*****************************************************************
10/12/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.237
*****************************************************************
   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 IRNA: Austrian diplomat hopes Iran's nuclear problems resolved durin
2 AFP: Iran ready to restart nuclear talks with EU - ministry - 
3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Korea Expert Lambastes Sunshine Poli
4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hill Visit to N.Korea Unlikely: Official
5 Korea Times: Seoul to Dispatch Nuke Negotiator to Washington 
6 US: Border Mail: Safe energy kept hidden 
7 Taipei Times: Prize affirms IAEA'a contributions By Philip Yang ·¨¥Ã
8 Asia Times: The IAEA's new clout
9 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Linking country's economy to nuclear issue incorr
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
10 city blocks nukes: Straightgoods.com
11 [NYTr] Otto Reich Peddles Tales of UBS, Iran, & Venez Nukes
12 US: Platts: Former US energy boss sees more nuclear, new responses t
13 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
14 Bellona: Bushehr power plant to start operation in 2006 
15 US: Asbury Park Press: Nuke plant workers to sign new contract | 
16 US: News Journal: Nuclear plant shut down for refueling
17 Xinhua: National Nuclear to build plant in Hainan   
18 US: NRC: Proposed Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy
19 Japan Times: Aomori formally OKs ITER research center in Rokkasho
20 AFP: Russia sees role for China in floating nuclear plant project -
21 US: NEI: Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Accept Potential for New Reac
22 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Nuclear reactor technology advances - 
23 asahi.com: KEDO program for North in doubt
24 US: Arizona Republic: Palo Verde shuts down two remaining units
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
25 US: [du-list] Army’s new chem lab to study  
26 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet 
27 US: Occupational Hazards - Study Looks at Possible Link Between Skin
28 RIA Novosti: Disasters cost Russia $3.5 billion a year - minister
29 US: toledoblade.com: 5 townships respond to fire at former beryllium
30 US: Harwich Oracle: Health director explains delay in obtaining KI m
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
31 US: KRT Wire: Keep the toxin-tracking standards high
32 US: AU ABC: Labor's uranium decision hits SA miners, explorers
33 US: AU ABC: Uranium mining equals nuclear weapons, conference told
34 reviewjournal.com: Advocates question radiation standards
35 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Business says ills not its problem - 
36 US: Platts: Spot price of uranium increases   
37 US: AU ABC: France puts hand up for Australian uranium
38 US: AU ABC: Mining council welcomes SA Labor stance on uranium. 
39 asahi.com: Database for Asia to deal with hazardous waste
 
                           PEACE
 
40 Japan Times: U.N. resolution stresses NPT
41 Japan Times: Nobel prize for fighting proliferation
42 New Scientist: Nuclear peace 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
43 The State: DuPont, Fluor join forces to manage SRS
44 The State: Encouraging signs in states effort on hydrogen power
45 Santa Fe New Mexican: DOE finds drilling may have affected water tes
46 westword.com: Rocky Flats is on trial. Finally.
47 lamonitor.com: ABQ company wins WIPP oversight contract 
48 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats story 'complicated,' lawyer says
49 Rocky Mountain News: Flats jury told 'lies continue'
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: Austrian diplomat hopes Iran's nuclear problems resolved during
Austria's EU presidency - Irna

Today: Thursday October 13, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                                

Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' government Secretary Hans
Winclair in a meeting with Iran's Ambassador to Vienna Seyed
Mohsen Nabavi here Wednesday expressed hope that during
Austria's rotating EU Presidency Iran's nuclear problems would
be resolved.

 Further focussing on Iran's peaceful nuclear program, Winclair
added, "There is no doubt that all countries in the world are
entitled to take peaceful advantage of the nuclear energy, or to
meet their energy demands in any other possible way."

 The Austrian diplomat meanwhile expressed hope that in case
Iran's nuclear dossier at the IAEA would remain unclosed until
the beginning of 2006, when Austria's rotating turn for EU
Presidency begins, his country would be able to take effective
steps in that regard and solve the problem through adopting
diplomatic measures relying on Tehran's cooperation.

 Winclair referred to old record of good relations between Iran
and Austria in various fields, reiterating, "We are sure such
good ties would keep improving in the future."

 Government Secretary at Austrian Foreign Ministry then focussed
on current various crises in the Middle East, arguing, "Seeking
practical solutions to such issues would be among matters of
topmost priority for Austrian Foreign Ministry during our
country's EU Presidency."

 He emphasized, "Austria would try to lead EU toward taking
effective steps toward establishment of peace and promotion of
stability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine,"

 The Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Vienna, too,
said during the meeting that Tehran considers Austria's
six-month EU presidency a golden opportunity for that country to
play a decisive role in promotion of peace and stability
throughout the world.

 Elaborating on Islamic Republic's efforts aimed at promoting
peace in the region and beyond throughout its 26-year history,
Nabavi focussed on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proposals at
UN General Assembly aimed at solving Iran's stand-off with the
West regarding its nuclear program.

 He said, "Adopting such measures would definitely lead to
maximum transparency and full confidence building regarding
Iran's nuclear program, and what more could the critics of our
nuclear activities possibly ask for?"

 The Iranian diplomat expressed hope that the European countries
would during UN nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors November
meeting take effective steps toward solving the problem through
diplomatic measures, free from political considerations and the
US hegemony.

 The two countries' officials also discussed issues of
particular interest for Tehran and Vienna, as well as bilateral
ties during the meeting.

*****************************************************************
 2 AFP: Iran ready to restart nuclear talks with EU - ministry - 

 Wed Oct 12, 9:49 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iransaid it was ready to restart talks
with the European Union" /> European Unionon its nuclear program
but insisted it was not prepared to hear renewed demands it
abandon sensitive fuel cycle technology. 

Iran "favourably welcomes and judges as positive a resumption of
negotiations with the three main European countries," a foreign
ministry statement said in a further sign the regime was
softening its tone. 

Negotiations were needed to "get out of the impasse and assure
Iran's right to master peaceful nuclear technology," the
statement added. 

Talks with Britain, France and Germany broke down in August,
when Iran slammed the door on a deal that offered incentives in
exchange for a full cessation of fuel cycle work, which the West
fears could be diverted to weapons production. 

Iran also ended a freeze on fuel cycle work by resuming uranium
conversion -- a precursor to potentially dual-use enrichment
work -- in defiance of an accord struck with the EU-3 in Paris
last November. 

The clerical regime insists it only wants to make reactor fuel
and that it has a right to do so as a signatory of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

In September, the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board passed a
resolution finding Iran to be in non-compliance with the NPT.
That paves the way for the matter to be referred to the UN
Security Council. 

Wednesday's statement is the first time since then that Iran
appears open to resuming talks with the EU-3. The country had
been attempting to widen involvement in the talks to include
more sympathetic countries. 

But the statement asserted Iran's wish to "defend its right to
master the fuel cycle in the framework of the NPT" and only
enter talks "without preconditions". 

But there was no mention of conversion work at Isfahan, which
Iran has so far refused to again suspend. 

An EU diplomat close to the talks said that although Iran's
leadership appeared to be backing away from reprisals, there was
little chance that negotiations could resume if uranium
conversion work at a facility near the central city of Isfahan
continued. 

"We have noted a change in tone in recent days, but the Iranians
have to understand that the condition to resume talks is a
suspension of conversion and a return to the terms of the Paris
accord," the diplomat told AFP. 

"There will not be talks before work at Isfahan is stopped. The
ball is in the Iranian court," he added, questioning whether
Iran merely wanted to convince other countries that it was the
Europeans who were the main hurdle to fresh talks. 

"This will not be enough to avoid referral to the Security
Council," said the source, who asked not to be named. 

The IAEA board is due to meet again in November, leaving a small
window for compromise. 

On Tuesday Nicholas Burns, US under secretary of state for
political affairs, said the "ball is in Iran's court" and
underlined that Iran was responsible for breaching the Paris
accord. 

"Here is a country that unilaterally ruptured the Paris
agreement ... that has resumed conversion in Isfahan ... a
country that seems to be embarked in a very radical course," he
said. 

"The Iranians are in a weakened position diplomatically and it
is up to the Iranians to come back to these negotiations with
the EU-3 and to resume them." 

The US says Iran is using an energy drive as a cover for weapons
development. 	 		 			
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Agency shows a general view of the uranium conversion facility
near the Iranian city of Isfahan, October 2004. Iran said it was
ready to restart talks with the European Union on its nuclear
program but insisted it was not prepared to hear renewed demands
it abandon sensitive fuel cycle technology.(AFP/HO/File/Amir
Kholoosi)] AFP/HO/File Photo: This picture released by Iran's
Student News Agency shows a general view of the uranium... 	 			


  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Korea Expert Lambastes Sunshine Policy
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Oct.12,2005 19:39 KST   
 
  The influential U.S. congressional advisor Dennis Halpin, a
Korea expert, said there was a connection between Seoul¡¯s
sunshine policy vis-à-vis Pyongyang and its neglect of the
alliance with Washington. Halpin went on to compare Korea's
appeasement of the North to the people of Troy¡¯s acceptance of
the Trojan Horse laden with enemy soldiers. 

At a seminar sponsored by the Institute for Corean American
Studies (ICAS), Halpin expressed impatience with South Korea for
brushing off the U.S. and other allies in efforts to make up
with North Korea. 

As the chief culprit, the researcher fingered the Korean
Teachers¡¯ Union, saying the younger generation currently intent
on toppling a statue of U.S. general Douglas MacArthur learned
history in the classrooms of ¡°radical¡± union members. Halpin
lambasted South Korea for ¡°whistling the tune of the Chinese¡±
in the last round of six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear
program. He said it was hypocritical for Seoul to hope for a
South Korean as UN secretary-general when it stood by as North
Korea committed egregious human rights abuses. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

  
  
*****************************************************************
 4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hill Visit to N.Korea Unlikely: Official
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated Oct.12,2005 19:21 KST   
 
  It looks increasingly unlikely that the U.S. chief negotiator
in six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear program,
Christopher Hill, will visit Pyongyang before the next round of
talks starts in November. 

A high-ranking South Korean official said Wednesday, "It's true,
North Korea is hoping Hill would make a visit to the country,
but if the current situation persists, it seems that will be
difficult.¡± He added the U.S. hopes the North will show "good
faith" in dealing with the issue of a light-water reactor it
wants from Washington. 

He said perhaps this was possible if North Korea backs off from
its insistence on getting the civilian-use reactor before it
takes any steps to dismantle its nuclear arms programs. 

He said the fact that unofficial contacts between the U.S. and
the North are taking place through Pyongyang¡¯s UN mission in
New York gave cause for some hope. 

Meanwhile, the official said there was a chance that Russian
President Vladimir Putin will visit North Korea before he comes
to the APEC summit in Busan in mid-November. 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 
*****************************************************************
 5 Korea Times: Seoul to Dispatch Nuke Negotiator to Washington 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

 Song Min-soon, South Korea¡¯s chief negotiator to the six-party
talks, will depart for the United States early next week to
coordinate steps for the next round of the talks, the South
Korean government said on Wednesday. 

Song is expected to have meetings with Christopher Hill, the
U.S. top delegate to the denuclearization talks, with top agenda
possibly including the American diplomat¡¯s visit to Pyongyang. 

``When Song visits the U.S., he will discuss all issues related
with the North¡¯s nuclear programs,¡¯¡¯ Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon told reporters at a weekly press
briefing in Seoul. 

He was answering a question on whether Song will discuss Hill¡¯s
visit to the North Korean capital before the reopening of the
fifth round of the six-party talks in Beijing next month. 

Hill, however, has no specific plan yet, regarding his visit to
Pyongyang. 

Talking to a group of South Korean reporters after an academic
forum in New York on Tuesday, Hill said he had no concrete plan
for traveling to the North even though he was aware of South
Korean hope for the success of the multilateral talks, according
to Yonhap News Agency. 

South Korea has hoped to see Hill visiting Pyongyang and having
bilateral talks to narrow their differences over the sequence of
steps, focusing on how the five other countries will react to
the North¡¯s abandonment of nuclear programs. 

But Ban declined to comment on Hill¡¯s possible visit there,
saying that it is a decision which has to be made by the U.S.
government. 

In last month's talks in Beijing, North Korea signed a deal with
the United States, South Korea, China, Russia and Japan to
abandon all its nuclear programs in return for a security
guarantee, economic aid and more diplomatic recognition. 

But disagreement has risen over when and how to allow North
Korea the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A
key discord is the timing of the provision of light-water
rectors to the communist country. 

North Korea vows not to dismantle its nuclear program before
getting the light-water reactors, while the United States, along
with South Korea and Japan, insists that it should be the other
way round. 

im@koreatimes.co.kr 10-12-2005 19:17         
  
*****************************************************************
 6 Border Mail: Safe energy kept hidden 

Wed, Oct 12, 2005
 


ITS a hard road bringing up children, so Im pretty keen to see a
future ahead for them. 

We cant do anything about bird flu but we can about the winds of
change bringing in global warming. 

The Federal Government should divert the $20 million of
advertising funds (plus extra billions from bulging coffers) to
get the geothermal project that has been found in northern South
Australia up and running. 

There is enough clean energy there to replace filthy coal for
all Australia for more than 70 years. 

You didnt know about it? 

The Prime Minister didnt advertise it widely? 

The fossil fuel lobby wants to keep the lid on it? 

The uranium industry doesnt want us to know? 

It would seem the general public has little or no knowledge of
this almost priceless gift of a clean, non-polluting, safe
energy source. 

We are indeed, again, a lucky country, for when the Australian
continent bashed into Asia some years ago now on its continental
drift, it caused compression in such a way that makes this
energy source extremely easy to extract. 

For an easy-to-read, informative book I highly recommend Tim
Flannerys The Weather Makers for more little pearls of wisdom. 

I vote for a future for following generations and going the hog
on coal wont give us that. 

I for one refuse to go with killer coal and demand immediate
expenditure on renewables and the above technology. 

No to coal, and as for uranium exports, if China cant safely run
a coal mine, how on earth can we trust it with a nuclear power
plant? 

Mrs CHRIS SOBEY, 

Albury 


  All content copyright © The Border Mail and its respective
contributors, 2000. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Taipei Times: Prize affirms IAEA'a contributions By Philip Yang ·¨¥Ã©ú

www.taipeitimes.com

Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005,Page 8 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), one of the two
recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, was established
nearly half a century ago. The organization's aim is to prevent
nuclear technology from being used to develop nuclear weapons. 

The nuclear threat posed by Iraq, North Korea and Iran over the
past few years has made the organization the most important
defense against the proliferation of nuclear arms.

 In fact, the destructive force of nuclear weapons and the
threat they pose to international and regional security has
meant that ever since their first appearance, the international
community has sought to restrain the proliferation and
development of this ultimate weapon. 

With the further development of nuclear weapons, peaceful use of
nuclear technology has also become widespread. Concerns over the
development of nuclear weapons, however, has caused people to
question the transfer of nuclear technology. Proposed and driven
by the US, the IAEA was set up by the UN in 1957 as the primary
institution for promoting and supervising the peaceful use of
nuclear technologies and raw materials to ensure that they are
not used for military research and the development of nuclear
arms. 

In 1962, the Cuban missile crisis pushed the US and the Soviet
Union to the brink of nuclear war. After that, bowing to
international pressure, the US, the UK and the former Soviet
Union all refrained from nuclear tests, and in 1968 the
international community signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). This was a crucial milestone, and most nations
have now ratified it. 

The only states not to have done so are Cuba, India, Pakistan,
Israel and Taiwan.

 The main thrust of the NPT is to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons to more nations, while ensuring that fair and correct
peaceful use of nuclear technology can continue in every nation
under the auspices of the international community. 

Article 3 of the NPT stipulates that each non-nuclear-weapon
state that is party to the treaty undertakes to accept
safeguards -- as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and
concluded with the IAEA in accordance with the Statute of the
IAEA and the agency's safeguards system -- for the exclusive
purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations
assumed under the treaty, with a view toward preventing the
diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear
weapons or other explosive nuclear devices.

 Although the IAEA is facing an increasingly tough challenge, it
has won widespread support in the international community. It is
carrying out the significant mission of preventing nuclear
proliferation, while also remaining neutral and playing the role
of an expert to avoid becoming a diplomatic pawn caught between
superpowers. 

By sharing the peace prize with the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, its
director general, has been recognized for his skillful and just
role in dealing with nuclear issues relating to Iraq, Iran and
North Korea, countries which were slammed by US President George
W. Bush as comprising an "axis of evil." 

ElBaradei's way of doing things is characterized by two main
qualities. First, he favors controls and a diplomatic approach
over an immediate resort to military force. He believes that a
supervisory organization is only useful if it can carry out its
supervision, relying on appropriate force and useful
information, while at the same time enjoying the support of an
international consensus. He also insists on the IAEA's expertise
and neutrality. 

On the eve of the 2003 war on Iraq, ElBaradei showed that he
would not bow to massive political pressure. 

Although the US had sworn that former Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein's government was in possession of weapons of mass
destruction, ElBaradei pointed out in a report on the search for
such weapons that none had been found. Although there was still
a war, ElBaradei's actions and insistence left a deep impression
on the international community. 

Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the IAEA and ElBaradei affirms
their contributions, and it also alerts the international
community to the importance of the ongoing efforts to prevent
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

Although Taiwan does not possess a nuclear weapons program, the
tense cross-strait military situation means that calls for such
a program can be heard from time to time.

 We must consider the serious impact of such calls on the
cross-strait relationship, and we must also understand the
international community's insistence on non-proliferation and
the sanctions that would follow if that was ignored.

Philip Yang is a professor of political science at National
Taiwan University. 

	Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson 
This story has been viewed 285 times.     

Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 8 Asia Times: The IAEA's new clout

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi 

Mohamed ElBaradei describes the Nobel Peace Prize he shared with
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "timely shot
in the arm," one that can influence the agency's Iran policy. 

The timing might be perfect for ElBaradei, the IAEA's director
general, as the Iran policy is currently the subject of heated
debate among its member states 

In light of Iran's refusal of the IAEA governing board's recent
request to freeze all its uranium enrichment-related activities,
an IAEA meeting in November is shaping up as a decisive moment 
that may influence the broader issue of IAEA's macro-role in 
non-proliferation and the strength of the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

Iran's refusal provoked a sharp IAEA rebuke in the form of a
resolution, adopted in September, charging Iran with
"non-compliance" and "breach" of its obligation through "years
of concealment". 

The Nobel award to ElBaradei is likely to increase his margin of
independence and maneuverability - particularly with respect to
the pressure applied by the US and to a lesser extent by the
European Union - to commit the IAEA to take the next logical
step and refer Iran to the UN Security Council. 

So far, ElBaradei has resisted this idea, arguing that there is
still a window of opportunity to resolve the matter within the
IAEA and through the Iran-EU talks. Hence, recalling how the
Bush administration reluctantly consented to the extension of
ElBaradei's tenure in light of his knack for independence, the
2005 Nobel Peace recipient is now better positioned to dictate
his map of action vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear issue,
depending, in part, on Iran's willingness to show more
flexibility. 

In the absence of a perceived Iranian flexibility, on the other
hand, ElBaradei can conceivably utilize his enhanced stature to
exert more pressure on Iran and, perhaps, even resort to the
stick of Security Council action. 

This does not bode well for Iran, which has been very critical
of the IAEA, and now has to contend with a much-strengthened
body showered with global accolades through the Nobel prize. No
matter what, in the current ongoing IAEA-Iran negotiations, the
Nobel Prize has tipped the balance in favor of the former and
somewhat weakened the Iranian hand. 

But in a clue to the complexity of the issues, there are
unconfirmed reports that the legal department of the IAEA has
concluded that the legal basis for dispatching Iran's case to
the Security Council is lacking. This is hardly surprising
since, per the IAEA's own standards in Item 12 (C), the only
explicit provision for such cases is reserved for when there is
suspicion of diversion of nuclear activities towards weapon
proliferation. 

Yet, per the IAEA's own findings, reflected in the various
ElBaradei reports on Iran, all nuclear material has been
accounted for and no such diversion has occurred in Iran. This
and the rather impressive record of Iran-IAEA cooperation the
past two years (which raises questions on the legitimacy of its
latest resolution on Iran) have raised the concern that the IAEA
would be potentially undermining itself, pretty much as a pawn
of the US, if it opts at the next meeting to send Iran's case to
the Security Council. 

The recent changes in the composition of the IAEA governing
board, raising the number of non-aligned movement (NAM) nations
to 16 from 14, has been interpreted by Iran as a welcome
development in the light of the opposition of most NAM nations
to the US-EU drive toward the Security Council. That despite the
decision of India, traditionally a leader in NAM politics, to
cast a vote against Iran, leads us to believe that it would be
premature to take NAM's role and weight in the upcoming battle
for granted. 

Another welcome sign as far as Iran is concerned is the
initiative by South Africa to diffuse the crisis through its
proposed swap of Iran's "yellowcake" (the concentrated oxide of
uranium formed in the milling of uranium ore) for nuclear fuel.
This proposal, currently in the process of being refined, is
viewed favorably by some of Iran's top nuclear decision-makers.
These decision-makers are still hoping that their quest to
restart Iran's enrichment facilities in Natanz under full
outside scrutiny and perhaps in collaboration with foreign
companies (as stated by Iran's president in his UN speech last
month), will somehow materialize without a major hitch. 

The South African initiative is by all accounts a major new
development that can potentially avert a serious global crisis
over Iran's nuclear program, at least for now, even though the
final answer to this crisis will likely be determined over the
question of when and if Iran decides to resume the work at
Natanz facilities. Concerning the latter, per information from
the top Iranian officials at the Iranian Atomic Energy Egency,
the question of Natanz's restart is at least half a year away. 

Meanwhile, another pertinent question revolves around European
resolve on this subject, given the German elections culminating
in a new, conservative chancelor, Angela Merkel, keen on closer
trans-Atlantic relations with the United States (even though the
outgoing left coalition will keep the post of foreign minister).
Still, the prospect of a more pro-US turn in German foreign
relations cannot be considered a plus for Iran at this critical
juncture. On the contrary, it spells more trouble both for
Iran-German and Iran-EU relations. To open a caveat here, this
author recalls that during his 2000 trip to Germany, Iran's then
president, Mohammad Khatami, met Merkel and a number of other
German parliamentarians, and was lectured by Merkel on human
rights and so on. Hence, it would be hardly surprising if Merkel
prioritizes sending Iran's case to the Security Council in the
near future, this as a gesture of closer German-US ties. 

On the other hand, several factors militate against such a
scenario. First, as the last IAEA meeting clearly showed, the EU
lacks a consensus on Iran, and several EU member states sitting
at the IAEA governing board are reluctant to force the Iran
issue at the Security Council, as are most NAM nations as well
as China and Russia. This explains why the initial EU draft on
Iran at the last IAEA meeting, explicitly calling for Security
Council action, was not even logged in, contrary to the normal
protocol, and the second draft resolution proposed by the EU-3
(Germany, France and United Kingdom) omitted this demand as well
as any mention of deadlines set for Iran to comply with the
IAEA's request for Iran's suspension of its uranium-conversion
activities in Isfahan. 

What is the IAEA to do then? The answer is that in a certain
sense the IAEA is caught between the Scylla of inaction
threatening the agency's perceived viability and inner resolve
and the Charybdis of strong action against Iran threatening its
internal unity. 

The alternative middle way, that would somehow appease both the
anti-Iran hardliners and the soft-neutral or pro-Iran member
states, needs to be worked out, which in turn requires positive
inputs from both Iran, the US and Europe. 

Concerning the US, so far there is little sign that the Bush
administration is accommodating itself to anything short of
Security Council action, and President George W Bush's latest
press interview, lambasting Iran as a "terror-sponsoring" state,
can hardly be interpreted as a positive sign as to how the US is
implementing its Iran policy within the IAEA. The European trip
of career US diplomat, Nicholas Burns, currently meeting
European diplomats over Iran, will be key in determining this
question. 

Another player increasingly weighing in the picture is the EU's
high representative, Javier Solana, who preempted Burns by
calling for the continuation of Iran-EU talks, quickly echoed by
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. Solana has a rather
unqiue opportunity right now, given the political transition in
Germany and the unsettling turmoil in Tehran-London relations
clogging up their direct diplomacy, to play an unprecedented
role. 

He along with ElBaradei can put the "genie" of Iran's nuclear
crisis back in the bottle. Solana's ability to play this role
effectively depends in part on White House willingness to give
European diplomacy more chance. That in turn depends on the
American calculation of the risk of losing the momentum in
getting Security Council action against Iran if the US lessens
the pressure somewhat. Indeed, the conundrum of how to make Iran
comply with the IAEA's demands without aggrevating the matter
into a full-scale international crisis is not just an American
problem but also a European problem - and, above all, the IAEA's
problem. How the IAEA will tackle this problem in the near
future will be quite illuminating not only in the wake of the
UN's atomic agency basking in the glow of Nobel limelight, but
also in the context to NAM, the EU and US diplomacy in the new
century. 

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and
co-authored "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", The Brown
Journal of World Affairs, Volume X11, issue 2, Summer 2005, with
Mustafa Kibaroglu. 

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Linking country's economy to nuclear issue incorrect - 

Tehran, Oct 13, IRNA                                                                                                             

Ahmadinejad-Economy-Nuclear 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here in first joint meeting
of the government and the Majlis (parliament), "Linking the
country's economic status to Iran's nuclear program is incorrect
since there is no logical relation between the two." During the
meeting on Wednesday evening Ahmadinejad considered the nuclear
energy as a "national issue", arguing, "Fortunately, Iran has
not violated any of the international laws, or NPT regulations
in its peaceful nuclear program and the IAEA Chief's latest
report confirms that fact."

 President Ahmadinejad considered accusations against his
government of "acting hurriedly" in adopting decisions regarding
country's nuclear program due to "antagonist propagation",
reiterating, "In order to secure the Iranian nation's interests
in nuclear field, the government has moved wisely, patiently,
and based on a well-devised planning."

 The president further emphasized, "Our moves have been logical,
legal and wise and the enemies of the Iranian nation keep
hatching plots in order to make our efforts face defeat, but
they should be sure that we would not take even a single step
back from our logical and precisely adopted stands."

 He added, "Today the Islamic Republic of Iran's stands on
significant international issues, particularly on country's
nuclear program, are more resolute and logical than ever before."

 President Ahmadinejad added, "(The West's) Continuous enmity
against the Islamic Republic of Iran has roots in our nation's
perseverance in maintaining its religious-national identity and
its Islamic culture zealously, fearless from trouble-making of
hegemonic world powers."

 He emphasized, "Today the country's foreign policy regarding
nuclear issue is solid, fully harmonized and satisfactory in a
way that our officials have full command over making initiatives
actively."

 Referring to IAEA Board of Governors' latest Resolution, he
said, "For the first time in its history, the IAEA was not able
to pass its resolution unanimously and without vote taking."

 Head of the country's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)
reiterated, "The proposals put forth by the Islamic Republic of
Iran at UN General Assembly disarmed our enemies, yet, in
confronting any new situation we would put forth our genuine and
new initiatives." He said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran acted
quite modestly and nobly at the UN General Assembly, because
otherwise the Iranian delegation would have presented the world
public opinion a long list of documented accusations against
hegemonic powers."

 The IRI President reiterated, "Method adopted by oppressor
powers is accusing and threatening, just as they are today
accusing us baselessly and imposing pressure against us today."

 He added, "Keeping in mind our nation's ideals and relying on
pure logic, the government welcomes resuming negotiations on
country's nuclear program patiently."

 Ahmadinejad said, "Iran's strong logic and firm diplomacy is
the guideline for all government officials in negotiations on
country's peaceful nuclear program with foreigners, quite
resolutely." The president meanwhile considered (British)
accusations on Iran's interference in Iraq's internal affairs
"awkward", arguing, "It is quite surprising that the occupiers
who have come from thousands of kilometers away to Iran's
neighboring country, trying to impose their hegemony there,
shamelessly accuse us of interference in Iraq!" Ahmadinejad
elsewhere in his address at the joint session appreciated the
role and stands of the Islamic Majlis (Parliament), arguing,
"Ideals, concerns, worries and viewpoints of the nation's
deputies are the same as those of the government officials." He
added, "We should take full advantage of this unique harmony at
the service of fully accomplishing the achievements gained after
the victory of the Islamic Revolution."

 The president considered the people's expectations on the need
to eliminate their problems, such as unemployment and social
 discrimination "quite righteous", arguing, "Relying on harmony
and full cooperation between the government and the Majlis we
will eliminate those problems of the noble nation and offer
greater services to them, as well."

 He referred to dozens of important and key projects among the
government's top priorities, saying, "Relying on the
revolution's motto of 'Justice', that is derived form the
context of our religious beliefs, and is the essence of Imam
Khomeini's ideals, as well as the Supreme Leader's demands, the
government has devised an important working agenda."

 President Ahmadinejad added, "Pursuing that agenda's articles
would lead our country toward achieving exalted objectives,
relying on which the nation's well being and advancement could
be assured." Elaborating on the government's plans, such as fair
distribution of credits, allocation of material and human
resorts to deprived parts of country fairly, and elimination of
discrimination and inequality at national level, President
Ahmadinejad concluded, "The result of pursuing such policies
would be advancement and prosperity of Iran and the Iranians."
		 				 		 			
*****************************************************************
 10 city blocks nukes: Straightgoods.com
 
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:02:27 -0500 (CDT)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=449
Port Hope blocks nukes

Municipality rebuffs uranium enrichment plant.

Dateline: Monday, October 10, 2005

by Kate Harries

It's being billed as a huge victory for grassroots community organization 
and a major defeat for Canada's powerful nuclear industry. Saskatoon-based 
Cameco Corporation, the world's largest uranium producer, has quietly 
withdrawn its plan to produce "slightly" enriched uranium (SEU) at its 
refinery in Port Hope, Ontario. The new fuel would have been for use at 
Bruce Power and in next-generation CANDU reactors.

"We stared down the industry," Port Hope councillor John Morand, often a 
lone voice on council on nuclear issues, told a jubilant victory 
celebration. Not only the company, but the regulator the Canadian Nuclear 
Safety Commission is running scared, he said.

19b5c9.jpg

Facing 105 interventions filed at the regulatory commission, Cameco quietly 
withdrew its plan.

"We won because we were smart, we were many and we were right," John 
Millar, president of Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), said to 
cheers of support from the 200 people who gathered at Batterwood, once the 
estate of former governor-general Vincent Massey, now owned by former Hope 
Township reeve Ian Angus.

Cameco's proposal, submitted to the CNSC in January, 2003, initially 
attracted little attention. But about 16 months ago, the town of 14,000 
woke up. FARE signed up 600 members within two months and now boasts a 
membership of 1500.

While the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had judged that a less onerous 
"screening" environmental assessment conducted by the proponent would be 
sufficient, FARE called for a review panel environmental assessment 
conducted by a group of experts selected by the federal environment 
minister, with public hearings.

Such full assessments are rare. But FARE and other Port Hope groups had 
worked up a head of steam that was set to go off at a CSNC hearing set for 
Oct. 20 in Port Hope. Some 105 interventions were filed, with a record 85 
people wanting to make oral submissions.

The withdrawal, announced Sept. 23 by Cameco vice-president Bob Steane, 
came as a complete surprise.....

whole article at: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=449

Penney Kome, author and journalist
http://penneykome.ca
Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com 

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of 19b5c9.jpg]
*****************************************************************
 11 [NYTr] Otto Reich Peddles Tales of UBS, Iran, & Venez Nukes
 
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:07:59 -0500 (CDT)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[Otto Reich ties it all together:  UBS Bank, Cuba, Iran, and nuclear
energy for Venezuela.]

excerpted from VIO Venezuela News Roundup - Oct 12, 2005
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Venezuela_News/

[The New York Sun reports that Former American ambassador to Venezuela, Otto
Reich, of Cuban descent, stated yesterday to reporters that President Chavez
is entering into a relationship with Iran, probably arranged by Fidel
Castro, in an attempt to enter into the nuclear energy industry.]

The New York Sun - Oct 12, 2005

Iranian Regime Emerges as Central Player 
in Probe of Money Laundering by UBS

By Meghan Clyne, Staff Reporter of the Sun

WASHINGTON--The Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as a central player in
ongoing investigations into possible money laundering by the world's largest
"wealth management" firm, UBS, as congressional staff disclosed yesterday
that $762 million in American currency controlled by Saddam Hussein may have
made its way from the Swiss bank to Iraq via the Central Bank of Iran.

The congressional investigation will also focus on whether UBS and Swiss
officials abetted an anti-American axis between Iran and Cuba.

In 2003, after American troops liberating Iraq found $762 million in
American cash in Saddam's palaces, the serial numbers on the banknotes were
traced to UBS, which distributed the currency as part of the Extended
Custodial Inventory Program run by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Federal Reserve program, in cooperation with international banks,
allowed clients to exchange old American banknotes for new ones. One
condition of the program was that the international banks were not allowed
to accept cash from countries against which America maintains sanctions.
They also were not allowed to transfer cash to such countries. When American
investigators probed the $762 million that emerged in Iraq, they found that
UBS had also conducted transactions with Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Yugoslavia.

The prohibited business relationships with countries that appeared on the
State Department's official list of state sponsors of terrorism led to UBS's
being disciplined by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission and by the Federal
Reserve, which imposed a $100 million fine.

The matter is far from settled in Washington, however, as Congress
investigates the possibility that UBS laundered $5 billion for state
sponsors of terrorism, business dealings about which relatively little is
known, owing to the confidentiality afforded by Swiss banking laws. Over the
weekend, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican of Florida, announced that
she and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican of California, will press for
more answers from UBS, which, the congresswoman has said, is "not
forthcoming" with details about how the illegal transactions took place.

Over the course of months of unfruitful discussions, more questions about
the business dealings have surfaced than have been answered, the
congresswoman said. "This is like the hydra," Ms. Ros-Lehtinen said in an
e-mail. "You answer one question, and 5 or 10 more develop."

One question being explored is the Iranian involvement in the hundreds of
millions of dollars in American cash unearthed in Iraq. A congressional
staffer familiar with the matter said that the Swiss bank and the Federal
Reserve reported that, based on the time frame of the transactions and the
serial numbers on the banknotes found in Iraq, the American currency
controlled by Saddam Hussein was part of a shipment of banknotes delivered
to the Central Bank of Iran, for which UBS exchanged $1 billion in American
banknotes under the Federal Reserve program.

How hundreds of millions of dollars in American currency sent by the Swiss
bank to the Central Bank of Iran made its way into Saddam Hussein's Iraq,
the staffer said, was not explained by representatives of UBS, and is one
line of inquiry that will be explored during the House committee's
investigations in December.

Iran's connection to Cuba, too, will be probed, the staffer said.

As part of the Federal Reserve program, UBS also provided $3.9 billion in
American currency for the Castro regime. Some of the money came from the
exchange of old banknotes under the Federal Reserve program, some from the
purchase of new banknotes by the Castro dictatorship, and some as dollar
credits put in the Havana strongman's accounts, according to background
materials prepared in 2004 by Senate staff investigating the UBS dealings.
The Swiss bank also issued letters of credit for the Castro regime as it
purchased petroleum, the congressional staffer said.

Because of the Swiss bank's assistance with the Cuban petroleum purchases;
because UBS is accused of laundering $3.9 billion for Cuba between 1996 and
2003 as it was possibly laundering $1 billion for Iran; because Tehran and
Havana have a documented alliance, and because the two regimes have an
increasingly close cooperation when it comes to energy and technology, the
congressional investigation will also focus on whether UBS and Swiss
officials abetted the Tehran-Havana anti-American axis.

According to press accounts, for example, in the 1990s, during the time UBS
was purportedly laundering Cuban and Iranian money, Cuba and Iran undertook
a joint venture for a large-scale biological research facility outside
Tehran. When the complex was opened in the summer of 2001, Mr. Castro and
the Iranian ayatollah, Ali Khameini, proclaimed: "Together we will bring
America to its knees."

In addition to the biotech facility and other joint Cuban-Iranian energy and
technology ventures that may have been financed by funds laundered by UBS,
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is probing possible connections between the Iran-Cuba axis
and Swiss officials. In 2004, the congresswoman discovered that the Swiss
ambassador to Cuba during the period of the improper UBS transactions is
under investigation by Swiss authorities for money laundering, according to
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's staff. The congresswoman also discovered that the former
Swiss ambassador to Cuba was introduced to Cuban Central Bank officials by
the former Iranian ambassador to Cuba.

A former American ambassador to Venezuela, Otto Reich, said yesterday that
cooperation between Iran and Cuba over energy in the 1990s, during the
period of the alleged UBS money laundering, would have coincided with
Castro's desperate need for oil after the collapse of the Soviet regime in
1991 and before the provision of massive quantities of petroleum by Mr.
Castro's new "sugar daddy," Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Now, Mr. Reich,
who is Cuban-American, said, Venezuelan exiles attest that "Mr. Chavez is
trying to get into the Iranian nuclear industry," a relationship that is
"very possibly" being brokered by Mr. Castro.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for UBS, Christine Walton, declined to comment on
the possible connections between Iran, Iraq, and Cuba through the Swiss
bank, citing the firm's desire not to address questions in the press that
might come up in the International Relations Committee's hearings. Ms.
Walton added that the bank had not yet received official notification of the
impending congressional investigation.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 12 Platts: Former US energy boss sees more nuclear, new responses to 
demand
 
+ Former US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham expects a resurgence 
in the development of nuclear power plants and an eventual 
opening of previously closed areas for oil and gas exploration as 
a response to increased energy demand, he said Tuesday. 

Addressing an energy forum in Houston hosted by accounting firm 
Ernst &Young, Abraham also said Saudi Arabia had failed to launch 
a project to invest in a new US refinery because of the same 
economic and regulatory hurdles faced by companies who might have 
considered the same thing. 

"It's a tough economic case," said Abraham, who served four years 
as the top energy official in the first term of President George 
W Bush. 

Responding to a question from Platts, he said: "Any effort will 
encounter a huge number of impediments from regulatory 
constraints, not just federal, but state and local, too." 

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said last month 
his country wanted to invest in US refining expansions, noting "a 
gap between production and consumption due to a lack of refining 
capacity." 

Offering data to illustrate the increasing level of global energy 
demand, Abraham painted a challenging picture of the road ahead 
for the industry and said he expected the US Congress to draft 
new legislation on many fronts to confront the hurdles. 

Besides its most recent move to stimulate investment in new 
refinery construction, Congress is also likely to move to open 
previously closed areas for drilling, including the Arctic, 
Abraham said. 

He predicted industry would also see government incentives for 
development of new technology and a demand for some sort of 
carbon emissions framework. 

Abraham said: "All of this can be anticipated. There is little I 
see that doesn't call for tough markets to continue." 

For more information, take a trial to Platts Oilgram News at 
http://oilgramnews.platts.com. 

Houston (Platts)--11Oct2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
 
                        FR Doc 05-20494 
[Federal Register: October 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 196)] 
[Notices] [Page 59376-59377] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12oc05-108]                         
 
Dates: Weeks of October 10, 17, 24, 31, November 7, 14, 2005.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters to Be Considered: Week of October 10, 2005 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) (Contact: Dan Gillen, 301-415-7295).
 
 
[[Page 59377]] This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--.
 
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) (Contact: Brendan Moroney, 301-415-3974).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
Week of November 7, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of November 7, 2005.
 
Week of November 14, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of November 14, 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: * * * * 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. 
braille, 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 . 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 .
 
Dated: October 6, 2005.
 
Debra L. McCain, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-20494 Filed 10-7-05; 10:10 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 14 Bellona: Bushehr power plant to start operation in 2006 

Russia and Iran have confirmed that they intend to commission
the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant by the end of 2006, a spokesman
for Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said on September
12. 

2005-10-12 15:38

The agency's head, Alexander Rumyantsev, and Gholamreza
Aqazadeh, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
met in Moscow on September 12 to discuss the construction of the
first power unit at the Bushehr NPP and confirmed they planned
to commission the plant by the end of 2006, the spokesman said.
Russian experts are currently on the final stages of the
construction of the first power unit with capacity of about
1,000 Megawatt. Earlier reports indicate that Russia is planning
to build six power units at nuclear power plants in Iran within
the next decade, 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 Asbury Park Press: Nuke plant workers to sign new contract | 

APP.COM v4.0 - 

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

MANAHAWKIN BUREAU

LACEY — Union leaders representing roughly 200 workers who 
operate and maintain the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant are 
expected Thursday to sign a four-year contract with management 
after members overwhelmingly voted in favor of the deal.

The contract extension provides for a 3.5 percent annual wage 
increase across the labor force and a three-year, no-layoff 
pledge from plant owner AmerGen. It also guarantees that retired 
workers receive the same health care benefits as active ones.

"It brings stability to the work force and lets us focus on the 
future instead of a contract," said Ed Stroup, president of 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1289. 
"Now we can work for a license extension at Oyster Creek."

The extension, which would allow the oldest operating commercial 
reactor in the country to operate through 2029, is being sought 
by AmerGen from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Without one, the plant would close in 2009.

The IBEW is the only union at the plant and its members make up a 
large percentage of the roughly 440 people who work there. They 
are mechanics, control room operators, radiation technicians and 
office clerks. A great majority live in Ocean County.

The deal will allow AmerGen to "maintain focus" on plant
operations, said plant spokeswoman Rachelle Benson.

In the fall of 2006, operations will include a biennial
refueling outage — an opportunity to inspect and repair
equipment usually off limits. Such tasks, which reactor owners
attempt to perform as quickly as possible, require a great deal
of coordination among employees.

The contract that plant Vice President Bud Swenson is expected
to sign Thursday in his office with union negotiators was
accepted Sept. 29 by the labor force. It is also the same
version of the contract that served as a tentative agreement
between the parties.

In it, workers will get annual raises of 3.5 percent, a rate
that Stroup said was in line with other union agreements. Union
workers at Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, for
example, ratified a contract in May with annual raises of 3 and
3.5 percent.

The contract strengthens job security for union members who move
within job categories and guarantees pay rates for employees
with at least 20 years of experience who are reassigned.

This latest round of negotiations lasted several months and took
union negotiators to Pennsylvania and Illinois, where AmerGen
and its parent company Exelon has offices.

The talks were far more harmonious than last time, when workers
went on strike for three months during the summer of 2003 over
job cuts.

Since then, Stroup said union representatives have had several
in-depth conversations with plant managers to help avoid that
kind of discord.

"We've been working ever since the last strike, trying to
develop a relationship with the company and improve the
relationship between the parties," he said.

AmerGen also has done its part to strengthen ties.

Plant Manager Jim Randich meets frequently with union shop
stewards, Benson said.

"It's to foster an open dialogue to get more issues on the table
so they can be solved in a timely manner," she said.

ON THE WEB: Visit our Web site, , and click on the Web Extras
button for links to: Oyster Creek: A series of stories about
whether to relicense the nuclear power plant; and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or 		 		 		 [E-mail] E-mail

  LICENSE RENEWAL UPDATE

 Since AmerGen, owners of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant,
submitted its license renewal application in July, federal
regulators have given the public an opportunity to request a
hearing on the matter.

During a few days in September, and as recently as last week, a
ten-person team from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
visited the plant as part of its research on whether AmerGen can
manage the plant's aging equipment during a renewal term.

The next public meeting will take place at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the
Lacey Municipal Building, 818 West Lacey Road.

  Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 News Journal: Nuclear plant shut down for refueling
	 		 		 		
 delawareonline 

MONTGOMERY
The News Journal 10/12/2005 

A nuclear plant along the Delaware River opposite Augustine
Beach has shut down for refueling after setting a record for
uninterrupted operation, the plant’s owners reported today.

PSEG Nuclear said Salem units 1 and 2 in Lower Alloways Creek
Township, N.J., had operated for 153 days before Unit 1 was
idled Tuesday night for fuel replacement. The previous record
was 148 days of continuous operation for the two units.

Salem Unit 2 completed a similar servicing this spring. The
nearby Hope Creek nuclear plant was refueled late last year.

Hundreds of extra workers will be hired for maintenance and fuel
system work during the shutdown, the utility reported.

The Salem units house two 1,150 megawatt reactors, while Hope
Creek can produce 1,050 megawatts. The three systems combined
make up the nation’s second-largest nuclear generating complex. 

See complete coverage in Thursday’s News Journal and at
www.delawareonline.com.
Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or
jmontgomery@delawareonline.com					 		[ border=] Top of page 		
	 			 	 	 	 		 			
Copyright ©             , The News Journal.                            
*****************************************************************
 17 Xinhua: National Nuclear to build plant in Hainan   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-12 08:27:24   

    BEIJING, Oct. 12 -- China National Nuclear Corp. was in
talks with the government of the southern island province of
Hainan to build a nuclear plant, the China Daily reported
Tuesday. 

    The company last week completed preliminary talks with
senior provincial government officials, and further discussions
are expected next year, a director of the company said. 

    The plant's generating capacity will depend on the
province's power demand. 

    Ten locations have been identified as potential sites for
the building of the plant, the official was quoted as saying. 

    The proposed plant, which is subject to final approval from
the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), could be
included in China's 12th Five-Year Plan, according to the
official. This means the plant could be built between 2011 and
2015. The NDRC is the country's top economic and industrial
planning agency. 

    Surging energy demand has pushed the Central Government to
accelerate the building of nuclear power plants to reduce the
country's reliance on coal and imported oil. 

    China's power consumption is expected to more than double to
4.6 trillion kilowatt-hours by 2020 from now. 

    China National Nuclear Corp. has budgeted about 400 billion
yuan (US$49.3 billion) to build at least 30 nuclear plants to
produce 4 percent of the country's total electricity generated
by then, according to the China Daily. 

    (Source: Shenzhen Daily/Agencies)   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: Proposed Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy
 
                         FR Doc E5-5578 
[Federal Register: October 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 196)] 
[Notices] [Page 59374-59376] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12oc05-107]                         
 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Policy statement: Notification of proposed revision.
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
a 
revision to its Enforcement Policy
 
[[Page 59375]]
(Policy), Supplement VII, to change the criteria considered when 
determining the Severity Level of violations of the NRC's 
employee protection regulations.
 
 
DATES: Comments on this proposed revision to the NRC Enforcement 
Policy may be submitted on or before December 12, 2005. The 
staff's disposition of comments will be documented, and made 
available on the NRC Web site.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, 
Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver 
comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of comments 
received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Room 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
 
You may also e-mail comments to nrcrep@nrc.gov. The NRC maintains 
the current Enforcement Policy on its Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov, select What We Do, Enforcement, then 
Enforcement Policy.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fretz, Office of 
Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, (301) 415- 1980, e-mail (RXF@nrc.gov) or Maria 
Schwartz, Office of Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415- 2742, e-mail (MES@nrc.gov).
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 2000, the Executive 
Director for Operations chartered a Discrimination Task Group 
(DTG) to evaluate the NRC's handling of employee discrimination 
cases. The DTG's report, ``Policy Options and Recommendations for 
Revising the NRC's Process for Handling Discrimination Issues,'' 
was forwarded to the Commission as an attachment to SECY-02-0166, 
dated September 12, 2002. Among other recommendations, the DTG 
recommended changing the Severity Level criteria for violations 
of the Commission's Employee Protection Regulations to include 
additional factors when applying Severity Levels. On March 26, 
2003, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) 
on SECY-02-0166 approving the recommendations of the DTG as 
revised by the Senior Management Review Team. The Commission 
approved, without comment, the DTG recommendation regarding 
Severity Level criteria. The staff is now proposing to change the 
Enforcement Policy in response to the Commission's direction in 
its SRM on SECY-02- 0166.
 
The primary goals of enforcement in the discrimination area are 
to deter licensees and individuals from taking adverse actions 
against employees for engaging in protected activities, and to 
ensure that there is a work environment that allows employees to 
feel free to raise concerns. As a result, the Severity Levels 
assigned to a particular act of discrimination should be graded 
based on factors that promote these goals. In addition to these 
goals, the proposed revision to Supplement VII of the Enforcement 
Policy would improve the effectiveness of the NRC's enforcement 
program by allowing the staff to more appropriately assess the 
significance of discrimination violations.
 
The Enforcement Policy currently categorizes the Severity Level 
of a discrimination violation solely by the level of the manager 
in the organization who initiated or approved the adverse action. 
For example, a violation of an employee protection regulation 
attributed to a senior corporate manager would normally result in 
a Severity Level I violation whereas a violation attributed to a 
mid-level manager or first-line supervisor would normally result 
in a Severity Level II or III violation, respectively. The DTG 
recommended that Supplement VII of the Enforcement Policy be 
revised in the discrimination area to account for other factors 
in addition to the level of the manager. The proposed changes to 
the Severity Level factors would allow the NRC staff to further 
consider: (1) The severity of the adverse action (e.g., monetary 
effect, downgrade of position, involuntary transfer from a 
supervisory to non-supervisory position, and negative appraisal 
comments); (2) potential site or organizational impact of the 
adverse action; (3) failure by licensee or contractor or 
subcontractor management to followup on a discrimination 
complaint; and (4) whether or not the adverse action was taken 
because an employee came to the NRC or other government agency 
with a concern. The NRC staff will continue to consider the 
aspect of willfulness on the part of the individual taking the 
adverse action in accordance with Section IV.A.4 of the 
Enforcement Policy when assessing the significance of the 
violation.
 
The proposed revision incorporates the use of several terms not 
currently used in Supplement VII, including tangible adverse 
action, mid-level manager, and site or organizational impact. 
These terms, as used in the proposed revision to Supplement VII, 
are defined below.
 
A tangible adverse action is that action that had an actual, 
negative effect on an employee. Tangible adverse actions include, 
but are not limited to, negative monetary effects (e.g., job 
termination, and failure to receive a routine annual pay increase 
or bonus), demotion or arbitrary downgrade of a position, 
transfer to a position that is recognized to have a lesser status 
(e.g., from a supervisory to a non-supervisory position), and an 
overall performance appraisal downgrade. Adverse actions that are 
not considered ``tangible'' include a negative comment in a 
performance appraisal, that had no effect on the overall 
appraisal grade or visible impact on the employee, or a letter of 
reprimand or counseling which subsequently did not have a 
negative effect on an employee's position or compensation. These 
adverse actions would be considered less severe and typically 
would not be considered for escalated enforcement.
 
The impact or consequences of the tangible adverse action would 
be considered when making a Severity Level determination. For 
example, a substantial monetary action, such as termination or 
job demotion, would generally be considered a significant 
tangible adverse action and could result in a Severity Level I or 
II violation. Whereas, an overall performance appraisal downgrade 
or action that had a lesser monetary effect (e.g., reduced bonus) 
would not be considered a significant tangible adverse action 
and, thus, could result in a Severity Level II or III violation.
 
A mid-level manager is, in most cases, considered to be a manager 
below the level of a senior manager (typically a vice-president 
or above) or owner of a company but above a first line 
supervisor.
 
For large organizations, such as power reactor licensees with 
several levels of management, mid-level management may actually 
encompass several levels of management below the level of senior 
manager. Similarly, in a large organization, for purposes of 
Severity Level determination, a second level supervisor, such as 
a general foreman in a maintenance organization, may be most 
appropriately grouped with first line supervision. Conversely, 
smaller companies, such as radiography or well logging licensees, 
may only have one or two levels of management, all of which would 
be considered at least mid-level.
 
For discrimination cases involving non-licensee contractors or 
subcontractors, the NRC may choose to exercise discretion in 
determining the severity level of a violation by taking into 
account the contract manager's position within the contractor's 
organization and the relation of that
 
[[Page 59376]] position to licensed activities. In discrimination 
cases where an adverse action was initiated or approved by 
mid-level management within the organization but the specific 
manager cannot be identified, the Severity Level determination 
will consider the action taken as though a specific individual 
manager was identified. For example, during the course of an 
otherwise legitimate reduction in force, an employee is subject 
to the layoff, at least in part, due to engaging in a protected 
activity. In this example, a panel of mid-level managers approves 
the list of employees affected by the layoff, including the 
employee wrongly laid off, but no single mid-level manager is 
specifically identified as responsible for the adverse action. 
Therefore, Severity Level consideration would be based, in part, 
on mid-level management involvement.
 
Potential site or organizational impact is the negative impact on 
the work environment that could occur if the adverse action is 
conspicuous and widely known to other employees. The NRC 
recognizes that this would be the most subjective of the proposed 
severity level factors and that precise criteria would likely be 
difficult to establish. Therefore, the NRC anticipates that this 
factor will only be used when the adverse action is clearly 
widely-known.
 
Widely-known actions which could affect the organization by 
affecting the work environment for other employees include, for 
example, those actions that result in an individual being absent 
from the workplace, as a result of a termination, suspension, or 
relocation of work space. Adverse actions involving performance 
appraisals do not typically result in an employee's absence and 
may not necessarily be known by other employees. Therefore, 
actions related to such things as performance appraisals would 
not typically be considered widely-known under this factor, 
unless evidence suggests otherwise.
 
Although not specifically included as a severity level factor in 
the proposed revision, the NRC notes that the threat of an 
adverse action is also considered to constitute an adverse action 
because the threat affects the terms and conditions of 
employment, thereby affecting the work environment. The NRC 
recognizes, however, that the threat of an adverse action does 
not have the same consequences to an individual as an actual 
tangible adverse action. Under the proposed revision, a SL II 
violation, for example, could be appropriate, if a mid-level 
manager threatened to terminate an employee and the threat had 
widespread site or organizational impact, i.e., was widely-known 
among employees.
 
Accordingly, the proposed revision to the NRC Enforcement Policy, 
Supplement VII, reads as follows: NRC Enforcement Policy * * * * 
* Supplement VII--Miscellaneous Matters * * * * * A. Severity 
Level I--Violations Involving for Example * * * * * 4. Employee 
Discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or similar 
regulations, by a senior corporate officer or manager involving a 
significant tangible adverse action (e.g., substantial monetary 
action, such as termination or job demotion).
 
B. Severity Level II--Violations Involving for Example * * * * * 
4. Employee Discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or 
similar regulations where a tangible adverse action (e.g., an 
actual, negative effect on an employee, such as denial of 
training, lower performance rating, or denial of a small, routine 
annual pay increase) was taken or approved by a senior manager; 
or violations in which at least two of the following factors 
apply: (a) The adverse action was approved by at least a 
mid-level manager (e.g., a manager above a first-line supervisor) 
or at a level within the organization corresponding to a 
mid-level manager (in those cases where the specific mid-level 
manager cannot be identified); or (b) The adverse action was 
tangible and significant (e.g., substantial monetary action, such 
as termination or job demotion); or (c) The adverse action was 
widely-known; or (d) The adverse action was taken because an 
employee came to the NRC or other government agency with a 
concern; or (e) The licensee, contractor or subcontractor's 
management failed to followup on a discrimination complaint made 
by one of its own employees or the licensee's management failed 
to followup on a discrimination complaint made to the licensee by 
a contractor or subcontractor employee.
 
A. Severity Level III--Violations Involving for Example * * * * * 
5. Employee Discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or 
similar regulations where at least one of the following factors 
apply: (a) The adverse action was approved by at least a 
mid-level manager (e.g., a manager above a first-line supervisor) 
or at a level within the organization corresponding to a 
mid-level manager (in those cases where the specific mid-level 
manager cannot be identified); or (b) The adverse action was 
tangible (e.g., an actual, negative effect on an employee, such 
as a denial of a small, routine annual pay increase, denial of 
training, or lower performance rating); or (c) The adverse action 
was widely-known; or (d) The adverse action was taken because an 
employee came to the NRC or other government agency with a 
concern; or (e) The licensee, contractor or subcontractor's 
management failed to followup on a discrimination complaint made 
by one of its own employees or the licensee's management failed 
to followup on a discrimination complaint made to the licensee by 
a contractor or subcontractor employee.
 
D. Severity Level IV--Violations Involving for Example * * * * * 
7. Employee Discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, or 
similar regulations which, in itself, does not warrant a Severity 
Level III categorization.
 
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of September, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement.
 
[FR Doc. E5-5578 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 Japan Times: Aomori formally OKs ITER research center in Rokkasho

Thursday, October 13, 2005   
  
Aomori Gov. Shingo Mimura said Wednesday his prefecture will
accept a request from the central government to host a research
center related to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor to be built in France.

 "The Aomori Prefectural Government will accept the request as
it would like to help the ITER project," the governor said
during a meeting with Nariaki Nakayama, minister of education,
culture, sports, science and technology. 

Representatives from five nations and the EU agreed in June to
invest 92 billion yen to build the research center in Japan in
exchange for Japan giving up its bid to host the world's first
nuclear fusion reactor.

 The research center, located in the village of Rokkasho, Aomori
Prefecture, will have four facilities, including those related
to operating an experimental reactor by remote control and
next-generation reactor designs.

 The Japan Times: Oct. 13, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: Russia sees role for China in floating nuclear plant project -
    
 Wed Oct 12, 4:05 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia plans to start building floating nuclear
power stations next year, possibly with participation by China
if domestic financing for the project is insufficient, a senior
atomic energy official said. 

"We signed a contract with China on terms" for a potential loan
to help finance the project if needed, Alexander Polushkin, head
of development at Russia's Rosenergoatom nuclear agency, was
quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying. 

The agency has plans to invest 35 million dollars next year to
start building the floating nuclear power stations, around 14
million dollars of which could consist of loans from a Chinese
bank, he said. 

Rosenergoatom has lobbied for the project, which has been on the
drawing board for years, to be financed in full by the Russian
government budget. If that money is allocated in next year's
Russian budget, "we will drop the Chinese loan and build the
floating stations ourselves," he said. 

If Russia does not allocate enough money to finance the project
however, Chinese shipyards could build the main power plant
housing, which would then be transported to Russia to be
outfitted with nuclear reactors, Polushkin said. 

Russia wants to build the floating, mobile nuclear power
stations, an unprecedented engineering undertaking, to resolve
difficulties in supplying power to hard-to-reach parts of
Russia's northern and Far East regions. 

The project was originally planned to begin in 2003 but has been
on hold due to lack of funding. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 NEI: Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Accept Potential for New Reactor
Near Them by Margin of 3 to 1 

ALT="http://www.nei.org" TITLE="http://www.nei.org"> 

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Eighty-three percent of 
Americans living in close proximity to nuclear power plants favor 
nuclear energy, and 76 percent are willing to see a new reactor 
built near them, according to a new public opinion survey of more 
than 1,100 adults across the United States.

    The first-of-its-kind survey that questioned only residents 
within 10 miles of an operating nuclear power plant also found 
that 85 percent give the nearest nuclear power plant a "high" 
safety rating, and that 88 percent are confident that the company 
operating the power plant can do so safely. Electric company 
employees were excluded from the survey.

    The telephone survey of 1,152 randomly selected plant 
neighbors -- 18 adults within 10 miles of each of the nation's 64 
nuclear power plant sites -- was conducted in August by Bisconti 
Research Inc. with Quest Global Research Group.  The survey, with 
a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, was 
commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The survey 
marked the first time that nuclear power plant neighbors have 
been surveyed nationally for their attitudes about nuclear 
energy.

    "The survey confirms what some utilities have seen in their 
own public opinion surveys and interactions in the community -- 
that is, that most nuclear power plant neighbors support their 
local plant," said Ann Bisconti, president of Bisconti Research.  
"NIMBY (not in my back yard) does not apply at existing plant 
sites because close neighbors have a positive view of nuclear 
energy, are familiar with the plant, and believe that the plant 
benefits the community."

    Seventy-six percent of residents near nuclear plants said it 
would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the 
nearest nuclear power plant, if a new power plant were needed to 
supply electricity. Twenty-two percent of respondents said it 
would not be acceptable, and two percent said they don't know.

    The survey's findings come at a time when several energy 
companies, spurred in part by enactment in August of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, are taking steps to test the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's new licensing processes for new plants. 
The law includes limited incentives for new nuclear power plant 
construction and measures to protect companies against delay in 
the federal government's review of new reactor licenses.

    "It's obvious that people living near nuclear plants have a 
high degree of familiarity and comfort with nuclear energy and 
would welcome the economic and environmental benefits of new 
nuclear plants," said Scott Peterson, NEI vice president for 
communications.  "The poll's results show that support for new 
nuclear plants is strong among those residents who live near 
nuclear plants. This bodes well for the prospect of new plant 
construction, particularly for those companies considering adding 
new reactors at existing nuclear plant sites."

    By a margin of 83 percent to 16 percent, plant neighbors said 
they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to 
provide electricity in the United States.  And by a margin of 87 
percent to 10 percent, they said they have a favorable impression 
of the nearby nuclear power plant and the way it has operated 
recently.  Seventy-five percent said they believe that the 
majority of people in their community have a favorable impression 
of their local nuclear power plant.

    When asked about the company that operates the nearest 
nuclear power plant, 83 percent agreed that, "this company is 
involved in the community as a good citizen," and 84 percent 
agreed that, "this company is doing a good job of protecting the 
environment."

    Eighty-one percent of plant neighbors said they are "very 
well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about the nearest 
nuclear power plant. Seventy-one percent have lived in the area 
for more than 10 years; 86 percent have lived there for at least 
five years.

    The results of the survey follow below and will be posted in 
the "News Room" section of the Nuclear Energy Institute web site 
at http://www.nei.org.

    The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's 
policy organization.  This news release and additional 
information about nuclear energy are available on NEI's Internet 
site at http://www.nei.org. Questions for EPZ Survey: FINAL 
August 2005 All numbers shown are percentages.

    Introduction

    We would like your opinions in a national public opinion 
survey.  We are asking questions of the general public across the 
U.S. and also in communities near nuclear power plants.

    Screener Questions:  RECORD IF TERMINATED IN X, A, AND B
    X.   NON-ENGLISH SPEAKER, UNABLE TO INTERVIEW -- RECORD
        A.  Are you, or is anyone in your household, an employee
of an
            electric company?
                     Yes  TERMINATE -- RECORD
                     No                               100
        B.  Are you a full-time resident of this area?
                     Yes                              100
                     No  TERMINATE -- RECORD
        C.  How long have you lived in this area? (CHECK ONLY
ONE RESPONSE)
                     Less than 1 year                   2
                     1 year to 4+ years                12
                     5 to 10 years                     15
                     More than 10 years                71
        D.  Is there a nuclear-powered electric generating plant
in this area?
                     Yes                              100
                     No -- SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS Q 35
                     Not sure -- SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS Q 35
    Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy and Branding Metrics

    1) How important do you think nuclear energy will be in 
meeting this nation's electricity needs in the years ahead?  Do 
you think nuclear energy will be very important, somewhat 
important, not too important, or not important at all?  (CHECK 
ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)

                     IMPORTANT                         89
                     NOT IMPORTANT                      6
                     Very important                    67
                     Somewhat important                22
                     Not too important                  3
                     Not important at all               3
                     (Don't know)                       5
    2) Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat 
agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following 
statements.  How about ... (READ LIST. ROTATE. CHECK ONLY ONE 
RESPONSE FOR EACH.)

                                 Strongly  Somewhat  Somewhat 
Strongly  Don't
                          AGREE   Agree     Agree    Disagree 
Disagree  Know
     When their original
      operating license
      expires, we should
      renew the license
      of nuclear power
      plants that continue
      to meet federal
      safety standards      90      67        23         3      
   6       1
     We should keep the
      option to build
      more nuclear power
      plants in the
      future                83      56        27         6      
   10      1
     Electric utilities
      should prepare now
      so that new nuclear
      power plants could be
      built if needed in
      the next decade       81      52        29         7      
   10      2
     We should definitely
      build more nuclear
      power plants in
      the future            73      43        30         9      
   14      4
    3) Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat 
oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of 
the ways to provide electricity in the United States?  (CHECK 
ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)

                     FAVOR                             83
                     OPPOSE                            16
                     Strongly favor                    53
                     Somewhat favor                    30
                     Somewhat oppose                    8
                     Strongly oppose                    8
                     (Don't know)                       1
    Attitudes Toward Local Plant

    4) Thinking of the nuclear power plant closest to where you 
live, would you describe your general impression of this   plant 
and the way it has operated recently as very favorable, somewhat 
favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

                     FAVORABLE                         87
                     UNFAVORABLE                       10
                     Very favorable                    60
                     Somewhat favorable                27
                     Somewhat unfavorable               7
                     Very unfavorable                   3
                     (Don't know)                       3
    5) Do you think that the majority of people in your community 
have a favorable or unfavorable impression of this plant?

                     Favorable                         75
                     Unfavorable                       13
                     (Don't know)                      11

    6) As far as you know, what other types of electricity plants 
are within 10 miles of where you live -- for example, any coal, 
gas, hydropower, wind, or other types of electricity plants?  
(CHECK ALL TYPES MENTIONED)

                     None, don't know -- SKIP to Q8    62
                     Coal                              16
                     Gas                                7
                     Hydropower                        10
                     Wind                               3
                     Other                              2
    7) IF ANY TYPE OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IS MENTIONED IN Q6, ASK: 
Would you describe your general impression of this other 
plant/these other plants and the way it has/they have operated 
recently as very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat 
unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

                     FAVORABLE                         30
                     UNFAVORABLE                        3
                     Very favorable                    16
                     Somewhat favorable                14
                     Somewhat unfavorable               2
                     Very unfavorable                   1
                     (Don't know)                       5
    8) I am going to read to you six considerations for the way 
electricity is produced, and I'd like you to tell me which one is 
most important to you. Here are the six considerations ... (READ 
LIST SLOWLY. RANDOMIZE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)

                     Clean air                         30
                     Affordability                     18
                     Reliability                       19
                     Sustainability                     8
                     Efficiency                        14
                     Energy security                    8
                     (None)                             1
                     (Don't know)                       2
    9) Do you associate nuclear energy a lot, a little, or not at 
all with ... (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH CONSIDERATION. RANDOMIZE. 
CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)
                                                                

Don't
                                  A Lot   A Little   Not At All 
 Know
     a.  Clean air                 66        19          10     
   4
     b.  Affordability             50        30          11     
   9
     c.  Reliability               67        25           6     
   3
     d.  Sustainability            59        26           7     
   8
     e.  Efficiency                68        21           6     
   4
     f.  Energy security           56        29           9     
   6
    10) Thinking about the nuclear power plant that is nearest to 
where you live, how safe do you regard this plant?  Please think 
of a scale from "1" to "7," where "1" means very unsafe and "7" 
means very safe.  The safer you think it is, the higher the 
number you would give.  (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE 
RESPONSE.)

                     HIGH SAFETY RATING (5-7)          85
                     MIDDLE (4)                         6
                     LOW SAFETY RATING (1-3)            8
                     (Don't know)                       1
    11) Now, I'd like to ask you about the company that operates 
the nuclear power plant nearest to you.  Please tell me if you 
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly 
disagree with the following statements about this company.  (READ 
LIST. ROTATE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)

                                 Strongly  Somewhat  Somewhat 
Strongly  Don't
                          AGREE   Agree     Agree    Disagree 
Disagree  Know
    I am confident in
     this company's
     ability to
     operate a nuclear
     power plant safely.   88       61        27         6      
  4       2
    This company is
     involved in the
     community as a
     good citizen.         83       54        29         7      
  4       7
    This company is
     doing a good job of
     protecting the
     environment.          84       50        34         5      
  5       6
    New Plant Questions

    12) A company may ask the federal Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to approve a site for a nuclear power plant before 
making a decision about whether to build a plant there. It takes 
years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete their 
study of a site, so having early site approval means that the 
company could build a plant more quickly when needed. As part of 
planning for the future, would you approve or disapprove of 
conducting such a review for a new reactor at the nuclear power 
plant site nearest you?


                     Approve                            75
                     Disapprove                         23
                     (Don't know)                        2
    13) If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, 
would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to you to add a 
new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power 
plant? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)

                     Acceptable                         76
                     Not acceptable                     22
                     (Don't know)                        2
    14) I'll read some topics about nuclear energy.  Please tell 
me if you have heard or read any information on the topic in the 
past year.  Just say yes or no.  (RANDOMIZE IN SETS.  READ EACH 
TOPIC AND RECORD YES OR NO TO EACH.)

                                                   Yes    No 
(Don't Know)
    Set A
     * Clean air benefits of nuclear energy ...     61     38   
   1
    Set B
     * Reliability of nuclear power plants          60     40   
   0
     * Reliability of the nuclear power plant       65     35   
   0
       or plants in your area
    Set C
     * Efficiency of nuclear power plants           62     38   
   0
    Set D
     * The need for nuclear energy                  70     30   
   0
     * The need for the nuclear power plant         46     54   
   0
       or plants in your area
     * The need to build more nuclear power         63     37   
   0
       plants in the U.S.
    Set E
     * Nuclear waste storage at the plant site      44     55   
   1
     * Development of a federal nuclear waste       54     45   
   1
       disposal facility at Yucca Mountain
       in Nevada
     * Transportation of nuclear waste to           54     45   
   1
       an isolated disposal facility at
       Yucca Mountain in Nevada
    15) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, 
not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the 
nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?

                     Very well informed              30
                     Somewhat well informed          51
                     Not too well informed           12
                     Not well informed at all        7
    16) Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, 
somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following 
statements about nuclear waste management.

                               Strongly  Somewhat  Somewhat  
Strongly   Don't
                       AGREE    Agree     Agree    Disagree  
Disagree   Know
    Nuclear waste
     can be stored
     safely at the
     plant site until
     it is moved to a
     permanent disposal
     facility.
                         72        31        41        10       
11         6
    The federal
     government should
     continue to develop
     the Yucca Mountain
     site for a national
     disposal facility
     for nuclear waste
     as long as it meets
     U.S. Nuclear
     Regulatory
     Commission
     regulations.
                         83        47        36        6        
8          4
    Security and Emergency Preparedness
    17) How confident are you that nuclear power plants are 
sufficiently secure to withstand a terrorist attack?  Are you 
very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at 
all confident?  (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)

                     CONFIDENT                         68
                     NOT CONFIDENT                     31
                     Very confident                    25
                     Somewhat confident                43
                     Not too confident                 18
                     Not at all confident              13
                     Don't know                         1
    18) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, 
not too well informed, or not well informed at all about what is 
the first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nuclear 
power plant nearest to where you live?

                     Very well informed                42
                     Somewhat well informed            38
                     Not too well informed             10
                     Not well informed at all           9
                     (Don't know)                       1
    19) Have you received any materials from the nuclear power 
plant with information about what to do in case of an emergency 
at that plant? Yes / No - - SKIP TO Q. 25

                     Yes                               68
                     No                                31
                     (Don't know)                       2
    20) Have you received any materials from any organization 
about what to do in case of an emergency involving natural 
disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, or floods?

                     Yes                               32
                     No                                66
                     (Don't know)                       1
    21) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, 
not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and what it does?

                     Very well informed                14
                     Somewhat well informed            45
                     Not too well informed             25
                     Not well informed at all          16
    Activities
    22) Do any of your family members engage in recreational 
activities within sight of the nearest nuclear power plant?

                     Yes                               48
                     No                                51
    23) To the best of your knowledge, is each of the following 
true or false? (READ LIST.  ROTATE.  CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR 
EACH.)

                                                          (Don't
                                  True       False         Know)
     You are considered             27         72            1
       an opinion leader in
       your community
     You consider yourself          59         40            1
       an environmentalist
     You have visited a             49         51            0
       nuclear power plant
       or an information
       center at the plant
    24) Those who visited a nuclear power plant or information 
center:  Did your visit to the information center give you a more 
favorable impression of nuclear energy than you had before, a 
less favorable impression, or did it not make any difference?

                     More favorable                    27
                     Less favorable                     1
                     No difference                     20
                      (Don't know)                      1
    Demographics
    I need to ask a few quick demographic questions to be sure
we have a
representative sample.
    25) Do you have children under age 12 living in your home?
                     Yes                               23
                     No                                77
                     (Don't know, no answer)           0
    26) What was the highest level of school you completed?
                     Some grade school                  5
                     Graduated high school             29
                     Technical/vocational school        4
                     Some college                      22
                     Graduated college                 26
                     Graduate school                   13
                     (Don't know, no answer)            1
    27) Is your age ...
                     18 to 20                           2
                     21 to 34                          12
                     35 to 44                          19
                     45 to 54                          22
                     55 to 64                          23
                     65 or older                       21
                     (Don't know, no answer)            1
    28) Are you currently registered to vote?
                     Yes                               92
                     No  (THANKS & END)                 8
                     Don't know/refused  (THANKS & END) 0
    If yes:  Are you registered as a ...
                     Republican                        31
                     Democrat                          27
                     Independent                       21
                     Other WRITE IN                     2
                      (Don't know, no answer)          11
                     No answer                          8
    Thank you very much for giving us your opinions.
    RECORD (DO NOT ASK)
                     Male                              43
                     Female                            57
 	 SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute
 Web Site: http://www.nei.org
	 		   	 
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 22 PittsburghLIVE.com: Nuclear reactor technology advances - 

 By Rick Stouffer
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

 Wednesday, October 12, 2005 

After three decades, nuclear power is once again a hot issue in
the U.S. as utilities look for ways to provide power without the
pollution of coal and the roller-coaster pricing of natural gas. 

Westinghouse Electric Co. is involved in a number of discussions
to bring a new generation of nuclear reactors on line, including
its AP1000 design that is expected to receive formal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission certification by year's end. Westinghouse,
the Monroeville-based subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc,
also is lending its nuclear design expertise to a consortium
that includes British Nuclear Fuels to develop a new type of
nuclear plant that relies on "pebbles" to generate power. 

Known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, or PBMR, proponents
tout the reactor as smaller, less expensive, cleaner and safer
than the 103 existing nuclear plants operating nationwide.
Opponents of nuclear power say it produces more high-level
nuclear waste than existing nuclear reactor designs. 

The pebbles are a form of reactor fuel embedded in billiard
ball-size graphite balls, with 15,000 uranium particles, or
kernels, inside. During normal operation, the pebble bed core
contains roughly 456,000 "pebbles." 

Construction of a demonstration reactor is slated to begin in
the Republic of South Africa in 2007. Previously, an
experimental reactor operated in Germany for more than 20 years. 

"The design is complete, we know the project is doable," said
Tom Ferreira, communication manager for PBMR Pty Ltd., the
consortium formed in 2000 to develop and market pebble bed
technology. Ferreira and fellow South African Pat Thema were in
Pittsburgh this week meeting with Westinghouse personnel. 

The pebble bed technology is different from any existing nuclear
reactor. The modular system begins with a small, 165-megawatt
reactor, roughly one-fifth the size of FirstEnergy Corp.'s 821
megawatt Beaver Valley 1 unit in Shippingport, Beaver County. 

The modular layout allows the plant to grow in increments,
Ferreira said, with an operator only building 165-megawatt
"blocks" as needed. 

"The four-pack (four modules) is the most cost-efficient,"
Ferreira said. "If you use two four-packs, that gives you 1,320
megawatts and allows you never to have more than one unit down
for maintenance at one time." Each reactor is designed to be
off-line for three weeks once every six years. 

Pebble bed also requires a much smaller safety zone: 1,320 feet.
The typical nuclear reactor in this country utilizes a 10-mile
zone. 

"You almost can build it in your backyard," Ferreira said. 

The pebble bed technology is considered by proponents extremely
safe, with passive safety features that require no human
intervention and that can't be bypassed. It is helium -- not
water -- cooled and the gas also is used for energy transfer.
Helium enters the top of the reactor at a temperature of 932
degrees Fahrenheit, moves between the hot (due to nuclear
fission) spheres, and leaves the bottom of the vessel at a
temperature of about 1,652 degrees Fahrenheit. The hot gas
enters a turbine that is connected to a generator. The coolant
leaves the turbine and is cooled, recompressed, reheated and
returned to the reactor core. 

According to its proponents, a meltdown, the bane of
conventional nuclear reactors, can't happen in a pebble bed
system. There is, they say, no chance of overheating caused by
radioactive decay because of the resistance to high temperature
of the billions of fuel particles contained within the graphite
balls. 

In addition, helium is chemically inert and can't combine with
other chemicals. It is also non-combustible. Nor can air enter
the core and corrode the reactor's graphite. 

"To me, the biggest technology advancement with pebble bed is
that the core can't melt down," said Andrew Kadak, professor of
nuclear engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Mass. "The system's thermal efficiency also is higher
than 40 percent compared to traditional light-water reactors
where it is in the low 30s. If you discharge less heat, you make
more electricity." 

Still, the pebble bed technology is not seen by all as accident
proof. A Harrisburg-based environmental group known as Three
Mile Island Alert said one problem with pebble bed is that it
produces more high-level nuclear waste than existing nuclear
reactor designs. A spokesman could not be reached for comment. 

Kadak agrees that the pebble bed produces additional waste, but
counters that the pebbles' composition offers a solution. "While
you would have 10 times more (waste) shipments, the (pebble)
makeup allows you to store waste in one-half the space of a
typical light-water reactor," Kadak said. 

Rick Stouffer can be reached at rstouffer@tribweb.com. 

Images and text copyright © 2005 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
 23 asahi.com: KEDO program for North in doubt

  [asahi.com]     
  
10/12/2005 The Asahi Shimbun

Japan, the United States and South Korea are moving toward
abandoning construction of light-water nuclear reactors for
North Korea by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization (KEDO), government sources said. 

The move comes after Seoul, which had initially opposed ending
the program, changed its course and offered electricity to the
North. 

A joint statement issued after the September six-party talks
held in Beijing included Pyongyang's pledge to abandon its
nuclear ambitions. The statement also touched on the possibility
of a new offer of light-water reactors. 

The KEDO program started in 1997, based on an agreement reached
in 1994, but construction of the reactors was suspended in 2002
after North Korea's uranium-enrichment program surfaced. 

Participating nations of KEDO are to decide by the end of
November whether to extend the suspension period or terminate
the entire construction program. 

Representatives of the Japanese and U.S. governments contended
at an unofficial meeting of KEDO officials in New York at the
end of September that construction should be canceled, sources
said. Seoul did not express opposition to the proposal. 

The Bush administration has been critical of the KEDO program,
which was initiated under former President Bill Clinton. 

In Japan, too, some officials are against paying for light-water
reactor construction amid growing public resentment toward
Pyongyang. 

On the other hand, Seoul initially insisted that the possibility
of resuming construction of the reactors be left open so that
North Korea would stay within the framework of the six-nation
talks. 

But in July, South Korea proposed supplying 2 million kilowatts
of electricity to the North, effectively giving up on the KEDO
project. 

South Korea is the largest financial contributor to KEDO and was
to shoulder around 70 percent of the total $4.6 billion (506
billion yen) for the program. 

If construction is abandoned, retrieving the funds could become
a big political problem in South Korea. 

The focus is now on whether Seoul will formally accept the
termination of the program and how the EU, a KEDO member, would
react to the move, sources said.(IHT/Asahi: October 12,2005) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  
*****************************************************************
 24 Arizona Republic: Palo Verde shuts down two remaining units
 
[azcentral.com]     

Palo Verde shuts down two remaining units Power supply OK but
cost could go higher 						 

Richard Schwartz
Bloomberg News
Oct. 12, 2005 08:58 AM						 

Two reactors at Arizona's Palo Verde plant, the largest U.S.
nuclear power station, were shut down Tuesday after engineers
were unable to demonstrate the ability of the emergency core
cooling system to function.

 Valves that were designed to operate automatically during
certain accident conditions were found to require manual
operation, Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, said Wednesday in a telephone interview.

 It was fortunate that the shutdowns didn't happen during the
hottest-weather months, when demand for power to run air
conditioners peaks, said Jim McDonald, a spokesman for Pinnacle
West Capital Corp.'s Arizona Public Service utility, which
operates the plant. 

"We have plenty of power to serve our customers, and the weather
is supposed to be really good all week," he said. "If it had to
happen, this was a good time."

 The idling of Palo Verde will push power prices higher because
there will be more demand for electricity from plants fueled by
natural gas, costs for which are “at unprecedented levels,” said
Stephen Conant, an analyst at Energy Security Analysis Inc. in
Wakefield, Mass..

 The third reactor at Palo Verde, Unit 1, was shut down on Oct.
7 for refueling, Dricks said. The plant is located in
Wintersburg, about 50 miles west of Phoenix.

 Unit 1 will be idled for 10 to 12 weeks because two steam
generators and turbines will be replaced while the reactor is
down for refueling, McDonald said. The equipment replacements
have been planned for several years, McDonald said. The length
of the shutdown at Units 2 and 3 hasn't been determined, he said.

 The Palo Verde plant can produce enough power for about 3
million average U.S. homes, based on U.S. Energy Department data.

 Arizona Public Service has a 29 percent stake in Palo Verde.
Other owners, with smaller interests, include Salt River
Project, El Paso Electric Co., PNM Resources Inc.'s Public
Service Co. of New Mexico and Edison International's Southern
California Edison.

 	Copyright © 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 [du-list] Army’s new chem lab to study  
 
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:28:37 -0700

X-Temp-Whitesubject: YES du-list 
X-Spamprobe: ham-super	*       	0.0000869	OK

<x-flowed>
Army Times
  October 11, 2005
Army's new chem lab to study toxic agents

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer

The Army recently opened a laboratory to study "super toxic" chemical 
warfare agents.

The Advanced Chemistry Laboratory opened Oct. 7 at the U.S. Army Edgewood 
Chemical Biological Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The $46 million facility will help to counter the threat of chemical and 
biological warfare, Aberdeen officials said in a press release announcing 
the lab's opening.

"The dedication of the ACL marks a major milestone of a new era of 
cutting-edge science and technology development," said Jim Zarzycki, the 
Edgewood center's technical director, in the release.

"More now than ever, we are prepared to fulfill our mission of preparing 
our war fighter and domestic emergency responders to counter the terrible 
threat of weapons of mass destruction."

The unique facility, which houses more than 20 individual labs, is designed 
for working with "the world's most super toxic compounds," Zarzycki said.

  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet Oct. 25-26
 
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. 05-138     October 12, 2005   
  

Medical Uses of Isotopes will hold a public meeting Oct. 25-26
in Rockville, Md., where, among other items, members will review
the medical events definition commission paper and hear the
status of Specialty Board applications for NRC recognition. 

The public portion of the meeting will be from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
on Tuesday and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday. The meeting
will be held at the NRCs Two White Flint Building, Room T2B3,
11545 Rockville Pike. Questions from the public will be
permitted at the discretion of the committee chairman. The full
agenda can be found at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acmui/agenda. 

Any member of the public wishing to submit a written statement
or needing special assistance must contact Mohammad Saba, at
301-415-7608 or mss@nrc.gov. A transcript and written comments
will be available on the NRCs Web site, at www.nrc.gov and
through the NRC Public Document Room on or about Jan. 26, 2006. 

The ACMUI advises the NRC on policy and technical issues related
to the regulation of medical uses of certain radioactive
materials.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, October 12, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 27 Occupational Hazards - Study Looks at Possible Link Between Skin
Exposure to Silica and Autoimmune Disorders

THE AUTHORITY ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND LOSS PREVENTION                                                         

- 10/11/2005                               

Kathryn Creek once dismissed the hypothesis that skin exposure
to beryllium can lead to chronic beryllium disease as the
ravings of a "crazy scientist." But after learning more about
the possible link between the two, she now believes the
hypothesis "really made a lot of sense." 				

Inspired by the work of that scientist who she affectionately
joked seemed crazy at the time – Sally Tinkle, formerly of NIOSH
– Creek is now testing a similar hypothesis: that skin exposure
to fine and ultrafine silica particulate can lead to autoimmune
disorders such as systemic lupus erythemotosus (commonly known
as lupus) and rheumatoid arthritis. 

While the link between occupational exposure to silica and
autoimmune disorders has been well-established, Creek explained,
most studies have focused on inhalation exposure. (Silicosis, a
chronic lung disease caused by inhalation exposure of silica
dust, is not considered a disorder of the immune system.) But
Creek, a project leader at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
Los Alamos, N.M., wonders if, in some cases, "we have not been
looking at the right exposure pathway." 

"Have we failed to recognize a route of entry by ultrafine
particulate to the largest organ in the body, the skin?" Creek
queries in the abstract to her presentation at the Second
International Symposium on Nanotechnology and Occupational
Health, which was held Oct. 3-6 in Minneapolis. 

Creek's investigation of the possible link between skin exposure
to silica and autoimmune disorders has been spurred by evidence
of high rates of such disorders – which typically are
predominant among women – in male-dominated occupations such as
sand molding; foundry work; hard rock, slate, granite, uranium
and coal mining; sandblasting; and masonry. 

Considering her estimate that 85 percent of scleroderma and
lupus patients in the general population are female, she
concludes that the high rates of lupus in male-dominated trades
such as hard rock mining are "remarkable." 

Such questions, and Tinkle's research that points to the
possibility that chronic beryllium disease may be initiated by
ultrafine particulate skin exposure, have led to her hypothesis:
That "skin exposure to fine and ultrafine silica – probably
crystalline silica – can result in a susceptible or predisposed
individual developing an autoimmune disorder such as SLE,
rheumatoid arthritis or scleroderma." 

For the hypothesis, she defines ultrafine particles as those
having an aerodynamic or physical overall size of 100 nanometers
or less, and fine particles as those having an aerodynamic or
physical overall size between 1 microgram and 100 nanometers. 

Skin is a 'Very Immunoligically Active Organ' 

Autoimmune disorders – which also include connective tissue
disease and multiple sclerosis – are immunological disorders or
diseases that trigger the body to produce antibodies, which in
turn attack the body's own cells and tissues, according to
Creek. 

Creek, who is working with Michael McCawley of the University of
West Virginia in her study, explained that the skin is a "very
immunologically active organ" and that is the largest organ of
the body. 

"It has more immune-type cells than the lung and, if foreign
particles invade, Langerhans' cells grab the particles and move
to the nearest lymph nodes, where the immune system can learn to
recognize the invader," she said. "These immune cells then can
travel through the body, telling other parts of the body what
they have learned about the invaders." 

Drawing a possible parallel to beryllium, Creek pointed to the
research of Tinkle and others that suggests that beryllium
particles can penetrate the skin to the dermis layer. (Tinkle's
hypothesis is that skin exposure to beryllium works in
conjunction with inhalation exposure to trigger beryllium
sensitization.) 

"We know that there are a large number of immune cells in the
skin," Creek explained. "We know that skin exposure to beryllium
[from inadvertent cutaneous injection] can result in the
particulate traveling up to the lymph nodes. Therefore, this
pathway seems more likely than the inhalation route." 

Have a Program in Place to Prevent Skin Exposure 

Could the skin likewise be a primary exposure route for silica
particulate? 

Creek noted that the study of the link between skin exposure to
silica and autoimmune diseases is ongoing and that the two
researchers have not come to any conclusions yet. 

However, Creek offered these recommendations to employers and
safety managers: 
  + Keep particulate off the skin. "We don't know that skin is
an impervious barrier to particulate," Creek said. "In fact, it
may very well be that it isn't a barrier to fine and ultrafine
particles, especially to un-intact skin." Have a program in
place to monitor surface cleanliness, to prevent migration of
particulate to non-work areas and to provide skin protection to
employees that directly handle the materials or have a risk of
skin exposure. 
  + Plan for cuts and abrasions to the skin. Make sure wounds
are cleaned well and monitor them. 
  + Be cautious about using animal-testing and short human
trials as an "end-all" to your understanding of the risks.
Immune diseases – of which autoimmune diseases are a subset –
are difficult to understand, often have a long latency period
(as does chronic beryllium disease) and often have multiple,
vague symptoms that make them difficult to diagnose. It is quite
possible that the animals selected for testing do not have the
genetic markers for the disease. 
  + Review all literature, paying special attention to immune
diseases associated with the chemicals being used. 

- Josh Cable 				
 			 						 		   	 	   			 Quick Links
Occupational Hazards   |   © 2004                             
*****************************************************************
 28 RIA Novosti: Disasters cost Russia $3.5 billion a year - minister
 
12/ 10/ 2005                                  

MOSCOW, October 12 (RIA Novosti) - Natural and man-made
disasters cost Russia an average of $3.5 billion annually,
Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday. 

Shoigu told the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament,
that man-made disasters accounted for 75 % of all emergencies in
Russia, whereas natural calamities made up 20%; combined
natural/man-made disasters, 4%; and terrorist acts, less than
1%. Indirect losses caused by the various disasters total $17.5
billion annually. 

Natural calamities take the heaviest toll on the population,
accounting for as many as 80% of all disaster casualties; the
proportion of those affected by technogenic disasters and
terrorist attacks is 10% and 3%, respectively. The minister said
man-made disasters, especially road accidents and fires,
accounted for the highest number of fatalities. According to
statistics cited by the minister, some 30,000 people are killed
in road accidents every year; 19,000 die in fires; 25,000-30,000
die of poisoning from bootleg alcohol; and 15,000 drown. 

According to Shoigu, the Emergencies Ministry has carried out
11,500 rescue operations so far this year, saving more than
50,000 lives. In the past five years, it has been involved in as
many as 200,000 rescue and relief efforts.

 Ministry personnel provide relief for an average of 1.5 million
people every year, Shoigu said. 

The increasing frequency of natural disasters, massive
construction in disaster-prone areas, and neglect of safety
rules contribute to the damage, he said. More than 2,500 of
Russia's industrial sites are chemically hazardous and 1,500 are
potential sources of radioactive contamination.

 Shoigu said a nationwide emergencies management system was up
and running in Russia and that a wide array of training programs
were available for the public as well as professional rescuers.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 29 toledoblade.com: 5 townships respond to fire at former beryllium plant

Article published Wednesday, October 12, 2005
 
WOOD COUNTY
 
  [Photo] 

A firefighter sets up a fan to clear smoke from the former Brush
Beryllium plant in Luckey that closed in 1958. Erring on the
side of caution, five departments responded to the fire. 
( THE BLADE/LUKE BLACK ) 

By JENNIFER FEEHAN BLADE STAFF WRITER

LUCKEY - A small fire at a former beryllium production plant in
eastern Wood County yesterday got a big response from state and
local emergency agencies.


 One man working at the site was treated for smoke inhalation,
but the fire was extinguished in a short time after firefighters
from Troy Township, Pemberville-Freedom Township, Middleton,
Lake, and Perrysburg townships converged on the site. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and the Wood County Health
Department also were called to the scene.

"We would rather err on the side of caution," said Eric Larson,
director of the Wood County Emergency Management Agency.

"Due to the history of the plant, we wanted to make sure we
treated everyone in a safe manner," he said.

Firefighters were called to the unused plant at Gilbert and
Luckey roads about 25 miles southeast of Toledo at about 2:15
p.m. Mr. Larson said a salvage company working on the second
floor of one of the buildings was cutting metal with a torch
when a fire started and got out of control. The crew was unable
to extinguish the fire and called for help.

Smoke could be seen coming from the open windows, but no flames
were visible.

Wood County Health Commissioner Jeff Cooper, who was at the
scene, said all of the firefighters went through
decontamination, and their clothing was bagged so that it can be
industrially cleaned.

"At this point there does not appear to be any risk; although
understand, if you inhale beryllium it can take up to 20 years
to show any symptoms," Mr. Cooper said.

Brad Espen, director of environmental health for the Wood County
Health Department, said yesterday's fire was the first he could
recall at the 47-acre former defense site. Health officials
along with the EPA, neighboring property owners, and others have
been lobbying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up the
Luckey site since the Corps became responsible for its cleanup
in 1997.

"It is alarming to some point, but from what all the records
indicate and what all the assessments that have been done show,
there is not that much beryllium left there," Mr. Espen said.

The Atomic Energy Commission built the plant in 1949, and it was
operated by Brush Beryllium, the forerunner to Cleveland-based
Brush Wellman Inc. until 1958. The federal agency shipped
beryllium pebbles produced there to plants that made nuclear
weapons.

Since 1996, the property has been owned by Hayes-Lemmerz
International Inc., a Northville, Mich.-based automotive wheel
producer that acquired the Luckey site when it purchased Motor
Wheel Corp. in 1996. Its last tenant was Uretech International
Inc., a manufacturer of urethane products for the automotive
industry and other businesses that subsequently went out of
business.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 30 Harwich Oracle: Health director explains delay in obtaining KI meds

TownOnline.com - 

By Douglas Karlson/ dkarlson@cnc.com

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

For the past several months, Milton Hirshberg, a local retired 
doctor, has agitated for selectmen to do something about the 
state's apparent inability to follow through with promises to 
deliver potassium iodide, or KI, to Harwich. The medication can 
prevent thyroid cancer. Hirshberg, and others, say it's an issue 
for Cape Codders because of the peninsula's proximity to the 
Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth.

     Hirshberg's pleading with selectmen finally brought the
topic to public discussion after it was placed on a selectmen's
meeting agenda a few weeks ago.

     At that meeting, Harwich Health Director Paula Champagne
explained that the town has been working with public health
officials from across the Cape on complex distribution and
public education plans, but the state Department of Public
Health has stalled for two and a half years in delivering the
medicine as it argues over who should pay for them.

     In 2002, a state law was passed requiring that all
Massachusetts towns that request them receive a free supply of
the pills. At the 2003 Town Meeting, Harwich residents voted to
make that request. No pills have ever been received.

     Champagne said that the town has filled out the necessary
paperwork, and provided the Department of Public Health with an
estimate of how many pills the town needs. Champagne based her
count on estimate of peak summer population of 40,000. The pills
would be taken in a measured dose over several days, and a
duplicate supply would be required at the schools in the event a
radioactive plume descended on Harwich while school was in
session. The total number of pills needed, said Champagne, is
160,000. They come individually wrapped. Storage, she said, is
an issue. The pills have an official shelf life of five years.

     Champagne said she and other Cape health department and
emergency officials have been establishing a framework for
distributing the pills. They began their planning by focussing
on the needs of children. School distribution plans, she said,
include permission slips signed by parents. 


In the wake of infections diseases like SARS, said Champagne, 
national public health officials have placed greater emphasis on 
studying emergency distribution of medicine. The goal, she said, 
is to reach 80 percent of the population within 48 hours. KI may 
be a good way to test the distribution system, she said.

     But Champagne said she is concerned that if a distribution 
plan does go into effect people won't come to collect their 
pills. In Duxbury, a town that purchased its own supply of KI, 
Champagne said less than 10 percent of the population picked up 
their pills. "There's been very little voluntary participation," 
she said.

     While recent local budget cuts did slow efforts, said 
Champagne, "There has been activity. I think it's unfair the 
criticism that Harwich isn't doing enough." Her comments referred 
to criticisms made by Hirshberg in recent months. Hirshberg has 
been what some might view as a champion of emergency 
preparedness, others see him as a gadfly. Earlier this month, 
Hirshberg was removed from a selectmen's meeting by police when 
he exceeded the five-minute time limit during the open forum. 
"I've been patient enough for five years trying to move an inert, 
stonewalling government apparatus," he said at the time.

     Though the cause of the delay appears to lie not with the 
town of Harwich, but with the state Department of Public Health, 
Hirshberg has argued that the town needs to do more to compensate 
for lack of initiative shown by the state government. He has 
urged selectmen to be more active in lobbying state lawmakers for 
the people of Harwich.

     The state Department of Public Health did not provide an 
explanation for the delay in distribution of KI.

*****************************************************************
 31 KRT Wire: Keep the toxin-tracking standards high

| 10/12/2005 | 

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

(KRT) - The following editorial appeared in the Philadelphia
Inquirer on Tuesday, October 11: 

--- 

When a deadly cloud of chemicals being used to make pesticides
killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India, in 1984, Americans
wondered: Where could it happen here? 

The U.S. government couldn't answer. All over the nation,
factories, refineries and industrial plants were churning out
vital products using toxic chemicals, but the companies didn't
have to tell anyone what the hazards were. If something went
wrong - a spill, a leak, a fire - emergency responders often
didn't know what they'd encounter. Neighbors didn't know whether
to take cover or evacuate. 

Today, they do. Information on hazardous chemicals is a
mouse-click away, thanks to the 1986 "Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act." An easy-to-use database includes
specifics on 650 toxic chemicals that have the potential to
cause cancer, neurological damage, or other health damage. 

But EPA now wants to weaken those safeguards with two proposed
rule changes. It wants to collect less data, less frequently.
That would set back the clock, just when the public needs that
information the most - in a time of increasing natural
disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, and the threat of
terrorist attack. 

The EPA itself brags that this public-disclosure law, which
includes the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), repeatedly has
improved corporate behavior and empowered communities to protect
themselves. 

After Katrina, emergency workers and public-health advocates
used the TRI to identify the possible threats in the air and
water. By tapping into the database, officials instantly learned
that New Orleans and its surrounding parishes host 66 chemical
plants, refineries and petroleum bulk-storage facilities,
containing a stew of more than 875 chemicals. 

The TRI has been used similarly all over the United States. In
Chicago, a citizens' group prompted an investigation into high
lead levels from a neighborhood smelter. In Toledo, Ohio,
environmental groups persuaded an alloy factory to reduce
alarming emissions of beryllium, a toxic metal. In Colorado, the
database is helping researchers study why chemical releases are
more concentrated in the Rocky Mountain states than in the
nation as a whole. 

To reduce paperwork for industry, EPA proposes changing annual
reporting to every other year, and raising the threshold for
reporting pollution from the current 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds.
With that change, 14 of 52 facilities in Philadelphia would no
longer be required to detail information about their toxics.
That would leave some neighborhoods where they were in the '70s
- with little knowledge of their vulnerability to poisoning. 

The TRI isn't a perfect tool. It's basically an honor system,
dependent on companies' self-reporting. Information is already 2
years old when posted online. 

But watering down the TRI won't make it better. America doesn't
need a "right to guess" law. 

--- 

© 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer. 

Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site,
at http://www.philly.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.   
*****************************************************************
 32 AU ABC: Labor's uranium decision hits SA miners, explorers
 
(AEDT)Wednesday, 12 October 2005. 12:18 (AWST)

 Several million dollars worth of value has been wiped off the
share prices of uranium explorers and miners with South
Australian interests. 

A re-confirmation of the state's Labor Party policy to block new
uranium mines until 2010 prompted the slide, with some stocks
falling 20 per cent. 

Until now uranium stocks have been strong interest, on the back
of a tripling of the world price. 

Steve Johnston, of South Australian uranium explorer Allied
Resources, says Labor's negative attitude is stifling the
industry. 

"I think sticking your head in the sand and saying look there's
no more uranium mining that's our policy till 2010 is okay, but
already we know that there's been several millions of dollars
worth of market capitalisation wiped off just on the basis of
this Labor party decision," he said. 

"It's a disaster like that because explorations like the nursery
industry, if you don't maintain it through all of the downturns
in the cycle then there are no new mines."

*****************************************************************
 33 AU ABC: Uranium mining equals nuclear weapons, conference told
 
(AEDT)Wednesday, 12 October 2005. 12:29 (AWST)

 A former Greens senator has told industry leaders there is a
direct link between uranium mining and the production of nuclear
weapons. 

Jo Vallentine addressed a conference on uranium mining in
Fremantle today and urged industry leaders to look at the bigger
picture. 

At the conference yesterday, the Labor frontbencher Martin
Ferguson called for greater debate on uranium and said Australia
has a responsibility to export its vast reserves of the mineral
to the rest of the world. 

Ms Vallentine warns if Australia exports uranium there is a
significant risk it will be used to make weapons. 

"This could happen in China. They're looking to China as their
big market. China has said it won't let in inspectors. They
don't want safeguards," she said. 

She says Australia has a moral responsibility to oppose any
expansion of its uranium mining industry and told industry
leaders they cannot afford to ignore the impact uranium has on
health and the environment. 

"There have been so many studies that have shown that exposure
to even low level radiation can cause cancers, leukemias,
thyroid problems, that sort of thing. We have to know that
that's what we're getting into. It is a dirty business," she
said.

*****************************************************************
 34 reviewjournal.com: Advocates question radiation standards
 
  Oct. 12, 2005

EPA urged to withdraw Yucca proposal     

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- Environmental and health advocates on Tuesday urged 
the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its proposed 
radiation standard for Yucca Mountain, saying it sets bad 
precedent and weakens safeguards. 

"Hurricane Katrina taught us that unexpected catastrophic events
are possible and that we need to pay more attention to public
health, not less. The Bush administration and EPA should go back
to the drawing board," said David Hamilton, Sierra Club global
warming and energy director. 

Hamilton's comments typified those of a dozen speakers at the
fourth and final public hearing on the EPA's draft radiation
exposure regulations for the proposed Nevada nuclear waste
repository. Three hearings were held in Nevada last week. 

Several others spoke favorably of the EPA effort. 

David Wright, a member of the South Carolina Public Service
Commission, said to the extent the agency attempted to set
protections that would cover up to a million years, the proposal
was "well-reasoned." 

The radiation standard is a key measure that the Energy
Department must show through computer modeling that it can meet
in order to win a repository license for the site located 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas 

The EPA, responding to a 2004 federal court ruling that threw
out an earlier radiation safety plan, has proposed a new
two-part standard. 

For the first 10,000 years of repository operations, DOE would
need to show that a person living about 11 miles away would be
exposed to no more than 15 millirem of radiation annually. 

For comparison, EPA officials have said that a chest X-ray
exposes a person to 10 millirem and a mammogram exposes a person
to 30 millirem. 

For the long term, beyond 10,000 years, when scientists are less
certain of predicting climate, geology and societal conditions,
EPA proposed an annual exposure limit of 350 millirem out to 1
million years. 

"Our proposal, we believe, is protective and appropriate," said
Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation. 

She said she was unsure when EPA would issue its final decision
after weighing public reaction. 

Representatives of public interest groups testified the EPA plan
was flawed. 

Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, said the EPA "for decades" had argued for
radiation standards of 15 to 25 millirem, "and that doses above
100 millirem per year produce unacceptable levels of risk." 

A Yucca standard of 350 millirem would risk more cancer deaths.
	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 35 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Business says ills not its problem - 
Michael A. Scarcella

October 12, 2005

Tallevast operations were OK'd by the government, says Lockheed

Martin. By MICHAEL A. SCARCELLA
 
TALLEVAST -- Lockheed Martin is not responsible for any
illnesses caused by pollution from a former weapons plant here
because the operation was directed by the federal government,
the company said in court papers.

The federal departments of energy and defense not only approved
the work at the former American Beryllium Co. plant but were
aware of the potential risks involved, Lockheed said in
documents filed Friday. Those claims provide the first glimpse
of a defense strategy in a lawsuit that pits this predominantly
black south Manatee County community against the defense
industry giant.

More than 240 Tallevast residents who are convinced the
pollution from the plant in their community has made then sick
sued Lockheed last month.

The lawsuit claims the Maryland-based company knew that the
Tallevast neighborhood was polluted with dangerous metals and
chemicals and, for several years, Lockheed officials
intentionally failed to disclose the information to residents.

Lockheed spokeswoman Meredith Rouse Davis said she could not
comment on the pending lawsuit. Attorneys for Tallevast
residents could not be reached Tuesday.

Lockheed wants the case to be heard in federal court because of
the proposed federal government defense strategy and because the
defendants are scattered across the country.

In addition to Lockheed, the suit names other companies,
including Wire-Pro Inc., which currently owns the old plant
site, and Loral Corp., which owned the plant when it was
operational.

A federal district court judge has not ruled on whether to
accept the case.

In the documents filed Friday, Lockheed argues that a contractor
has immunity if the company followed government specifications
and if the contractor warned government officials about
potential dangers associated with the product.

The American Beryllium Co. plant operated on Tallevast Road from
1961 until 1996, processing the metal beryllium into parts for
nuclear warheads. Many of the potentially cancer-causing
chemicals now in the ground water were used as cleaning solvents
at the plant.

Lockheed Martin took over ownership of the plant in 1996 when it
bought American Beryllium Co.'s parent company, the Loral Corp.

When Lockheed sold the site to Wire-Pro in 2000, it agreed to be
responsible for any pollution the former plant had left behind.
Lockheed also disclosed to the state and the county that the
property was contaminated, but residents weren't informed of the 
pollution until nearly four years later.

Lockheed initially downplayed the extent of the problem when 
company officials informed residents about the contamination.

At a community forum in November 2003, company officials said the 
Tallevast pollution was minor compared with other sites it was 
cleaning up, and a plume of contaminated ground water emanating 
from the plant site only covered 5 acres.

Subsequent tests have shown the ground-water plume actually 
covers about 130 acres, and concentrations of the chemical 
trichloroethylene, which has been associated with cancer, were 
discovered in the ground water at 10,000 times the state 
standard.

Lockheed has agreed to clean up the contamination, and hired an 
independent environmental expert to help the residents monitor 
the cleanup.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 1 | 2 | Next >> 
Last modified: October 12. 2005 5:13AM                                                                                  
*****************************************************************
 36 Platts: Spot price of uranium increases   


  
Washington (Platts)--11Oct2005
 
The spot price of uranium is now $33 a pound U3O8, a rise of $1 
over the past week, according to both TradeTech and Ux 
Consulting. 

Analysts said the increase reflected the continuing belief among 
sellers that there is little downward pressure on the price. 

As a result, sellers are offering only modest amounts at 
increasingly higher prices to potential buyers. 

And some analysts are now suggesting that both spot and long-term 
prices will pass $40/lb U3O8 next year.
 
														Terms & Conditions 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

  
*****************************************************************
 37 AU ABC: France puts hand up for Australian uranium
 
The World Today - Wednesday, 12 October , 2005  12:24:00
 
Reporter: Josie Taylor

 ELEANOR HALL: As argument continues in Australia over uranium
mining, the new French Ambassador to Australia has entered the
debate, saying his country would certainly buy Australian
uranium given the opportunity.

His comments will be welcomed by those pushing for restrictions
on mining the controversial nuclear fuel to be lifted, as Josie
Taylor reports.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Beneath Australian soil lies about 40 per cent of
the world's uranium, most of it untouched.

But if industry and the Federal Government have a say, that
could soon change.

GEOFF PROSSER: There was a world demand for uranium. Australia
is well-placed to supply that demand and the evidence we've
received to date overwhelmingly supports the view that we should
supply more of the market than we do in the present.

JOSIE TAYLOR: That's Western Australian Liberal MP Geoff
Prosser, who'll chair an inquiry into Australia's uranium
resources in Canberra tomorrow.

The inquiry follows a national conference on uranium held in
Western Australia over the past two days.

Geoff Prosser says nuclear power is firmly back on the public
agenda.

GEOFF PROSSER: The main factor is the concern generally in the
community about global warming, that nuclear power generation
has virtually no greenhouse emission gases, no Co2 emission. In
fact the 440 nuclear power plants around the world, save the
emission of some 2.5 billion tonnes of Co2 into the atmosphere
each year. 

That's, I guess, driven the main interest of the emerging
economies wanting to at least do something about the emissions
that they've got with their conventional fossil fuel power
stations.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Is industry also behind this push though given
that Australia has 40 per cent of the world's uranium resources?

GEOFF PROSSER: Well certainly the mining industry is keen to see
those resources exploited.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Alan Eggers is a managing director of Summit
Resources Limited, a company with interests in uranium deposits
in Queensland.

He agrees the prospect of big profits for mining companies is
behind the push for more uranium mines.

ALAN EGGERS: For a public company that is in fact the case.
However, uranium mining is a big business, it's already underway
in the world, there's some 440 nuclear power plants in
operation, there's a large number being built in China, Japan
and India at the moment, and these plants need to be supplied
with fuel.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Who do you need to convince now to make this
possible?

ALAN EGGERS: The only impediment to development of new uranium
mining in Australia is the Labor Party has a policy of not
approving new mines and it's this Labor Party policy that needs
to be changed and we believe that there's a significant shift
within the Labor Party to bring about that change.

JOSIE TAYLOR: The Labor Party is certainly divided on the issue,
but a spokesman for Federal Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, says
Labor's policy of no new uranium mines stands, at least for the
moment.

From another perspective, France takes about three quarters of
its energy needs from nuclear power.

Its new ambassador to Australia, Francois Descoueyte, says
nuclear power offers environmental benefits, but the safety
issues must be handled carefully.

FRANCOIS DESCOUEYTE: It's for Australia to decide and for
Australian experts to really weigh the pros and cons of such a
shift.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Would the French Government actually buy more
Australian uranium if it was available?

FRANCOIS DESCOUEYTE: Oh certainly. Since we have a big number of
nuclear plants, we need uranium and we have the facilities to
enrich it and to, you know, the enrichment in the case of
civilian use is only to 3.5 persons, so it's not a big, a very
highly enriched uranium of course, but I think they would be
interested, depending on the price, and I think this is
discussed on a commercial basis.

JOSIE TAYLOR: But opponents of nuclear power say in the industry
rush for a piece of uranium action, safety's being forgotten.

DAVID SWEENEY: Australian uranium is inevitably radioactive
waste, and it also fuels weapons and waste, that is the source
material for nuclear weapons, the source material for
radioactive waste. 

We're saying very clearly, that in an insecure world, in a world
with significant security threats, in a world with significant
terrorism threats, we don't need to be increasing the amounts of
dangerous fissile radioactive material.

ELEANOR HALL: David Sweeney from the Australian Conservation
Foundation, speaking to Josie Taylor.   

*****************************************************************
 38 AU ABC: Mining council welcomes SA Labor stance on uranium. 

12/10/2005. ABC News Online

The Northern Territory Minerals Council says it welcomes the
South Australian Labor Party's confirmation of its policy to
block new uranium mines in the state until 2010, as it may
benefit the Territory.

 The policy was endorsed at last week's ALP state conference and
it has led to the stocks of some explorers with interests in the
state to fall.

 The council's chief executive officer, Kezia Purick, says the
decision may encourage exploration companies to move to the
Territory.

 "If the South Australian Government is not being that
supportive of the exploration for uranium in that state, it may
be that we see some of the companies leaving South Australia to
take up new tenements in the Northern Territory," she said.

 "They may have interests in both places and look to expand
their interests in the Northern Territory where there is some
clarity and certainty." 

*****************************************************************
 39 asahi.com: Database for Asia to deal with hazardous waste

10/12/2005 The Asahi Shimbun

Japan intends to establish an Asia-wide database on the safe
disposal of radioactive waste to help countries in the region
upgrade the way they deal with such substances, officials said. 

The project is due to kick off next year. How China and India
deal with radioactive waste is a major concern, officials said. 

With its accumulated expertise in disposing of waste material
from nuclear power plants and radioisotope used in medical
therapy and biological research, Japan expects to play a leading
role in sharing information on control systems and personnel
training programs, the officials said. 

Kenkichi Hirose, director-general of the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency (NISA), an arm of the Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry, made the proposal at a meeting in Tokyo of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that ended Oct. 7. 

As an initial step, a special working group in charge of
disposing of radioactive waste would be set up within the IAEA's
Asian Nuclear Safety Network, a regional grouping devoted to the
safe use of atomic energy, officials said. 

Tomihiro Taniguchi, IAEA's deputy director-general and head of
the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, said, "As
construction of nuclear power plants picks up across Asia,
particularly in China and India, Japan's leadership is
increasingly being sought (to help in such matters)." 

China and South Korea are expected to join the network, along
with other countries that have nuclear power plants. 

In addition, five countries in Southeast Asia that have nuclear
power plants on the drawing board are expected to join. They
include Indonesia and Vietnam, the officials said. 

India and Pakistan have expressed interest in the project, they
added. 

The database will offer information on how Japan and South
Korea, as well as the United States and countries in Europe,
dispose of contaminated materials such as low-level nuclear
waste and radioisotope material, the officials said. 

The database will offer comprehensive information on all
problems associated with waste disposal, the officials said. In
this regard, experts would be dispatched to help out when
problems arise, the officials added. 

Several Asian countries have plans to build nuclear power
plants, according to the Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia,
a body that was commissioned by the Atomic Energy Society of
Japan. 

For example, even though Indonesia is a major oil exporter it
plans to use nuclear power to generate electricity in 2016. 

Indonesia is keen to develop alternative energy resources
because oil is a valuable raw material for chemical products as
well as being a primary revenue source. 

Vietnam, meantime, intends to generate about 2 million kilowatts
of electricity through nuclear power by around 2020. 

As for China, which is in the grip of heady economic expansion,
Beijing aims to build an additional 30 nuclear power plants over
the next 15 years. It currently has nine power plants and two
more under construction.(IHT/Asahi: October 12,2005) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  
*****************************************************************
 40 Japan Times: U.N. resolution stresses NPT

  Thursday, October 13, 2005   
  
 Japan's annual draft has stronger disarmament message


Japan on Wednesday submitted a revised nuclear disarmament draft
resolution to the United Nations that underscores the importance
of an effective framework for the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.

 The new draft, submitted to the First Committee of the General
Assembly, declares a renewed determination to call on all
nuclear powers to reduce their nuclear arms in an irreversible,
verifiable and transparent manner and eventually completely
eliminate such weapons.

 Japan has submitted draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament to
the General Assembly annually since 1994. Amendments are made
annually, but this is the first time in five years the draft has
been comprehensively revised.

 The latest is titled "Renewed Determination toward the Total
Elimination of Nuclear Weapons" after being called "A Path to
the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons" for the past five
years.

 "The new draft resolution sends a stronger message to take
practical steps toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation
as it comes at a very opportune time, with this year marking the
60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki," a Foreign Ministry official said.

 The official said the document also aims to convey a feeling of
"regret" that there was no agreement at the 2005 NPT Review
Conference in May in New York and that references to nuclear
disarmament and nonproliferation were eliminated from the final
document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General
Assembly in September.

 While lamenting the collapse of the NPT talks, this year's
draft resolution says the meeting's failure does not negate the
NPT framework and "stresses the importance of an effective NPT
review process."

 The statement encourages the NPT parties to take further steps
toward nuclear disarmament, including "deeper reductions in all
types of nuclear weapons" and calls on the United States and
Russia to reduce their weapons beyond what is stated in their
bilateral Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions.

 As for parties that have not signed the NPT, the current draft
resolution urges them to refrain from actions that would defeat
the purpose and objectives of the NPT.

 The draft calls on nations to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty to facilitate its early entry into force, continue
moratoriums on nuclear testing and immediately begin
negotiations on a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

 According to the draft, it is vital to continue
nonproliferation efforts, including making an additional
protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency universal and
fully implementing a U.N. Security Council resolution on
nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction adopted last
year.

 The additional IAEA protocol, formulated to reinforce the
nuclear energy watchdog's safeguards in the light of its failure
to discover secret nuclear-weapons development programs in Iraq
and North Korea in the 1990s, authorizes the agency to inspect
facilities for secret nuclear programs or banned weapons
activities.

 Last year's resolution was adopted at the General Assembly with
the support of 165 countries, with three countries -- the United
States, India and Palau -- opposed.

 It remains unclear, though, how much impact this year's
resolution will actually have on facilitating disarmament
diplomacy because Washington opposes ratification of the CTBT.

 The Japan Times: Oct. 13, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 41 Japan Times: Nobel prize for fighting proliferation

  Thursday, October 13, 2005   
  
EDITORIAL

Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the nuclear watchdog agency that he leads, are the
winners of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. The award underscores the
critical significance of the work done by Mr. ElBaradei and the
IAEA. But given the events of the last year, it is plain that
the recognition is for the effort that has been made by the
recipients, rather than the results of their work -- and to
remind the world that the IAEA chief, and the agency itself, are
increasingly vital components of the international security
order.

 Founded in 1957, the IAEA is part of the United Nations system.
The agency is tasked with ensuring that the bargain in the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the provision of
nuclear technology to signatories in exchange for giving up the
right to nuclear weapons -- is honored. Throughout most of its
history, its employees have labored in obscurity, focusing on
technical work, usually inspections. That low profile ended in
the 1990s, when the invasion of Iraq uncovered an advanced
nuclear-weapons development program and North Korea brought the
world to the brink of war with revelations about its own
clandestine nuclear-weapons efforts.

 Since then, the prospect of nuclear proliferation has loomed
ever larger and the loopholes in the NPT have become
increasingly clear. Efforts to close them have provoked
political firestorms among IAEA members and within the agency
itself. One of the most notable clashes has been between the
United States and Mr. ElBaradei over Iraq. The IAEA head
maintained that Baghdad did not have the nuclear-weapons
programs that justified the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. The
subsequent discovery that he was right, and Washington wrong,
did not help soothe tensions between the two. The U.S. bitterly
opposed Mr. ElBaradei when he ran for a third term in office --
even though it had engineered his initial appointment as
director general eight years ago -- until it become clear that
he would be re-elected.

 The Nobel Committee commended Mr. ElBaradei for being "an
afraid advocate . . . at a time when disarmament efforts appear
deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread
both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power
again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role."
The committee denied that the award was intended to slight the
U.S.; a committee chairman once revealed that giving the 2002
Peace Prize to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was "a kick in
the leg" to U.S. President George W. Bush. In fact, the prize
has regularly gone to organizations working to halt the spread
of nuclear weapons: 20 years ago, the recipient was
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; a
decade later, Dr. Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on
Science and World Affairs won.

 Mr. ElBaradei said the award will strengthen his resolve. He
will need it. The world faces growing numbers of nuclear
challenges. Negotiations with North Korea to dismantle its
nuclear-weapons programs have shown some movement in recent
weeks, but progress is relative -- and always uncertain -- when
dealing with Pyongyang. Efforts to head off Iran's nuclear
ambitions appear to have deadlocked and may yet result in a
diplomatic showdown at the U.N. Security Council. The
investigation into the nuclear black market run by Pakistan's
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan continues, and it is likely to show that
all three of those efforts are related. Each demonstrates the
fragility of the international nonproliferation order and the
need for more concerted efforts to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons.

 The primary obstacle is apathy. During the Cold War, the world
was sensitized to the threat of nuclear weapons, but the danger
then was the prospect of a nuclear holocaust triggered by a
superpower confrontation. Today that threat has diminished --
although it has not disappeared -- but the danger that a nuclear
device will be used against civilians has increased. The
breaching of the nuclear wall by India and Pakistan has
contributed to the erosion of the taboo against nuclear
proliferation. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of
nuclear materials around the world, much of it unsecured, and
terrorist groups determined to acquire them to build weapons for
their own purposes. And yet as the threat has mounted, the
nations of the world could not come to an agreement this year at
the NPT Review Conference, which instead broke up in acrimony.

 The award to Mr. Elbaradei and the IAEA is intended as a wakeup
call. It is a reminder that the nuclear shadow is lengthening.
It is still only moments before midnight on the nuclear clock.
Efforts to push nuclear nonproliferation must be rejuvenated --
and they should serve as a step toward the eventual elimination
of all nuclear arsenals.

 The Japan Times: Oct. 13, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 42 New Scientist: Nuclear peace 

[NewScientist.com]                      

13 October 2005                         

ALFRED NOBEL invented dynamite and created the Nobel peace
prize. The irony inherent in this was highlighted when the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director,
Mohamed ElBaradei, were jointly awarded the Nobel prize for
peace on 7 October. 	 

The IAEA's brief is to encourage "atoms for peace" and
discourage "atoms for war". It has not always been easy. In
recent months, for instance, the Bush administration tried to
get ElBaradei sacked for not being tougher on Iran's nuclear
programme. 	 

Now the peace prize has vindicated the IAEA's diplomatic
initiatives. "At a time when disarmament efforts appear
deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread
both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power
again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role,
the IAEA's work is of incalculable importance," the Norwegian
Nobel committee said. 	 

The committee made "an excellent choice", says nuclear expert
Morten Bremer Maerli, of Oslo's Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs. "The challenge now is to establish a
firebreak between civil and military nuclear technology." 	

*****************************************************************
 43 The State: DuPont, Fluor join forces to manage SRS
 
 10/12/2
 
The two companies are vying for a $7.5 billion, five-year
management deal

 By JIM DuPLESSIS

 Staff Writer

 

Chemicals maker DuPont and construction contractor Fluor have
forged an alliance to seek the management contract for the U.S.
Department of Energys Savannah River Site. 

If successful, DuPont would be returning to the site it built in
1950 and managed for 39 years. Fluor, meanwhile, would be
building on its experience managing nuclear cleanup in Ohio and
Washington. 

The site manager would oversee a contract worth about $7.5
billion over five years. 

About 11,000 people work at Savannah River Site, protecting or
cleaning up decades of waste from highly radioactive nuclear
materials used for the militarys nuclear weapons arsenal during
the Cold War. 

DuPont has expertise in science but has been out of the nuclear
business for 16 years. Fluor, primarily a construction company,
has been managing nuclear cleanup for nine years at the Energy
Departments Hanford site in eastern Washington and more than 10
years at its Fernald site in Ohio. 

The Fernald cleanup is expected to be completed next year. We
would love to redeploy some of our expertise at the Savannah
River site, said Lisa Boyette, a spokeswoman at Fluors
headquarters in Irvine, Calif. 

The DuPont-Fluor team would face competition at least from the
current site manager, the Washington Group, which has indicated
an interest in continuing after its existing contract expires by
the end of 2006. 

We feel very confident in our ability to win this, said Jack
Herrmann, a Washington Group spokesman in Aiken. 

Fluor has nearly 2,000 employees in Greenville, including 300
with its government contracts group. Fluor worked closely with
DuPont for decades. 

DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., began building the Savannah
River complex at the request of President Harry Truman in 1950
and operated it at cost until 1989. 

Westinghouse Electric Co. won the first for-profit management
contract, and operated at the site until the company disbanded
in the 1990s. 

Washington Group, based in Boise, Idaho, became the sites
manager after it bought the former Westinghouses government
contracts group in 1999. The contract has averaged about $1.7
billion a year for the past five years.   

TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
 44 The State: Encouraging signs in states effort on hydrogen power
 
 10/12/2
 
RECENT EVENTS IN South Carolinas exploration of building an
economic nucleus around hydrogen as a power source show that the
state is forging ahead on several fronts  despite one setback. 

Those involved hope that the setback is a temporary one. The
Savannah River Site was passed over as one of two locations for
new nuclear power reactors, the first to be built in two
decades. A small research reactor alongside the power plant
would have offered a place to try to generate hydrogen cleanly
in the proper form to power fuel cells  a way to break the
cycle of fossil fuel use that the world now is locked into. But
those involved in the project, including Rep. Gresham Barrett,
believe SRS still offers a likely early site for nuclear plant
construction, even if it wont be among the first two sites.
Given the nations concerns over energy supplies and global
warming, its time for America to invest more in nuclear power.
An SRS plant could also help the states hydrogen efforts. 

So much for the setback. On to the good news. Last week, South
Carolina learned of another major corporation taking an interest
in the states potential: General Motors. The largest U.S.
automaker is investing in the research being done at the
Savannah River National Laboratory on storing hydrogen for use
in fuel cells. That interests GM for the same reason it does
another recent investor, Toyota. Unlocking how to store hydrogen
safely and conveniently is one barrier that must be breached
before hydrogen can begin to supplant petroleum products in
powering the worlds vehicles. This is another sign the
hydrogen initiative in South Carolina is gathering momentum and
attention worldwide, said U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis. 

Not all that momentum is coming from big corporations. If South
Carolinas hydrogen effort is to thrive, homegrown start-up
companies must take the ideas developed by the states research
hubs and try to bring them to the marketplace. So its
encouraging to see several local start-ups launch hydrogen
projects. The efforts cover everything from ways to store
hydrogen to software for testing fuel cells. These projects are
the beginnings of an effort to turn the states hydrogen
research knowledge into an economic force. South Carolinians
should hope to see many more steps in that direction in the
months to come. 

South Carolina needs more such efforts, big and small, to turn
ideas into commercial ventures. Two independent studies of the
states hydrogen potential noted our research strengths, but
said theres little activity yet in bringing findings to the
market. Other states, with corporate headquarters located in
them and more government cash to lavish on projects, could get
the economic benefits that hydrogen is likely to offer, unless
South Carolina can push more of its ideas into the marketplace.
Recent efforts are encouraging, but theres much more to do.   

*****************************************************************
 45 Santa Fe New Mexican: DOE finds drilling may have affected water tests        

Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:12 pm                                                                                                       

The Associated Press |          

LOS ALAMOS  A federal auditor says additives used in drilling
test wells at Los Alamos National Laboratory could have masked
the presence of radioactive contaminants and compromised the
reliability of information on groundwater contamination. 

The Department of Energys inspector general, in a report last
Friday, concluded the labs methods might have been allowed
under the guidelines but did not meet environmental
requirements. 

The contamination in the groundwater beneath the laboratory is
a serious issue for the simple fact that it is not properly
monitored, said lab geologist Bob Gilkeson, an expert in
drilling methods to monitor lowlevel contaminants. 

Gilkeson took the matter to the inspector general because he
believes the laboratory, with the encouragement of the state
Environment Department, has installed wells that dont provide
accurate information. 

Los Alamos contested many of the inspector generals findings .
Its response is included in the report. 

Lab spokeswoman Kathy Delucas said the information was not new. 

We have been reporting on these in the quarterly review
meetings, she said. 

The Environment Department said it will ask the lab to report on 
which wells might have been impacted by drilling fluids and to 
prepare a plan addressing problems. 

Delucas said the laboratory has been working to correct any 
problems. She said it plans to rehabilitate wells and a pilot 
project for affected wells. 

The lab, under a consent agreement with the Environment 
Department, is required to monitor groundwater, and the test 
wells play a key role. The labs hydrogeological plan called for 
installing 32 regional wells to define the interplay of water 
flow and the geology of the Pajarito Plateau. 

The inspector general raised the issue of mud-rotary drilling , 
commonly used under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
that governs water quality. The procedure uses drilling fluids, 
foams and a water-absorbing clay to seal off and stabilize the 
open hole during well drilling. 

The inspector general pointed to drilling guidelines that caution 
that mud-rotary drilling creates a high potential for affecting 
aquifer characteristics and groundwater quality. It said there 
are guidelines to handle the problems, including purging 
contaminants introduced by drilling. 

The DOE, in its response, said the National Nuclear Security 
Administration believes each well was purged under the 
guidelines. 

But Gilkeson, formerly a consultant on the labs
water-monitoring program, said he does not believe the matter
has been resolved. 

He also said he pursued the issue because of efforts to
discredit his findings. 

Gilkeson prepared a report on groundwater contamination in a
regional aquifer that serves Los Alamos County. 

He presented it last year to a citizens advisory board chartered
to give public comment on environmental issues, the Environment
Department, the inspector general and Gov. Bill Richardson. 

I thought just bringing the problem to the attention of
responsible people would be the end of it, he said. 

The citizens-advisory group will hear a preliminary report today
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency researchers, who were
asked by the group to review the dispute. 

The board will get a full evaluation Nov. 30. 		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 							
Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights 

*****************************************************************
 46 westword.com: Rocky Flats is on trial. Finally.
                           
2005-10-13

By Patricia Calhoun

 Published: Thursday, October 13, 2005
 
        Letters to the Editor

	Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. 

By that count, the sixteen years these plaintiffs had waited for
their day in court was just a drop in the leaky bucket. But by
Tuesday morning, when opening arguments finally got under way in
the class-action suit of about 12,000 property owners against
Rockwell International and Dow Chemical, the two companies that
operated the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant for the federal
government from 1952 until 1989, the delay seemed endless. 

No one had thought this day would come. Not the lawyers who'd
seen postponement after postponement -- earning the Department
of Energy a contempt-of-court citation from U.S. District Judge
John Kane at one point. Not the activists who'd protested
against the plant producing plutonium triggers for decades. And
certainly not the original plaintiffs, neighbors of Rocky Flats
who'd started talking about suing the government shortly after
the FBI raided the plant on June 6, 1989 -- and they first
caught wind of what had really been going on there. And they
weren't the only ones stunned by the revelations. So was anyone
who might once have been interested in buying property now
tainted by both plutonium and bad publicity. 

Sally and Dick Bartlett bought their ten acres near Standley
Lake in 1978. Dick was a former mayor of Arvada and a realtor;
Sally was a nurse and a realtor, too. So they did their due
diligence on the property, had an engineer check the soil. And
when no one unearthed any problems, they sunk $500,000 into
improvements -- and then, after the raid, tried to sell it for
eleven years. 

Bill and Delores Schierkolk bought their three acres "with a
million-dollar view" in 1978. The more they learned about Rocky
Flats, they more they wanted to get out -- but they couldn't
afford to move after Bill lost his job in 1989. Instead, they
stopped gardening. 

Merilyn Cook set up a 72-acre horse property near Rocky Flats in
1983. When she couldn't get approval to develop, she divided it
into six parcels, sold two, and wound up losing all the others.
Lorren and Trudy Babb bought one of Cook's parcels. In 1990,
they sold it for a large loss. Lorren died before the case went
to court, but octogenarian Trudy was sitting in front. 

These plaintiffs -- representing the class of thousands who
owned property near Rocky Flats on June 7, 1989 -- listened
while Judge Kane went over his lengthy instructions with the
twelve jurors, most of whom hadn't been born when the Front
Range was awarded a nuclear-weapons plant back in 1951. (That
event merited a "Good News Today" headline in the Denver Post.)
"We're not off to an auspicious start," Kane confessed to the
jurors. "Not one, but two Xerox machines jammed." And that was
just in the process of copying his instructions. 

The technological breakdowns at Rocky Flats stretched back over
four decades and were far more dangerous. From the start, the
plant -- and so its neighbors -- has been plagued by four
problems: fire, waste storage, incineration and water runoff. 

"This case is about two companies that polluted an entire
neighborhood just north of Denver," attorney Merrill Davidoff
said in kicking off the plaintiffs' opening argument. "They lied
about it, and they covered it up for 37 years.... It was, and
still is, a huge coverup." 

It's astonishing how little Denverites knew about Rocky Flats
between the day it was built and the day it was raided; what's
more astonishing is how little we still know. How far does the
contamination really extend in Standley Lake and Great Western
Reservoir, which provided the water for the City of Broomfield
until exactly one day after the raid? Where are those missing
2,600 pounds of plutonium? 

"They knew at the beginning what they were doing," Davidoff said
of Rocky Flats and its operators. "And were still doing at the
time of the FBI raid." 

Dow, which was hired for the feds to run the new plant in 1952,
produced a memo that same year detailing how unsuitable the site
was: It was far too small, and the prevailing winds went exactly
the wrong way, directly toward Denver, sixteen miles to the
southeast. By 1955, the Atomic Energy Commission was warning of
the hazards of plutonium fires. Two years later, one hit. 

Here's how the plant reported the fire that had raged in 771, a
plutonium-processing building, for thirteen and a half hours on
September 11, 1957: "A small fire caused by spontaneous
combustion spread to the ventilation system of one of the
production buildings.…Tests made have indicated no spread of
radioactive contamination of consequence." 

In 2004, a scientist determined that people downwind from the
fire were "subjected to the highest risks of all the Rocky Flats
plant releases." 

Five safety steps were recommended in the wake of the 1957 fire.
None had been taken by May 11, 1969, when a fire on Mother's Day
threatened to contaminate all of Denver. 

Dow was gone by 1975, replaced by Rockwell. In 1986, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado Department of
Health and the DOE came up with a compliance agreement to govern
operations, ending all those technological problems. That was
the public story. In July of that year, an internal DOE memo
acknowledged the plant was "in poor condition generally in terms
of environmental compliance.... Much of the good press we have
gotten from the agreement in principle has taken attention away
from just how bad the site really is." 

But someone was paying attention. In 1987, working off
information provided by whistleblower Jim Stone, Denver-based
FBI agent Jon Lipsky started looking into Rocky Flats. Two years
later, he led the spectacular dawn raid on the plant -- the
first time one federal agency had raided a facility run by
another -- searching for evidence of environmental crimes.
Lipsky has been subpoenaed to testify at the trial, but he's
already talked at the State Capitol, a few days after he retired
from the FBI, describing how the Department of Justice cut a
deal with Rockwell, letting the company plead guilty to ten
counts and pay an $18.5 million fine (another drop in the leaky
bucket) rather than have any individuals -- at either Rockwell
or the DOE -- face charges. Wes McKinley, the foreman of the
grand jury whose work was stymied by that March 1992 settlement,
has also been subpoenaed to testify. So have a host of experts
on everything from pondcrete to infrared photos to property
values. 

In a few days, the federal government will declare the $7
billion cleanup of Rocky Flats complete, paving the way for its
debut as a wildlife refuge. Meanwhile, the dirty little secrets
will continue to spill out in Judge Kane's courtroom. 

The Rights Stuff 

Long before the plaintiffs in the current Rocky Flats case filed
suit, Marcus Church took action. His family had settled on a
large tract of property northwest of the young town of Denver in
1861; ninety years later, the feds decided to put a new
nuclear-weapons plant on 6,500 scenic acres owned by Church. But
he still had plenty of land around the facility, and in 1975,
after Jefferson County refused to allow some of the plant's
neighbors to develop their property -- primarily out of concern
over plutonium contamination -- Church and two others sued
Rockwell International, Dow Chemical and the Department of
Energy, claiming that the 1969 fire and other problems at Rocky
Flats had damaged their land beyond repair. 

Which sounds pretty close to what neighbors in the class-action
suit are now claiming in Judge John Kane's courtroom. 

Ten years after Church and company filed suit, the government
arrived at a complicated settlement deal. DOE agreed to pay
about $9 million to the landowners (who had to return all
confidential documents received during discovery), and Jeffco
and the City of Broomfield purchased 800 acres of the affected
property for $2 million -- half its appraised value -- to be
used as "open space." 

The Church case came up -- very briefly -- at Tuesday's opening
arguments. In mentioning that suit, plaintiffs' attorney Louise
Roselle noted that "the defendants have already paid." That
prompted a fast objection by defense attorney David Bernick, who
said the case had involved a separate legal action. 

An action that could wind up compensating those plaintiffs
twice. 

"The purpose for the lawsuit was to get our land back," Charles
McKay, the nephew of Marcus Church, told Westword in 1987. "Our
basic intention was to have the federal judge bless the land." 

Twenty years later, he wouldn't mind having Congress do the
same. As Church's heir (his uncle passed away in 1979), he
collected about $6.8 million of the settlement. And now McKay, a
major Republican supporter, stands to pocket at least that much
from another deal proposed last July by Senator Wayne Allard,
which would set aside $10 million to acquire "essential mineral
rights" under about 500 acres at Rocky Flats. Rights that McKay
still holds, despite the fact that he's already been compensated
by the government that damaged his land, a government that later
decided to turn the contaminated property near that land -- and
above those minerals -- into a wildlife refuge. 

In August, Democratic congressman Mark Udall, whose district
includes Rocky Flats, wrote DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman and
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, requesting information on
how they'd determined which mineral-rights holders would be
reimbursed. On Tuesday, after congressman Bob Beauprez had
already introduced Allard's proposal in the House, Udall was
still waiting for a reply. 

But then, it's never been easy to get the government to come
clean about Rocky Flats. 	

©2005 New TimesAll rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 47 lamonitor.com: ABQ company wins WIPP oversight contract 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 


CARLSBAD (AP) - An Albuquerque company, working with a Maryland
research institute, has won a U.S. Department of Energy contract
to independently review the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the
federal government's nuclear waste dump near Carlsbad.

The one-year contract with Pecos Management Services Inc. went
into effect Friday. It can be renewed each year for four
additional years. The DOE said it is worth about $4.5 million
over five years. 
Pecos Management has teamed with the Institute for Regulatory
Science of Columbia, Md., to form the Alliance for Research,
Evaluation, and Advancement of WIPP Environmental Science and
Technology, or AREA WEST.

The team will provide independent reviews and evaluations of the
design, construction and operations of WIPP as they relate to
protecting the public health, safety and the environment. 

The group that played a key role for years in independently
evaluating WIPP, the Environmental Evaluation Group, shut down
more than a year ago after the DOE cut its funding. That
independent watchdog had operated since 1978.

Funds for a new oversight contract were included in the 2005
federal budget. 
The state Environment Department announced last November that it
was beefing up its oversight of the repository after drums of
radioactive waste that violated a federal directive were shipped
to WIPP. The state reopened an office that had been closed since
1996.

WIPP, which opened in March 1999 after 25 years of planning,
buries plutonium-contaminated material from the nation's defense
work some 2,150 feet underground in vast, ancient salt beds. 
  

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 48 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats story 'complicated,' lawyer says

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News

October 12, 2005

The true story of Rocky Flats isn't the easy stuff of Hollywood
movies but the complicated saga of two companies working on
weapons crucial to the national defense, a lawyer for the
companies told a federal jury Wednesday. 

"Nobody's going to say that a perfect job was done at Rocky
Flats," David Bernick of Chicago, attorney for Dow Chemical 
Co.and Rockwell International Corp., said of the 37 years that 
the two companies operated the nuclear weapons plant 16 miles 
northwest of downtown Denver. 

 But he said the story presented by plaintiffs' lawyers —
"government secrecy, hazardous materials, uncaring corporations,
innocent victims" — in the $500 million class action lawsuit
against the two companies isn't accurate. 

Bernick said releases of radioactive plutonium from the Rocky
Flats site amounted to half the size of a dime, spread over a
16-square-mile neighborhood, and exposed neighborhood residents
to a radiation dose of less than .2 millirem. One millirem is
about the radiation dose anyone gets from a chest x-ray or a
flight from Denver to Los Angeles. 

A radiation dose of .2 millirem translates to a cancer risk of
.8 cases in one million people, Bernick said. By contrast, he
said, the risk of cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke is
about one case in a thousand people. 

The trial, expected to last nearly to Christmas, will not be in
session Thursday but will resume Friday before Colorado U.S.
District Judge John Kane.  

© Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
 49 Rocky Mountain News: Flats jury told 'lies continue'

Plaintiffs' lawyers: Operators routinely downplayed perils

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
October 12, 2005

Operators of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant lied to the
public about dangers at the plant for decades and still haven't
come clean, lawyers for thousands of plant neighbors told a
federal jury Tuesday. 

"Half-truths, lies and distortions . . . continue up to and
including the present," attorney Merrill Davidoff of
Philadelphia said as the neighbors' $500 million class-action
trial got under way 15 years after they filed their lawsuit. 

 The neighbors' lawyers opened their case before a courtroom
full of plaintiffs and law students, who gathered to observe the
trial, which is expected to last nearly to Christmas. 

Besides covering up accidents, mishandling toxic waste, leaks of
radioactive and other toxic materials and other errors, Davidoff
said former operators Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell
International, and the U.S. Department of Energy that employed
them, still refuse to account publicly for 2,600 pounds of
radioactive plutonium that went missing from Rocky Flats during
the 37 years the plant made nuclear weapons. 

Lawyers for Dow and Rockwell will present their opening
statements to the jury today. 

The neighbors, who owned property within 25 square miles east of
Rocky Flats when the FBI raided the plant in June 1989, contend
that releases of plutonium diminished the value of their
properties. 

The Rocky Flats plant, built 16 miles northwest of downtown
Denver in the early 1950s, closed in 1989. The site is to become
a wildlife refuge. 

"These two companies polluted an entire neighborhood just
northwest of Denver with plutonium and other dangerous
substances," Davidoff said. "They lied about it, and they
covered it up for 37 years." 

Rockwell pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental
crimes and paid an $18.5 million fine. 

Davidoff told the jurors that the nuclear weapons factory
originally was known as the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant.
After the FBI raided it, it was renamed the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site. 

Still later, it became the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge,
"where they're going to try to promote the myth that it's safe
for animals and children to romp and play," Davidoff said. 

The truth, he said, is that only the top six feet of soil at
Rocky Flats must be cleansed of plutonium to meet safety
standards. Below six feet - a depth he said the many prairie
dogs at Rocky Flats may reach - any amount of plutonium is
allowed. 

Although most plutonium has been cleansed from the surface and
upper soil levels at Rocky Flats, none has been removed from the
neighborhood where the plaintiffs owned property, Davidoff said. 

The seven named plaintiffs in the neighbors' class-action case
include Richard and Sally Bartlett, who bought 10 acres of land
near Stanley Lake in 1978. Their study of the land before buying
it included discussing soil samples with an engineer. 

Richard Bartlett is a former mayor of Arvada. 

The Bartletts built a house on the property and two barns for
their horse business. When they decided to sell in the late
1980s, they found no buyers. It took them 11 years to sell the
property, Davidoff said. 

Another married couple among the named plaintiffs, William and
Delores Schierkolk, bought a house with a beautiful view on
three acres in the neighborhood. William Schierkolk worked for
27 years as a mechanic for International Harvester. After he was
laid off, with their property heavily mortgaged, the Schierkolks
could not afford to sell it. 

"They still live there, but they have been haunted by concerns
about Rocky Flats," Davidoff said. 

abbottk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5188  

© Rocky Mountain News
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************