LUXURY ITEMS GROWING FAST IN RUSSIA 

Organizers of Moscow's first Millionaire Fair say with
enthusiasm that demand for luxury items is growing at an
unprecedented 20-25% a year in Russia while the figure around
the world is just 7-8%. 

Millionaire Fair Moscow director Bettina von Schlippe says
Russian millionaires no longer carry bags of cash, nor do they
attack any expensive item. They are well educated, know the
items' value and think before buying. However, they make
decisions faster than European millionaires do in similar
circumstances. 

Last February, a shop for millionaires, Vladenie, was opened in
Moscow. One can buy anything there: yachts, Arab stallions and
even an island in the Pacific. Any item has a price tag of not
less than $1 million. 

According to De Lux Alliance, there are some 15,000
multimillionaires in Russia. 83% of them earn $1-5 million a
year and 9% make $5-10 million. 5% of all nouveaux riche make
$10-20 million a year and just 3% earn more than $20 million.
70% of millionaires are businessmen, 20% are prominent
politicians and 10% are figures of culture and show biz. 

The incomes of the richest Russians are growing at a wild pace -
two times faster than the poorest manage to get themselves out
of their financial precipice. Taking into account hidden
incomes, the gap between rich and poor is almost 20-fold and
will continue to grow: the wild influx of petrodollars speeds up
the development of trade and services and stifles non-raw
materials industries, Igor Polyakov, an expert with the
Macroeconomic Analysis and Forecasting Center explains. 

Rapid millionaires from businessmen to managers plan their
present, not their future, and spend money on expensive toys,
not on the acquisition of new businesses - the risk of losing
everything is great. 

Three years ago in Amsterdam the first Millionaire Fair was
held. Today it is one of the most prestigious exhibitions of
luxury. This year alone over 200 companies and brands took part
in it, such as Bvlgari, Bentley, BMW, Cartier, Fairline, Jaguar,
Remy Martin, Mercedes, Mont Blanc, Porsche, Riva, Rolex, Sony,
Starline, Wolford and others.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 17 Mos News: The Case of the Ex-Nuclear Minister - 

- MOSNEWS.COM
 
 	Yevgeny Adamov / Photo: AFP 	 	
 	 	
Created: 04.10.2005 16:22 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:22 MSK 	
Dmitry Sidorov, Igor Sedykh, Alec Akhundov 	
Kommersant
 	 	 	 	 
On Monday the Federal Directorate of Justice of Switzerland
published its decision to extradite the former head of the
Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia, Yevgeny Adamov, to the
United States. Thus, the Swiss justice agencies finally decided
which extradition request to satisfy — the U.S. or the Russian.
If his attorneys do not successfully appeal the decision of the
Federal Directorate of Justice, in a month Adamov could face an
American court.

The key factor for the Swiss authorities’ decision was Adamov’s
citizenship. The statement published by the Swiss justice organs
said, “Because Adamov is a Russian citizen, he might not get
extradited to the United States if Switzerland gives him to
Russia.” However, if Adamov is given to Russia, that would
create an “offensive precedent”.

In the meantime, the Swiss authorities do not see anything
offensive in their behavior towards Russia. “The U.S. could
extradite Adamov back to Russia after finishing the trial and
after he serves the period of incarceration (Adamov is facing 60
years in prison in the U.S. if convicted),” the document says.

Deputy Director of the Federal Directorate of Justice of
Switzerland Rudolf Wiss told Kommersant that Yevgeny Adamov and
his attorneys can appeal the decision within 30 days in the High
Federal Court. According to the Swiss procedure of appeals, the
assembly of the judges will make a decision in a closed-door
session and this decision will be final. Then, the decision will
be announced to the Americans, who will send federal marshals to
accompany a handcuffed Adamov to Pittsburgh, PA. There are no
direct flights to Pittsburgh from Bern, where Adamov is being
held, so he will have to go first to Zurich or Geneva airport.
There will be no announcements made about the time of the actual
procedure.

In U.S. Department of Justice documents this procedure is called
“return of the fugitive”. The Department of Homeland Security
would have to issue an entrance visa for the foreign citizen,
who is being brought into the country to stand trial on American
territory. In some cases, the transportation of the fugitives
can be carried out by other federal agencies like the FBI, for
example.

On Monday night, it was still unknown if Adamov intended to
appeal the decision about his extradition to America. “We will
decide on our future actions on Wednesday or Thursday after
consultations with our client,” Stefan Wehrenberg, one of the
Adamov’s attorneys, announced.

Yesterday Wehrenberg saw Adamov. However, he did not talk about
his client’s reaction to the decision of the Swiss authorities.
Also, the lawyer was surprised by reports of Adamov allegedly
going on a hunger strike to protest against the prolongation of
the extradition decision by the Swiss. He spent five months
behind bars awaiting the decision. “I saw Dr. Adamov eat his
dinner with a healthy appetite,” Wehrenberg said.

“We are satisfied with the decision of the Swiss authorities and
ready to work with them over the small details of Yevgeny
Adamov’s extradition,” Mary Buchanan, attorney general of the
Western District of Pittsburgh, said. She was the one who sent
the request for Adamov’s extradition to Switzerland last spring.
Buchanan restrained herself from any further comments. However,
a Kommersant source close to the Department of Justice said that
“The Swiss leaned to the American request because the charges
against Yevgeny Adamov in the U.S. are more substantial than the
charges against him in Russia.”

The Kommersant source also pointed out that “examples of Russia
releasing its citizens right after receiving them from other
countries also influenced the Swiss decision.” As an example, he
mentioned Vyacheslav Ivankov, who was immediately released right
after extradition to his motherland and Pavel Borodin, who
avoided any kind of prosecution according to the charges that
were brought against him in the West.

The same source said that Adamov would not be released on bail
in Pittsburgh. “Just as with Pavel Borodin and Vladimir
Kuznetsov (a high ranking UN official, recently arrested in New
York), Adamov does not have much chance of being released on
bail,” the source told Kommersant.

The decision to keep Adamov in jail or let him go on bail would
most likely be influenced by the fact that he will be in
Pittsburgh under federal jurisdiction. “In the cases involving
foreigners, the judges usually satisfy the prosecution requests
to keep the refugees in prison because of a high escape risk.
Or, on the other hand, they can put such a high bail amount that
nobody can possibly come up with the money,” the source in the
Department of Justice commented.

“There would be no place for bargaining in Adamov’s case,” the
Attorney General office informally told Kommersant yesterday.
“The case is about economic crimes and not political games.
Adamov is being charged with concrete crimes and the prosecution
does not care about anything else.” According to the American
view, the source explained, $9 million of federal money is a
pretty large amount and “if the defendant did that then he will
be doing time.” However, he might end up with a fairly small
term, but that is possible only if the defendant starts to
cooperate with the prosecution before the second defendant —
Mark Kaushansky — starts to cooperate. The American side calls
Kaushansky “Adamov’s business partner”.

It is not known yet in which U.S. jail Evgeny Adamov will be
placed. It could be in Allegheny County prison, which is located
in the same administrative region as Pittsburgh. The new
eight-story building (the old one has been used since 1884 and
is now used for underage criminals) of the prison has a capacity
to hold 2,000 prisoners. A large number of them are awaiting
trial and for that reason the regime in the cell blocks is not
particularly strict. The representatives of the Russian General
Consulate in New York, which will provide judicial support, will
be able to visit Adamov there.

The Russian Foreign Ministry admitted to “not understanding” the
decision of the Swiss authorities to extradite Yevgeny Adamov to
the U.S. In the ministry’s announcement, which was published on
Monday, it says that the decision of the Federal Directorate of
Justice “was politically motivated” and “it goes against legal
and objective conditions.” As an example of such conditions, the
ministry mentioned: “During the presence of two competing
requests for extraditions, the state whose citizenship the
defendant has takes priority.”

The document suggests that the Swiss knew about other facts as
well, which should help Russia to extradite Yevgeny Adamov. For
instance, he “as a former member of the government has immunity
from a foreign state’s criminal prosecution.” Besides, the
General Prosecutors Office of Russia provided the Swiss “with
all requested information, including the documents about the
Russian prosecution’s cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Justice on this specific problem. Also, the Foreign Ministry’s
statement points out that the consultation between the General
Prosecutor’s Office of Russia and the U.S. Department of Justice
about Yevgeny Adamov is supposed to be held this week.

The Russian officials did not go further than issuing a
diplomatic note. Some of Adamov’s colleagues, however, did issue
some controversial comments about the Swiss decision. ”This
decision was made within the frame of international law. But, I
still think that Russian citizens should be extradited to
Russia,“ Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Federal Agency of
Atomic Energy (Former Ministry of Atomic Energy), who replaced
Adamov in 2001, said.

Vladimir Aden, the director for scientific and testing design
research for the Dollejal Institute (Adamov is the scientific
director of this institute), allowed himself more extended
comments. ”All the money that Yevgeny Adamov allegedly stole he
spent for Russian purposes,“ Aden insists. ”Adamov saved our
institute during the default and revealed the conspiracy against
the nuclear reactors of RBMK-type.“ About 55 percent of Russian
Atomic Power Plants are equipped with this type of ”Chernobyl“
reactor.

According to Aden’s opinion, the U.S. is avenging the former
minister and scientific director of the institute, who was using
American money, to come up with some inventions that went
against U.S. national interests. ”They just decided to get rid
of him,“ Adamov’s colleague complains. ”The charges are false. I
know for sure that there are no personal millions. His daughter
lives in Switzerland very modestly. Although, I can’t say
anything about his house in Pennsylvania — I have never been
there.“

The colleagues of Yevgeny Adamov cannot exclude that Americans
will try to get some Russian nuclear secrets from Adamov. ”But,
I know this man. They will not learn anything from him,“ Aden
insists.

The Russian attorney of Adamov — Timofey Gridnev was not
available for comment yesterday. The situation was commented on
by Igor Lukashuk, director of the Centre for International Legal
Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He thinks,
”Adamov’s extradition to the Americans does not go against the
norm of International Law.“ According to Lukashuk, the European
Convention on Extraditions, signed by Switzerland, Russia and
the U.S., usually gives the right to the first state who
demanded the extradition. ”The Americans made the request before
us. The one who submitted the documents first gets the person,“
the lawyer said. He also pointed out that the Swiss authorities
approached the case very formally and ignored the moral and
political aspects.

However, the U.S. lawyer of Adamov, Lenny A. Breuer, is more
optimistic. In his e-mail to Kommersant, Breuer said that ”when
all the facts of the case are presented to the court, Dr. Adamov
will be acquitted and will return back to Russia as a free man.
Then, he will have an opportunity to serve his Motherland with
even more honor.“

In February 1988 the president of Panama, Manuel Noriega, was
accused by the U.S. authorities of racketeering, money
laundering and cooperating with drug cartels. On Jan. 3, 1990,
after the invasion of Panama by U.S. forces, Noriega was
arrested. On April 9, 1992 the Federal District Court of Miami
ruled Noriega guilty on eight out of the 10 counts. On July 10,
1992 he was sentenced to 40 years of prison. In March 1999 the
term was reduced to 30 years. He was also allowed to submit an
amnesty petition in 2007.

On Feb. 20, 1999, the former prime minister of Ukraine, Pavel
Lazarenko, was arrested in JFK airport in New York. He was
charged with fraud, extortion and money laundering of $114
million through the banks of California in 1994 and 1999. In
June of 2003 he was released on bail for $65 million and placed
under house arrest in San Francisco. On June 3, 2004, the North
District Court of California found the ex-prime minister guilty
on 29 out the 53 counts. On May 20, 2005, the U.S. Federal Court
dropped 14 counts and lowered the laundered sum to $10 million.
The sentence will be announced on Dec. 2. Lazarenko is facing 10
years in jail.

On Oct. 1, 1999, the head of the Columbian drug cartel Fabio
Ochoa was arrested during a special police operation. On Sept.
7, 2001, he was extradited to the U.S. after a decision by the
Supreme Court of Columbia. In the U.S. he was charged with
supplying 30 tons of cocaine monthly during 1996-1999. On Aug.
26, 2003 the Miami District Court sentenced Fabio Ochoa to 30
years in prison.

On Jan.10, 2003, the FBI arrested the Yemeni citizen sheikh
Mohammed Ali Hasan al-Moyad in Frankfurt. The FBI accused him of
involvement in a large supply of money, weapons and volunteers
to Al-Qaeda and Hamas, including just before the terrorist act
on Sept.11, 2001. On Nov. 16, 2003, he was extradited to the
United States. On July 28, 2005 the Federal Court of Brooklyn
sentenced him to 75 years in prison.

On Aug. 12, 2003 British citizen of Indian origin Hemant Lakhani
was arrested in the airport in Newark, N.J., during a joint
operation between the U.S., British and Russian special
services. Lakhani was trying to sell shoulder-fired
anti-aircraft missiles. On Sept. 12, 2005, the Federal Court of
New Jersey ruled Hemant Lakhani guilty of attempted assistance
to terrorists, illegal arms trade and money laundering. The
British citizen was sentenced to 47 years in prison.

In 2001 the FBI started to investigate the disappearance of $9
million, which were assigned at the beginning of the 1990s to
Russian scientists by the U.S. government for research in the
field of safety in nuclear energy. On May 2, 2005, the Swiss
police, after a request from the U.S. Department of Justice,
arrested Evgeny Adamov, the former minister of atomic energy in
Russia. He was charged with grand theft of this money. He
rejected the option of voluntary extradition to the United
States and was incarcerated in Bern. On May 10, 2005 the
Pittsburgh court started hearing the Mark Kaushansky case – the
former business partner of Adamov, who is also accused of a
similar crime.

On May 13, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia filed
charges and accused Evgeny Adamov in absentia with fraud and
power abuse. He was placed on the international wanted list. On
May 14 the Basmanny Court of Moscow sanctioned Adamov’s arrest.

On May 17 Adamov’s defense appealed the arrest in the Federal
Criminal Court of Switzerland. On May 18 the Russian Foreign
Ministry told the Swiss side about its “serious concern with the
arrest of Yevgeny Adamov” and the “unacceptability of Adamov’s
extradition to the United States without preliminary permission
from Russia.” On the same day, Mark Kaushansky pleaded not
guilty in a Pittsburgh court. 

On May 19, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the
extradition request for the ex-minister, which was sent to
Switzerland. On May 26, Yevgeny Adamov rejected the option of a
simplified extradition to Russia, saying that he intends to
return only as free citizen. On June 9, the Federal Criminal
Court of Switzerland admitted the arrest of Adamov according to
the American request was illegal, because the ex-minister came
to the country as a witness for his daughter’s case and had
immunity. However, Adamov remained in jail – this time after the
Russian request. On July 15 the Federal Court of Lucerne
canceled the decision from June 9.

On Aug. 15 the Russian newspaper Izvestia published a letter by
Adamov, where he said that he is being prosecuted because of his
role of involving Russia in the construction of atomic power
plants in China and Iran.

On Aug. 25 Adamov agreed to a simplified procedure of
extradition to Russia. However, on Aug. 30, the U.S. Justice
Department rejected an offer by the Swiss authorities to
extradite the ex-minister to Russia.

On Sept.6 the former head of the Ministry of Atomic Energy gave
an interview from jail to the radio station Ekho Moskvy, where
he said that the Americans were trying to prosecute him just to
prove that the authorities in Russia are corrupt. 	 	
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM

*****************************************************************
 18 Indian Express: Musharraf wants India-US-type nuclear deal

Tuesday, October 04, 2005   

 Press Trust of India
 									
 ['Nukes'] Islamabad, October 4: Pakistan has formally
approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) seeking a deal
similar to the one between United States and India to produce
nuclear power, saying that it needed more atomic power plants to
meet future energy requirements. 

Pakistan has urged the NSG, comprising developed industrial
countries, not to single out Pakistan by providing nuclear
energy to India in the region, local daily Dawn quoted officials
here as saying. 

The NSG was apparently approached after President Pervez
Musharraf had been requested by Pakistan Atomic Energy
Commission (PAEC) chairman Pervez Butt to formally seek a
nuclear deal from the US and the West to meet the country's
8,800 mw of electricity needs during the next 25 years. 

Though initially diffident to approach US to seek a deal like
the one struck during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to
Washington due to revelations of proliferation by its disgraced
nuclear scientist A Q Khan, Pakistan has in the recent week
stepped up its campaign to secure advanced nuclear technology.
"Denying Pakistan a nuclear package like that of India is a
clear discrimination against a friend," the newspaper quoted an
official as saying. Musharraf has warned the US and important
western countries that there would be ‘no stability’ in the
region if India was continued to be favoured and Pakistan
ignored despite being a strong ally of the international
community against terrorism, it said. Pakistan wants 13 nuclear
power plants against India's request of six and has given the
details to the US and some other western countries of its
requirements. 

"The government has told the US and the western countries that
Pakistan deserves a nuclear deal because of being a matured
nuclear operator and having a 33 years experience of safety,"
the official said. 

The government also informed the US and the western countries
that Pakistan wanted to import nuclear power plants as a
substitute to oil and global warming and that the whole
programme would be under the active supervision of International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Musharraf
immediately after the India-US deal that it no way affected
Pakistan. In the ensuing weeks however, US officials stated that
it would be difficult for Washington to extend a similar deal to
Islamabad in the light of the allegations of proliferation. 

Recent reports here said Musharraf has sought a similar nuclear
agreement from US for Pakistan to abandon the
India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project. Pakistan officials
said that after the US, the UK, Canada and France had also
offered nuclear deals to India, which should also be offered to
Pakistan, failing which Islamabad would be constrained to look
for other sources to meet its energy needs, the newspaper said. 

              © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 19 Mickey Z.: Hiroshima 59 Years Later

CounterPunch! 

1--800--840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 
95558
 
August 4, 2004 

Two Traditions: WMD and Disinformation
 
By MICKEY Z. 

"It is an atomic bomb. It is the greatest thing in history." 
-President Harry S. Truman, August 6, 1945 

"Congress should endorse the use of all necessary means to
eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction." 

-John Edwards, September 2002 

We are approaching August 6, 2004, the 59th anniversary of the
U.S. terror bombing of Hiroshima, and it's apparent that the
history and use of WMD is still not fully understood. 

With "Good War" references and rhetoric bandied about by
politicians and pundits of all stripes, it's instructive to
consider how the U.S. and its allies, 60 years ago, allegedly
engaged in a life-and-death battle to prevent a tyrant from
wielding WMD. "Working at Los Alamos, New Mexico," writes
historian Kenneth C. Davis, "atomic scientists, many of them
refugees from Hitler's Europe, thought they were racing against
Germans developing a 'Nazi bomb.'" 

Surely, if it were possible for the epitome of evil to produce
such a weapon, it would be the responsibility of the good guys
to beat der Führer to the plutonium punch. While such a
desperate race makes for excellent melodrama, the German bomb
effort, it appears, fell far short of success. 

Thanks to the declassification of key documents, we now have
access to "unassailable proof that the race with the Nazis was a
fiction," says Stewart Udall, who cites the work of McGeorge
Bundy and Thomas Powers before adding that, "According to the
official history of the British Secret Intelligence Service
(SIS), those agents maintained 'contacts with scientists in
neutral countries.'" These contacts, by mid-1943, provided
enough evidence to convince the SIS that the German bomb program
simply did not exist. 

Despite such findings, U.S. General Leslie Groves, military
commander of the Manhattan Project, got permission in the fall
of 1943 to begin a secret espionage mission known as Alsos
(Greek for "grove"). The mission saw Groves' men following the
Allies' armies throughout Europe with the goal of capturing
German scientists involved in the manufacture of atomic weapons.

 While the data uncovered by Alsos only served to reinforce the
prior reports that the Third Reich was not pursuing a nuclear
program, Groves was able to maintain enough of a cover-up to
keep his pet project alive. In the no-holds-barred religion of
anti-communism, the "Good War" enemy was never fascism. Truman's
daughter, Margaret, remarked about her dad's early presidential
efforts after the death of FDR in April 1945, "My father's
overriding concern in these first weeks was our policy towards
Russia."

 What will Bush daughters be confessing about their Dad one day? 
* * * * 

The most commonly evoked justification for the dropping of
atomic bombs on Japan was to save lives, but was it true? Would
such an invasion even have been necessary? Finally, were the
actions of the United States motivated by an escalating Cold War
with the Soviet Union? Here are the facts that don't mesh with
the long-accepted storyline: 

Although hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were lost in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings are often explained away as
a "life-saving" measure-American lives. Exactly how many lives
saved is, however, up for grabs. (We do know of a few U.S.
soldiers who fell between the cracks About a dozen or more
American POWs were killed in Hiroshima, a truth that remained
hidden for some 30 years.) In defense of the U.S. action, it is
usually claimed that the bombs saved lives. The hypothetical
body count ranges from 20,000 to "millions." In an August 9,
1945 statement to "the men and women of the Manhattan Project,"

President Truman declared the hope that "this new weapon will
result in saving thousands of American lives." 

"The president's initial formulation of 'thousands," however,
was clearly not his final statement on the matter to say the
least," remarks historian Gar Alperovitz. In his book, "The
Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an
American Myth," Alperovitz documents but a few of Truman's
public estimates throughout the years: 

*December 15, 1945: "It occurred to me that a quarter of a
million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of
Japanese cities . . ." 

*Late 1946: "A year less of war will mean life for three hundred
thousand-maybe half a million-of America's finest youth." 

*October 1948: "In the long run we could save a quarter of a
million young Americans from being killed, and would save an
equal number of Japanese young men from being killed." 
*April 6, 1949: "I thought 200,000 of our young men would be
saved." 

*November 1949: Truman quotes Army Chief of Staff George S.
Marshall as estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan
to be "half a million casualties." 

*January 12, 1953: Still quoting Marshall, Truman raises the
estimate to "a minimum one quarter of a million" and maybe "as
much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal
number of the enemy." 

*Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: "the dropping of
the bombs . . . saved millions of lives." 
Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of
official estimates. 

In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the
cost in American lives for a planned assault on Japan.

Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report
for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the
closest thing anyone has to "accurate": 40,000 U.S. soldiers
killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing. 

While the actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was
widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender
for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable,
intercepted and decoded by the U.S., "dispelled any possible
doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace." In fact,
the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the
war, that Japan "in all probability" would have surrendered
before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of
the homeland.

 Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would
"be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that
comes about." 

Many post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki sentiments questioned the use of
the bombs. 

"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by
the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives," said General
Dwight D. Eisenhower while, not long after the Japanese
surrender, New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote,
"The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic
position. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of
course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly
negative." 

Was it the cold logic of capitalism that motivated the nuking of
civilians? As far back as May 1945, a Venezuelan diplomat was
reporting how Assistant Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller
"communicated to us the anxiety of the United States government
about the Russian attitude." U.S. Secretary of State James F.
Byrnes seemed to agree when he turned the anxiety up a notch by
explaining how "our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would
make Russia more manageable in the East . . . The demonstration
of the bomb might impress Russia with America's military might." 

General Leslie Groves was less cryptic: "There was never, from
about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any
illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the
Project was conducted on that basis." 

During the same time period, President Truman noted that
Secretary of War Henry Stimson was "at least as much concerned
with the role of the atomic bomb in the shaping of history as in
its capacity to shorten the war." What sort of shaping Stimson
had in mind might be discerned from his Sept. 11, 1945 comment
to the president: "I consider the problem of our satisfactory
relations with Russia as not merely connected but as virtually
dominated by the problem of the atomic bomb." 

Stimson called the bomb a "diplomatic weapon," and duly
explained: "American statesmen were eager for their country to
browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously
on our hip." 

"The psychological effect [of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] on Stalin
was twofold," proposes historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. "The
Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it
when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was
this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest
impression on the Russians."

 It also made an impression on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the
scientific director at Los Alamos. After learning of the carnage
wrought upon Japan, he began to harbor second thoughts and he
resigned in October 1945. 

In March of the following year, Oppenheimer told Truman: 
"Mr. President, I have blood on my hands." 

Truman's reply: "It'll come out in the wash." 

Later, the president told an aide, "Don't bring that fellow
around again." 

"Why did we drop [the bomb]?" pondered Studs Terkel at the time
of the fiftieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings. 

"So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the
cards," he explained. "That was the phrase Truman used. We
showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd
better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped.

The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99
percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye." 

They'll also spit in your eye if you point out that the U.S. has
waged several nuclear wars...against Japan in 1945, against Iraq
from 1991 to present, in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and on
military bases like Vieques. Or if you point out that the US and
Britain did not call for a military strike after Saddam's
infamous gassing of Kurds* at Halabja in March 1988...in fact,
both nations continued support for Hussein. Some will still spit
in your eye if you mention the absence of WMD in Iraq today. 

Americans are rather fussy about their WMD. We, of course, can
have them, a few allies can openly possess such weapons, and
we'll deftly look the other way when Israel's plutonium slip
shows. Russia? Well, as long as they stay away from that
communist stuff.

 As for tyrants like Hitler and Hussein: no way. The world
simply can't risk having WMD in the hands of those likely to use
them, right? 

(*Commonly referred to as the gassing of his own people, it's
essential to clarify that if the Kurds were Hussein's people,
then the Palestinians are Sharon's people, the Zapatistas are
Vicente Fox's people, the Tibetans are Hu Jintao's people, the
Chechens are Putin's people, the Seminoles were Andrew Jackson's
people, and the Puerto Ricans who were bombed and radiated with
depleted uranium are Bush's people.) 

Mickey Z. is the author of two brand new books: "The Seven
Deadly Spins: Exposing the Lies Behind War Propaganda" (Common
Courage Press) and "A Gigantic Mistake: Articles and Essays for
Your Intellectual Self-Defense" (Library Empyreal/Wildside
Press). For more information, please visit: .
 
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: Kazakhstan to Recycle Weapons-Grade Uranium for Peaceful Applications

Tuesday October 4, 4:07 am ET 

The Ulbinsk Metallurgic Factory is to Start Transforming
Weapons-Grade Uranium for Peaceful use 

ASTANA, Kazakhstan, October 4 /PRNewswire/ -- On October 8th,
there is to be an official ceremony to mark the launch of
processing of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) into low enriched
uranium (LEU) at the Ulbinsk Metallurgic Factory in Eastern
Kazakhstan. President Nazarbayev, Ted Turner, US Senator Sam
Nunn, the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Pierre
Lellouche, as well as representatives of IAEA and NGOs will be
among attendees to the event, which is held in the framework of
the non-proliferation of WMD program.

HEU is weapons-grade or weapon-usable uranium in which the
content of the U-235 isotope is over the 20% mark. Weapons-grade
HEU (containing 85% of U-235) is the standard for existing
nuclear devices, though weapons-usable HEU (with U-235 content
ranging between 20% and 85%) can be used in a crude nuclear
device. LEU is the type of nuclear fuel used in civil reactors,
with a concentration of U-235 of the order of 3% to 5%.

Kazakhstan joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear
state on February 14th 1994 after having destroyed its
formidable arsenal of 110 ballistic missiles and 1,200 nuclear
warheads it inherited from the Soviet Union. The country now
leverages its experience of the safe disposal of nuclear weapons
with the opening of this new installation at the Ulbinsk
Metallurgic Factory.

Opened in 1949, the Ulbinsk Metallurgic Factory's original
function was to supply the USSR's defence sector. At the present
time the plant is one of the largest world producers of its
kind. It occupies 529 hectares, and houses over 100 structures
and installations housing uranium, beryllium and tantalum
production as well as an etching acid production department,
instrumental and mechanical quarters, electrical repair and
energy repair shop, and a number of other production complex
utilities.

The Ulbinsk Metallurgic Factory's is mostly owned (90%) by the
national atomic energy firm "KazAtomProm" which is Kazakhstan's
operator for the import and export of uranium and is among top
10 uranium-mining companies of the world accounting for 5% of
the world production of uranium. In 2004 "KazAtomProm" mined
3,320 tons of uranium compared to 2952 tons in 2003.

Source: Government of Kazakhstan

Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
   - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Ad Feedback[ src=] 
Copyright © 2005 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Republication
*****************************************************************
 21 [epa-impact] Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant
 
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:00:29 -0400 (EDT)

 
X-Fingerprint: bounce-381575-46782@lists.epa.gov-127.127

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/October/Day-04/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57899-57900]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04oc05-99]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 68, ``Criticality 
Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (NMC), for 
operation of the

[[Page 57900]]

Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan. Therefore, as 
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) 
during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 
72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in the Palisades' 
spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's 
application of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the Commission sets forth the following 
requirement that must be met, in lieu of a monitoring system capable of 
detecting criticality events:

    Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any 
one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be 
safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions 
feasible by unborated water.

    Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not necessary 
to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other conditions are 
met. NMC stated in its August 25, 2005, letter that applying the 10 CFR 
50.68(b)(1) criticality prevention standards to dry shielded canister 
loading operations, conducted in connection with a 10 CFR part 72 
license would result in undue hardship or other costs that are 
significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was 
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by 
others similarly situated.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that if the exemption described above is not granted, it 
would result in an undue hardship. The details of the NRC staff's 
safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued 
as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the 
regulation.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent release off site. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e, the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Addendum to the Final 
Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Palisades Nuclear 
Plant dated February 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On September 30, 2005, the staff consulted with the Michigan State 
official, Mary Ann Elzerman, of the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see NMC's 
letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web 
site, <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</A>. 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 at 
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-19921 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: NRC Staff Seeks Input on Brunswick Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal

News Release - Region II - 2005-03
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-05-039   		        October 04, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail:   
  

preliminary conclusion that there are no environmental impacts
which would preclude renewal of the operating licenses for the
Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant located near Southport, N. C. 

The information is contained in a draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) on the proposed license renewal. The draft EIS
is open for public comment until Dec. 2, 2005, and will also be
the subject of public meetings on October 18 in Southport. 

The NRC has been reviewing the application for extension of the
Brunswick license since Progress Energy, which operates the
plant, filed it in October 2004. Under NRC regulations, the
original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued
for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an
additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current NRC
licenses at Brunswick will expire on Sept. 8, 2016, for Unit 1
and Dec. 27, 2014, for Unit 2. 

The possible environmental effects of an additional 20 years of
nuclear plant operation are described in the NRCs Generic
Environmental Impact Statement or GEIS (NUREG-1437). The NRC
issues a site-specific supplement to the GEIS on each plant
requesting license renewal to address the potential
environmental impacts. Issues specific to Brunswick are
addressed in Supplement 25. The NRC staffs preliminary
recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of
license renewal for the two Brunswick reactors are not so great
that preserving the option of license renewal for
energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. 

On Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2005, the NRC staff will hold two similar
meetings in Southport to obtain comments on the draft supplement
to the GEIS. The meetings will be held at the Southport City
Hall, 201 E. Moore Street in Southport. The two sessions will
begin at 1:30 in the afternoon and at 7:00 in the evening,
respectively. In addition, the NRC staff will host informal
discussions one hour prior to each meeting. NRC staff members
will be available to answer questions and provide additional
information about the license renewal process during those
informal sessions, but no comment submittals on environmental
issues will be accepted then. 

The two sessions will begin with identical overviews, including
presentations by NRC staff on the draft supplement to the GEIS.
There will then be an opportunity for public comments. 

For planning purposes, anyone interested in attending or
presenting oral comments at the October 18th meetings is
encouraged to pre-register by contacting Richard Emch Jr. of the
NRC by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1590, or by e-mail
at no later than October 11. Interested persons may also
register to speak before the start of each session. Time for
individual comments at the meetings may be limited to
accommodate all speakers. 

Written comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS will also
be considered by NRC staff. Comments should be submitted either
by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop
T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by e-mail to . 

The draft supplement to the GEIS is available for public review
at the William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road,
Wilmington, N.C. It is also available in the NRC Public Document
Room at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md.,
and on the Internet at
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/bru
nswick.html#eis. 

At the conclusion of the public comment period on Dec. 2, 2005,
the NRC staff will consider and address comments during the
preparation of the final supplement to the GEIS, which is
scheduled to be issued in April 2006.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, October 04, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 23 Arizona Republic: Nuke unit shut down a 3rd time
 
 October 4, 2005 	   	  

Nuke unit shut down a 3rd time Seal leak forces Palo Verde repair                                             

Ken Alltucker

A reactor at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant has been shut
down for the third time this year due to a leaking oil seal. 

Arizona Public Service Co. described this week's repair of the
oil seal in Unit 3's coolant pump as a planned move to take care
of the persistent problem, which also forced the reactor's
shutdown in May and July. APS expects to complete the repairs
this week and start up Unit 3 next weekend. 

APS officials acknowledge that some oil seals are wearing more
quickly than expected, so the utility has launched a
"root-cause" investigation to get a better idea about why. 

"For some reason, we're getting less life out of these seals
than others," said James Levine, APS' executive vice president
of generation. 

"We have some time here to continue with our root cause
(investigation) and determine if we have to do something
different."

 The utility also will closely inspect the oil seals in Palo
Verde's other reactors, Units 1 and 2. 

Levine said there was some evidence that at least one Unit 2 oil
seal would need to be replaced soon, although no timeline for
its replacement has been established. 

Crews also likely will replace some seals during Unit 1's
refueling outage that will begin this weekend. Unit 1's outage
is expected to last 75 to 80 days as crews tackle major jobs,
including replacing steam generators, low-pressure turbines and
computer systems. 

Levine said APS can't compare notes with other nuclear power
plant operators because Palo Verde is the only plant that uses
the German-made coolant pumps that are the focus of the
examination. 

There are two oil seals for each of the four coolant pumps in
each reactor. Some nuclear plants in South Korea use similar
parts, so APS will seek to find out whether similar problems
have been found there, Levine said.

 Reactor shutdowns at Palo Verde this year have been costly for
APS and the plant's other owners. Palo Verde is the nation's
largest nuclear power plant - a form of energy that is cheaper
to generate than other sources of electricity such as coal, oil
or natural gas. 

APS told the Arizona Corporation Commission last month that it
cost more than $30 million to replace energy lost due to
unplanned outages at Palo Verde from April through August. Salt
River Project, the second-largest Palo Verde owner, estimates
the outages from April through August cost it $19.5 million.

 APS revealed the Palo Verde outage costs to the Arizona
Corporation Commission as part of its fuel-cost "adjuster" case
that seeks to pass along higher fuel costs to ratepayers. If the
utility gets its way, Arizona ratepayers could see a temporary
2.1 percent hike in electricity bills. 

Also this week, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will
dispatch a special investigative team to Palo Verde from the
agency's Arlington, Texas, regional headquarters. 

The team will review the plant's equipment and safety systems.
The special investigation stems from the plant's "yellow" safety
violation that resulted in a $50,000 fine levied in April after
inspectors found air in a pipe that could have disrupted the
plant's emergency cooling system. 

NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said the special team would gather
information at Palo Verde during interviews and inspections this
week. The team will return for a follow-up inspection this fall
before issuing a final report in December.

 
Reach the reporter at (602) 444-8285 or .

        Copyright © 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC Establishes Web Page for Information on Spent Fuel Pool Issues at Indian Point
 
News Release - 2005-13
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-136     October 4, 2005   
  

the agencys Web site to consolidate information on the recently
discovered leakage from the spent nuclear fuel pool at Indian
Point Unit 2 nuclear power plant. The leakage at the Buchanan,
N.Y., facility is very small, is being monitored and does not
pose any health or safety concern for members of the public or
plant workers. 

The page includes updates on the NRCs special inspection at the
site, which among other things will review the companys
evaluation of the pool structure, evaluate remedial actions on
the part of the company, and assess any potential environmental
impact of the leakage. The inspection team will issue a report
documenting its findings within 45 days of the completion of the
inspection. 

The page also provides general information concerning the Indian
Point spent fuel pool leak, and will be updated with additional
information, such as public meeting details, correspondence and
press releases, as needed. The pages address on the NRC web site
is: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-iss
ues.html.   



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, October 04, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 25 Times Record: Decommission accomplished   

10/04/2005         

   news@TimesRecord.Com  

  Feds amend license to reflect successful closure of former
Maine Yankee plant

 WISCASSET - It is official. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has released all but about 12 acres of Maine Yankee land for
unrestricted use, thus completing a decommissioning process that
has taken more than eight years.

 Maine Yankee was notified Monday that its operating license has
been amended, reducing the land under the license from about 179
acres to the 12-acre site on which sits the Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation.

 The milestone marks the first time a commercial nuclear power
plant in the United States has been fully decommissioned with
all plant buildings removed. The radiological cleanup has met
the higher standards of the state within the predicted cost of
$500 million to its electric customers.

 Maine Yankee president Gerald Poulin congratulated the
decommissioning team for restoring the plant site "to an
outstanding condition."

 "Maine Yankee's decommissioning broke new ground in many
areas," Poulin said. "It will be studied as a success story for
years to come."

 Some of the accomplishments of the decommissioning include:

  Radiological cleanup of the site to a level significantly
lower than the 10 millirem set by the state.

  No lost time injuries in more than three years.

  Completing decommissioning for less than half the NRC's
allowed radiological dose limit.

  First ever use of explosives to safely demolish a containment
building.

  Approximately 450 million pounds of waste safely removed from
the site by rail, truck and barge.

  Largest single campaign to move spent nuclear fuel from wet
to dry storage.

  Creation of an upland marsh area.

  Donation of 200 acres of plant property for conservation and
environmental education (The Chewonki Foundation/Eaton Farm).

  Sale of approximately 400 acres of plant property for
economic development (Town of Wiscasset and Point East).

 Maine Yankee's primary purpose now will be the safe storage of
spent nuclear fuel and Greater Than Class C waste on Bailey
Point while at the same time pursuing the federal government to
remove the waste as soon as possible.

 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant began operating in 1972 and
ceased production in December 1996. It produced about 119
billion kilowatt hours of electricity for customers throughout
New England.   

(C) 2005 All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Partial Withdrawal of 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19789 
[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)] 
[Notices] [Page 57899] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc05-98]                         
 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has granted 
the request of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) to 
withdraw a portion of its July 22, 2004, application and the 
December 3, 2004, and September 20, 2005, supplements for 
proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and 
NPF-85 for the Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 
located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
 
The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) pertaining to the operability requirements 
in TS 3/4.1.3, ``Control Rods.'' Specifically, one of the 
proposed changes would have eliminated consideration of control 
rod drive water pressure in the action statement of TS 
3.1.3.1.b.1.b. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal 
Register on May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29794). However, by letter dated 
September 20, 2005, the licensee withdrew the above-referenced 
proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 22, 2004, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 3, 2004, and September 20, 2005.
 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Publicly-available records will be accessible electronically from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, .
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Travis L. Tate, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate 
I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19789 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 27 Shoreline Beacon: Wind energy catching on in Canada 

October 5, 2005 

Port Elgin, ON N0H 2C0 Phone: (519) 832-9001 Fax: (519) 389-4793 

By Troy Patterson 

Wednesday October 05, 2005Shoreline Beacon — Wind power may only 
be a drop in the bucket of electricity production, but in 
comparison to nuclear and fossil fuels, it’s clean, efficient 
and pays for itself. 

In recent years the public has looked to alternative energies 
like wind power to deliver Canada’s energy-dependent society 
from non-renewable resources. However, it is being shown that 
wind power can only compliment existing technologies, it can’t 
replace them. 

According to Rob Liddle, Bruce Power’s communications 
consultant for Huron Wind, it would take 5,000 wind turbines to 
replace the electricity produced by Bruce Power’s nuclear 
reactors. There are currently five large turbines and one 
smaller turbine at the Huron Wind site. 

“No one in the nuclear industry should feel threatened because 
it’s such a small percentage of (energy) production,” Liddle 
said. “But wind power has its place.” 

Huron Wind can produce enough electricity to power around 2,000 
homes, or the equivalent of nine megawatts. In comparison, Bruce 
Power reactors produce 20 per cent of Ontario’s power, or 4,700 
megawatt. 

The government has had a significant impact on the number of 
wind farms in Ontario since the site was constructed in 2003. 
There are proposals from close to a dozen different companies in 
Ontaro hoping to set up wind farms from Sault St. Marie to 
Manitoulin Island. 
Regional proposals include ones for the towns of Ripley and 
Amberly and studies are still in the works for a massive 230 
megawatt farm to be built between Kincardine and Port Elgin by 
the Leader Wind Group. 

“The government is eliminating coal-fired plants, which supply 
17 per cent of the electricity in Ontario,” Liddle said. “To do 
this, they have to come up with something to replace it.” 

The McGuinty government plans to replace the energy from 
coal-fired plants with the possible restart of Bruce A Units 1 
and 2, combined with a variety of natural gas and biogas 
technologies, and by pushing for localized wind farms throughout 
Ontario. 

As an incentive, wind farm companies are negotiating contracts 
with the government that guarantee earnings in exchange for 
energy. Competition is driving a flood of bids to build farms, 
pending government approval and environmental assessment of the 
proposed areas, Liddle said. 

Maintenance 

Wind turbines, like any other mechanical device, are 
susceptible to wear and tear from the environment and the force 
of their own weight. 

Repairs aren’t always simple either. Liddle said cranes are 
often used to remove and repair blades, or to replace the 
gearbox in the bus-sized nacelle of the turbine. 

Lightning strikes are somewhat common, but because the 
structure is grounded they aren’t usually an issue. But there 
have been three significant strikes since construction where the 
turbines had to be shut down to repair damage to the blades. 

Liddle said the life span of a turbine is 20 years. Meaning by 
2023, the parts and mechanics of Huron Wind’s turbines would be 
recycled and replaced with more advanced technology. 

Huron Wind installed the five main turbines in a “package deal” 
for $15 million, which included the construction of roads, 
fences and the infrastructure needed for the turbines to go up. 

It took a shipment across the Atlantic from Denmark’s Vestas, 
which produced the parts, along with 45 over-sized shipments of 
parts, to get the turbines to the site. 

“Other than the general maintenance costs over the 20 years, 
(the turbines) more than pay for themselves,” said Liddle, 
adding the energy is free and clean. 
With nuclear power, the capital cost is significantly more, but 
the output is far higher. Uranium is inexpensive and plentiful 
in Canada and there are no fossil fuel emissions. 

Huron Wind has no staff. The turbines are monitored by Bruce 
Power and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and receive regular 
visits from three service technicians who look after many other 
wind turbines across Ontario. 

Technical specifics 

Each turbine stands 117 metres from the ground to the peak of 
the blades. 

Unlike traditional windmills, the turbines need electricity to 
spin. An electro-magnet keeps the blades spinning at 15 
revolutions per minute. 

The magnet uses less than one per cent of the energy it 
produces to spin the blade. It never spins faster or slower with 
the wind speed, but instead switches gears inside the massive 
gearbox to adjust for the increase and decrease of wind 
conditions, Liddle said. 

The output of the turbines fluctuates from 100 kilowatts to 1.8 
megawatts depending on wind conditions (there are 1,000 
kilowatts in a megawatt); a small comparison to four of Bruce 
Power’s reactors which produce 800 megawatts each and two others 
which produce 750 megawatts a piece. 
But Liddle said the turbines only reach their maximum output 
one-quarter to one-third of the time; the equivalent to about 70 
days out of the year. 

When production is low or ceased, Huron Wind has an agreement 
with the manufacturer which will compensate them for loss of 
productivity. This plan works along with Huron Wind’s 10-year 
contract with the federal government, which pays 1.2 cents per 
kilowatt hour for the electricity produced for the Ontario power 
grid. 

Liddle said this year’s production is down because of a lack of 
wind throughout the summer. In 2003 the turbines averaged 21 per 
cent of their capacity, which increased to 30 percent the 
following year. 

The technology is relatively new, so time and experience will 
create a pattern for future energy forecasts. 

Environmental Impact 

Like any major project, Huron Wind was constructed after an 
environmental assessment. 

Little said the results showed the wind farm would have 
virtually no impact on the environment, except for dust, 
increased traffic during construction. 

On the 100-acre property, the majority of the area is available 
for agriculture or industrial projects. 

The closest neighbour is 500 metres away and Little said there 
have been no complaints about the facility so far. 

“It’s not a concern at all,” he said, adding some people would 
also consider the sound of the blades spinning or their 
appearance as an issue. “There’s not much noise. It’s comparable 
to waves lapping at the beach. Beauty really is in the eye of 
the beholder.” 

The structures have warning beacons to alert aviators, but 
because of its close proximity to Bruce Power, Little said 
planes haven’t been a concern. 

Shadow-flicker, caused by the casting of shadow from the 
blades, would be an issue if the turbines were closer to 
residential areas. The only impact in that area is on staff of 
the Bruce Power Visitors Centre, which have reported glare on 
computer monitors. 

Future 

Currently there are no plans for expansion to Huron Wind but 
Liddle said data from their turbines will be used to help 
integrate more wind power operations into the Ontario Power 
grid, helping to increase the percentage of renewable energy 
from five to 10 percent by 2012. 

“The more wind farms there are, the more infrastructure there 
will be to provide parts,” he said. “If the industry takes off, 
it will make the technology relatively cheaper.” 

Liddle said with the government pushing the issue, wind power 
will make a significant contribution to the future of the 
Ontario power grid. 

“I think we’re going to see it and hopefully in a controlled 
fashion,” he said. “It’s not going to replace conventional 
technology, but if they’re placed properly, everything helps.” 

© 2005 Shoreline Beacon 
*****************************************************************
 28 Record Online: Indian Point reactor shut 

www.recordonline.com 

October 04, 2005 

By Greg Bruno Times Herald-Record gbruno@th-record.com 

Buchanan – A control rod failure at Indian Point 3 has 
prompted Entergy Nuclear Northeast to temporarily shut down one 
of the plant's two nuclear reactors, the latest in a series of 
mishaps to draw criticism of the plant. 

Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, said plant operators will 
spend the week repairing and inspecting 53 control rods, which 
are used to slow the chain reaction in the reactor core. 

Workers began shutting down the reactor Friday after one of 
the rods malfunctioned. The failure was the result of a loss of 
power to the mechanical arm that lowers the rods into place. 

"The plant was shut down to fix a short between the drive 
mechanism and the control rods," Steets said. 

"You need electric power to hold the rods in place. If you 
loose power, they are automatically inserted." 

The suspension of power production, which removes about 1,000 
megawatts from the state's power grid, is expected to last 
through the week. A spokesman for the New York Independent 
System Operator said the disruption would not impact supplies or 
rates statewide. 

Friday's malfunction was one in a string of recent problems 
to besiege the 29-year-old reactor, which sits on the banks of 
the Hudson River in Westchester County, 35 miles north of 
Midtown Manhattan. 

It was also the latest chance for plant critics to publicly 
assail Entergy's commitment to safety. 

In recent months, Indian Point's emergency warning system has 
failed repeated tests, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call 
for immediate Nuclear Regulatory Agency intervention. 

And last month, Entergy announced the discovery of a small 
leak in one of the plant's spent-fuel pools. The probe of the 
leak is continuing. 

"It's no longer a matter of if or when Indian Point will 
malfunction; it already has, repeatedly," said Alex Matthiessen, 
director of the environmental group Riverkeeper. 

"Enough is enough." 

Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, 
serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 
40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone
845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. 

CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 29 ITAR-TASS: Russia's 1st nuclear industry eqt exhibition to open in Moscow.

04.10.2005, 07.30

MOSCOW, October 4 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's first specialised
international exhibition of the nuclear industry equipment,
machines, instruments and materials opens at the World Trade
Centre here on Tuesday. The industrial companies of Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, and France will put their
products on display, exhibition director Natalia Arkhipova has
told Itar-Tass. 

An official in the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency
(Rosatom) has told Itar-Tass that a number of display stands
"feature emergency communication means and systems,
telecommunications, equipment and materials to ensure the safety
of nuclear power stations (NPS) in the event of a terrorist
threat". 

Rosatom analysts believe that "the operating mock-ups of
small-size land-based, underground, and floating NPS" will also
generate a particular interest among foreign and Russian
specialists. 

In the near future, Rosatom experts believe, "Such NPS will be
able to resolve the energy problems of Arctic territories and
parts of the worl that experience a shortage of fresh water".
Those NPS, a Rosatom expert explained, "operate as seawater
desalting plants and as sources of power supply at
oil-extracting platforms in the open sea". 

The distinguishing feature of this exhibition, Natalia Arkhipova
pointed out, is that immediately after the exhibition comes to a
close, the exhibits will be sent out to nuclear power stations
for testing. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 30 St. Petersburg Times: Second nuclear plant in the works

News of Florida
                    
Progress Florida's CEO Bill Habermeyer says nuclear power has a
big advantage: It emits no carbon.

 By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer

 Published October 4, 2005
 
If plans fly, Progress Energy expects to select a design and
site, possibly in rural Central Florida, by the end of this
year. The plant could be up and running by 2015.

 Spurred by customer growth, rising conventional fuel costs and
a pronuclear stance by the Bush administration, Progress Energy
Florida may build a second nuclear power plant in Florida, with
rural counties in Central Florida providing some of the most
attractive options for a site.

 If the St. Petersburg utility proceeds with such plans, the new
plant would become Florida's first new nuclear generation
project since 1983, when Florida Power &Light opened a second
reactor at its St. Lucie nuclear complex near Fort Pierce. In
1977, Progress Energy, then known as Florida Power Corp., began
operating its first and only nuclear power plant at its Crystal
River complex in Citrus County.

 By the end of this year, Progress' corporate parent, Progress
Energy Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., expects to select a potential site
and design for a nuclear plant to meet the growing electricity
demands of its expanding customer base. Altogether, Progress
operates four nuclear facilities in the Carolinas and Florida.

 Central Florida is high on Progress Energy's list of potential
sites. A location in Polk, Seminole, Osceola or Highlands
counties would put a nuclear power plant closer to major
transmission lines in the state. And while Pinellas and Pasco
counties account for the greatest portion of electricity demand
in the company's Florida service territory, Central Florida is
experiencing the greatest customer growth, a key consideration
when siting a power plant.

 Choosing a site and vendor for a nuclear plant is among the
first formal steps of a lengthy license application process that
could take years. For now, a nuclear plant appears to be the
most likely expansion option for Progress, although company
officials do not rule out the possibility that the company will
eventually decide to build a plant powered by coal instead.

 In an interview Monday, Progress Florida president and chief
executive Bill Habermeyer said that nuclear power's lack of
carbon emissions and its ability to potentially reduce American
dependency on foreign energy sources give it significant
advantages.

 "When you look at the choices ahead, I think nuclear provides a
better alternative," he said.

 Habermeyer added that the Crystal River site, while attractive,
also has some disadvantages. The complex already includes four
large coal-fired generating units producing more than 3,000
megawatts of electricity. Adding a second nuclear reactor to the
site would mean that "you're putting a lot of generation at one
location," he said.

 But building a nuclear power plant in a new location - and
bringing with it the prospect of storing highly radioactive
nuclear waste on site - could pose a formidable political
challenge. Another challenge: Nuclear power plants require a
nearby water source for cooling, an additional hurdle away from
Florida's coastline.

 Habermeyer acknowledged that building on a new site will
inevitably trigger some opposition. But he added that he hopes
local residents and public officials will recognize what he said
are the environmental and economic advantages of nuclear power
as well.

 Soaring gas, oil and coal prices have sent electricity prices
soaring, further reducing consumers' longstanding resistance to
nuclear power.

 "Ultimately, you have to have a generating source that can
provide sufficient electricity to power this country," he said.

 Construction of a plant could begin in five years, with the
plant becoming operational as early as 2015.

 Progress' nuclear ambitions come at a pivotal time for the U.S.
nuclear power industry, which has long operated under a pall of
safety concerns since the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile
Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. In fact, the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a license for
a new nuclear reactor since then.

 But the prospects for U.S. nuclear power generation have grown
rosier under the Bush administration. In a bid to encourage
applications to build and operate nuclear plants, the Energy
Department offered in some cases to pay up to half the cost of
applying for the required license, which can run into hundreds
of millions of dollars.

 In addition, President Bush signed long-delayed energy
legislation in August that provides production tax credits, loan
guarantees and risk protections for companies building nuclear
reactors.

 Progress executives have unusually deep roots in nuclear power.
Habermeyer, Progress Energy Inc. chairman and chief executive
Bob McGehee and retired chairman and chief executive Bill
Cavanaugh are all veterans of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine
program.

 Still, nuclear is not the expansion choice of every power
company.

 Florida Power &Light of Juno Beach, the state's larger nuclear
power plant operator, recently decided against a new nuclear
generator. Instead, it has proposed building a coal plant in St.
Lucie County.

 --Louis Hau can be reached at hau@sptimes.comor 813 226-3404.

[Last modified October 4, 2005, 02:15:30]

© 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First 
Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111                                                    
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings
 
                        FR Doc 05-19920 
[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)] 
[Notices] [Page 57901] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc05-101]                         
 
Date: Weeks of October 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, November 7, 2005.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters To Be Considered: Week of October 3, 2005 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the Week of October 3, 2005.
 
Week of October 10, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of October 10, 2005.
 
Week of October 17, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, October 18, 2005 
9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Decommissioning Activities and Status 
(Public Meeting) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of October 24, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, October 26, 2005 
1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) Thursday, 
October 27, 2005 10 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues 
(Closed-Ex. 1) Week of October 31, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, 
November 1, 2005 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Implementation of 
Davis-Besse Lessons Learned Task Force (DBLLTF) Recommendations 
(Public Meeting) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of November 7, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of November 7, 2005.
 
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more 
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braile, large print), 
please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August 
Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at 
aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers, if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: September 29, 2005.
 
Debra L. McCain, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19920 Filed 9-30-05; 9:58 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Palisades Plant; 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19921 
[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)] 
[Notices] [Page 57899-57900] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc05-99]                         
 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 68, ``Criticality 
Accident Requirements,'' Subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (NMC), 
for operation of the
 
[[Page 57900]] Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, 
Michigan.
 
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
 
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action 
The proposed action would exempt NMC from the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements,'' Subsection 
(b)(1) during the handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel in a 
10 CFR part 72 licensed spent fuel storage container that is in 
the Palisades' spent fuel pool. The proposed action is in 
accordance with NMC's application of June 21, as supplemented 
August 25, 2005.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the 
Commission sets forth the following requirement that must be met, 
in lieu of a monitoring system capable of detecting criticality 
events: Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage 
at any one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined 
to be safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation 
conditions feasible by unborated water.
 
Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to apply for an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the regulation is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and other 
conditions are met. NMC stated in its August 25, 2005, letter 
that applying the 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) criticality prevention 
standards to dry shielded canister loading operations, conducted 
in connection with a 10 CFR part 72 license would result in undue 
hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those 
contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are 
significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly 
situated.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has 
completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes 
that if the exemption described above is not granted, it would 
result in an undue hardship. The details of the NRC staff's 
safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be 
issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the 
exemption to the regulation.
 
The proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being 
made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. 
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent 
release off site. There is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
 
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e, the ``no-action'' 
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change 
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
 
Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use 
of any different resources than those previously considered in 
the Final Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement Related 
to Operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant dated February 1978.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted On September 30, 2005, the staff 
consulted with the Michigan State official, Mary Ann Elzerman, of 
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official 
had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of 
the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see 
NMC's letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, . 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 at 1-800- 397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division 
of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19921 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 33 NEWS.com.au: Coal boom to outlast nuclear energy 

(04-10-2005)
 	
Company Data                  
Enter name or ASX code to access a wealth of data and analysis                                                

From: AAP                       

QUEENSLAND Premier Peter Beattie is supremely confident about
the long-term demand for his state's coal even if China and
India cut back their orders. Even nuclear power would not
threaten the future of the state's coal industry, Mr Beattie
said today as he announced that a proposed central Queensland
coal terminal had been declared a "significant" project.

 That meant the $5 million environmental impact study for the
Wiggins Island Coal Terminal at Gladstone could get underway.

 "The demand for coal is so extensive that I can't see, even
with a slightly reduced demand out of China, it having any great
impact on the price of coal," Mr Beattie said.

 "I think the demand is so great and it's so long-term that this
level of investment is important. 

"I think we are safely talking about the next 20, 30 or 40
years."

Australia is the world's largest exporter of black coal, much of 
which comes from Queensland.

 Queensland's coal exports are forecast to rise to about 220
million tonnes a year by 2010. 

Completion of the Wiggins Island Coal Terminal, scheduled for
2010, would boost the coal export capacity of Gladstone's port
by 20 million tonnes a year.

 When fully developed, Wiggins Island would add 70 million
tonnes of coal exporting capacity to Queensland.

 This, along with the 25 million tonne expansion of the RG Tanna
Coal Terminal, would make Gladstone Port the largest coal
exporting facility in the world.

 Mr Beattie said it was important for Queensland to focus on
clean coal technology to combat nuclear power's inroads into the
energy market.

 "That will guarantee us to the market and that will make us
very competitive with nuclear (energy)," he said.

*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Report for Comment: ``Estimating 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19790 
[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)] 
[Notices] [Page 57901-57903] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc05-102]                         
 
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Frequencies Through the 
Elicitation Process,'' NUREG-1829 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
 
DATES: Written comments must be provided by November 30, 2005.
 
Background: In support of an effort to develop a risk-informed 
revision of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements 
for commercial nuclear power plants, estimates of loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA) frequencies have been developed which will enable 
redefinition of the design-basis break size for these 
requirements. These LOCA frequency estimates have been developed 
using an expert elicitation process by consolidating service 
history data and insights from probabilistic fracture mechanics 
(PFM) studies with knowledge of plant design, operation, and 
material performance. This expert elicitation to develop LOCA 
frequency estimates is described in draft NUREG-1829, 
``Estimating Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Frequencies Through 
the Elicitation Process'' (June 2005).
 
The ECCS requirements in the United States are contained in 10 
CFR 50.46, Appendix K to Part 50, and General Design Criterion 
(GDC) 35. Specifically, ECCS design, reliability, and operating 
requirements exist to ensure that the system can successfully 
mitigate postulated LOCAs. Consideration of an
 
[[Page 57902]] instantaneous break with a flow rate equivalent to 
a double-ended guillotine break (DEGB) of the largest primary 
piping system in the plant generally provides the limiting 
condition in the required 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K analysis. 
However, the DEGB is widely recognized as an extremely unlikely 
event, so NRC staff is performing a risk-informed revision of the 
design-basis break size requirements.
 
A central consideration in selecting a risk-informed design basis 
break size is an evaluation of the LOCA frequency as a function 
of break size. The most recent NRC-sponsored study of pipe break 
failure frequencies is contained in NUREG/CR-5750 (Poloski, 
1999). Unfortunately, these estimates are not sufficient for 
design basis break size selection because they do not address all 
current passive- system degradation concerns (e.g., primary water 
stress corrosion cracking) and they do not discriminate among 
breaks having effective diameters greater than 6 inches.
 
There have been two approaches traditionally used to estimate 
LOCA frequencies and their relationship to pipe size: (i) 
Estimates based on statistical analysis of service experience 
data and (ii) PFM analysis of specific postulated failure 
mechanisms. Neither approach is fully suitable for evaluating 
LOCA event frequencies due to the rarity of these events and the 
modeling complexity. This study used an expert elicitation 
process, which is well-recognized for quantifying 
phenomenological knowledge when data or modeling approaches are 
insufficient. Elicitation responses from a panel of 12 experts 
determined individual LOCA frequency estimates for the 5th 
percentile, median, mean and 95th percentile of the frequency 
distribution for each of six LOCA categories. Group estimates 
were determined by aggregating the individual estimates using the 
geometric mean of the individual estimates for each frequency 
parameter (i.e., median, mean, 5th and 95th percentiles). Group 
variability was estimated by calculating 95% confidence bounds 
for each of the group frequency parameters. A number of 
sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the effects on the 
quantitative results from variation of the assumptions, structure 
and techniques of the baseline analysis procedure.
 
Solicitation of Comments: The NRC seeks comments on the report 
and is especially interested in comments on the following 
questions: 1. Is the structure of the expert elicitation process 
appropriate for the stated problem and goals of the study? 2. Are 
the assumptions and methodology of the analysis framework used to 
process the panel responses appropriate and reasonable? Are they 
consistent with the type of information provided by the expert 
panel and the goals of the study? 3. Is the geometric mean 
aggregation methodology appropriate for the panel responses and 
the study goals? Should other aggregation methodologies be 
considered and what are their advantages and disadvantages? 
Comment Period: The NRC will consider all written comments 
received before November 30, 2005. To facilitate the comment 
process the NRC will conduct a workshop on October 31, 2005, to 
be held in room O4B6 at NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland. In the workshop, the staff will provide an 
overview of the report and address clarification of items 
identified by the public. A preliminary agenda is attached. A 
separate notice will be published in the Federal Register 
announcing the public workshop. Comments received after November 
30, 2005, will be considered if time permits. Comments should be 
addressed to the contact listed below.
 
Availability: An electronic version of the report and the 
accompanying experts' raw data files, are available 
electronically at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1829 
/ and through the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/ > ">http://www.nrc.gov// Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession 
numbers for the documents related to this notice are: 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- Document title                   
ADAMS accession No.
 
File format 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- 
NUREG-1829............................  ML051520574 Adobe Acrobat 
Document.
 
BWR Non-piping Raw Data for NUREG-1829  ML051580341 Microsoft 
Excel Worksheet.
 
BWR Piping Raw Data for NUREG-1829....  ML051580344 Microsoft 
Excel Worksheet.
 
PWR Non-piping Raw Data for NUREG-1829  ML051580346 Microsoft 
Excel Worksheet.
 
PWR Piping Raw Data for NUREG-1829....  ML051580347 Microsoft 
Excel Worksheet.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- If you do not 
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, 
O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a 
fee.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles A. Greene, Mail Stop 
T10E10, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852, telephone (301) 415-6177, facsimile number: 
(301) 415-5074, e-mail cag2@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 19th day of September 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrea Lee, Acting Branch Chief, Materials Engineering Branch, 
Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research.
 
Attachment--Preliminary Agenda Public Workshop on Draft Report 
for Comment: ``Estimating Loss-of- Coolant Accident (LOCA) 
Frequencies Through the Elicitation Process,'' NUREG-1829 October 
31, 2005--9 a.m.-12 p.m., Room O-4B6 Preliminary Agenda 9 
a.m.-9:15 a.m.--Introduction 9:15 a.m.-9:45 a.m.--Overview of 
NUREG-1829
 
[[Page 57903]] 9:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m.--Discussion of clarification 
of items identified by the public 10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Break 
10:30 a.m.-12 noon--Clarification of items identified by the 
audience 12 noon--Adjourn [FR Doc. 05-19790 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 
am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting 
 
                        FR Doc 05-19791 
[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)] 
[Notices] [Page 57900-57901] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc05-100]                         
 
Notice AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Updated notice of meeting.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a 
meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes 
(ACMUI) on October 25 and 26, 2005. A sample of agenda items to 
be discussed during the public sessions includes: (1) Discussion 
of the Energy policy Act of 2005, which provides for NRC 
regulation of accelerator- produced radioactive material and 
discrete sources of Ra-226; (2) Status of Specialty Board 
applications for NRC recognition; (3) Electronic signature in 
written directives; (4) Revision of NRC Form 313A; (5) RIS on 
dose control and assessment; (6) Review of the medical events 
definition commission paper. To review the agenda, see 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acmui/agenda/ or 
contact, via e-mail mss@nrc.gov. Purpose: Discuss issues related 
to 10 CFR 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material.
 
Date and Time for Closed Session Meeting: October 25, 2005, from 
8 a.m. to 11 a.m. This session will be closed so that NRC staff 
can brief the ACMUI on discussing information relating solely to 
internal personnel rules.
 
Dates and Times for Public Meetings: October 25, 2005, from 11 
a.m. to 5 p.m.; and October 26, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Address for Public Meetings: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Two White Flint North Building, Room
 
[[Page 57901]] T2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852-2738.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad S. Saba, telephone 
(301) 415- 7608; e-mail mss@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001.
 
Conduct of the Meeting Leon S. Malmud, M.D., will chair the 
meeting. Dr. Malmud will conduct the meeting in a manner that 
will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following 
procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. 
Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit a 
reproducible copy to Mohammad S. Saba, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Mail Stop T8F03, Washington, DC 20555.
 
Alternatively, an e- mail can be submitted to mss@nrc.gov. 
Submittals must be postmarked or emailed by October 3, 2005 and 
must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting.
 
2. Questions from members of the public will be permitted during 
the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman.
 
3. The transcript and written comments will be available for 
inspection on NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov) and at the NRC 
Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about January 26, 
2006. This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the 
Commission's regulations in Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 7.
 
4. Attendees are requested to notify Mohammad S. Saba at (301) 
415- 7608 of their planned attendance if special services, such 
as for the hearing impaired, are necessary.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-19791 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 [du-list] catalogue of blunders at Sellafield (formerly
 
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:14:10 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Secret report reveals catalogue of blunders at Sellafield
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 02 October 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/article316607.ece

A devastating "catalogue of dubious practices", including sabotage and 
safety measures based on "guesswork", at the Sellafield plant treating 
Britain's most dangerous nuclear waste is revealed in an internal report 
seen by The Independent on Sunday.

The whistleblowing document says that the plant - hitherto thought to be 
one of the better-run ones at the controversial Cumbrian complex - is 
"potentially dangerous" and is "becoming difficult to operate properly". 
One of its section headings reads: "Homer Simpson works at Sellafield".

The revelations could not come at a worse time for the Government and the 
nuclear industry. Tony Blair is pressing for the building of new reactors 
in Britain, against stiff cabinet opposition, after announcing a review of 
the issue in his Labour Party conference speech on Tuesday.

And on Thursday British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which runs Sellafield, 
decided to try to sell off almost all its remaining business, including the 
treatment plant. The document is a shocking indictment of the £250m waste 
vitrification plant (WVP), which binds the most highly radioactive and 
dangerous waste produced by the nuclear industry in glass so it can be 
stored and disposed of easily.

The whistleblowing, meticulously referenced report, recently compiled by a 
manager, says the problems at the plant are so great that the Government 
forced BNFL to call in its major competitor, the French firm Cogema, "to 
help address serious concerns about how WVP is run". It adds: "BNFL claims 
its research into the vitrification process proves that the plant is safe 
and will allow the foreign waste to be returned to its country of origin. 
Yet BNFL's own research papers and audits show these claims are false."

It adds: "The scientific basis for control of the plant relies at best on 
interpretation and at worst on guesswork" and that "reports from employees 
on the site reveal a catalogue of dubious practices".

It goes on: "The low morale is endemic ... Control cables to vital robotic 
arms in the WVP have been cut, waste drums that should hold solid glass 
have been accidentally filled with highly active liquid waste, faults in 
safety mechanisms are not reported properly, the plant has become driven by 
production targets so much that it is becoming difficult to operate properly.

"Concerns raised at formal quality review committees are referred to secret 
'black file' meetings, where no minutes or records are ever made, and no 
one is held to account. When pushed the senior managers have appeared to 
rely on arrogance or ... technical jargon to baffle non-experts, including 
government watchdogs."

It reports that over 20 crucibles used to make the highly radioactive glass 
have split while in use, and that an inspection of drums filled with the 
radioactive waste three years ago found up to a third were not safe to be 
returned to customers for disposal.

Yesterday the independent nuclear expert John Large said that until now he 
had thought the plant one of the better run ones at the complex, but that 
it now appeared to be "yet another management failure".

BNFL said last night: "Safety is our number-one priority and all our 
activities on site are not only monitored by plant management, but overseen 
by our regulators."

It said that though it was "desirable" to avoid its crucibles splitting 
this presented "no safety concerns", and that over the past two years all 
but one of its containers had been certified as "returnable". It denied 
that "secret black-file meetings" took place.

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 9/30/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 37 HeraldNet: Uranium-tainted soil Everett bound
 
Published: Tuesday, October 4, 2005 

 The levels of the radioactive metal are so low the shipment
from Japan does not need a warning label.

 By Mike Benbow Herald Writer 

EVERETT - A shipment of ore containing radioactive uranium is
heading from Kobe, Japan, to Everett later this month, Japanese
officials said.

 The Japan Atomic Energy Agency is sending 10,150 cubic feet of
soil from a uranium ore plant in western Japan, said Atsushi
Oku, an official of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology.

 According to a nuclear watchdog group, the contaminated soil is
part of a larger amount stored at a processing plant that had
been ordered disposed of by the Japanese Supreme Court.

 Oku declined to disclose the destination of the ship, saying
the ore was headed for disposal at an undisclosed location. But
Port of Everett officials said that the vessel would arrive here
later this month.

 Port director John Mohr said officials from both governments
have said the amount of uranium in the ore is at a very low
level and does not pose a health hazard.

 "All of the information we have is this material is unprocessed
ore of a fairly low grade and does not require any sort of
marking to go along with it," said Mohr.

 Ed Paskovskis, deputy port director, said the uranium levels
are too low to require a hazardous materials label. He noted
that even shipments of watches with florescent dials do require
such warnings.

 Paskovskis said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
determined that the soils don't require a special import
license, another indicator of the low levels of the radioactive
material.

 Oku of the Japanese government said the soil will be sent to a
company that will extract the uranium. He declined to give a
name.

 A watchdog group called Citizen's Nuclear Information Center
said the company is located in Utah.

 The Everett shipment stems from an incident in 1988 in which
abnormally high levels of radioactivity were found in soil in
Yurihama in Tottori prefecture, where the Japanese atomic energy
agency's predecessor had a plant that extracted uranium from ore
for enrichment, according to the CNIC.

 In 2004, Japan's Supreme Court ruled that the contaminated soil
must be removed.

 Officials had been looking for a place inside Japan to dispose
of the soil, but could not find a suitable location, Oku said.

 The amount sent to Everett is part of 105,000 cubic feet of
contaminated soil at the processing plant.

 Carl Wollebek, director of the port's marine terminals, said
the cargo will receive "all proper safety and handling
procedures"

 The Associated Press contributed to this story. 

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

        Copyright © 2005 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, Wash. 
*****************************************************************
 38 Deseret News: Nuclear waste sign of eroding ethics
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Tuesday, October 4, 2005                                 

The success of Private Fuel Storage and Envirocare to bring 
nuclear waste, hot and hotter, into our state is a sure sign of 
the bankruptcy of private and public ethics and of the spiritual 
and physical stewardship of our land and our bodies.

       Big money and big politics targeted Utah. The most
vulnerable of Indian tribes was selected, as usual, to be the
first victim, after we announced to the world that we alone
would give up our land to private companies such as Envirocare.
Once the greedy nose of this camel entered the state, others
followed. Why not? In other states, leadership of churches and
the state, fueled by public outrage, kept out private facilities
for nuclear waste. But not here. In this, the reddest of the red
states, the market governs. The dominant church, the Republican
Party at prayer and our leaders in Washington — on or off their
knees — participate in power and bow to greed.

       What a waste of a good idea: democracy, stewardship of
the land and care for each other, with compassion toward the
children of our children's children.

 Ed B. Firmage
 S.J. Quinney College of Law
 University of Utah
 			  		 		   

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 39 reviewjournal.com: NRC appeals posting draft Yucca document on the Internet
 
Oct. 04, 2005

WASHINGTON -- An order for the Department of Energy to post to 
the Internet its draft license application for Yucca Mountain was 
appealed on Monday. 

Staff members for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission challenged 
the reasoning of a three-judge panel that sought to clarify the 
definition of draft paperwork for the proposed nuclear waste 
repository. 

The judges said the Energy Department's 5,800-page draft license
document met the definition and was required to be disclosed. 

The NRC staff based its appeal on legal and technical grounds
involving the order. It said it was not siding for or against
the Department of Energy on the merits. The distinction was made
because the NRC is supposed to stay neutral on Yucca Mountain
for now. 

Meanwhile Monday evening, attorneys for DOE were putting the
finishing touches on an appeal of their own that was to be filed
later that night, department spokesman Allen Benson said. 

The appeals, filed with the commissioners who oversee the NRC,
ratchet up the legal dispute initiated by the state of Nevada
over access to Yucca Mountain documents. 

State attorneys argued they were entitled to a copy of the draft
license application as part of a cache of more than 3 million
Yucca Mountain documents the Energy Department is posting to a
special electronic network as part of the licensing process. 

Nevada officials said the document is expected to contain clues
as to whether the Energy Department can argue that Yucca
Mountain is a safe location for nuclear waste disposal. 

The document reportedly contains about 70 chapters consisting of
analysis models and reports laying out the government's
repository plan. 

Lawyers for the Energy Department resisted, arguing the license
application in draft form did not fit the standards to be put on
the electronic database. 

In its appeal, the NRC staff said the ruling would create extra
work for the agency because it would have to review whether it
held additional documents that would need to be posted under the
new definition of a draft. 

The NRC has posted about 25,000 documents to the Internet. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
 40 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN HEARING: Residents not worried
 
Oct. 04, 2005

Increase in radiation not a concern, say two people who live in 
Amargosa Valley       

AMARGOSA VALLEY -- The two people who testified at Monday's
public hearing on the proposed radiation safety standard for the
planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository had one thing in
common: They're not worried about radioactive dangers because
they've lived in the shadow of the Nevada Test Site for many
years. 

So, if they can survive 41 years of detonating more than 900
nuclear bombs, then they can endure 77,000 tons of spent nuclear
fuel and highly radioactive waste tucked away inside the
mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It doesn't matter,
they said, if it's there for 10,000 or even 1 million years. 

"This community has very little concern about the increase in
radiation," Jan Cameron, chairwoman of the Amargosa Valley Town
Advisory Board, said after making her comments to Environmental
Protection Agency officials who traveled to this community of
1,400, the closest to the mountain. 

"There is really very little likelihood of danger from Yucca
Mountain," she said. "It doesn't mean there shouldn't be
monitoring and they shouldn't be keeping an eye on it." 

In testimony, she told the EPA panel that setting a 10,000-year
standard "is iffy -- to try to define a standard for a million
years passes ridiculous." 

Similarly, Amargosa Valley's Ken Garey said the exposure cap the
EPA has proposed in its two-tiered standard is really just a tad
above what the community gets each day from background radiation
from natural sources, cosmic rays and what's already been put in
the environment from man-made sources. 

To satisfy a court ruling, the EPA issued a standard in August
for 10,000 and 1 million years. The dose limits were set at 15
millirem and 350 millirem per year, respectively, above
background levels. 

For comparison, a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem
while a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure. 

Adding another 15 millirem to the 110 millirem that Garey said
is based on actual background measurements in Amargosa Valley
"is insignificant compared to the other risks we accept and
take." 

The figure from Garey, a test site consultant, differs from the
350 millirem that EPA uses for its background radiation levels
for Amargosa Valley. The 350-millirem figure is based on a
statewide average that factors in exposures from naturally
occurring radon gas. 

Despite the opinions expressed at the hearing by Cameron and
Garey, four others who spoke at a round-table discussion
preceding the hearing were highly skeptical of the EPA's plan.
They said they intend to challenge the proposed standard in
written comments and upcoming hearings today through Thursday at
the Cashman Center in Las Vegas. 

Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant to the Nevada Nuclear
Projects Agency, said the EPA's proposal is a step backward. The
long-term standard is far less protective in the distant future
when radioactive materials carrying peak doses are expected to
leak into the environment. 

"This is the first time they've ever reversed themselves on the
idea of 'Don't pass risks to future generations that you're not
willing to accept for this generation,' " Frishman said. 

"This is a policy break necessitated by Yucca Mountain," he
said. 

Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste
Task Force, a group critical of the program, agreed. 

"I think they've colluded with the (Department of Energy) and
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission) on this whole thing," she said
after the roundtable discussion. 

"For the U.S, government to say that it is perfectly fine for
people to receive doses equal to a chest X-ray every week, from
the moment of conception, throughout their lives is simply crazy
and dangerous." 

During the discussion, Frishman said the EPA is knuckling under
to the whim of the Energy Department. 

"You need to set a standard that DOE has to provide credible
scientific analysis that it can be met," he said. 

Jennifer Viereck of Tecopa, Calif., said she is bewildered by
the EPA setting an arbitrary standard that doesn't consider
future cancer cases. 

"I can't imagine you giving us this recommendation without doing
risk calculations," she said. 

Corbin Harney of the Western Shoshone tribe questioned the
integrity behind the EPA's proposed standard. 

"I want to know for sure if we're going to tell the truth," he
said. "We can not be telling each other fibs." 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
 41 Bellona: BNFL board puts British Nuclear Group up for sale
 
The state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) confirmed over
the weekend that it would sell off British Nuclear Group (BNG),
BNFL’s specialist decommissioning arm, which also manages safety
at the Sellafield facility, among other sites, in a bid to make
it more attractive to potential bidders like Halliburton,
Bechtel and Fluor and other contractors that are tipped to buy
into Britain’s nuclear decommissioning industry. 


  The Sellafield site, which is presently managed by BNG, could
soon fall into different hands if the BNG’s selling price is
right.   

  Erik Martiniussen/Bellona   

  
Charles Digges, 2005-10-04 10:17

The state-owned BNG operates most of Britains civilian nuclear
sites, including the Sellafield site in West Cumbria, England.
BNG has a contract on that site for another three years through
Britain’s newly formed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). 

After that contract lapses, contract management of the
Sellafield site and its decommissioning through the NDA will be
put out to general bid, and US-based giants like Bechtel
Halliburton and Fluor —which has worked on Britain’s nuclear
sites—have made no secret of wanting to get in on the ground
floor. 

Friday’s announcement by BNFL came as no big surprise for BNG
and its 15,000 workers, though it was also widely expected by
many industry observers that BNG would be among those
contractors submitting bids to the NDA to manage the Sellafield
site come 2008. 

Instead, said one worker at the Sellafield site, “it looks like
we will could get swallowed by a much larger corporation.” 

One union spokesman said that: “With [BNG] as the incumbent out
there now, it would be easier for whoever acquires BNG to get
their feet under the table,” when the site goes up for general
tender in three years, said one union spokesman. 

But the spokesman noted that BNG’s three-year contracts is a
double-edged sword. 

“Whoever does buy us is really only guaranteed three years'
business if they lose out on the tender in three years,” he said.


  Thorp officials open with Bellona as they work to restore UK
nuke reprocessing facility   
  


  In the first visit to the Thorp reprocessing facility at
Sellafield in West Cumbria by an environmental NGO since an
April spill of radioactive liquid, the Bellona foundation found
Thorp to be in stabile condition as officials and engineers
there work to bring it back online.
      
DTI chief distancing himself from eventual sale

 The Friday announcement seemed to be something the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI)—under the aegis of which the NDA was
created—would rather not be dragged into. The DTI is the sole
stakeholder in BNG. 

Speaking on BBC One’s “Sunday AM” programme DTI head Alan
Jonhnston said: “The BFNL has announced that British Nuclear
Group, which is actually just about managing these plants and
dealing with the waste, that they have made a decision as a
board to sell that off. That is not a decision that has come to
me yet.” 

According to some British officials, the DTI does not wish to be
associated with any decisions about an eventual buyer for BNG. 

Responsible NDA officials, despite several phone messages, could
not be reached for further comment. 

The union spokesman said that there was much fear among workers
“who know how the Americans, and the giant corporations there do
business.” 

“They are frightened for their jobs,” he said. 

But all depends on actually selling BNG, and the British press
and British nuclear authorities were speculating widely Monday
as to what the asking price could be. Most papers and experts
agreed that it would fall somewhere in the range of 100m to 150m
pounds. 

Bellona’s hope—Maintaining transparency 
It is the hope of Bellona that, if BNG is sold, that the
purchasing body will be one that interfaces with BNG’s growing
corporate culture of openness, and its transparency on issues of
safety, finance and public responsibility. In the past year,
Bellona representatives have visited Sellafield twice, and on
both occasions allowed to publicise previously sensitive
information.

  British nuclear losses continue to rise   
  
  British Nuclear Fuels plc, or BNFL, reported this week even
larger annual losses—totalling £303m—saying that the cost of
running its operations, which include the Sellafield plant in
north-western England, have increased.

The BNFL statement 

Over the weekend, a BNFL spokeswoman said the board had
considered BNG's strategic options and decided that "the
preference of BNFL is that it [BNG] should be sold—we feel this
would be in the best interests of the company and employees,"
the Guardian newspaper reported. 

On Monday, another BNG spokesman confirmed that statement to
Bellona Web, writing in an email interview that, on Friday, BNFL
met the trade union National Officers and advised them that,
following consideration of a number of strategic options for
BNG, the preference of the BNFL Board is that it should be sold. 

“The Board feels that this would be in the best interest of the
company and its employees and both sides agreed that they wish
to see British Nuclear Group in the strongest possible position
to win the upcoming competitions,” wrote the spokesman. “The
ultimate decision on any sale or otherwise will be made by the
BNFL Board after full consultation with all stakeholders and the
Secretary of State for Trade &Industry.” 

This consultation started with this Friday’s meeting and will
include discussions with all stakeholders including Trade
Unions, the NDA, regulators and the Shareholder Executive, wrote
the spokesman. 

“We will be working together (company and trade unions) during
this consultation process to provide
 reassurance to the employees on a number of issues and, in
particular, those of terms and conditions, pensions and jobs.” 

Mike Parker, chief executive of BNFL, framed the BNG sale as a
positive move that would give it a competitive edge. 

“We all wish to see British Nuclear Group in the strongest
possible position to win the upcoming competitions,” for nuclear
clean-up operations in Britain, Parker said in a statement. 

Unions in a resigned funk 
Trade union leaders were reportedly resigned to the sale of BNG,
but expressed reservations. There are three unions working on
the Sellafield site—Prospects, GMB, and Amicus. The Independent,
a British daily, reported some 4,000 BNG workers stand to lose
their jobs in an eventual sale. 

"The UK government must retain responsibility for the nuclear
industry [...] BNG must not be sold off to the highest bidder
but to the most competent. This is the most safety-critical
industry in the UK: There cannot be a Hatfield at Sellafield,”
wrote Michael Graham, an official with the Prospects, in a
statement on the union’s web page. 

“These criteria will be all the more important if there is to be
a sale to a foreign consortium as is all too likely,” said
Graham. 

“Overseas buyers are already queuing up to buy Westinghouse,
BNFL’s US operating arm, which the board put up for sale in
July.’ 

Graham also expressed concern that with the government reopening
the debate on nuclear power, the sale of BNG could affect the
British nuclear industry's ability to deliver new generating
capacity—a pet project of the government of Tony Blair. 

Graham plans to write DTI’s Johnson seeking assurances over the
terms of the sale. He expressed particular concern at the impact
of selling BNG on the industry’s ability to deliver new build,
just as the NDA is launching a high-speed programme to
decommission the ageing Magnox reactors. 

Dougie Rooney, the trade Union Amicus' national officer, which
represents another percentage of workers told the Independent
that: "We are concerned to make sure any buyer will work with
the trade unions and the workforce to build the business." 

The first union spokesman said that there has been thus far very
little discussion with management. He said that leaders from all
three unions working within BNG will be meeting over the next
three weeks to develop a unified strategy. 

”We hope then to influence management’s choice of a buyer for
BNG once they had worked out a shortlist of potential buyers,”
he said.   

  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
*****************************************************************
 42 BBC: Uranium High Court battle resumes
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 4 October 2005
 
[Richard David]                                 

Mr David began working at the company in 1985                                                                 

A former defence worker says his marriage collapsed as a result 
of exposure to depleted uranium at a Somerset factory, a court 
has heard. 

Resuming his High Court action on Tuesday, Richard David, of 
Seaton, Devon, is claiming damages against Normalair Garrett. 

The company, now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, denies depleted 
uranium was ever used at the plant in Yeovil. 

Mr David, 50, left work through ill health in 1995. 

He claims medical tests have revealed mutations to his DNA and 
damage to his chromosomes which could only have been caused by 
ionising radiation. 

Scientific questions 

The former component fitter on fighter planes and bombers says he 
now suffers from illnesses including respiratory problems, kidney 
defects, bowel conditions and painful joints. 

The action began last December and was adjourned after Mr David 
lost public funding and had to prepare his own case. 

At the time, Mr David said that radiation from the uranium 
isotope had ruined his health and robbed him of the ability to 
earn a living. 

At the resumption of the action Mr David said that his family 
life and marriage had collapsed because of his disability. 

Rejecting his applications for further disclosure of documents 
and for further evidence to be admitted, Mr Justice Walker said 
that the estimated seven-week case should proceed. 

He commented that the effects of depleted uranium were a matter 
of debate among scientists, politicians and campaigners and said 
the court was not concerned with political or campaigning 
questions, but with the scientific questions as to Mr David's 
illness and the effects of depleted uranium. 

The company denies liability. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 43 Olympian: EPA to clean Spokane uranium mine

Olympia, Washington

Tuesday October 4, 2005                 
 
BY NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS 
The Associated Press 

SPOKANE — A defunct mine that produced uranium for Cold War-era
nuclear weapons will finally be cleaned up, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency said today. 

The Midnite Mine, a Superfund site located on the Spokane Indian
Reservation north of Spokane, operated from 1955-1981. The area
now is a series of open pits filled with radioactive heavy
metals and water that can enter nearby streams and hurt humans,
animals and plants, the EPA said.

 The EPA, in its preferred alternative, is proposing to remove
mine waste rock from the surface and place it in two open pits
on the site. The pits would be covered with several feet of
clean soil. Other pits already filled with mining waste would
also be covered, the EPA said.

 Native vegetation would be planted over the pits to prevent
erosion. Groundwater entering the pits would be pumped to a
nearby water treatment plant, where sludge would be removed and
disposed of, the EPA plan said.

 The work would cost $123 million to perform, plus $29 million
for operations and maintenance, for a total cost of $152
million, the EPA said.

 The work would reduce the amount of radon on the surface, lower
the amount of radiation on the surface to natural levels, and
prevent continued pollution, while meeting EPA and tribal
standards, the agency said.

 "The preferred alternative will protect humans, animals and
plants from direct contact with mine waste," the EPA document
said, adding that the tribe supports this proposal.

 People will not be allowed to drive, drill or build on the
covered pits or to drill wells close to the waste, the EPA said.
Water treatment will be necessary for many years.

 There will be public hearings on the proposal on Oct. 19 and
Nov. 2, then EPA will make a final decision. It would take five
to seven years to perform the actual work on the preferred
alternative, the EPA said.

 The open pit, hard-rock mine covered about 350 acres of land
northwest of the town of Wellpinit. Dawn Mining Co. leased the
land from the Spokane Tribe and private landowners. Some 33
million tons of rock was blasted to get uranium ore.

 Contaminants include radium-226, lead-210, uranium-234 and
uranium-238. Runoff from the mine area flows into streams and
eventually into the Spokane River, the EPA said. 							 			
							 	 							 						 							 				 				 				Join the Reader
©2005 Knight Ridder
*****************************************************************
 44 Salt Lake Tribune: DOE to hold meetings on Atlas tailings

Article Last Updated: 10/04/2005 01:42:52 AM                              
                   
  The U.S. Department of Energy plans two meetings this week on
its efforts to clean up the old Atlas Corp. uranium tailings
pile north of Moab. 

    They will be the first public meetings since the federal
government released its final decision to move the tailings from
the banks of the Colorado River to a new site, about 30 miles
north to Crescent Junction. 

    "We want to keep the affected communities informed of our
plans," said Donald Metzler, the project director. 

    One meeting is set for 7 p.m., Wednesday, at the Grand 
Center, 182 N. 500 West, in Moab. 

    The second will be 7 p.m., Thursday, at the Fire Station in
Thompson Springs. More information is available at
http://gj.em.doe.gov/moab or by calling Wendee Ryan at
970-248-6765.   
                  

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's contribution

Opinion                     

Article Last Updated: 10/03/2005 11:51:13 PM                              
  	   
  There has been great concern raised by many politicians and
the public regarding the storage of nuclear waste at the Goshute
Reservation. The arguments tend to be along the lines of, “The
waste is from the East Coast, why should it be dumped here?,”
or, “It causes environmental damage,” or, “It is too risky to
public health.” 

   Nuclear power production, and nuclear waste transport and
storage, undeniably pose risks. However, Utah's West Desert has
a very low population and the dangers of waste dumping, while
serious, are local, and associated with unlikely accidents. 

   If, however, the East Coast does not fully adopt nuclear
power because of our resistance, and instead burns fossil fuels
for its power, negative environmental consequences are 
guaranteed. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide distribute 
themselves globally and have effects on climate that last 
centuries to millennia. The effects in Utah remain unknown, but 
they will likely be profound and pervasive. 

   We should consider nuclear waste storage in Utah a chance to
preserve our environment and to make a vital local contribution
to solving a global problem. 
    
   Tim Garrett 
   Salt Lake City 
      
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 46 LA Daily News: Firm can't say no to feds

 - NWSSantaClarita                         
			 				 				 				 				 			 				 				 				 				 					 				 			
Article Launched: 10/04/2005 12:00:00 AM                                                        
		
EPA has ways to get onto site
               
  By Judy O'Rourke, Special to the Daily News   

  SANTA CLARITA - If a good-faith agreement cannot be worked
out, the Environmental Protection Agency could rely on a legal
smorgasbord of options to compel a local defense contractor to
allow agency representatives on site to test for contaminants. 

Agency officials are looking at their options after saying that
National Technical Systems or NTS reneged last week on a plan
that would have allowed the EPA to gain access to the property
Monday to begin drilling wells. The test wells would determine
if perchlorate and other contaminants have leached from the site
to the groundwater, said Matt Mitguard, project manager for the
EPA's Superfund. 

The agency's first tack is to hammer out an agreement with the
property owner allowing access to the site for testing. If that
fails, the agency may issue an administrative order. 

"Usually, companies comply with an order," said Janet Magnuson,
an attorney for the EPA. "Sometimes we have to seek assistance
from the Department of Justice to enforce the order in court." 

The law that backs up the order is the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act passed by
Congress in 1980, also called Superfund law. It empowers the
federal government to intervene when the public health or
environment could be harmed by potentially hazardous substances. 

National Technical Systems tests products and components for
aerospace, telecommunications and military applications. 

"What the government is requesting is unfettered access to the
site for three days," Bob Snyder, an attorney for the company,
said Monday. "We've offered ways for them to come on and not be
as intrusive. The client's as interested in finding out the
results - perhaps more so - as the EPA, but there has to be some
reason about how they reach this." 

Snyder said the company performs confidential and sometimes
classified work and needs what he called reasonable business
control of its property. 

Snyder said the company's requests for a list of the type of
equipment that would be brought on site and for information 	 	
on outside contractors had not been honored. It would be 
difficult for the company to halt operations for three 
consecutive days, not including a weekend, he said. After the 
testers leave, workers at the secured facility would need to 
recalibrate the sensitive equipment, he added. 

EPA spokesman Francisco Aracute said the agency could issue an
administrative order if necessary. Magnuson declined to discuss
the agency's strategy in the case, but said generally the agency
keeps looking for a mutual agreement with property owners even
after taking initial steps to compel cooperation. 

Mitguard, project manager for the EPA's Superfund, said the
agency also could obtain a search warrant, and company
representatives have been told of this possibility. 

Like Magnuson, however, he said the regulators prefer to honor
private property rights and obtain a good-faith agreement. 

Snyder said talks are ongoing and he expects an agreement will
be reached. 

The EPA gained access to the site in 2004 but continued
protracted negotiations with the company did not drill test
wells. EPA representatives planned to visit the site Monday to
begin drilling seven test wells to a depth of 80 to 100 feet to
check for perchlorate. 

Perchlorate is a byproduct of rocket fuel that has been
associated with thyroid disorders. Water agencies have said
their test results show the chemicals have not contaminated
local public water sources. 

Judy O'Rourke, (661) 257-5255 

judy.orourke@dailynews.com

Copyright Â© 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 47 Lincoln Journal Star: Nebraska utilities say how they'll spend nuclear waste refunds

 BY ALGIS J. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star                                                                                   How

do you spend millions of dollars in nuclear waste refund money?
The Nebraska Public Power District based in Columbus will use
the $18.4 million from the Central Interstate Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Commission to help pay for the cost of
building a dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel
rods, said spokeswoman Jeanne Schieffer.

Dry cask storage allows spent fuel that has already been cooled
in a spent fuel pool for at least one year to be surrounded by
inert gas inside a leak-tight steel cylinder and stored on site,
according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

NPPD owns Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville. The utility
has budgeted about $45 million for the dry cask storage project,
which is still in the planning stages, Schieffer said. The NPPD
board earmarked the refund money for the spent fuel project last
 month.

The Omaha Public Power District, which owns and operates Fort
Calhoun Nuclear Station north of Omaha, will return the $15.5
million from the commission to its ratepayers in the form of
credits on utility bills, said spokesman Mike Jones. 

 The credits will average between $20 and $25 for each
residential customer, Jones said. OPPD has about 320,000
customers; about 282,000 are residential. OPPD approved the use
of the commission money last month, too.

NPPD and OPPD are receiving the refund money as part of a
settlement between the commission and the State of Nebraska over
the failed siting of a nuclear waste storehouse in Boyd County.

In August, Nebraska paid the commission $145.8 million to end
years of litigation over the controversial project.

Nuclear waste utilities in the compact region, made up of
Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, contributed
millions of dollars to fund engineering studies and obtain a
license to build and operate the facility from the State of
Nebraska.

However, a federal judge ruled in 2002 that Nebraska officials
acted in bad faith when they denied developer US Ecology,
licenses for the Boyd County site near Butte.

Other utilities that will receive refunds include: Entergy
Arkansas, $23.6 million; Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Co.
(Kansas), $18.9 million; Entergy Gulf States, $19.8 million
(serves Louisiana); and Entergy Louisiana, $18.4 million.

Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 402-473-7243 or <em><A
href="mailto:alaukaitis@journalstar.com">alaukaitis@journalstar.c
om. 

Copyright © 2002-2005, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights
*****************************************************************
 48 KVBC: Hearings:  Voice Your Opinion On Yucca Mountain

October 5, 2005   

If you have a strong opinion either for or against the Yucca
Mountain Repository, this week is your opporutnity to voice your
feelings.   

Public hearings for the Yucca Mountain Repository are slated to
take place in Las Vegas this week with the focus centered on
radiation standards. The public hearings are scheduled for today
and Wednesday at the Cashman Center in rooms 203 through 206.
Information sessions are set to run from 4pm to 5:30. A public
hearing is scheduled from 7pm to nine. Another information
session and public hearing is set for Wednesday morning at 10. 
  
    All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC.
All Rights Reserved.






*****************************************************************
 49 KIFI: Nuclear Engineer Scholarships Being Offered

www.localnews8.com   
      
 October 3, 2005

 Anyone with the brain power to become a nuclear engineer is in
luck.

A new scholarship program offers to help pay for the education
of future nuclear engineers.

The INL, three Idaho universities and a nuclear company named
Areva have teamed up for the scholarship. Itâ€™s called the two
plus two program.

Students spend two years in nuclear engineering at any Idaho
university, and then finish their final two years at ISU to
complete the degree.

Areva is giving $250,000 over the next five years to help pay
for the scholarships.

Nathan Zohner, scholarship recipient, said, â€œThis is amazing.
Iâ€™m extremely excited to be a part of this. I believe nuclear
energy is going to take off in the next few years. To be able to
join in before it hits a big boom; itâ€™s going to be amazing.
Itâ€™s a fabulous opportunity that has been afforded to me.â€

The three participating Idaho universities are Idaho State
University, Boise State University and the University of Idaho. 
  
*****************************************************************
 50 LongmontFYI - Flats official: Hot spots history
 
Publish Date: 10/4/2005 

By Brad Turner 
The Daily Times-Call 

The 13 radioactive hot spots discovered in soil near the most
contaminated site at Rocky Flats were excavated last week,
clearing the way for the cleanup to conclude in the next few
weeks, U.S. Department of Energy spokesman John Rampe announced
Monday.

 About 14 cubic meters of plutonium- and americium-tainted dirt
sat in a rail car Monday at the former nuclear weapons plant
south of Boulder, awaiting shipment to a waste-disposal site in
Utah later this week, he said.

 The $7 billion cleanup at Rocky Flats may be days away, pending
laboratory confirmation that the 903 Pad area where the hot
spots were discovered this summer is clean, Rampe said.

 “We still have to get our final confirmation samples back, but
we have field samples that show it’s cleaned up,” Rampe said
Monday.

 The 903 Pad area constituted the most serious source of
radioactive contamination at Rocky Flats, which manufactured
plutonium cores for nuclear weapons during the Cold War, Rampe
said.

 Most of the Rocky Flats buildings involved in plutonium
processing were torn down, excavated and covered with soil since
contractor Kaiser-Hill began cleaning the site in 1995.

 Contractors cleaned the 903 Pad area, but it remains exposed to
the surface, he said.

 In August, Rampe announced that a team of scientists had
discovered radioactive patches of soil near the 903 Pad, where
hundreds of leaky barrels of radioactive waste sat on and
contaminated soil on the southeast corner of the Rocky Flats
industrial site.

 DOE officials and Kaiser-Hill contractors initially said the
hot spots were not concentrated enough to warrant cleanup.

 However, Rampe reversed the DOE’s stance Sept. 12 and announced
that the radioactive patches of soil would be removed.

 David Abelson, director of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local
Governments, said he was concerned at first when the DOE balked
at removing the hot spots but commended it Monday for finally
cleaning the site.

 “We weren’t concerned that there was some great risk, but there
were various principles at stake that warranted conducting this
remediation,” he said. “To not have removed them would have run
counter to years-old agreements.”

 Most of the 6,500-acre Rocky Flats site is slated to become a
wildlife refuge with public access. The DOE will retain the
1,500-acre industrial site, including the 903 Pad area.

 Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at
bturner@times-call.com. 				 


All contents Copyright © 2005 Daily Times-Call. All rights
*****************************************************************
 51 lamonitor.com: Lab puts brakes on new hiring 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Los Alamos National Laboratory announced last week that it would
take steps to "constrain hiring" in the "near future." 
The announcement was made to employees in a memo on Wednesday by
laboratory Director Robert Kuckuck, who blamed tight budget
projections over the next two years for the new policies.

A laboratory spokesman emphasized the plan was not a freeze. 

"This is absolutely not a hiring freeze," said Kevin Roark of
the LANL Public Affairs Office, but rather a measured response
to the current budget uncertainties.

The federal government's fiscal year began Saturday without a
budget in place for the Department of Energy. Nine of the 11
spending bills that fund federal agencies have yet to be
resolved between the House and Senate versions. 
On Thursday, the House passed a continuing resolution that would
hold spending at fiscal 2005 levels or lower, if the budget is
lower in either the House or Senate version.

The continuing resolution was signed by President Bush on Friday
and would extend until Nov. 18, or until a budget bill has
passed for the affected departments and agencies. 
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, said the House version of the Energy
and Water Appropriations Bill reduced funding for the weapons
program by $449 million and for nuclear nonproliferation by $137
million. The cuts were made in the budget for the National
Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the nuclear
weapons laboratories for the Department of Energy.

"I am not pleased with the current funding situation, which will
affect the labs and many other federal activities in New Mexico.
It's not good, but we can live with this for a short period of
time," Domenici said in the announcement on Friday,

"We need to redouble efforts to reach an agreement with the
House and finalize a FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
so there will be no uncertainty as to what the funding the labs
will have to carry out their national security missions."

Against this backdrop of federal funding contingencies, LANL
managers have established the Laboratory Hiring Council to
review all job postings and hiring requests.

John Immele, deputy director for national security and Rich
Marquez, associate director for administration, were named
co-chairs.

Other members include Tom Bowles, Susan Seestrom, Carolyn
Mangeng, Terry Wallace, Buck Thomson, James Peery, and Bill
Feiereisen. The group is supposed to meet every two weeks.

Among observations in the director's memo:


+  Departures from the laboratory doubled last year, leading to
the assumption that "significant attrition" is likely during the
current year.


+  As a percentage of the overall Laboratory budget, labor costs
are now "at an all-time high of 58 percent" - excluding
subcontracts.

"A solid long-term hiring plan is in order, but such a plan
would be best addressed after the contract award and
transition," Kuckuck wrote.

Management of the laboratory is scheduled to change hands on
June 1, 2006, when one of two new limited liability corporations
will take over.

The current manager, the University of California is a partner
in one of those entities, along with an industrial group led by
Bechtel. Lockheed Martin, partnering with the University of
Texas and others, is also in the competition.

"I want to assure everyone that the Laboratory is not in a state
of fiscal emergency," the all-employee memo concluded. "These
actions are intended as a preventive measure to ensure fiscal
responsibility. I fully intend to staff this Laboratory to
deliver on our commitments and assure its future strength and
vitality."   


  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 52 lamonitor.com: Feds help state oversee LANL monitoring 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
MONITOR STAFF REPORT

SANTA FE - The New Mexico Environment Department will receive
$1.8 million from the National Nuclear Security Administration
this year to support an environmental monitoring program at Los
Alamos. 
An announcement on Friday said the funding would support
activities associated with the Consent Order between the state,
the University of California, which manages the laboratory and
NNSA, which manages the laboratory for the Department of Energy.

The court order went into effect in March and the cleanup is
supposed to be completed by 2015. 


The Consent Order lays out a schedule for the comprehensive
investigation and clean up of environmental contamination at
LANL, including remediation of material disposal areas, ground
water and other areas of contamination.

The Consent Order also requires NMED to process, in a timely
manner, investigative reports, work plans, risk assessment
reports, corrective measure evaluation reports and other
documents submitted by LANL. 
The funds provided through the MOA are intended to help NMED
meet its obligations.

NMED Secretary Ron Curry and Ed Wilmot, the National Nuclear
Security Administration site manager for Los Alamos signed the
agreement on Tuesday. 
The funds are to be used "to buy equipment and cover operating
costs pertaining to regulatory oversight of LANL," the
announcement stated.

Citizens groups, including the Northern New Mexico Citizens
Advisory Board, have expressed concerns about the ability of the
state environment department to keep up with the schedule for
the comprehensive cleanup program.

NMED representatives have not been in attendance at three recent
public meetings required under the order for public comment on
specific remediation efforts.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   

*****************************************************************
 53 WBIR.COM: ORNL helps scientist displaced by Hurricane Katrina
 
It's been more than a month since Katrina devastated the
south, yet new stories about evacuees moving on and finding work
are still emerging everyday.

Stories like that of Microbiologist and Xavier University
Professor, Shubha Ireland.
	 
Ireland says, "Scientifically it's a lost not just for me but
for everyone. We lost everything that we have worked on for
years tissues, samples, cells and data."

With the University's New Orleans campus temporarily closed and
nowhere to continue her genetic research, Ireland found an
opportunity at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She started on
September 26th.
	
"I wanted to come to ORNL for several years. Somehow I always
ended up going somewhere else with all my internships and
fellowships. I never had a chance to come here. It's fantastic,"
says Ireland.

Since 2001, ORNL has brought in about 50 faculty members from
various universities to help with research as part of an
outreach program. Lab leaders say bringing in Ireland made
perfect sense professionally and personally.

Lee Riedinger, Associate Laboratory Director says, "To be able
to help a family get through this and at the same time realize a
new professional opportunity, it's a great opportunity. We take
pride in it."

Ireland's husband also found part time work at the lab, while a
local developer loaned them a house and another business
furniture to fill it.

It's a community effort that's making this New Orleans family
feel at home in more ways than one.

"It's a new beginning for me. It's nice, overwhelming, it's
touching, don't know how to say thank you to everybody so we say
a simple thank you, " says Ireland.

Ireland's story appeared in a recent issue of Science Magazine
that also highlighted several other displaced scientists. 
photographer Mike Witcher, Meteorologist   Robin Murdoch,
Reporter   Last updated: 10/4/2005 10:08:44 AM 

Terms of Service | WBIR.com RSS feeds 
Copyright ©2005 WBIR-TV Knoxville   
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************