***************************************************************** 10/06/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.237 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Republicans in desperation want to revive Iraq WMD witch hunt 2 Guardian Unlimited: The Great Satan vs the Axis of Evil 3 [toeslist] World powers to meet on next steps to resolve Iran nuclea 4 [NYTr] Russia Still Opposes Sanctions Against Iran 5 Now is the time to stop a war with Iran - help build the campaign 6 [NYTr] Iran Urges West to Reconsider Talks 7 [NYTr] Iran: Sanctions Won't Stop Uranium Enrichment 8 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers hold talks on Iran sanctions 9 washingtonpost.com: Six Powers Agree to Take Next Step on Iran - 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Solana upbeat over trend of talks 11 AFP: Iran problem still resolvable through dialogue - Russia - 12 AFP: Rice says time to decide on Iran sanctions is near 13 AFP: Big powers to debate UN sanctions for Iran 14 AFP: World powers ratchet up pressure on Iran 15 Bellona: Iran calls on Russia to help resolve nuclear loggerheads 16 Guardian Unlimited: Nations to Talk Possible Iran Sanctions 17 Guardian Unlimited: Delay Disrupts Meeting to Discuss Iran 18 Dpr Korea: Security UN Says Nuclear Test Is Threat To Peace, Warns O 19 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang 'ready to carry out nuclear test in mi 20 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Urged to Abandon Atomic Weapons 21 Japan Times: Pyongyang's nuclear threat 22 AFP: North Korean nuclear test would be 'incendiary' - White House - 23 AFP: World powers urge NKorea to cancel nuclear test 24 AFP: World powers urge NKorea to back down on nuclear test - 25 Japan Times: North nuclear test may come on Sunday 26 Japan Times: U.S., Japan to seek UNSC Chapter 7 action if North test 27 AFP: UN adopts non-binding statement on North Korea nuclear test - R 28 UPI: Japan: N. Korea nuclear test not imminent 29 UPI: New U.N. head ready to handle Korean issue 30 Experts Warn Of Accidental Nuclear War NUCLEAR REACTORS 31 Reuters: Greenpeace Takes UK Government to Court Over Nuclear 32 US: Exelon Studies 8 Texas Sites for Nuclear Reactor Also Consideri 33 US: NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Participate in Hearing on Vogt 34 US: Arizona Republic: Inquiry at Palo Verde starts 35 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear authorities, SUAL agree on NPP, 36 US: Platts: NRC panel OKs settlement with ex-FirstEnergy employee 37 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting in Piketon, Ohio, to Discuss Fin 38 Platts: E.On Finland ready to invest in sixth Finnish reactor 39 US: Times Herald-Record: Indian Point will remove tainted water from 40 US: North Adams Transcript: Yankee awarded $32.9M 41 US: North Adams Transcript: Wasted energy 42 GREENPEACE UK: Greenpeace launches legal challenge against the gover 43 US: JOURNAL NEWS: NRC report rekindles Indian Point debate 44 US: NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Sit 45 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Identified in Attachment 1 46 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 47 US: NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 48 US: Morris Daily Herald: Public: Exelon trying to repair tritium pro 49 US: UPI: Analysis: Climate change a pro-nuke tool 50 US: UPI: Nuclear meltdown may have caused cancers 51 News & Star: How we'll cope if theres a leak... 52 News & Star: Workers back to college for degree of nuclear learning NUCLEAR SECURITY 53 US: UPI: Court asked to stop biodefense lab NUCLEAR SAFETY 54 UN Efforts To Upgrade Nuclear Safety Move Ahead With Serbian Clean-u 55 US: APP.COM: Drywell needs rigorous testing | 56 US: SF Chron: Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear mis 57 US: Monroenews.com: Nuclear critics discuss 1966 Fermi accident 58 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuke Meltdown May Have Caused Cancers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 59 US: Bradenton Herald: Toxic discrimination 60 US: AU ABC: MP urges WA to allow uranium mining 61 US: MDN: Mitsui to join uranium mine development - 62 US: Platts: Nuclear waste disposal vault leaks at DOE South Carolina 63 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Gov. discloses plan to sign WIPP permit 64 US: Deseret News: HEAL Utah to meet 65 Hemscott: UK Government to make vital nuclear waste decision by end 66 US: AFP: Japan's Mitsui plans to co-produce uranium in Russia 67 US: ITAR-TASS: Russia, Japan companies to develop uranium deposit in 68 UPI: Jump in nuclear waste smuggling reported 69 News & Star: Nuclear break-up will be another Railtrack 70 News & Star: Bidding for work at Sellafield? PEACE 71 [NYTr] Vietnam Champions Nuclear-Free Peace in Korea US DEPT. OF ENERGY 72 DOE: White House Honors Federal Agency Teams For Saving Energy 73 Tri-City Herald: Senate hopefuls differ on future of Hanford site 74 Tri-City Herald: Hanford empties fifth tank, 144 to go 75 Rocky Mountain News: Nuclear history preserved at Los Alamos 76 lamonitor.com: More funds for LANL 77 Guardian Unlimited: Manhattan Project Building Preserved ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Republicans in desperation want to revive Iraq WMD witch hunt Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:44:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Newsweek via MSNBC - Oct 6, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134719/site/newsweek/ The Hunt Continues Even though the U.S. intelligence community sees it as a futile effort, a powerful GOP congressman wants to launch a new search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Oct. 4, 2006 - House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra is still pressing U.S. intelligence agencies to look for possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraqeven though intelligence officials say further work is unlikely to reveal anything new about Saddam's WMD programs. In recent weeks, congressional and intelligence sources say, Hoekstra has prodded the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to follow up on new leads about possible WMD sites in the country. One intelligence official, who asked not to be identified because of political sensitivities, said the agencies have devoted hundreds of man hours to the hunt. The search has not been entirely fruitless. The DIA has discovered another 300 old chemical shells lying around the war-torn country. That's in addition to the 500 sarin shells mentioned in a declassified Pentagon intelligence report revealed by Hoekstra and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum last June. But the recently found shells, like the previous ones, dated back to before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were decayed and essentially useless. In short, U.S. intelligence-community officials say, the find doesnt change the conclusion of Charles Duelfer, chief of the U.S. Iraq Survey Group, who said two years ago that Saddam Hussein did not possess a WMD arsenal on the eve of the Iraq invasion, nor did he have any clear plan to revive his dormant weapons programs in the future. The Bush administration has not been particularly eager to embrace Hoekstra's mission. In June, after Santorum and Hoekstra touted the allegd discovery of WMD, senior intelligence officials downplayed the find. The shells discovered in Iraq, they said, were all manufactured more than a decade earlier. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991, a senior Defense official told reporters at the time. The munitions are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war. Even so, the Michigan Republican, who has clout with the intelligence community by virtue of his committee chairmanship, still insisted that the discovery of the decaying shells proved that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq. In June, Hoekstra told reporters that he intended to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war. Since then, intelligence officials say, Hoekstra has made good on his word and has continued to urge agencies to look for fresh evidence that might vindicate the administrations original pre-war claims. Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the intelligence-community chairman, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Hoekstra recently passed along photographs and other reports about possible WMD sites that had been forwarded to the committee by U.S. soldiers, former intelligence officials and Iraqis following the June press conference with Santorum. People who have been over there [in Iraq] ... theyve sent us information and weve referred that on to the appropriate agencies, Ware said. In one case, he said, some soldiers sent the committee photographs of equipment and other material that the troops thought were interesting. Hoekstra then asked the intelligence community to look into the photos and find the location of the sitesa request that apparently explains the involvement of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Pentagons mapping unit, in the latest hunt. Ware said that Hoekstra was not pressing the intelligence agencies to do anything other than the necessary due diligence and played down any suggestion that the Republican chairmans motives were political. Hoekstras main concern, he said, is that the Pentagon find all munitions dumps and sites that could still pose a hazard to U.S. soldiers. Any effort that chairman Hoekstra has made in this area has been aimed at insuring the safety of our troops overseas, he said. That concern is a valid one, according to one Pentagon official who asked not to be publicly identified talking about sensitive intelligence matters. In at least one case in May 2004, two U.S. soldiers in Iraq became ill after handling homemade bombs, presumably crafted by Iraq insurgents, which were rigged using pre-1991 chemical shells. U.S. intelligence officials believe it is unlikely the insurgents who made the bombs knew the shells contained chemical agents. The soldiers later recovered. The U.S. intelligence official was unaware of any other reports of homemade bombs in Iraq that contained chemical agents. Though Hoekstra describes his efforts as a safety measure, others in the U.S. intelligence community see it as a futile effort to bolster a dead argument about Saddams supposed WMD. They believe Hoekstra is wasting the agencies time with offbeat allegations from untested sources. One such source Hoekstra touted was Georges Sada, a one-time Iraqi Air Force general who claimed in a book published earlier this year that he knew of hundreds of tons of chemical weapons being flown from Iraq to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion. Sada, who first made the claims to promote his book, admitted he never actually saw any of the weapons. But his allegations were prominently featured on Fox News and conservative media outlets. Hoekstra met with Sada and later dispatched House Intelligence Committee staffers overseas in an effort to verify the Iraqi's claims. That search, too, came up emtpy. ) 2006 MSNBC.com * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: The Great Satan vs the Axis of Evil Review: Boris by Andrew Gimson [UP] As sabre rattling mounts in Washington, Martin Woollacott surveys studies of the contradictions and complications of modern Iran Saturday October 7, 2006 The Guardian Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope by by Shirin Ebadi 232pp, Rider, Ł12.99 Islam and Democracy in Iran by Ziba Mir-Hosseini and Richard Tapper 198pp, IB Tauris, Ł15.99 Democracy in Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty by Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr 214pp, Oxford, Ł14.99 Iran Today by Dilip Hiro 426pp, Politico's, Ł9.99 Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki R Keddie 408pp, Yale, Ł12.50 Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Roots of Mistrust by Ali Ansari 280pp, Hurst, Ł16.95 The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America by Keith Pollack 539pp, Random House, $15.95 It is the most liberal nation in the Middle East, yet it elected a deeply illiberal president. It is the most pro-American country in the Muslim world, yet its citizens abhor the prospect of American intervention. It is a nation which has seen too much war, yet it is planning to produce nuclear weapons, or at least to acquire the capacity to do so. It is a land where a narrowly defined Islamic ideology holds sway, yet where modern and humane versions of religion have been pursued more intensely than anywhere else in the realm of Islam. It is run by a government which, as European diplomats have found, is always ready to talk about difficulties but rarely ready to settle them. It is a place both democratic and undemocratic, both westernised and anti-western, both religious and irreligious. It is, in short, Iran, the home of a complex, engaging and unique civilisation. And it is also a country which, given certain decisions in Washington, we may be bombing next week, next month, or next year. That would be a calamity of an order hard to exaggerate. Iran's grand sense of its own importance has not often been shared in the past by the rest of the world. But it is now, because if the missiles and the bombers go in, the resulting conflict would change the Middle East and the world in ways that are hard to predict precisely, except that we know in advance the consequences would be terrible. But if war is avoided, what will be the impact of a nuclear-armed Iran, particularly if the retreat from the liberalisation that seemed so close under its last president continues? The common themes to be discerned in these books are fourfold: Iran's deep contradictions, the entrenched nature of its post-1979 regime, the rich possibilities in the ways its social, political and religious spheres have developed in recent years, and its extraordinary fixation on America. Shirin Ebadi, a young lawyer working as a judge for a monarchical state for which she felt no loyalty, enthusiastically supported the revolution that swept away the Shah. Yet within days of his departure she found herself in front of an apparatchik of Ayatollah Khomeini's new order, who told her to cover her hair and added, for good measure, that she could no longer function as a judge. "I was a woman," she writes in her moving memoir, "and this revolution's victory demanded my defeat." Ebadi's disappointment, one that was to both blight her life and give it meaning, can stand for the blindness of nearly all of Iran's modern middle class in 1979. They could not see any good at all in a regime which, in spite of its many faults, was secular, modernising and in some ways progressive. They could not see, until it was too late, any bad in the religious leadership of the gathering opposition to the Shah, and they had no sense that it was likely to be the harshest and most authoritarian strand in that leadership that would prevail. In the years that followed, Ebadi watched as "her" Iran - educated, professional and democratic in inclination - was subdued and constrained. Quite soon, it began literally to disappear, as the middle class leaked out of the country to exile in Europe and the United States. She describes vain attempts to persuade friends and relatives to stay. "One by one, my dearest friends deserted. They packed up their bags, said their goodbyes and, in my eyes, turned their backs on Iran. Each time I wearily picked up a pen to cross out yet another name in my address book, my disappointment crushed me ..." Ebadi, of course, did not take her defeat lying down. She began almost at once to use her legal knowledge to help individuals victimised by the system, and in some cases she succeeded in getting them freed or their punishments reduced. She did this in the face of constant hostility, abuse, a spell in prison and threats to her life. Her work developed into a campaign that forced certain changes and brought her the Nobel peace prize in 2003. She did all this while bringing up two children, cooking and cleaning every day, and putting up with a loving and supportive, but also vague and sometimes lazy husband. If ever housewife were heroine, it is surely Shirin Ebadi. But there were heroes, too, among the clerics who, as she did, at first supported the revolution but came later to oppose the regime created by it. Most of the leading ayatollahs were discreetly hostile to Khomeini's innovations from the start, but young men such as Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari were in a different category. As a young cleric in Qom in 1978, he was an enthusiastic follower of Khomeini and became a member of the first parliament after the revolution. He was also an open-minded, intellectually curious man. His story, with translations of some of his writings and addresses, is told by Ziba Mir-Hosseini and Richard Tapper. Eshkevari found he could not endorse many of the regime's actions and statements, which combined a departure from the principles of traditional Shia Islam with a refusal to rethink the faith with the needs of a modern society in mind. His starting point was the pronouncement by Ali Shariati, the Muslim thinker who prepared much of the intellectual ground for the revolution on the Muslim left but died before it, that "any revolution before awareness is a tragedy". Islam, which by definition ought to be the property of no group or class, was being distorted to provide blanket justification for rule by a self-defined elite. Even critics with the most serious religious and revolutionary credentials could challenge this process only at their peril. With other clerics and devout laymen in the diverse movement that came to be known as the "New Religious Thinking", Eshkevari tried to define the limits of religious knowledge in such a way as to show that it was both fallible and flexible, and to demonstrate how Islamic concern for justice, in the modern situation, points unmistakably towards democracy. The man who gave such people as Eshkevari and Ebadi new hope was Mohammad Khatami, whose unexpected victory in the 1997 presidential election had a transforming effect on the country. The task of renewal was difficult because, "on one side", as Eshkevari wrote in 2000, Islamic societies "are threatened by both fundamentalism and anti-modernism, and on the other by being overwhelmed by modernity". Earlier in the same year, in a nuanced discussion of Islamic rules on dress, he had told a conference in Berlin how he hated to hear "Ya ru-sari ya tu-sari" ("Either a head scarf or a head smack"), the motto chanted by the regime's street enforcers as they "corrected" Iranian women. That observation, on top of all his other liberal pronouncements, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Eshkevari, along with other dissidents, ended up in prison, in his case for four years, a term regarded by his jailers as a tremendous concession, since he had at first been condemned to death for "apostasy" and "war against Islam". Eshkevari was a victim of the reactionary forces that first hobbled and then destroyed the reformist movement led by Khatami. Today they also threaten Ebadi, whose human rights centre has just been declared illegal. Fazed by the strength of the popular desire for change in the 1997 election, the hardliners at first gave Khatami much leeway. In reality, they were gradually retaking the ground they had lost, a process that culminated in the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. Yet, as Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr show in their book, and Dilip Hiro and Nikki Keddie underline in theirs, there has so far been no such thing in modern Iranian history as a permanent triumph for one of the contrasting tendencies - democratic, authoritarian, religious and secular - that have shaped the country. Hiro's book, lifted by reportage from his many trips to Iran, shows how they have combined and recombined during the century since the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. Indeed no political dispensation has so far even begun to satisfy all in a deeply divided society. Democracy, however, in spite of Khatami's fate, may still be inching ahead. Ahmadinejad won in part because of what Iranians repudiated - a failed and splintered reformist movement and a discredited centre - and in part because of what he promised: an end to corruption and gross inequality. As Gheissari and Nasr write: "Far from diminishing the importance of competitive politics, public debates, and elections, the conservative victory in 2005 appears to have made them all the more important to the future development of Iranian politics." The Iranian hardliners, themselves not united or homogenous in their views, still have to deal with a country which, as Keddie says, "is populated by a people who have experience in making their desires known". The world, and particularly America, meanwhile, has to deal with the government Iran has now, rather than the liberal alternative that seemed to beckon only a few years ago. Even had that best case come about, the untangling and calming of the relationship between the two countries would have been a task demanding humility and delicacy on both sides. Ali Ansari's elegant and lucid book suggests that both countries are at fault. America, with its characteristic readiness to forget the offences it has done to others while burnishing the memory of those it has suffered itself, thinks a great deal about the seizure of the embassy hostages in 1979, but very little about the coup it staged in Iran with Britain in 1953. Iran, he says, saw the hostage-taking as an act of closure - something that "balanced" the overthrow of the nationalist prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953 - while Americans saw it as opening a new era of hostility. Ansari tells very well the story of gestures and half gestures that marked attempts at rapprochement under Presidents Rafsanjani, Clinton, Khatami and Bush. The 1953 coup, he concludes, ensconced the US as the malign other in Iran's life, while the 1979 revolution ensconced Iran as the malign other in the American imagination. Kenneth Pollack, in his recounting of the same tale, sees a more asymmetrical situation, in which Iranians of all political views have for more than half a century believed Iran was central to US calculations, when it very rarely was. The US, he argues convincingly, did not control the Shah, who ignored most American advice, but that did not stop Iranians seeing him as an American puppet. Khomeini then both embodied and focused the US obsession, turning anti-Americanism into a fundamental principle of the new republic. Pollack's earlier book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, helped to convince many liberals that the Bush administration's reasons for attacking that country were good ones. In The Persian Puzzle, he offers oblique apologies for some of the errors in that book and, when he comes to weigh Washington's options in the face of what he sees as Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, he recommends neither invasion nor bombing. He discusses both, however, with an unsettling neutrality of tone, and does not entirely rule out the latter. America should remain open to a "grand bargain" with Iran, unlikely as that now is, and in the meantime try to head off its nuclear ambitions by a judicious combination of carrots and sticks. If that fails, he wants the west to contain Iran through full-scale sanctions. But his almost comically mournful account of the failure of America's allies so far to support sanctions against either Iraq or Iran suggests he is less than sure of his own prescription. In the end, he concludes, the world may just have to live with a nuclear Iran. Pollack does not accompany his analysis of Iranian neuroses with an equally clinical view of his own country. Indeed, America's broad purposes and interests in the Middle East are throughout treated as a given. That is something that needs to change if rapprochement is ever to be achieved. In the difficult meantime, Ansari surely has it right when he warns against a "failure to distinguish between the state and the nation". The reformists may have been defeated, but reform has changed Iranian political culture. The Iran of Ebadi and Eshkevari has not gone away just because a man called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is president. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 3 [toeslist] World powers to meet on next steps to resolve Iran nuclear issue, says France Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST World powers to meet on next steps to resolve Iran nuclear issue, says France Officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States would meet to discuss the next steps to be taken in response to Iran's defiance of the UN Security Council's demand to suspend uranium enrichment, a French foreign ministry spokesman said on Thursday. Citing Wednesday's briefing to the European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs Committee by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Jean-Baptiste Mattei said Iran had continued to reject the demand to halt uranium enrichment-related activities. The six nations would discuss the results of Solana's talks with Iran and the consultations should proceed in the spirit of resolution 1696 the Security Council adopted in August, the spokesman said. Under the resolution, he noted, if Iran sticks to its defiant position on the issue of uranium enrichment, relevant measures should be taken in accordance with Article 41 of the UN Charter. The UN Charter Article 41 authorizes the council to take punitive measures, such as applying travel, economic and diplomatic sanctions, in order to ensure that its resolutions be implemented. The six countries would likely discuss the possibility of reactivating certain procedures in the Security Council, but the details of any measures to be taken against Iran should be left to the 15-nation council to decide, Mattei said. He reiterated that France favored taking "progressive, appropriate and reversible" actions against Iran, with the aim to "persuade Iran to cooperate with the international community." Enrichment of uranium is at the core of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. The process can be used to make nuclear fuel and, in highly enriched form, the explosive core of an atomic bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear program is solely for peaceful energy needs. The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in late July, urging Tehran to suspend, by Aug. 31, all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development. Solana said on Wednesday that he had been engaged in talks with the Iranian authorities for four months, aiming to clarify whether a negotiation between Iran and the six countries could start on the basis of a June proposal. "We have reached common ground on quite a number of aspects. But we haven't agreed on what is a key point: the suspension (of uranium enrichment). So far, up to today, Iran has made no commitment to suspend," he told the EU Foreign Affairs Committee. The six countries have offered Iran a package which included political, economic and nuclear technology incentives in return for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment, but it has repeatedly refused to halt its enrichment program. Source: Xinhua People's Daily Online --- http://english.people.com.cn/ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Russia Still Opposes Sanctions Against Iran Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:07:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - Oct 6, 2006 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/1006/1158591431495.html Russia states opposition to sanctions campaign against Iran by Daniel McLaughlin RUSSIA: Russia said yesterday that it opposed using sanctions to stop Iran enriching nuclear fuel, while Britain announced that the UN Security Council would discuss just such a move next week. "I think that until all diplomatic possibilities have been exhausted, sanctions would be extreme," Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said about Iran, which insists that it wants to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power stations, not weapons. Mr Lavrov said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had failed to persuade Tehran to accept a package of incentives offered by Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China and Russia, in return for halting enrichment. "We are continuing our diplomatic efforts," said Mr Lavrov on a visit to Poland. "Some members of the six nations already want to impose sanctions against Iran. We, however, think first we must continue multilateral actions." Diplomats say the US, Britain and France favour an embargo on sales of nuclear and missile technology to Tehran as a first step, which could be followed by other sanctions, including a travel ban on Iranian officials and the freezing of their assets. Russia and China have opposed such a move, but Britain's ambassador to the UN, Emyr Jones Parry, said yesterday that the issue would be discussed next week. "I expect the Iranian dossier to re-emerge in New York in the course of next week," he said, adding that discussion would relate to the imposition of sanctions. Mr Lavrov said he would discuss Iran with other foreign ministers in London today, but US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said logistical problems might force the meeting to be scrapped in favour of consultations over the weekend. While in Warsaw, Mr Lavrov also revealed that Moscow was "working directly with the leaders of North Korea" to persuade them to scrap plans to test an atomic bomb. "We must do everything so that doesn't happen," he said, as the US, Japan and the EU urged Pyongyang to back down on its threat. Mr Lavrov also said Poland's decision on whether to host a US anti-missile base would influence Russian policy on its "strategic stability and national security". Russia's military says it might reconsider planned arms reductions if Poland or the Czech Republic hosts the site, even though both nations and the US insist the base would not threaten Russia, but protect against missile attack from the Middle East. C The Irish Times * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 Now is the time to stop a war with Iran - help build the campaign Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:51:41 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Dear Peace Action Education Fund supporter, You know from our recent alerts that the Bush Administration is, incredibly enough, moving ahead with a possible military attack against Iran, including ordering the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower to the Persian Gulf, off the west coast of Iran. Preventing a war with Iran will not be easy, but it is far easier to prevent a war than to stop one once its started. And a war with Iran, which would be a mistake of horrendous, global proportions, can and must be prevented. That is why I am asking you today to help support our work to prevent a war with Iran. https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/shop/custom.j sp?donate_page_KEY=1868 The early success of the No War with Iran! petition I sent you on Wednesday is encouraging. (And for those of you who havent already, please sign the petition today at http://www.peace-action.org/Iranpetition.html and forward it to your friends and colleagues.) I now believe, with your continued help, we can collect at least 100,000 signatures which we would then deliver to Secretary of State Rice and the heads of the Senate and House foreign relations committees on the first day of the special session of Congress when they return in November. This would be just the beginning of a concerted, relentless campaign to stop this war before it starts. Your contribution to this effort is crucial. https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/shop/custom.j sp?donate_page_KEY=1868 We need your most generous support today to help us do the following: * we will activate our network of local chapters and state affiliates in gathering tens of thousands of signatures for the petition * we will engage our coalition partners in this effort and expand our range of actions beyond the petition campaign as the year draws to a close * we will recruit high profile advocates - including military personnel - to speak out; we must amplify the voices of retired military leaders and diplomats who are publicly opposing this war * we will launch a massive public education campaign to make people aware of the danger of a looming war with Iran, before its too late, and mobilize the American public to demand that Congress do its job to represent the interests of our country and stop Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld from endangering our children's lives by launching another illegal war of aggression. Most people in this country know it would be nuts to start a war with Iran, but you and I know we cant put it past George W. Bush. If war preparations are allowed to proceed without opposition, the end result may well be far worse than Bushs blundering in Iraq. It will be a catastrophe of global proportions. Thousands more innocents dead, increased hatred and international criticism of America, increased attacks on American soliders in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. The leaked National Intelligence Estimate confirmed what we all know, that the illegal and immoral war against and occupation of Iraq has become a cause celebre for militant Muslim fundamentalists and has increased the threat of terrorism. What do you think an unprovoked and illegal war against Iran, another Muslim country with three times the population of Iraq, will do? While we will continue to oppose the occupation of Iraq and call for the safe return of our troops, we must also stop a looming war with Iran - and we can stop this war, if we act today. Your support of the efforts listed above, while only the beginning will make it possible for us to launch our own pre-emptive strike, to stop the Bush Adminstration from plunging us into an even greater catastrophe Now is the moment to stop a war with Iran https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/shop/custom.j sp?donate_page_KEY=1868 I thank you for the most generous contribution you can make to enable our campaign, and for all you do for peace. Sincerely, Kevin M. Martin Executive Director Peace Action Education Fund P.S. - Our opposition to a war with Iran will only be as strong as the number of voices that join us. If you have not done so already, sign the No War with Iran! petition at http://www.peace-action.org/Iranpetition.html and send it to all your friends and colleagues. It is time for all of us to speak out including to our own friends and colleagues to make sure that we can prevent another disastrous war. /*Your email ID. --*/ ***************************************************************** 6 [NYTr] Iran Urges West to Reconsider Talks Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:10:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Prez Urges West to Reconsider Talks Tehran, Oct 5 (Prensa Latina) Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadineyad warned on Thursday his country will not yield to force, referring to the failed dialogue about the nuclear conflict between the Islamic Republic and western powers. The talks for a negotiated solution to the harsh conflict between Tehran and some Security Council member countries over uranium enrichment in the Asian country failed this week. Iran considers that access to nuclear technology with peaceful objectives is vital for its development plans, while the United States and Great Britain assert that it is trying to build atomic weapons. The issue could be re-sent to the Council next week, and Russian and China, also permanent members of that authority, are in favor of a political solution, France continues neutral, while Washington and London have proposed severe sanctions. As reported in the media, Ahmadineyad said he expected the European countries to appreciate the opportunity given to them to turn from the wrong path. He called his nation proud and invincible and that it will defend its right, and predicted the western powers they would suffer the fate of pharaohs. Although the conflict is at its most chilly, European Foreign Minister Javier Solana, negotiator for the western side, said on Thursday he was in favor of continuing the dialogue with Iran about its nuclear program, but warned that this is a limited option. ef ccs iom msl PL-206 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Iran: Sanctions Won't Stop Uranium Enrichment Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:11:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP via Truthout - Oct 4, 2006 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100506C.shtml Iran: Sanctions Won't Derail Enrichment By Ali Akbar Dareini The Associated Press Hashtgerd, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Wednesday that sanctions will not stop Iran from enriching uranium after a European negotiator conceded "endless hours" of talks had made little progress and suggested the dispute could wind up at the U.N. soon. The talks had been seen as a last-ditch attempt to avoid a full-blown confrontation between Iran and the U.N. Security Council after Tehran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment - a key step toward making nuclear weapons - or face punishment. The latest comments - and the view of senior U.N. diplomats who told The Associated Press on Tuesday that nearly two years of intermittent negotiations had failed - suggested an emerging consensus that the time has finally come to consider Security Council sanctions. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and does not violate international law. Its refusal to give up enrichment compounds the failure of more than three years of U.N. inspections to banish suspicions that Tehran might have a secret weapons program. The conflict picked up steam after last year's election of the hard-line Ahmadinejad, whose tough stance on the nuclear issue is wildly popular in Iran - even among moderates. Javier Solana, the European official who has been negotiating with the Iranians, told the European Parliament on Wednesday that the Iranians had made "no commitment to suspend." The dialogue with the Iranians "cannot last forever" and it was up to Tehran "to decide whether its time has come to end," he said. Solana said his talks had found "common ground" on some issues "but we have not agreed in what is the key point, which is the question of suspension of activities before the start of the negotiations." He suggested that if the talks ended, the standoff should be moved to the Security Council. In a speech shortly afterward, Ahmadinejad warned that sanctions would not dissuade his country from pursuing nuclear technology, including the enrichment of uranium. "You are mistaken if you assume that the Iranian nation will stop for even a moment from the path toward using nuclear energy, due to your nagging," he told the West, speaking to a crowd of supporters outside Iran's capital. "For 27 years they haven't allowed us to use technologies that they possess," Ahmadinejad added. "This nation is powerful and won't give in to one iota of coercion." In an apparent response to Solana, the Iranian president said his nation favored continued negotiations. "We are for talks. We can talk with each other and remove ambiguities. We have logic. We want talks to continue," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and foreign ministers from five other major powers were expected to meet, possibly Friday in London, to discuss the situation. Diplomats said the Security Council could meet as early as Monday to start work on a resolution imposing the first of a series of sanctions meant to make Iran roll back its program. Iran was initially referred to the Security Council in February by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which said Tehran's suspicious activities represented breaches of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The Vienna-based agency also said it could not be sure Iran was not trying to make weapons. The United States insisted that Tehran halt enrichment as a precondition for further talks on its nuclear program, but Iran ignored the Aug. 31 deadline set by the Security Council. The Americans then agreed to let Solana hold more talks with the Iranians after Russia, China and France spoke out against a rush to sanctions. At first, both Solana and Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, had signaled progress in the talks. On Tuesday, however, diplomats said Larijani told Solana that the hard-line Iranian leadership had rejected even a limited enrichment freeze. One diplomat said Western council members - the United States, Britain and France - favor an embargo on sales of nuclear or missile technology to Tehran as a first sanctions step. That would be followed by other sanctions, including travel bans on Iranian officials and the freezing of their assets. Iran has so far shown little concern about the prospect of such sanctions - perhaps because such limited sanctions would not greatly hurt the country overall. Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members, traditionally oppose sanctions, and the United States could still face a tough fight getting them to agree to any truly punitive measures. U.S. officials have said they intend to start with trying for relatively lower-level punishments as a way to persuade Russia and China to sign on. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, asked whether Beijing would support possible sanctions if Iran doesn't suspend uranium enrichment, said Wednesday that over the last few weeks "there has been some progress" in the Solana-Larijani talks so the door isn't completely shut. "But I do hope that diplomatic means is still the best way to achieve a solution on this Iranian nuclear issue," he said. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he hadn't heard Solana's comments, but if Solana was saying that Iran now had a choice of whether to suspend enrichment or face sanctions "it will be a very sad moment." "We were very supportive of Mr. Solana's efforts and still are if he intends to continue those efforts. Of course, it was our hope that those efforts would be successful and things will be resolved diplomatically," Churkin said. "We do not want any extra work load here in the Security Council anyway, and of course, it's a very important matter and we are hoping Mr. Solana will be successful." U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, asked about the possibility of the U.N. Security Council discussing sanctions against Iran, said: "We haven't discussed sanctions here in New York for weeks, many weeks, lots of weeks. But as soon as I'm instructed, I'm prepared to begin as soon as the cable comes in." [Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations and George Jahn in New York contributed to this report.] *** Spacewar.com - Oct 5, 2006 Russia Warns US Unilateral Decisions on Iran Could Thwart Diplomacy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday warned that unilateral moves taken by Washington over the Iran nuclear crisis could hamper international diplomatic efforts to end the standoff. "We believe the common action (over Iran) must be continued, but the United States have taken a unilateral decision affecting all parties, which limits activities in Iran not only of American companies but of all companies," Lavrov said during a visit to Poland. "A unilateral step such as this will certainly not help efforts to draw up a collective response (to Tehran), but we will see what we can do tomorrow in London," Lavrov said. The so-called P5-plus-1 group, made up of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States - and Germany, is due to meet in London Friday to try to reach compromise deal over Iran's nuclear programme, the Russian foreign ministry announced earlier. "We will take as our lead the agreements that have already been struck by the Six, and on the basis of which (EU foreign policy chief) Javier Solana is continuing his efforts," Lavrov said. "We are very worried by the fact that there has not been, up to now, a satisfactory response from Tehran," he said. "We will continue with the diplomatic effort, even though some are in favour of sanctions as of now," the Russian foreign minister added. "We have already said that sanctions are extreme measures. We will discuss the full range of measures available to the international community" to try to resolve the crisis with Iran, he said. "We will see what other possibilities exist to continue with multi-party diplomatic efforts," he said. Russia has strong economic interests in Iran, including a project to build a nuclear power station. Moscow and Tehran signed an agreement last week for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power station to come online in September next year. The deal reaffirmed Russia's commitment to the controversial project, estimated to be worth some one billion euros, despite strong US objections to the project. During a trip to Los Angeles last week, Lavrov said that Russia would not deal with the Iranian problem by joining other countries in issuing an ultimatum over its nuclear program, RIA Novosti news agency reported. "We cannot endorse an ultimatum that will force everyone into a dead end and produce a new crisis in an already destabilized region," he said, insisting then, too, that compromise was the only way forward. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers hold talks on Iran sanctions Russia: don't threaten Iran over nuclear issue Mark Tran and agencies Friday October 6, 2006 Guardian Unlimited Issuing ultimatums is counterproductive, Russia and China said today as key foreign ministers met in London to discuss Iran's refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment. "The positions of our two countries coincides that the use of force or the threat to use force is absolutely unacceptable," the Interfax agency quoted the Russian deputy foreign minister, Alexander Alexeyev, as saying when asked about Russian and Chinese policy. "Talking to them (Tehran) in the language of ultimatums and attempts to force them into a corner are counterproductive," Mr Alexeyev added. His comments came as the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and representatives from Britain China, France, Germany and Russia met to discuss the possibility of limited sanctions against Iran. The talks were being hosted by the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett. The officials were discussing the next moves in the nuclear standoff after months of talks between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, failed to bring a breakthrough. Ms Beckett was expected to issue a statement acknowledging the lack of progress in the Solana-Larijani negotiations and possibly to refer the matter formally to the UN security council. Earlier this week, the foreign office said work was already under way on drafting a UN resolution on sanctions. France has called for any sanctions to be "targeted, proportionate and reversible". Measures under discussion include travel restrictions against officials working on Iran's nuclear programme and embargoes on nuclear technology that could have dual civilian-military use. However, Russia - which has a civilian nuclear programme in Iran - is reluctant to approve measures that could have a negative impact on its interests. China, which also has important economic ties with the country, is advocating a softly-softly approach. Mr Solana said talks with Iran would still be possible even as major powers discussed the use of sanctions to force Tehran to suspend its nuclear programme. "The door to negotiations is and will be always open," Mr Solana said in a speech to security experts in Paris. "We have negotiated [for] many hours, endless hours. We have not agreed on the key point, suspension." The talks could not go on forever, he said, but he added that diplomacy was the only possible solution. "I'm convinced that the Iran dossier can only be solved, and will be solved, through negotiations," he said. A Bush administration official said ministers were likely to agree on the principle of imposing sanctions on Iran without approving specific language. "What we would expect to come from this meeting is the political decision to move to the next step of diplomacy, which is a sanctions resolution," an official travelling in Iraq with Dr Rice told Reuters. Iran yesterday again urged the west to solve the dispute through talks, but reiterated that it would not stop uranium enrichment. It has said the programme is only for peaceful purposes, although the west suspects it wants to make a nuclear bomb. In July, western governments put forward a plan that called for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment during any negotiations. In return, it offered to guarantee the provision of nuclear fuel to Iran by setting up a plant for this purpose in Russia. It also offered help to build new light water reactors in Iran, and other carrots included support for membership of the World Trade Organisation and a trade agreement with the EU. However, Iran ignored an August deadline to suspend enrichment. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 washingtonpost.com: Six Powers Agree to Take Next Step on Iran - U.S. Supports Plan For Sanctions as Way to Revive Talks By Robin WrightWashington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 7, 2006; Page A18 LONDON, Oct. 6 -- The United States and five other major powers agreed Friday to take the next step toward imposing sanctions on Iranfor failing to comply with a U.N. resolution to prevent it from subverting its nuclear energy program to develop a nuclear weapon, according to U.S. and European officials. But in response to Russian and Chinese wariness about the impact and effectiveness of sanctions, the group also agreed to keep the door open to diplomacy, the officials said. The chief negotiator will remain available for talks if Iran chooses to come to the table and suspend its uranium enrichment program. As soon as Iran suspends enrichment, any U.N. sanctions would also be suspended, they said. The package of economic, technological, scientific and diplomatic incentives already offered to Iran to surrender control over its fuel cycle -- but not its peaceful energy program -- will still be on offer if the Islamic republic changes its position, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said. The agreement came at the conclusion of talks hosted by Britainand attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top diplomats from France, Russia, Chinaand Germany. But after a dramatic buildup all week to a possible turning point following the collapse of European negotiations with Iran, the tone and scope of the agreement appeared significantly milder than anticipated. The timing of the talks and the wording of the agreement were affected by mechanical problems delaying Rice's arrival in London from Iraq. The military plane ferrying Rice got stuck in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, the last stop on her five-day Middle East tour, and she attended only the last 45 minutes of the six-nation talks that she had pressed the hardest to hold. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described the new international goal as "proportionate and reversible sanctions." U.S. officials said they viewed the agreement on sanctions as a tactic to try to force Iran to return to negotiations. En route to London, Rice said sanctions would be aimed at convincing Iran that returning to the table was "the best strategy here. Nobody wants to have [sanctions] just to have them. The hope would be that the Iranians recognize that increasing isolation from the international system is not good for Iran or for the people of Iran." The general agreement comes after years of controversial diplomacy, including a period when Iran suspended enrichment of uranium, only to resume after hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was inaugurated in August 2005. Since then, Iran has missed at least two deadlines, including one set for Aug. 31 by the United Nations, to comply with demands that it halt enrichment. "The extra innings are over. We're on to a new phase," Burns said. "We have no alternative but to proceed" and raise the cost for Iran's "irresponsible attitude." Iran, he added, is missing a "major opportunity" in rejecting the package of incentives, particularly the opportunity for the first formal talks with the United States since relations were broken in 1980. The administration has been pressing hard over the past six weeks to get the six major powers to agree to sanctions. A senior State Department official said Friday's agreement is likely to come as a surprise to Iran, which has calculated that it could continue to divide the international community. In announcing the agreement, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the six powers were "deeply disappointed" that the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had to report Iran's failure to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, as required by U.N. Resolution 1696. "We said there are two paths ahead," Beckett said. "We regret that Iran has not yet taken the positive one." Discussions on which sanctions to invoke against Iran, drawn from a two-page list assembled last summer, will begin next Tuesday or Wednesday in videoconference talks among specialists, U.S. officials said. Burns predicted that the behind-the-scenes diplomacy would be "spirited" and possibly lengthy. A European envoy involved in the talks Friday said it would be a "struggle" to come up with details to follow through on what is now a joint strategy. The agreement reached Friday also does not close the deep gap between the United States and Russia over strategy toward Iran. Rice acknowledged the split. "It's long been the view of particularly Russia that sanctions may not have the intended effect," she said, adding that Moscow had an obligation to act since it had voted for Resolution 1696 in July. Rice began the day in Iraq, where she met with Massoud Barzani, president of the regional government in the Kurdish-populated north. Rice urged Barzani to cooperate with the national government's reconciliation efforts, and Barzani said the three northern Kurdish provinces would remain part of Iraq despite growing support for independence. "Kurds, like any other nation, have the right to self-determination," he said. "This is a natural right. But a parliament in Kurdistan has been adopted within the framework of a democratic Iraq, a federal system." Regional officials said privately, however, that there is growing sentiment for independence as violence increases in the rest of Iraq. ***************************************************************** 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Solana upbeat over trend of talks 2006/10/05 European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, stressed Wednesday that IRI's nuclear issue will be solved through negotiations. "We have the right framework and the right broad basis for that," Solana told the European parliament foreign affairs committee Brussels Wednesday afternoon. "IRI will develop a civilian nuclear program. As many other countries in the world. And IRI will do it better and more efficiently if it is done in 'cooperation' with us. From a political and technological point of view both sides have a lot to win. They, and we, know that", he said. Solana said,"we have negotiated IRI's nuclear dossiers for endless hours. It has been my top priority because I'm convinced that this is a crucial subject for international security. My Iranian counterpart has also spared no effort, and I have to say that I have found in Larijani an intelligent partner who deserves all my respect. We have reached common ground on quite a number of subjects. But we haven't agreed on what is a key point: suspension. So far, up to today, IRI has made no commitment to suspend," said the EU Foreign Policy Chief. Solana remarked that "IRI is an old, wise nation. A key partner in regional and world affairs. The nuclear issue is just one element, even if it is a key one, of a much broader relationship. We want to cooperate with IRI in other subjects, not least the Middle East, and we should do irrespective of the ups and downs in the nuclear issue." M/D Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Iran problem still resolvable through dialogue - Russia - Friday October 6, 12:20 PM [Sergei Lavrov] MOSCOW (AFP) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme can still be resolved through negotiations. "There are still opportunities for a resolution and we should use them actively at the meeting in London today," Lavrov said Friday ahead of a meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. "All the measures that could be considered should be aimed exclusively at pushing Iran back to the negotiating table. That is the only way," Lavrov told journalists. "The main thing is to look at the facts and to judge the real situation soberly and without emotion, and to work out whether there is a threat to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime. "We are in permanent contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a professional knowledge of the situation, and we will use their understanding in our work." Lavrov again took aim at a US decision to impose sanctions on countries that collaborate with Iran's nuclear power project or sell hi-tech weapons to Tehran. "I note with regret that the unilateral sanctions against Iran introduced a few days ago by the United States substantially go beyond agreements" concluded by the six powers due to meet in London, Lavrov said. Although it does not name any countries, the new US measure is seen as a clear warning to Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council that have resisted calls for new international sanctions against Tehran in response to its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. Russia has close economic ties to Iran and is building the country's first nuclear power station at Bushehr, a project that Washington has said should be halted. AFP ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Rice says time to decide on Iran sanctions is near Fri Oct 6, 4:26 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricewarned that the international community must soon decide whether to slap sanctions on Iran" /> Iran-- or risk not being taken seriously. "We already are a month past the deadline set by resolution 1696," which requires Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Rice said before arriving in London for talks with top diplomats from five other countries. "I think that there is a danger of the international community not being taken seriously about what it says and what it demands," Rice said aboard the plane bringing her from Iraq" /> Iraq, via a stopover in Turkey. "We've said all along that resolution 1696 is clear in the direction that it points -- that when the Iranians refuse to suspend (uranium) enrichment and reprocessing, in other words when the diplomatic course is not going to produce an outcome, then the other path has to be pursued," she said. "I think we are pretty close to that time," Rice added. However, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she expected no major decisions at the meeting between foreign ministers from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Rice, who traveled to London after a Middle East tour that included an unannounced trip to Baghdad, was delayed in arriving in London after technical problems with her plane in Iraq. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: Big powers to debate UN sanctions for Iran Fri Oct 6, 6:31 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Six major powers were to meet here for crunch talks on whether to urge the UN to slap sanctions on Iran" /> Iranfor failing to bow to international demands to rein in its suspect nuclear programme. After months of talks with Iranian negotiators, international patience is running out with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Friday acknowledging that diplomacy may have run its course. "It is up to the six countries -- the five countries of the Security Council (plus Germany) -- to decide whether the time has come to follow the second track: referring the case to the Security Council," he told reporters in Paris. Solana has led a delicate diplomatic dance with the Islamic Republic over past weeks, holding a series of secretive talks in European capitals after Iran failed to meet a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment by August 31. "Iran today has not made the commitment to suspend," he said, after weeks of meetings with top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. While "the door to negotiations is and will be always open," Solana said "dialogue could not last forever." Washington has long led charges that Iran's nuclear programme is a covert grab for atomic weapons, something that Tehran has hotly denied arguing that the nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes. The United States, and latterly Britain, are now leading moves to draft a resolution calling on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions which could go before the world body as early as next week. Foreign ministers from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States were gathering in London Friday for the talks due to start at 1600 GMT. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice, who will attend Friday's meeting of the five veto-wielding permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany, said the Iran effort would now shift from negotiations to punishment. "What the ministers are going to do... is to say 'We've done the Solana effort, and now we'll have to move to sanctions'," she said Thursday during a surprise visit to Baghdad. The talks come after North Korea" /> North Koreatriggered global alarm by announcing it was ready to carry out a nuclear test, which analysts say could severely aggravate regional tensions. Britain's ambassador to the United Nations" /> United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry, said earlier Thursday that once the foreign ministers give the green light, discussions would begin at the UN next week on a sanctions resolution against Iran. Britain "will be discussing with its partners and with members of the council the basis for action by the council to adopt measures under Article 41 against Iran," he said. Article 41 of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions on member nations to enforce compliance with its resolutions. But despite the confident statements from the United States and Britain, there were no indications from either Russia or China, both economic allies of Iran, that they had reversed their strong reticence to sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov late Thursday accused the United States of complicating efforts by the international community to resolve the standoff. Sanctions were "extreme measures," he argued, saying Russia would "see what extra possibilities exist to pursue multiparty diplomatic efforts." Rice has said the United States wants a graduated series of sanctions, to be implemented through multiple UN resolutions that would ramp up pressure on Iran if it persists with its nuclear programme. The first set of measures is expected to focus on preventing the supply of materiel and funding for Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programmes. Other steps could include asset freezes and travel bans on officials linked to Tehran's weapons programs. Even if China and Russia agree to the first set of sanctions, many analysts say the timid measures being considered would have little immediate impact. "You can get a peanut of a sanctions resolution passed by the UN, but it won't be strong enough to significantly affect Iran's behavior," said Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert at the American Center for Progress in Washington. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: World powers ratchet up pressure on Iran by Michael Thurston Fri Oct 6, 3:48 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - The six world powers seeking to defuse the Iran nuclear crisis ratcheted up pressure on the Islamic state, agreeing to discuss sanctions and lamenting Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. But foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany insisted that the door remains open to negotiations if the Islamic republic were to back down. "We're deeply disappointed that ... Iran is not prepared to suspend its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as required by the IAEA board and made mandatory in (UN) Security Council resolution 1696," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, speaking on behalf of her counterparts. "Accordingly we will now consult on measures under article 41 of chapter 7 of the UN charter as envisaged in that resolution," she added after crunch talks in London. Article 41 allows the United Nations Security Council to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions on member nations to enforce compliance with its resolutions. "We decided in unison to work together in the coming days" on "sanctions which are proportionate and reversible," said French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. "The door to dialogue will remain open," he added. Beckett noted that the international community had told Tehran in Vienna, at a crunch meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that there were two paths ahead in the standoff. "We regret that Iran has not yet taken the positive one. We will continue our efforts to find a negotiated solution and our proposals of the first of June remain on the table," she said. Washington has long led charges that Iran's nuclear program is a covert grab for atomic weapons, something that Tehran has hotly denied. It argues that the nuclear programme is purely for civilian energy purposes. European Union foreign policy head Javier Solana has held a series of talks with Iranian negotiators in recent months, but pressure for an accord intensified after Iran failed to meet a UN deadline by August 31. Solana acknowledged ahead of the meeting that diplomacy may have run its course, saying: "It is up to the six countries to decide whether the time has come to follow the second track -- referring the case to the Security Council." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whose country has been cautious about US-led calls for sanctions on Tehran, reiterated Friday that the standoff still could be resolved through negotiations. "All the measures that could be considered should be aimed exclusively at pushing Iran back to the negotiating table. That is the only way," Lavrov told journalists. The United States, and latterly Britain, are now leading moves to draft a resolution calling on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions which could go before the world body as early as next week. A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair underlined the need for a united front over the crisis. "What we know works is when we work together with our international partners," he said ahead of the talks. Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry, said Thursday that once the foreign ministers gave the green light, discussions would begin at the UN next week on a sanctions resolution against Iran. Rice has said the United States wants a graduated series of sanctions, to be implemented through multiple UN resolutions that would ramp up pressure on Iran if it persists with its nuclear programme. The first set of measures is expected to focus on preventing the supply of material and funding for Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programmes. Other steps could include asset freezes and travel bans on officials linked to possible Iranian weapons programmes. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 15 Bellona: Iran calls on Russia to help resolve nuclear loggerheads US-Russian agreement Iranian National Security Council head Ali Larijani has expressed hope that Russia can help settle the dispute over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme – an initiative Russia has forwarded itself several times - the DPA news agency reported. Bellona, 05/10-2006 Both of us have agreed that solving the situation through negotiations is possible and we hope that Russia can help us in this direction, Larijani said Tuesday at a joint press conference in Tehran with Russias Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov. Larijani and Ivanov discussed the nuclear dispute for three hours behind closed doors at Iran National Security office, the MOSNEWS website reported. Russia can play an effective role to enable a diplomatic solution, especially as we share close standpoints on the issue, Larijani said. Ivanov also said that Russia firmly believed that the nuclear dispute could be settled through negotiations, the DPA agency reported. Russia will do whatever possible to make negotiations work and lead to positive results, Ivanov said. Business is thicker than water Russia is building an $800m 1,000-megawatt light water reactor for Iran in the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr with the promise of more to come. The Bushehr reactor is expected to be fully operation by November 2007, with the first batch of Russian-made fuel arriving at the site in March. Russia which shares other lucrative oil arrangements with Iran - has also recently led the charge to extend the United Nations Security Imposed deadline for Iran to cease uranium enrichment or face sanctions, a stance that has put it in conflict with the United States, which is zealously leading the drive for sanctions against Tehran. Washington believes that Iran is building a nuclear weapons programme and is pursuing all available intelligence channels to attempt to prove this. Iran has repeatedly denied US allegations, saying the enrichment programme is for the benefit of its incipient nuclear energy push. The United States, meanwhile, has warned Iran that the time for further negotiations is running out. In the meantime, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the entire Iranian nuclear and foreign relations establishment have reiterated several times that they will not stop uranium enrichment under any circumstances. Ahmadinejad skipped the first deadline to cease enrichment on August 31st, rattling the US establishment and leading to talk about possible military action against Iran. A second deadline for the first week of October was advanced by European negotiators and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during sideline talks at the UN General Assembly meeting three weeks ago. But that, too, has failed to achieve cessation of Irans uranium enrichment. European diplomats have discussed the possibility of moving the deadline back to December. The United States, meanwhile, refuses to even come to the negotiating table until Iran has verifiably stopped enrichment. The French connection Larijani further refrained from commenting on an interview by Iranian Atomic Energy Agency deputy, Mohammad Saidi, with France Info radio Tuesday in which he had proposed that France create a consortium for the production of enriched uranium in Iran. Besides Ahmadinejad and Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, Larijani is the only official to disclose political decisions by the Iranian government on nuclear issues. Saidi has so far been responsible for technical issues only. Print Notify a friend Copyright © Bellona -- Reprint and copying is recommended if source is stated  Support Bellona's work for the environment - Phone +47 23 23 46 00 | E-MAIL: info@bellona.no ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Nations to Talk Possible Iran Sanctions From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 6, 2006 11:16 PM AP Photo LMD106 By BETH GARDINER Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Top diplomats from six world powers agreed Friday to discuss possible sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program but shied away from demanding that Tehran be punished by the U.N. Security Council. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia said in a joint statement after talks that they were ``deeply disappointed'' by Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, a key step toward making nuclear weapons. Apparently divided about how quickly to move, the powers stopped short of declaring European negotiations with Iran a failure, however, as some had expected them to do. Reading the diplomats' joint statement, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Iran had two choices when the United Nations demanded that it halt enrichment activities. ``We regret that Iran has not yet taken the positive one,'' she said. Beckett said the six powers ``will now consult on measures under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.'' Article 41 authorizes the Security Council to impose nonmilitary sanctions such as completely or partially severing diplomatic and economic relations, transportation and communications links. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the discussions on how to win Iranian compliance would take place at the Security Council, Russian news agencies reported. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told ZDF television the powers would begin drafting a resolution. Britain's U.N. ambassador said Thursday that he expected ``the Iran dossier'' to return to the Security Council in the next week, but Beckett set no timeframe for action. Iran insists that its enrichment of uranium is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy. But the United States and many European nations believe Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Britain are leading the push for sanctions against Tehran. To avoid alienating the Russians and the Chinese - both major commercial partners of Iran - any measures are likely to be relatively mild, including embargoes on missile and nuclear technology, and possible travel bans and other penalties on Iranian officials involved in their country's nuclear program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was delayed leaving Iraq on Friday because of mechanical difficulties with her plane, meaning the diplomats had little time to reach a consensus. But even before the logistical problems arose, it was clear there were significant differences among the participants, with Russia voicing reluctance to move toward sanctions and Rice suggesting it was ``getting pretty close'' to the time to take Iran to the Security Council. ``There is an issue of the credibility of the Security Council and the international system and you simply can't just keep talking with no outcome,'' she told reporters on her way to London. Lavrov, who said Thursday that sanctions now would be ``extreme,'' hinted Friday that Moscow might accept some action. ``We do not rule out additional measures'' the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying in London. But his deputy, Alexander Alexeyev, warned that it would be ``counterproductive'' to speak to Iran ``in the language of threats and ultimatums.'' Beckett denied suggestions the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany had been unable to agree on a course of action. She told The Associated Press that the international community was united in wanting to negotiate with Iran and urging it to suspend enrichment. ``None of us want to get involved in sanctions, but at the present time, Iran is not responding to probably the most generous offer that has ever been made by the international community,'' she told the AP. She said the package of technological and political incentives the six countries offered Iran in June was still on the table if it commits to freezing enrichment, which it has refused to do. The European-Iranian negotiations had been seen as a final attempt to avoid a full-blown confrontation between Tehran and the Security Council after it ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face punishment. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was defiant Thursday, saying his country would not be intimidated into giving up its nuclear program. --- Associated Press Writers Thomas Wagner and Anne Gearan in London, Stephen Graham in Berlin and Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Delay Disrupts Meeting to Discuss Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 6, 2006 7:31 PM AP Photo LMD106 By THOMAS WAGNER Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - A meeting of world powers Friday on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program was disrupted when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's flight was delayed, giving leaders little time to reach a consensus. The United States has led calls for sanctions against Iran if it refuses to halt its uranium enrichment activities. Since diplomatic efforts have failed so far to prompt Tehran to comply with international demands, Rice told reporters while en route to London that it is ``getting pretty close to that time,'' that other paths should be taken. ``There is an issue of the credibility of the Security Council and the international system, and you simply can't just keep talking with no outcome,'' she said. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said as talks began Friday that she did not expect any major policy decisions to be reached. ``We do not rule out additional measures'' to persuade Iran to respond to international concerns about its nuclear program, the Interfax news agency quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying, indicating Moscow could agree to sanctions at some point. However, ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying there is still room for diplomacy. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana told security experts in Paris that ``the door to negotiations is and will be always open.'' There appeared to be little agreement among the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China on issuing a stern response to Tehran. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Solana would brief the meeting on the details of his talks with Iran, but that no major decisions were expected. ``What we want today is a full clear report from Javier Solana of the many meetings ... he's had so we can all take stock of where we stand,'' Beckett said before the session. The representatives were expected to confirm that the European-Iranian negotiations are at a standstill and issue a statement referring the Iran file back to the Security Council and stating the principles they agree on, a senior council diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks are still taking place. The talks had been seen as a final attempt to avoid a full-blown confrontation between Iran and the Security Council after Tehran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment - a key step toward making nuclear weapons - or face punishment. Plans for the session were thrown into question, however, after Rice's flight from Iraq to London was delayed by about two hours because of mechanical problems on her C-17 military transport. Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman who was traveling with Rice, said she would join the talks in progress but that Lavrov would not be able to stay later than scheduled. For that reason, the six officials would not be able to finish their work and issue a statement about Iran, he said. Instead, they would accomplish as much as possible and hold a telephone conference Monday or Tuesday, McCormack said. During her delay in Iraq, Rice spoke with Solana and the British and Russian foreign ministers to work out the revised plan, deciding to get as much done as they could in their limited meeting time, McCormack said. Iran insists that its enrichment of uranium is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy. But the United States and many European nations believe Iran wants to enrich uranium to produce nuclear weapons. To avoid alienating the Russians and the Chinese - both major commercial partners of Iran - any sanctions are likely to be relatively mild, including embargoes on missile and nuclear technology, and possible travel bans and other penalties on Iranian officials involved in their country's nuclear program. Solana conceded this week that ``endless hours'' of talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had made little progress and suggested the dispute could wind up at the U.N. soon. He said again Friday that talks with Iran could not be open-ended, but stressed his belief that diplomacy is the only possible solution. ``I'm convinced that `the Iran dossier' can only be solved, and will be solved, through negotiations,'' he said. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, reiterated international calls for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment but criticized the United States, saying unilateral sanctions ``will not promote the search for a solution that would prompt Iran to compromise,'' according to Interfax. He was apparently referring to legislation signed President Bush on Sept. 30 toughening unilateral sanctions on Tehran. The new law imposes mandatory sanctions on entities that provide goods or services for Iran's weapons program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his country would not be intimidated. ``Those who threaten Iran by sanctions and embargo should know that this nation lived under the hardest situation in the past 27 years and achieved nuclear technology. This nation will not be frightened by the threats,'' state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. Article 41 of the U.N. Charter authorizes the Security Council to impose sanctions that do not involve the use of armed forces, such as economic penalties, breaking diplomatic relations or banning air travel. --- Associated Press writers Anne Gearan, traveling with Rice, John Leicester in Paris and Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Dpr Korea: Security UN Says Nuclear Test Is Threat To Peace, Warns Of Action Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:00:40 -0400 DPR KOREA: SECURITY COUNCIL SAYS NUCLEAR TEST IS THREAT TO PEACE, WARNS OF ACTION New York, Oct 6 2006 3:00PM The United Nations Security Council today warned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) of unspecified action if it conducted a nuclear test, declaring that such a test would represent “The Security Council urges the DPRK not to undertake such a test and to refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns and to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through political and diplomatic efforts,” the 15-member body said in a presidential statement. The statement, read out in open session by the Council’s President for October, Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, expressed “deep concern” at the DPRK’s statement on Tuesday that it intended to conduct a nuclear test, adding that “it would jeopardize peace, stability Such a move “would bring universal condemnation by the international community and would not help the DPRK to address the stated concerns particularly with regard to strengthening its security,” “Should the DPRK ignore call of the international community, the Security Council will act consistent with its responsibility under The statement also called on the DPRK to return immediately without preconditions to the Six-Party talks that has been seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis stemming from its nuclear programme, “and in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes” so as to achieve the denuclearization of the The talks in Beijing between China, DPRK, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States have been going on sporadically for The Council deplored the DPRK’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nearly four years ago and called on the country to comply fully with all the provisions of Security Council resolution 1695 of July, which demanded that it suspend all activities 2006-10-06 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang 'ready to carry out nuclear test in mine' Friday October 6, 2006 Guardian Unlimited [Preparations for a North Korean military parade] Preparations for a North Korean military parade. Photograph: Getty Images North Korea is "more or less ready" to conduct a military nuclear test deep inside an abandoned coal mine, it was reported today. The claim came from a Chinese source reported to have knowledge of Pyongyang's plans. The unnamed source, interviewed by Reuters, said there were plans to detonate a device around 2,000 metres inside a mine near the Chinese border. However, the source said Pyongyang may stop the test if it was able to win concessions - including the lifting of financial sanctions targeting alleged money-laundering by the regime and the opening of bilateral talks with Washington - from the US. There has been speculation that a nuclear test could take place as soon as Sunday - the anniversary of Kim Jong-il's appointment as the head of the Korean Workers' party in 1997. A message from the UN security council in New York, warning Pyongyang to cancel the test and return to the six-nation talks on its nuclear programme, was expected to be issued today. The North has been boycotting the talks. An early Japanese draft of the text said a nuclear test would bring international condemnation, "jeopardise peace, stability and security in the region and beyond", and lead to further unspecified action by the UN security council. The new Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who plans to travel to Beijing on Sunday and Seoul on Monday for talks, said he intended to pursue joint statements with China and South Korea demanding Pyongyang abort the test. South Korean newspapers today reported there were thousands of mine shafts that could be used for a test, but said Seoul and neighbouring countries were closely monitoring three or four sites. The Hankook Ilbo newspaper said the most likely site was the administrative district of Gilju, in North Hamkyung province. The area was mentioned in an August report by the US television channel ABC News which said a US intelligence agency had observed suspicious vehicle movements there. Yesterday, a US military plane capable of detecting radiation took off from Okinawa, in southern Japan, and was thought to be on a monitoring exercise in case the North carries out a test, reports said. Japan, which has threatened "severe" repercussions should a test take place, said it was stepping up its intelligence-gathering. Footage broadcast on North Korea's state television today showed the first public appearance by Mr Kim since his country's foreign ministry attracted international condemnation on Tuesday by announcing it might carry out a nuclear test. Today's film showed him taking part in a rally with around 500 of his commanders at Pyongyang's sprawling mausoleum complex for his father, Kim Il-sung. Officers were seen greeting the North Korean leader with chants of "Fight at the cost of our lives!" Pyongyang has said it needs nuclear weapons to deter a possible attack by the US. Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading the North. Li Dunqiu, a Chinese government analyst on North Korea, today said Pyongyang had "already decided" to carry out a nuclear test unless the US scrapped economic sanctions. Peter Hayes, executive director of the Nautilus Institute, a San Francisco-based think-tank focusing on North Korea, said: "The chances are that they will do it, having said that they will. "The DPRK [North Korea] has been talking up its military power in the media for some time." Useful links Korea Herald (South) North Korean Central News Agency World Food Programme History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com CIA factbook: North Korea CIA factbook: South Korea [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Urged to Abandon Atomic Weapons From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 6, 2006 11:46 PM AP Photo UNDK111 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - With speculation mounting of a North Korean nuclear test as early as this weekend, a unanimous U.N. Security Council urged the secretive, communist nation Friday to abandon all atomic weapons as it promised last year and cancel plans to detonate a device. Japan hinted the North could face sanctions or possible military action. A statement adopted by the council expresses ``deep concern'' over North Korea's announcement that it planned a test - which would confirm strong suspicions it is a nuclear power - and warns Pyongyang of ``unspecified consequences'' if it carries through. The message also urges the North to return to six-party talks on scrapping its nuclear weapons program. With tensions rising, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il met hundreds of his top military commanders and urged them to bolster the nation's defenses, as officers cheered, ``Fight at the cost of our lives!'' the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported earlier Friday. A North Korea expert in China, the North's closest ally, said only the removal of American economic sanctions against Pyongyang could dissuade the country from carrying out a nuclear test. ``North Korea has already made a decision to carry out a test,'' said Li Dunqiu, of China's State Council Development Research Center, a Cabinet-level think tank. But ``if the U.S. removes sanctions ... then tensions can be eased. Otherwise launching a nuclear test is unavoidable for North Korea.'' The United States imposed economic sanctions on North Korea last year to punish it for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering. For the last 13 months, North Korea has boycotted six-nation talks aimed at persuading it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. North Korea said Tuesday it decided to act in the face of what it claimed was ``the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war,'' but gave no date for the test. Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading North Korea. Both China and Russia have urged the United States and North Korea to hold talks, which Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Friday ``could be useful in resolving the situation.'' But he said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton informed the council that there would be no North Korean-U.S. talks except in the margins of resumed six-party talks. Bolton said the Security Council needs to adopt a long-term strategy to deal with North Korea but the top U.S. priority now is to stop a nuclear test. ``We take the threat by North Korea seriously. We don't think this is an attention-getting device of people waving their arm to say `see me, see me.' We think this would be consistent with the unfortunate logic that North Korea has been following,'' he said. ``North Korea should understand how strongly the United States and many other council members feel that they should not test this nuclear device,'' Bolton said. ``And that if they do test it, it would be a very different world the day after the test ... because there would be another nuclear power.'' Russia's Churkin said threatening or conducting a nuclear test ``would not help anybody including North Korea.'' ``This message is very clearly conveyed in the useful presidential statement which we today adopted,'' he said. ``Let's hope that things will cool off and that everybody will return to six-party talks.'' The warning was read at a formal meeting by the council president, Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan. The Japanese Foreign Ministry issued a statement later saying if North Korea defies international concerns about a test, ``the Security Council must adopt a resolution outlining severely punitive measures.'' Japan, which would be in close proximity to any North Korean nuclear test, proposed the initial text of the statement, which becomes part of the council record. Oshima, the ambassador, had pressed to have it adopted before Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe travels to China on Sunday and South Korea on Monday with a message that the North should stop testing. ``It's good that the council has come up with a very clear, strongly worded message warning against a nuclear test'' before the ``very important'' Japan-China summit meeting, Oshima said. The statement says a nuclear test would not help Pyongyang address its concerns, especially strengthening its security. It warns that a nuclear test would bring ``universal condemnation,'' lead to further unspecified council action, and ``jeopardize peace, stability and security in the region and beyond.'' The council said it ``deplores'' the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, known as the DPRK. ``The Security Council will be monitoring the situation closely,'' the statement said. ``The Security Council stresses that a nuclear test, if carried out by the DPRK, would represent a clear threat to international peace and security and that should the DPRK ignore calls of the international community, the Security Council will act consistent with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations.'' Oshima indicated that the North could face sanctions or possible military action under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter if it detonates a nuclear device. Chapter 7 outlines actions the council can take to deal with threats to international peace. He stressed that the statement says a nuclear test would constitute such a threat, which ``is clear enough.'' ``I think the terms in which this statement was prepared clearly indicate what will be the consequences of their action if they, in fact, resort to a nuclear test,'' Oshima said. The statement also urges North Korea to return immediately to the six-party talks and work toward implementation of a September 2005 agreement in which the North pledged to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. The six parties to the talks are the two Koreas, China, Japan, the United States and Russia. The council acted amid speculation that a nuclear test could come on Sunday, the anniversary of Kim's appointment as head of the Communist party in 1997. Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi, currently in Washington, told the Japan's TV Asahi: ``Based on the development so far, it would be best to view that a test is possible this weekend.'' The dispatch by North Korea's news agency did not mention a nuclear test. North Korean state television showed still photos of Kim, with his distinctive bouffant-hair, waving to an assembled crowd of about 500 olive-suited officers in dress caps. Kim later posed for a group photo with his commanders in front of Pyongyang's sprawling mausoleum for his father and national founder, Kim Il Sung. The meeting was the reclusive leader's first reported appearance in three weeks and the first since Tuesday, when his government shocked the world by announcing plans to test a nuclear device on its way to building an atomic arsenal. It was unclear when the rally took place, or how many attended, but it could show that Kim is trying to polish his credentials with the military at a time when international pressure is mounting on Pyongyang. Associated Press writers Hans Greimel and Bo-Mi Lim in Seoul, South Korea, Kana Inagaki and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo, and Foster Klug in Washington contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 Japan Times: Pyongyang's nuclear threat Saturday, Oct. 7, 2006 By RALPH COSSA HONOLULU -- North Korea announced on Tuesday that it "will, in the future, conduct a nuclear-weapons test," promising that it will be done under conditions where "safety is firmly guaranteed." While Pyongyang did not say when this test would occur, it made it clear that it felt compelled to take such action because of "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure." Should we take this threat seriously? North Korea has threatened such action before, although only in private. A public threat such as this is difficult to ignore (although many will try to do just that). Some will speculate that this is merely another attention-getting device (Iran-envy?), and this may be at least partially true. It may also be aimed at drawing attention from an imminent South Korean success story -- the anticipated selection of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon to be Kofi Annan's successor as U.N. Secretary General. Examples of previous attempts by North Korea to get attention and/or to upstage the South are too numerous to recount here. Pyongyang may be bluffing, hoping that this will force Washington to lift its financial restrictions against North Korea's counterfeiting and money-laundering operations or at least accept bilateral negotiations on the nuclear issue -- to date, Washington has said it would only meet the North bilaterally within the context of the broader six-party talks (also involving South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia). Pyongyang may see this as a "win-win" gambit: either Washington gives in to its demands for direct negotiations (which is unlikely) or renewed disputes about Washington's "inflexibility" will drive deeper wedges between Washington and its negotiating partners, especially in Seoul and Beijing, while also playing into domestic U.S. election year politics. North Korea's next step may be to do nothing at all, other than to sit back and watch the rest of the world argue about what to do next. It is also possible that Pyongyang really means what it says, and that it will soon conduct a nuclear-weapons test, hoping that unlike its July 2006 missile tests -- which resulted in a rare instance of international condemnation (including a surprisingly tough UN Security Council resolution) -- this time the international community will fail to speak with one voice and institute even harsher measures. If we choose to wait and it turns out that Pyongyang is not bluffing, we will be faced with nothing but bad choices. The best way to deter Pyongyang from taking this next step is to send clear signals in advance that there will be severe consequences if such actions are taken. While Washington seems prepared to lead this charge, unfortunately it has the least leverage over the North (unless it plans to capitulate to Pyongyang's demands). There is little that Washington (or Tokyo) can do, politically or financially, that it has not already done and military actions are simply not an option. If we are to "preempt" a North Korean nuclear test, it must be done politically, not militarily. The real leverage rests with Seoul and Beijing; no threatened consequences are credible if not fully backed by these two nations and, preferably, by Moscow as well. Seoul should announce that a nuclear test will result in a halt in all political and economic exchanges between North and South (other than humanitarian assistance, which would be funneled exclusively through the United Nations). After all, Seoul has long stated that it "will not tolerate" a nuclear North Korea. While it has chosen to dismiss the North's earlier claims to already be a nuclear-weapons state, the Roh Moo Hyun administration's international credibility (and perhaps even the fabric of the U.S.-South Korea alliance) will be severely tested if it fails to respond to an actual nuclear test. China and Russia should issue similar statements, plainly stating that the North Korean regime's threatening tactics must change. Beijing should also set a date certain for the next round of six-party talks to discuss the crisis, while making it clear that a "six-minus-one" session will occur if the North refuses to come. Washington should encourage Seoul and Beijing to take the lead on this issue and look for other sympathetic Security Council members (the French come immediately to mind) to help take the lead in building an international consensus aimed at sending Pyongyang a strong message, in advance of a nuclear test, as to just how severe the consequences of such an action would be. There is another option. Beijing, Seoul, and the never-ending (and growing) legions of Bush administration critics can continue their internecine arguments and finger-pointing and hope that Pyongyang is really bluffing. Of course, if they guess wrong, we will then be faced with the near-impossible task of trying to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. At that point, the only options will be to accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state or take the much more difficult (and potentially dangerous) political, economic, and limited military actions (short of an all-out war) required to bring about regime change in North Korea. Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: North Korean nuclear test would be 'incendiary' - White House - Fri Oct 6, 4:17 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House warned that a North Korean nuclear test would be an "incendiary" event threatening Pyongyang's neighbors, but it refused to comment on the possible timing of the test. "I'm not going to comment on any of our intelligence," White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters. Japan said North Korea" /> North Koreacould test a nuclear device as early as this weekend. "The international community has joined us in sending a clear signal to the North Koreans that any such test of a nuclear device would be unacceptable," Perino said. "And this hostile act would be most incendiary and threatening to North Korea's immediate neighbors," she said. "It would be destabilizing to the region and could lead to further escalation of tensions. And a test, by its very nature, could advance the North Koreans' capabilities," the spokeswoman added. White House chief spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday that a US diplomat's warning that a nuclear-armed North Korea would be "unacceptable" was "not a lethal threat" against the Stalinist regime. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: World powers urge NKorea to cancel nuclear test by Gerard Aziakou Fri Oct 6, 7:54 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council unanimously agreed to press North Korea" /> North Koreato drop plans to test an atom bomb, which Japan said could be exploded this weekend. A Japanese-drafted statement, adopted by the 15-member body, made no explicit threat of sanctions but expressed "deep concern" over the North's announcement that it planned to test a nuclear device. The non-binding text warned that such a move "would represent a clear threat to international peace and security." Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the statement sent "a very strong message in favor of respect for non-proliferation." Japan's UN envoy Kenzo Oshima, who chairs the council for October, said the council decided to drop language pushed by Japan and the United States for an explicit threat of an arms embargo and trade sanctions under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. China and Russia are known to be opposed to biting sanctions. But Oshima said there was a clear warning in the text that there would be consequences if an explosion was carried out. "Should the DPRK (North Korea) ignore calls of the international community, the Security Council will act consistent with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations" /> United Nations," the statement said. Amid frantic diplomacy to dissuade his regime from carrying out its threat, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il visited army commanders to encourage them to defend the isolated country. Kim's visit was greeted with cheers and shouts of "Let's fight at the cost of our lives for the respected Supreme Commander Comrade Kim Jong-Il!," state media reported. The White House warned that a North Korean test would be an "incendiary" event threatening Pyongyang's neighbors, but it refused to comment on the possible timing of the test. "I'm not going to comment on any of our intelligence," White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters. Japanese vice foreign minister Shotaro Yachi warned Pyongyang's resolve to conduct its first atom bomb test -- a plan it announced Tuesday -- should not be underestimated. "We discussed the possibility that the test would occur this weekend," he said after talks in Washington with US deputy national security adviser Jack Crouch. He added: "They will probably go ahead and do it as they had that tone in their declaration. It possibly means they are already very prepared." In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he would be seeking common ground with his counterparts from China and South Korea" /> South Koreaduring his first foreign trip starting Sunday. "It's important to share the same understanding of the situation between Japan and China, and also between Japan and South Korea, during the summits," Abe said. "We need to send messages together to stop the North before they make such a reckless action." Abe has taken a hardline stance on North Korea, while China and South Korea have favoured a more conciliatory approach. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon -- who is expected to be confirmed as UN secretary general on Monday -- would be willing to visit North Korea to defuse the nuclear standoff, foreign ministry officials in Seoul said. Both the United States and South Korea have warned they cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed North, Russia has held direct talks with the regime, while China, Pyongyang's main ally, has urged it to show restraint. The UN statement urged North Korea to return immediately to six nation talks on its nuclear programme and keep to a September 2005 pledge to abandon it in exchange for energy and security benefits. The North has since November boycotted the talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States in response to US financial sanctions. US State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said that if North Korea carries out a test, "we are open to considering a full range of diplomatic actions," but played down talk of military action. North Korea declared in February 2005 that it had nuclear weapons, and the US Central Intelligence Agency" /> Central Intelligence Agencysays it believes Pyongyang has developed a number of crude atomic bombs. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: World powers urge NKorea to back down on nuclear test - Fri Oct 6, 8:08 AM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - World powers were set to adopt a joint statement urging North Korea" /> North Koreato abandon plans to test a nuclear device, which Japan said could happen as early as this weekend. The expected UN Security Council text, which does not explicitly threaten sanctions, would be weaker than the United States and Japan had requested amid disagreement over how to rein in the communist state. As the man at the centre of the storm -- North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il -- visited army commanders, frantic diplomacy intensified to dissuade his regime from carrying out its plan Friday. North Korean official media reported that during Kim's visit -- it did not specify when -- he was greeted with cheers and shouts of "Let's fight at the cost of our lives for the respected Supreme Commander Comrade Kim Jong-Il!" Japanese vice foreign minister Shotaro Yachi warned Pyongyang's resolve to conduct its first atom bomb test -- a plan it announced Tuesday -- should not be underestimated. "We discussed the possibility that the test would occur this weekend," he said after talks in Washington with US deputy national security adviser Jack Crouch. He added: "They will probably go ahead and do it as they had that tone in their declaration. It possibly means they are already very prepared." In Tokyo, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he would be seeking common ground with his counterparts from China and South Korea" /> South Koreaduring his first foreign trip starting Sunday. "It's important to share the same understanding of the situation between Japan and China, and also between Japan and South Korea, during the summits," Abe said. "We need to send messages together to stop the North before they make such a reckless action." Abe is known for his hardline stance on North Korea, while China and South Korea have favoured a more conciliatory approach. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon -- almost certain to be confirmed as next UN chief in a vote Monday -- would be willing to visit North Korea to negotiate an end to its nuclear programme, foreign ministry officials in Seoul said. Speaking to the Financial Times, Ban said that, "if necessary, I will take my own initiatives to visit both North and South Korea and I will try to engage (Pyongyang) myself." Both the United States and South Korea have warned they cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed North, Russia has held direct talks with the regime while China, Pyongyang's main ally, has urged it to show restraint. In New York, Japan's Kenzo Oshima, who chairs the UN Security Council this month, said experts had made "good progress" in efforts to fine-tune a draft statement. "Most likely we will have something adopted (Friday)," he added. Japan and the United States had pushed for the inclusion of a threat to resort to mandatory sanctions, including an arms embargo and other trade and financial sanctions under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. Asked whether the latest version of the text would refer to Chapter Seven, Oshima replied: "I do not think at this stage it is something all members can agree." China and Russia are known to be opposed to biting sanctions. The latest UN text would "urge the DPRK (North Korea) not to undertake such a test and to refrain from any action that might aggravate tension." It would call for it "to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition and work toward the expeditious implementation" of its September 2005 pledge to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy and security benefits. The North has since November boycotted the talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States in response to US efforts to cut its links to the international banking system. US State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Washington expected a "strong Security Council statement" later Friday. If the North Koreans carry out a test, he said, "we are open to considering a full range of diplomatic actions," but played down talk of military action. North Korea declared in February 2005 that it had built nuclear weapons, and the US Central Intelligence Agency" /> Central Intelligence Agencysays it believes Pyongyang has created a number of crude atomic bombs. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 25 Japan Times: North nuclear test may come on Sunday Saturday, Oct. 7, 2006 WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Japan and the U.S. expressed concern Thursday that North Korea may test a nuclear weapon "as early as this weekend," although they have no concrete evidence that such a test is imminent, Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi said here. Tokyo and Washington agreed to prepare for any contingency and take a "firm stance" in dealing with the matter, Yachi told reporters after separate meetings with Deputy National Security Adviser Jack Crouch and Eric Edelman, undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon. "We are very concerned about a nuclear test by North Korea (that) may come as early as this weekend," Yachi said. Pyongyang released a statement Tuesday threatening to conduct its first atomic test "in the future." Yachi said he and the U.S. officials believe Pyongyang may test a nuclear warhead this weekend, a scenario Crouch called "possible." But Yachi added there was no specific evidence, other than the North vow. "Given that North Korea issued such a statement, it must be quite prepared. . . . So there is a possibility," Yachi said. Speculation is rising that Pyongyang may choose Sunday, the anniversary of Kim Jong Il's appointment as head of the Workers Party of Korea in 1997, as the date for a test. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Japan Times: U.S., Japan to seek UNSC Chapter 7 action if North tests nuke Friday, Oct. 6, 2006 WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Japan and the United States agreed Wednesday to seek a U.N. Security Council Chapter 7 binding resolution for imposing sanctions on North Korea if it conducts a nuclear test, visiting Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi said. Speaking to reporters after meeting with Nicholas Burns, U.S. Undersecretary of State for political affairs, Yachi said they also agreed to ask China and South Korea to "do more than us" to stop Pyongyang, which issued a statement Tuesday threatening to conduct a nuclear test. "We agree on the need for a Chapter 7 sanctions resolution through the U.N. Security Council and also for all related countries to take a resolute and firm stance if a nuclear test is conducted," Yachi said. A resolution based on Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter paves the way for international economic sanctions as well as military options under the world body. As for diplomatic efforts to adopt a Security Council presidential statement, Yachi said, "I can't say whether a presidential statement will be the best way, but it is important for the international community to issue a warning." The two senior diplomats also agreed that "influential China and compatriot South Korea should do more than us to tell North Korea there will be no merit" in carrying out a nuclear test, Yachi said. Burns said the U.S. is already working to persuade China and South Korea to do so, Yachi said. Yachi arrived Wednesday on a five-day trip to hold talks with senior U.S. officials following the inauguration of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who replaced Junichiro Koizumi. Bush backs summits WASHINGTON (Kyodo) U.S. President George W. Bush "is encouraged" by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's scheduled visit to China on Sunday and South Korea on Monday, hoping Japan will improve ties with the two nations, the White House said Wednesday. "The president supports the efforts of Prime Minister Abe and looks forward to continuing the strong relationship between the United States and Japan for the cause of peace, prosperity, and freedom in Asia and the world," White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement. The White House move to release a statement underscores the importance Bush attaches to cooperative ties among the three Asian nations, especially at this crucial time when Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo and Washington need to work jointly to deal with North Korea's stated threat to conduct its first nuclear test. "Strong relations among these key nations in Asia can enrich vibrant social and economic exchanges already taking place, and contribute to the region's security," Perino said. "The United States places utmost importance on close cooperation between its two key allies in East Asia, Japan and the ROK (Republic of Korea)," Perino said. "Stronger bilateral ties enable closer trilateral U.S.-Japan-ROK cooperation, which only strengthens our mutual partnerships based on common values of democracy and freedom." The Republic of Korea refers to South Korea. Perino said cooperation between Japan and China "is also critical to dealing with the common challenges we face in Asia." Abe will hold his first summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing and with South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun in Seoul in a bid to mend the relations soured mainly due to his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which honors Japan's war dead, as well as Class-A war criminals. The scheduled Abe-Hu meeting will be the first Japan-China summit in about 18 months, and the Abe-Roh talks will be the first in almost a year. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: UN adopts non-binding statement on North Korea nuclear test - Russian envoy - Friday October 6, 07:14 PM [Vitaly Churkin] UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a non-binding statement that urged North Korea to drop plans to test an atom bomb and to return to six-party disarmament talks, Russia's UN envoy announced. The text, which does not explicitly mention the threat of sanctions if the Stalinist state went ahead with the test, was to be read out by Japan's UN envoy Kenzo Oshima, the council president for October. "It was a very good statement," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters. "We are pleased that it has been adopted." "It is a very strong message in favor of respect for non-proliferation," Churkin said. The Japanese-drafted text expressed the 15-member council's "deep concern" over Pyongyang's announcement Tuesday that it planned to test a nuclear device and underlined that such a threat "would represent a clear threat to international peace and security." "Should the DPRK (North Korea) ignore calls of the international community, the Security Council will act consistent with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations," it added. Ahead of the adoption, US Ambassador John Bolton noted that Tokyo had made it clear it wanted the council to adopt a text before Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe embarks on a fence-mending trip to China Sunday. "I'm sure we'll be able to accommodate that," he added. "We think the main point is that North Korea should understand how strongly the United States and many other Council members feel that they should not test this nuclear device," Bolton said. Late Thursday Japan's UN envoy Kenzo Oshima, who chairs the body this month, said council experts made "good progress" in efforts to finetune the statement. Oshima said the experts had dropped language pushed by Japan and the United States for an explicit threat of an arms embargo and trade sanctions under Chapter Seven of the UN charter if North Korea went ahead with a test. He said the experts basically reverted to the thrust of the original draft presented by Japan. But China and Russia, two veto-wielding permanent members of the council with close ties with Pyongyang, are known to be opposed to biting sanctions. The text urged "the DPRK not to undertake such a test and to refrain from any action that might aggravate tension." It also asked the North "to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition and work toward the expeditious implementation" of its pledge made in September 2005 to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for trade and security benefits. Pyongyang has boycotted the talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States since last November in response to US sanctions against a bank linked to the regime of Kim Jong-Il. AFP ***************************************************************** 28 UPI: Japan: N. Korea nuclear test not imminent United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/6/2006 7:58:00 AM -0400 TOKYO, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- Japan's foreign minister said he does not believe a nuclear test by North Korea is imminent after another official said a test may take place this weekend. Foreign Minister Taro Aso, when asked if he believed the situation to be urgent, said: "I do not think so," Kyodo news reported Friday. Aso's comments came in response to talks between Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi and White House deputy national security adviser Jack Crouch in Washington. The two officials said during the meeting that North Korea may carry out a nuclear test "as early as this weekend." However, the officials said there was no concrete evidence to suggest a test was imminent, Kyodo said. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said in a separate news conference that Japan has been preparing a response if North Korea carries out a nuclear test. "We are intensifying our posture with an eye to various possibilities," said Shiozaki. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 29 UPI: New U.N. head ready to handle Korean issue United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/6/2006 8:25:00 AM -0400 SEOUL, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- South Korea's foreign minister, who will likely be the next U.N. secretary-general, says he ready to take on the task to curb North Korea's nuclear program. Speaking to the Financial Times, Ban Ki-moon, who is to be confirmed next month as successor to outgoing Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said he will use his new U.N. mandate to deal directly with North Korea, which this week threatened to conduct a nuclear test. The South Korean official said he will visit North Korea to convince its leaders not to indulge in "negative activities," the Financial Times said. "As I have gained a much deeper understanding and experience into the inter-Korean relationship, including North Korea, I think I will be in a much better position to handle this issue as secretary-general," Ban said. He said in his new role, he will be "able to handle this with North Korean authorities and South Korean authorities to facilitate inter-Korean co-operation and the six-party process." Separately, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations, has said "no one is going to protect" North Korea if it conducted a nuclear test. ***************************************************************** 30 Experts Warn Of Accidental Nuclear War Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 21:54:07 -0400 X-Sender-Host-Name: elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY Not to mention nuclear winter, "successfully" covered up by the pwers with vested interests in maintaining their nuclear arsenals and the lapdog corporate media: http://www.mothersalert.org/nuclearwinter.html http://www.mothersalert.org/nuclearwinter2.html http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/06/MNGF9LJSMM1.DTL Experts warn of an accidental atomic war Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia - Eric Rosenberg, Hearst Newspapers Friday, October 6, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle (10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday. Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford. "Any launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate." Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the threat of accidental war. But the center has yet to open. A major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles are tethered to early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches are truly under way or are false alarms. The scenario that worries Postol, Podvig and other weapons experts is what might happen if the United States and North Korea come to blows and a conventional D5 is launched against a target there from a submerged Trident submarine. Depending on the sub's location, the flying time to Russia could be under 15 minutes so the Russians would have little time to confirm the trajectory -- using decaying equipment -- before deciding to launch a nuclear strike on the United States. The D5 missile project involves the removal of nuclear warheads from as many as two dozen D5 ICBMs that are carried aboard the U.S. fleet of 12 Ohio-class Trident submarines. The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub. The rocket fired by a submerged submarine would barrel up through the ocean powered by its three-stage engine and rapidly ascend through the atmosphere at speeds up to 20,000 feet per second into outer space. The warhead compartment of the missile would then plummet back to earth, guided to its target within about 50 feet by sophisticated sensors. Defense officials believe it would gain enough speed and force to penetrate underground command bunkers. Page A - 7 ©2006 San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 31 Reuters: Greenpeace Takes UK Government to Court Over Nuclear Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:12:37 -0700 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61] X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61 X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Greenpeace Take UK Government to Court Over Nuclear Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version UK: October 6, 2006 LONDON - Environment group Greenpeace on Thursday began a legal challenge to the British government's bid to push ahead with a new nuclear power programme. The government said in its energy review in July it was vital to renew the country's ageing nuclear power stations both to combat global warming from burning fossil fuels and to reduce rising dependence on imported energy supplies. But environmentalists reject nuclear power as too expensive and too dangerous, and on Thursday Greenpeace, citing numerous supporting statements, set out to prove the process by which the government arrived at its conclusions was flawed. No comment was immediately available on Thursday from the Department of Trade and Industry which ran the review. At the outset of what they hope will result in a full judicial review, Greenpeace lodged papers with the High Court in London arguing that the government ignored adverse advice and failed to carry out a full public consultation. "A judge must now decide whether to give us leave for a judicial review," a spokeswoman said. "If the decision is positive then we could be looking at early next year for it to begin." "At the very least that should put the brakes on the government's rush to clear the way for new nuclear plants." If they are ultimately successful, the government will be forced to put aside its conclusions and go back over the review process which, although dubbed a public consultation actually gave the public little opportunity to hear the arguments. But time is short. Nuclear power plants supply some 20 percent of Britain's electricity, but most of the elderly plants are due to close within a decade and the last one is set for closure by 2025. In the past, public planning enquiries about plans to build nuclear power stations have taken years. In a bid to shorten the process, the government is considering pre-approval of nuclear power plant designs and limiting the scope of public inquiries to purely local issues. Story by Jeremy Lovell REUTERS NEWS SERVICE > ***************************************************************** 32 Exelon Studies 8 Texas Sites for Nuclear Reactor Also Considering Tennessee, Mississippi Sites Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:21:41 -0400 X-Sender-Host-Name: elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY http://www.mothersalert.org http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-utilities-texas-nuclear.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Exelon Studies 8 Texas Sites for Nuclear Reactor a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Save By REUTERS Published: October 6, 2006 Filed at 8:38 p.m. ET Skip to next paragraph HOUSTON (Reuters) - Exelon Corp. (EXC.N), the largest U.S. nuclear power producer, said it is ``actively'' evaluating eight sites in Texas as possible locations for a new nuclear reactor, a spokesman said on Friday. Chicago-based Exelon, which entered the Texas generation market in 2002 with the purchase of two aging natural gas-fired power plants from TXU Corp. (TXU.N), became the fourth company last week to say it wants to apply for a license to build a nuclear plant in Texas to meet growing power needs. Of the 19 preliminary proposals for new U.S. reactors, Texas has attracted the most interest, with four proposals, according to data from the Nuclear Energy Institute. The industry, dormant since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear station in Pennsylvania, is undergoing a rebirth amid growing environmental concern about carbon emissions from fossil-fuel plants and rising costs of natural gas. President George W. Bush supports new nuclear construction and energy legislation passed in 2005 offers billions of dollars in incentives to owners of the first new plants to go into service. Two other Texas generators, NRG Energy Inc. (NRG.N) and TXU Corp., have proposed new reactors in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves about 85 percent of the state's power needs. In addition, an Amarillo-based real estate developer is working to attract a reactor to the panhandle region, outside ERCOT. Exelon has not disclosed the size of the nuclear plant it is considering in Texas, but has narrowed its choice of reactor design to the General Electric ES Boiling Water Reactor of the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 design, according to its letter of intent filed with federal regulators. Princeton, New Jersy-based NRG owns 44 percent of the 2,560-megawatt South Texas Project, located southwest of Houston, while Dallas-based TXU owns 100 percent of 2,300-MW Comanche Peak station southwest of Fort Worth. In June, NRG proposed adding two reactors, totaling 2,700 MW, at the South Texas location. TXU said it was studying an expansion at Comanche Peak but did not disclose how much capacity it might build. TXU also said it was looking at other sites in Texas and sites outside the state. Exelon spokesman Craig Nesbit said the company is pursuing a new Texas reactor on its own, but he would not dismiss the idea of a partnership with one of the other companies. ``I would never shut the door on anything,'' he said. Both NRG and TXU have said they would like to reduce the risk of building new reactors by attracting partners. Exelon filed its letter with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 29, three days after TXU Chairman C. John Wilder told analysts in New York that the companies had dropped plans to swap assets. Wilder said TXU was interested in an ``asset swap'' with Exelon to expand its generation outside Texas while helping Exelon alleviate market-power concerns related to its proposed merger with Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG.N). Exelon called off the $17.7 billion merger in mid-September, citing problems obtaining approval of the deal in New Jersey. TXU, already the largest power generator in Texas, faces market-power limits as it seeks permits to build 9,000 MW of coal-fired generation to be completed before any new nuclear plants. Exelon is also considering adding reactors in Illinois and as part of NuStart, a 12-member consortium looking at sites in Tennessee and Mississippi. ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Participate in Hearing on Vogtle Early Site Permit Application News Release - 2006-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-125 October 6, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing a Notice of Hearing, along with the opportunity to request a role in the hearing, on Southern Nuclear Operating Co.s application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) on property near the Vogtle nuclear power plant, about 23 miles southeast of Augusta, Ga. The NRC staff, having determined the application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally docket, or file, the application, has begun its technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. 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 NRCs formal review will address site safety, environmental protection and emergency planning issues. If the agency approves the request, Southern Nuclear could reference the permit at any time for up to 20 years in an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction of one or more nuclear reactors at the site. The Notice of Hearing and opportunity to petition for an intervenors role will be published soon in the Federal Register. The deadline for petitioning to intervene is 60 days after publication of the notice. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the ESP and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding, and must meet criteria set out in the NRCs regulations. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should also be submitted to the NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 415-3725 or e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. The Vogtle Early Site Permit application is available electronically on the NRCs Web site on this page: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/vogtle.html. A copy of the application is also available at the NRC Public Document Room, located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; telephone: 800/397-4209 or 301/415-4737. Local residents may view the application at the Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South in Waynesboro, Ga. NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. Last revised Friday, October 06, 2006 ***************************************************************** 34 Arizona Republic: Inquiry at Palo Verde starts [azcentral.com] Inquiry at Palo Verde starts National board checks emergency diesel generators Mark Shaffer Oct. 6, 2006 12:00 AM Federal inspectors on Monday began a weeklong probe of emergency diesel generators at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the latest in a series of problem areas plaguing the nation's largest nuclear plant. The special inspection was ordered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after a Unit 3 generator did not activate during plant inspections on July 25 and Sept. 22. Each unit of Palo Verde has two diesel generators, which are operated if there are major disturbances in the power grid. The most recent of those emergency situations was two years ago, said Jim McDonald, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service Co., which operates Palo Verde. In addition to the inspection of Unit 3, both Units 1 and 2 have been taken offline. Unit 1 was shut down on Sept. 19 because of a recurring problem with pressurizer heaters and was expected to be operating by Thursday, McDonald said. Unit 2 was shut down Saturday for refueling and maintenance and isn't expected to be back in operation until mid-November, McDonald said. Unit 3 will not be shut down during the inspection. In 2004, a so-called dry pipe that could have disrupted the flow of water to the emergency core-cooling system was found. APS repaired that problem, but federal inspectors discovered other issues during investigations afterward, most of them problems not directly tied to safety. In a letter sent to Palo Verde management on Aug. 31, NRC officials noted 24 minor violations over a six-month period, including issues with decision-making systems, not always following technical requirements during nuclear reactor restarts, ineffective communication and poor interaction between engineering and operations workers. "These issues aren't anything that affect the ability to operate the plant successfully," said Victor Dricks, an NRC spokesman in Arlington, Texas. "But the problem there remains finding the root causes of the problems rather than just treating the symptoms." The NRC inspection team will prepare a written report about a month after the inspection is completed. "APS has taken corrective action to ensure the emergency diesel generators will work," Bruce Mallett, regional administrator for the NRC, said in a prepared statement. "But we felt it appropriate to take a deeper look at this issue through a special inspection." Increased oversight at the plant by the NRC began after the dry pipe was found two years ago. Only three of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors have poorer ratings from the NRC than Palo Verde. McDonald said that replacing the power generated by Unit 1 will have cost about $4 million by Thursday, when the unit was expected to restart. McDonald said that if higher-than-normal temperatures persist, APS will compare the cost of using generators it does not normally operate as opposed to purchasing power from other sources to come up with the best deal. "It's always safety over production," McDonald said. "To have a fundamentally sound nuclear operation, you have to put safety first, even when it's not easy to do that." Reach the reporter at (602) 444-8057. Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear authorities, SUAL agree on NPP, aluminum plant 06/ 10/ 2006 POLYARNYE ZORI (Murmansk Region), October 6 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear industry authorities and SUAL [RTS: SUAL] aluminum producer signed a protocol Friday on constructing a nuclear power plant and an aluminum plant in the northern Murmansk Region. The Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, Rosenergoatom - the state-run nuclear power generating monopoly - and SUAL cemented their intention to build two units at the second Kola Nuclear Power Plant, which will provide power for the Kandalaksha aluminum plant. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said September 28 that his agency and SUAL could reach an agreement on constructing a nuclear power plant and an aluminum plant in northwestern Russia October 6. "We cannot offer SUAL a share in the new NPP, but if SUAL is ready to invest in the NPP's construction we will supply it with electric power at a fixed price during 20 years," he said then. Kiriyenko also said the capacity of the Kola NPP-1 would be increased by 400-600 MW. One of the world's top 10 aluminum companies, SUAL has enterprises in nine Russian regions and in Ukraine, and annually mines over 5.4 million metric tons of bauxite, some 2.3 mln metric tons of alumina, over 1 mln tons of primary aluminum, and about 60,000 metric tons of silicon. It also manufactures aluminum products, including foil, wire, and wheel rims, and exports 80% of its production. SUAL and fellow Russian metals giant Rusal are expected to complete a merger soon that will create a Russian aluminum monopoly and the world's leading producer of primary aluminum. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 36 Platts: NRC panel OKs settlement with ex-FirstEnergy employee Washington (Platts)--5Oct2006 A US Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel has approved a settlement in the case of a former Davis-Besse nuclear power plant employee, documents showed. In a September 29 order, which was released late Wednesday, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued an order accepting a joint motion by NRC staff and Dale Miller's attorney to dismiss Miller's case. In a January enforcement order, NRC had banned Miller for five years from NRC-licensed work for his alleged role in providing NRC with "incomplete and inaccurate" information in 2001 on the inspection and cleaning of the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head, where severe corrosion was discovered in 2002. As part of the settlement agreement, Miller, who was FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.'s regulatory affairs compliance supervisor at Davis-Besse, must write a letter to NRC on "the significance of the role of the compliance supervisor in ensuring that all communications with the NRC contain complete and accurate information" and on what he has learned from his experiences at Davis-Besse. Miller also agreed to make presentations to industry groups on those topics. In light of that commitment and "new information" that emerged during the case, the NRC staff "no longer has a concern about the reliability and trustworthiness of Mr. Miller," the settlement agreement said. --Daniel Horner, daniel_horner@platts.com ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting in Piketon, Ohio, to Discuss Final Safety, Environmental Reviews for Centrifuge Plant News Release - 2006-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-126 October 6, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Oct. 18 in Piketon, Ohio, to discuss its final Safety Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant to be constructed and operated by USEC Inc. The meeting will be held at the Ohio State University Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, in Piketon, from 7 - 9 p.m. Members of the NRC technical staff will present brief summaries of the safety and environmental reports, and the bulk of the meeting will be devoted to answering questions from the public. USEC Inc. submitted its license application for the plant, to be known as the American Centrifuge Plant, on Aug. 23, 2004. USEC proposes to use a design based on gas centrifuge technology developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to enrich uranium for use in fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. The plant is to be built at DOEs Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant reservation in Piketon. The Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1851), published in September, documents the NRC staffs review and safety and safeguards evaluation of USECs application. The review evaluates the facilitys potential adverse impacts on worker and public health and safety, under both normal operating and accident conditions. The review also considers physical protection of special nuclear material and classified matter, material control and accounting of special nuclear material, as well as the management organization, administrative programs and financial qualifications provided to ensure the facilitys safe design and operation. The Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1834) was published in April. That study concluded that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts that would preclude granting a license. Both documents are available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/usecfacility.html. The license review process is scheduled for completion in February, following an adjudicatory hearing by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. Last revised Friday, October 06, 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 Platts: E.On Finland ready to invest in sixth Finnish reactor Stockholm (Platts)--5Oct2006 E.On Finland is prepared to make a major investment in a sixth Finnish nuclear reactor, company CEO Matti Manninen said in a statement October 5. Manninen's comments came in response to a government-commissioned report delivered October 3 that said Finland should build the unit through a state-owned company that could include utility and corporate partners. Manninen added that E.On Finland is also considering investments in new conventional capacity in Finland and that E.On Nordic is financing uprates at its Swedish plants. Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 39 Times Herald-Record: Indian Point will remove tainted water from Westchester recordonline.com: Saturday October 7, 2006 | | | | Special Pub. Times Herald-Record Buchanan  The owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant is closing in on plans to remove radioactive water from beneath its Westchester County facility, officials said yesterday. By the end of the year, Entergy Nuclear Northeast hopes to have finalized a strategy to address two spent-fuel pools that have been leaking for months. Engineers think the pools, used to store old fuel rods, are seeping water laced with tritium and strontium-90 into nearby ground water. "We're making a big investment in making this right," said Jay Adler, Entergy's technical manager for the leak investigation. "The industry really wants to do the right thing." Costs for the federally required cleanup could exceed $15 million, plant officials said. For more than a year, Entergy has been working to determine how two radioactive isotopes could have escaped from Indian Point. Follow-up tests in late 2005 found tritium levels at 10 times the federal government's safe drinking water standard. No drinking water sources have been contaminated, though minute levels of radiation are thought to be leaking into the Hudson River. Plant and federal officials say the leak poses no public health risk. Indian Point's leak is not the industry's first run-in with tritium. Virtually all commercial nuclear power plants release low levels of radiation, in both liquid and gas form. But most releases are regulated by the NRC to protect public health. Critics say unregulated discharges, such as the leak at Indian Point, circumvent the regulatory process. At an open house yesterday, the company sought to assuage those fears. Like a high school science fair, engineers showcased detailed maps, high-tech pumps and remote-controlled sensors  all tools Entergy has employed in the leak investigation. Phillip Musegaas, a policy analyst with the environmental group Riverkeeper, said the show-and-tell was a good start. "I think it's better than nothing," Musegaas said. Have comments or questions on this story? [Email Us] Tell us! Laura Bush was recently promoting a national award for teachers. What are your thoughts on teacher salaries: ***************************************************************** 40 North Adams Transcript: Yankee awarded $32.9M Yankee awarded $32.9MU.S. government ordered to pay for storage costs By Jennifer Huberdeau, North Adams Transcript 10/05/2006 ROWE — A federal judge has ordered the U.S. government to pay millions of dollars toward the cost of nuclear-waste storage at Yankee Atomic Electric Co.'s closed Rowe plant and two others. But it may be years, before the case is resolved. And finding a permanent solution for storing high-level radioactive waste across the country could take even longer. U.S. Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge James F. Merow ruled in favor of three former Yankee nuclear power plants on Sept. 30, awarding each plant damages for storing high-level radioactive fuel rods the Department of Energy has failed to remove from the sites. Yankee Rowe was awarded $32.9 million in damages, while Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. received $34.9 million and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. received $75.8 million. "While the court's decision will need to be reviewed and evaluated, the Yankee companies' initial reaction to the monetary award is very positive," said Michael Thomas, Yankee vice-president and chief financial officer in a prepared statement. "However, the ruling does not solve the problem of used nuclear fuel remaining at the plant sites, and the federal government is urged to remove the material promptly. We hope this ruling will spur the U.S. Department of Energy to begin fulfilling its obligation." The three plants initially sued the Department of Energy in 1998, when it was supposed to remove the spent fuel rods. In 2003, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the plants could seek damages. Yankee officials announced that year that increased security and insurance costs in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were pushing the initial $71 million in damages being sought in 1999 to over $231 million. "The reason we did not receive the full amount, is that the judge awarded 'actual cost occurred' through 2001," Yankee spokeswoman Kelley Smith said in a phone interview Wednesday. "Our claims included projected costs for up to 2010, when the government was supposed to remove the fuel rods. For costs after 2001, we are being allowed to file additional claims." She said the two other facilities received higher awards because the judge allowed all financial claims except those for "wet pool" storage. Yankee Rowe kept its rods in a reinforced concrete underground pool until 2003, when the last of the 553 rods were moved into so-called "dry-cask" storage containers. "Yankee Rowe stored its fuel rods in for a longer period of time," Smith said. "The wet-pool storage claim was larger than the other two plants, so the award is a little longer than the others." According to Smith, the award money will eventually be put into the Yankee decommissioning pool and used to offset the cost passed on to rate payers. However, Yankee officials are not seeing the ruling as a means to an end. They want the plant's spent fuel rods removed from the site. "As we say, we hope this spurs the federal government to take action sooner," Smith said. "Ultimately, the court proceedings are providing financial relief, but it doesn't relieve the responsibility of storing the high-level radioactive waste." In 2003, federal officials were projecting 2010 as potential opening of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent storage site for fuel rods, but now that date has been pushed back until 2017. And there's no guarantee the Yucca site will be approved. "All of the fuel rods (553) are still residing at the Rowe plant," Smith said. "The government has only identified Yucca Mountain as a fuel-storage site, yet they are now saying 2017, maybe, when it will possibly be operational." She said the processes of opening Yucca Mountain have been marred by bureaucratic red tape over the years. "This has been the only national location identified by the government for high-level waste," she said. "They have spent billions of dollars researching this site. Without any other option, the fuel rods must remain at Yankee Rowe unless the government comes up with a temporary location." Yankee Rowe closed in 1992 after 31 years of operation. After months of public outcry over the safety of the facility's reactor vessel, its owners decided to close the plant rather then spend the money to prove the vessel wasn't cracked and the plant was safe. » (413) 663-3741 » 124 American Legion Drive » North Adams, MA 01247 ***************************************************************** 41 North Adams Transcript: Wasted energy 10/06/2006 Federal Judge James Merow was right this week to award Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (and eventually its rate payers) $143 million from the federal government for its failure to remove high-level nuclear waste (i.e., spent fuel rods) from three closed power plants, including the nearby Rowe facility. The U.S. Department of Energy has dragged its feet for years and failed to live up to its commitment to find a permanent solution for the disposal of this dangerous radioactive waste, which will remain deadly for thousands and thousands of years (some of the waste has a half-life of 100,000 years). While the Yucca Mountain proposal flounders amid lawsuits and questions from scientists over whether it would actually be a safe site for all the nation's nuclear waste, that waste festers at more than 131 locations across the country. Many of these sites, like Rowe, are along rivers; some are on lakes or oceanfront properties. None of them has ever been researched for their capacity for long-term storage. And each of them, however secure our governments says they are, is potentially a target for terrorist attack. How much waste is there? According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, about 54,000 metric tons at private nuclear plants and another 13,000 metric tons in government defense installations, with an estimated 2,000 more metric tons being produced annually. That's a staggering amount of this lethal poison, and the cost just to store it "safely" where it is, amounts to billions. The Energy Department has so far spent about $10 billion developing the Yucca Mountain repository and now doesn't expect that to open until 2017 — seven years behind schedule — if all legalities are resolved. Any bets they will be? The money due to Yankee is just the beginning — the damage award unveiled Wednesday represented only the cost for the three plants' storage of spent fuel rods through 2001. Yankee obviously plans to sue for costs incurred since then, and can one doubt other nuclear power companies will be far behind? Aside from the astounding cost factor of storage, the Department of Energy has an outdated, foolish plan for transporting the waste, if and when a permanent disposal site is approved. The department plans to take the waste piecemeal from various plants, transporting the oldest waste first. Yankee Rowe estimated in 2003 that it would take until 2023 to dispose of its 533 spent fuel rods — if the Yucca Mountain repository opened in 2010. Doing the math, we're now looking at 2030 before all the rods might be gone. Despite the U.S. government's bumbling efforts to cope with the highly toxic leftovers of what was billed for decades as "clean, efficient energy," our plants continue to toil across the country, producing heaps of these pernicious contaminants that we simply don't know how to get rid of and that could threaten the very planet we live on. The public should be enraged. The government should be ashamed. And working together, we should find a solution — soon. New England Newspapers, Inc. » (413) 663-3741 » 124 American Legion Drive » North Adams, MA 01247 ***************************************************************** 42 GREENPEACE UK: Greenpeace launches legal challenge against the government Sizewell nuclear power plant 06-10-2006 We're taking legal action against the government for deciding to support nuclear power without full public consultation. If you followed the 2006 energy review, you'll know that many people suspected that Blair had already decided to build new nuclear reactors. As the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee said, the Energy Review was "a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision [to build new nuclear power stations] the Prime Minister took some time ago". Greenpeace think that this half-baked process has led to an unsubstantiated pro-nuclear policy. This is an issue of huge public concern since the implications of building new nuclear reactors - which create long-lived and highly radioactive waste - will impact generations to come. We also think the government's new found support of nuclear energy is legally flawed. Three years ago, the government promised that "Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper". The government failed to carry out this full public consultation. Consultees weren't given substantial information on, for example, how radioactive waste would be managed, siting reports, the proposed design of the reactors or how much they would cost. The Energy Review utterly failed to consult on these issues before the Prime Minister made his decision. Sarah North, head of our nuclear campaign, explains: "This summer the government said it will support nuclear new build. This is a change in policy which they promised they would not make without the fullest public consultation and a White Paper. "Greenpeace has brought this challenge because we believe Government has failed to meet this commitment and that this is an issue of huge public concern. Greenpeace is now asking the High Court to intervene." So we've filed papers at the High Court. This challenge will probably lead to a full judicial review. If the court quashes the government's decision that the UK needs nuclear energy, it could force the government to go back and carry out a genuine public consultation - one that actually addresses issues relating to building new nuclear reactors comprehensively. "Given that there are much more sophisticated, effective and safer ways than nuclear power to meet our energy demands and cut our climate change emissions, Greenpeace feels that a comprehensive process might reach very different conclusions." We're not alone in thinking the review was a farce. The Sustainable Development Commission said: "Our Energy Challenge offers no information whatsoever on what any new nuclear programme might look like& people are being asked to comment on the potential contribution of a new nuclear programme without any of the key aspects (regarding reactor design, cost, waste management, liability issues, and so on) having been addressed." The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee were concerned "about the manner in which this Energy Review has been conducted. Throughout the process, the Government has hinted strongly that it has already made its mind up on nuclear power. The last review took three years to complete, yet this one has been conducted in the space of six months. &What is more, it is clear to us that the outcome of the Energy Review has largely been determined before adequate consideration could possibly have been taken of important evidence that should inform the Government's policy decision." And The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee said: "The nature of the current Energy Review is unclear-whether it is specifically fulfilling the Prime Minister's desire to make a decision on nuclear, whether it is a review of electricity generating policy, whether it is a wider review of progress against the Energy White Paper, or whether it is reopening the broad policy debate which the White Paper itself encompassed. We are also concerned that it does not appear to have resulted from a due process of monitoring and accountability, and that the process by which it is being conducted appears far less structured and transparent than the process by which the White Paper itself was reached". Join Greenpeace Greenpeace is committed to halting climate change caused by burning oil, coal and gas. We investigate, expose and confront those who promote dirty sources of energy, including nuclear power. We promote a clean energy future and support decentralised energy systems including renewable technologies and energy efficiency. Join Greenpeace now and help protect the environment. ***************************************************************** 43 JOURNAL NEWS: NRC report rekindles Indian Point debate By SEAN GORMAN (Original publication: October 6, 2006) Both sides of the Indian Point debate are either taking issue with or finding solace in this week's Nuclear Regulatory Commission report that found radioactive water leaks from Indian Point and other U.S. nuclear reactors haven't affected public health. Phillip Musegaas, a policy analyst at the environmental group Riverkeeper, said the findings in the NRC report were premature because some facts about the Indian Point reactor leaks are unknown. For example, it's unclear how long the radioactive water leaks have occurred, Musegaas said. "The investigation has a long way to go," he said yesterday. "We think it's too early to say there are no potential health impacts." Stuart Richards, the NRC's senior manager who headed the groundwater contamination task force, has said the agency looked at radioactive releases into groundwater going back a decade and beyond and found none of the events led to a noticeable amount of radiation doses to people outside the plants. Buchanan Mayor Dan O'Neill, an Indian Point supporter, said yesterday that the report's findings didn't come as a surprise. Although Indian Point's critics have said the aging facility is a liability for the area, the mayor said the site is probably the "safest power plant in the Hudson Valley." "There were leaks from Unit 1 and Unit 2, but the investigation and the remediation have addressed both of those leaks," O'Neill said. The NRC task force started its work in March after a series of accidental releases of tritium at five of the country's 103 reactors. Indian Point's radioactive water leak was spotted in August 2005 and other radioactive isotopes were found in the groundwater, including strontium 90. No drinking water sources were affected by the release, state and federal regulators said. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets has said the company has been filtering the strontium 90 from the water from its spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 1 reactor and that almost all of the isotope had been captured at its source. Ongoing sampling shows there isn't any health effects from that release, Steets has said. The NRC groundwater contamination task force made a series of recommendations, including having nuclear power plant operators work with local and state agencies to voluntarily report radioactive liquid releases that fall below NRC reporting guidelines. They also recommended that more state-of-the-art technology be put into place to monitor groundwater for smaller amounts of contamination. "Our other concern about the report is that once again, the NRC is relying on the voluntary actions by the industry to solve these problems," Musegaas said. "The NRC is not looking at passing new regulations that would address the problems at these plants that lead to leaks." Copyright 2006 The Journal News, Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7, 2005. ***************************************************************** 44 NRC: In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site FR Doc E6-16555 [Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 59135-59136] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc06-92] Permit for Clinton ESP Site); Before Administrative Judges: Dr. Paul B. Abramson, Chairman; Dr. Anthony J. Baratta; Dr. David L. Hetrick; Notice (Notice of Hearing and of Opportunity to Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements) October 2, 2006. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the ``mandatory hearing'' portion of this proceeding regarding the September 25, 2003 Application of the Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (Exelon) for a 10 CFR part 52 early site permit (ESP), seeking approval of the site of the existing Clinton nuclear power station in DeWitt County, Illinois, for the possible construction of one or more new nuclear reactors.\1\ This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the proposed issuance of the requested ESP, as more fully described below. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ See 68 FR 69,426 (Dec. 12, 2003). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In addition, the Board gives notice that, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.315(a), it will entertain oral limited appearance statements from members of the public in connection with this proceeding. A. Matters To Be Considered As set forth by the Commission in the December 2003 ``Notice of Hearing and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene Early Site Permit for the Clinton ESP Site'' (68 FR at 69,426) and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR 52.21 the matters at issue in this proceeding are: (a) Whether issuance of an ESP will be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public (Safety Issue 1); (b) whether, taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR part 100, a reactor or reactors having characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site, can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the public health and safety (Safety Issue 2); and (c) whether in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, the ESP should be issued as proposed. Additionally, in accord with the December 2003 notice: (d) whether the requirements of sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, have been complied with in the proceeding; (e) the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; and (f) after considering reasonable alternatives, whether a license should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values. B. Date, Time, and Location of Mandatory Hearing The Board will conduct this mandatory hearing at the specified location and time: 1. Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2006, time: beginning at 9 a.m. c.s.t., location: Decatur Conference Center, 4191 W. U.S. Highway 36, Decatur, Illinois. The hearing on these issues will continue day-to-day until concluded. The public is advised that, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, portions of the hearing sessions may be closed to the public because the matters at issue may involve the discussion of protected information. C. Date, Time, and Location of Oral Limited Appearance Statement Session This session will be on the following date at the specified location and time: 1. Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, time: 6 to 10 p.m. c.s.t., location: Clinton Junior High School, 701 Illini Drive, Clinton, Illinois. D. Participation Guidelines for Oral Limited Appearance Statements Any person not a party, or a representative of a party, to the proceeding will be permitted to make an oral statement of not more than five minutes setting forth his or her position on matters of concern relating to this proceeding. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, they nonetheless may help the Board and/or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this proceeding. Oral limited appearance statements will be entertained during the hours specified above, or such lesser time as may be sufficient to accommodate the [[Page 59136]] speakers who are present.\2\ In this regard, if all scheduled and unscheduled speakers present have made a presentation, the Licensing Board will terminate the session before the ending time listed above. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ Any members of the public who plan to attend either the mandatory hearing or the limited appearance session are advised that security measures may be employed at the entrance to the hearing facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. Participants are expected to respect and preserve the dignity of this proceeding; therefore, during the limited appearance session, static signs no larger than 18'' by 18'' will be permitted, but may not be attached to sticks, held up, waved, or moved about in the rooms. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Although the Board expects that the time allotted for each statement will be no more than five minutes, it may be further limited depending on the number of written requests to make an oral statement that are submitted in accordance with section E below and/or the number of persons present at the designated time indicate that it is necessary to reduce each person's time to enable all those desiring to speak to do so. E. Priority to those who Submitted a Prior Request Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have submitted a timely written request to do so will be given priority over those who have not filed such a request. To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must either be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. eastern standard time on October 30, 2006. Written requests to make an oral statement should be submitted to: Mail: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-1101 (verification (301) 415-1966). E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov. In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written request to make an oral statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows: Mail: Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T- 3 F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-5599 (verification (301) 415-6094). E-mail: KSV@nrc.gov and JJL5@nrc.gov. F. Submitted Written Limited Appearance Statements In addition to or in lieu of an oral limited appearance statement, a written limited appearance statement may be submitted to the Board regarding this proceeding at any time. Such statements should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using the methods prescribed above, with a copy to the Licensing Board Chairman. G. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. H. Scheduling Information Updates Any updated/revised scheduling information regarding the evidentiary hearing and limited appearance sessions can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm or by calling (800) 368-5642, extension 5036, or (301) 415- 5036. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. \3\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \3\ Copies of this notice were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for (1) applicant Exelon; (2) the NRC Staff. Dated: October 2, 2006. Paul B. Abramson, Administrative Judge, Rockville, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-16555 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Identified in Attachment 1 FR Doc E6-16558 [Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 59140-59143] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc06-95] (Redacted) and All Other Persons Who Seek or Obtain Access to Safeguards Information Described Herein, Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) I The Licensees identified in Attachment 1\1\ to this Order hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or Agreement States, authorizing them to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission or Agreement States. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal history records check of any person who is to be permitted to have access to Safeguards Information (SGI) \2\. The NRC's implementation of this requirement cannot await the completion of the SGI rulemaking, which is underway, because the EPAct fingerprinting and criminal history records check requirements for access to SGI were immediately effective upon enactment of the EPAct. Although the EPAct permits the Commission by rule to except certain categories of individuals from the fingerprinting requirement, which the Commission has done (see 10 CFR 73.59, 71 FR 33,989 (June 13, 2006)), it is unlikely that licensee employees or others are excepted from the fingerprinting requirement by the ``fingerprinting [[Page 59141]] relief'' rule. Individuals relieved from fingerprinting and criminal history records checks under the relief rule include Federal, State, and local officials and law enforcement personnel; Agreement State inspectors who conduct security inspections on behalf of the NRC; members of Congress and certain employees of members of Congress or Congressional Committees, and representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or certain foreign government organizations. In addition, individuals who have a favorably-decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five (5) years, or individuals who have active Federal security clearances (provided in either case that they make available the appropriate documentation), have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again. Therefore, in accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing additional requirements for access to SGI, as set forth by this Order, so that affected licensees can obtain and grant access to SGI.\3\ This Order also imposes requirements for access to SGI by any person,\4\ from any person, whether or not a Licensee, Applicant, or Certificate Holder of the Commission or Agreement States. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains sensitive information and will not be released to the public. \2\ Safeguards Information is a form of sensitive, unclassified, security-related information that the Commission has the authority to designate and protect under section 147 of the AEA. \3\ The storage and handling requirements for certain SGI have been modified from the existing 10 CFR part 73 SGI requirements that require a higher level of protection; such SGI is designated as Safeguards Information--Modified Handling (SGI-M). However, the information subject to the SGI-M handling and protection requirements is SGI, and licensees and other persons who seek or obtain access to such SGI are subject to this Order. \4\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy, except that the Department of Energy shall be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the Department of Energy specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- II The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Section 147 of the AEA grants the Commission explicit authority to issue such Orders as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Furthermore, Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and an FBI identification and a criminal history records check of each individual who seeks access to SGI. In addition, no person may have access to SGI unless the person satisfies all other applicable requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 73.21). In order to provide assurance that the Licensees identified in Attachment 1 are implementing appropriate measures to comply with the fingerprinting and criminal history records check requirements for access to SGI, all Licensees identified in Attachment 1 shall implement the requirements of this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR parts 50 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licensees identified in attachment 1 to this order and all other persons who seek or obtain access to safeguards information, as described above, shall comply with the requirements set forth in this order. A.1. No person may have access to SGI unless that person has a need-to-know the SGI, has been fingerprinted or who has a favorably- decided FBI identification and criminal history records check, and satisfies all other applicable requirements for access to SGI (e.g., 10 CFR 73.21). Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history records check are not required, however, for any person who is relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59 (71 FR 33,989 (June 13, 2006)), or who has a favorably-decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five (5) years, or who has an active Federal security clearance, provided in each case that the appropriate documentation is made available to the Licensee's NRC-approved reviewing official. 2. No person may have access to any SGI if the NRC has determined, based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history records check, that the person may not have access to SGI. B. No person may provide SGI to any other person except in accordance with Condition III.A. above. Prior to providing SGI to any person, a copy of this Order shall be provided to that person. C. All Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, establish and maintain a fingerprinting program that meets the requirements of Attachment 2 to this Order. 2. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit the fingerprints of one (1) individual who currently has access to SGI in accordance with applicable requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 73.21), who continues to need access to SGI, and who the Licensee nominates as the ``reviewing official'' for determining access to SGI by other individuals. The NRC will determine whether this individual (or any subsequent reviewing official) may have access to SGI and, therefore, will be permitted to serve as the Licensee's reviewing official.\5\ The Licensee may at the same time or later submit the fingerprints of other individuals to whom the Licensee seeks to grant access to SGI. Fingerprints shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Attachment 2 of this Order. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \5\ The NRC's determination of this individual's access to SGI in accordance with the process described in Enclosure 3 to the transmittal letter of this Order is an administrative determination that is outside the scope of this Order. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 3. The Licensee may allow any individual who currently has access to SGI in accordance with the applicable requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 73.21) to continue to have access to previously-designated SGI without being fingerprinted, pending a decision by the NRC-approved reviewing official (based on fingerprinting, an FBI criminal history records check and satisfying other applicable requirements) that the individual may continue to have access to SGI. The Licensee shall make determinations on continued access to SGI by December 1, 2006, in part on the results of the fingerprinting and criminal history records check, for those individuals that were previously granted access to SGI before the issuance of this Order. 4. The Licensee shall, in writing, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in this Order, including Attachment 2, or (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. Licensee responses to C.1., C.2., C.3., and C.4. above shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In [[Page 59142]] addition, Licensee responses shall be marked as ``Security-Related Information--Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390.'' The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the Licensee. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 29th day of September 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 2--Requirements for Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks of Individuals When Licensee's Reviewing Official Is Determining Access to Safeguards Information General Requirements Licensees shall comply with the requirements of this attachment. A. 1. Each Licensee subject to the provisions of this attachment shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted access to Safeguards Information (SGI). The Licensee shall review and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and ensure that the provisions contained in the subject Order and this attachment are satisfied. 2. The Licensee shall notify each affected individual that the fingerprints will be used to secure a review of his/her criminal history record and inform the individual of the procedures for revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as specified in the ``Right to Correct and Complete Information'' section of this attachment. 3. Fingerprints need not be taken if an employed individual (e.g., a Licensee employee, contractor, manufacturer, or supplier) is relieved from the fingerprinting requirement by 10 CFR 73.59, has a favorably- decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five (5) years, or has an active Federal security clearance. Written confirmation from the Agency/employer which granted the Federal security clearance, or reviewed the criminal history records check must be provided. The Licensee must retain this documentation for a period of three (3) years from the date the individual no longer requires access to SGI associated with the Licensee's activities. 4. All fingerprints obtained by the Licensee pursuant to this Order must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the FBI. 5. The Licensee shall review the information received from the FBI and consider it, in conjunction with the applicable requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 73.21) in making a determination whether to grant access to SGI to individuals who have a need-to-know the SGI. 6. The Licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a criminal history records check solely for the purpose of determining an individual's suitability for access to SGI. 7. The Licensee shall document the basis for its determination whether to grant access to SGI. B. The Licensee shall notify the NRC of any desired change in reviewing officials. The NRC will determine whether the individual nominated as the new reviewing official may have access to SGI based on a previously-obtained or new criminal history records check and, therefore, will be permitted to serve as the Licensee's reviewing official. Prohibitions A Licensee shall not base a final determination to deny an individual access to SGI solely on the basis of information received from the FBI involving: An arrest more than one (1) year old for which there is no information of the disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal of the charge or an acquittal. A Licensee shall not use information received from a criminal history records check obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the Licensee use the information in any way which would discriminate among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, or age. [[Page 59143]] Procedures for Processing Fingerprint Checks For the purpose of complying with this Order, Licensees shall, using an appropriate method listed in 10 CFR 73.4, submit to the NRC's Division of Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T-6E46, one completed, legible standard fingerprint card (Form FD-258, ORIMDNRCOOOZ) or, where practicable, other fingerprint records for each individual seeking access to Safeguards Information, to the Director of the Division of Facilities and Security, marked for the attention of the Division's Criminal History Check Section. Copies of these forms may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by calling (301) 415-5877, or by e-mail to . Practicable alternative formats are set forth in 10 CFR 73.4. The Licensee shall establish procedures to ensure that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or incomplete cards. The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the Licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one re-submission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free re-submission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the re-submission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee. Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check, cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable to ``U.S. NRC.'' [For guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at (301) 415-7739]. Combined payment for multiple applications is acceptable. The application fee (currently $27) is the sum of the user fee charged by the FBI for each fingerprint card or other fingerprint record submitted by the NRC on behalf of a Licensee, and an NRC processing fee, which covers administrative costs associated with NRC handling of Licensee fingerprint submissions. The Commission will directly notify Licensees who are subject to this regulation of any fee changes. The Commission will forward to the submitting Licensee all data received from the FBI as a result of the Licensee's application(s) for criminal history records checks, including the FBI fingerprint record. Right to Correct and Complete Information Prior to any final adverse determination, the Licensee shall make available to the individual the contents of any criminal records obtained from the FBI for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information. Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this notification must be maintained by the Licensee for a period of one (1) year from the date of the notification. If, after reviewing the record, an individual believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in the record, the individual may initiate challenge procedures. These procedures include either direct application by the individual challenging the record to the agency (i.e., law enforcement agency) that contributed the questioned information, or direct challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on the criminal history record to the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Division, Washington, DC 20537-9700 (as set forth in 28 CFR 16.30 through 16.34). In the latter case, the FBI forwards the challenge to the agency that submitted the data and requests that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry. Upon receipt of an official communication directly from the agency that contributed the original information, the FBI Identification Division makes any changes necessary in accordance with the information supplied by that agency. The Licensee must provide at least ten (10) days for an individual to initiate an action challenging the results of an FBI criminal history records check after the record is made available for his/her review. The Licensee may make a final SGI access determination based upon the criminal history record only upon receipt of the FBI's ultimate confirmation or correction of the record. Upon a final adverse determination on access to SGI, the Licensee shall provide the individual its documented basis for denial. Access to SGI shall not be granted to an individual during the review process. Protection of Information 1. Each Licensee who obtains a criminal history record on an individual pursuant to this Order shall establish and maintain a system of files and procedures for protecting the record and the personal information from unauthorized disclosure. 2. The Licensee may not disclose the record or personal information collected and maintained to persons other than the subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in the process of determining access to Safeguards Information. No individual authorized to have access to the information may re-disseminate the information to any other individual who does not have a need-to-know. 3. The personal information obtained on an individual from a criminal history record check may be transferred to another Licensee if the Licensee holding the criminal history check record receives the individual's written request to re-disseminate the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining Licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable physical characteristics for identification purposes. 4. The Licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained under this section, available for examination by an authorized representative of the NRC to determine compliance with the regulations and laws. 5. The Licensee shall retain all fingerprint and criminal history records received from the FBI, or a copy if the individual's file has been transferred, for three (3) years after termination of employment or determination of access to SGI (whether access was approved or denied). After the required three (3) year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole or in part. [FR Doc. E6-16558 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-16563 [Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 59138-59140] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc06-94] of No Significant Impact for a Performance-Based, Multi-Site License for a Uranium Water Treatment Program for R.M.D. Operations, LLC Headquarters in Wheat Ridge, CO AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron C. Linton, Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-7777; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: rcll@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 10 CFR part 40 source materials license to R.M.D. Operations, LLC (RMD). If issued, the license would authorize RMD to act as a multi-site service provider for community water systems (CWSs) that concentrate uranium above specified levels during the treatment of drinking water. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of the proposed licensing action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The health and safety aspects of the proposed action are being evaluated, and no action will be taken until that evaluation is completed. II. EA Summary More than 30 years ago, the United States Congress enacted the Safe [[Page 59139]] Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Regulations promulgated pursuant to the SDWA impose specific requirements on the levels of contaminants (including uranium) that may be present in drinking water sources used for public consumption in CWSs. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a proposed rule mandating that the levels of uranium in drinking water sources (i.e., maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)) be limited to 20 micrograms/liter ([mu]g/L) or 20 parts per billion (ppb). In 2000, EPA promulgated a final uranium MCL of 30 [mu]g/L, or 30 ppb and imposed strict deadlines for compliance. The rule requires that municipalities and other operators (now estimated at 1000-2000) must comply with these new requirements by 2007. The removal and concentration of uranium by a CWS during its treatment of drinking water, in order to meet the EPA uranium standard, could result in: (1) The CWS being in possession of source material \1\ (uranium) exceeding 0.05 percent by weight of the mixture; and (2) the CWS possessing greater than 15 pounds of uranium at a time. A CWS possessing uranium in these amounts would need an NRC license, and a separate rulemaking is underway to create a new general NRC license to cover such CWSs. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Source material is defined in 10 CFR 40.4, ``Definitions,'' as ``(1) uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form, or (2) ores which contain by weight 0.05 percent or more of uranium, thorium or any combination thereof.'' ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- RMD has requested a specific NRC license that would authorize RMD to: (1) Possess uranium; (2) store uranium residuals at CWSs in a self- contained uranium removal system (URS) using ion exchange technology; and (3) transfer and properly disposition such uranium residuals at facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). As described in the EA, final disposition of uranium residuals will either be as a waste in AEA-licensed facilities, or as an alternate feed for producing ``yellowcake'' at AEA-licensed uranium recovery facilities for introduction into the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. Once used as alternate feed material, the resulting waste may be disposed of as byproduct material \2\ in an 11(e)2 disposal cell. The RMD uranium water treatment program is designed to provide CWSs with the capability to safely collect, store and transfer uranium accumulated during the treatment of drinking water. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ The definition of ``byproduct material'' in 10 CFR 40.4 states, in relevant part, that the term ``means the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content.'' NRC guidance allows byproduct material from alternate feed to be disposed of in an 11(e)2 disposal cell (NUREG-1620, Appendix I). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The RMD September 27, 2005 license application seeks NRC authorization allowing RMD to implement its program at CWSs who decide to enter into contracts with RMD. As an NRC licensee, RMD would have ownership and/or control of its URS, and would possess all licensed materials contained therein, including uranium source material collected by any CWS for which RMD is acting as a service provider. The following resources areas were evaluated in the EA: land use; geology and soils; transportation; water resources; ecology; meteorology and air quality; noise and visual/scenic resources; historical and cultural resources; socioeconomic conditions; public and occupational health; and waste management. In all cases the environmental impacts on these areas were found to be small. The URSs to be installed by RMD would be sited at either existing CWS facilities or in small utility-type sheds near CWS well heads. Only minor land disturbances associated with construction activities for small buildings and utilities, less than 10,000 square feet in width and less than 5 feet in depth, are expected. The CWS would be required to obtain all local building permits and meet local requirements to reduce sedimentation from construction related activities prior to construction. The operations of the URS would utilize the same roads that the CWS currently uses for receiving supplies for typical water treatment operations (e.g., treatment chemicals, maintenance equipment, and waste products, etc.). Resin or exchange media loaded with uranium from the ion exchange vessel will be transported to either an appropriately authorized disposal facility or a licensed uranium mill for use as alternate feed material. Material will be transported in either U.S. Department of Transportation-approved (DOT) tanker trucks or large polyfabric ``Super Sacks'' that have been approved for transport of radioactive material. RMD expects 200 trips per year, per 1000 facilities served. Based on accident statistics, and an average nationwide travel distance of 1000 miles to the site of final disposition, RMD expects an accident, involving a spent treatment media shipment, to occur only once every 2.5 years. These accident statistics do not estimate the severity of the accident and consequences could range from a severe accident to a minor incident. Even if a small number of these accidents were to occur, it would not be expected that they will result in any release. If uranium bearing resins were to be spilled in a transportation accident, resulting radiation doses to members of the public were found to be, in general, negligible and in the range of background variability. RMD will be required to develop standard operating procedures to respond to and clean up transportation related spills of radioactive material. The URS will be housed in a treatment shed or within the existing CWS. If the URS is housed in a CWS with a floor drain, sump, or similar water catchment that leads to a sewer or drain field, a secondary containment system will be required to ensure that radioactive material cannot be released. The URS will remove uranium from groundwater being supplied to the public at each CWS served. Such removal of uranium will reduce human exposure and potential health impacts arising from the presence of uranium in public drinking water supplies. If a utility-type shed is required to be constructed to house a URS, there could be impacts to wildlife or historic structures in the area. RMD will be required to consult with Federal or State wildlife agencies and State Historic Preservation Officers before beginning construction related to, or the use of, a URS that is located outside of, or away from, existing CWS structures. Noise and visual impacts from the URS would be similar to what already exists from a CWS. Costs of the URS system may be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher water rates. Any rate increases would likely only affect rate paying consumers and not the general public. Decommissioning of the URS will be RMD's responsibility and RMD will be required to comply with NRC's financial assurance criteria. Public access to the URS will be restricted. The URS will be required to be housed in a locked shed, structure, or within the CWS facility and /or be within a fenced in area and properly marked. This should prevent any exposures to the public from the URS. However, if a member of the public were to gain entry and come in contact with the URS, exposure on contact to the ion exchange vessel is expected to be no greater than 0.3 mrem/hr. Since the URS will likely be inspected on a daily basis, it is likely that exposures from an unauthorized entry would be no greater than 7.2 mrem for a 24-hour period, a minor exposure. If the individual were in the building for that time and remained 30 cm away from the vessel--a more likely scenario-the [[Page 59140]] exposure rate would be 0.003 mrem/hr, which would equate to an exposure of 0.072 mrem in a 24-hour period, a very minor exposure. RMD system specialists, the local utility managers and operators are not expected to receive annual radiation doses anywhere near the individual monitoring thresholds prescribed in 10 CFR 20.1502, ``Conditions Requiring Individual Monitoring of External and Internal Occupational Dose.'' These aforementioned thresholds are 500 mrem/yr for adults or 100 mrem/yr for children or pregnant women. RMD has estimated maximum dose rates on the sides of the tanks to be between 0.2 to 0.3 mrem/hr and only 0.003 mrem/hr at 30 centimeters. RMD provided estimates of time operators should spend in the proximity of the vessels. The tables showed a maximum of 100 hours/year for the operational personnel. That time would result in an exposure of only 3 mrem for the year. This is a small fraction of the 340 mrem of background radiation those same individuals receive from natural sources. To ensure that source material is handled in a proper manner, uranium-laden (spent) IX resin is not to be stored at the CWS for greater than 60 days and will only be contained within the IX vessel. Spent uranium-laden resin will be periodically removed from the URS and transported to a licensed waste management facility or used as alternate feed at a licensed uranium recovery facility. Use of either disposal method will result in a small increase in waste material. If uranium-laden resin is used as an alternate feed material for uranium recovery facilities, the uranium removed from drinking water may enter the nuclear fuel cycle and may ultimately be used for domestic power generation. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed licensing action, and NRC staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including RMD's license application and supporting documentation, are available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Document ADAMS Accession No. Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Final Environmental Assessment for ML062490415 September 5, 2006. Proposed Performance-Based, Multi-site License for a Uranium Water Treatment Program NRC License No. SUB-(TBD) R.M.D. Operations, LLC. NUREG-1620, Rev. 1, Standard Review Plan ML032250190 June 30, 2003. for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978--Final Report, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review ML031000403 April 10, 2003. Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs--Final Report,'' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. R.M.D. Operations, LLC License ML052730008 September 27, 2005. Application for Performance-Based, Multi-Site License for Uranium Water Treatment Program. R.M.D. Operations, LLC Environmental ML062440255 September 27, 2005. Report in Support of a Performance- based, Multi-site License Application (non-proprietary). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ron C. Linton, Project Manager, Uranium Processing Section, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-16563 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 47 NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of FR Doc E6-16564 [Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 59136-59138] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06oc06-93] Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC/the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30, issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway), located in Callaway County, Missouri. The proposed amendment would change the plant Technical Specifications (TSs) consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-419. The amendment would revise (1) the definition of the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) in Section 1.1, ``Definitions,'' and (2) TS 5.6.6, ``Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR).'' The licensee submitted its request to revise the TSs in its application dated September 20, 2006. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the P/T [pressure/temperature] limits or COMS [cold over pressure mitigation system] setpoints that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still be reviewed and where required receive NRC review and approval. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended [[Page 59137]] [safety] function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed change[s do] not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the P/T limits or COMS setpoints that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 [Section 50.59 of Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations] and where required receive NRC review and approval. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety [analyses for the plant.] The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed change[s do] not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the P/T limits or COMS setpoints that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the operating license; [i]mplementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and where required receive NRC review and approval. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings[,] or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed changes. Sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the [[Page 59138]] following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 20, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-16564 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 Morris Daily Herald: Public: Exelon trying to repair tritium problem Serving The Greater Grundy County Area news@morrisdailyherald.com 10/6/2006 Exelon staffer Ray Phelps points out Braid-wood Generating Station’s blowdown line to Camille Floyd of the Godley Park District, as her husband, left, and a bystander look on. (Herald Photo/Jo Ann Hustis) About 35 people attend community info night By Jo Ann Hustis Herald Writer WILMINGTON - Camille Floyd of the Godley Park District believes everyone is working to resolve the tritium issue at Braidwood Generating Station. "That's all we can hope for right now," she said Thursday, during the third Community Information Night this year by station owner Exelon Nuclear. "We'll wait and see what happens. I think Exelon is trying - I think they are." The issue involves a series of leaks of tritium-laced waste water from the station into groundwater at and outside the plant site during a 10-year period, starting in 1996. Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits a very low level of radiation, and is found in more-concentrated levels in water used in nuclear generating stations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gone on record stating public health and safety has not been jeopardized by the releases. The Braidwood leaks were caused by malfunctioning valves in the blowdown line, which discharges tritiated water from the station to the Kankakee River in accordance with federal regulations. The public was not made aware of the spills until early last December. Since then, Exelon is taking extensive measures to clean up the tritium-laced groundwater. This involves pumping out a company-owned pond to siphon off the groundwater, then releasing the groundwater into the blowdown line. The company also is continuing to supply bottled water to residents of Godley, on the other side of Braidwood Station, while the village explores construction of a municipal water supply. Residents currently obtain their drinking water from shallow, sandpoint wells 12 to 15 feet deep. The village also is served with private septic systems. Hank Tameling lives on Center Street, alongside Braidwood Station. He and his wife are selling, though, and moving to their second home in Florida. Not because of the tritium issue, he said Thursday, but to "get away from the nuclears for awhile." "No reason except I'm getting old and can't be doing all the work anymore," he said. "Tritium doesn't bother me one bit - not at all. We drink the water and eat the fish from the pond, and it doesn't affect us ... it never bothered us." "Some people think tritium is harmful, but I don't, because you can get tritium no matter where you go," he added. "You can fly in an airplane and get tritium." Tameling said he would reassure the public there were no health concerns from the tritium spills. "Nothing to worry about - nothing to worry about," he said. Leo Fatlan also lives in the shadow of Braidwood Station, but has no more concerns about health issues now than before the public was informed of the tritium leaks. "When I found out what tritium was, I was kind of worried at the start," he said. "I suppose it could get bad if you get too much of it, but I think they're trying to get it under control." Fatlan said the community meetings sponsored last spring by the Godley Park District - attended by 200 to 300 area residents and others - could have been a panic-type of reaction to the tritium issue. "For them, maybe, but it wasn't for me," he said. "I was in Alabama and got back home in April." Jodi Juricic of Wilmington came because she was writing articles on the tritium issue in general for the village's new community Web site. "They keep saying it's a naturally occurring substance in nature, but I just think anything being dumped into the river is not that great," she said. Juricic said she was uncertain what to believe. "You hear things are safe, but you never know," she added. "Twenty-five years from now, they might say, 'By the way, we were wrong.' I know in the Kankakee River going through Wilmington there's lots of pollutants, shingles and tar and such." Braidwood Communications Director Neal Miller said today about 35 people dropped by to talk to Exelon staff and state and federal officials during the three-hour event. The attendance was up from the previous Community Night, when about 25 people came, he said. "There was a lot of good discussion," he said. "We shared information with our neighbors and answered their questions, one-on-one. We're committed to keeping our neighbors informed." Miller said the fourth Community Information Night will be scheduled in the next few weeks. Morris Daily Herald • 1804 N. Division St. • Morris, Illinois 60450 (815) 942-3221 • (800) 215-9778 Software © 1998-2006 1up! ***************************************************************** 49 UPI: Analysis: Climate change a pro-nuke tool United Press International - Energy - 10/6/2006 7:09:00 PM -0400 By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- Nuclear power is promoted as a safer, more reliable source of energy as the push to build more plants grows in the United States, but its billing as a nonpolluting alternative to fossil fuels is garnering more support. And though safety, proliferation and waste issues hamper an immediate move to increase the number of nuclear plants, the threat of climate change caused mostly by sources such as oil and coal is increasing the chances it could happen. Slowing and possibly halting negative climate change by increasing nuclear's share of U.S. energy supply while displacing polluting energy sources was the sentiment mostly shared by the nuclear industry, scientists and environmentalists Friday at a nuclear energy summit. If that isn't strange enough bedfellows, the summit took place at the ardently free-market American Enterprise Institute. "Nuclear energy is back on the table," said Jon Entine, adjunct fellow at AEI, because climate change is a "fact and potential threat." Currently, 103 reactors operate in the United States and no nuclear plants have been approved since 1978 or come online since 1996. That isn't only blamed on public sentiment after the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the deadly disaster at Chernobyl. It has been undercut by relatively inexpensive coal, natural gas and oil -- though the latter two are neither inexpensive nor price stable now. Panelists generally agreed that instituting a cap and/or a charging system on greenhouse gas polluters would level the energy playing field, creating a disincentive for more polluting sources and an incentive nuclear and other types of energy. "It is clearer and clearer that climate change is a real and serious problem," said Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the nonprofit, non-partisan Pew Center for Global Climate Change. Nuclear energy "potentially offers a greenhouse gas-free source of baseload electric power." She, like many others at the AEI summit, said addressing climate change by reducing energy pollution requires a broad approach of conservation, efficiency and alternative fuels. "There are a lot of options" and nuclear power is included, Greenwald said. She's not sure on how much the environmental community will embrace it, "but rethinking is going on." "There's no law of physics that says we need nuclear power to address this," said Ernest Moniz, co-director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he said other non-polluters can't do it alone. Neither can nuclear energy. Dale Klein, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and keynote speaker at the AEI summit, said he expects more than 30 applications for new reactors. Even if all of those were to come online, overcoming legal challenges by those who may oppose nuclear energy, and especially with the eventual closing of the current reactors within the next few decades, nuclear energy wouldn't serve the growing U.S. energy demand. U.S. nuclear plants delivered nearly 789 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2004 -- the fifth record set since 1998 -- but only 20 percent of U.S. energy demand. While criticizing nuclear energy, saying renewable and efficiency were better ways, Christopher Paine, senior nuclear researcher at the National Resources Defense Council, said he agreed that letting companies pollute with little or no payment for the environmental cost needs to end. "The agreement across the political spectrum is the right thing to is level the playing field" by some sort of pollution cap or charging system, he said. Specific designs for any potential new nuclear plants are considered safer than those now in operation though many say not safe enough. The Union of Concerned Scientists is also worried about the security of the plants against possible terrorist attacks. "If nuclear power is to play a greater role in the future, the safety and security of nuclear plants must be significantly increased," said Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist of UCS' Global Security Program, though he applauded improvement since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said a security problem would be the "worst nightmare for resurgent nuclear industry," and could reverse the growing backing it has received of late. And while climate change could be leading the push toward more nuclear power -- along with various tax incentives -- nuclear waste is stopping it. Currently 54,000 tons of highly radioactive waste sits at the sites of the nuclear plants that produced it -- at a rate of 2,000 tons a year, the NRC estimates. The government was supposed to take control by 1998 and the nuclear industry says without any plan to dispose of it, it's too much of a liability to create new plants. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 50 UPI: Nuclear meltdown may have caused cancers United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/6/2006 7:34:00 AM -0400 SIMI VALLEY, Calif., Oct. 6 (UPI) -- An advisory panel assembled by California legislators has said a nuclear accident at a lab near Simi Valley, Calif., may have caused hundreds of cancer cases. The panel's study, conducted by an independent team of scientists, said the 1959 nuclear meltdown, which occurred during a rocket engine testing at Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory, left nuclear chemical contamination that can still be found in the soil and groundwater, The Los Angeles Times reported Friday. The study said the incident could have caused 260-1,800 cases of cancer "over a period of many decades." The panel said further details about the potential exposure to carcinogens were unavailable because the Department of Energy and Rocketdyne's owner, Boeing Co., withheld key information from researchers, the newspaper report said. "This lack of candor ... makes characterization of the potential health impacts of past accidents and releases extremely difficult," the panel concluded. However, Boeing criticized the study, saying it was based on faulty information and miscalculations. "We disagree entirely with the report's conclusion," Phil Rutherford, a health, safety and radiation manager for the company, told the Times. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 51 News & Star: How we'll cope if theres a leak... Published on 04/10/2006 --> Alert: The Oscar 8 exercise dealt with the consequences of an accident at Sellafield. Inset: A map of the predicted radiocative fallout By Kelly Eve THERE was a â€fake’ radioactive leak at the Sellafield nuclear plant yesterday putting emergency services to the test to see how they would react to a real-life incident. The exercise involved the opening up of the Cobra office in London, the government’s civil contingencies committee which leads responses to national crises. Locally, the siren sounded at Sellafield yesterday morning. The mock incident involved a fork lift truck crashing into a store, starting a fire which led to a radioactive leak. Hundreds of people were taking part in the exercise – Oscar 8 – including leading members of Cumbria police, fire and rescue services, British Nuclear Group (BNG), the Food Standards Agency, the Environment Agency and local councils. More than 100 students from the University of Central Lancashire and Cumbria Institute of the Arts were working as journalists, based at the mock regional media centre set up at the Sands Centre in Carlisle. Shortly before midday they were given the chance to question Superintendent Jon Rush, from Cumbria Police, and John Clarke, a director from British Nuclear Group, during a five-minute press conference. BNG was hosting the exercise to test the procedures in place, particularly those outside of the site. It was particularly targeting the fallback arrangements that are in place in the county to use an emergency centre other than one designated in west Cumbria. The off-site part of the exercise saw Gold Command – the emergency HQ – set up at the civic centre in Carlisle and the regional media centre at the Sands Centre. Donald Norrie, chief emergency planner for Cumbria County Council, said: “This county has been at the forefront of developing plans for dealing with emergency situations, including an incident at Sellafield. “All of the agencies required to be involved in such a situation have also produced their own organisational plans for such an occurrence. “Oscar 8 presents an opportunity to test these plans and check the co-ordination of responses to an off-site incident. Such exercises are held every three years and as a result of them problems associated with planning can be identified and rectified.” Cumbria Police press officer Mike Head, exercise director at the Sands Centre, said: “There has been a plan in place and there will be debrief in the exercise afterwards. For example, if there are found to be problems with a computer system then that will need to be sorted out. We will be looking at the processes to see if they need to be reviewed.” Sam Sherwood, 21, a second-year journalism and creative writing student at the Cumbria Institute of the Arts, was appointed news editor of the mock reporting team, mentored during the exercise by the News &Star’s real assistant news editor Victoria Brenan. Border TV’s news editor David Roberts and Carmel O’Grady, from BBC Radio Cumbria, were also helping students. Sam said: “We have been getting the main facts across in our first edition and now we’re looking at different types of stories for our later edition. “It’s the first time I’ve done anything like this. We have got an article about the exercise going in our own student paper soon.” Fellow student, 23-year-old Leanne Clarke, was among the throng of reporters at the press conference. She said: “It has been quite exciting but there have been problems, particularly with telephone numbers that were given to us. It’s been a challenge working within the time constraints, the deadlines.” KEve@cngroup.co.uk ***************************************************************** 52 News & Star: Workers back to college for degree of nuclear learning Published on 05/10/2006 [Learners: Chris Blamire, Mark Regan, Tom McAvoy and Ken Brown, back and front, Neil Mullen, Wayne Jones, Lee Francis and Andrew ParrStan Partleton ] THE first group of students to study Britain’s first nuclear decommissioning foundation degree began their induction this week. The students – aged between 25 and 41-years-old – arrived at Lakes College West Cumbria in Lillyhall, Workington, expecting to be eased back into the world of learning, but by midday were already busy working-out equations. The course is the first of its kind, and is aimed at students looking for a career in nuclear decommissioning. It is being validated by the University of Central Lancashire, but the learning will take place at Lakes College, with most of the students studying part-time. The course will provide students with a knowledge of project management, health and safety, engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry, environmental studies, nuclear science and technology. Entry requirements included at least one A level in science or technology, plus five GCSEs, or their equivalent. But most of the students were chosen for their relevant work and life experience. Tom McAvoy, 41, from Harrington, works as a systems engineer in Calder Hall, but wanted to gain the academic qualification to progress his career and bring more expertise to the site. He said: “The scope is huge because nuclear decommissioning will be a massive industry in the coming years, and this will create a lot of opportunities for people with the right skills.” Andrew Parr, 31, from Dearham, installs satellite systems for a living, and decided to retrain in what he believes is one of the only blossoming industries in the region. He said: “For me this is about finding a career rather than just having a job. “In Cumbria, most of the industry is going, so I thought long and hard about what I could do, and I thought that the nuclear industry has a future, and not just in Cumbria, but all over the world.” It will take the students two years to complete the course, so for now they are concentrating on getting their heads back into academic mode. Mr McAvoy said: “It’s scary, the worst part is trying to get back into subjects, and trying to remember things I haven’t learned for 20 years.” ***************************************************************** 53 UPI: Court asked to stop biodefense lab United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/5/2006 4:57:00 PM -0400 LIVERMORE, Calif., Oct. 5 (UPI) -- A watchdog group has asked a U.S. District Court judge to halt construction of a new biodefense lab in Livermore, Calif. Tri-Valley CAREs filed the complaint this week, saying the new lab, being constructed inside the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory, could release lethal germs if struck by an earthquake, accident or terrorist attack, the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune reported Thursday. "This move is very dangerous because they're proposing to do operations without what we consider the proper level of (environmental) review," said Marylia Kelley, the group's president. However, officials at the lab, which is expected to begin operations in November, say the facility has passed four safety reviews from the University of California and the National Nuclear Security Administration. "We believe that there's a critical need for the facility, and we're doing our best to get it going," lab spokesman Steve Wampler said. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 54 UN Efforts To Upgrade Nuclear Safety Move Ahead With Serbian Clean-up Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:00:56 -0400 UN-BACKED EFFORTS TO UPGRADE NUCLEAR SAFETY MOVE AHEAD WITH SERBIAN CLEAN-UP New York, Oct 6 2006 2:00PM As part of its multi-national efforts to upgrade nuclear safety and security at the world´s research reactors, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has concluded a $4.3 million contract to rid a Serbian reactor site of old ‘spent’ nuclear fuel that is posing a serious radiological hazard. The contract, one of the biggest involving the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/vincamilestone.html">IAEA) technical cooperation programme, provides for a Russian consortium and Serbia to start the work to prepare about 8,000 old fuel elements for shipping casks at the closed reactor at the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences. Another contract of nearly $5.5 million is being negotiated to cover transport and related tasks. Four years ago, the United States and Russia joined with Serbia, the IAEA and other partners to remove nearly 50 kilograms of high-enriched uranium, the kind classed as weapons-grade, from the Institute. The Vinca project is part of IAEA-supported efforts involving over 50 countries that collectively house some 350 research reactors, including shutdown facilities, that were once supplied and fuelled mainly by the US and Russia. The IAEA is involved in various initiatives to minimize the reliance on highly enriched uranium and encourage the return of spent fuel to the country of origin. The latest operation is no quick or easy job as the fuel contains uranium enriched to varying levels and a good part of it is degrading, making it more dangerous to handle, IAEA said in a news release today. “The fuel is highly radioactive, it´s leaking, so everything will have to be done remotely,” using special tools designed for remote control, IAEA special programme manager for Vinca Michael Durst said. Once repackaged, the fuel will be put into heavily shielded shipping containers that are specifically licensed for international transport. “The sooner we get this done, the better for everyone," he said, estimating that about 30 per cent of the fuel could be contaminating the pool where it is stored underwater. Over the coming months, the IAEA is planning a series of donor conferences to solicit additional funding for the work ahead at Vinca. Initial funding has been provided by the US Department of Energy and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private US based non-governmental firm, owned and operated by the Ted Turner Cooperation. 2006-10-06 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 55 APP.COM: Drywell needs rigorous testing | Asbury Park Press Online Friday, October 6, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has consistently pooh-poohed the safety concerns raised about the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey by activists and environmental groups during the relicensing process. That finally seems to be changing. It's about time. At a hearing this week before an NRC advisory committee, the concern among scientists was evident — not only about whether the plant could operate safely for 20 years beyond 2009, when its current license expires, but whether it is safe to operate today. The hearing centered on the plant's drywell — a steel barrier surrounding the reactor that is designed to protect against the accidental release of radioactive material. Corrosion was found on the drywell in the early 1980s. Plant operator AmerGen says an epoxy coating applied there in 1993 has halted it, but there has been no testing since. And AmerGen only begrudgingly agreed to test for corrosion — testing that will be done this month but won't definitively prove whether corrosion has been checked. Activists have been pushing for more comprehensive testing. They are chiefly concerned about the lower portion of the liner and a section beneath it that is embedded in a concrete foundation. In the face of the questions raised by the advisory committee — and unsatisfactorily answered by AmerGen — it would be unconscionable for the NRC not to require a rigorous testing process, one that will yield conclusive answers about corrosion and the threat it could pose, present or future, to public safety. "It astonishes us that this issue has gone unaddressed by the NRC for so long," said Richard Webster, a lawyer for the groups opposing the license renewal. We agree. The issue can no longer be ignored. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 SF Chron: Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia [San Francisco Chronicle] Experts warn of an accidental atomic war Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia Eric Rosenberg, Hearst Newspapers Friday, October 6, 2006 (10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday. Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford. "Any launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate." Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the threat of accidental war. But the center has yet to open. A major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles are tethered to early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches are truly under way or are false alarms. The scenario that worries Postol, Podvig and other weapons experts is what might happen if the United States and North Korea come to blows and a conventional D5 is launched against a target there from a submerged Trident submarine. Depending on the sub's location, the flying time to Russia could be under 15 minutes so the Russians would have little time to confirm the trajectory -- using decaying equipment -- before deciding to launch a nuclear strike on the United States. The D5 missile project involves the removal of nuclear warheads from as many as two dozen D5 ICBMs that are carried aboard the U.S. fleet of 12 Ohio-class Trident submarines. The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub. The rocket fired by a submerged submarine would barrel up through the ocean powered by its three-stage engine and rapidly ascend through the atmosphere at speeds up to 20,000 feet per second into outer space. The warhead compartment of the missile would then plummet back to earth, guided to its target within about 50 feet by sophisticated sensors. Defense officials believe it would gain enough speed and force to penetrate underground command bunkers. Page A - 7 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 57 Monroenews.com: Nuclear critics discuss 1966 Fermi accident By: story updated October 06. 2006 11:25AM Nuclear power critics used the 40th anniversary Thursday of a nuclear plant accident to raise safety questions about Detroit Edison Co.'s Fermi 2 plant near Newport and the utility's possible plans to build a third nuclear generating station nearby. On Oct. 5, 1966, two fuel rods in the experimental Fermi 1 plant partially melted when a metal flange broke loose and blocked the flow of reactor coolant. The incident was grist for "We Almost Lost Detroit," a John Fuller book that argued that the area narrowly escaped a nuclear catastrophe. "We were lucky that we didn't lose Detroit, from our perspective," said Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Services' Reactor Watchdog Project during an anniversary program Thursday night at Monroe County Community College. "It was more luck than merit that prevented that consequence." Fermi 1 was developed by a consortium of companies that included Edison and was designed to explore the prospects of both nuclear power and fuel production. Mr. Gunter claimed that known design and fabrication problems led to the accident. He said design problems also are part of the utility's Fermi 2 plant, which today provides about 15 percent of Edison's generating capacity. The utility disputed that assertion. "Fermi 1 was an early experimental reactor that was unique among nuclear plants then and has no relationship to today's nuclear reactors," said John J. Austerberry, an Edison spokesman. "Its safety systems protected the workers and the public." He said the Fermi 1 reactor also had great value as a research experiment and contributed greatly to the body of knowledge about nuclear power. But Mr. Gunter said the nuclear industry today still has inherent safety problems. He said the Fermi 2 plant specifically has a containment system that's too small to function properly in an accident and the plant's spent fuel storage pool - as well as those at many other nuclear facilities - would be vulnerable to attack by terrorists in an aircraft. Edison maintains that the Fermi 2 plant has redundant safety systems and safety of the plant and public are priorities in operating the plant. Federal regulators still are evaluating the potential damage that could be caused by a terrorist aircraft attack, though the government acknowledges that nuclear plants are at risk of being targets. "We're completely unprepared for the consequences of an attack on a nuclear power station that involves initiating a nuclear fuel pool fire," Mr. Gunter said. His group advocates that spent fuel rods be removed from water-filled pools within the plants and stored in hardened on-site facilities in safety-certified concrete and steel casks. Michael Keegan of Monroe, representative of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, said Edison's desire to build a third nuclear plant near Fermi 1 and Fermi 2 as part of a "nuclear renaissance" is wrong-headed. "Let's learn from our history and not go down that disastrous road again," he said. Edison has said it is exploring the prospects of building a new nuclear plant to meet energy demand. "It is interesting that the nuclear power critics focus on a 40-year-old incident in which the public safety was protected," said Edison's Mr. Austerberry. "It's an indication of how well the industry has performed since then." About 20 people attended Thursday's session. © 2005 The Monroe Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved Contact us Terms of use Privacy statement October 06, 2006 [ /] ***************************************************************** 58 Guardian Unlimited: Nuke Meltdown May Have Caused Cancers From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 6, 2006 4:01 AM By ROBERT JABLON Associated Press Writer LOS ANGELES (AP) - A 1959 nuclear reactor meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory may have caused hundreds of cases of cancer in the community, and chemicals threaten to contaminate ground and water, according to a report released Thursday. The report by an independent advisory panel estimated it was likely that radiation released during the meltdown caused about 260 cases of cancer within a 60-square-mile area around the reactor. The lab's former owner, Rocketdyne, has said for years that no significant radiation was released. But the independent advisory panel said the incident released nearly 459 times more radiation than a similar one at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979. ``People have been asking for 20 years what was the impact of the meltdown, and now they will at least have an approximation of how many people may have been hurt,'' said Dan Hirsch, co-chairman of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel. The panel of experts from around the country was formed by legislators in the early 1990s who responded to residents' calls for independent health studies of the site. The 4.5-square-mile site about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles was used for nuclear research for four decades beginning in the 1940s. Rocket engines also were tested there. A Rocketdyne spokesman said the company, now known as Pratt &Whitney Rocketdyne, no longer owns the lab site and referred questions to the current owner, Boeing Co. Blythe Jameson, spokeswoman for Boeing, disputed that there was a threat, calling the site safe. The Energy Department, Boeing and the state have been involved in efforts to decontaminate the site. The state has estimated that more than 1.73 million gallons of toxic trichloroethylene was dumped on the grounds and that 500,000 gallons have saturated the bedrock beneath the lab. The panel concluded local soil and groundwater also may have been contaminated. The rocket fuel additive perchlorate has been found in a well, but Boeing has disputed assertions it came from the lab. Long-term exposure to high levels of perchlorate can cause thyroid problems. In 1999, the federal Agencies for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded people in the area were not being exposed to levels of chemicals or radiation that impact their health, and three other studies failed to find any evidence of increased cancer rates, Jameson said. Boeing, however, agreed last year to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that pollutants from the site caused nearby residents to get cancer. The panel's conclusion contradicts several previous studies that found there wasn't a radiological issue, said Mike Lopez, project manager for the Energy Department's cleanup efforts at the site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the site in 2003 and concluded there was no risk, Lopez said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 59 Bradenton Herald: Toxic discrimination 10/06/2006 | Tallevast residents should demand fuller probe Tallevast residents should not have had to play the race card to call attention to their inability to get the pollution plume beneath their homes fully investigated. But they did and they have, with the Rev. Charles McKenzie charging this week that the handling of the plume is "an example of environmental racism." If that constitutes playing the race card, said the Rev. McKenzie, "then so be it." McKenzie's is one more strong voice in a chorus of outrage from the predominantly black Tallevast community over the way state regulatory officials and the responsible corporate party, Lockheed Martin Inc., have continually minimized the impact of the underground plume of poisons leaked from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant on Tallevast Road. From being kept in the dark for three years after existence of the plume became known to being forced to hire their own experts to make sure the plume's boundaries were properly defined, Tallevast residents have had to fend for themselves in the environmental disaster that has enveloped their community. That's why they now face yet one more decision in the long march to eventual cleanup of the plume: Whether to appeal a state Department of Environmental Protection decision saying the plume's boundaries and impact are now defined and the cleanup can begin. Residents were given 21 days after the Sept. 25 DEP ruling to decide whether to file an appeal, which would trigger a time-consuming administrative hearing process - and further delay the start of the cleanup. They should appeal. Rev. McKenzie is absolutely on the mark in charging that officials are short-cutting the process because of what Tallevast is. Now it may not be racially motivated per se but it's blatant environmental injustice in that it impacts a community that is predominantly black. As the column below by Bob Herbert points out, putting environmental disasters in poor black neighborhoods and then ignoring them is a pattern nationally. We are trying to imagine the reaction if that plume had been discovered in northwest Bradenton, say, along the Riverview Boulevard corridor that is lined with mansions. Would the doctors, lawyers and powerful elected officials in those homes settle for "good enough" in defining the plume? Or would they demand that the concerns of independent experts regarding the unknown aspects of the plume's depth and lateral movement be quantified? And would they also insist that nearby wells outside the plume's boundaries that show contamination be part of the cleanup? Of course they would. And local government would be solidly behind them, too. Certainly it would not be approving a new construction project on the plume's fringe that would bring earth-moving equipment and heavy traffic to disturb poisonous vapors that are potentially a few feet below the ground surface. Yet that's what is happening in Tallevast with approval by the county planning commission of a 16,808-square-foot retail center at the northwest corner of U.S. 301 and Tallevast Road. The county commission Thursday wisely delayed a public hearing on the project, but Tallevast residents are justifiably convinced of its eventual approval despite their objections. We understand Lockheed Martin was not the original polluter but inherited the problem when it purchased the beryllium plant 10 years ago. But it is legally bound to clean up the mess and, insofar as possible, make the residents whole again. The company has dragged its feet at virtually every step in the process to reach this point, obviously seeking to limit its liability at the expense of Tallevast residents. Understandable, but not admirable. This is not a poor company with limited resources. It recently won a multibillion-dollar contract to design a spaceship to take the next generation of astronauts to the moon and, eventually, perhaps to Mars! And it cannot adequately define and clean up a 200-acre pool of poisons underneath a historic black neighborhood? That may not be environmental racism per se, but at the very least it amounts to economic discrimination. Would you have a problem living atop the pollution plume in Tallevast? Share your views below. ***************************************************************** 60 AU ABC: MP urges WA to allow uranium mining ABC Perth | Local News | Story Friday, 6 October 2006. 22:41 (AEDT)Friday, 6 October 2006. The Federal Member for Kalgoorlie says Western Australia should follow the lead of South Australia in permitting uranium mining. Barry Haase's comments follow final environmental approval for the country's fourth uranium development - the Honeymoon Mine - in South Australia's far north. Mr Haase says the WA Carpenter Government should put the perceived political risk aside and approve WA's billions of dollars worth of deposits for development. "I don't believe they've tested the water sufficiently," he said. "I believe Australians realise the reality of uranium mining today and it's not the bogey that we were all made to believe it was 50 years ago." The Labor Party says the latest mine does not conflict with its 'no new mines' policy, as it was licensed by the previous South Australian Liberal Government. ***************************************************************** 61 MDN: Mitsui to join uranium mine development - MSN-Mainichi Daily News October 6, 2006 Full Report Russia's state-owned nuclear fuel firm Techsnabexport said it and major Japanese trader Mitsui & Co. have agreed to conduct a joint feasibility study for uranium mine development in Russia's Sakha Republic. The joint study will cover the Yuzhnaya area, which the Russian company says has uranium reserves of over 250,000 tons and is one of the largest uranium fields in the world. After the feasibility study, which is slated to last for 18 months, Mitsui will get a 25 percent stake in the uranium development project, said Techsnabexport, known as Tenex. (Jiji Press) Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 Platts: Nuclear waste disposal vault leaks at DOE South Carolina site Washington (Platts)--5Oct2006 A concrete disposal vault at the US Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina is leaking radioactive waste, a state official said Thursday. Shelly Sherritt, the federal facilities liaison at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, said radioactive material had leached from cracks in the walls of the site's so-called Saltstone Disposal Facility. "There has been some seepage in the cracks of the concrete walls in the past," Sherritt said. She said the liquid that seeped out of the cracks was radioactive, but that it was "not a large amount or anything that would cause a groundwater problem." Still, Sherritt said the state agency was taking the matter "very seriously," and that it would send staff to investigate. She said the state agency did not learn of the leak on its own, but that it was informed of the situation by DOE. "We have received letters from DOE saying there were cracks in the walls," Sherritt said. SRS's saltstone vault is used to dispose of the "low activity" portion of the high-level radioactive waste at the nuclear weapons site. The state agency only issued DOE a draft permit to dispose of millions of gallons of additional waste in similar vaults at the site two days ago. Sherritt said leakage would not be a problem with the forthcoming vaults because the new permit requires DOE to install a sophisticated drainage system to capture any liquid that seeps out of the waste, which will be immobilized in blocks of concrete grout. DOE will also be required to beef up the cover structures of the vaults in order to keep rain out, Sherritt said. A DOE spokeswoman downplayed the revelation, saying DOE informed South Carolina as early as the 1980s that the SRS vault had developed cracks. DOE immediately patched the cracks, and they "never posed any health risks to the workers or the public," she said. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 63 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Gov. discloses plan to sign WIPP permit Gov. discloses plan to sign WIPP permit By Kyle Mark steiner 10/05/2006 CARLSBAD — State Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry and Governor Bill Richardson plan to approve the suggested negotiated changes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. In a telephone interview Thursday, Richardson said he planned to soon be in Carlsbad for the document's approval. He made the statements during an endorsement interview after answering an unrelated question about nuclear energy. "On another note, I'll be in Carlsbad to sign the WIPP permit next week," he said. "I don't know if you know that." Richardson will be in Carlsbad for a Character Counts celebration Oct. 16, and the document will likely be signed the same day. Details of the proposed signing event were not immediately available. Last month, hearing officer Rip Harwood recommended Curry approve the negotiated changes. The officer recommended Curry approve the "draft permit as changed," including disposal of remote handled waste and a reduction in waste testing. The change will be the largest in the history of the underground radioactive waste repository near Carlsbad. Curry has until Nov. 3 to make a decision. The document will go into effect 30 days after the signature, essentially clearing the key hurdle to allow the Department of Energy to deliver RH shipments to WIPP by around March 2007. The state's authority over WIPP waste relates to the chemical, not radioactive, components. A spokesperson for Curry confirmed Thursday afternoon that the secretary plans to approve the permit. "Yes, the secretary will sign the document," said communications director Marissa Stone, when asked about Richardson's statement. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy's field office in Carlsbad said the DOE had not received notification of Curry's decision. Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad, said the approval will be a major step in the permitting process for WIPP. "It's what we've worked so long and hard for," Heaton said. "The community deserves an enormous amount of credit for steadfastness to the project and their constant support." Heaton praised Richardson and Curry for allowing the process to go forward. "I also wanted to thank James Bearzi with the environment department for having orchestrated this whole permitting process," he said. "It was rather extraordinary and a very complex process. Putting that together and getting through it was no small feat." The permitting process included a lengthy negotiation period, extensive hearings and several sessions for public comment. The RH waste that would travel to WIPP is composed of the same type of material as the contact-handled waste already being received. It will be placed in the walls of the same underground storage rooms where contact waste is stored. "It's a major step in getting the more difficult waste put away and taken off the surface," Heaton said. "We're making the country more safe by doing so." Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 64 Deseret News: HEAL Utah to meet [deseretnews.com] Friday, October 6, 2006 If you are concerned with protecting the health of your community from nuclear and toxic waste, join HEAL Utah Tuesday, Oct. 10, at 6:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Library, 210 E. 400 South, Room B, to learn more about these issues and to express your concerns to local candidates during Voter Education Night. The evening will include a review of current nuclear and toxic waste issues facing Utah, including the Divine Strake weapons test and EnergySolutions' plan to double in size. For more information or to RSVP, contact John Urgo at john@healutah.org, 801-355-5055, or visit www.healutah.org. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 65 Hemscott: UK Government to make vital nuclear waste decision by end of month - sources LONDON (AFX) - Environment Minister David Miliband is to make a crunch decision by the end of this month over what to do with the UK's stock of radioactive waste, according to sources. AFX understands that Miliband met with the minister in charge of the waste issue, Ian Pearson, and the government's arms-length waste expert Nirex on September 21 to debate what to do with the estimated 2.3 mln cubic metres of waste from the UK's half century of nuclear power stations. The government's independent waste committee CORWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) reported in the summer that the UK's legacy of nuclear waste should be subject to 'deep disposal', ie buried deep underground. Miliband is likely to state whether the government accepts CORWM's findings, and, if he takes the deep disposal option, should also give an indication of who should supervise the process and, crucially, where the repository would be. Control of the process will probably pass either to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the nuclear sites to be decommissioned, or Nirex, which -- though an independent PLC -- is owned by two government departments, DEFRA and the DTI. Nirex's remit would have to be expanded to enable it to handle higher-level waste. 'There are two models under discussion,' says one source close to the process. 'The first is to just give it to the NDA, the argument being that it simplifies everything. The problem is that they are the waste owners as well. The other argument is that you create a new body with a revamped CORWM to act as a watchdog- in other words, a watcher and a doer. This is such an important role that some feel you need a bespoke institution.' The repository itself is strongly tipped to be at Sellafield, where 90 pct of the current stock of high-level waste is currently stored. However, the site will ultimately be put out to tender, opening up the intriguing prospect of 'host' communities around the country bidding to be in charge of the waste, and getting facilities for the area in return. 'Any facility will have to be planned, investigated and built in partnership with a local host community -- it can't be done in any other way,' says one industry observer. 'There are good models from other parts of the world -- Finland Sweden and Belgium, which are proper legal partnerships.' Miliband was lobbied at the September 21 meeting to make the process as transparent as possible, an important consideration given that some say the government will effectively be bribing citizens to accept dangerous waste. 'It's completely different in every last part of the world,' said the observer. 'We just need to have a very, very thorough discussion as to what we'd consider legitimate in the UK. In Finland they don't get anything extra- it's a very protestant culture, whereas in France there's all kinds of little local things, because it's a very Catholic culture. What we're very clear about is that this is something for society as a whole to dicuss- the difference between bribery and compensation is transparency.' Miliband is unlikely to get to this level of detail in his October announcement, but the government is known to be looking at how to encourage communities to bid. Other countries are at a more advanced stage. 'In Sweden you've got two communities actually vying to become the host community, and they've got quite different needs,' says the observer. 'It's a 10 bln stg project over a number of years and there's a lot of jobs in it at the construction phase.' An intermediate-level repository would cost around 6 bln stg, with a 3 bln stg construction cost and a similar value for ongoing operating costs. This could get more expensive if there was to be one facility for high-level waste. Sources say the government will probably go along with CORWM's recommendation for a repository, but they might consult on who should take it forward. However, some doubt that it should commit to such an expensive facility. 'There are voices in the government saying that the government shouldn't tie itself to an explicit commitment because it's expensive,' said one insider. 'If we can get away with 'keeping it in a shed in the back' like we always have, then it's cheaper.' The 2004 government forecast of total high-level waste is 1,340 cubic metres, 217,000 cubic metres of intermediate waste and 2.06 mln cubic metres of low-level waste, adding up to 2.3 mln. By way of comparison, this would fill the Millennium Dome. A DEFRA spokesperson said a statement would be made 'in the near future'. george.hay@afxnews.com gh/wj Copyright AFX News Limited 2006. All rights reserved. The Hemscott.com ***************************************************************** 66 AFP: Japan's Mitsui plans to co-produce uranium in Russia Friday October 6, 05:56 AM TOKYO (AFP) - Japanese trading house Mitsui and Co. says it plans to jointly develop one of the world's largest uranium mines in Russia to supply Japanese nuclear power plants. Mitsui and the Russian state-owned nuclear fuel firm Techsnabexport (Tenex) will together spend nearly 29 billion yen (245 million dollars) to develop the mine, with the aim of beginning production in 2009, a Mitsui spokesman said. Mitsui hopes to own 25 percent of the Yuzhnaya mine, located in the Sakha Republic in far-eastern Russia. It will be the first case of a foreign company developing a uranium mine in Russia, said the spokesman, who declined to be named. Mitsui and Tenex signed a contract Thursday in Moscow to start feasibility studies as a first step towards deciding on the percentage of exclusive negotiation rights it will take for commercial production, he said. Mitsui will shoulder about 706 million yen (5.98 million dollars) for the initial studies on drilling methods and the environmental impact, he said. The companies believe the mine, which has estimated reserves of more than 250,000 tons of uranium, could yield up to 1,000 tons a year by 2015. "If we could obtain 25 percent (of that), the company could supply annually about 250 tons of uranium to nuclear power plants in Japan," the spokesman said. Resource-poor Japan relies on nuclear generation for some 30 percent of its electricity with annual uranium consumption of about 8,700 tons a year. Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Central Asia in August as part of efforts to establish more diverse energy supplies. Japan imports nearly all of its oil, mostly from the volatile Middle East including Iran, which is facing possible international sanctions over its nuclear program. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 67 ITAR-TASS: Russia, Japan companies to develop uranium deposit in RF 06.10.2006, 11.28 MOSCOW, October 6 (Itar-Tass) - - The Russian company Tekhsnabexport and Japanese Mitsui and Co are getting down to a project of joint development a uranium deposit in Russia, Itar-Tass learnt at the Russian company on Friday. “On Thursday, a agreement on the joint implementation of a project to work out a feasibility study of developing one of the sections of the zone “Yuzhnaya” of the Elkonsky uranium ore region of Yakutia,” a Tekhsnabexport representative said. He pointed to the agreement’s unique peculiarity - - “for the first time, a foreign company will take direct part in preparing a project connected with the extraction of uranium ore on the territory of Russia.” It is possible that in the future Mitsui will take part in the construction of a uranium mine. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 68 UPI: Jump in nuclear waste smuggling reported United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 10/6/2006 4:13:00 PM -0400 LONDON, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- International authorities report a three-year jump in seizures of smuggled radioactive materials that could be used in making a so-called dirty bomb. The Times said Friday that statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency showed 103 cases in 2005, 130 in 2004, 90 in 2003 and 58 in 2002. There were less than 30 such cases in 1996. "A dirty bomb is something that needs to be taken seriously," said Olli Heinonen, deputy general of the IAEA. "We need to be prepared for anything because anything could happen. Terrorists look for the weakest link. We need to be alert." A dirty bomb combines radioactive materials - waste from hospitals and laboratories as well as spent nuclear fuel - with conventional explosives to spread radioactive contamination over a wide area. Al-Qaida is believed to be seeking to obtain such a device. Seized materials indicate smugglers - mainly from Eastern Europe and seeking financial gain rather than a political goal - have turned to medical and laboratory waste for their contraband amid stricter control and monitoring of nuclear processors and normal weapons-grade nuclear materials, authorities said. The Times said Western security services stymied 16 attempts last year along to smuggle uranium or plutonium. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 69 News & Star: Nuclear break-up will be another Railtrack Published on 05/10/2006 By Andrea Thompson and Julian Whittle SELLAFIELD unions have reacted angrily to reports that the site’s state-owned operator British Nuclear Group could soon be broken up. Gary Smith, GMB national officer for the nuclear industry, claims that such a move would be a disaster akin to the privatisation of Railtrack. He said: “There has been no consultation with the unions on the break up of BNG. “We are utterly opposed to this proposal.” Unions had understood that BNG would only be privatised as a single entity. But now reports suggest that BNG’s parent company, British Nuclear Fuels, wants BNG to be broken up and sold off in bits. It is likely that the Project Services consultancy business would be sold first, along with BNG’s one-third share in a ÂŁ600m contract to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. The main decommissioning business, responsible for the clean up of Sellafield, would follow later. The GMB believes that BNFL and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have asked Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling to make a decision on the proposed break up this week. Mr Smith said: “It has potentially profound implications for health and safety. “There is a real prospect this will add up to Railtrack in the nuclear industry. Trust and confidence in the BNFL board is now non-existent.” He added that a break up of BNG would “severely damage” confidence in west Cumbria and could undermine support for a waste repository. Meanwhile, Copeland MP Jamie Reed has called on BNFL to make a public statement about its intentions. The Labour MP has accused BNFL’s chief executive, Mike Parker, of misleading the workforce. He said: “I expect BNFL to make a public statement on what it believes its obligations to our community are. “The onus is on the company to convince the public – and its elected representatives – that it is not pursuing a hidden agenda.” BNFL spokesman Paul Vallance denied that the company had misled anyone. He said: “We have been working with the NDA to agree the right path forward for our business and recommendations have been put to government for approval. “Our primary concern has always been the safe and secure management of all of our sites and this will never change. West Cumbria can be assured of that.” ***************************************************************** 70 News & Star: Bidding for work at Sellafield? Published on 05/10/2006 A SPECIAL meeting is to be held later this month for companies hoping to bid for work at Sellafield. Potential sub-contractors and other specialists will hear how they can try to secure work at the west Cumbrian nuclear complex on Tuesday October 17. The West Cumbria Development Agency, which has organised the event, says it is a rare opportunity for people to meet and explain their business on a one-to-one basis. A total of 26 firms have already signed up to take part. The event is being held in Building B111 at British Nuclear Group, Sellafield. Businesses will also have the opportunity to take part in an exhibition and workshops. Among the types of companies that could win work are tanker hire firms, recruitment specialists, environmental and landfill consultants, vehicle and skip suppliers. For more information call 01229 484800 or email Janis@resourcemarketing.co.uk. ***************************************************************** 71 [NYTr] Vietnam Champions Nuclear-Free Peace in Korea Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:11:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Vietnam Champions Nuclear-Free Peace in Korea Hanoi, Oct 5 (Prensa Latina) Vietnam is in favor of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and champions a prevalence of peace, stability, and development in that Asian territory, said a Vietnamese Foreign Ministry communiqui on Thursday. Foreign Ministry Press and Information Secretary Le Dzung said in a declaration the Vietnamese government exhorted those involved in the Korean dissent to abstain from actions that could worsen the situation. It also called them to restart the six-party talks, to be able to resolve their differences to move to an agreement that guarantees peace and stability in the region and the world. ef iom mh mf * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 72 DOE: White House Honors Federal Agency Teams For Saving Energy And Reducing Energy Costs October 6, 2006 Energy Savings at more than $12 million WASHINGTON, DC  The White House today honored five energy management teams from the Departments of Defense, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service for their dedication and leadership in the conservation and prudent management of energy use in their facilities and operations. These teams, including 49 federal employees and contractors, are responsible for efforts that have resulted in estimated annual savings of more than $12 million and 417 billion Btu, equivalent to the energy used in approximately 6,000 typical homes. These leaders deserve recognition for their innovative work in energy efficiency and management across the government, OMB Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson said. Finding alternative and renewable sources of energy is a priority for this Administration. These cutting-edge projects have produced results that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars, and are great examples of what the rest of the Federal government and the entire country need to do to help increase economic and energy security. The Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management, established by Executive Order 13123, support President Bushs National Energy Policy, which calls for America to modernize conservation efforts, increase energy supplies, accelerate the protection and improvement of the environment, and increase our nations energy security. The Policy specifically directs Executive Branch departments and agencies to conserve energy use in their facilities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also calls on the federal government to reduce its energy intensity by 2 percent each year, and requires that the Federal government purchase at least 7.5 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2013. The Awards were selected from nominations submitted by the Department of Energys Federal Energy Management Program to the Office of Management and Budgets Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson, who reviewed the nominations and recommended the award recipients to the President. Recognized at the seventh annual ceremony were energy teams from the Navy, Marine Corps, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Postal Service. Through the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative as well as with help from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we are working to lead energy efficiency efforts across the nation, U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner said. The five winning teams of the 2006 Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management received awards for the following achievements: U.S. Department of Defense Naval Base Coronado San Diego, California Naval Base Coronados (NBC) comprehensive program includes implementing a variety of energy and water-saving projects; using Resource Efficiency Managers; providing employee incentive programs; and incorporating energy management practices into its mission. 2005 projects include decentralized steam plants, high efficiency boilers, high-efficiency washers, solar power and lighting, and water conservation retrofits. Since 1985, NBC lowered its energy intensity by 45 percent to a remarkable 48,350 Btu per square foot in FY 2005. Since the previous year, NBC used 13.2 billion Btu less energy, savings equivalent to the energy use of 189 typical California households. Social Security Administration (SSA) Energy Initiatives Team Agency-Wide Implementation SSA completed several solar projects, the most recent being the largest federal solar array in Chicago, which generates enough electricity daily to power 100 homes and over its lifetime will save the equivalent of 1,400 tons of coal. SSA used utility energy services contracts and energy savings performance contracts to install energy efficiency and water-conserving improvements, and to purchase Energy Star® products and green power. SSA policies incorporate and require life-cycle cost analyses for major retrofits, application of sustainable design principles for new buildings, Energy Star® equipment, and consideration of renewable energy technologies. U.S. Department of Defense Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport, Washington The Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center has built energy efficiency and water conservation principles into its standard practices and procedures. Due to these practices, overall energy intensity dropped 7.4 percent from the previous yearnearly 18.4 billion Btu, enough for 263 area householdsand almost 33 percent from the 1985 baseline. Keyport also incorporates LEED criteria into new building construction, awarded a utility energy service contract to construct a sub-metering network to better track energy consumption, and reduced its petroleum consumption by transitioning to more fuel-efficient vehicle models. U.S. Department of Defense Continuous Energy Efficiency and Management Program Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona MCAS Yuma worked with its local utility to implement projects through a utility energy services contract, which will produce energy savings at no net cost to taxpayers. Projects included use of highly efficient LED technologies in airfield aviation and safety applications, retrofitting low pressure sodium lighting with T-5 high output fluorescent fixtures, and water conservation projects such as desert landscaping. In 2005, Yuma reduced its energy use per square foot by 3.5 percent compared to 2004 and 40 percent compared to a 1985 baseline. This savings of 8.1 billion Btu from the previous year is enough energy for 116 typical area homes. United States Postal Service (USPS) Pacific Area Energy Program Committee California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada The USPS Pacific Area Energy Program has become a model program for other USPS Areas and federal energy management programs to emulate. In 2004 and 2005, energy audits were conducted at 322 postal sites, and 276 facilities initiated on-site generation projects to achieve greater energy efficiency. The actions of the Pacific Area Energy Team resulted in investment of $108 million and annual savings of approximately $9.4 million and nearly 340 billion Btuenough for more than 4,800 typical households in the region. Included in these efforts was the development of the largest civilian agency stock of solar photovoltaic systems. Media contact(s): DOE: Chris Kielich, (202) 586-5806 OMB: Andrea Wuebker (202) 395-7254 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 73 Tri-City Herald: Senate hopefuls differ on future of Hanford site Published Friday, October 6th, 2006 By Chris Mulick, Herald Olympia bureau Republican Mike McGavick said he'd support moving forward with the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership -- hoping a role for Hanford would be in store -- while Sen. Maria Cantwell was noncommittal Thursday during a meeting with the Tri-City Herald's editorial board. Cantwell spoke more specifically to an array of Mid-Columbia issues during a fast-moving and civil hourlong discussion. She talked about her efforts to have the U.S. Department of Labor take responsibility for compensating Hanford workers who were exposed to toxic substances, preserve Northwest rights to the region's cheap federal hydropower and pursue a new reservoir in the Yakima Basin. "I'm here wanting support for the people of this area, who I believe I have paid attention to," the first-term senator said. She was more vague when discussion turned to a possible role in developing the future of nuclear power, something some Tri-City interests are hoping to play a role in while breathing new life into Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility. Cantwell said the country needs to "continue research on nuclear solutions" and answer questions about long-term storage for spent nuclear fuel. She said she'd defer to the governor questions about whether to accept more nuclear fuel into the state so it could be recycled at Hanford -- which one proposal pushed by the Tri-City Development Council would study. McGavick said he "would be vigorously supporting" a GNEP role for Washington state. "I think it's exciting it's possible FFTF could be a part of that," he said. Cantwell also said in her next term she'd press for federal money to fund research projects at the new Bioproducts, Sciences and Engineering Laboratory being built jointly in Richland by Washington State University and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "We will change the direction of this country with the research that will be done at these facilities," Cantwell said. She also predicted that when Congress returns to session after the November election, it will reauthorize the federal income tax deduction for state sales taxes, a measure she has pushed hard for. McGavick said he also supports the deduction and criticized Cantwell and other Senate Democrats for not accepting the failed tax package that revised the federal estate tax and increased the federal minimum wage. McGavick, once chief of staff to former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said he is aware of the intellectual resources the Tri-Cities offers. "We have a unique asset of this nation," McGavick said. "We need to make sure we are constantly thinking of innovative ways to take advantage of that great national asset" and "keep the work coming." McGavick also pressed Cantwell about debate schedules. So far, an hourlong debate has been scheduled for Seattle and a 30-minute- long event for Spokane. Both will be televised. As most challengers do, McGavick is pressing for more. "I think it's particularly insulting for Eastern Washington to give them only 30 minutes," he said. And as incumbents often do, Cantwell said she is hamstrung by the time she's been required to work in Washington, D.C., and pointed to as many as a dozen requests to meet with newspaper editorial boards. "That's what we can get done in this time period," she said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 74 Tri-City Herald: Hanford empties fifth tank, 144 to go Published Friday, October 6th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Another of Hanford's leak-prone underground tanks of radioactive waste has been emptied. That's five done, 144 to go. CH2M Hill Hanford Group workers have removed all but 351 cubic feet of waste from the bottom of Tank C-103. That meets the legally binding requirement in the Tri-Party Agreement that no more than 360 cubic feet of waste be left in the bottom of the 530,000-gallon tank. To protect the Columbia River, waste is being removed from Hanford's single-shell tanks and stored in 28 newer double-shell tanks. The waste is left from chemically processing fuel irradiated in Hanford's nine production reactors to remove plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The waste will be held in the double shell tanks until it can be turned into a stable glass form at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant under construction, or otherwise processed for permanent disposal. Tank C-103 was built in 1946 and received radioactive and hazardous waste until 1980. All the pumpable liquids were removed from the tank in July 2003 to reduce the risk of a leak into the ground beneath the tank that could eventually reach the ground water. The ground water beneath Hanford moves toward the Columbia River. After pumpable liquids were removed, 78,000 gallons of solids remained in the tank. They were removed using a technique called modified sluicing, which uses liquid to break up and mobilize the waste so it can be moved toward a pump in the center of the tank. Because using water for the sluicing would have created more contaminated waste to be stored for treatment, liquid waste from a nearby double shell tank was used for the sluicing. Tank C-103 was the second of 12 large tanks in an area called the C Tank Farm to be emptied. Workers also have emptied three of four, 55,000-gallon tanks there. Seven of the 16 C Farm tanks are suspected of having leaked in the past, but Tank C-103 is not among them. Work to empty the 149 single-shell tanks at Hanford has been slower than anticipated since retrieval of waste from the first tank, C-106, was completed in late 2003. DOE missed a legally binding Tri-Party Agreement deadline to have all C Farm tanks emptied by the end of September. Work slowed in 2004 because of health concerns about chemical vapors released from single-shell tanks. But removing waste from single-shell tanks continues to be a top priority in DOE's cleanup program at Hanford, Roy Schepens, manager of DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection, said in a statement. "The success we achieved with this tank (C-103) will be carried over to other waste retrieval projects that are now under way," said Ryan Dodd, CH2M Hill director of C Farm closure operations, in a statement. Pumping is under way on the last of the four smaller tanks at C Farm and another tank, C-108, is being prepared for retrieval. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 75 Rocky Mountain News: Nuclear history preserved at Los Alamos By Deborah Baker, Associated Press October 6, 2006 LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - As the secret community that gave birth to the atomic bomb morphed into a bustling government-lab town, many of its most historic sites remained tucked away. Preservationists have had to go behind security fences to save remnants of the Manhattan Project they contend are as significant as George Washington's home or a Civil War battlefield. This weekend, a series of events will mark a milestone - restoration of a wooden, garage-like building where the world's first plutonium bombs were assembled. "It doesn't look like much," said Cynthia Kelly, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Atomic Heritage Foundation, which is leading the drive to preserve key atomic-age sites, including those at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Hanford, Wash. "It's what happened there; it takes you back in time," Kelly said. The simple structure - the first Manhattan Project work site to be restored - is a reminder of the urgency with which scientists gathered in 1944 to design and assemble the first atomic weapons. There was no futuristic laboratory or sophisticated equipment on the mesa top where the federal government took over a boys' ranch school. "It was seat-of-the-pants. They were jury-rigging stuff with masking tape," Kelly said. The newly restored "high bay" building was part of V Site, a collection of wooden shed-type structures that were slated for demolition as part of a cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory until preservationists jumped in. In 2000, the Cerro Grande fire swept through, destroying all but the high bay building. McAllister Hull, at the time a 21-year-old Army sergeant, recalls working in a casting building at V Site. His job was to supervise the crews casting the explosive lenses that would direct pressure inward to compress a plutonium core in "the gadget," as the prototype of the "Fat Man" bomb was called. "We actually used a candy kettle . . . to melt the explosives, and then poured them into the mold to make the lenses," said Hull, a former professor of physics at Yale University and the University of New Mexico and a former UNM provost. Anti-nuclear activist Greg Mello, who heads the Los Alamos Study Group, objects to the celebratory aura surrounding the events, saying they "don't have the tone of grief and remorse" that any commemoration of what led to the bombing of the Japanese cities should have. "The legacy is fear, and . . . enormous national efforts devoted to weapons of mass destruction, and we're still struggling with that today," Mello said. site map--> Subscribe | © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 76 lamonitor.com: More funds for LANL The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.comMonitor Assistant Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory will get a couple of pieces from the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that was signed by President Bush on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. The $34.8 billion appropriation bill for FY07 features an overhaul of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and $1.2 billion for fencing along the border with Mexico, intended to obstruct illegal immigration. The bill also boosted funding for the National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center (NISAC) by $5 million, to $25 million. NISAC is a joint project between Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, gained approval of an amendment that increases NISAC's role in planning and responding to a broad range of emergencies, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks. According to an announcement from the senator's office, the measure requires federal agencies and departments with responsibilities for critical infrastructure to establish formal relationship and share information with NISAC, which is based in Albuquerque. The two New Mexico laboratories are also expected to receive a portion of funds available to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. The DNDO will share $272.5 million for research and development operations among a number of government agencies. The president had requested $535 million for the program to protect the nation from radiological and nuclear threats. The office is intended to coordinate efforts by a number of departments, including the Departments of Energy, defense, state and justice to detect, anticipate and defeat domestic nuclear threats. Although the money has been appropriated, the House and Senate conferees asked for a budget report, "no later than Nov. 1, 2006." "The budget crosscut should include investments of all agencies, how these investments will meet the goals of the global strategy, the performance measures associated with these investments, identification of investment gaps, and what budgetary mechanisms DNDO will use to ensure it requests appropriate resources," the conference report stated. Former LANL Director G. Peter Nanos testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on July 27 about DOD's relationship with the nuclear detection office. He spoke in his role as Associate Director, Research and Development Enterprise with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, on DTRA's radiation detection program. An amendment proposed by Domenici earlier this month authorized coordination among Homeland Security, DOE and Defense efforts to secure port security against nuclear smuggling or terrorist attacks. The Homeland Security bill also provides funds to train an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center near Roswell. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 77 Guardian Unlimited: Manhattan Project Building Preserved From the Associated Press [UP] Friday October 6, 2006 11:01 AM AP Photo AQ201 By DEBORAH BAKER Associated Press Writer LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - Even as a secret community that gave birth to the atomic bomb morphed into a bustling government-lab town, many of its most historic sites remained tucked away from view. But preservationists have gone behind the security fences to preserve for the first time a structure in which the Manhattan Project scientists did their work at Los Alamos National Laboratory. They contend the building is as significant as George Washington's home or a Civil War battlefield. This weekend, a series of events will mark the restoration of a wooden, garage-like building where the world's first plutonium bombs were assembled. Cynthia Kelly is president of Washington, D.C.-based Atomic Heritage Foundation, which is leading a drive to preserve key atomic-age sites at Los Alamos; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Hanford, Wash. ``It doesn't look like much,'' she said. ``It's what happened there. It takes you back in time.'' The simple structure is a reminder of the urgency with which scientists gathered in 1944 to design and assemble the first atomic weapons. There was no futuristic laboratory or sophisticated equipment on the mesa top where the federal government took over a boys' ranch school. ``It was seat-of-the-pants. They were jury-rigging stuff with masking tape,'' Kelly said. The newly restored ``high bay'' building was part of V Site, a collection of wooden, shed-type structures slated for demolition in a cleanup of the laboratory until preservationists jumped in. In 2000, the Cerro Grande fire swept through, destroying all but the high bay building. McAllister Hull, then a 21-year-old Army sergeant, recalled working in a casting building at V Site. He said his job was to supervise crews casting the explosive lenses that would direct pressure inward to compress a plutonium core in ``the gadget,'' as the prototype of the ``Fat Man'' bomb was called. ``We actually used a candy kettle ... to melt the explosives and then poured them into the mold to make the lenses,'' said Hull, a former physics professor at Yale University and the University of New Mexico. The ``gadget'' was put together - minus the plutonium - at the ``high bay'' building. In July 1945, the bomb was fully assembled and detonated at the Trinity Site, 200 miles to the south. Less than a month later, a similar bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, three days after the uranium-based ``Little Boy'' bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The ``high bay'' building, which Kelly said cost about $1 million to restore, is still behind security fences. Kelly said although the building is inaccessible to the public, she hopes that will change. Weekend events include bus tours, a reception and dinner, and a symposium featuring writers and artists. Among them: author Richard Rhodes, who wrote ``The Making of the Atomic Bomb,'' and Jon Else, producer of the documentary film, ``The Day After Trinity.'' Anti-nuclear activist Greg Mello, who heads the Los Alamos Study Group, said he objects to the celebratory aura surrounding the events. He said the events should have a ``tone of grief and remorse'' since they commemorate work that led to the bombing of the Japanese cities. ``The legacy is fear and ... enormous national efforts devoted to weapons of mass destruction, and we're still struggling with that today,'' he said. Funding for restoration of the ``high bay'' building came from the federal government, $700,000 of it through the ``Save America's Treasures'' program. Several other sites at Los Alamos also are slated for preservation. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************