*****************************************************************
10/23/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.246
*****************************************************************
   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 Currents Online: Journalist Dahr Jamail discusses Iraq
2 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North might accept monitors
3 Daily Yomiuri: 'DPRK won't set conditions on 6-way talks' 
4 BBC: US politician praises North Korea
5 Xinhua: Six-party talks may resume in early November   
6 AFP: US blacklists eight NKorea entities over WMD proliferation
7 AFP: US team says N.Korea shows signs of transparency 
8 Guardian Unlimited: China's President to Visit North Korea
9 FT.com: Washington week ahead: Nuclear talks top agenda
10 Economist.com: Diplomacy and proliferation | Nuclear confusion | 
11 US: washingtonpost.com: Early Warning 
12 HindustanTimes.com: IAEA vote, N-deal shouldn't be linked - BJP
13 Daily Yomiuri: Japan to join intl N-fuel program 
14 AU GL: Don't nuke the climate'
15 Deccan Herald: Loose ends in nuke deal needs fixing - Natwar   
16 asahi.com: Asia: China's defense chief tells U.S. to loosen up
17 AFP: No letup in concerns over China's military buildup - US experts
18 Indiatimes: No snag in India nuke talks - US
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
19 US: NRC: NRC Issues Draft Environmental Report for Nine Mile Point 	
20 US: FT.com: Wind of change in US blows dust off nuclear facilities 
21 US: NRC: NRC Issues Safety Evaluation for Grand Gulf Early Site Perm
22 US: Portsmouth Herald Local News: Seabrook wants nuke drill reimburs
23 US: Burlington Free Press: NRC completes Vermont Yankee report
24 Independent: EEF calls for scrapping of renewables scheme 
25 IRNA: Over 150 nuclear reactors in operation in Europe 
26 London Times: The manufacturers want the Government to: 
27 US: Arizona Republic: Palo Verde nuke plant fires up pair of reactor
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
28 US: DAILY NEWS: FDNY chief: We're training for nukes 
29 Independent: Insurers balk at 'dirty bombs' payouts 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
30 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Safety concerns with resumption of uranium
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
31 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: It's just a matter of time 
32 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Hal Rothman: The center works for us 
33 Independent: Serco in nuclear clean up bid 
34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: NRC reconsiders dangers of depleted uranium 
35 People's Daily: Belarus protests Lithuania's plan to store radioacti
36 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium miner plans for ban end - Queensland - 
37 US: AU ABC: Green groups cast doubt over uranium inquiry. 
38 US: CNIC: Japanese uranium contaminated soil arrives in Seattle
39 Las Vegas SUN: Long Yucca fight frustrates both side 
40 Las Vegas SUN: Rail ban could increase danger 
41 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Greens set to challenge Envirocare 
 
                           PEACE
 
42 Al-Jazeerah: Mordechai Vanunu Interviewed By Hesham Tillawi 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
43 Tennessean: Atomic bomb sites may become parks - 
44 TheDenverChannel.com: Former Rocky Flats Operators Try To Prevent 
45 Bizwomen: Rocky Flats job isn't over for CEO 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Currents Online: Journalist Dahr Jamail discusses Iraq

http://currents.ucsc.edu

Oct. 24-30, 2005 Vol. 10, No. 11 

Maintained by pioweb@ucsc.edu                                            

By Jennifer McNulty

Journalist Dahr Jamail chose his words carefully when trying to
answer a young boy's question about the U.S. bombing of
Fallujah. 				

 
  [Journalist Dahr Jamail] 
Cowell Collge provost Deanna Shemek joins Dahr Jamail as he
meets with audience members following his talk.
 Photo: Jennifer McNulty   

"The military has to follow orders from above," said Jamail, one
of few independent U.S. journalists covering the war in Iraq,
who spoke to a capacity crowd at the UCSC Music Recital Hall on
Oct. 19. "Even when their own commanders don't agree with the
orders, the military has to follow orders. They are being put in
horrible circumstances, where horrible things are happening to
them, and they are doing horrible things." 

A special correspondent for Flashpoints, the BBC, Democracy Now,
and other media outlets, Jamail doesn't often field questions
from 8-year-olds. But he has spent eight months in occupied
Iraq, chronicling what he called the "failed policy" of the
White House, and his audience was spellbound throughout his
90-minute slide show presentation. 

Fallujah is a "microcosm" of the war, he said.  

"At the time of the invasion, Fallujah welcomed the Americans,"
said Jamail. But three weeks later, when U.S. forces occupied an
elementary school, residents protested. Classes were scheduled
to begin the next day, and they wanted their children to be able
to attend school, he said. The protest was met by gunfire, and
17 people were killed, according to Jamail. 

That day marked the birth of the resistance movement in
Fallujah, but hostilities escalated steadily as the military
brought in U.S. contractors--"I prefer to call them mercenaries,
because that's what they are," added Jamail--because they are
not bound by military rules of engagement. "They conduct covert
operations and assassinations," he said. "They literally raped
and pillaged." 

The first U.S. siege of Fallujah took place in April 2004
following the widely reported gruesome slaying of four
contractors, whose remains were hung from a bridge. Even then,
according to Jamail, U.S. military leaders didn't want to seize
the city. 

"They wanted to work on reconstruction and try to earn the trust
of the Iraqis," he said, noting that it was the White House that
issued a direct order for the siege. The failure of that attack
led to the November 2004 siege, during which 4,000 civilians
were killed. It constituted the most intense urban fighting of
the war, said Jamail. 

As part of his presentation, Jamail screened a new independent
film, Caught in the Crossfire: The Untold Story of Falluja.The
film's footage of the suffering of displaced residents and the
decimation of the city, 60 percent of which was bombed to the
ground by U.S. forces last November, had prompted the young
boy's query. 

Today, U.S. commanders in Iraq compare battling Iraqi resistance
to stepping on a half-filled water balloon, said Jamail, "You
step on one part, and it squeezes out the other side." 

The U.S. media is ignoring the story of civilian suffering in
Iraq, said Jamail, who blamed poor coverage on corporate
ownership of the media, reporters who try to cover the war from
their hotels, and the Pentagon's efforts to avoid a repeat of
the Vietnam  War, when horrific images on the nightly news
eroded public support for the war. 

One of the most "undertold" stories of the war is the widespread
use of depleted uranium in bullets, missiles, and bombs. Spent
artillery is leaving a legacy of radioactive dust across Iraq,
said Jamail, noting that more than 1,200 tons of
uranium-enriched artillery have been used in Iraq so far--three
times the amount used in the 1991 Gulf War. Depleted uranium has
been identified as "a main component" of Gulf War Syndrome, and
leukemia rates in Iraq among children aged 1 to 5 increased 26
times between 1990 and 2003. 

Jamail cited a U.S. Army survey that found 56 percent of units
currently in Iraq have low or very low morale, and a report by
the Army's Surgeon General said that 30 percent of U.S. military
personnel have reported mental health problems within three
months of returning from Iraq. "My intent is not to demonize
soldiers," said Jamail. "They are victims of failed policies as
much as the Iraqi civilians. Anyone, anywhere, any time, could
attack them. Overall, they've been put in the middle of a very
bad situation." 

Jamail also discussed his invited testimonybefore the World
Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) in June, describing the rampant torture
of detainees, the catastrophic state of the health care system
in Iraq, and a summary of conditions "on the ground" after two
and a half years of the occupation. The WTI is a worldwide
network of local groups and individuals opposed to the war. 

Among the highlights of his testimony: 

 Abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison are the "tip of the iceberg," with
torture common in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and third-country
dungeons. 

 U.S. medics, doctors, and nurses are complicit in torture of
detainees. 

 Hospitals face critical shortages of medicine, supplies, and
equipment, and requests are being ignored. One hospital director
said his facility receives only 15 percent of the water needed
for basic sterilization. 

 Hospital raids by U.S. military forces that prevent doctors
from providing care now appear to be "standard operating
procedure." 

 Iraqis regularly endure long lines to purchase gasoline,
sometimes waiting for two days. 

 Electricity in much of the country is available for only three
hours a day, and even the "best areas" of Baghdad receive
electricity for only six to eight hours a day. 

 Unemployment has reached 70 percent. 

 Clean water is scarce, raw sewage is common, and water-born
diseases, including diarrhea, typhoid, cholera, and hepatitis
pose a growing threat to public health. 

Among the many sponsors of Jamail's appearance were Cowell
provosts Deanna Shemek and Tyrus Miller, the Center for Cultural
Studies, the Politics Department, the Women's Center, and
Colleges Nine and Ten. 

*****************************************************************
 2 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North might accept monitors

Octorber 24, 2005 KST 

  October 24, 2005 ¤Ñ North Korea seems willing to allow another
country to participate in the management of its nuclear
material, according to a U.S. delegation recently returned from
Pyongyang.

 The move would be intended to allay suspicious among the
international community over North Korea's nuclear programs.

 Speaking at the Seoul Foreign Correspondents' Club on Saturday,
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a long-time
point of contact between Washington and Pyongyang, said the
North Koreans told his delegation that they would return to the
six-nation nuclear disarmament talks in the first week of
November as promised. His speech was covered by both the
domestic and international media. 

Pyongyang also appeared willing to ease international concerns
that the provision of a light-water reactor would allow the
country to continue arms development. "They stated they would be
prepared to have the U.S. or any of the countries in the
six-party talks participate in the fuel cycle on the front or
back end," Mr. Richardson was quoted in Yonhap and Reuters
reports.

 The fuel cycle refers to the handling of a range of nuclear
materials, not only for power plants but also for atomic
weapons. To meet Pyongyang's demands, Seoul, Beijing,
Washington, Tokyo and Moscow agreed during the latest round of
six-nation talks that the provision of a light-water reactor
would be discussed at an appropriate time in return for North
Korea dismantling its nuclear program. 

by Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 3 Daily Yomiuri: 'DPRK won't set conditions on 6-way talks' 

Cameron McLauchlan Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer 

Senior North Korean government officials have said Pyongyang
will attend without preconditions six-party talks on its nuclear
programs scheduled to be held in early November, New Mexico Gov.
Bill Richardson said Friday. 

"North Korea will return to the talks in early November,
unconditionally. The next round of talks will be in Beijing,"
said Richardson, who visited North Korea for four days this
week. "Early November, probably the latter part of the first
week." 

However, he warned against expecting any swift developments at
the upcoming talks. "We shouldn't expect an agreement in the
next round, but there will be measurable progress that might
lead to a future agreement," he said. 

Richardson said the North Korean officials also reaffirmed their
commitment to rejoining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
to adhere to the safeguards set out by the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The North Koreans also
said they would invite IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei
to hold discussions regarding the resumption of nuclear
inspections "at the appropriate time." 

Speaking at a press conference in Tokyo, Richardson said the
North Korean officials "were very specific to me that they were
prepared to dismantle all their nuclear weapons, consistent with
the statement of principles [agreed on at the last round of
six-way talks]." 

"But clearly, we need a very strong regime of
verification...I'll leave that to the negotiators," he added. 

Richardson said the officials he met with included North Korea's
No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the
Supreme People's Assembly, and Kang Sok Ju, the top foreign
policy adviser to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. The
delegation also toured the Yongbyon nuclear facility and was
given a full briefing by its director. 

During "frank, constructive and candid" talks, Richardson said
the North Koreans showed "flexibility" by stating a willingness
to allow outside parties--whether the IAEA or other countries at
the six-party talks--to oversee the provision of fuel and
operation of a light water reactor, which Pyongyang has demanded
should be provided before it abandons its nuclear programs.
Washington and Tokyo have rejected this demand. 

Regarding Japan-North Korea ties, Richardson said Pyongyang
"expressed a willingness to resume bilateral talks to discuss
the normalization of relations in accordance with the Pyongyang
Declaration of 2002." 

He also said North Korea was prepared to resume talks to discuss
the DNA analysis of the remains of Japanese abducted by
Pyongyang agents years ago. Tokyo claims the remains handed over
by North Korea that supposedly were those of Megumi Yokota, who
was abducted in 1977, are those of two other people. 

"I believe it was a positive signal sent to Japan on the
abduction issue," he said. 

During his talks, Richardson also was told that North Korea
would not expel humanitarian aid workers from the country at the
end of the year as Pyongyang had earlier announced. Instead, a
"modestly" reduced humanitarian presence would be permitted to
remain. 

Although he was not an official envoy for the administration of
U.S. President George W. Bush, Richardson said the objective of
his delegations's trip was to reinforce the policy of "engaging
the North Koreans through diplomacy and having face-to-face
bilateral talks." 

"I believe they are sending signals of wanting to engage, but
there are some tough negotiations ahead," he said. (Oct. 22,
2005) 

  + THE YOMIURI SHIMBUN
 Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: US politician praises North Korea
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 22 October 2005
 
[Yongbyon plant, North Korea]                           

Mr Richardson was allowed to tour Yongbyon nuclear plant                                                          

North Korea is committed to dismantling its nuclear weapons 
programme, an unofficial US envoy has said, after a visit to the 
capital Pyongyang. 

Bill Richardson said he was "very pleased" with North Korea's 
willingness to make progress in six-nation talks. 

Pyongyang has already pledged to abandon its nuclear weapons in 
an earlier round of the talks. 

Mr Richardson, former US ambassador at the UN, said North Korea 
now wanted to focus on a civilian nuclear programme. 

"Their view is that what needs to be addressed is the light water 
reactor," he said. 

North Korea has said it will renounce its nuclear weapons in 
exchange for aid and security guarantees and foreign help in 
building a civilian nuclear programme. 

Mr Richardson said Pyongyang officials had indicated they may 
eventually allow US and other monitors into the country to ensure 
none of the spent fuel from a civilian reactor is diverted to 
weapons. 

'Show of transparency' 

Mr Richardson, the governor of the US state of New Mexico, spent 
several days meeting North Korean officials and touring their 
nuclear facilities last week. 

He later told the South Korean foreign minister that the North 
had indicated it was willing to comply with international 
non-proliferation treaties and to allow UN monitoring of its 
nuclear programme. 

"I was impressed with their tone, and their commitment to 
principles," he told reporters in the South Korean capital, 
Seoul. 

Mr Richardson said he had been allowed to tour a nuclear facility 
in Yongbyon, in an apparent "show of transparency" that "bodes 
well for six-party talks". 

The next round of talks - involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, 
the US and Russia - will be held in the first week of November, 
he said. 

"My view is that we should not expect an agreement in the next 
round," he said. "There will be measurable progress that might 
lead to a future agreement." 

Food aid 

The nuclear dispute with Pyongyang began in late 2002, when the 
US accused North Korea of having a uranium-based nuclear arms 
programme, in violation of international agreements. 

Separately, Mr Richardson said North Korea had told him UN food 
aid workers will be allowed to remain in the country, reversing 
an earlier threat to kick them out. 

In recent years, the UN and other international agencies have 
been feeding up to six million of the poorest and most vulnerable 
North Koreans. 

Mr Richardson said a new agreement could enable the UN's World 
Food Programme workers to stay on "under a renewed definition of 
what development aid is". 
*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: Six-party talks may resume in early November   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-23 10:34:27   

    BEIJING, Oct. 23 (Xinhuanet)-- The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) has promised to return to the fifth
round of six- party nuclear talks in early November
unconditionally, Bill Richardson, US governor of the New Mexico
State said on Saturday in Seoul. 

    Christopher Hill (R), U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and top U.S. negotiator for
the six-party talks, speaks to journalists before continuation
of talks in Beijing September 16, 2005. [Reuters] 

    Richardson, a former US ambassador to the United Nations,
led a 10-member delegation to the DPRK for a four-day trip
earlier this week and met with several senior DPRK officials. 

    "The trip was successful and the most important success was
the unconditional return commitment the North Koreans gave me,
to return to the six-party talks in early November," he was
quoted by South Korean Yonhap News Agency as saying at a press
conference held earlier in the day. 

    "North Koreans assured me that they will return probably in
the latter part of the first week of November," he said. 

    While, the DPRK side denied the existence of any uranium
enrichment program and facilities, said Richardson, adding "They
said they use natural uranium for fuel rods." 

    "The North Korean government allowed my delegation to visit
the Yongbyon military nuclear reactor. I believe that was a show
of transparency and it bodes well for the six-party talks that
will be coming up in Beijing," he said. 

    The US official also quoted DPRK officials as saying that
they would invite Director Mohamed ElBaradei and other
appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency's officials to
Pyongyang "at an appropriate time." 

    "I found North Koreans are in a positive mood towards the (
nuclear) talks," he said. "North Koreans stated they would abide
by the statement of principles where they dismantle, adhere to
IAEA safeguards and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
(Treaty). " 

    "They indicated that the important principles of words for
words and actions for actions would accompany any of the
initiatives they will take," he added. 

    On Sept. 19, delegations from China, the United States, the
DPRK, Russia, South Korea and Japan adopted a joint statement at
the end of the fourth round of the six-party talks aimed to
resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. 

    In the joint statement, the DPRK is committed to abandoning
" all nuclear weapons" and "existing nuclear programs" and
returning to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of Nuclear
Weapons and to the IAEA safeguards at an early date. 

    In return, the other five parties, namely, China, Japan,
South Korea, Russia and the United States, stated their
willingness to provide energy assistance to the DPRK in the
joint statement. 

    On the light water reactors (LWRs) issue, Richardson said
the DPRK showed "flexibility" on it. 

    The DPRK insists it will start abandoning nuclear weapons
program only after the US agrees to provide LWRs to the DPRK.
But Washington holds that the issue of LWRs can be discussed
after the DPRK fulfills the commitment it made at the fourth
round nuclear talks. 

    "They stated they will be prepared to have us or any other
six- way talk countries participate in fuel-cycle on the front
end and back end," Richardson was quoted by Yonhap as saying. 

    Asked to elaborate on the "front end and back end" issue,
Richardson said: "We found further flexibility that the US or
some combination of the six-way talks countries could bring in
the fuel for light-water reactor. At some point there was talk
on bringing in an American CEO to run the light-water reactor." 

    He also said the DPRK officials hinted the countries can
also take away spent fuel rods to ease the concern that the DPRK
may use it for development of nuclear weapons. 

    The US official flew to Seoul Friday night from Tokyo where
he also held press conference over his DPRK visit. He left here
for home earlier Saturday. Enditem   


  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US blacklists eight NKorea entities over WMD proliferation
found 

Sunday October 23, 12:18 PM 

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The United States has blacklisted eight 
North Korean entities as proliferators of weapons of mass 
destruction and froze whatever assets they have under US 
jurisdiction. 

The action also prohibits all transactions between US citizens 
and the entities, according to a statement from the Treasury 
Department. 

The move came as the US prepared for another round of 
multilateral talks in Beijing aimed at ending North Korea's 
nuclear weapons programs. 

'Proliferators of WMD often rely on front companies to mask 
their illicit activities and cover their tracks,' said Stuart 
Levey, the Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial 
intelligence. 

'Today's action turns a spotlight on eight firms involved in 
WMD proliferation out of North Korea. We will continue to expose 
and designate these dangerous actors,' he said, according to 
Agence France-Presse. 

Among those blacklisted were Hesong Trading Corporation and 
Tosong Technology Trading Corporation, whose parent comany is 
Korea Mining Development Corporation. 

The remaining six Pyongyang-based companies belong to parent 
company Korea Ryonbong General Corporation. 

They include Korea Complex Equipment Import Corporation, Korea 
International Chemical Joint Venture Company, Korea Kwangsong 
Trading Corporation, Korea Pugang Trading Corporation, Korea 
Ryongwang Trading Corporation, and Korea Ryonha Machinery Joint 
Venture Corporation. 

President George W Bush has introduced rules imposing strong 
financial sanctions against not only weapons of mass destruction 
but also entities and individuals providing support or services 
to proliferators. 
The Treasury Department said the move Friday was part of ongoing 
government interagency efforts to combat unconventional weapons 
trafficking 'by blocking the property of entities and 
individuals that engage in proliferation activities and their 
support networks.' 

Copyright © 2005 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or 
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: US team says N.Korea shows signs of transparency 

 Sat Oct 22, 3:46 AM ET 
		 	 
SEOUL (AFP) - The head of the US team that visted North Korea
" /> North Koreasays the full access it got to a sensitive
nuclear site was a sign of Pyongyang's openness ahead of new
six-nation talks on its atomic ambitions next month. 

"North Koreans allowed my delegation to visit the Yongbyon
nuclear facility," said US politician Bill Richardson.
 
"I believe that was a show of transparency. It bodes well for
the six-party talks that are upcoming in Beijing," he said,
adding that he thought the next round of the talks would take
place in the first week of November.
 
Speaking in Tokyo on Friday, Richardson said that the Stalinist
state was "sending signals of wanting to engage" and had
indicated it would rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,
which it quit in 2002.
 
At talks last month, North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear
weapons in exchange for promises of aid and security, the first
major breakthrough in more than two years of deadlock over
Pyongyang's atomic ambitions.
 
In return, the United States said it would respect the North's
sovereignty and would not attack, a fear Pyongyang had
repeatedly said was a main reason for insisting on developing an
atomic bomb program.
 
But after the agreement was announced, North Korea, which is
badly short of electricity, immediately said it would insist on
having light-water nuclear reactors for civilian energy purposes
before giving up its weapons.
 
The next round of talks -- involving the two Koreas, China,
Japan, Russia and the United States -- is due to be held in the
Chinese capital next month.
 
Washington has accused the North, which claims to have made
atomic weapons, of running a secret uranium enrichment program.
 
K.A. Namkung, deputy head of the Richardson delegation, said
they had been given "full access" to the Yongbyon reactor 90
kilometres (60 miles) north of Pyongyang.
 
He said the team had been allowed to see a cooling pond at the
facility "where we noticed there were no spent fuel rods in any
of the canisters."
 
But he said they had not been cleared to see a part of the
facility where plutonium could be made for atomic weapons.
 

  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: China's President to Visit North Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Saturday October 22, 2005 4:01 AM

By STEPHANIE HOO 

Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING (AP) - President Hu Jintao will visit North Korea next
week amid U.S. pressure for Beijing to do more to convince its
communist ally to stop developing nuclear weapons, China said
Friday. 

Hu's visit to North Korea on Oct. 28 would be the first by a top
Chinese leader since 2001. 

It comes as China is trying to organize a new round of
six-nation talks in November on the North Korea nuclear issue -
talks that include the U.S., South Korea, Japan and Russia. 

Talks held last month in Beijing ended with a promise by
Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programs in exchange for aid
and a security guarantee. 

But the North also has demanded a nuclear reactor for power
generation before it dismantles its atomic projects. 

``The nuclear issue will inevitably be on Hu's agenda,'' said
Gong Keyu, a North Korea specialist at the Shanghai Institute of
Foreign Studies. 

``During the visit, China may on the one hand exert pressure on
North Korea to give concessions, and on the other hand offer
more help in return,'' Gong said. ``Economic aid and North
Korean economic reform also will be on the agenda for Hu's
visit.'' 

The trip comes amid a new burst of diplomacy ahead of the next
round of talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. 

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was in the communist
country this week, said Friday that North Korea is committed to
unconditionally resuming talks on its atomic weapons program and
returning to the international nuclear nonproliferation pact. 

However, Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, also said North Korea was still running nuclear
facilities believed to be at the center of its weapons program
and had reprocessed spent nuclear fuel this year into plutonium,
a raw material for nuclear bombs. 

On Saturday, Richardson briefed South Korean Foreign Minister
Ban Ki-moon on his visit to North Korea, reiterating his view
that Pyongyang is willing to seriously discuss dismantling its
program. 

He said he told Ban that he found the North Koreans displayed a
positive attitude and told him they were committed to
unconditionally resuming the six-party talks, returning to the
international nuclear nonproliferation pact and allowing outside
oversight of the country's disarmament. 

China is North Korea's last major ally and key supplier of food
and energy aid, giving it what other governments consider to be
unique leverage. 

President Bush won a pledge from Hu to step up pressure on
Pyongyang when the two leaders met at the United Nations in New
York last month. 

While Beijing says it wants a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, it
hasn't pressured North Korea publicly. 

China fought on the side of North Korea during the 1950-53
Korean War. 

More recently, Beijing has tried to persuade the North to allow
more free enterprise in its tightly controlled economy. 

The nuclear crisis erupted in late 2002 after U.S. officials
said North Korea admitted violating a 1994 deal by embarking on
a secret uranium enrichment program. Since then, China has
hosted four rounds of six-nation talks on demands that the North
renounce its nuclear ambitions. 

The next round is scheduled for November, though no dates have
been set. 

Hu was invited by North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong Il,
China's official Xinhua News Agency said. The last visit by a
top Chinese leader was in 2001, by then-President Jiang Zemin. 

A Chinese Foreign Ministry statement issued in response to a
request for details of Hu's trip said only that he and Kim would
discuss ``relations between the two parties and governments and
international and regional issues of common concern to both
sides.'' 

The trip ``will deepen Chinese-North Korean traditional
friendship and safeguard regional peace and stability,'' the
statement said. 

Kim, who rarely ventures out of his country, last visited
Beijing in April 2004 amid tight secrecy. 

According to the accord brokered last month, North Korea agreed
to abandon its nuclear program and return to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty in exchange for economic aid, security
assurances and improved ties with the United States. The United
States and the others in the talks agreed to discuss giving
North Korea a light-water reactor ``at an appropriate time.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 9 FT.com: Washington week ahead: Nuclear talks top agenda

By Kamau High

Published: October 23 2005 19:42 | Last updated: October 23 2005

Li Bin, China’s special envoy to North Korea visits the US to
discuss the next round of the six-nation talks over North Korea
and its nuclear ambitions. Earlier, the US persuaded North Korea
to abandon its nuclear weapons programme and rejoin the
non-proliferation treaty. 

The US in turn promised it would give the secretive communist
regime energy aid and security guarantees. The US also signalled
its willingness to send a representative to North Korea,
something that has not happened since 2002.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25 In the immediate wake of Hurricane’s Rita
and Katrina, consumer confidence has taken a hit. The Federal
Reserve has been steadily raising interest rates in quarter
point increments and indicates it will continue to do so as long
as necessary. What impact high energy prices have on the economy
remains to be seen, with today’s consumer confidence numbers
one indicator.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26 After the terror attacks of September 11
2001, the US began imposing stricter requirements for travel to
the US. One effect of those tighter strictures is that people
coming to the US without visas will now be required to have
digital photographs in passports issued after today. 

The move comes as the Bush administration has been offering
details of its temporary worker programme, which would allow the
estimated 10m illegal aliens to apply for guest worker visas.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27 The speculation over whether or not Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for President in 2008 will
increase after Ann Lewis, communications director for the
senator’s re-election website, Friends of Hillary, speaks at
the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College,
Manchester, NH.

Vlado Buckovski, prime minister of Macedonia, arrives to meet
George W. Bush. Macedonia announced on Wednesday that it was
culling 10,000 suspected of being exposed to the bird flu. The
US says it is preparing to dramatically increase its funding to
fight the bird flu.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28 Real gross domestic product, the measure of
goods and services, was up 3.3 per cent the last time it came
out. While it was down from its previous increase of 3.8 per
cent, it was still up overall. 

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 30

Yuri Yekhanurov, newly appointed prime minister of Ukraine,
visits the US to discuss his country’s proposed entry to the
World Trade Organisation. Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s
president, has been feuding with his parliament over the
proposed sale of Kryvorizhstal, the country’s flagship steel
mill. 

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 10 Economist.com: Diplomacy and proliferation | Nuclear confusion | 

background
 
Oct 20th 2005

From The Economist print edition

Does George Bush want to curb proliferation or court allies? He
can't easily do both 

NO MORE fazed by charges of cronyism abroad than he has been at
home, George Bush makes no bones about dividing the world into
friend and foe. Nor has he ever had much patience for rules
that, as he sees it, don't serve America's best interests. Yet
there is one document the administration has repeatedly waved
under the nose of other governments, including North Korea's and
Iran's: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

The problem for Mr Bush is that his desire to curb the spread of
nasty weapons is starting to clash with his desire to reward
friends. The current battle has to do with India, a famous rebel
against the NPT, which built its nuclear bomb behind Bill
Clinton's back; but it raises questions about Mr Bush's
diplomacy in general. The administration is right to point out
that rules-based organisations can be very frustrating,
especially if you end up with Iran on the board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency. But breaking those rules can
lead to anarchy. Advertisement [Click Here!] 

When India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, visited the White
House in July, Mr Bush delighted his guest and startled some of
America's closest allies by offering to overturn decades of
American law, as well as the rules of the 45-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group, to allow full civil nuclear co-operation with
India. The Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Act forbid co-operation with countries that do not put all their
nuclear industry under international safeguards or that have
exploded a nuclear device since 1978. India fails on both
counts. 

The deal was negotiated hastily and in secret by a clutch of
senior administration officials. This week one of them, Nicholas
Burns, a senior State Department man, said he expected an
agreement with India on the clearer separation of its civilian
nuclear activities from its military ones, as well as new
American legislation to exempt India from the existing
anti-nuclear rules, to be in place by the time Mr Bush pays a
return visit to India in early 2006. 

Now Congress will have its say. The House International
Relations Committee will hold hearings on October 26th, and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 3rd. The
administration probably calculates that, though Congress may
grumble at letting India off the hook so comprehensively, it
will do little. 

Indeed, why not help India? It is a potential ally whose
neighbours include prickly Pakistan and China, America's
competitor for influence throughout Asia. America has long
wanted to tie India (like its fellow non-NPT rebels, Pakistan
and Israel) into some form of non-proliferation regime. That
seems even more urgent after the uncovering of the nuclear
Wal-Mart run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, once Pakistan's chief weapons
scientist. And India could also be a lucrative market for
America's nuclear industry, which wants to get in ahead of
Britain, France and Canada. 

On the other hand, favours done for friends can create more
problems than they solve. In this case there are serious
problems with both the India deal itself, and the precedents it
sets. 

Begin with the India deal. India is insisting that it wants to
be treated just like one of the official five nuclear powers
(America, Russia, Britain, France and China). Mr Bush backed off
recognising it as such. But it will still be up to India to
decide which of its nuclear installations should go on the
civilian list, to be inspected. Mr Burns, heading for Delhi this
week, will encourage India to make the list as long as possible.
But the close connection between India's civil and weapons
industries will surely limit it. 

Robert Joseph, State's senior official for arms control, told a
House committee last month that America would do nothing to
further India's nuclear-weapons programme. But what does that
mean? In the talks leading up to the July deal, America had
encouraged India to cap voluntarily its production of fissile
materialhighly-enriched uranium and plutonium for bombsas the
official nuclear five have done. Yet it refused and the
administration went ahead with the deal anyway. 

If that implies that India outnegotiated America, it certainly
looks that way. Without a cap on fissile material, argues Henry
Sokolski of the Washington, DC-based Non-Proliferation Education
Centre (NPEC), co-operation with India will help it devote more
scarce resources and materials to its weapons. The
administration, he argues, has missed a chance to rein in
India's growing arsenal (thought to consist of up to 50
assembled warheads now, but with plans for some 300-400 by early
in the next decade). 

Some critics go further, suggesting that the administration
wants to encourage India's weapons build-up precisely to counter
China's growing arsenal. But provoking an arms race with either
China or Pakistan (which watches India's every move with deep
suspicion, and vice versa) would only worsen endemic instability
in the region. In any case, suggests George Perkovich of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think-tank,
India's importance should not be subordinated to a strategy of
containing China. 

America also proposes to assist India's space programme. Nothing
wrong in that, you might say, but plans for India's first
inter-continental ballistic missile depend heavily on the
technology developed for its space-launch vehicle. Nor does
India need an ICBM to deter China, points out Richard Speier in
a draft report for NPEC. An upgraded version of its Agni missile
could deal with that threat. Indian officials have previously
said the bigger missile's presumed targets would be in Europe
and the United States. 

Then there are the broader implications. Bending the rules for
India makes it harder to uphold them elsewhere. Why not also
bend them for Pakistan and Israel? Because, unlike India, their
energy needs do not depend as much on nuclear power, was Mr
Joseph's rather lame explanation. 

That will evoke knowing smiles from Iran and North Korea, both
of whom have been found secretly dabbling with plutonium and
enriched uranium. Iran claims its nuclear activities are simply
to keep the lights on. North Korea insists it has built the bomb
already, but now wants America to provide it with a modern
light-water reactor as the price for disarming. Congress would
be apoplectic if the administration agreed, though that is just
the sort of reactor India might like too. 

In the past America has leaned hard on South Korea and Taiwan to
abandon nascent nuclear ambitions. Brazil and Argentina likewise
agreed to give up their military efforts and join the NPT; so
did South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Japan is also a
responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, as America
now calls India, but has kept to the NPT rules. 

It gets worse. Mr Bush has called for a moratorium on the sale
of uranium technologies to countries without them, but he has
winked at Brazil's decision to build a uranium-enrichment plant.
Before 2000, America encouraged Argentina to export nuclear
research reactors to Peru, Egypt, Algeria and Australia. Now
Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chávez, is no friend of Mr
Bush, says he wants one too. Brazil is unlikely to help, but
Argentina might be tempted by the cash. 

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2005. All rights
*****************************************************************
 11 washingtonpost.com: Early Warning 

by William M. Arkin - 

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
 			 
The Real Nuclear Option on the Hill
 	 	
The Joint Chiefs of Staff has quietly halted preparation of a
new nuclear weapons doctrine, pre-empting Congressional protests
over the document's portrayal of potential nuclear first strikes
against terrorists and adversaries like Iran or North Korea.
 
A draft Senate letter addressed to President Bush and
intercepted by this blogger expresses "deep concern about the
draft U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine."
 
More interested in its own procedural nuclear option over
judicial appointments than real nuclear options, the Senators
evidently have missed the Bush administration's already existing
policy of pre-emption and its inclination towards nuclear
threats and first strike.
 
Bush administration nuclear strategy behind the new doctrine was
first publicly revealedin March 2002.  Presidential directives
codifying this reckless strategy were written aboutin December
2002. Actual contingency plans to undertake instant nuclear
strikes were describedthis May.
 
Some ninnies on the Hill might interpret the shelving of the
doctrine as a victory for Congressional intervention and
oversight. 

A document is being shelved. U.S. first strike nuclear weapons
policy remains unchanged.
 
The draft military document, Doctrine for Joint
Nuclear
Operations, was first written about by Hans Kristensen,
an expert on nuclear weapons matters and consultant to the
Natural Resources Defense Council. (Kristensen maintains the
Nuclear Information Projectwebsite which documents U.S. nuclear
weapons policy.) 

Kristensen said in his detailed Arms Control Todayarticle that
the draft "reaffirms (my emphasis) an aggressive nuclear posture
of modernized nuclear weapons maintained on high alert." The
Joint Staff draft incorporated pre-emption into U.S. doctrine,
as well as the integration of conventional forces and missile
defenses, not to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and
eventually replace them, but to complement smaller numbers of
nuclear weapons and thereby make first strike and nuclear
war-fighting capabilities more robust.  Publicly, of course, the
Bush administration claims that it is significantly reducing the
role of nuclear weapons. 
 
As Kristensen says, the existence of a 2005 draft doctrine,
slated to replace an earlier December 1995articulation, wasn't
exactly a secret -- the unclassified document had been posted on
the web by the Joint Staff (and has since been removed).
Kristensen read the draft, compared it with earlier doctrine,
and with other U.S. nuclear policy documents, such as the 2001
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) (first revealed by me in March
2002). 
 
The NPR was implemented by National Security Presidential
Directive (NSPD) 17, the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of
Mass Destruction," signed by President Bush in December 2002. 
The directive was written about on the front page of the
Washington
Post. According to various reports, the classified
Directive states that "The United States will continue to make
clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming
force - including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of WMD
against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and
allies." 
 
So it isn't as if anything in the doctrine document is new to
U.S. policy. 

For those who don't speak Pentagon-ese, doctrine to the military
mind means a compilation of fundamental principles that are
authoritative in nature but require judgment in application. It
is a word with a religious birthright, suggesting a way of
thinking based on carefully worked out principles, principles
that are taught by its adherents. Cut through all of the crap
and it means the best way to conduct military affairs. 
 
When the Washington Post wroteabout the Kristensen revelations
on September 11, it inadvertently revealed the ridiculousness of
"doctrine" for the military relating to nuclear weapons at all
in today's world. "The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine
for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders
requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an
attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass
destruction," the Post wrote. 
 
Commanders requesting presidential approval?  This isn't the
Eisenhower administration when the notion was that a European
ground commander possessing nuclear artillery shells, rockets
and land mines, about to be overrun by Soviet hordes, would
initiate a "request" to use "his" nuclear weapons.  Then,
"doctrine" might have been important to guide the commander's
thinking of when the appropriate time was, and what the
circumstances were, associated with nuclear escalation.
 
In today's world, a "commander" like Gen. John Abizaid, the four
star commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) responsible for
the Middle East, might be involved in the high-level discussions
for THE UNITED STATES to use nuclear weapons, but it is
inconceivable that any "commander" would actually ask or even
suggest the real nuclear option. 
 
Thanks to Kristensen's revelations, some in the military will
now learn the lesson that it doesn't really need nuclear
doctrine anymore.  The uniformed military has largely been
removed from the old nuclear "consultation process" and the
nuclear game. Nuclear weapons' planning has been pretty much
segregated in one command in the U.S. military: Strategic
Command. 

All of this might sound like the role of nuclear weapons indeed
is being reduced.  The problem is that today the use of nuclear
weapons would be a national decision, one that would be
deliberated and decided in a small group. In other words,
today's nuclear strategy is much more dangerous. The Bush
administration's policy is to reserve the right to use nuclear
weapons even against a non-nuclear foe, even against non-state
terrorists. War plans have been drafted to undertake such
bolt-out-of-the-blue nuclear attacks. Surrounded by like-minded
advisors who might believe that the use of nuclear weapons was
necessary, that nuclear use was "in accordance with" codified
nuclear policy, President Bush could push the button, brushing
aside Congress, public opinion, and the legion of much saner
heads in the military who are the real believers that nuclear
weapons are obsolete. 
 
After Kristensen's revelations and the Washington Post article,
the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Pentagon to come
up to Capitol Hill and brief it on the new publication, but the
Defense Department declined, saying that there was nothing to
brief because there is no approved doctrine. 
 
"A big problem is Congress' lack of oversight," Kristensen told
me, "having permitted this issue to drift over the last decade
enabling planners to use the terrorism/proliferation hype to
roll in significantly new strike plans … with no oversight and
no justifications." If Congress were serious, Kristensen says,
they would drag the government through detailed hearings about
the nation's nuclear war planning. 
 
"It would certainly be interesting to hear the administration
explain why the following newspaper headline could ever be in
the nation's interest: "US nukes Iran: Bush says 'trust me, they
were about to attack.'" 
 	
By William M. Arkin | October 13, 2005; 08:50 AM ET                                      |
 					 			 				
I believe the first use of any Wmd by anyone, pre-emptive strike
or by an act of terrorism, will be the fuse for a full-scale
WWIII, that most of us will not learn about until the
electricity goes out. Our first indication may be a strange glow
tha has also led to all electrically dependant items dead, as in
EMP. We talk about the unthinkable option, but what about some
of these so-called EMP weapons, such as the one mentioned in a
magazine I won't say the name about 2 years ago? No radiation,
no blast, save for a small one, and a sizable radius is plunged
into the 17th century instanteanously. That would be a more
humane weapon to use against the states that are building WMD's.
After all, I don't think they can refine uraninum with horses
and stone mills. And if you don't kill anyone in the process of
making a point, maybe they will want to talk. And maybe we might
finally learn they have something important to say to us. They
breathe air, drink water, and eat like us. Why not show them we
can make a point, and be humane about it at the same time..
Guess it's easier to "NUKE THEM".						
 			 			
Posted by: Bobby | Oct 19, 2005 7:25:40 PM                      
 					 			 				
I would venture to say that the time for us to reinvent the 
Strategic Air Command and it's arsenal of B-52s with it's trained 
crews and aircraft standing alert on preferably the northern tier 
bases has never been better. Lets face it, all the blundering 
politics aimed at the 3rd world countries has done little or no 
good. Rebuild our B-52 strike option that is what is understood 
by everyone!      
 			 			
Posted by: Howard | Oct 19, 2005 6:05:31 AM                     
 					 			 				
Enoch,
 You must be a literalist. Don't you understand political satire?
 						
 			 			
Posted by: L. Facchino | Oct 19, 2005 3:09:11 AM                        
 					 			 				
First strike options with king george in charge is like giving a
three year old matches to play with.I don't pretend to know what
we need militarily but I do know that the man who sits in the
oval office is a lunitic						
 			 			
Posted by: busyhands | Oct 17, 2005 1:30:40 AM                  
 					 			 				
Can you truely blame any of these radical 
countries for sprinting for a Nuclear weapons program when they
see this kind of policy and our possible intentionsof striking
with Nuclear Weapons?????
 
Hell if I were a Country I would be working on an ANFUSION
weapon such as an 
Anti matter bomb to eliminate any aggressor .....Yes and
antimatter weapon is capable but only in outerspace such as a
supernova.						
 			 			
Posted by: Chris Taggert | Oct 16, 2005 7:54:53 AM                      
 					 			 				
Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran will have nuclear
warheads in three years. They put Iraq out of the nuclear
business, and will do the same for Iran. If they are serious
about the three years, they won't wait until 2008 to
pre-emptively strike Iran. I can't picture Israel sitting and
waiting for an "incoming." STRATCOM at Cheney's request made a
plan including nukes to take out Iran's deep underground
facilities, so the U.S. is ready. It's sitting out there now in
nuclear-armed submarines. Israel may give us the job, as in
Iraq. If Iran doesn't throw in the towel openly and clearly,
this is a case not of whether, but when in the next three
years.					
 			 			
Posted by: james r | Oct 15, 2005 11:20:24 AM                   
 					 			 				
I wish my country could actually be a leader in the world and
begin the process of global cooperation rather than global
dominance. The dominance model on the nation-state level is
nothing short of the abuse model on the personal level.
 
And abusers should be in jail, not making public policy.
 
Security comes when people compromise and decide to live and let
live (not dominate).
 
Put your weapons down. 
			 			
Posted by: Laurel | Oct 14, 2005 2:53:23 PM                     
 					 			 				
The Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine option is ‘new’ only in the
sense that the doctrine itself was made known to the public as
policy. During the Cold War, the US was prepared to strike the
USSR before their missiles hit US soil - absolute verification
of an impending attack being of paramount importance. The US and
other countries have already deliberately attacked targets
deemed to be threatening to them using either covert or overt
operations. The only difference here is a public pronouncement
of the doctrine as policy and the inclusion of some type of
nuclear device. 

The US used the Pre-Emptive Strike option when it invaded Iraq,
predicating its’ intention to strike upon a threat of an
inevitable WMD attack, among other excuses. While some world
leaders/bodies appeared to disagree with the decision
(‘appeared’), the US moved forward with confidence. Backlash
from the international community and world bodies was mediocre
at best, in that the US and France, for example, demonstrated a
resolution of their ‘differences’ over the war rather
quickly. If the US uses the pre-emptive strike option again,
with the inclusion of a nuclear weapon, will the international
community offer another impotent response or will it actually
challenge the US in realistic terms? I suspect that the answer
to this question may be determined by the size of the weapon
used and number of targets attacked. Hence, the US is now
involved in the development of smaller, more ‘accurate’
nuclear devices. Less damage = less pressure on the
international community to stand up and counter the US and its
policies, beyond simply another staged, political
‘show/drama’ for the entertainment of the masses via the
media. 

Pre-Emptive Strike is not an idea that is difficult to sell to a
group of fearful citizens. If asked whether they want their
government to stop them from being killed or not, in advance,
the answer is likely to be ‘yes’. The use of a nuclear
device will change the rules of the game(s) and other nations
may follow the US’ lead by adopting similar policies, as has
historically been the case. Where/when will this policy be
challenged? When the consequences of having implemented or
executed the policy are detrimental to the power held by one or
more ‘leaders’, in the US or elsewhere. 

‘Threats’ to the security of the US existed long before the
development of the group known as Al-Qa’ida and hence,
eliminating the threat posed by Al-Qa’ida will not serve to
reduce these threats. Additionally, the methods used to date by
the US to address the threat posed by Al-Qa’ida have only
increased the overall level of hostility toward the US. This is
another example of a security threat to the United States that
has been created by its’ own hand. The cycle is: create a
problem, create a weapon to solve the problem. A truly stunning
and brilliant method by which to conduct foreign policy - and of
course, business. 

The US administration will move forward with this policy,
overtly or covertly, and unimpeded, having become deliberately
deaf to the dissent of a portion of its’ own (fearful)
population. As for the rest of the world? There is, and has
been, silence from its’ leaders with regard to the global
consequences of US policy. The people, meanwhile, must share a
sense of stunned disbelief - at the US’ inability to learn
from its’ own mistakes. 

Posted by: redcat | Oct 14, 2005 1:10:45 PM                     
 					 			 				
Facchino, that was a remarkably stupid post, I'm impressed.
 			 			
Posted by: Enoch | Oct 14, 2005 11:21:32 AM                     
 					 			 				
Its pretty simple. Weak countries rattle sabres, strong ones do
not. The USSR continually rattled their sabres in every Oct. 17
parade where nuclear missles were paraded for all to see. The US
had no such parades, because the US was confident of its
strength.
 
I'm afraid that Bush has lead us into pre-emption because he
feels weak against these terrorists who steal for funds,
brain-wash for soldiers and kill innocents because its easier
than killing soldiers. Bush's appearance of weakness has
emboldened these cowards. So Bush's response is to rattle some
sabres like any nation that feels weak. What an idiot. Only 1194
more days until Bush leaves office. How much further can America
sink with his "leadership".
 				
Posted by: Sully | Oct 14, 2005 8:29:32 AM                      
 					 			 				
It is stupid and foolhardy to advocate for first strike nuclear
capability. If we think we have the right to preemptively strike
first, ALL other countries will be tempted to preempt our
preemption. So then we would want to preempt them before they
preempt us.
 Why don't those who advocate a preemptive nuclear strike start
advocating to nuke Canada. After all, Canadians are descendents
of those who refused to join us in our revolution against
England. How can we trust them? Then, let's take out Greenland.
Who knows whether they may turn against us someday. How about
Great Britain? Can the Brits really be trusted? Of course,
innocent Ireland would be devastated, but what's a little
collateral damage done to the Irish in order to preserve our
American way of life? Next, the advocates of preemption should
take out Cuba; then the European Union which trades and invests
in Cuba, because Europe will not like losing this trade. Next
all of Latin America. But preserve Mexico, which supplies us
with cheap labor. Be sure to include the Malvinas Islands
(Falkland Islands) because one never knows what these craggy
islands could do as spy outposts. Preemption must be directed at
China, which, if it pulls its money out of the U.S. economy,
could destroy us without nuclear weapons. Then Alaska. How can
we count on this state, so far removed from our mainland, to
remain loyal? Throw in Hawaii for good measure - these island
are also too remote to be trusted. Than Japan, which surely will
retaliate at the destruction of so many of their citizens who
have immigrated to Hawaii. Include the Philippines too. Spare
the Bahamas, a safe tax haven for U.S. companies which don't
want to pay taxes to support our infrastructure and military
expenditures. Next, the preemption idiots should turn their
attention to the nations of Africa which are sopping up too much
of our foreign aid and is overrun with AIDS. Etc, etc, etc. 
This is stupidity. If the USA maintains the right to first
preemptive nuclear strike, all the nations of the world would be
obligated to defend themselves by destroying us who threaten
them.						
 			 			
Posted by: L. Facchino | Oct 14, 2005 3:02:25 AM                        
 					 			 				
In response to Semper Fi Mac, a nuke wouldn't have had much
useful effect on, if deployed on 8/11 - effective intelligence
might have made it possible to arrest the hijackers beforehand,
but that's about it. Nor, to my understanding, is a policy of
preemptive nuking exactly "the good Lord's work". Grin.
 			 			
Posted by: | Oct 13, 2005 10:23:45 PM                   
 					 			 				
This is my first post to a blog! Just wanted to say that I
agree completely with Dennis M. Any of you that think that we
need to shelve nuclear strike options and not ensure our
stockpile is capable need only tell our enemies (of which there
is no shortage) that we are lying down and exposing our bellies.
STOP the weakness and whining. It's bad for the entire country.
All you do is invite the foe to believe we lack confidence and
won't hit back or kill the enemies first before they try to do
us in. 

An oh, yes, what do you think they'd do to us if they had usable
weapons or materials?
 
Mike
 			 			
Posted by: Mike | Oct 13, 2005 10:01:23 PM                      
 					 			 				
Now that the cold war is an historical fact, we should examine
if the building of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads
actually made us safer. I have a theory that by the time we
calculate the cost of the enviromental contamination, the
billions of dollars spent, and the current risks poised by the
Soviet(Russian) bombs built in response, that it would have been
cheaper to deal with the threat of the Soviet bloc overrunning
Western Europe primarily via convential forces. The conventional
wisdom at the time indicated that the nuclear deterence was the
cheaper way to go. However at the time the above mentioned
problems were not known to the public. 

A more reasonable strategy then (and now) would be to have a
small nuclear deterence of maybe 100 bombs. We can still make
every major city in the world glow with that few. Instead we
have something like four thousand currently on hand and the
Russians have about the same. 

We also need to "blend down" the bomb-grade uranium (HEU) to
conventional reactor grade so that we don't have so much excess
laying around. Especially to the Russian HEU. We don't need all
that is not currently in bombs. Getting rid of nuclear bombs
alone doesn't really make us safer unless we get rid of the HEU
too. 
			 			
Posted by: cyberfool | Oct 13, 2005 8:00:12 PM                  
 					 			 				
There is no such thing as a successful nuclear first strike,
with the exception of the time they were used to end World War 2
and actually saved lives.
 
Of course, that was the only time nuclear weapons have ever been
used, thereby invalidating the emotive assertion that there is
no such thing as a successful nuclear first strike.						
 			 			
Posted by: Realist | Oct 13, 2005 7:25:38 PM                    
 					 			 				
WMD should never be used as a first strike, period. Regardless
of immediate success or failure, to do so would be to weaken the
taboo of others doing so against us. We should be mindful of the
absolutely unavoidable historical imperative that we will not
always be the strongest nation on Earth. We should not behave in
a way that will invite others to use such weapons on us, even if
they have to wait centuries to exact their revenge, for I would
like to think that America's ideas, culture, land, and works,
will survive as long as humanity does, whatever our coming power.
 
On the other hand, as retaliation, WMD is advisable, lest anyone
think they can get away with a first strike themselves. The
taboo against using such weapons must be reinforced by this. I
advise restraint in such case, but not squeamishness.
 			 			
Posted by: Eric | Oct 13, 2005 6:43:18 PM                       
 					 			 				
The other comments on this blog are clearly from people who we
should be thankful are not in charge of the nuclear buttons.
 
Unfortunately, they are consistent with the opinions of those
who are.
 
There is no such thing as a successful nuclear first strike.
 
Such a strike would be the first day of the last three days on
earth for the human race, and most other species. 

That anyone in America would advocate a nuclear first strike is
a sign of just how far our society has acquiesced to the desires
of demons, hatred, fear and malice.
 
Lord's work? Semper Fi? May the real Lord forgive you for your
hatred and violence; your apparent desire to wipe out the human
race can only be described as a sign that the Devil does,
indeed, walk the earth.
 
Peace				
 			 			
Posted by: Matthew | Oct 13, 2005 1:55:03 PM                    
 					 			 				
	and we call our selves civalized
 well I guess this means we can all kiss our ----- good bye!!! I 
think the people in charge of this need mental health treatments 
today how will I ever look my grandchildren eye to eye and tell 
them every thing is ok after reading this I feel Like twisting 
off and getting drunk and I don,t even drink        that must 
mean I am being driven to drink for the future is no brighter 
after reading this thanks for the news maybe lewis black is right 
maybe we should send some concerned americans to the hill and 
check on our goverments mental health hey with all thats going on 
it sure would not hurt and it might help!!!!!!! either that or we 
might want to start tearing down the old gaurds and replacing 
them with new and improved gaurds thank you Dawn M Hancock p.s. 
leaving to go get drunk before my head explodes lololo                    
 			 			
Posted by: Dawn | Oct 13, 2005 1:54:49 PM                       
 					 			 				
 In the climate we live in today with so much hatred towards the
U.S believe we need to have the first strike option .This
country is spread so thin right now its a joke to think we are
safe on our own soil.Keep the nukes ;control the buttons;be
smart						
 			 			
Posted by: T.Cincotta | Oct 13, 2005 12:10:32 PM                        
 					 			 				
Given that we were blasted on 911 literally and figuratively
(blasted into the realm of real enemies that want to destroy
us), it is somewhat surprising we are arguing over Pre-emptive
Strike Doctrine, (PSD). 
Had we known prior to 911, a day? 30 days?, that a first strike
capability was being developed by Al Quida, and was being
deployed against us, would we have pre-emptively struck at the
plotters with 9mm pistols, k bar jungle knives or warrants? My
guess is yes.
 To say a first strike could not happen again, nuclear, is
courting radioactive disaster. 
The analogue is we let this happen once with 3000+ dead could
have been premptively short stopped with a pistol or a knife; 
ergo: talking about a nuclear PSD only makes sense.
 1. as a deterrent
 2. to complicate the operational planning on the other side at
some expense and distraction to them. 
3. all we need to do is talk they have to respond and prepare.
 Just some thoughts.
 keep up the good Lord's work
 Semper Fi Mac
 
			 			
Posted by: Dennis Morgan | Oct 13, 2005 12:07:16 PM                     
 					 			 				
		YA RLY!				
 			 			
Posted by: O RLY?? | Oct 13, 2005 11:52:48 AM                   
 		 					 				
 2005 The Washington Post Company      
*****************************************************************
 12 HindustanTimes.com: IAEA vote, N-deal shouldn't be linked - BJP

Sunday, October 23, 2005|14:31 IST   

Dharam Shourie (PTI)

New York, October 22, 2005
   
It would be unacceptable if the Indian vote against Iran in the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the Gulf state's
nuclear issues was linked to the Indo-US agreement on the
civilian-nuclear cooperation, BJP General Secretary Pramod
Mahajan said.

Besides, he referred to the opposition the Congress faces on the
issue from its Left allies and said some of their leaders seem
to be giving a way out to the Manmohan Singh government by
stating that it would be okay if India abstains in the next vote
when the US would push for referring the issue to the UN
Security Council.

Attacking the government's disinvestment policy, Mahajan told
reporters in New York on Friday that there was a need for
developing a national consensus on the issue as, he noted, every
five years, the ruling parties could change and there would be
confusion if each tries to follow its own course.

What is needed is to decide on the sectors in which
disinvestment should take place and it is not advisable to
follow a policy of selling public sector undertakings which are
making loss and keeping those which are profitable, he said.

The undertaking profitable today could go into loss tomorrow. It
depends on many factor as to why an undertaking is profitable
and why is it losing.   
    
Asia News  © HT Media Ltd. 2005. 
    
*****************************************************************
 13 Daily Yomiuri: Japan to join intl N-fuel program 

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

The government has decided to cooperate with a U.S.-proposed
program that would prevent the proliferation of nuclear-related
technologies, government sources said Sunday. 

The Natural Resources and Energy Agency of the Economy, Trade
and Industry Ministry has decided to cooperate with a program
designed to provide nuclear fuel at reasonable prices from major
industrialized nations to mainly less-developed countries that
abandon programs for nuclear fuel development in their nuclear
power generation. 

The decision means Japan will participate in the international
framework to supply nuclear fuel, supplying low enriched uranium
(LEU), according to the sources. 

The assistance program was proposed by U.S. President George W.
Bush last year because of concerns over limitations in the
global nuclear management framework based on the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty in regards to suspected nuclear
developments in North Korea and Iran. 

The IAEA, which first opposed the proposal, has recently
softened its stance, increasing the possibility of the program
being put into practice. 

The government is worried about possible international pressure
to suspend its nuclear fuel reprocessing program, which consists
mostly of plutonium extraction and is the core of its nuclear
fuel cycle policy, if a new international nuclear management
system is created without Japan's participation. 

Japan has been evaluated by the NPT as an "honor student" since
the nation has unconditionally accepted inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

On the other hand, Japan has been internationally criticized for
special treatment because it is the only country allowed to
enrich and reprocess uranium among countries that do not possess
nuclear weapons. (Oct. 24, 2005) 

The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun     [ /] Topics
 Contact Us| Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   
*****************************************************************
 14 AU GL: Don't nuke the climate'

Sam Wainwright, Fremantle 

The development of a uranium mining industry in Western
Australia would happen “over my dead body”, said veteran
anti-nuclear campaigner Jo Vallentine on October 9. She was
chairing a public meeting of 200 people at the Fremantle Town
Hall titled “Don't nuke the climate”. 

Called by the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia, the
public meeting was seen by its participants as an overdue and
necessary response to the push by mining companies, the Howard
government and sections of the Labor Party to dramatically
expand uranium mining. The meeting itself was designed to
coincide with the Australian Uranium Conference held on October
11 at Fremantle's Esplanade Hotel. 

Particular attention was devoted to the need to expose the
attempt by the nuclear industry to cast itself as a global
warming saviour. WA Greens state MP Giz Watson said: “Global
warming is being used as spin in this debate. They are the same
old lies; the issues of nuclear waste have not been solved.” 

The stampede in ruling circles toward more uranium mining has
been accompanied by the suggestion, most recently by former
Labor PM Bob Hawke, that Australia should be the dump-site for
the world's nuclear waste. 

The description by federal government ministers of potential
waste sites as being in the “middle of nowhere”, over the
objections of Indigenous owners, were labelled as “radioactive
racism” by Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner
Dave Sweeny. 

Fremantle anti-Nuclear Group (FaNG) activist Scott Ludlam
directly disputed the claim that a switch to nuclear power could
slow global warming, quoting research by Dutch scientists
demonstrating that once the small richer uranium ore deposits
have been exhausted, the extraction of uranium from low ore
deposits will generate more greenhouse gases than those saved by
switching to nuclear power. 

Ludlam argued that stopping global warming was not primarily a
technical challenge but a social one concluding that “we need to
reshape society and we need to do it soon”. Confirming this,
Matthew Rosser from the WA Sustainable Energy Association
pointed out that while Western Australia has some of the best
conditions in the world for generating renewable energy only 1%
of its electricity comes from such sources. 

Watson welcomed the affirmation by Premier Geoff Gallop that his
government is opposed to uranium mining in WA. She said this
policy needed to be reinforced by legislation, something Gallop
has declined to do. 

In accepting Watson's criticism, Dave Kelly, the WA secretary of
the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, affirmed his
union's opposition to uranium mining and said he would continue
to advocate this position within the ALP. 

A number of WA Labor backbenchers, including Vince Cattania and
Shelly Archer, have joined other ALP figures including federal
Labor resources spokesperson Martin Ferguson in calling for an
expansion of uranium mining. At the uranium industry conference,
Ferguson hinted at the possibility that there would be change to
federal Labor's three-mines-only position at the ALP’s 2007
national conference. 

Many speakers at the meeting referred to the large public
protests against uranium mining in the late 1970s and early
‘80s, saying that such protests would have to be organised again.

From Green Left Weekly, October 26, 2005. 

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW   	 
*****************************************************************
 15 Deccan Herald: Loose ends in nuke deal needs fixing - Natwar   
    
  DH News Service New Delhi 
  
External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh on Saturday said any
loose ends in the implementation of the landmark civil nuclear
deal and other issues mentioned in the Indo-US Joint statement
of July needed to be tied up before US President George W Bushs
visit here early next year. 

This was emphasised by Singh when US Under Secretary of State
Nicholas R Burns called on him here and briefed him on the
progress achieved on several items of Indo-US co-operation
included in the joint statement of July 18, External Affairs
Ministry spokesperson Navtej Sarna told reporters here. 

Burns conveyed to the minister the commitment of the Bush
administration to implement the Indo-US understanding on
civilian nuclear co-operation on the basis of reciprocal
obligations assumed by the two countries in the joint statement,
Sarna said. 

Singh told the visiting US official that a warm welcome awaited
President Bush when he visits India in March 2006. In a related
development, Burns continued his meetings with Foreign Secretary
Shyam Saran and took stock of regional and international issues. 

He also met National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and the
leader of Opposition Jaswant Singh.   

  Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G.
Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001
 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523   
*****************************************************************
 16 asahi.com: Asia: China's defense chief tells U.S. to loosen up

10/22/2005

 The Asahi Shimbun
  
BEIJING-Two years ago, Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan made a
historic visit to Washington to soothe ties that were severely
bruised following the 2001 collision of a U.S. Navy surveillance
aircraft and a Chinese jet fighter. 

Finally, on Wednesday, the visit was reciprocated. 

It was Cao's first meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld on Chinese soil, despite many such invitations. 

In talks he later described as "candid," Cao took the
opportunity to ease U.S. concerns that China was concealing huge
amounts of military spending. 

"That is indeed the true budget," Cao said of the $30 billion
(3.3 trillion yen) China has allocated for military spending
this year. 

"It is neither necessary nor even possible for us to massively
increase the defense budget," he added, noting that the
country's main priorities were the economy and improving China's
living standards. 

Whether Rumsfeld was convinced, however, remains to be seen. 

The Pentagon had estimated China's defense budget at about $90
billion. 

Defense ties between the two giants have indeed been tense, not
because of the crash itself, but likely more because of China's
11-day detention of the 24-member crew of the debilitated
American aircraft when it made an emergency landing on Hainan
Island. 

Cao's 2003 visit to the United States broke a seven-year
drought. The last Chinese defense chief to visit the United
States was Chi Haotian in 1996. 

Highly trusted and a recognized expert in military equipment,
nuclear weapons in particular, Cao also serves as vice chairman
of the separate central military commissions of the Communist
Party and the government. 

After graduating from the former Military Engineering School of
the Artillery Corps of the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, he
held various commands in the People's Liberation Army. 

In September 2003, Cao met with Shigeru Ishiba, Japan's defense
chief at the time, in Beijing, breaking a five-year freeze on
such top-level talks.(IHT/Asahi: October 22,2005) 
  
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: No letup in concerns over China's military buildup - US experts -
                           
 Sat Oct 22, 2:31 AM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - China is doing little to ease concerns over 
its rapid military buildup which is threatening American 
dominance in a wide range of areas, from Asian sea-lanes to outer 
space, US experts said. 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on a maiden trip this
week to Beijing to directly express US worries over China's
growing military power but the experts felt the assurances he
received had failed to lift long-held suspicions.
 
While Chinese leaders allowed an unprecedented visit for
Rumsfeld to the Strategic Rocket Forces headquarters in Beijing,
he was not be allowed into the national military command center,
the Chinese version of the Pentagon
" /> Pentagon.
 
"The Chinese in their own context made a small step forward but
in reality there is no indication they are ready to embark on a
new era of military transparency in the American or European
sense," said Richard Fisher of the US-based International
Assessment and Strategy Center.
 
"Not only can Chinese nuclear missiles now target the
continental United States; the whole configuration of the new
Chinese force is clearly designed with the United States as the
hypothetical enemy," Fisher said.
 
Randall Schriver, a senior State Department official who was in
charge of East Asian policy until early this year, said that
"the core issue of our concerns over China's military buildup
and its transparency remains unresolved" despite Rumsfeld's rare
trip.
 
While the US defense chief maintained that Beijing's military
expenditure was two to three times greater than publicly
acknowledged, his Chinese counterpart, Cao Guangchuan, denied
any understatement of military spending.
 
Specific concerns about the lack of transparency in China's
military budget and capability were also not addressed,
including the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles
that can hit US airbases.
 
Some experts believe China will develop a world-class defense
industry within the next 10 to 15 years and seeks to replace the
United States as the preeminent power in the Pacific -- even
globally.
 
By some estimates, China now has the worlds third-largest
defense budget, after the United States and Russia, spending
from 70 billion to 90 billion dollars per year.
 
But China says defense spending would be just 30 billion dollars
this year.
 
"I think it was good for the Chinese to hear directly from the
secretary of defense as he actually in many ways was speaking
for more than the United States," said Peter Brookes, a former
US deputy assistant secretary of defense.
 
"There are concerns about the transparency of China's military
budget and its growth from others in the region who are nervous
as well, including Japan, Taiwan and even Southeast Asia, but
reluctant to speak up about it," he said.
 
China argues its military budget is dwarfed by US military
spending, which last year totalled 440 billion dollars, and its
main preoccupation is to lift living standards of the poor in
the world's most populous nation.
 
"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the
United States from projecting power in the region," said Dan
Blumenthal, a former senior director for China and Taiwan in the
US Secretary of Defense's office.
 
"So you have this disconnect between what China says it is doing
and what it is actually doing," he said.
 
One area of concern that has given the United States sleepless
nights is what Blumenthal calls China's anti-access capabilities.
 
"China is developing military capabilities that make it much
more difficult for the United States to access hot spots in the
region and, therefore, to meet its various defense commitments
which have underguarded security order in the region for half a
century," he said. 

Beijing has deployed various classes of destroyers with cruise
missiles that can fire upon US carrier battle groups, "which is
a matter of great concern," he said. 

In addition, Blumenthal said, China's deployment of diesel
submarines made it "much more difficult and complicated for US
carrier battle groups to get into areas that they need to get
into." 

China is also accused of using its manned space program to
achieve its military ambitions. 

"Every mission performed either electronic or military
surveillance for the PLA (People's Liberation Army) but China is
loathe to admit, from the very inception, that its manned space
program has directly served military purposes," Fisher said. 

Brookes said that the United States's immediate concern is that
China will try to use its new military might on Taiwan, which
Beijing considers a renegade province, to effect unification. 

In addition to Beijings growing conventional military
capabilities, China has as many as 750 ballistic missiles aimed
at Taiwan, according to a recent Pentagon report. Many of them
are reportedly also capable of striking US forces stationed in
Japan.
 	 		 			
  Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 Indiatimes: No snag in India nuke talks - US

The Economic Times>                                                                                        Politics/Nation>
											Article   

PTI[ MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2005 12:59:16 AM]   

  WASHINGTON: Denying that a snag existed in the Indo-US civil
nuclear talks, Washington said the ongoing dialogue was a sign
of a deepening relationship aimed at furthering the strategic
partnership between the two countries. 

The purpose of these meetings is furthering the US-Indian
strategic partnership and implementing the US-India civil
nuclear cooperation agreement, US state department deputy
spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters on Saturday. 

I would not say that there is a snag (in the civil nuclear
talks). He said the under secretary of state Nicholas Burns
ongoing India visit was a sign that the two countries have a
broadening and deepening relationship. 

According to Mr Ereli, Burns visit was meant to work out
details of a complex and interrelated series of steps designed
to move forward on civil nuclear, scientific and agricultural
cooperation, and promotion of entrepreneurship. 


And I think were moving forward on that well and amicably, he
said. Mr Ereli said senior US officials were working closely
with their Indian counterparts on an ever-broadening array of
areas of cooperation.   

  Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: NRC Issues Draft Environmental Report for Nine Mile Point 	 License Renewal,
Announces November 17th Public Meeting

News Release - Region I - 2005-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-053                          
October 20, 2005 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil 
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: 
opa1@nrc.gov  
  

Nov. 17, to comment on a draft report that assesses the
environmental impact of extending the operating license for Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, in Scriba, N.Y. In May
2004, Constellation Energy, which operates the two units,
submitted an application to renew the licenses for an additional
20 years. 

The draft NRC report, known as the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, was issued on September 30. 

As part of its license renewal application, the company
submitted an environmental report. The NRC staff reviewed the
report and performed an on-site audit. The staff also considered
comments made during the environmental scoping process,
including comments offered at public meetings held Sept. 21,
2004 in Scriba. Based on its review, the NRC staff has
preliminarily recommended that the Commission determine the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for the Nine
Mile Point units are not so great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be
unreasonable. 

The NRC will hold two meetings on Nov. 17th to accept comments,
with one session scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and another at
7 p.m. Both meetings will take place at the Town of Scriba
Conference Room, at 42 Creamery Road. NRC staff will be
available for an hour prior to the start of each meeting for
informal discussions of the report. 

Those interested may pre-register to attend or speak at the
meetings by contacting Leslie Fields, of the NRC at
800/368-5642, ext. 1186, or by sending an e-mail to
NineMilePointEIS@nrc.govno later than Nov 8. Members of the
public may also register 15 minutes before each session to
provide oral comments. The duration of individual comments may
be limited by the time available, depending on the number of
speakers who register. 

Written comments on the draft report will also be considered by
the NRC staff. Comments can be submitted by mail to the Chief,
Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Mail Stop T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. They can also be submitted
electronically to NineMilePointEIS@nrc.gov. The public comment
period ends on December 22. 

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be
renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are
met. The current operating license for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is
due to expire on Aug. 22, 2009, while the current operating
license for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 is scheduled to terminate on
Oct. 31, 2026. 

The draft report is posted on the NRC web page at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437
/supplement24/index.html. The Nine Mile Point license renewal
application is posted at:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/nin
e-mile-pt.html. Additional information about the license renewal
process is available at:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. 

The draft report is also available for review at the NRC Public
Document Room, in Rockville, Md., and at the Penfield Library,
located at the State University of New York, Oswego.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, October 21, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 20 FT.com: Wind of change in US blows dust off nuclear facilities 

By Dan Roberts 

Published: October 23 2005 18:46 | Last updated: October 23 2005

[nuclear] Outside a nuclear fuel rod factory in North Carolina, 
caretakers are unfurling a stylised metal sculpture of an atom 
that was folded up to protect it from the Atlantic hurricane 
season. 

Like much of the industry in the US, the General Electric plant
is also dusting down the cobwebs from a far deeper period of
hibernation. Designed in the 1960s, when optimists thought
nuclear-generated electricity would become too cheap to bother
metering, this sprawling plant on 1,650 acres never came close
to reaching its potential for packing uranium fuel pellets into
the spindly metal rods that form the heart of a reactor. 

The last new US power station was commissioned in the 1980s. GE,
and its Japanese fuel partners Toshiba and Hitachi, have
mothballed one production line and export some output to Asia. 

But hype is finally turning to hope again in an industry used to
many false dawns. Last month, a consortium of utility companies
selected two sites next to existing nuclear plants in
Mississippi and Alabama where GE and Westinghouse - a US-based
rival owned by British Nuclear Fuels - will submit competing
designs to build a new generation of reactors. 

The lengthy design and planning process is partly subsidised by
the US Department of Energy, which hopes construction of at
least two new plants, starting in 2010, will encourage other
private companies to follow. 

By Asian or French standards the US ambitions remain relatively
limited, but its mixture of public and private activity shows
the way forward for many countries, such as Britain, that are
slowly warming to the idea of new nuclear plants. 

The renewed confidence of GE, Westinghouse and Areva - a French
rival aiming to gain its own toehold in the US - also highlights
a looming battle between engineering companies hoping to profit. 

In the US particularly, political and economic conditions have
not looked more conducive since the 1960s. 

As well as contributing public money to encourage new designs,
Washington politicians gave the industry a major fillip this
year with an energy bill that extended federal liability
insurance, promised production tax credits and offered research
incentives for a future generation of reactors. 

Meanwhile, record oil and gas prices mean private sector utility
companies are slowly shaking off their long-held scepticism
about the financial risks of atomic energy. More efficient use
of existing reactors has allowed nuclear to maintain its share
of US electricity generation at about 20 per cent. 

A national storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada may
remove some of the uncertainty over long-term waste storage. And
the next generation of plants designed by GE and Westinghouse
offer an attractive combination of lower operating and
construction costs with much improved safety - a result of
"passive safety features" that rely on gravity and natural
circulation to replace expensive but unreliable pumps and diesel
generators. 

Despite all this, investing the billions of dollars needed to
construct new reactors remains an enormous gamble. Andy White, a
dry Yorkshireman who heads GE's nuclear division, says key
hurdles remain. But he is cautiously optimistic that a
combination of carrot and stick should do the trick. 

"While the energy bill and Department of Energy's 2010 programme
will help, the big question is, will we get the dollars
appropriated and what will happen when the rubber hits the road
in the [government] rulemaking," he says. "Based on the activity
level I am seeing now from the utilities I think it's enough -
there's been a lot of buzz but these incentives should now
kickstart new build, especially with oil and gas prices where
they are." 

  Atomic comeback Part 2: German poll hinders nuclear revival

Whether the handful of plants projected for 2010 turns into
dozens in the decade to follow is a far tougher question. 

One obstacle to more widespread construction is a shortage of
skilled engineers. When nuclear was seen as a dying industry,
few college students chose to take the necessary specialised
engineering classes. There is some resurgence in education, but
companies have brought skilled employees out of retirement to
train the next generation of engineers. "Three [new plants in
the US] would be feasible," says Mr White. "The big question is
are we going to see 20 or 30." 

  Atomic comeback Part 1: Nuclear solutions needed for
intractable problems

Until that happens, the greater prize for GE's new generation of
so-called "boiling-water" reactors remains overseas. Here, the
relative isolation of the US civil nuclear industry has left it
at a disadvantage in big markets such as China, where a
competing technology, known as pressurised-water reactors, has
taken hold, so far limiting the bidding to Areva, Westinghouse
and Russia's AtomStroyExport. 

This leads many to believe GE will bid strongly for
Westinghouse, which has been put up for sale by BNFL, to get
hold of this key technology. Whether GE chooses to fend off
competing interests and wins the bidding battle for Westinghouse
will say much about its confidence in the wider renaissance of
the industry.

This is the third in a series exploring how high energy prices
are spurring a revival in nuclear energy.   
  
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: NRC Issues Safety Evaluation for Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Application
 
News Release - 2005-14 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-143     October 21, 
2005   
  

safety evaluation report (SER) for an Early Site Permit (ESP)
for the Grand Gulf site, about 25 miles south of Vicksburg,
Miss. 

The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
The Grand Gulf application was filed Oct. 21, 2003, by System
Energy Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of Entergy. If approved,
the permit would give the company up to 20 years to decide
whether to build one or more nuclear plants on the site and to
file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction. 

Along with the SER, the staff must complete an Environmental
Impact Statement, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
must issue a report on the ESP application, and the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel must conclude its mandatory
hearing on the matter before the Commission can reach a final
decision on issuing the permit. The NRC expects to finish this
process late in 2006. 

The 400-page SER contains the agency's review of the Grand Gulf
ESP application. The NRC staff reviewed information on: 

 site seismology, geology, meteorology and hydrology; 

 risks from potential accidents resulting from operation of a
nuclear plant at the site; 

 the sites ability to support adequate physical security for a
nuclear plant; and 

 proposed major features of the emergency plan System Energy
Resources would implement if a reactor is eventually built at
the site. 

System Energy Resources will have 14 days to review the SER for
proprietary information. The report will then be available
electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It will also be
available on the NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/grand-gulf.html.
In addition, the Harriette Person Memorial Public Library at 606
Main St. in Port Gibson, Miss., has agreed to make the SER
available for public inspection.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, October 21, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 22 Portsmouth Herald Local News: Seabrook wants nuke drill reimbursement
 
Sun. October 23, 2005

Seabrook wants nuke drill reimbursement 

By Susan Morse smorse@seacoastonline.com 

SEABROOK - The Seabrook Station nuclear power plant pays $2
million to the state in support of emergency operations. 

The town of Seabrook wants a little of that money. 

In November, the Seabrook Fire Department will send firefighters
to the plant for an on-site practice drill, according to Fire
Chief Jeff Brown. 

Brown expects his overtime costs will be reimbursed by Seabrook
Station, but he believes the money should come from the state
Department of Emergency Operations. 

Seabrook Station already sends $2 million to the state annually
for emergency support, said Brown. 

The town of Seabrook got $12,000 of that money last year, an
amount which didn’t cover his department’s costs or the budget
of Emergency Management Director Joe Titone, he said. 

Seabrook Station ended up picking up the $5,000 tab for
overtime, according to Brown. 

"It wasn’t the power plant’s fault," Brown said. "The state gets
millions. Seabrook got $12,000." 

Last year town officials refused to take part in another
practice drill at Seabrook Station until the town was reimbursed
for money spent sending personnel there, according to Town
Manager Fred Welch. 

These drills are in addition to the annual practice exercise
federally-mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Seabrook sent a bill to the state and was denied reimbursement. 

Jim Van Dongen, a spokesman for the state Department of
Emergency Management, said the additional drills are not
budgeted in the $2 million "assessment" sent to the state by
Seabrook Station. 

Seabrook and other towns within a 10-mile radius of the nuclear
power plant are given a portion of the assessment funds to hold
the yearly emergency exercise evaluated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. 

A new NRC requirement demands force-on-force exercises at the
plant site, he said. Seabrook Station contacted local law
enforcement to take part in the exercises. 

"At some point, somebody brought up, who’s going to pay for
this?" he said. "The immediate response was, it will come out of
the assessment. Our response is, it’s not budgeted in the
assessment. The assessment is based on yearly exercises, and
this is new and different." 

Next year the Fire Department will be taking part in three
drills with the plant, said Brown. 

"The question that’s never answered," he said, "is they send $2
million up there a year, where’s the money being spent?" 

  Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
 23 Burlington Free Press: NRC completes Vermont Yankee report

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont 

Published: Saturday, October 22, 2005
 
By David Gram
 The Associated Press
 
MONTPELIER -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it
had completed its draft review of Vermont Yankee's plan to
increase its power output, but would not make it public yet. 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would first send the
report to Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to allow the
company to request which parts of the report it wants kept from
public view. 

"We'll look at their suggested changes, redactions and then
we'll release it to the public," Sheehan said.

Sheehan and Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the
safety evaluation contained proprietary information, mainly
having to do with the engineering that went into various
analyses supporting the position that the plant could safely
increase its power output by 20 percent. 

The process of editing could leave little time for members of
the public and a nuclear watchdog group that has opposed the
power boost to review the report before an NRC panel comes to
Vermont for meetings on Nov. 15 and 16. 

"Those of us who are intervenors need to pass this (NRC report)
before our experts," said Raymond Shadis of the New England
Coalition. "This is bound to include highly technical
information that will take time to review. The NRC has had two
years to put this together. Certainly this is short notice." 

Sheehan said there is no deadline for Entergy to complete its
review of the report and make requests keeping items out and for
the NRC to agree or disagree with those requests. 

"We'd obviously like them to move as quickly as possible," he
said. "We're interested in making the document available before
those meetings in Brattleboro." 

Shadis agreed that there likely will be material in the report
that it will be reasonable for Entergy to want to keep secret.

"There is a lot of competition when it comes to doing
engineering on flow-induced vibration and other phenomena
relating to the steam dryer," Shadis said. 

The plant's steam dryer removes moisture from steam because
too-wet steam could damage a reactor's turbines. 

feedback about burlingtonfreepress.com  •   Subscribe
Copyright ©2005 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Independent: EEF calls for scrapping of renewables scheme 

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 

Published: 24 October 2005 

The government scheme which guarantees a market for renewable
energy such as wind power should be scrapped from 2015 and
replaced with a "zero carbon obligation" to pave the way for a
new generation of nuclear power stations, a report urges today. 

The manufacturers organisation, the EEF, says ministers must
back a replacement nuclear programme as part of a balanced and
sustainable long-term energy policy for the UK. 

But it also cautions the Government against putting "all its
eggs in a small number of baskets", saying other options should
be kept open to help Britain meet its emissions targets, such as
clean coal and capturing the carbon from gas-fired power
stations. 

At present, developers of renewable energy projects such as wind
or wave farms are guaranteed a market for their power through
the "renewables obligation", which requires electricity
suppliers to take a fixed proportion of their requirements from
green sources or buy certificates from other suppliers to cover
any shortfall. The scheme is set to run until 2015, when the
target is for 15 per cent of Britain's electricity to come from
renewable sources. 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 25 IRNA: Over 150 nuclear reactors in operation in Europe 

Over 150 nuclear reactors in operation in Europe                
                                                
Brussels, Oct 23, IRNA                                                                                                           

EU-Nuclear energy 

The European atomic forum, FORATOM, says there are strong 
economic and environmental arguments for building more nuclear 
power plants in Europe and other regions of the world.

 The Brussels-based FORATOM, the voice of the nuclear industry in 
Europe, says in an information file that there are more than 150 
nuclear power reactors in operation across the EU.

 For many years, about one third of all the electricity produced 
in the EU has been nuclear-generated.

 When the EU grew from 15 to 25 member states on 1 May 2004, the 
number of EU nations using nuclear energy rose from eight to 13.

 They rely on nuclear for electricity to varying degrees. For 
instance, the nuclear share in total generation is as high as 80 
percent and 78 percent in Lithuania and France respectively, and 
as low as 4 percent in the Netherlands.

 The power plants operate safely and reliably, producing large 
amounts of electricity at competitive prices. They are 
environmentally friendly, as they emit no greenhouse or acid rain 
gases and their waste is safely managed.

 The nuclear industry thereby makes a valuable contribution 
towards achieving Europe's economic, energy supply and 
environmental objectives, says FORATOM.

 The nuclear energy option should be kept open and nuclear 
expertise should be retained, in order to: - achieve a viable and 
diverse energy mix - control airborne pollution and hold down 
emissions of CO2 - the main greenhouse gas - maintain security of 
energy supply and some level of energy independence - promote 
economic development and employment.

 FORATOM is organizing an international conference on the theme 
''Nuclear energy : Riding the winds of change '' in Brussels in 
March next year.

 Nuclear power reactors in EU ============================ 

EU Member States Number of Units 

Belgium 7 Czech Republic 6 Finland 4 France 59 Germany 18 Hungary 
4 Lithuania 2 Netherlands 1 Slovak Republic 6 Slovenia 1 Spain 9 
Sweden 11 UK 27 ==== Total 155 EU Accession states Bulgaria 4 
Romania 1
		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 26 London Times: The manufacturers want the Government to: 

+ relax planning and licensing legislation for nuclear plants; 
+ make a decision on the disposal of radioactive waste; and 
+ replace the current renewables obligation with a zero carbon
obligation in 2015 

The EEF’s analysis that new nuclear plant can be built at a cost
of just £32 per megawatt hour — compared with offshore wind
farms at £71 per megawatt hour — when both gas prices and the
penalty for carbon emissions are high, shows how attractive
nuclear power, which emits no carbon, is becoming. 

Nuclear power provides a fifth of the UK’s electricity. However,
all but one of Britain’s 12 nuclear power stations will be
closed by 2023. 

Tony Blair has called for an “open-minded” debate over the
future of nuclear power in the UK and has said that a decision
will be taken by next year. 

However, the EEF has said that there is no time to lose because
its members have been hit by a 50 to 80 per cent jump in
wholesale power prices this summer and may have their supplies
cut, to protect domestic users, over the next two winters. 

Martin Temple, the director-general of the EEF, said: “The
Government must take a clear lead on this issue to create a
secure environment which will encourage investment in future
energy sources.” 

Mr Temple said that failing to put in place such a strategy
would mean relying on new technology and energy efficiency, both
of which had shown little sign of providing solutions to the
problems of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and providing
low-cost secure supplies. 

The EEF’s report was not a call for subsidy of the nuclear
industry, but a plea for government to encourage responsible
private investment in the sector, Mr Temple said. “In current
circumstances, the market will provide little other than new gas
plants,” he said. 

In a damning assessment of government energy policy, the EEF
finds that the Government’s plan to rely on energy efficiency to
cut carbon emissions has backfired, with households and the
transport sector now using more energy than they used to. It
also says that it is unrealistic to expect wind farms to provide
a fifth of our future energy needs. 

A Department of Trade and Industry spokeswoman said: “A review
of energy policy is under way. There is no silver bullet to
meeting our objectives. We will be examining the options for
civil nuclear power, and whether and to what extent we should
replace the exisiting generating stations.”   	 		

Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.
Copyright 2005          Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 27 Arizona Republic: Palo Verde nuke plant fires up pair of reactors
 
 October 23, 2005 
                
Palo Verde nuke plant fires up pair of reactors 1 unit remains 
offline for repairs, refueling                                           

Max Jarman
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 22, 2005 12:00 AM						 

Two reactors at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that were
shut down Oct. 11 for safety reasons have been restarted and
should be at full power early today. 

A third unit will be offline for 10 to 12 weeks for refueling
and repairs.

 Arizona Public Service Co., which manages the plant, shut down
the units when it was unable to demonstrate to regulators the
effective operation of a key safety system. 

It was one of the few times the nation's largest nuclear power
plant was completely offline.

 Further tests throughout the week convinced the utility that
the system used to cool the plant's nuclear reactors after an
accident would, indeed, function correctly if called upon. 

"We were able to resolve the issue in our own minds and restart
the units," APS spokesman Jim McDonald said.

 The system has never been physically tested because it would
require flooding the reactor containment areas with 750,000
gallons of water. 

"We used calculations and modeling to determine it would work,"
McDonald noted. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a team to Palo Verde last
week to verify APS' conclusions about the system. While the
results of the tests are not final, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks
said the agency had no problem with APS restarting the units.

 Restarting the generators brings back an important source of
low-cost electricity to the Phoenix area and the West. 

While the plant was idle, utilities had to purchase
more-expensive replacement power on the open market and run
high-cost, natural-gas-fired generators.

 The utilities could seek to recover the higher costs from
ratepayers. 

The shutdown was one of a string of unplanned outages at Palo
Verde this year that have concerned federal and state regulators.

 The NRC has stepped up supervision at the plant, and the
Arizona Corporation Commission has promised to scrutinize any
request by APS to recover the costs of the outages from
ratepayers. 

Copyright © 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 28 DAILY NEWS: FDNY chief: We're training for nukes 

  By RICH SCHAPIRO STAFF WRITER 

Terrorists attacking New York City with a crude nuclear weapon or 
a dirty bomb are among the main threats the FDNY is preparing 
for, the department's top disaster planner said yesterday.

 Chief Joseph Pfeifer told a panel of security experts the FDNY 
is rapidly transforming itself into a terrorism-ready force that 
is equipped to respond to such potentially catastrophic attacks.

 "It's the training we do that'll make the difference between who 
gets saved and who doesn't get saved," Pfeifer said at the 
Council on Foreign Relations on E.68thSt.

 The FDNY is particularly concerned about terrorists developing a 
crude nuclear bomb and detonating it among the skyscrapers in 
lower Manhattan.

 Such an attack would likely result in nearly 225,000 casualties, 
Pfeifer said.

 Another scenario worrying fire officials is one in which a 
terrorist could combine a radioactive bomb with an incendiary 
device on the upper floor of a high-rise building.

 The radiological incendiary device, or RID, would create a 
rapidly expanding fire that could engulf a building quickly - and 
result in a disaster similar to 9/11.

 "The fire caused the buildings to collapse, and that's where it 
became a catastrophic event," Pfeifer said. "It's the same thing 
with an RID."

 But Pfeifer noted that nearly 3,000 firefighters have been 
trained as hazardous material specialists, and every unit is now 
outfitted with devices that combat radiation.

 The FDNY also is in the process of developing a $17 million 
command center that is designed to serve as an enhanced 
information hub in the event of another large-scale attack.

 "If an improvised nuclear device goes off ... it will be 
horrific, but we can survive," said Pfeifer. 

Originally published on October 22, 2005   

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.
*****************************************************************
 29 Independent: Insurers balk at 'dirty bombs' payouts 
European planes could be grounded in row over cover for
terrorist attacks 

By Jason Nissé 

Published: 23 October 2005 

Flights could be grounded across Europe as the result of a
growing row about insurance against terrorist threats. 

Many leading insurers have already told airlines that they are
going to exclude damage to aircraft caused by nuclear weapons
and so called dirty bombs - chemical explosives that spread
radioactive contaminants - set off by terrorists. They are now
saying they may also refuse to pay out for death or injury
caused to passengers in such an attack.
 
In this scenario, planes would not be allowed to fly, as the
Warsaw convention covering civil aviation requires passengers to
be insured under the airline's own cover. The problem emerged
earlier this year when a group of London-based insurers, which
dominate the aviation market, started withdrawing cover for
aircraft "hulls".
 
This has left several airlines in the position of being liable
for the cost of replacing an aircraft damaged in a terrorist
attack. This could be as high as £100m and could bankrupt many
small airlines.
 
However, the situation is threatening to get worse. In June,
underwriters at Lloyd's of London formed the Aviation Insurance
Clauses Group, which is pushing though changes to the wording of
standard insurance policies.
 
One of these proposals involves "war, hijacking and other
perils". The current draft would leave insurers not liable for
either hulls or passengers in the case of "hostile detonation of
any device employing atomic and/or nuclear fission" and the
"hostile use of radioactive contamination".
 
This would mean the insurers were not liable for any damage
caused to aircraft by a dirty- bomb attack.
 
A leading insurer said that this was sheer economic necessity,
as a nuclear or dirty bomb at an airport could cause billions of
pounds of damage and bankrupt an insurer.
 
But British Airways is among the airlines that fear they could
be grounded if this threat were carried out. "If they stop
covering for passengers themselves, we cannot fly without that
cover," said a spokeswoman.
 
The International Air Transport Association and the Association
of European Airlines are both lobbying the European Commission
to step in to underwrite any cover to keep airlines flying.
 
The US administration already provides this protection for
American airlines. "This is part of the uneven playing field we
face across the Atlantic," said a spokesman for a top European
airline. 


© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 30 Salt Lake Tribune: Safety concerns with resumption of uranium
mining 

Opinion 

Article Last Updated: 10/22/2005 02:38:25 PM 

By Susan Dawson and Gary Madsen 

Energy issues are making headlines with energy prices soaring 
in the United States. Congress, in an attempt to alleviate this 
problem, passed an energy bill in August providing, in part, 
subsidies for the development of new nuclear power plants. 

Already nuclear reactors worldwide need 180 million pounds of 
uranium, almost twice as much as is produced currently, and the 
price of uranium has increased from $7 a pound in 2001 to $33 
recently. This expanding nuclear program will impact the 
Intermountain West directly with the return of uranium mining, 
which ceased in the early 1990s. 

Colorado mining resumed in 2004 and Utah is gearing up to do 
the same. The two states have issued 8,500 new mining claim 
permits and are the only states operating mills that refine the 
ore into uranium oxides called yellowcake. 

Mining in the past has produced disastrous results for many 
underground uranium miners. Those who worked during the 1940s 
through the 1960s often developed lung cancer and nonmalignant 
respiratory diseases related to work exposures in the mines. 
Many of these workers and their survivors were later afforded 
compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
(RECA). 

Health studies published during the early part of the nuclear 
era showed that radiation standards governing exposures were not 
stringent enough to adequately protect workers. During the early 
1970s these standards were revised so that radiation exposure 
limits in underground mines were cut two-thirds. 

However, in 1980, researchers at the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a review of 
more recent studies and found that the new standard, based upon 
cumulative career exposures, still posed substantial risk of 
developing lung cancer. 

In 1987 NIOSH recommended that the Mine, Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) further reduce exposures to a level that 
would be one-fourth of the 1970 standard, but this proposal was 
never enacted, leaving new workers who enter the profession 
today at substantial risk. 

On April 29, the Navajo Nation Council voted for a resolution 
to not resume uranium mining on Navajo lands because of the 
severe health impacts Navajo workers have already incurred and 
the feeling that uranium mining is still not safe enough. 

Policymakers have not addressed the reduction in working 
levels proposed by NIOSH. There is no evidence that the Bush 
administration is suggesting that more stringent exposure 
standards should be required for underground uranium mining. 

In addition, an appropriations bill will likely be considered 
this session by Congress to research the feasibility of the 
nuclear bunker buster bomb and to ready the Nevada nuclear test 
site for possible resumption of nuclear testing. 

Utah downwinders and workers have experienced disastrous past 
impacts from nuclear testing. 

Our concern is that health and safety concerns will again 
take a back seat. 

--- 

Susan Dawson and Gary Madsen are members of the faculty in 
the Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology at 
Utah State University. 

© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 31 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: It's just a matter of time 

October 22, 2005 

Nevada is right to be suing over an Energy Department plan to
ship nuclear waste by rail

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 Last September Nevada sued the Energy Department over a tiny
portion of its stated plan to transport nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The suit concerns the
department's proposal to build a 319-mile rail line from
Caliente (130 miles northeast of Las Vegas) west to the proposed
dump site. Nevada's attorney for Yucca issues, Joe Egan, argued
the case this week before a federal court in Washington.

 Among the allegations is one stating that the department is
planning the rail line while bypassing the Surface
Transportation Board, the federal agency that oversees rail
projects. The state has an excellent point. The board is charged
with being objective in authorizing and overseeing rail-line
construction, while the Energy Department is biased and up
against a deadline.

 The department hopes to be licensed to open the mountain by
2012. Construction of the proposed, $1 billion Caliente line
would take four or five years, and even preliminary engineering
plans have yet to begin.

 Nevada's transportation consultant, Bob Halstead, has studied
the department's proposal for the rail route out of Caliente. He
says it is so uneven that it would require at least 20 bridges,
each more than 200 feet high. Considering the trains' deadly
cargo, this image is not reassuring. Halstead also says the
route is vulnerable to flooding, rockfalls and even earthquakes.

 The department's plans to haul, mostly by rail, 77,000 tons of
high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain from 127 sites is of
national concern. The shipments would take place weekly over a
24-year-period. For safety's sake, we believe all affected
states should follow Nevada's lead and file federal lawsuits.

 Just this week U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
ordered rail companies to correct their track-switching
procedures. Nine serious accidents have occurred this year
because rail employees forgot to reset tracks, leading trains to
collide with other trains or rail cars.

 Track deficiencies and human error are common. If the Energy
Department's transportation plan is allowed, it will just be a
matter of time before a serious accident will involve a train
carrying nuclear waste.

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 32 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Hal Rothman: The center works for us 

 Photo: Ensign and Reid 

Today: October 23, 2005 at 10:24:17 PDT 

Columnist Hal Rothman: The center works for us Hal Rothman, a 
history professor at UNLV, is a columnist for the Las Vegas Sun.

 You know you're in Nevada when the Republicans don't hate the
unions and some of the state's leading Democrats are anti-choice
on abortion.

 This unlikely formulation, which perfectly describes the
sentiments of our two U.S. senators, Republican John Ensign and
Democrat Harry Reid, also illustrates the ways in which Nevada
politics differs from the national scene.

 We're a small state, and our limitations force us to the
middle. Sure, there are screamers on both ends of the spectrum,
but to succeed in Nevada in politics, you tack to the center.
Most of us hug the middle, some so passionately that we earn the
odd label of "militant centrists."

 You can see it if you look at the state in Election Day color
terms. If you put Nevada into the red-blue division on which TV
relies these days, you'd see a bright blue center pinpointing
the Las Vegas Valley, surrounded by a thickening purple ring
that represents our suburbs.

 The rest of the state would be red with the exception of a
couple of blue dots in the north. It's a typically Western case
of demography vs. geography.

 At the state level, this distinction is equally clear. For the
past 15 years, when we've had a Democratic governor, the
complaint from his party's base was that Bob Miller governed
like a Republican. Kenny Guinn has faced the same predicament:
His fringe is angry at him for governing like a Democrat.

 The national political parties must find Nevada exasperating.
We are growing so fast that some predictions give us as many as
five U.S. representatives by 2020. Right now, one seat is red,
another blue, the third really purple. Who knows what colors the
two new ones might be?

 Our problems are our own, much to the consternation of
political pundits and national parties. The uniting factor in
Nevada politics is contempt for Yucca Mountain and the foul and
callous way the federal government has tried to force a nuclear
waste dump down our throats.

 It's hard not to cheer no matter what your party is as we watch
Reid cut the Yucca Mountain budget with such fervor and
consistency that, before long, we'll be able to drown the damn
thing in the bathtub.

 Even more, our location has pulled us to the center. We sit in
California's enormous shadow, simultaneously subject to its
whims and apart from it.

 In our politics, we've seen everything from California
carpetbaggers who move here to run for office -- and I'm talking
about the 19th-century U.S. Senate as well as 20th-century
gubernatorial races -- to an influx of outside money trying to
influence local decisions. Mostly, we've hewn to our own course,
as ridiculous as it has been on some occasions, because we need
the center to hold.

 This is of particular importance at a time when we are
bombarded by California's worst political innovation, government
by referendum. While this early 20th-century mechanism was
designed as a counter to the centralized political power of "The
Octopus," the Southern Pacific Railroad, the mechanism has in
many ways outlived its usefulness.

 Instead of an instrument of direct democracy, binding
referendum has become a tool of special interests, of demagogues
who can afford enough media time to twist the public's
perception of an issue. This was not what turn-of-the-century
California intended, and it was even further from the ideas of
Thomas Jefferson and the founding generation.

 While we're not so dependent on California that when it
sneezes, we get pneumonia, it's hard to be independent when the
world's fifth-largest economy is next door.

 California's influence on us is growing, as more of Nevada's
population has its roots in the Golden State and seeks here to
avoid what former Californians see as the various flaws of their
home state. Those shortcomings differ depending on whom you ask,
providing even more reason for us to hold true to the precepts
of Nevada.

 We can sum those up most simply as "your business is your
business" and "your property is your property." These two
seemingly competing impulses, privacy and minimal regulation of
the private sector, blend nicely in the Silver State. Our
tradition is to leave each other alone and to let people manage
their assets with as little interference as possible.

 No wonder we're in the center. With privacy as a virtue, we
lean Democratic. With lack of regulation as a virtue, we lean
Republican. Split the difference and we're back to the militant
center.

 In Nevada, history is barely a barometer, much less a
dependable guide. Nonetheless, the state's patterns and
traditions should scare political extremists of all kinds.

 The center serves us well: It allows us more rather than less
freedom in all kinds of ways, encourages our primary economy,
and reminds us of how different we are from our neighbors. The
center may not be exciting, but it does work for Nevada. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 33 Independent: Serco in nuclear clean up bid 

By Francis Elliott and Jason Nissé 

Published: 23 October 2005 

Serco, which is already responsible for the Docklands Light
Railway, the London congestion charge and many of the country's
speed cameras, is pitching for a big role in the clean up of the
UK's nuclear legacy. 

The group may even bid for British Nuclear Group, the BNFL
subsidiary which is expected to be put up for sale with a £500m
price tag later this year. However, this is not its favoured
option and it fears the price for the business could be pushed
up by competition from rival UK group Amec and US contractors
Fluor, Bechtel and Shaw Group. Secro already has a small
interest in nuclear clean up contracts.
 
After the purchase of a business from AEA Technologies, it
became an equal partner with BNG and Lockheed Martin of the US,
in the business that manages the clean up of the Aldermaston
site in Berkshire where British nuclear weapons were developed.
 
Under plans for a £50bn clean up of all the UK's nuclear sites,
a new body has been created, the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority. Its first big contract, to manage the Sellafield site
in Cumbria until 2010, was awarded to BNG.
 
However, subsequent contracts will be put out to tender,
creating a massive scramble for lucrative work. Amec, the
services management group, recently bought nuclear consultancy
NNC to beef up its presence. It would be keen to buy BNG, but it
may struggle to meet the asking price as Amec is only valued at
£1.1bn on the stock market. Serco is in a similar position,
having a market value of £1.2bn.
 
Industry insiders believed that Fluor, the US group, is the
favourite to win BNG if it is put up for sale.
 
State-owned BNFL has yet to finally decide whether it is going
to sell BNG. 

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 34 Salt Lake Tribune: NRC reconsiders dangers of depleted uranium 

Article Last Updated: 10/22/2005 02:49:21 AM 

The agency is told that the material is too dangerous for its 
classification 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Is it safe to dispose of depleted uranium in places like 
Envirocare of Utah, where only low-level radioactive waste is 
allowed? 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's answer used to be 
an automatic "yes." But the federal agency this week appeared to 
stop taking it for granted that all depleted uranium deserves to 
be treated as Class A, the lowest category of low-level 
radioactive waste and the most hazardous type Envirocare is 
allowed to dispose of at its Tooele County landfill. 

In a case involving a uranium enrichment plant proposed for 
New Mexico that has talked to Envirocare about taking its waste 
called depleted uranium, the federal panel opened the door 
Wednesday for two anti-nuclear groups to make the case that 
federal oversight of depleted uranium disposal is alarmingly 
lenient. 

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public 
Citizen say depleted uranium is 40 times more radioactive than 
typical Class A waste, four times more hazardous to people than 
certain types of plutonium and can only be disposed of safely 
deep underground. The groups say federal regulators should 
reject the notion that landfills like Envirocare are constructed 
well enough to secure the highly radioactive waste for thousands 
of years. 

The case has long-term implications for Utah and Envirocare, 
which has accepted depleted uranium for more than a decade under 
its state license. 

One of three U.S. disposal sites licensed for Class A waste, 
Envirocare has a good chance of landing the disposal contract 
for waste from the New Mexico plant, which is proposed by a U.S. 
and European consortium of nuclear companies called Louisiana 
Energy Services. The plant would generate 1 million 55-gallon 
drums of depleted uranium over 30 years. 

The U.S. Energy Department also appears to favor Envirocare 
as the site for disposal of waste from three old enrichment 
plants (in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) where depleted uranium 
has been piling up for decades. 

Utah is affected because the state would have to reexamine 
its regulations. State regulations parallel the federal ones, 
and a change in how the federal government treats depleted 
uranium from enrichment plants might mean the state would not be 
able to allow any depleted uranium from enrichment plants. 

Last winter, lawmakers banned waste hotter than Class A from 
coming into the state. Momentum grew for the ban after the U.S. 
Congress two years ago changed the labeling of highly 
contaminated radioactive waste to render it suitable for 
Envirocare, or one of two other commercial sites like it. 

If the science has changed, or the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is rethinking its depleted uranium regulations, then 
they need to inform the state, said John Hultquist, who has 
oversight responsibility for Envirocare at the Utah Division of 
Radiation Control. 

"Based on what we've done, that's how we interpret the rules, 
that it [depleted uranium] is Class A waste" and Envirocare can 
safely take it, he said. 

Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker noted that the company had 
to perform an in-depth safety review during its licensing more 
than a decade ago. 

"We had to demonstrate that we could contain it safely," he 
said. 

The environmental groups adamantly disagree. They accuse the 
commission staff and Louisiana Energy Services of ignoring clear 
evidence that shows the dangers of the leftovers from uranium 
enrichment. 

"The NRC staff is trying to pull a fast one on the public by 
saying, 'Don't worry, that's low-level Class A waste,' " said 
Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear waste expert for the environmental 
groups. "Envirocare has been saying 'We're OK with this.' The 
[state] regulators are saying, 'We're OK with this,' " 

High radioactivity is one sign of how dangerous depleted uranium 
is, says Makhijani. Class A waste generally allows each gram of 
waste to have 10 nanocuries of radioactivity, a standard measure 
of radiation concentration. But depleted uranium from enrichment 
plants generally has around 350 nanocuries per gram - 35 times 
more than typical Class A. 

Another measure is dose consequences, or what it would mean 
if workers, intruders and nearby residents were exposed to the 
waste. Louisiana Energy Services and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission staff have based their dose estimates on calculations 
made by the U.S. Energy Department, which says that depleted 
uranium is well under the 25 millirem considered safe. 

Makhijani says none of them has done the homework and the 
dose would be many times higher. 

And he noted that depleted uranium gets even more 
radioactive over time, because the metals produced when it 
decays have a more destructive radioactive energy than uranium. 

He applauded the commission's acknowledgement in its 
Wednesday ruling that, for "the uranium enrichment waste stream 
. . . no analysis was done." 

Makhijani said his group alone has done the hazard-based 
analysis that is necessary to understand how bad the enrichment 
plant waste would be. He said Louisiana Energy Services should 
expect to spend at least $2.4 billion for deep burial, rather 
than a shallow landfill like Envirocare. 

"It's a very good thing, what the NRC is doing, and they 
should be applauded for that," he said. 

The commission did not return a call Friday seeking comment 
on the ruling. 

Meanwhile, Louisiana Energy Services downplayed the hazard 
associated from the waste. Rod Kirch, the vice president of 
licensing, said the environmental groups have exaggerated the 
risks. 

"This material is pretty benign," he said. "It has been 
handled for 50 years without trouble . . . it is Class A waste." 

For Louisiana Energy Services the least expensive solution 
for the depleted uranium waste - at a cost of about $700 million 
- would be a proposed landfill just across the border from its 
Eunice, N.M., plant in Texas. But the state of Texas has yet to 
license that site. 

Louisiana Energy Services abandoned plans to locate its 
plant in Louisiana after an outcry that it would put a too-heavy 
burden on the surrounding community, which has a large 
population of minorities. 

A hearing is set for Monday in Washington, D.C., for the 
environmental groups, the company and the Louisiana Energy 
Services staff to make oral arguments on the environmental 
safety and the costs of the waste plan. 

Envirocare opponents Jason Groenewold and Claire Geddes 
criticized a proposal, approved already by state regulators, to 
double the size of Envirocare's waste site - especially in light 
of the large quantity of LES's waste. 

"The last thing Utah should do," they said, "is double the 
size of Envirocare's nuclear waste landfill when the nation is 
looking for a place to dump hundreds of thousands of tons of 
unwanted depleted uranium." 

fahys@sltrib.com 

© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 35 People's Daily: Belarus protests Lithuania's plan to store radioactive wastes 
near its border
 
     UPDATED: 13:44, October 22, 2005   

Belarus protests against 's plans to build a storage facility for
radioactive wastes near its border with Belarus, Belarussian
Prime Minister Sergei Sidorsky stated on Friday. 

"We expressed our opposition to plans to build a radioactive
waste storage facility near the Belarussian territory and will
defend this position in the most vigorous way," Sidorsky said at
a meeting with Lithuanian Ambassador to Belarus Petras
Vaitekunas in Minsk. 

The Belarussian premier said this issue was discussed during his
recent visit to Vilnius, the Interfax news agency reported. 

According to Vaitekunas, Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas
Brazauskas assured him that "there are a lot of irrelevant
points in this issue and that the press has made quite a fuss
out of it". 

The two prime ministers agreed to set up a joint task force to
study the problem, he said. 

Sidorsky noted that this problem should be resolved "in good
faith", and the two sides should do all they can for the
benefits of both countries. 

Source: Xinhua 


  Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 36 NEWS.com.au: Uranium miner plans for ban end - Queensland - 

From: AAP                       
October 22, 2005   		 		 		 

URANIUM mining and production in Queensland could become a
reality, an exploration giant said, citing confidence that the
state Labor Government will change its no-new-mines policy. But
the Government said it will "absolutely not" support uranium
mining now or in the future because of its adverse impact on the
Queensland coal industry.

 Under current Labor Party policy in Queensland no new mining
leases can be granted, but Perth-based Summit Resources -
Australia's largest uranium explorer - believes a change in
Labor Party policy on mining is likely.

 Summit Resources is one of several mining companies which have
invested millions of dollars in future uranium prospects across
the state.

 Its uranium tenements are based in Mount Isa in north-west
Queensland where it has recently spent $10 million on
exploration.

 The group's managing director Alan Eggers said today the
company was more confident than it had been for some time that a
policy change would occur within the next few years.

"In the last year or so, there has been a change in public 
sentiment and a political shift within the Labor Party which we 
see as perhaps leading to a policy change and approval for us to 
mine," he said.

 He said a change was now "much more likely" due to rising
uranium prices, rising energy prices, the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and environmentalist leader's support
of nuclear power development.

 But Queensland Mines Minister Henry Palaszczuk said the
Government's position on uranium mining would not change.

 "It's a big assumption by Summit Resources to think that the
"overnment will be lifting its long-standing policy against
uranium mining," a spokesman for the minister said.

 Premier Peter Beattie's spokesman said the Government would
"absolutely not" support uranium mining now or in the future
because of its adverse impact on the Queensland coal industry.

 "Mr Beattie would not support anything that would undermine
coal, particularly uranium mining," he said. 		  		 		 		Search
for more stories on this topic on Newstext, our news archive
service. 

*****************************************************************
 37 AU ABC: Green groups cast doubt over uranium inquiry. 

24/10/2005. ABC News Online 

The Northern Territory Environment Centre says a national 
inquiry into uranium resources has been set up to justify the 
Federal Government's push for more uranium mines. 

The inquiry committee is receiving submissions in Darwin this 
afternoon. 

The centre's Peter Robertson says his submission is the only 
environmental opposition the committee has allowed to be heard. 

He says the range of evidence being collected by the committee 
will be limited and heavily pro-uranium mining. 

"Just about every mining company in Australia that has any 
interest in mining uranium appears to have been given the 
opportunity to appear before this inquiry, whereas as we've seen 
in the Darwin situation only one group with concerns about the 
environment and future generations has been given the 
opportunity to appear," he said. 

Mr Robertson says so far the committee has not been receptive 
to any opposition to the uranium industry. 

"This committee has been set up to basically recommend an 
expansion of uranium mining and uranium exports," he said. 

"I mean if you read the transcripts of their hearings in 
Melbourne, Canberra, Perth etc, they've clearly been quite 
antagonistic towards those groups and professionals who have 
spoken out in opposition of new uranium mines." 

Justin Tutty from the No Waste Alliance says his organisation 
wrote a submission to the inquiry but has been refused the 
opportunity to speak and he says there are others. 

"The network opposing war and racism and the Greens and our 
network the No Waste Alliance but I'm also aware there's been a 
lot of activity in regional areas like Katherine and Alice 
Springs in particular where people are definitely concerned 
about nuclear plans in their neighbourhoods and the inquiry 
isn't even visiting them," he said. 

The Country Liberal Party Member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, is 
a member of the of the inquiry committee. 

He says other opposition groups did not apply to speak. 

"I'm not aware that they'd asked to be invited. We looked at 
all the people who wanted to speak in front of the committee and 
people who'd put in written submissions and I'm not aware that 
any group has been knocked back," he said. 

© 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy 
*****************************************************************
 38 CNIC: Japanese uranium contaminated soil arrives in Seattle

(Citizens' Nuclear Information Center)
 													 													 														
19 October 2005
 													 													 														
The news flash below about the arrival in Seattle of the ship
carrying this uranium contaminated soil was issued on 18 October
2005. The next day we heard that the source of our information
had been telephoned by an officer of the Japan Atomic Energy
Agency (JAEA) complaining that this news item had been posted on
CNIC's English site and warning that in future they might not be
so free in providing such information.
 														
We must say we were pleasantly surprised at JAEA's cooperation
in releasing details of the arrival of the ship. It was a stark
contrast to their previous attitude. However, by rights there
should have been no secrecy in the first place.
 														
The upshot of this is that more freedom of information requests
have been lodged in an effort to ensure that the fate of this
soil is traced through to the end.
 														
Philip White
 														
Here is the report dated 18 October 2005.
 														
We were informed this morning that the uranium contaminated soil
has been off-loaded at Everett. The following details were
provided by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency's (formerly Japan
Nuclear Cycle Development Institute) Ningyo Toge Center:
 														
Ship docked at the port of Everett in Seattle at around 8am on
17 October (US time)
 															Uranium contaminated soil unloaded from around
9am and 11am (US time)
 														
We understand that the soil will be loaded onto trucks and
transported by road to White Mesa.
 														 															
by Teisuke Ishio 																	   																
															
TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ Email
*****************************************************************
 39 Las Vegas SUN: Long Yucca fight frustrates both side 

Today: October 20, 2005 at 8:4:18 PDT 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

Sun Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON -- When people talk about Yucca Mountain and 
geological time, they're not necessarily talking about rocks. 
They just as well could be describing the protracted, yearslong 
debate over the federal government's proposal to put the 
nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas. 

The government's plan for Yucca has moved extraordinarily 
slowly in the face of ceaseless bickering between, on one side, 
Nevada officials and environmentalists, and on the other, the 
Energy Department and the nuclear industry. 

It's a fight that has frustrated both sides. 

Nevada officials continually say the Energy Department does not 
play by the rules -- an argument made again in federal court 
Tuesday. On the other side, nuclear utilities wonder why, in 
2005, a nuclear waste repository that was supposed to open in 
1998 still is being debated rather than used. 

The repository is scheduled to open by 2010, but that is a long 
shot. Some believe the Energy Department will be lucky to get a 
license application reviewed by then in a process where nothing 
is simple and nothing is without controversy. 

"The most frustrating thing is the deference the government 
gets on what clearly are reckless things," said attorney Joe 
Egan, who represents Nevada on Yucca issues. "This type of 
behavior would not be tolerated in the corporate climate." 

Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's advocacy group and a 
top Yucca supporter, is just as frustrated over finding itself 
still waiting for a repository promised 20 years ago. 

"The most frustrating thing overall is the failure of the 
Department of Energy to have submitted a license application as 
planned," NEI attorney Mike Bauser said. "It is dif.cult to 
identify one single thing that would cure the ongoing delay." 
Every energy budget in Congress, public comment at an agency or 
federal court case drag out the process even longer, with no end 
in sight. 

That's not necessarily bad for "Every day that it is delayed, 
is another day in our favor," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive 
director of Citizen Alert, which opposes the repository. Johnson 
said the longer the project takes, the more her organization and 
other anti-Yucca groups can strengthen opposition to the 
repository, especially in other states. 

"These delays are going to help us," Johnson said. "We've been 
able to shoot (the proponents) down at every single turn." 

Calling Nevada's arguments valid, not simply a delaying tactic, 
Johnson describes the proposed radiation protection standard as 
"horrific" and terms the transportation plans "outrageous." 

Each argument against the site, whether Nevada ultimately 
prevails or not, drags the Energy Department further away from a 
license application. And no application means no waste in Nevada 
-- for now. 

On Tuesday, Egan argued before the U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia against the Energy 
Department's plan to put a rail line through Caliente and on to 
Yucca Mountain. 

Nevada wants the court to force the Energy Department to go 
back and prepare a new environmental impact statement on its 
transportation plan with the Surface Transportation Board at the 
table. The board automatically brings more scrutiny to the 
process, Egan said. 

If the court rules in Nevada's favor, the department may have 
to go back to the transportation drawing board on a shipping 
plan already riddled with uncertainties. 

Another battle front was the subject of a hearing last Thursday 
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where a three-judge panel 
is trying to determine how the public can access certain Energy 
Department documents. While Nevada's attorneys want access to as 
much information as possible, the department wants to protect 
data that it says should be kept confidential, such as details 
about nuclear fuel used by the Navy. 

The department's attorneys have been filing monthly reports 
since March on the project's status. October's report, like the 
others, did not give a specific date for submitting the license 
application. 

Judge Thomas Moore, one of the three judges, said he wants 
better reports estimating the project's progress, including 
specific dates for submitting the application. 

"Events are linked to other events, and it's hard to draw 
absolute straight lines to a day on the calendar," attorney Don 
Irwin, who represents the department, said. 

While the lengthy debate and delays can be viewed as battle 
victories for Nevada, in the end, the state might not win the 
war. 

David Blee, managing director for the Forrestal Group, an 
energy consulting firm in Washington, said it will be difficult 
for one state to "thwart" the will of Congress and the president.

"They have a tendency to claim the sky is falling a number of 
times or that they have a smoking gun, but that hasn't been the 
case," said Blee, who is part of the U.S. Transport Council that 
supports the site. 

"As far as the politics, it's like a chess game -- they are 
constantly moving their pieces," Blee said. "Anyone who plays 
chess knows it take a lot of patience." 

Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at 
suzanne@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas SUN: Rail ban could increase danger 

Today: October 21, 2005 at 7:10:14 PDT 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

Sun Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON -- Banning hazardous materials on certain rail 
routes would not eliminate any risks and could cause more 
problems, a railroad expert told a Senate panel Thursday. 

A train loaded with chlorine or another hazardous chemical is 
an attractive terrorist target and poses a great safety risk 
even without the terrorist threat, some cities' officials 
believe. The fear has prompted bans of certain materials on 
certain routes. 

Las Vegas has an ordinance banning nuclear waste shipments. But 
four cities -- Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago -- have 
introduced ordinances banning more common hazardous waste 
shipments. The District of Columbia has already passed such a 
ban, but because of a legal challenge shipments can still take 
place for now. 

Advocates of hazardous waste bans are trying to recruit Las 
Vegas to introduce its own as well. 

But if the bans pass, they won't do much good, Association of 
American Railroads President Edward Hamberger told the Senate 
Commerce Committee on Thursday. 

"The proposals may be well intended, but the end result of 
their enactment would likely be an increase in exposure to 
hazmat release -- and reduced safety and security," Hamberger 
said. 

He said 1.7 million carloads of hazardous material are moved 
via rail in the United States each year, and "99.998 percent of 
these shipments reach their destination without a release caused 
by an accident." 

"Banning hazmat movements in particular jurisdictions would not 
eliminate risks, but instead would simply shift them from one 
place to another," he said. "In shifting that risk, it could 
foreclose transportation routes that are optimal in terms of 
overall safety, security and efficiency." 

Rerouting shipments could add hundreds of miles and additional 
days to a shipment, he said. Emergency personnel along the new 
routes may not have had as much training as those on the 
previous routes. 

"Banning hazmat shipments in even one city would be 
problematic; banning them in cities throughout the country would 
cause immense confusion and economic disruption nationwide and 
would virtually shut down hazmat shipments by rail in this 
country," Hamberger testified. 

Nuclear waste that could go to the proposed nuclear waste 
repository at Yucca Mountain is not classified as "hazardous 
material." Radioactive waste has its own rules, partly governed 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a division of the 
Transportation Department. 

During the nearly two-hour hearing, the potential cross-country 
shipments of waste to Yucca did not come up. 

Hamberger called hazmat shipments a "bet the farm" situation 
for railroad companies, meaning that if an accident occurred, it 
would be devastating to the railroad industry. 

After the hearing, he said moving used nuclear fuel would not 
fall into that same category. 

"If there were to be a breach, it does not have the same 
consequence," he said. "There is no plume, and the immediate 
impact is not as great." 

Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at 
suzanne@ lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 41 Salt Lake Tribune: Greens set to challenge Envirocare 

Article Last Updated: 10/20/2005 07:24:54 AM 

By Judy Fahys 

The Radiation Control Board voted 6-4 to allow the Healthy 
Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) to formally challenge the 
hazardous and radioactive waste company's license to expand, 
which state regulators had signed off on this summer. 

Both sides seemed a bit surprised by the decision. Many had 
expected Envirocare's request to move forward a step Wednesday. 
The Legislature's Interim Committee on Environment, Natural 
Resources and Agriculture had scheduled review of a resolution 
supporting the expansion, drawing dozens of people who wanted to 
weigh in on the issue. 

But debate on that resolution was scrapped when the board's 
deliberations outlasted the legislative hearing, which was going 
on simultaneously. 

An appeal now may mean a long delay for Envirocare's plans 
to double the size of its Tooele County disposal site to 1,079 
acres. The company still needs legislative and gubernatorial 
approval for the license to be complete. 

"It's a process," said company's President and CEO Steve 
Creamer. "We'll just work harder every day and do the best job 
we can." 

The Radiation Control Board will set a schedule for the 
appeal in November. 

"Doubling the nuclear waste disposal in Utah will have 
serious and long-term impacts on the health and well-being of 
Utahns for decades to come," said Jason Groenewold, executive 
director of HEAL. "The I's should have been dotted and the T's 
should have been crossed, but the regulators did not even run 
the spell check before granting the expansion." 

HEAL contends that Envirocare's application is incomplete, 
so regulators should have rejected it. 

Karen Langley, head of the Radiation Control Board, said HEAL
had met the legal standard of raising issues of public 
importance. 

At future hearings the board will decide on the merits of 
HEAL's objections. 

"The board wants to be sure [members] are on the side of 
caution and to serve the public interest," she said. 

The legislative panel's hearing was postponed indefinitely. 

"It would be premature for us to pass a resolution when [the 
license approval] is on appeal," said Rep. Roger Barrus, 
R-Centerville, who co-chairs the panel. 

Both supporters and opponents vowed to return when 
legislators reschedule the hearing. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

What it means: 

* An appeal could stall Envirocare's plans to double the size 
of its Tooele County hazardous and radioactive waste disposal 
site. The company still needs a final OK from regulators, plus 
approval of lawmakers and the governor. 

Envirocare expansion up to appeal 

An environmental group won the right Wednesday to challenge 
Envirocare of Utah's expansion plans. 

© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 42 Al-Jazeerah: Mordechai Vanunu Interviewed By Hesham Tillawi 

Opinion Editorials, October 2005, 

Al-Jazeerah, October 21, 2005 
  
Below is the transcript of an eye-opening radio (telephone) 
interview that took place between peace activist Mordechai Vanunu 
and talk show host Hesham Tillawi on the television program 
Current Issues, in September 2005. 
  
TILLAWI. ‘Well, I do believe that we have Mordechai Vanunu with
us…Mordechai, are you with us? 
  
VANUNU. Yes. 
  
TILLAWI. Good Morning, I know that it is 4 o’clock in the
morning there in Jerusalem. Folks, Mordechai Vanunu has spent 18
years in an Israeli jail for telling Israeli nuclear secrets. He
was lured to Rome by Israeli agents and kidnapped and then sent
back to Israel where he spent 18 yrs in prison and 11 of those
years in solitary confinement. That is true, Mordechai? 
  
VANUNU. Yes, that is right. 
  
TILLAWI Now, Mordechai, I have a question for you. What was it
that you really felt that you must tell the world about, what
was it about the Israeli nuclear program that you felt to
yourself, ‘you know I cannot continue like this, I cannot remain
silent on this, I have got to tell the world about it.’ What was
it? 
  
VANUNU Well, the most important point is that it was the same
situation that we have right now, namely that these people
continue to lie and to cheat the world as well as their own
citizens by denying the truth, by declaring that they do not
have atomic weapons while at the same time I was working there
helping to produce them. At that time there were more than 200
atomic weapons, in 1986, and it was at that time that they
started to produce the most horrible of all weapons, the
hydrogen bomb…all of this in secret, in lying and in cheating
the world and all of its citizens. So I said to myself ‘It is
impossible to keep these secrets. I must report about them and
to try and stop it.’ 
  
TILLAWI Mordechai, there are a lot of nations that have nuclear
weapons. What is it about Israel having them that makes you so
nervous? 
  
VANUNU Because Israel wants to use them, to cause genocide and
holocaust on other innocent citizens. It has always been a part
of Israel’s secret policy. And also by having them, Israel will
use them as a threat to avoid making peace with the Arab world
as well as imposing her policies on those peoples. As long as
she has them, she will continue on in her policies of not making
peace, of occupation and of neglecting the Palestinian suffering
caused by the refugee camps that have existed for more than 50
years. 
  
TILLAWI One of the Israeli professors said a few months ago that
‘we have the nuclear capability of hitting every major European
city,’ is that true to your knowledge? 
  
VANUNU Yes, it is true. They can bombard any city all over the
world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United
States, and by this threat what they are doing is to send a
secret message to any leader and to any government that they
have the ability to use them aggressively and to blackmail them,
to blackmail Europe and the United States, every where, in every
state around the world. It was Europe and the United States who
helped them get this power, and now that Israel has it, she is
coming back and saying to them ‘We will not obey any orders that
you give us. No international law, no international agreement,
no UN resolutions,’ and all because of these atomic weapons tha!
t they have. 
  
TILLAWI Where do you live now Mordechai? 
  
VANUNU Since my release in 2004 I am not allowed to leave the
country, all this after serving 18 years. So I decided that I
wanted to be someplace where I will not see the ugliness of
Jewish society, so I decided to stay in East Jerusalem among
Palestinians and among foreigners. Right now I am staying in the
guesthouse of St. George’s Cathedral, the Anglican Church. I
cannot leave Israel, so I am living amongst the Palestinians and
under Israeli occupation, because East Jerusalem is part of the
occupation since 1967. 
  
TILLAWI Now, you also have converted from Judaism to
Christianity, is that right? 
  
VANUNU Yes 
  
TILLAWI Now, I have a question for you, and I do not want to put
you on the spot, but two things happened in your life that are
profound. The first is that, according to some people, you
betrayed Israel and in their eyes you are considered a traitor,
but that is not what I want to ask you about. What I do want to
ask you is this: What is the process that went through your head
twice in your life? One of them is when you decided to expose
the nuclear capability of Israel, your own country, and the
other one which is also profound was when you changed your
religion to Christianity. Now, those two things are profound and
I do not think that there are too many! people in the world who
have two major shifts in their lives like these. What made
Mordechai Vanunu betray his country and then change his
religion? 
  
VANUNU Yes, this is a very good question and very important. You
are right, it is not usual to have a person come to these hard
conclusions. As far as my conversion, it started at the very
early age of 15 or 16. I was raised in the Jewish religion and
in a Jewish family. Israel and Judaism were considered as one
nation, one big family, one tribe. 

I began criticizing and rejecting Judaism over the point of view 
that these Jews are teaching injustice through their Judaism. In 
the same way that Jesus Christ also criticized Judaism 2,000 
years ago, I was unwilling to accept what they teach, and later 
converted to the opposite of Judaism. 

The Jewish tribe teaches that there is only one Chosen people of 
God. The! y teach of their superiority, taking literally 
word-by-word the writings in the old bible. And I decided 
therefore that after 2,000 years these ideas were nonsense. There 
are 6 billion people around the world, and all of them are equal, 
all are part of the human race. There is no such thing as a super 
race. We should all respect and love each other, and that was the 
beginning of my rejecting Judaism and my accepting of 
Christianity, of following the teachings of Jesus Christ and of 
accepting humanity. 

I am not a religious man, I am not going to become a priest. I 
did all of this for my humanity and for my beliefs. So, I chose 
my own way and began criticizing the Jewish faith. Those who 
teach Judaism run the lives of those under them, telling them 
what they must do every hour of every day, issuing many orders 
about everything, from waking up in the morning to going to 
sleep, but at the same time they do not teach them to respect 
other human beings, to accept non-Jews and to believe ! that 
non-Jews are like them. They teach that only the Jews are the 
chosen people. So, this is Judaism, a collection of primitive 
traditions thousands of years old that have not changed. 

The world has changed in the last 2,000 years and the Jewish 
people need to accept and understand this change, and especially 
if they want a democratic country. You cannot have a state and 
run it as they did 2,000 years ago. They came to Palestine in the 
name of the Bible and in the name of their god and took this land 
that was promised to them thousands of years ago. In the name of 
this god, they took the land, expelled the people and gave them 
hard, cruel, barbaric lives for the last 60 years. This way of 
thinking, this faith cannot exist within this new age, and it was 
this that also led me to expose Israel’s nuclear secrets. 
  
TILLAWI Mordechai, you have been living amongst the Palestinians
for a while now. What do you think, are they the terrorists that
we have all been hearing about? 
  
VANUNU I have been living amongst the Palestinians now for 15
months, but I have been following the Palestinian situation now
since the 1980’s. Now I am here living among them, watching
them, meeting with them, eating with them, enjoying life with
them and seeing how the Israelis have succeeded in portraying
them all over the world as terrorists. But this is not true.
They are very peaceful people and lovers of peace. 
  
TILLAWI What do you think should happen? How do you think that
this conflict should be settled?   
  
VANUNU Well, if the Jewish people want a solution, it can happen
only by one way, and this is by accepting the Palestinians and
by treating them as equal human beings. If the Israelis want
peace, then the proof that you want peace is by respecting the
people of the other side and seeing them as equals. The Jews
must stop seeing themselves as being part of a master race. The
only solution is one state, one society where everyone has equal
rights and have the same rights in all categories. If the Jews
have the right of return based on what happened 2,000 years ago,
then the Palestinians have the right of return after 50 years as
well. With one state, there will be no more conflict over land
and there will be no more enemies. Israel will the! n not need
atomic weapons because she will learn to live in peace with her
neighbors instead of trying to live as a racist supremacist
state. The Israelis are not willing to accept this though
because they want a Jewish state. Therefore, a secular,
non-religious state is the only solution. 
  
TILLAWI. Of course, Israel will not accept this option because
of demographic concerns. 
  
VANUNU Yes, that is true and has always been part of Israel’s
plan. This has been the reason for Israel not accepting refugees
and for isolating the Palestinians in places such as Gaza. 
  
TILLAWI. What do you think of the Gaza withdrawal? 
  
VANUNU The Gaza withdrawal was nothing but a big piece of
propaganda trying to show how the Jews were being forced off
their land. Of course, what they do not say is the fact that
this land was Palestinian land and that it was taken from them
by force. So the Zionists used this for brainwashing the people
in the United States into thinking about Jewish suffering. But
secretly the plan is to use this as a way of isolating 1.4
million Palestinians. The demographic issue is very strong in
the mind of the Jewish people and so what they want to do is to
eventually move all the Palestinian people into this very small
area. All the while, the Sharon government continues to build
more settlements in the West Bank. 
  
TILLAWI Back in 1999, 35 members of Congress wrote a letter to
President Clinton a concerning you. His response to that letter
was “I share with you your concern over Vanunu’s plight and over
Israel’s nuclear program. We have repeatedly urged Israel to
adhere to the treaty and to accept comprehensive international
atomic energy safeguards and inspections.”  To your knowledge,
have the Israeli nuclear sites ever been inspected by an
international nuclear agency? 
  
VANUNU No, it has never opened its program to international
inspections. 
  
TILLAWI So, why are we after Iran then to open its doors to
inspections, but no one is asking Israel to do the same? Why is
that? 
  
VANUNU This is a very strange situation that has been developed
and accepted by the Western states since the 1960’s. It goes
back about 40 years. My view is that Europe and America are and
have been under a long-term agenda of blackmail by the Israelis.
In the first case, the Israelis constantly bring up the
Holocaust and what happened to the Jews during WWII, blaming the
West for it and then using this as the justification for
possessing nuclear weapons as a way of preventing this from ever
happening again. 
  
TILLAWI. Mordechai, do you know how many Atomic Weapons they
possess? 
  
VANUNU At the time that I first revealed Israel’s nuclear
weapons program, they had more than 200 atomic weapons and were
able to produce every year about 40 kilograms of plutonium. This
amount can be used in making 10 atomic weapons each year. What
that means is that since 1986 they were able to make another
200. 
  
TILLAWI In your opinion, against whom do the Israelis plan to
use these weapons? 
  
VANUNU Their target has always been the Arab states. 
  
TILLAWI How real do you think this threat really is? 
  
VANUNU It is very, very real. Very, very close. It’s easy. It’s
simple. All that they need is one crazy leader in the
government. They may use it one day to make the world see that
they are very powerful and thus force the world to let them
continue on with their racist apartheid state for the Jewish
people while not accepting any other solutions and to continue
rejecting any real solutions for these problems involving the
Palestinian people. 
  
TILLAWI Now, what is your situation? You have a trial coming up
soon? 
  
VANUNU My situation now is that they have renewed my
restrictions for the 2nd year. I cannot leave the country and I
cannot speak to foreigners. I am not allowed to speak to you,
but I continue to give interviews, so they came and arrested me
on November 11th and questioned me and now have put me in a
trial. It began a few weeks ago and will continue on through
next year. They are accusing me of giving interviews to foreign
media. I also am not allowed to go into the occupied
territories, so I cannot go into Bethlehem. That is the
situation now. I am facing trial and am under restrictions. 
  
TILLAWI So, in other words you will be getting into trouble for
speaking with us tonight? 
  
VANUNU, No, it was for interviews that I gave before. For
speaking to you tonight Tillawi I will have to face another
trial. 
  
TILLAWI. Mordechai, I want to thank you for being with us. It
has been a very informative interview, and I just want to say
thank you again and good luck to you. 
  
VANUNU Thank you very much and good luck to you and to your
audience, and I hope to be with you all one day soon. Thank you. 
  
TILLAWI Okay folks, that was Mordechai Vanunu, former Israeli
nuclear scientist who told the world what was happening in
Israel. 
  
***An audio version of this program can be accessed by going to
www.currentissues.tv and clicking on the photo of Mordechai
Vanunu. Please tune in to Current Issues every Thursday evening
at 9pm eastern time to hear the latest and most important news
with regards to what is taking place in the Middle East. It is a
no-holds-barred program that isn’t afraid to tell the truth
about the dangers that mankind is facing with regards to Zionism
and its policies. Hesham Tillawi can also be heard Tuesday
evenings at 9pm eastern time on the internet radio program
entitled The Crescent and Cross Solidarity Hour with co-host
Mark Glenn. The live program is dedicated to an examination of
what is taking place in the Middle East and around the world
from a Christian/Muslim perspective. An easy to install ! player
program is required in order to listen to the show, which can be
accessed at the following site: 
  

  http://www.live365.com/downloads/player365/index.html
  
editor@aljazeerah.info   
*****************************************************************
 43 Tennessean: Atomic bomb sites may become parks - 

Sunday, 10/23/05
 
http://www.tennessean.com"

Some hope Manhattan Project sites saved
 
By JAMES HANNAH Associated Press 

Shrouded in secrecy for years and even decades, the atomic bomb
Manhattan Project sites — such as Oak Ridge, where the first
uranium enrichment facilities and pilot-scale nuclear reactor
were built — might soon be turned into national parks so the
sites and their history can be preserved.

But the idea is threatening to stir opposition with people
worrying that it sends the wrong message.

Larry Gara, professor emeritus of history at Wilmington College
of Ohio, said turning the bomb sites into national parks is a
bad idea.

"As an historian, I'm interested in preserving historic places,
but anything that would make the bomb seem like a wonderful
achievement is unacceptable," Gara said. "It started the age of
nuclear terror."

Supporters say that turning the sites into parks will help
preserve an important part of the nation's history and document
an incredible technological achievement made under severe
secrecy. And they say it also will be a tribute to the benefits
of atomic energy.

Next month, the National Park Service is expected to launch a
two-year study of bomb sites to determine which should be
included in the park system.

The legislation authorizing the study doesn't preclude any site.
As well as Oak Ridge, it singles out Los Alamos, N.M., where the
first bomb was designed and built, and Hanford, Wash., which had
the first full-scale plutonium-producing reactor.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who sponsored the bill, has said
making the sites part of the park system would elevate their
importance and help promote tourism and public understanding of
the historical significance of the Manhattan Project.         

This boarded-up warehouse in Dayton, Ohio, was used in the
Manhattan Project. Some sites may be turned into national parks.
(AP)   

Copyright © 2005, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 TheDenverChannel.com: Former Rocky Flats Operators Try To Prevent 
Testimony Of Grand Jury Foreman

Court Filings Made In Class Action Lawsuit

POSTED: 6:01 pm MDT October 21, 					 					2005

DENVER -- Attorneys defending operators of the former Rocky
Flats nuclear weapons site against a multimillion-dollar
class-action lawsuit are seeking to prevent testimony by the
foreman of a 1992 grand jury that voted to indict officials over
contamination there.

 Attorneys for Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.
said in a court filing late Thursday that Wes McKinley, now a
member of the state Legislature, was expected to testify about
his experiences on the grand jury and about a bill he proposed
to warn of potential lingering contamination at the site 10
miles northwest of Denver.

 McKinley, who said Friday he hopes to be able to testify,
refused to answer questions on those subjects during a
deposition, citing grand jury secrecy rules, defense attorneys
said.

 "It is obvious that what plaintiffs want McKinley to tell the
jury is: `The cleanup effort at Rocky Flats is flawed and there
are continuing health risks at Rocky Flats, but because of
(secrecy rules) I cannot tell you why I believe this,"' defense
attorneys said.

 "Plaintiffs and McKinley should not be allowed to disclose
matters occurring before the grand jury when they believe it to
be in their interests to do so, and not disclose such matters
when doing so would be adverse to their interests," they said.

 In a federal trial that is expected to last through December,
several residents who owned property near Rocky Flats when it
was shut down in 1989 allege that contamination from the plant
drastically reduced the value of their property and that of
about 13,000 other landowners. They are seeking damages that
defense attorneys have said could reach $500 million.

 In their lawsuit, landowners claimed Rockwell and Dow, who
operated the plant under a Department of Energy contract,
intentionally mishandled radioactive waste and tried to cover it
up.

 During testimony Friday, landowner Merilyn Cook told the jury
she agreed to be one of the lead plaintiffs in the case "to
bring out the right."

 "The truth is a hard thing here," she said during questioning
by defense attorney David Bernick. "One of the main ...
responsibilities of a class representative is to help find the
truth in a situation."

 Last week, the contractor in charge of a cleanup project at
Rocky Flats declared the $7 billion, 10-year project complete, a
major milestone in converting the site to a national wildlife
refuge.

 U.S. District Judge John Kane has not ruled on motions by
Rockwell and Dow to prevent testimony not only from McKinley,
who had been scheduled to testify Friday, but also from Jon
Lipsky, a former FBI agent who led a raid at Rocky Flats in
1989. During his deposition, Lipsky refused to answer some
questions about his investigation, citing a letter from the FBI
"urging him to follow certain confidentiality obligations
related to his prior employment," defense attorneys said.

 Lipsky declined comment.

 McKinley said he hoped his testimony and Lipsky's would raise
public awareness of lingering contamination he believes exists
at Rocky Flats.

 "In another 10 or 15 years it'll pretty much be forgotten.
People should have the opportunity to know what went on out
there," he said. "It's kind of our duty. There's not a personal
thing in it, it's just the fact that some things you really hate
to see happening."

 McKinley unsuccessfully introduced a bill in this year's
legislative session to post signs around the wildlife refuge to
warn the public about radioactive contamination he believes is
still there. He said the measure was killed for lack of funding,
but he plans to try to revive it next year.

 McKinley and his attorney, Caron Balkany, published a book last
year accusing the Justice Department of covering up
environmental misconduct at Rocky Flats. The book, "The Ambushed
Grand Jury: How the Justice Department Covered up Government
Nuclear Crimes and How We Caught Them Red Handed," relied in
part on interviews with Lipsky.

 Government officials have denied allegations of a coverup.

Indictments that McKinley's grand jury wanted to issue were
rejected by prosecutors who worked out a plea agreement.
Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 hazardous waste and clean water
violations in 1992 and was fined $18.5 million.

Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

© 2005, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 45 Bizwomen: Rocky Flats job isn't over for CEO 

Sunday, October 23, 2005                

Cathy Proctor Denver Business Journal 

Nancy Tuor doesn't have an engineering degree. 

But her management skills, political savvy and business acumen 
landed her the CEO position for Kaiser-Hill Co., the contractor 
in charge of the highly technical $7 billion cleanup of Rocky 
Flats, the former nuclear weapons facility northwest of Denver. 

Kaiser-Hill announced Oct. 13 it's finished the physical work of 
cleaning up Rocky Flats, which will be turned into a wildlife 
refuge. But Tuor's work isn't complete. 

The U.S. Department of Energy must review the work to determine 
it's been done to the agency's satisfaction. And Tuor has pledged 
to stay on the job until the final fee payment is made to 
Kaiser-Hill. 

A substantial portion of the last payment is earmarked for 
workers who closed down the Rocky Flats site, cleaned it up and 
then moved on to other jobs. The workers were promised incentive 
payments if they stayed until they were no longer needed, Tuor 
said. 

"This is really the project of a lifetime," Tuor said. "It's not 
often that people get a chance to work on something that has such 
social value to the country. That work force that we inherited 
saved the federal government and taxpayers $30 billion and 
reduced the risk there two generations before anyone had 
anticipated." 

Tuor, an economist by training, joined CH2M Hill Cos. Ltd. in 
1980. She was on the Englewood-based engineering firm's team that 
responded to DOE's request for bids for the cleanup of Rocky 
Flats in the 1990s. She became CEO of Kaiser-Hill in April 2004 
after working as executive vice president, chief operating 
officer and in other management positions at Kaiser-Hill. 

But when the cleaning up of Rocky Flats first was proposed in the 
1990s, the DOE thought the project would take about $36 billion 
and be done sometime around 2065. 

In October 1994, Tuor joined the team working on the proposal for 
Kaiser-Hill, a joint venture of CH2M Hill and another company. 
Kaiser-Hill landed the Rocky Flats cleanup project in April 1995. 

Tuor remembers the group was three or four months into the
cleanup when she and Kaiser-Hill's then-CEO, Bob Card, were
talking and asking, "Why does it have to take this long? This is
longer than our children's work careers." 

A small group was put together and told to think about speeding
up the cleanup. The answer was that the work might be done in 10
years or so, Tuor recalled. 

"Once we started talking about 10 to 15 years, no one talked
about 60 years anymore," she said. 

But keeping the management team and work force focused on such a
short time frame was challenging. 

"She's competitive," said Tony Demaiori, president of the United
Steelworkers of America Local 8081 at Rocky Flats, and a worker
at the site for 26 years. 

"They [the management team] never lost sight of 2005 when no one
believed they could do it. And that includes myself and my
members. They never believed her," he said. 

"Nancy is very businesslike. She's matter of fact. She's not a
'make you feel good' person, she's a 'this is the way it is'
person. And she's politically savvy. To get the state regulators
and cities, for everyone to agree and build that type of
coalition takes someone who is pretty politically savvy. Saying
'Let's do the work' is one thing, but getting everyone to do the
work is another thing," Demaiori said. 

He credited Tuor and the Kaiser-Hill management team with being
innovative in incentivizing workers by being willing to share
part of the fee with them. 

"When you motivate people financially, they'll work for you,"
Demaiori said. 

Tom Clark, head of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp.,
has worked closely with Tuor, who is co-chair of the EDC. 

"Her business and political judgments are right on. She's got a
very acute sense of what is right and appropriate," Clark said. 

Tuor said the hardest part of the Rocky Flats cleanup was doing
the work to the level of safety that the DOE wanted. 

"We were doing work that in the construction industry results in
10,000 fatalities a year across the U.S.," she said. "The
radioactivity in the last few years hasn't been the biggest
hazard; it's been the heavy equipment operations, trucking and
construction. And keeping the pace of the work consistent while
laying off 5,000 people a year and doing that while maintaining
extremely high safety requirements ... 

"We all knew we could do it. We all knew we had the capability,
but there was never a minute where it was in the bag. The minute
that happens is the minute that something creeps up on you. We
never took anything for granted," Tuor said. 

She credited three key factors with keeping the project on
track. 

Investing in first-line supervisors, and making sure they were
on board with the project's goals, was important, she said. 

"If the first time a worker brought a safety item to the
supervisors and they were ignored, then every pronouncement by
me or the previous management didn't mean anything. They have to
be on board," Tuor said. 

She also credited an ambitious work force transition program
Kaiser-Hill launched three years ago to help Rocky Flats workers
create résumés and networks to find jobs within the Denver area
or within the industry. The program was open to all employees of
Kaiser-Hill and all Rocky Flats subcontractors. 

"It was to get people to focus on life after Rocky Flats, not
just leaving the Flats, but going to the next stage and looking
forward to the next stage," she said. 

The third key factor was communication, she said. 

Tuor, the COO and the first-line supervisors met three times a
year in small groups to reinforce expectations and goals of the
project. 

"People needed to really understand when their jobs were going
to be gone and what the options were, and we committed to giving
everyone a minimum of four months' notice," she said. "We
published schedules of when we thought things would be done so
people could plan." 

Salaried employees knew about a year in advance when their jobs
would be gone. 

When running a company and employees so outside her field, Tuor
said it's critical that she be aware of her strengths and
weaknesses. 

"Play to your strengths and bring into your management team the
people who can help manage your weaknesses," Tuor said. "We all
have them. None of us can be great at everything." 

Tuor said she's not "the world's best detail person. I keep
people around me who are good at that. 

"I'm very good at organization, but I'm not a technical expert.
I have a high technical aptitude and can communicate technical
issues to the public, but I'm not a technical expert. I very
much want the technical expertise around me to be able to garner
that expertise quickly and from people that I trust," she said. 

CATHY PROCTOR | 303-837-3521 cproctor@bizjournals.com 

 The Denver Business Journal email: denver@bizjournals.com
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************