*****************************************************************
07/10/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.162
*****************************************************************
   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 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: UN lauds IRI's positive role in Iraq 
2 IRNA: Iran showing goodwill in N-case - Turkish FM 
3 IRNA: EU, Iran to initiate talks on nuclear issue
4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Immature decision disturb n-talks - FM 
5 AFP: 'Six weeks is long enough,' US tells Iran over nuclear offer -
6 AFP: US, Britain tell Iran to make decision on nuclear offer - 
7 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Mulling Action Over N.Korea Missiles
8 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Standoffs With Iran, N.Korea Continue
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges China to Pressure North Korea
11 Telegraph: Russia secretly offered North Korea nuclear technology
12 AFP: Chinese delegation arrives in NKorea amid missile uproar -
13 AFP: US downplays divisions over NKorea
14 AFP: US North Korea envoy to head back to China 
15 AFP: US and China make new push over NKorea 
16 AFP: UN vote on North Korea put off to give more time to diplomacy -
17 AFP: UN vote delayed over China mission to North Korea - Rice -
18 Guardian Unlimited: Japan May Postpone North Korea Resolution
19 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Vote on N. Korea Sanctions Delayed
20 US: TomPaine.com: Grounding U.S. Intelligence
21 AFP: US redefines 'preemption' strategy 
22 AFP: Bush administration leans on Congress to pass India nuclear dea
23 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Discuss Kremlin Moves With Putin
24 New York Times: India Reports a Long-Range Missile Test - 
25 BBC: Bishops say Trident is 'anti-God'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
26 US: [NukeNet] Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club file injunction
27 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Comment on Updated Environmental Review for North
28 Herald Sun: Cheap coal the nuclear hurdle 
29 Guardian Unlimited: MPs warn Blair against hasty decision on energy 
30 Guardian Unlimited: No simple answers
31 Guardian Unlimited: Warning over nuclear build plans
32 London Times: Nuclear, sun and wind power for Britain - 
33 Guardian Unlimited: Go-ahead for £12bn atomic revival
34 Guardian Unlimited: The powerful business of promoting a nuclear fut
35 Guardian Unlimited: Safety comes first with nuclear power
36 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear to power ahead of renewables
37 BBC: Labour and the nuclear lobby
38 BBC: Investors to calculate nuclear returns
39 BBC: MPs warn of UK energy review rush
40 BBC: Review says 'no need for nuclear'
41 BBC: French nuclear reactor maker eyes UK
42 US: Platts: NRC staff supports early site permit for North Anna
43 The Herald: MPs warn Blair on nuclear energy strategy   
44 Platts: EU states should individually decide whether to use nuclear 
45 US: Burlington Free Press: My Turn: Reliable power for Vermont
46 Independent: MPs warn Blair over nuclear review sham 
47 US: ajc.com: Opportunity for overdue change | 
48 AFP: Energy top issue for Europe, main topic at G8 - Blair 
49 Telegraph: Don't rush into nuclear power, MPs warn Blair
50 Scotsman.com: New nuclear power plants plan warning
51 Scotsman.com: Political lead will create nuclear jobs boom
52 Scotsman.com: Blair gives go-ahead for nuclear power stations
53 AU ABC: Bourke council considers housing nuclear power plant.
54 Scotsman.com: Green revolution is heralded for Scotland
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
55 US: AP Wire: Startup of second nuclear facility begins at Savannah R
56 US: Seattle Times: Columbia River toxins moving up food chain
57 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Wildfires bracket Nevada town near Death Val
58 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
59 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning An
60 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium miners clash over deposits 
61 PRN: Fluor Ltd and British Nuclear Group Team to Win Key Foothold In
 
                           PEACE
 
62 BBC: South East MEP in nuclear
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
63 DOE: Office of Science; Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
64 lamonitor.com: LANL Foundation puts down roots 
65 Technology Review: DOE's Blurred Nuclear Vision
66 KnoxNews: Cleaning up Melton Valley                                 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: UN lauds IRI's positive role in Iraq 

2006/07/10   
  
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special
representative for Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, Sunday afternoon lauded
Iran's role in efforts to restore peace and security to Iraq. 

During a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki, he expressed the hope ongoing consultations to find a
solution to the problems of Iraq would continue. 

Qazi, who attended the 9th Meeting of Foreign Ministers of Iraqi
Neighboring States Plus Egypt in Tehran on July 8-9, said the
Islamic Republic of Iran's initiative of hosting the meeting was
highly valuable for Iraq. 

Underlining the need to establish peace and security in Iraq, he
called for urgent action to be taken in this regard. 

Talks between Mottaki and Qazi focused on the UN's leading role
in restoring peace and security to Iraq and on latest
developments in that war-torn country. 

The Iranian Foreign Minister, for his part, said Tehran believes
Iraqi affairs should be handled by Iraqis themselves. 

Referring to the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq as
the main cause of insecurity, he said that fixing of a timetable
for withdrawal of the forces will have positive consequences on
efforts to restore peace and security to the country. 

As to the role of the UN in Iraqi developments, he called on the
international body to play a more active role in that
war-devastated and violence-plagued country. 

SAM   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: <font color="#ff0000" face>Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir</font> 
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Iran showing goodwill in N-case - Turkish FM 
 
, July 10, IRNA

-- 

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said here Sunday that Iran
had the firm determination and goodwill to settle its nuclear
case through diplomatic channels, and hoped the the positive
trend towards resolution of the case would continue.

 Gul's remarks came during a meeting with Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the sidelines of the 9th meeting
of foreign ministers of Iraqi neighboring states plus Egypt
which concluded here Sunday.

 Iran has rightly found ambiguities in the package of incentives
proposed by the world powers (Group 5+1), he said, and added
that these ambiguities should be removed.

 On June 6 the UN Security Council's five permanent members --
Russia, China, Britain France and the US -- plus Germany offered
a package of incentives to Iran in exchange for suspension of
uranium enrichment and resumption of talks to settle the dispute
over its nuclear program.

 The Turkish minister said the Tehran meeting was among the most
important and best conferences he had ever attended, and added
that a final statement was issued to support the process of
reconciliation among opposing groups and parties in Iraq.

 He assessed as "positive" the consultations between Iran and
Turkey on bilateral, regional and international developments and
praised the strong position taken by the Tehran meeting on
Palestine.

 Mottaki, for his part, pointed to the current trend of
resolving its nuclear case through diplomatic channels, and said
he believed the Islamic Republic of Iran was "serious in ongoing
efforts to settle the case and that diplomatic negotiations
should be the basis for decision making."

 Referring to certain negative propaganda being waged against
Iran's nuclear case, he called on the Group of Eight
industrialized nations (G8) to pay attention to the urgent need
to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in their
upcoming summit in St Petersburg, Russia.

 Calling recent events in Palestine as "regrettable," he said
they were were a warning bell for the international community
and the sensitive Middle East region, in particular, of the need
to find a solution to the Palestinian problem.

 "New crises created by the Zionist regime in the region are not
acceptable. The international community, Arab states and other
influential countries should find the right strategies to
prevent further crimes from being committed by the Zionist
occupiers." The Iranian foreign minister, for his part, termed
consultations with his Turkish counterpart as "positive," and
added that the two sides held "very constructive and positive
talks" particularly on regional and international developments.

 "We hope such a trend can continue through further
consultations between the two sides."

 Pointing to Iran's role in efforts to restore security and
stability to Iraq, he said "all participans at the Tehran
meeting including Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC)
Secretary- General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Arab League
Secretary-General Amr Moussa and UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan's special representative, Qazi, confirmed Iran's positive
contribution in this regard." Mottaki said the final statement
and separate statement on Palestine issued at the end of the
Tehran meeting were both issued in full transparency and
stressed the importance of settling regional issues, the problem
of Iraq in particular, and urged the international community to
take the two statements into consideration in decision making.

*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: EU, Iran to initiate talks on nuclear issue

Brussels, July 10, IRNA

EU-Iran-Nuclear issue 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator and Supreme National Security
Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani and EU High Representative
for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana are
expected to meet in Brussels on Tuesday for preliminary
negotiations prior to the start of formal talks on Iran's
nuclear case.

 Solana and Larijani held an informal meeting over dinner in
Brussels Thursday last week which was described as a "good
start." "It's a good start for what we expect will be a positive
meeting on July 11," Cristina Gallach, spokesperson for Solana,
told IRNA in Brussels.

 For his part, Larijani told reporters in Brussels that the
Islamic Republic was "serious" in negotiations with the EU to
resolve the nuclear standoff.

 Analysts in Brussels opine that a positive climate has been
created after Thursday's dinner and before the start of
Tuesday's meeting.

 Solana traveled to Tehran on 6 June to hand over a package of
incentives to the Islamic Republic which has the backing of the
five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

 Therefore, analysts conclude, the EU foreign policy chief is
now representing the international community in negotiations
with Iran on the nuclear dossier.

 Solana has been the main architect of the EU's engagement and
dialogue with Iran and he appears to be very serious in his
efforts to resolve the nuclear issue because a breakthrough will
mean a major diplomatic victory for Brussels.

 If the EU resolves the nuclear issue with Iran, the 25-member
bloc's credibility as a global player will rocket sky high.

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the Islamic
Republic will reply to the EU offer in August.

 But the West is calling on Iran to give a reply before the
summit of the Group of 8 industrial powers in Russia which
begins on July 15.

 Nonetheless, Solana's spokesperson has said "we are not using
the word deadlines."

*****************************************************************
 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Immature decision disturb n-talks - FM 

  2006/07/09   
    
  06:03:07 È.Ù 
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday cautioned that any
immature decision which may be taken on Iran during the upcoming
summit of the Group of Eight leading industrial nations would
inflict damage to positive trend of nuclear talks.

 Mottaki made the remark while speaking to reporters at the end
of the 9th meeting of foreign ministers of Iraqi neighboring
states in reference to the G-8 summit, slated to be held in ST
Petersburg, Russia, on July 15.

 "We will not be present in the G-8 summit. Any decision to be
made during the summit which may be immature or not be
comprehensive can harm the positive trend of talks," he said.

 Asked whether Secretary of Supreme National Security Council
Ali Larijani would raise ambiguous points in the package
proposal offered by Group 5+1, during his Tuesday meeting with
the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana or Iran would offer a
new pro posal, he said during previous meetings held between the
two sides, they discussed general topics including different
ambiguities and questions which should be responded. 

"Talks should be comprehensive. All sides should participate in
negotiations," he said.

 "Response to certain questions and ambiguities requires that
some decisions should be made," Mottaki said.

 He added based on an agreement reached between the two sides,
he could not speak of content of such issues, saying Solana
cannot give reply to all ambiguities to be raised by Iran. 

"Our general view is that a positive atmosphere seems to have
been established based on goodwill. Different sides stress that
such a positive atmosphere should be used (in a way) to reach an
all-out understanding which will meet both sides' interests." 

The sides should not take steps that may disturb current
positive atmosphere." Mottaki added, "all sides should help in
reaching an understanding through a positive atmosphere which
has been created and through continuation of talks."

 He noted that Iran would give its response to the Group 5+1
offer by late August.

 M.H.Z   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: <font color="#ff0000" face>Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir</font> 
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: 'Six weeks is long enough,' US tells Iran over nuclear offer -
    
 Mon Jul 10, 3:25 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said that the six weeks in 
the run-up to the G8 summit in mid-July was "quite long enough" 
for Iran" /> to consider an international offer to defuse a 
nuclear standoff. 

On the eve of a meeting between EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana and Tehran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in
Brussels, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the
time had come for Iran to make a decision. 

"Six weeks is quite long enough to consider that," McCormack
told reporters. 

The international offer, presented to Tehran by Solana on June 6
on behalf of the five permanent UN Security Council members plus
Germany, offers economic and other incentives in exchange for a
pledge to suspend uranium enrichment. 

The West, in particular the United States, wants Tehran to
respond before a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Saint Petersburg
on July 15-17, but hardline President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has
said Tehran will not respond before August. 

"We think, that any government could, in this period of time,
make the decision that, 'Yes, we do want to engage in
negotiations. We will meet these conditions.'" McCormack said. 

He added that none of the major powers was asking Iran to come
up with "a final negotiated solution to the issue." 

"What they are asking is: 'Give us a yes or give us a no in
terms of meeting these conditions; give us a yes or give us a no
to go down the positive pathway or the negative pathway.'" 

Rising US pressure for Iran's answer came as the European Union"
/> also said Tehran did not have much time left. 

"It's clear that we need the response (of the Iranians) as soon
as possible, and that the time element is very important," said
the EU official's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach. 

"We have to exert pressure so that this happens as soon as
possible," she insisted. 

Iran has played down prospects of substantial progress, saying
it sees Tuesday's meeting as a chance to "resolve ambiguities"
about details of the offer, underlining that it will not give a
full response in Brussels. 

On Sunday Iran again dashed hopes of a rapid response to the
offer by saying it will take until the second half of August to
respond. 

"They need to respond to the ambiguities we have identified,"
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Tehran. "We will
respond in the last week of Mordad," Mottaki added, referring to
the Iranian month which ends August 22. 

But McCormack said an answer at the end of August would amount
to a wait of "months" instead of weeks, and was therefore not
acceptable. 

"Certainly, they want to play kick the can down the road on
this," he said. "They want to string the international community
along while they continue to make progress on their nuclear
program." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US, Britain tell Iran to make decision on nuclear offer - 

 by Stephen Collinson Mon Jul 10, 7:24 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and Britain demanded an 
answer from Iran" /> Iranon an international offer designed to 
ease a nuclear standoff, saying six weeks of decision time was 
"quite long enough." 

The two allies stepped up the diplomatic heat on the eve of a
meeting between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and
Tehran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Brussels. 

Their joint intervention also came two days ahead of a key
meeting in Paris between foreign ministers of the permanent five
members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, to discuss
tactics toward Iran ahead of next weekend's G8 summit in Russia. 

"It is really time to get an authoritative answer," said US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice,
standing shoulder-to-shoulder with British Foreign Secretary
Margaret Beckett at a press conference. 

"We hope the Iranians chose the path before them for
cooperation, but, of course, we can always return to the other
path should we need to," Rice said. 

"And that path ... was, of course, the path to the Security
Council." 

Beckett also pressed for an answer from Iran. 

"The Iranians have now had good time to look very carefully and
in depth at what is to be fair, a detailed set of proposals,"
she said. 

"We very much look forward -- all of us, I think -- to hearing
soon from the Iranians an official response to the proposals we
put to them." 

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack had earlier said that
no one was expecting Iran to come up with a final negotiated
solution, merely for a sign of willingness it was ready to come
to the table. 

"Six weeks is quite long enough to consider that," McCormack
told reporters. 

The international offer, presented to Tehran by Solana on June 6
on behalf of the permanent five plus Germany, offers economic
and other incentives in exchange for a pledge to suspend uranium
enrichment. 

The West, in particular the United States, wants Tehran to
respond before a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Saint Petersburg
on July 15-17, but hardline President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has
said Tehran will not respond before August. 

Rising US and British pressure for Iran's answer came as the
European Union" /> European Unionalso said Tehran did not have
much time left. 

"It's clear that we need the response (of the Iranians) as soon
as possible, and that the time element is very important," said
the EU official's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach. 

"We have to exert pressure so that this happens as soon as
possible," she insisted. 

Iran has played down prospects of substantial progress, saying
it sees Tuesday's meeting as a chance to "resolve ambiguities"
about details of the offer, underlining that it will not give a
full response in Brussels. 

On Sunday, Iran again dashed hopes of a rapid response to the
offer by saying it will take until the second half of August to
respond. 

"They need to respond to the ambiguities we have identified,"
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Tehran. "We will
respond in the last week of Mordad," Mottaki added, referring to
the Iranian month that ends August 22. 

But McCormack said an answer at the end of August would amount
to a wait of "months" instead of weeks, and was therefore not
acceptable. 

"Certainly, they want to play 'kick the can down the road' on
this," he said. 

"They want to string the international community along while
they continue to make progress on their nuclear program." 

The State Department also Monday issued a statement
commemorating the seventh anniversary of a student uprising in
Iran, saying that the Tehran government had banned
commemorations of an event in which it said demonstrators were
arrested, beaten and killed by Iranian security forces. 

"We call on the Iranian government to respect the human rights
of all Iranian people, including students, religious minorities,
workers and women, and to release those arrested and imprisoned
for insisting on their universal rights to freedom of
expression," the statement said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Mulling Action Over N.Korea Missiles
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 9:01 AM

AP Photo TOK102 

By MARI YAMAGUCHI 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a
pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate
its constitution, suggesting it could take stronger action
against the reclusive regime if the U.N. Security Council
rejects its resolution calling for sanctions. 

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week
and several government officials openly discussed whether the
country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including
setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a
pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites. 

``If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an
attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of
the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of
self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,'' Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe said. 

Japan's constitution currently bars the use of military force in
settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from
maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo, however, has
interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect
itself, allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong
Self-Defense Forces. 

Despite resistance from China and Russia, Japan has pushed for a
U.N. Security Council resolution that would prohibit nations
from procuring missiles or missile-related ``items, materials
goods and technology'' from North Korea. A vote was possible in
New York later Monday. 

``It's important for the international community to express a
strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches,''
Abe said. ``This resolution is an effective way of expressing
that.'' 

China and Russia, both nations with veto power on the council,
have voiced opposition to the measure. Kyodo News agency
reported Monday, citing unnamed Chinese diplomatic sources, that
China may use its veto on the Security Council to block the
resolution. 

The United States, Britain and France have expressed support for
the proposal, while Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso has said
there is a possibility that Russia will abstain. 

South Korea, not a council member, has not publicly taken a
position on the resolution, but on Sunday Seoul rebuked Japan
for its outspoken criticism of the tests. 

``There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn
like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite,'' a statement
from President Roh Moo-hyun's office said, suggesting that Tokyo
was contributing to tensions on the Korean Peninsula. 

Meanwhile, a Chinese delegation including the country's top
nuclear envoy - Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei - arrived in
North Korea on Monday, officially to attend celebrations marking
the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the North
and China. 

The U.S. is urging Beijing to push its communist ally back into
six-party nuclear disarmament talks, but the Chinese government
has not said whether Wu would bring up the negotiations. A
ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was ``making
assiduous efforts'' in pushing for the talks to resume. 

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott
by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the
regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes. 

Beijing has suggested an informal gathering of the six nations,
which could allow the North to technically stand by its boycott,
but at the same time meet with the other five parties - South
Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia. The U.S. has backed
the idea and said Washington could meet with the North on the
sidelines of such a meeting. 

In Tokyo, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met
with Aso on Monday as part of a tour through the region to
coordinate strategy on North Korea. Hill has emphasized the need
for countries involved to present a united front. 

``We want to make it very clear that we all speak in one voice
on this provocative action by the North Koreans to launch
missiles in all shapes and sizes,'' Hill said. ``We want to make
it clear to North Korea that what it did was really
unacceptable.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writer Audra Ang contributed to this report in
Beijing.	 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
 		 		 		 	 	 		 		 		 	 	 		 	 	 		 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 		 		 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 12:46 PM

AP Photo XJK106 

By MARI YAMAGUCHI 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a
pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate
its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a
possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for
sanctions against the regime. 

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week
and several government officials openly discussed whether the
country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including
setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a
pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites. 

``If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an
attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of
the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of
self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,'' Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe said. 

Japan's constitution currently bars the use of military force in
settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from
maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that
to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the
existence of its 240,000-strong Self-Defense Forces. 

A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no
attacking weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach
North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and
ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity
due to official policy. 

Despite resistance from China and Russia, Japan has pushed for a
U.N. Security Council resolution that would prohibit nations
from procuring missiles or missile-related ``items, materials
goods and technology'' from North Korea. A vote was possible in
New York later Monday, but Japan said it would not insist on
one. 

``It's important for the international community to express a
strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches,''
Abe said. ``This resolution is an effective way of expressing
that.'' 

China and Russia, both nations with veto power on the council,
have voiced opposition to the measure. Kyodo News agency
reported Monday, citing unnamed Chinese diplomatic sources, that
China may use its veto on the Security Council to block the
resolution. 

The United States, Britain and France have expressed support for
the proposal, while Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso has said
there is a possibility that Russia will abstain. 

South Korea, not a council member, has not publicly taken a
position on the resolution, but on Sunday Seoul rebuked Japan
for its outspoken criticism of the tests. 

``There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn
like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite,'' a statement
from President Roh Moo-hyun's office said, suggesting that Tokyo
was contributing to tensions on the Korean Peninsula. 

Abe said Monday it was ``regrettable'' that South Korea had
accused Japan of overreacting. 

``There is no mistake that the missile launch ... is a threat to
Japan and the region. It is only natural for Japan to take
measures of risk management against such a threat,'' Abe said. 

Meanwhile, a Chinese delegation including the country's top
nuclear envoy - Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei - arrived in
North Korea on Monday, officially to attend celebrations marking
the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the North
and China. 

The U.S. is urging Beijing to push its communist ally back into
six-party nuclear disarmament talks, but the Chinese government
has not said whether Wu would bring up the negotiations. A
ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was ``making
assiduous efforts'' in pushing for the talks to resume. 

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott
by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the
regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes. 

Beijing has suggested an informal gathering of the six nations,
which could allow the North to technically stand by its boycott,
but at the same time meet with the other five parties - South
Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia. The U.S. has backed
the idea and said Washington could meet with the North on the
sidelines of such a meeting. 

Still, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
questioned just how influential Beijing was with the enigmatic
regime. 

``I must say the issue of China's influence on DPRK is one that
concerns us,'' Hill told reporters in Tokyo. ``China said to the
DPRK, 'Don't fire those missiles,' but the DPRK fired them. So I
think everybody, especially the Chinese, are a little bit
worried about it.'' 

The DPRK refers to the North's official name, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. 

Hill is touring the region to coordinate strategy on North
Korea. He has emphasized the need for countries involved to
present a united front. 

``We want to make it very clear that we all speak in one voice
on this provocative action by the North Koreans to launch
missiles in all shapes and sizes,'' Hill said. ``We want to make
it clear to North Korea that what it did was really
unacceptable.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writers Audra Ang in Beijing and Chisaki
Watanabe in Tokyo contributed to this report. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Standoffs With Iran, N.Korea Continue
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 9:16 AM

AP Photo DCLJ102 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has softened the U.S. stance
against Iran and North Korea, trying to bargain with regimes he
once lumped with Iraq in an ``axis of evil.'' 

But the results in his second term are largely the same as in
his first - nuclear standoffs against nations that define
themselves by their opposition to U.S. policies even as they
angle for Washington's attention. 

The twin impasses are coming to a head this election-year summer
at the same time that U.S. military deaths are trending up in
Iraq, support for the war is dropping at home and the Bush
administration is scrambling to respond to a resurgent Taliban
in Afghanistan. 

North Korea set off an international furor last week when it
test-fired seven missiles that plunged into the Sea of Japan,
including one with the theoretical ability to reach U.S. shores.
The secretive communist nation is boycotting international talks
that would trade economic rewards for an end to the North's
declared nuclear weapons program. 

Bush and other world leaders want an answer from Iran this week
on whether the clerical regime will accept a similar deal that
would provide economic benefits and technical help with a
peaceful nuclear energy program while reassuring the West that
Iran cannot build a bomb. 

After invading Afghanistan and Iraq in his first term, Bush
insists that diplomacy can counter the threats posed by Iran and
North Korea. He tries hard to sound patient, as he did during a
news conference Friday in Chicago. 

``You're watching the diplomacy work not only in North Korea but
in Iran,'' Bush said. ``It's kind of painful in a way for some
to watch, because it takes a while to get people on the same
page. Not everybody thinks the exact same way we think.'' 

Under the leadership of second-term Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration has muted a foreign
policy bullhorn that sounded belligerent or isolationist, even
to longtime allies such as Canada, France and Germany. 

Bush and Rice have cultivated alliances with European and other
partners to present a common front to Tehran and Pyongyang. They
have pressed for a unified international response, and sanctions
if need be, from the United Nations Security Council. 

Defusing the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats after
years of enmity with both countries could define Bush's
second-term foreign policy legacy almost as markedly as Iraq
defines his first. 

So far, there have been hopeful signs but no permanent
solutions. 

After a meandering start in Bush's first term, six-nation talks
that include North Korea and the United States appeared to bear
fruit last fall. The North agreed to give up its weapons of mass
destruction, although the terms were vague. 

But the deal faltered almost immediately. Pyongyang walked away
from the talks in December after the United States imposed what
it says are unrelated financial sanctions. After ending its
voluntary moratorium on missile tests this week, the North said
it has the right to test weapons in self-defense. 

Rice decided to reverse course on Iran this spring, convincing
Bush that the United States risked losing its hard-fought
international backing if it refused to sit face-to-face with
Tehran and offer incentives. Iranian leaders seemed pleasantly
surprised if a bit unnerved at the gesture. 

The Bush administration won international backing for eventual
penalties for Tehran if it rejects the deal. Iran has said it
has questions about the carrot-and-stick package, and won't meet
next week's unofficial deadline for a response. 

International diplomatic success will require help from Russia
and China, nations that have taken a dim view of U.S. efforts to
impose punitive sanctions on both Iran and North Korea. 

Boston University professor of history and international
relations Andrew Bacevich says the administration can claim
success in one respect - the second term has not brought a new
war. 

``If we were to take the rhetoric of the first term seriously
about the axis of evil and the possibility of nuclear war, for
goodness sakes we would probably be involved in four wars, not
just two,'' Bacevich said. 

He said the administration is merely accepting reality forced on
it in Iraq. 

``We are stuck in a war that is absorbing the energy of the
national security apparatus and that in itself limits our
capacity to even think about military operations in other
cases,'' he said. 

--- 

EDITOR'S NOTE - Anne Gearan covers diplomacy and foreign affairs
for The Associated Press. 

--- 

On the Net: 

State Department: http://www.state.gov 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges China to Pressure North Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 8:46 AM

AP Photo TOK102 

By FOSTER KLUG 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is urging China to ratchet
up pressure on North Korea to end its missile tests and return
to international nuclear disarmament talks. 

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the Bush
administration's point man on North Korea, says Beijing is
crucial to solving a standoff in the wake of North Korea's
test-firing of seven missiles, including some that possibly
could reach the American continent. China is North Korea's main
ally and trading partner. 

Burns said Sunday the diplomatic aim is to ``convince the North
Koreans that they're isolated, that they have no support in the
world, and they've got to come back to'' stalled six-nation
negotiations aimed at ridding the reclusive, communist-led
nation of its nuclear weapons program. Those talks involve the
Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan. 

In Tokyo on Monday, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill reiterated that the international community needs to speak
in one voice against North Korea's missile launches. 

Burns, appearing on four talk shows Sunday, also indicated the
United States would not grant Pyongyang formal direct talks
outside of the six-party forum. 

``We really don't see the logic of turning this into a test of
wills between two countries - the United States and North
Korea,'' Burns said. 

``The problem here is not the lack of discussion between the
United States and North Korea,'' Burns said. ``We're perfectly
willing to sit down with them in that six-party environment.'' 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also rejected formal direct talks.
``I don't know why we should reward bad behavior by making
concessions,'' he said. 

Some lawmakers, however, said North Korea's isolation in recent
years had led to the country improving its nuclear program. 

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the six-party talks are
central, ``but I don't think there's any conflict with having
some back-channel, one-on-one conversations with the North
Koreans.'' 

Since 2002, she said, North Korea has ``quadrupled their fissile
material. Why? They isolated them even more, this
administration, by not even talking with them at all.'' 

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International
Security estimated recently that North Korea has enough
separated plutonium to develop an arsenal of four to 13 nuclear
weapons, compared with estimates of one or two nuclear weapons
at the start of the Bush administration. 

At the United Nations, Japan proposed a Security Council
resolution calling for penalties against North Korea. The U.S.,
Britain and France support the idea, but the other two
veto-empowered members of the council, China and Russia, are
opposed. 

Burns, who appeared on CNN's ``Late Edition,'' ``Fox News
Sunday,'' CBS' ``Face the Nation'' and NBC's ``Meet the Press,''
expressed confidence that a unified message could be sent. 

China and Russia, he said, ``understand that, as two members of
the six-party framework, they have a responsibility to use their
influence with North Korea.'' 

McCain warned that Beijing's handling of North Korea would be a
``defining issue in our relations with China.'' He suggested
that if China continues to ``vacillate'' in the United Nations,
``there are consequences in our relationship.'' 

``There are many key areas that we are cooperating in that I
believe would be affected, including trade, by China's failure
to act,'' McCain said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 11 Telegraph: Russia secretly offered North Korea nuclear technology

  [telegraph.co.uk]
  
By a Special Correspondent in Pyongyang and Michael Hirst

(Filed: 09/07/2006)
   
Russia is facing criticism after secretly offering to sell North
Korea technology that could help the rogue state to protect its
nuclear stockpiles and safeguard weapons secrets from
international scrutiny. 

Russian officials touted the equipment at an IT exhibition in
Pyongyang a fortnight ago - just days before the Communist state
caused international alarm by launching a salvo of short and
long-range missiles into the Sea of Japan. 

      
Students walk past a mock North Korean missile in Seoul

In what appear to have been unguarded comments, Aleksei
Grigoriev, the deputy director of Russia's Federal Information
Technologies Agency, told a reporter that North Korea planned to
buy equipment for the safe storage and transportation of nuclear
materials, developed by a Russian government-controlled defence
company. 

The company, Atlas, also received interest from the North
Koreans in their security systems and encryption technology -
which were kept from display at the exhibition for security
reasons. 

In remarks made to the Russian Itar-Tass news agency - hastily
retracted after publication - Mr Grigoriev said that the main
aim of the June 28 exhibition was "establishing contacts with
the Korean side and discussing future co-operation". Last week
Russia, along with China, opposed a draft UN Security Council
resolution, proposed by Japan and backed by America, that would
bar missile-related financial and technology transactions with
North Korea because of the missile tests. 

As tensions over the missile tests mounted, the US government
yesterday deployed its USS Mustin, equipped with so-called Aegis
missile-tracking technology that is geared towards tracking and
shooting down enemy missiles, to Yokosuka, home port to the US
Navy's 7th Fleet. 

On Friday, George W Bush called for the issue of the missile
tests to be put before the Security Council. He said he wanted
to make clear to Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, "with
more than one voice" that the rest of the world condemned
Wednesday's launches. 

Sources close to the proposed sale of the equipment - which
would have civil and military uses - said that it was evidence
of Russia's secret support for its Soviet-era ally, which was
once a bulwark against Chinese influence in the Far East. It was
reported that the North Korean military interest in the
exhibition stemmed from the dual purpose of many of the products
and technologies on display. 

Kim Jong Il

After the show, which led to plans for further meetings between
the Russian and North Korean delegations, Mr Grigoriev said
Pyongyang's primary interest in buying the equipment was to
combat the "threat posed by international terrorism". However,
the Russian embassy in Pyongyang immediately denied the report,
claiming that it was "disinformation". Mr Grigoriev subsequently
denied ever having spoken to the journalist concerned. 

Disclosures of a possible deal are at odds with official Russian
policy towards North Korea's nuclear programme. On June 22,
North Korea's ambassador to Russia, Park Yi Joon, was summoned
to the foreign ministry in Moscow and informed that -Russia
"strongly objects to any actions that can negatively influence
regional stability and worsen nuclear crisis on the Korean
Peninsula". 

There was also some anger domestically at Russia's opposition to
the UN sanctions resolution. Although the Russian foreign
ministry expressed anger that Moscow had not been notified of
the launches, it went no further than issuing an anodyne
statement expressing concern that the tests endangered Pacific
Ocean shipping and "violated the commonly accepted world
practice of giving a warning". 

Western experts were not surprised that the two countries might
be discussing sensitive military deals. 

Nicholas Eberstadt, a North Korea expert at the American
Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, said that
Russian policy towards North Korea had long been influenced by
the desire to restore its Cold War-era influence. 

"Russia often seems more ambitious to restore that influence
than to play a positive role in international affairs," he said.

"We've got no reason to doubt that Moscow is playing a double
game with North Korea. It's not entirely surprising considering
Vladimir Putin himself came up with the harebrained suggestion
some years ago that Moscow, as a protector and provider for the
North Korean regime, launch a North Korean satellite." 

Mr Eberstadt suggested that any controversial business deals
would be politically costly for the Kremlin. "If Moscow wishes
to be on the record as the sole defender and apologist for the
world's remaining revisionist and nuclear-proliferating regimes,
then it would be interesting to see how its European friends
would react."   


 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Chinese delegation arrives in NKorea amid missile uproar -
     
 Mon Jul 10, 3:30 AM ET 		 	 

BEIJING (AFP) - A delegation of senior Chinese officials has 
arrived in North Korea" /> amid hopes the visit will ease 
tensions created by the isolated regime's missile tests last 
week. 

 The delegation, which will stay for six days, was led by Vice
Premier Hui Liangyu who is also a member of the elite central
committee of the Chinese Communist Party politburo, Xinhua news
agency said. 

Xinhua gave no details of the rest of the delegation. But the
foreign ministry said last week Wu Dawei, the Chinese envoy to
the six-nation talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up
its nuclear ambitions, would be part of the group. 

Wu was expected to meet North Korean leaders in a bid to
persuade them to accept negotiations following the launch on
Wednesday of seven missiles. 

The test-firings triggered international uproar, with Japan
seeking a binding UN Security Council resolution that would call
for missile-related sanctions against the communist North. 

The Chinese delegation's visit is officially to mark the 45th
anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the two countries. 

Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> on Monday exchanged
congratulatory messages with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il to
mark the anniversary, according to Xinhua. 

"The two countries will further increase exchanges, strengthen
cooperation and push forward the bilateral friendly cooperative
ties," the official news agency said, citing Hu's message. 

One aspect of the treaty that the Chinese government seems eager
to downplay is the fact that it could oblige it to give North
Korea military assistance in case of war. 

The treaty was signed in a completely different context from
today. China in the early 1960s was seen as a destabilizing
force in Asia, not unlike North Korea now. 

Since then China has embraced the world and has tried gently to
move North Korea to do the same, apparently becoming
increasingly frustrated over Pyongyang's recalcitrant attitude. 

Even so China opposes sanctions against North Korea, arguing
that low-profile diplomacy is a better way to defuse the crisis. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told key foreign
counterparts that any action on North Korea's missile tests
should be aimed at maintaining regional peace and stability,
state media said. 

"Any action should be conducive to maintaining peace and
stability in the region and the unity of the UN Security
Council," Li said Sunday, according to a separate Xinhua report. 

Li made the remarks during a busy round of telephone diplomacy
that included talks with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban
Ki-Moon as well as the foreign ministers of 11 members of the UN
Security Council, it said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: US downplays divisions over NKorea

 Mon Jul 10, 11:57 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House downplayed the possibility 
that permanent UN Security Council members Russia and China could 
abstain from voting on a UN resolution calling for sanctions on 
North Korea" /> North Korea. 

Asked how their possible abstention would affect the resolution
if the measure otherwise has enough support to pass, spokesman
Tony Snow replied: "Then it passes." 

"I mean, that's the way it works. If you have a Security Council
resolution that is passed with abstentions, it passes," he said,
declining to say what impact if any their non-voting would have
on the measure's effectiveness. 

Asked about a possible delay in voting on such a resolution,
Snow noted that a high-level Chinese delegation was expected in
Pyongyang and downplayed divisions in how to deal with the
Stalinist regime. 

"I think the most important thing to note is that everybody
really is united on the key goal," getting North Korea back to
the six-country talks on its nuclear programs, he said. 

The UN Security Council is to hold formal consultations later
Monday on when to vote on a Japanese draft resolution that would
censure North Korea for its missile tests, amid a flurry of
diplomacy to settle the crisis. 

The Japanese draft would block the transfer of items to North
Korea that could be used in missile and weapons of mass
destruction programs. 

It condemns North Korea's testing of seven missiles last week,
including a new long-range Taepodong-2 which could theoretically
reach US soil, and invokes Chapter Seven of the UN charter,
which authorizes sanctions or even military action. 

China and Russia oppose the Japanese draft -- which is
co-sponsored by the United States and all Western members of the
council -- because it includes sanctions and a reference to
Chapter Seven. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: US North Korea envoy to head back to China 

 Mon Jul 10, 4:41 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US envoy Christopher Hill is heading back to 
Beijing as part of his diplomatic shuttle sparked by North Korea" 
/> 's missile launches, the State Department said. 

 Hill was asked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> to
return to the Chinese capital, her spokesman said, hours after
Japan and the United States agreed to delay a UN Security
Council vote on imposing sanctions on Pyongyang. 

"He's going back to Beijing for further discussions," spokesman
Sean McCormack said. 

Hill began his tour Friday in China, the host of stalled
six-party talks on ending the North's nuclear program, before
holding two days of talks in Seoul. 

He then went to Tokyo and was also scheduled to call in Russia,
the other nation involved in the talks with Pyongyang. 

Rice earlier said that a UN Security Council vote threatening
sanctions over North Korea's missile tests last week had been
delayed while a Chinese delegation was in Pyongyang. 

She added that the Chinese mission, which landed in Pyongyang
earlier Monday, showed "some promise" and that Washington wanted
to give it time to play out. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: US and China make new push over NKorea 

 by Kyoko Hasegawa Mon Jul 10, 6:24 AM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - The United States and China have made new 
diplomatic efforts to jumpstart talks with North Korea" /> North 
Korea, which warned it was ready for all-out war after 
test-firing seven missiles last week. 

With the UN Security Council set to decide later on Monday when
to vote on a contested resolution aimed at punishing the
secretive state for the tests, US and Chinese delegations held
talks in Japan and North Korea, respectively. 

The top US envoy on North Korea, Christopher Hill, met with
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso in Tokyo a day after
enigmatic North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il said he would not back
down under US pressure. 

"North Korea has a choice of whether to go for continued
isolation or to join the international community. I hope they
will make the right choice," Hill said. 

North Korea agreed in September to end its nuclear program in
exchange for security guarantees and aid but walked out of talks
two months later over US sanctions on a bank accused of
laundering money for Pyongyang. 

"We have a process, an agreement in principle -- the Beijing
agreement last September," said Hill. 

"What the North Koreans need to do is to come to the next
session of the six-party talks and begin to implement that
agreement," he told reporters after meeting Aso. 

Japan wants an early Security Council vote on a resolution that
could pave the way for fresh international sanctions against
North Korea, whose missiles landed in the Sea of Japan (East
Sea) on Wednesday. 

"We have to resolve the issues of missiles and nuclear weapons
in the framework of six-party talks," Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinzo Abe, the Japanese government's top spokesman, told
reporters. 

"In the framework China is supposed to play a key role. I hope
that China will firmly assume the responsibility as chair
country," he said. 

The United States, which also supports the UN resolution, has
been pushing for a hard line against the North, named by US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushin 2002 as
part of the international "axis of evil." 

China and Russia, which both have veto power on the Security
Council, oppose a legally binding Council resolution that could
lead to sanctions and, in theory at least, military action
against North Korea. 

"If this resolution is put to vote, there will be no unity in
the Security Council," China's ambassador to the United Nations"
/> United Nations, Wang Guangya, said Friday. Asked whether
China would veto, Wang replied: "All possibilities are open." 

Senior US official Nicholas Burns said Sunday that Washington
wanted China to "use its influence to push forward and ask North
Korea to meet the commitments that they made to all of us." 

China, the main ally of the impoverished North, sent a
delegation to Pyongyang led by Vice Premier Hui Liangyu,
according to China's Xinhua news agency. 

It gave no further details about the make-up of the team but the
foreign ministry last week said Wu Dawei, Hill's counterpart at
the six-nation disarmament talks, would also be part of the
group. 

Hill on Sunday denied there was a split between the countries --
China, Japan, Russia, South Korea" /> South Koreaand the United
States -- involved in the stalled negotiations with North Korea. 

But South Korea, already critical of Japan's handling of its
wartime conduct in the 20th century, said Tokyo was using a
"shrill voice" in its push to impose sanctions on the North. 

Japan rejected the criticism. 

"The launches ... are a threat to Japan and the region. There is
no doubt about it," chief spokesman Abe said. 

"It is a matter of course that Japan takes crisis-management
measures. So, it was regrettable (for South Korea) to use such
an expression," he said. 

Meanwhile Hill had been due to travel on to Russia, but he told
reporters that he had been forced to put off that leg of the
trip as his Russian counterpart was away. 

North Korea has declared it has nuclear weapons and Kim on
Sunday said his country was ready for "all-out war" in case of
US aggression. 

In the latest bellicose statement from Pyongyang, Rodong Sinmun,
the mouthpiece of the ruling Korean Workers Party, on Monday
lashed out at US-led eight-nation maritime exercises underway in
Hawaii. 

Bush's "team leaves no stone unturned in its attempts to ignite
a new war on the Korean Peninsula, regarding the peninsula as
the key link in implementing its Asia strategy of aggression,"
the newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official
Korean Central News Agency. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: UN vote on North Korea put off to give more time to diplomacy -
    
 by Alfons Luna Mon Jul 10, 4:08 PM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council has put off a vote 
on a draft resolution that would slap sanctions on North Korea" 
/> over its missile tests, to allow more time for Chinese 
diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis. 

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> said
Monday the United States had agreed with a Japanese proposal to
postpone a vote on the Japanese draft, pending the results of
the Chinese initiative to the Stalinist state. 

"The Japanese have agreed that it would be wise to allow China
some time to have the diplomatic mission that China has launched
to North Korea to take effect," Rice told reporters. 

A top Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier Hui Liangyu arrived
in North Korea Monday amid hopes the six-day visit will ease
rising tensions over last week's missile tests. 

Rice said that the Chinese mission showed "some promise" and
that Washington wanted to give it time to play out. 

Kyodo News agency also quoted Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinzo Abe as saying Tokyo and Washington had agreed to postpone
the UN vote "for several days." 

Earlier, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Japan
would not insist that a vote be held Monday, to allow more time
for Chinese-led diplomatic efforts. 

At the United Nations" /> , US Ambassador John Bolton said
co-sponsors of the draft met Monday morning and agreed not to
press for a vote Monday. 

"We suspend here while diplomacy in Pyongyang proceeds," he
added. "Delay won't be infinite. We're going to look at it on a
daily basis." 

Bolton said that he and his Japanese counterpart Kenzo Oshima
would brief the full council on the latest developments later
Monday. 

The Japanese text, co-sponsored by the United States and all
other Western members of the council, would block the transfer
of items to North Korea that could be used in missile and
weapons of mass destruction programs. 

Envoys of the council's five permanent veto-wielding members --
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and
Japan held a series of informal discussions Monday morning to
overcome Chinese and Russian resistance to sanctions. 

"If they (the sponsors) want to have a resolution, they should
have a modified one, not this one," said Chinese Ambassador Wang
Guangya as he left the meeting. 

He reiterated his preference for a milder, non-binding statement
with no threat of sanctions. 

The Japanese text condemns North Korea's testing of seven
missiles last week, including a new long-range Taepodong-2,
which could theoretically reach US soil. 

It invokes Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which authorizes
sanctions or even military action in cases of threats to
international peace and security. 

Both China and Russia oppose the Japanese draft because it
includes sanctions and a reference to Chapter Seven. 

But Russia has adopted a lower profile, apparently so as not to
jeopardize its hosting of the Group of Eight summit in Saint
Petersburg later this week, diplomats said. 

In Tokyo, the top US envoy on North Korea, Christopher Hill, met
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, a day after enigmatic North
Korean leader Kim Jong-Il said he would not back down under US
pressure. 

"North Korea has a choice of whether to go for continued
isolation or to join the international community. I hope they
will make the right choice," Hill said. 

"What the North Koreans need to do is to come to the next
session of the six-party talks and begin to implement that
agreement," he told reporters after meeting Aso. 

North Korea agreed in September to end its nuclear program in
exchange for security guarantees and aid, but walked out of
six-party talks -- with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea" />
and the United States -- two months later over US sanctions on a
bank accused of laundering money for Pyongyang. 

In a related development, Washington on Monday downplayed
comments from senior Japanese officials who have warned that
Tokyo has the right to make a preemptive strike on North Korea
under some circumstances. 

"I did not read this as a declaration of war," White House
spokesman Tony Snow told reporters, adding that the warning had
come with "a whole series of qualifiers." 

But Snow said that Japan "has clearly not ruled out any options"
in dealing with the potential missile threat from North Korea. 

His comments came after Aso Sunday suggested that Japan would
have the right to attack North Korea to protect its citizens
from a nuclear missile launch by the isolated Stalinist country. 

South Korea, however, accused Tokyo of using a "shrill voice" in
its push to impose sanctions on the North. 

Japan rejected the criticism. 

"The launches ... are a threat to Japan and the region. There is
no doubt about it," chief spokesman Abe said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: UN vote delayed over China mission to North Korea - Rice -

 Mon Jul 10, 1:45 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> 
Condoleezza Ricesaid a UN Security Council vote threatening 
sanctions over North Korea" /> North Korea's missile tests had 
been delayed while a Chinese delegation was in Pyongyang. 

Rice said the United States had agreed with a Japanese proposal
to postpone a vote on the draft Japanese resolution after
intense diplomacy at the United Nations" /> United Nations,
pending the results of the Chinese initiative. 

She was asked during a press photo-call with visiting Pakistani
Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri whether the vote had been
postponed, following earlier reports of the delay. 

"Yes, the Japanese have agreed that it would be wise to allow
China some time to have the diplomatic mission that China has
launched to North Korea to take effect," Rice told reporters. 

She added that the Chinese mission, which landed in Pyongyang
earlier Monday, showed "some promise" and that Washington wanted
to give it time to play out. 

Rice said the delay, which came after an intense weekend of
contacts between major powers, was designed to see if North
Korea could be convinced by China "it is indeed time to resume
the six party talks" on the North Korean nuclear crisis. 

Beijing would also press its Stalinist neighbor to recommit to
an agreement reached last September in which North Korea agreed
in principle to abandon its nuclear weapons and to resume a
missile testing moratorium, she said. 

"We believe that this is the best course, because while we are
in the Security Council, it is also important that China in
particular, which has considerable influence with North Korea,
have this opportunity," Rice said. 

Asked whether the co-sponsors of a resolution threatening
sanctions on North Korea would force a vote on the measure
should China's mission fail, Rice did not answer directly. 

She said however that co-sponsors, including the United States,
Britain, and France, believed "North Korea has to have a message
from the international community that their current course is
destructive and will isolate them." 

"But we do think the Chinese mission to North Korea has some
promise and we would like to let that play out," Rice said. 

Kyodo News agency meanwhile quoted Japan's Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe as saying that the vote would be delayed
"for several days." 

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi earlier said Japan
would not insist that a vote on the draft Security Council
resolution be held Monday, to allow more time for China's
efforts. 

Earlier Japanese reports had said Tokyo would push for a vote on
Monday. 

Envoys of the council's five permanent veto-wielding members --
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and
Japan earlier held another round of informal discussions at the
US mission to the United Nations in New York to try to narrow
differences over the text. 

The Japanese draft would block the transfer of items to North
Korea that could be used in missile and weapons of mass
destruction programs. 

It condemns North Korea's testing of seven missiles last week,
including a new long-range Taepodong-2 which could theoretically
reach US soil, and invokes Chapter Seven of the UN charter,
which authorizes sanctions or even military action. 

China and Russia oppose the Japanese draft -- which is
co-sponsored by the United States and all Western members of the
council -- because it includes sanctions and a reference to
Chapter Seven. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: Japan May Postpone North Korea Resolution
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 7:16 PM

AP Photo XOH710 

By MARI YAMAGUCHI 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a
pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate
its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a
possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for
sanctions against the regime. The vote itself could be delayed
for several days, a news agency reported. 

China asked Japan to postpone the vote until later this week and
Japan is prepared to accept, Kyodo News agency said. 

Japanese officials had earlier vowed to push ahead with a
resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea for its
missile tests last week, but said Tokyo would not insist on a
Monday vote. 

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told reporters his
government wants a vote on the measure ``as soon as possible.'' 

``I think we must send a message that's as clear as possible''
to North Korea, he said. 

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week
and several government officials openly discussed whether the
country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including
setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a
pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites. 

``If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an
attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of
the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of
self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,'' Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe said. 

Japan's constitution bars the use of military force in settling
international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a
military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that to mean it can
have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the existence of
its 240,000-strong Self-Defense Forces. 

A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no
offensive weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach
North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and
ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity
because of official policy. 

Japanese fighter jets and pilots are not capable of carrying out
such an attack, a military analyst said. 

``Japan's air force is top class in defending the nation's
airspace, but attacking another country is almost impossible,''
said analyst Kazuhisa Ogawa. 

``Even if Japan's planes made it to North Korea, they wouldn't
make it back ... it would be an act of suicide,'' he said.
``Japan has no capacity to wage war.'' 

Despite resistance from China and Russia, Japan has pushed for
the U.N. Security Council resolution, which would bar nations
from buying or otherwise receiving missile-related items,
materials goods and technology from North Korea. 

``It's important for the international community to express a
strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches,''
Abe said. ``This resolution is an effective way of expressing
that.'' 

China and Russia, both nations with veto power on the council,
have voiced opposition to the measure. Kyodo reported Monday,
citing unidentified Chinese diplomatic sources, that China may
use its veto on the Security Council to block the resolution. 

The United States, Britain and France have expressed support for
the proposal, while Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso has said
there is a possibility that Russia will abstain. 

South Korea, not a council member, has not publicly taken a
position on the resolution, but on Sunday Seoul rebuked Japan
for its outspoken criticism of the tests. 

``There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn
like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite,'' a statement
from President Roh Moo-hyun's office said, suggesting that Tokyo
was contributing to tensions on the Korean Peninsula. 

Abe said Monday it was ``regrettable'' that South Korea had
accused Japan of overreacting. 

``There is no mistake that the missile launch ... is a threat to
Japan and the region. It is only natural for Japan to take
measures of risk management against such a threat,'' Abe said. 

Meanwhile, a Chinese delegation including the country's top
nuclear envoy - Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei - arrived Monday
in North Korea, officially to attend celebrations marking the
45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the North and
China. 

The U.S. is urging Beijing to push its communist ally back into
six-party nuclear disarmament talks, but the Chinese government
has not said whether Wu would bring up the negotiations. A
ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was ``making
assiduous efforts'' in pushing for the talks to resume. 

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott
by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the
regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes. 

Beijing has suggested an informal gathering of the six nations,
which could allow the North to technically stand by its boycott,
but at the same time meet with the other five parties - South
Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia. The U.S. has backed
the idea and said Washington could meet with the North on the
sidelines of such a meeting. 

Still, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
questioned just how influential Beijing was with the enigmatic
regime. 

``I must say the issue of China's influence on DPRK is one that
concerns us,'' Hill told reporters in Tokyo. ``China said to the
DPRK, 'Don't fire those missiles,' but the DPRK fired them. So I
think everybody, especially the Chinese, are a little bit
worried about it.'' 

The DPRK refers to the North's official name, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. 

Hill is touring the region to coordinate strategy on North
Korea. He has emphasized the need for countries involved to
present a united front. 

``We want to make it very clear that we all speak in one voice
on this provocative action by the North Koreans to launch
missiles in all shapes and sizes,'' Hill said. ``We want to make
it clear to North Korea that what it did was really
unacceptable.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writers Audra Ang in Beijing and Chisaki
Watanabe in Tokyo contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Vote on N. Korea Sanctions Delayed
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 9:16 PM

AP Photo XOH710 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Supporters of a resolution that would
impose limited sanctions on North Korea agreed to delay a vote
in the hope that China can pressure Pyongyang to return to
six-party talks on its nuclear program and halt missile tests,
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Monday. 

Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding nations on the Security
Council - who are divided over sanctions - met with Japan, which
sponsored the resolution, as a Chinese delegation arrived in
North Korea pledging friendship and deeper ties. 

Bolton told reporters after the meeting that the resolution's
supporters - including the U.S., Britain, France and other
European council members - decided not to press for a vote
Monday ``while the diplomacy in Pyongyang proceeds.'' 

``We think it's important to keep the focus on Pyongyang, which
after all is the source of this problem, and to provide maximum
support for, and leverage on the Chinese mission to Pyongyang,''
he said. 

On July 5, North Korea test-fired seven missiles, apparently
including a long-range one that potentially could reach the
United States. 

The United States wants North Korea to return to the moratorium
on ballistic missile launches from the Korean peninsula and to
not only return to the six-party talks but implement the joint
statement agreed to by the six parties in September, he said. 

In that statement, North Korea made a commitment to abandon
``all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and
returning at an early date'' to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. The six parties - the two Koreas, the United States,
China, Japan and Russia - also reaffirmed that the goal of the
talks ``is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula in a peaceful manner.'' 

According to a Japanese news report, Japan and the United States
suggested to China that a vote on the sanctions resolution could
be avoided if North Korea renewed the moratorium on missile
testing and returned to six-party talks. 

Asked about the Kyodo News agency report, which cited
unidentified Japanese officials, Bolton replied, ``Well I think
that's basically what I've stated somewhat differently. The
point is, we want to keep the spotlight on Chinese diplomacy in
Pyongyang, which is the source of this problem.'' 

But when pressed, he refused to say whether the United States
would agree to drop the sanctions resolution if North Korea
returned to talks, agreed to implement the September agreement,
and reimposed the moratorium. He said there were ``a lot of
ifs'' and Washington wants to wait to see what comes out of the
Chinese meetings in Pyongyang. 

That's why the sponsors of the resolution ``will reevaluate on a
daily basis whether to proceed'' with a vote on the Japanese
draft, Bolton said. 

The Chinese delegation, which is led by Vice Premier Hui Liangyu
and includes China's main nuclear negotiator, Vice Foreign
Minister Wu Dawei, arrived in Pyongyang on a six-day visit to
celebrate the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between
the neighbors. A North Korean delegation was also expected in
China on Tuesday to mark the treaty anniversary. 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters after Monday
morning's meeting with envoys from Russia, the United States,
Britain, France and Japan that ``the members have different
views so we agreed that we will continue consultations about
that.'' 

China and Russia oppose sanctions and have been pressing for a
weaker Security Council presidential statement, which is not
legally binding. But Wang indicated for the first time that
China might be prepared to consider a weaker resolution. 

``If they wish to have a resolution, they should have a modified
one, not this one,'' Wang said. 

Bolton said Washington would look at any Chinese suggestions for
changes in the Japanese draft. 

The Japanese draft, under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which
allows military enforcement, demands that North Korea
immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling
ballistic missiles. 

It would ban all U.N. member states from acquiring North Korean
missiles or weapons of mass destruction - or the parts or
technology to produce them - and order all countries to take
steps to prevent any material, technology or money for missile
or weapons programs from reaching the North. 

The draft resolution also urges North Korea to immediately
return to six-party talks, which have been stalled since
September. 

Japanese officials also said Monday that negotiations may not be
enough, using rhetoric unprecedented in the country that adopted
a pacifist constitution after its defeat in World War II. 

``If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an
attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of
the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of
self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,'' Japan's Chief
Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said. 

``It's irresponsible to do nothing when we know North Korea
could riddle us with missiles,'' echoed Tsutomu Takebe,
secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. ``We
should consider measures, including legal changes'' required for
such an attack, he said. 

Japan's constitution foreswears the use of war to settle
international disputes, but the government has interpreted that
to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a
pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense. 

Even if Japan resolves the constitutionality issue, its military
capability to launch such a strike is another issue. The Defense
Agency has said Japan does not own weapons such as ballistic
missiles that could reach North Korea, only defensive
ground-to-air and ground-to-vessel missiles. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 TomPaine.com: Grounding U.S. Intelligence
              
John Prados             
 												
July 10, 2006
 												 					
John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive
in Washington, DC. He is author of the forthcoming Safe for
Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA (Ivan Dee Publisher). 

In late June came a belated effort by Bush administration
defenders to prove that the Iraq war was justified, that
Baghdads alleged weapons of mass destruction had been found
after all. It swiftly emerged that the claim revolved around a
cache of 500 artillery shells found in an old munitions dump
that dated to the 1980s, during the Iraq-Iran war. Skeptics were
treated to the additional assertion that the entire matter had
already been vetted by the National Ground Intelligence Center
(NGIC), which supposedly ascertained the shells were loaded with
lethal chemicals (mustard and VX gas). 

The claim, advanced by House Intelligence Committee chairman
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was
culled from the unclassified summary of the NGIC report. It was
quickly laughed under the table. The administrations own
experts assured Americans the shells were old, the chemicals
degraded and the munitions not the vaunted weapons Bush sought
in invading Iraq. 

But aside from the amusement factor, this episode raises more
important questions for a nation that faces key intelligence
mysteries as it seeks to divine the capabilities, not to mention
the intentions, of places like Iran and North Korea. Is U.S.
intelligence up to the job? The whole purpose of the creation of
the post of director of national intelligence, and the
appointment of John Negroponte as the first of these czars, was
to ensure that the United States benefits from objective,
accurate, and unbiased intelligence dataand to execute in rapid
order all reforms necessary to bring that about. This has not
happened. 

The National Ground Intelligence Center is a case in point. This
organization is a product of the spooks 1990s fascination with
creating fusion centers that would use data of all types to
produce value-added intelligence, to use a couple of terms
from the vernacular. The U.S. Army sponsored the NGIC as its
contribution to the community-wide effort. The units own
website declares that it is to produce all-source integrated
intelligence on foreign ground forces and support combat
technologies to ensure that U.S. forces and other
decision-makers will always have a decisive edge on any
battlefield. 

To do this the Center has built of a staff of nearly 900
experts, three-quarters of them civilians, almost 10 percent
Ph.Ds. Its main facility near Charlottesville, Va., is the
largest current project the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has on
the eastern seaboard of the United States. Dedicated NGIC
detachments feed data to the main office from the National
Security Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and
the Armys proving grounds at Aberdeen, Maryland. 

Despite the high-tech inputs and its state-of-the-art building,
the NGIC seems to have problems fulfilling its mission. Though
much of the criticism of the phony Iraq intelligence estimates
has focused on the CIA and the Pentagons Office of Special
Plans, in fact NGIC played a central role in at least one key
shenanigan of that fiasco, the bogus argument that aluminum
tubes being imported by Iraq could only be for the purpose of
enriching uranium for bombs (dismissing the alternative view
that the tubes were to serve as casings for artillery rockets).
Not only did the Center insist on its alarming view of the
threat in September 2002, it issued a further report that
November insisting the other view represented falling for a
poorly disguised cover story concocted because the Iraqis
realized their nuclear enrichment efforts had been
compromised. 

Even worse, at the time of reporting the two primary NGIC rocket
analysts claim to have been unaware of the technical
specifications of the type of artillery rockets the Iraqis were
building with these tubesthis from an all-source intelligence
center. In fact, this data had appeared in reports from U.N.
weapons inspectors years earlier, and from the U.S. Department
of Energy the previous summer. That NGIC should be unaware of
the data is nothing short of scandalous, and the presidential
commission investigating intelligence issues related to weapons
of mass destruction singled out the NGIC for criticism in this
regard. 

George Tenet actually referred to the NGIC reporting in
defending his Iraq estimates in the summer of 2003. After that
the claims became untenable. The Washington Post has reported
the Centers contention that its faults became apparent before
the presidential commission began inquiries, and that it had
already instituted reforms in training and procedures. Yet the
analysts who developed the improvements were the same people who
were responsible for the errors, and both received annual
performance awards. 

The National Ground Intelligence Center also would be implicated
in the scandal surrounding convicted congressman Randy Duke
Cunningham. In October 2002, the NGIC hired the MZM Corporation
to collect certain basic intelligence data. This became the
first of a number of such contracts. The Centers deputy
director at the time, William S. Rich, Jr., retired in the fall
of 2003 to become a top executive at MZM. Another of its vice
presidents formerly served as the senior noncommissioned officer
at the NGIC. The president of MZM Corporation, Mitchell J. Wade,
is the corporate executive who bought Duke Cunninghams
California house at a tremendously inflated price (Wade took a
$700,000 loss on the deal), triggering some of the initial
inquiries into the congressmans business deals. 

Now comes news of the chemical munitions claims. There are
documents in the public domaindeclassified intelligence reports
from the period up to and after the first Gulf warthat already
questioned the chemical stability and longevity of the agents
used in Iraqi artillery munitions. As a matter of basic
chemistry, it is also true that the precursors mixed to create
these agents have a certain shelf-life and lose effectiveness
after that time. To claim, 15 years after the Gulf war, that
Iraqi chemical shells left over from the 1980s constituted a
significant military threateither in 2002 or 2006can only call
into question the basic objectivity of NGIC analysis. 

It appears that real reform has yet to arrive at the National
Ground Intelligence Center. And NGIC is but one of the units
that contributed to the Iraq fiasco. John Negroponte clearly
still has a lot of work to do, and it is important to establish
with confidence which intelligence units are dependable and
which are not. With the difficulty in collecting intelligence
from places like Iransuspected of covert development of a
nuclear weapons program and North Koreawhich recently launched
missiles into the Pacificaccuracy and objectivity are more
vital than ever. This is no time for intelligence that only
reports what some people wish to be true, but not what is.

TomPaine.com.]                                                                                    [ /]                                                                                                                                                  
*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: US redefines 'preemption' strategy 

 Mon Jul 10, 2:48 PM ET                          

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States tried to redefine its 
controversial policy of preemption, saying that the strike-first 
strategy made famous by the Iraq" /> Iraqwar does not necessarily 
imply military action. 

"I think there's a misconception that preemption means war. It 
doesn't. Preemption means stopping somebody before they can do 
you harm. There are diplomatic ways to do that," said White House 
spokesman Tony Snow. 

Snow had been asked about recent media reports suggesting that US 
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhad given up 
on "cowboy diplomacy" and unilateral action in favor of 
diplomatic outreach, especially in dealings with Iran" /> Iranand 
North Korea" /> North Korea. 

"Preemption also can be a diplomatic strategy. What you try to 
do, for instance, in the case of North Korea, is to preempt 
activity," said Snow. "Pre-emption is not merely a military 
doctrine." 

But while the US National Security Strategy, made public by the 
White House in March, puts a premium on diplomacy as a first 
remedy, it leaves little doubt that preemption refers to military 
means. 

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self 
defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks 
occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of 
the enemy's attack," the document says. 

"When the consequences of an attack with WMD (weapons of mass 
destruction) are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to 
stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle 
and logic of preemption," according to the strategy. 

"The place of preemption in our national security strategy 
remains the same," the document said. 

But Snow insisted that, in the case of North Korea, "we are
engaging in pre-emption at the diplomatic level by working as
aggressively and assertively as we can, with our allies, to get
the government in Pyongyang simply to abide by its past
promises" to curtail its weapons programs. 

Snow bristled at the description of "cowboy diplomacy," pointing
to Bush's support for six-country talks with Pyongyang and his
decision to back efforts by Britain, France and Germany to
challenge Iran over its nuclear programs. 

"Was the president a cowboy when he put together the six-party
talks? Was he a cowboy when he was supporting, quietly, the
efforts of the EU-3? Has he been a cowboy in trying to assemble
the largest international coalitions ever to go after
misbehavior on the part of individual actors?" said Snow. 

"The United States has been working a diplomatic track on Iran,
it's been working a diplomatic track on North Korea, and it
worked diplomatic tracks on Iraq and Afghanistan" />
Afghanistan," he said. "And so there is no change. 

"This is a president who has always seen diplomacy as the first
and most important step to take in trying to prevent people from
behaving badly," said the spokesman. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Bush administration leans on Congress to pass India nuclear deal
     
 Mon Jul 10, 6:08 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> 
Condoleezza Ricesaid the Bush administration was pressing 
Congress to pass a hotly debated civilian nuclear deal with India 
this month. 

Rice said her officials had been working hard to ensure that the
pact, which helps the New Delhi government develop nuclear
facilities, is endorsed before senators and representatives
leave town for their summer break. 

"In recent months, my team and I have worked tirelessly with the
Congress to fully implement our initiative with India," Rice
said in a speech to two Indian community and business groups. 

"We've spent countless hours meeting with senators and
congressmen of both parties -- hearing their concerns, making
our case and reaching agreement. 

"We are encouraging both the Senate and House to vote on the
civil nuclear initiative this month, before the summer recess,"
she said. 

The pact won quick approval from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee" /> Senate Foreign Relations Committeeand the House
International Relations Committee last month, boosting its
chances of garnering floor votes in the full chambers this
month. 

Officials have been tinkering with the final bill however, which
opponents argue does not include sufficient safeguards to
prevent India from applying the nuclear technology and material
to military use. 

Under the deal, the United States will aid the development of
civil nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing
some of its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyinspections. 

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 currently prevents the United
States from trading nuclear technology with nations that have
not signed up to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The law
has to be amended for the India deal to be effective. 

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and, as a result,
is currently banned by the United States and other major powers
from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related
equipment. 

But Rice said the US-India deal would enhance relations between
New Delhi and Washington, cut pollution and so benefit the
environment, create US jobs and help satisfy India's thirst for
energy. 

"We can define this new era not as 'the American century', not
as 'the Indian century' -- but as freedom's century," Rice said,
lauding a recent improvement in India-US relations. 

"This is the great calling of our new partnership," she said in
the speech to the American Association of Physicians of Indian
Origin and the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Discuss Kremlin Moves With Putin
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 10:46 PM

AP Photo MOSB115 

By TOM RAUM 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - While in Russia, President Bush will ``speak
frankly but privately'' with Russian President Vladimir Putin
about recent Kremlin moves to restrict political and economic
freedom, Bush's national security adviser said Monday. 

But Stephen Hadley stopped short of suggesting that Bush would
follow the course of Vice President Dick Cheney and confront
Putin openly about backsliding on democracy. 

``There are a lot of things we have to talk about, one of which
will be democracy, one of which will be energy security,''
Hadley told reporters in a briefing on the president's trip this
week to St. Petersburg for the annual Group of Eight economic
summit. 

Clearly, there are issues ``on which we don't see eye-to-eye,''
Hadley said. 

Cheney, in a strongly worded speech in Lithuania in May, accused
the Putin government of taking steps away from democracy and
bullying his neighbors on energy. 

But with the G-8 summit approaching, and the U.S. looking to
Russia for help on North Korea and Iran, the president's
criticism of Putin was expected to be far more muted. 

Richard McCormack, who was an undersecretary of state for
economic affairs in the administration of the first President
Bush, said the White House is honoring the two ``unwritten
traditions for economic summits.'' 

The first is that the host country sets the agenda. ``The second
... is that you don't embarrass the host,'' said McCormack, now
with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
Washington-based think tank. 

Bush will meet separately with civil society leaders in Russia
on a trip that also will take him earlier in the week to
Germany. 

Hadley also said Bush and Putin would discuss a U.S. decision to
open discussions with Moscow on an agreement that could let
Russia house spent nuclear fuel. However, Hadley said any
discussions this week in St. Petersburg would just represent the
beginning of talks. ``It will take months to do,'' he said. 

Putin has been seeking ways to expand Russia's role in the
multibillion nuclear power business by storing spent fuel,
including nuclear fuel provided by the U.S. to third countries. 

In the past, the U.S. has opposed such a role, insisting on
reclaiming the fuel itself. But it was seen as another issue on
which the U.S. is reaching out to Russia in exchange for help on
curbing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. 

``We're at the very early stages of this,'' Hadley said. He
called it ``an idea that's been around for over a decade.'' 

A top Putin aide, Igor Shuvalov, told U.S. reporters in a phone
briefing last week from Moscow that Russia hoped to win final
U.S. approval for Russia's bid to enter the World Trade
Organization as part of a Bush-Putin meeting in advance of the
G-8 summit. 

But Hadley told reporters Monday that it wasn't clear ``if we
can close the deal'' by then, adding, ``Several issues remain, a
couple that are pretty tough.'' 

Bush, meanwhile, welcomed news that Chechen warlord Shamil
Basayev had apparently been killed in a truck explosion in
southern Russia. 

``If he's in fact the person who ordered the killing of children
in Beslan, he deserved it,'' Bush said. 

He made the comments in a roundtable interview with reporters
from Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan. 

Basayev, 41, is believed responsible for modern Russia's worst
terrorist attacks. They include the seizure of a Moscow theater
in 2002 in which dozens of hostages and militants died, the 2004
school hostage taking in Beslan that killed 331, and the seizure
of about 1,000 hostages at a hospital in Budyonnovsk that killed
about 100. 

He was killed Monday when a dynamite-laden truck exploded in his
convoy, Russian officials said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 New York Times: India Reports a Long-Range Missile Test - 

 Gurinder Osan/Associated Press 

An Agni 2 missile on display at the 2004 Army Day parade in New
Delhi. Its successor, the nuclear-capable Agni 3, which is
reported to have a range exceeding 1,800 miles, was tested
Sunday, Indian officials said. 

By HARI KUMAR and DAVID E. SANGERPublished: July 10, 2006 			 

NEW DELHI, July 9 — Indiatest-fired its longest-range
nuclear-capable missile on Sunday for the first time, government
officials said. But although the missile was launched, it was
unclear whether the entire test was successful, with at least
one report saying that the missile had failed at some point in
its flight. 

The launching has occurred at a time of rising international
tension over North Korea'srecent missile tests, and as the
United States Congressis considering a civilian nuclear pact
that the Bush administration negotiated with India.

 While the pact does not concern missile tests or other military
activity, its critics say the Bush administration failed to
obtain any commitment from India to stop producing new nuclear
weapons fuel, or to restrict its production of new weapons. The
test of the Agni 3 missile (agni means fire in Hindi) appeared
intended to show that India's strategic arsenal could reach far
beyond Pakistanand cover territory including China.

The missile is reported to have a range of more than 1,800
miles. The Defense Ministry said it had been launched from
Wheeler Island, off the coast of Orissa State in the Bay of
Bengal, and had taken off successfully. 

But later, the Press Trust of India news agency quoted an
unidentified military official as saying that the missile had
developed troubles, perhaps in the firing of its second stage,
and had not completed the test successfully. 

A Defense Ministry spokesman, Sitanshu Kar, would not comment on
the report other than to say, "The missile took off
successfully, and the rest of the data need to be analyzed, in a
day or two, to come to a conclusion."

India and neighboring Pakistan have often traded rounds of
missile and nuclear tests in times of tension between them. But
relations between the nations have improved lately, and the
governments have a standing agreement to inform each other
before such tests. On Sunday, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry
confirmed that India had told it about the test in advance.

While short-range missiles are enough to keep India and Pakistan
in mutual range, analysts have seen India's development of
long-range ballistic missiles, and the continuing development of
its nuclear weapons program, as a strategic step to keep China
in check. The listed range of the Agni 3, hundreds of miles
longer than that of other missiles India has tested, would put
more of China's major cities within striking distance.

In the past two years, tensions between India and China have
lessened somewhat, and direct border trade between them reopened
last week along the storied Silk Road through the Himalayas for
the first time since they fought a war 44 years ago.

The BBC reported that before the launching on Sunday, India had
twice postponed tests on the Agni 3, once for technical reasons
and once because of concern about the international response
while it was trying to seal its civilian nuclear deal with the
Bush administration. In May, the Indian defense minister, Pranab
Mukherjee, was quoted as saying that the missile was ready but
that India was observing "self-imposed restraint" before testing.

The nuclear deal between India and the United Statesis under
review by Congress and would, in effect, remove all United
States restrictions on nuclear trade with India that are in
place because India has refused to sign the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. The only other countries to refuse are
Israel and Pakistan. North Korea withdrew from the treaty three
years ago.

 Under the deal, the United States would give vital help to the
Indian civilian nuclear program, including uranium for fuel for
civilian reactors. The United States would not provide any fuel
for Indian weapons, but critics have pointed out that it would
essentially free the limited Indian uranium supplies for weapons
production. The agreement contains no restriction on how much or
how fast India could increase the size of its nuclear arsenal.
Hari Kumar reported from New Delhi for this article, and David
E. Sanger from Washington. 

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 25 BBC: Bishops say Trident is 'anti-God'
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
 
[A trident missile]                             

The bishops say the end use of Trident is "evil"

A group of bishops have warned Prime Minister Tony Blair
that the possession of Trident nuclear weapons is "evil" and
"profoundly anti-God". 

In a letter published in The Independent, the 20 bishops said
Trident was "evil" and that "possession and use are profoundly
anti-God acts." 

The money would be better spent helping developing countries,
they say. 

Chancellor Gordon Brown has already supported the replacement of
the ageing Trident nuclear submarine deterrent. 

In the letter the bishops say: "Trident and other nuclear
arsenals threaten long-term and fatal damage to the global
environment and its people. 

"Nuclear weapons are a direct denial of the Christian concept of
peace and reconciliation, which are social and economic as well
as physical and spiritual. 

"The costs involved in the maintenance and replacement of
Trident could be used to address pressing environmental
concerns, the causes of terrorism, poverty and debt and enable
humanity and dignity to be the right of all, and would go a long
way towards helping Make Poverty History." 

The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which
carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be
taken in the next year. 

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on
what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen. 



White Paper 

The bishops' letter also says there are "practical, moral and
economic objections to the basic concept of having a deterrent". 

Downing Street has promised a White Paper on the Trident issue
but refused to commit to holding a Commons vote. 

Ministers have not ruled out replacing Trident with an air or
land-launched system, although most experts believe that they
will continue to opt for a submarine-based system. 

Signatories of the letter included the Rt Rev Peter Price,
Bishop of Bath and Wells; the Rt Rev Colin Bennetts, Bishop of
Coventry; the Rt Rev Michael Hill, Bishop of Bristol; the Rt Rev
John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln; the Rt Rev Timothy Stevens,
Bishop of Leicester; the Rt Rev Jack Nicholls, Bishop of
Sheffield, and the Rt Rev Dr David James, Bishop of Bradford. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 26 [NukeNet] Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club file injunction
 
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:04:35 -0700

X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
P.O. Box 164
Pismo Beach, CA 93448
805.489.8903
www.mothersforpeace.org

July 5, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jill ZamEk, 805-489-8903 or 805-710-1143
Diane Curran (attorney), 202-328-3500

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Santa Lucia
Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Peg Pinard filed
a motion today with NRC Commissioners requesting
that the Commission:

~prohibit PG&E from loading spent fuel into an
SFSI unless and until the NRC has completed an
environmental impact statement;

~issue a declaratory judgment notifying PG&E that
the Mothers for Peace decision has effectively
revoked PG&E's license for the ISFSI due to the
lack of adequate supporting NEPA review;

~put PG&E on notice that if the company proceeds
with construction of the ISFSI, it risks denial
of a new permit, and that at the very least it
may have to rip out and re-build the ISFSI of the
NRC's environmental analysis results in a
decision to impose new design features.

BACKGROUND

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (June
2, 2006) has ordered the NRC to conduct an
environmental review of the possible consequences
of a terrorist attack on the ISFSI at Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California. (San
Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, No
03-74628) As a result, PG&E's permit for the
ISFSI has effectively been revoked, and
construction should not continue until the
environmental review has been completed in
compliance with NEPA.

Despite the Court's ruling, PG&E has stated at
several press interviews that the decision would
not affect its construction schedule. PG&E has
stated that "absent an injunction," it does not
consider the Court's ruling to bar it from
loading fuel into the ISFSI once construction is
completed. The environmental review may cause the
NRC to impose some new design requirements,
however, so Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club, and
Peg Pinard want it communicated officially that
if PG&E proceeds with construction, it does so at
the risk of having to tear out and/or modify the
work at a later date. It may also risk having its
permit denied under NRC regulation 10 CFR 72.40.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - dry cask storage
facility

COMMENTS

Jill ZamEk, spokesperson for Mothers for Peace:
"PG&E's public statements that it plans to
continue on with its construction schedule
demonstrates blatant disregard for the ruling
from the second highest court in our nation and
for the safety of the citizens at risk."

Diane Curran, Attorney: "On no account can PG&E
be deemed to hold a valid license for the Diablo
Canyon ISFSI. It would be imprudent not to
immediately correct such a fundamental
misunderstanding as PG&E has about its authority
to load radioactive material into the ISFSI."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries 
ago": Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military
service": Albert Einstein

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have
acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence 
of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible 
for evil to triumph": Haile Selassie

Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA  93451

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: NRC Seeks Comment on Updated Environmental Review for North Anna Early Site Permit, Public
Meeting August 15
News Release - 2006-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-091     July 10, 2006   
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on
its revised evaluation of the environmental impacts of issuing
an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna site in Louisa
County, Va., about 40 miles northwest of Richmond. 

The preliminary evaluation is contained in the Supplement to
NUREG-1811, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an
Early Site Permit at the North Anna ESP Site (SDEIS). The
supplement focuses on the impact of increased power output for
the two nuclear power plants postulated in the application, as
well as a change in the cooling system for one of the postulated
plants. The NRC staff will accept public comment on the
supplement for 45 days following the publication of a notice in
the Federal Register, expected shortly. The staff will also
discuss the supplement in a public meeting Aug. 15 in Mineral,
Va. 

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 original North Anna application was filed Sep. 25, 2003, by
Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. If approved, the permit would
give Dominion up to 20 years to decide whether to build one or
more nuclear plants on the site and to file an application with
the NRC for approval to begin construction. 

The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that a permit
should be issued. The staffs conclusion is based on its
independent review of a report submitted by Dominion, taking
into account consultations with federal, state, tribal and local
agencies. The staffs preliminary conclusions include a finding
that no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites
have been identified, and that any adverse environmental impacts
from possible site preparation and preliminary construction
activities at North Anna could be redressed. 

On Tuesday, Aug. 15, the NRC staff will hold a meeting to obtain
comments on the SDEIS at the Louisa County Middle School, 1009
Davis Highway, Mineral, VA. The meeting, which will be
transcribed, begins at 7:00 p.m. and will conclude no later than
10:00 p.m. The meeting will focus on the supplement only;
comments on topics other than the postulated reactors increased
power level or the revised cooling system will be considered to
the extent the staff has the time to do so. 

In addition to the meeting, the NRC staff will host an informal
discussion at the school one hour prior to the meeting. NRC
staff members will answer questions and explain the ESP process
during this informal session, but no official comments on the
supplement will be accepted then. 

For planning purposes, anyone interested in attending or
presenting oral comments at the Aug. 15 meeting is encouraged to
pre-register no later than Aug. 10, by contacting Jack Cushing
of the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension 1424, or by
e-mail to North_Anna_comments@nrc.gov. Requests for special
equipment or accommodations at the meeting must be submitted by
Aug. 7, using either of the methods above. Interested persons
may also register to speak within 15 minutes of the start of the
meeting. Time for individual comments at the meetings may be
limited to accommodate all speakers. 

Written comments on the SDEIS will also be considered by NRC
staff. Comments should be submitted either by mail (postmarked
no later than 45 days after the date of the Federal Register
notice) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop
T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by e-mail (sent no later than 45 days after the
date of the Federal Register notice) to
North_Anna_comments@nrc.gov. 

The supplement and related documents are available
electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. They will also be
available on the NRCs Web site here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html.
In addition, the Louisa County Library, 881 Davis Highway in
Mineral, has agreed to make the supplemental EIS available for
public inspection. 

At the conclusion of the public comment period, the NRC staff
will consider and address the comments provided, then issue a
final EIS on the environmental acceptability of an ESP at North
Anna by the end of 2006.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, July 10, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 28 Herald Sun: Cheap coal the nuclear hurdle 

[11jul06]

10-07-2006-->                                                                                              
			
Cameron England

AUSTRALIA is unlikely to build a nuclear power plant in the near 
future thanks to cheap local coal, a uranium conference heard 
yesterday.

Uranium Information Centre general manager Ian Hore-Lacy told the 
Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy conference the 
cheap price of coal meant a nuclear plant in Australia would not 
be viable. 

"The main reason why nuclear power is not a pressing option in 
Australia will not surprise you. In comparison with using coal 
from our abundant and high quality reserves, at least on the east 
coast, nuclear power would not be competitive here, right now," 
he said. 

"Foreseeably that would change because of the prospect of costs 
being imposed on carbon emissions, well within the lifetimes of 
plants being constructed today or in the immediate future." 

Among delegates at the Adelaide conference was Dr Ziggy
Switkowski, the former Telstra executive heading up a taskforce
on the nuclear industry in Australia. 

Mr Hore-Lacy said public opinion on nuclear energy had changed,
with many prominent environmental groups now advocating its
greater use. 

"The question is not whether nuclear energy will grow, but
whether it will grow fast enough to make a real difference to
global warming," he said. 

Mr Hore-Lacy said work needed to be done to change the public
perception of the safety of nuclear waste storage. 

Uranium exploration stocks continued to climb yesterday in the
wake of two takeovers announced last week. Toro Energy added
13.7 per cent to 79 and Uranium Equities added 4 to 34. 
		 
© Herald and Weekly Times   
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: MPs warn Blair against hasty decision on energy strategy
 
Mark Milner and Terry Macalister

Monday July 10, 2006
 		 
MPs have warned the government not to rush into hasty decisions 
about Britain's energy policy without considering all the 
evidence, ahead of Tony Blair's energy review tomorrow, which 
will endorse a new generation of nuclear power plants.

But, according to Peter Luff, chairman of the Commons trade and 
industry select committee, it may come to be seen as little more 
than a rubber stamp for Mr Blair's own views. "It is vital that 
the government's energy policy is based on a full consideration 
of the evidence, and has broad political and public support - 
otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

"However, the review risks being seen as little more than a 
rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the prime minister took 
some time ago," Mr Luff said.

The review was launched this year amid anxiety about Britain's
growing dependence on imported gas as supplies from the North
Sea dwindle, and on concerns about the country's ability to
generate enough electricity as ageing nuclear power stations are
shut down and some coal-fired capacity is closed to meet EU
emission rules.

It will conclude that new nuclear generating capacity should
play an important part in meeting our future energy needs -
nuclear power currently supplies a fifth of the UK's electricity.

The review is also expected to back a variety of technologies,
envisaging up to 20% of Britain's power coming from wind, tidal,
solar and agricultural sources.

In today's report, New nuclear? Examining the issues, the
all-party select committee argues that "a full and proper
assessment of the projected future generating capacity should
have been conducted to inform debate before the government
undertook its review".

It claims that the review could be overstating the problem of an
imminent energy crisis, since some existing nuclear plants might
see their working lives extended.

The MPs also warn that building new nuclear plants on existing
sites, as the review is expected to suggest, could pose
problems, since these sites could be affected by rising sea
levels and coastal erosion. The report advocates more research
before new plants can be built. In addition, neither of the two
main reactor designs which are viable for the UK has been built.
Which means there are technical and cost uncertainties.

The report raises concerns that the review is being undertaken
with little consideration for the need for cross-party
involvement. "Whilst we do not deny that energy policy requires
political as well as economic judgments, the failure to include
the main political parties in the process militates against the
possibility that they will sign up to the final outcome," the
committee concludes.

It warns that the public will not give its backing to a new
generation of nuclear power stations, unless that new capacity
is seen as part of an overall energy strategy which includes
renewable energy and measures to promote energy efficiency.

In addition to the practical problems, the MPs are concerned by
what they see as ethical considerations which will ultimately
require political judgment.

"These include: whether it is right to create new radioactive
waste; whether the UK's nuclear policy poses security risks and
undermines efforts to prevent proliferation; and the extent to
which the UK needs to demonstrate leadership in reducing carbon
emissions."

Mr Luff said: "This unanimous report from MPs, with different
views on the merits of nuclear power, should provide parliament
and the public with a useful summary - a checklist - of the
major questions against which the government's policy on nuclear
power can be judged."
 
	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian Unlimited: No simple answers
 
Monday July 10, 2006

The Guardian             

"I'll be totally honest with you, I've changed my mind," Tony
Blair told a committee of MPs last week when pressed about his
past doubts over nuclear power. As prime ministerial tip-offs
go, this was about as blatant as they come. Mr Blair only just
stopped short of handing out photocopies of tomorrow's energy
review with his favourite pro-nuclear passages underlined in red
magic marker. His comments followed several ministerial
interviews sympathetic to nuclear and the prime minister's
speech to the CBI warning that nuclear power is "back on the
agenda with a vengeance" as a result of understandable fears
over climate change. The result is that the government's energy
review - effectively the second in three years - is being seen
in largely nuclear terms.

This is a pity and one test of tomorrow's report will be the 
extent to which it puts Britain's future energy needs into a 
wider context. The decision on nuclear matters. But so does the 
future of other forms of generation and energy efficiency. 
Today's report from the Commons trade and industry committee 
underlines concern about the government's enthusiasm for painting 
the question in stark colours, when a more subtle palette is 
appropriate. A lot remains to be settled, not least the extent to 
which developments in technology - such as clean coal, carbon 
capture, wave and tidal power - could avoid the need for new 
nuclear plants. The committee report does not oppose them, but 
stresses that the energy review must be "technology neutral" and 
not hide the cost, in terms of construction, waste and 
decomissioning, that nuclear carries with it.

In this, the report echoes last week's Conservative policy
announcement. Wrestling with both its environmental conscience
and its pro-nuclear heritage, the party stopped short of
opposing the construction of new nuclear stations but made it
clear that they are far from its first choice. In substance, the
policy may not differ much from the government's, but in tone
the opposition trade spokesman Alan Duncan's caution runs
counter to the prime minister's gung-ho enthusiasm for a new
atomic age. Meanwhile, the IPPR thinktank has joined the
pre-review chorus with a report stressing the need for energy
savings. That can only work up to a point: power still needs to
be generated. The question is how it should be done. Tomorrow's
review needs to take the debate away from one particular source,
balancing efficiency against generation, renewables against
nuclear and fossil fuels, and not shying from setting out the
costs on all sides. 

Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Warning over nuclear build plans
 
From Press Association   

[UP] 

Monday July 10, 2006 3:23 AM

The Government is in danger of rushing into the construction of
a new generation of nuclear power stations, MPs have warned. 

On the eve of the expected publication of the Government's
Energy Review, the Commons Trade and Industry Committee will
accuse ministers of failing to carry out a "full and proper
assessment" of future energy needs. 

The cross-party committee will urge the Government to ensure it
has "broad political and public support" for its policy before
going ahead with potentially far-reaching decisions. 

According to The Observer, the review will conclude that that
nuclear power is now viable and should play a role in meeting
Britain's future energy needs alongside a five-fold expansion in
"renewables" - such as solar and wind power. 

It will argue that without nuclear power, Britain will become
dependent on gas for 55% of its energy needs by 2020 - up from
38% currently - with up to 90% of that imported from potentially
unstable regions such as the Middle East, Central Asia and
Russia. 

With the impending closure of older nuclear and coal-fired power
stations, 25 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity
will have to be built by 2020 - the equivalent of 30% of current
capacity. 

The paper quoted sources as saying that the Department of Trade
and Industry envisages building six modern nuclear power
stations, each capable of generating 1.6 gigawatts of power. 

At the same time the review will set out proposals to raise the
proportion of electricity generated through renewables from 4%
to 20%, with support for technologies such as offshore wind
farms which are currently uneconomic. 

However it in its report, the Trade and Industry Committee will
argue that the impending "energy gap" may not be as great as the
Government assumes. 

It will say that "a full and proper assessment of the projected
future generating capacity should have been conducted to inform
debate before the Government undertook its review". 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 32 London Times: Nuclear, sun and wind power for Britain - 

July 11, 2006                        

By Philip Webster, Political Editor 
		   		 		
A NEW generation of nuclear power stations, designed to make 
Britain less dependent on imported gas, will move an important 
step forward today with the release of the Government’s 
long-awaited Energy Review. The review, to be presented by 
Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, will conclude 
that nuclear power will be part of the future British generating 
mix. 

But the report will not commit Britain to a precise number of
new stations, arguing that that will be determined by the energy
market, The Times has learnt. 

The Government will balance its U-turn in favour of nuclear
power with a promise of a big increase in energy generation from
renewables such as wind, solar and tidal sources. The report
will establish a target of trying to secure 20 per cent of
energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. 

The move is designed to give long-term incentives to industry to
invest in renewable energy sources, and the planning system will
be changed to make it easier for offshore wind farms to be
approved. 

The report is likely to be given a cautious response by the
Conservatives and will be opposed by several Labour MPs on the
Left. 

Yesterday another report warned the Government that it was in
danger of rushing into the construction of plants without
obtaining broad political and public support for the measure. 

The Commons Trade and Industry Committee said that nuclear
energy should not be given preferential treatment from
government subsidies. 

The Energy Review will mark a U-turn since the 2003 Energy White
Paper. But it concludes that the economics of nuclear power are
now more positive than at any time since then. It is thought
that up to six nuclear stations are likely to be built
eventually. 

The review is also expected to emphasise that nuclear plants
must be financed and operated by the private sector, without
subsidy. It will argue that without nuclear power, Britain will
become dependent on gas for 55 per cent of its energy needs by
2020 — up from 38 per cent at present — with up to 90 per cent
imported from potentially unstable regions such as the Middle
East, Central Asia and Russia. 

With the impending closure of older nuclear and coal-fired power
stations, 25 gigawatts of new electricity-generating capacity
will have to be built by 2020 — the equivalent of 30 per cent of
the present capacity. The gap cannot be met by renewables alone. 

The report suggested yesterday that a “stable long-term carbon
pricing” regime should be introduced to encourage investors to
put their money into low or zero-carbon technologies, which do
not add to the problem of climate change. It argued that the
impending “energy gap” may not be as great as the Government
assumes and said that “a full and proper assessment of the
projected future generating capacity should have been conducted
to inform debate before the Government undertook its review”. 

It also criticised the Government for failing to build a
crossparty consensus on future energy policy. 

Peter Luff, the committee’s Conservative chairman, said: “It is
vital that the Government’s energy policy is based on a full
consideration of the evidence and has broad political and public
support — otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. 

“However, the Government’s Energy Review risks being seen as
little more than a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the
Prime Minister took some time ago.”
   	 		

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 33 Guardian Unlimited: Go-ahead for £12bn atomic revival
 
Terry Macalister

Tuesday July 11, 2006 The Guardian             

The government will finally give its official endorsement to a 
new generation of nuclear power today, but will stress its 
commitment to obtaining 20% of electricity from wind and other 
renewables.

The long-awaited energy review will stress the twin demands of 
energy security and rising carbon emissions to justify an atomic 
programme that will cost more than £12bn if six plants are 
constructed.

The 120-page report from the department of trade and industry 
(DTI) will discuss nuclear, but put a lot of emphasis on policies 
designed to encourage renewables such as wind, wave and biomass.

It will also devote plenty of space to how it will promote local, 
small-scale power production and microgeneration and stress the 
importance of cutting demand through energy efficiency.

The document will insist the UK can increase electricity
production from wind and tidal from its current level of 4% to
20% by increasing the charges on power suppliers through the
renewables obligation.

The DTI will also stress that it will expect a shake-up of the
European Emissions Trading Scheme, which sets limits on how much
greenhouse gas each nation produces. This would set a stable
price for carbon and push users away from carbon-based fuels
such as coal, oil and gas.

Gas - a considerably cleaner fuel than oil - is powering many of
the UK's electricity-generating power stations as well as going
straight to homes and factories.

But prices have begun to rocket upwards and the run-down of the
domestic North Sea reserves leaves Britain increasingly
dependent on foreign imports from countries such as Norway and
Russia.

The shutting off of gas supplies from Russia to the Ukraine last
winter over a price row sent shockwaves through industry and the
political establishment throughout Europe.

It also played into the hands of Britain's nuclear industry,
which has managed to shake off some of the image problems of the
past and reposition itself as an answer to global warming.

Nuclear currently supplies about 19% of the country's power
generation compared with 33% for coal and 40% gas.

But energy demand is set to grow as coal stations are being
phased out, because of tougher pollution rules, and atomic
reactors are nearing the end of their lives. By the mid-2020s
Britain would have no nuclear plants if no action was taken, but
today the government will signal that it would envisage about
six new plants being built - at no extra cost to the public
purse.

Alistair Darling, the industry secretary, will insist that
nuclear is economically viable on its own and new plants can be
constructed by the private sector with political will and some
changes to the planning and carbon rules.

Many critics insist nuclear remains financially expensive and
ultimately highly damaging to the environment because it leaves
a legacy of highly toxic waste that will take thousands of years
to degrade. The amount of electricity generated by nuclear
varies hugely across Europe as across the globe.

Some countries such as Sweden are phasing out their nuclear
plants, but many countries such as China and America are rushing
ahead with a new generation of stations.
 
	
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales

Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 34 Guardian Unlimited: The powerful business of promoting a nuclear future
 
Chancellor's brother among successful lobbyists for new
generation of power plants 

Terry Macalister
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The Guardian 		 

Those involved in a huge lobbying campaign for a new generation 
of nuclear power stations will declare victory today when the 
government's energy review finally gives the plants the green 
light.

Among those celebrating will be industry leaders, including the 
chancellor of the exchequer's brother. Andrew Brown is head of 
media relations at EDF Energy, which operates 58 atomic reactors 
in France and has been pressing the British government to renew 
its fleet of power stations here.

An EDF submission to the review says the UK faces a "serious 
energy gap from 2016" and needs to fill it with a "diverse 
low-carbon mix which includes replacement nuclear and more 
renewables". There is no suggestion that Andrew has unfairly 
influenced his sibling - or even talked to him about it - but 
Gordon Brown has said he agrees with Tony Blair that Britain 
needs more nuclear for security and environmental reasons.

Andrew Brown, who declined to comment, moved to EDF when it
started to build up its presence in this country as an
electricity provider by buying LondonEnergy, Seeboard Energy and
SWEB Energy. The former broadcast journalist came to EDF from
the PR company Weber Shandwick, where he had been director of
media strategy. Weber Shandwick has a long history of
involvement with the atomic industry.

A former UK chief executive of Shandwick International, Philip
Dewhurst, has also been an important figure pushing the
pro-nuclear message as corporate affairs director for British
Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL). More recently, Mr Dewhurst has been
acting as chairman of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA),
which clearly states its main objectives as "to influence the
climate of public and political opinion in favour of nuclear
energy as part of a sustainable balanced energy policy".

Mr Dewhurst was with BNFL directors as they announced the
state-owned company's annual financial results. He has been
involved in organising trips for journalists - including those
at the Guardian - to a nuclear site under construction in
Finland. Also at the NIA is chief executive Keith Parker, who
has been there since 1995. He joined from the department of
trade and industry (DTI) , which has been overseeing the latest
energy review.

Weber Shandwick, whose senior vice chairman is former Sun editor
David Yelland, provides PR advice to BNFL, which controls
British Nuclear Group, manager of the key Sellafield site. Other
top lobbying and public relations firms involved in the nuclear
field include Bell Pottinger, which used to work for BNFL but
now advises the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
Consultant Financial Dynamics is working for generator British
Energy. Smaller firms are also at work. Martin Adeney
Associates, run by the former BBC industrial editor of the same
name, has been lobbying on behalf of the US engineering company
Washington Group, which wants decommissioning contracts and
could bid for British Nuclear Group when it is privatised next
year.

Former politicians are also active. Brian Wilson, a former
energy minister and unofficial pro-nuclear and renewables energy
adviser to the prime minister, left parliament in 2005 but soon
became a non-executive director of Amec Nuclear and a client of
BNFL and British Energy. Other former politicians involved in
the atomic industry include Alan Donnelly, a former Labour MEP
who runs a PR and lobbying firm called Sovereign Strategy. His
company represents the Fluor Corporation, a US construction and
engineering firm active in Iraq that wants to win nuclear
decommissioning work in Britain.

Mr Donnelly was also active in establishing the Transatlantic
Nuclear Energy Forum, based at the Sovereign offices, whose
legislative chair is former minister to the cabinet office - and
nuclear enthusiast - Lord Cunningham.

Parts of the trades union movement have also been pushing an
atomic industry that provides good jobs but which causes concern
in other parts of the labour movement. They have set up a
lobbying group, Nuklear21. The GMB has a separate Nuclear
Workers Campaign and parts of the TGWU have also been
supportive. Prospect has also been one of the most vocal trade
union supporters of nuclear.

The French nuclear company Areva has held face-to-face meetings
with DTI officials, at which it stressed its ability to build
reactors without subsidies. The move is believed to have given
crucial reassurance to industry secretary Alistair Darling in
his decision to press ahead with nuclear. Guillaume Dureau, a
senior vice president of Areva, told the Guardian the
discussions were designed to give extra weight and detail to
material submitted to the department as part of the government's
review. "We have explained our position to the DTI in several
meetings," said Mr Dureau, whose company has built more than 90
of the world's 440 atomic plants and which is being advised by
PR group Brunswick.

Interest in the nuclear lobbying business has spawned the
NuclearSpin website. Its editor, Andy Rowell, says that a huge
campaign has been running using targeted third parties to sell
nuclear to politicians andthe public.

Liberal Democrat shadow trade and industry secretary Edward
Davey said there used to be cross-party consensus on a
low-carbon non-nuclear future. "The government has now
surrendered to pressure from the pro-nuclear lobby. The country
now faces a costly, ineffective and unpredictable approach to
the future of our environment."
 
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 35 Guardian Unlimited: Safety comes first with nuclear power
 
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian 		 

Your reference to "hidden fears" over Hinkley Point B nuclear
power station (Report, July 5) is misleading. The cracking of
graphite bricks at the core of reactors is not a new issue - but
the HSE required increased graphite inspections by British
Energy to ensure close monitoring.

I must refute the accusation we are reluctant to take regulatory
action. Inspectors have the power to limit the operation of
reactors or shut them - and have no qualms about using these
powers. The shutdown of reactors at Heysham, Hartlepool and
Oldbury, and the Thorp facility at Sellafield show this. At
Hinkley Point, there is no evidence the reactor safety systems
are compromised. We would not allow the reactors to continue
operating if we were not confident in their safety.

 Mike Weightman
 Chief inspector of nuclear installations,
Health and Safety Executive

 			 		 			 			Article continues
It was disappointing to read your report (Profits slump halves 
British Nuclear Group's sale price hopes, July 4) which was 
highly speculative and, on one issue, incorrect: the Thorp fuel 
reprocessing plant was not closed "after a fire" but a fractured 
pipe. Material that escaped from the pipe was contained in the 
plant at all times and presented no hazard to employees or the 
public.

Our recent results reflected the first full year of commercial
operations. Previous profit figures were based on an internal
trading model introduced in readiness for full operations of the
NDA from April 1 2005, so it is unrealistic to claim a "profits
slump".

As for valuation of the business, the market will decide what
British Nuclear Group is worth.
 Lawrie Haynes
 Chief executive, 
British Nuclear Group
 
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 36 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear to power ahead of renewables
 
Experts fear that billions in government subsidies are set to go
to the nuclear sector at the expense of green energy, writes
Neasa MacErlean 

Monday July 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited 		 

[A wind farm on the Kintyre peninsula in Scotland] Renewable 
energy sources, such as this wind farm in Scotland, may lose out 
to nuclear power stations, experts fear. Photograph: Ben 
Curtis/PA
 
 Government announcements this week look set to overhaul our
energy supply and lay down a new infrastructure that could last
for the next half a century. A helping hand for the nuclear
industry will be the issue that grabs the headlines. More likely
to be missed in the tumult is the damage that could wreaked to
much of the renewables sector.

On the surface, the government will have many positive things to
say about renewables. Wind, solar and marine energy emit few
greenhouse gases. Since nuclear energy also emits little carbon
dioxide, the government can lump nuclear and renewables together
and claim that it will support them all in the cause of being
environmentally-friendly.

 			 		 			 			Article continues
This green message will undoubtedly resonate better with voters 
than a statement that nuclear is preferred for its own sake. What 
will not be spelt out, according to some experts, will be the way 
that the lion's share of government assistance to the energy 
sector will go towards building a new nuclear fleet of as many as 
10 reactors.

Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School said: "We will be
moving towards a very large scale, centralised electricity
generating system which could be set in stone for the next 50
years. There will be twiddly little bits of renewable
development - but it will never be a mainstream option. It could
be a pretty bleak day for renewables."

Even parts of government itself are worried about the possible
effects. The Environment Agencysaid: "We are concerned about the
displacement effect that a large programme of investment in one
capital-intensive technology like nuclear may have on energy
efficiency and renewable technologies."

The Sustainable Development Commission, the government's
independent watchdog, said: "A new nuclear power programme could
divert public funding away from more sustainable technologies
that will be needed regardless - hampering other long-term
efforts to move to a low carbon economy with diverse energy
sources."

Billions of taxpayers' money will go to the nuclear sector,
probably disguised as tax relief and government guarantees,
while there will be far less cash for renewables. The relative
sizes of the sums available will also shape the priorities of
government. "The Department of Trade and Industry will be much
more concerned about how its billions will be spent than its
millions," says Dr Woodman.

Just as supermarkets have driven out corner shops, and the big
banks have swallowed up their smaller competitors, so the
nuclear sector will - unless there is powerful government policy
to the contrary - cut off the lifeblood to the far smaller
organisations that would represent the renewables sector.

The renewables lobby appears even to have some problems in
maintaining a distance from the nuclear industry. A spokeswoman
for the British Wind Energy Associationexpressed optimism about
the future and no concerns about a loss of investment: "We have
confidence in the mechanism of the renewables obligation [a
government rule that requires electricity suppliers to buy
nearly 7% of their energy from the renewables sector]."

The association appears, in fact, to be financed by the
renewables arms of companies that dominate the worldwide nuclear
marketplace. RWE, Siemens and E.on, for instance, are
highlighted as "sponsoring members" on its website.

What could the government do if it is serious about encouraging
renewables? It could build upon existing mechanisms, such as the
renewables obligation that requires electricity suppliers to buy
6.7% of their energy from the renewables sector, rising to 10%
by 2010.

Even though this is expected to represent an annual income of
£1bn for renewables within four years, Dr Woodman thinks it is
not enough. She also fears it might simply encourage the
cheapest form of renewables - onshore wind - at the expense of
the others. She wants us to emulate the Danes and Spaniards, who
have set minimum prices that must be paid by electricity
suppliers for renewable energy.

Even homeowners thinking of putting a wind turbine on their
roofs could then calculate how much they would earn by selling
spare capacity to their energy supplier. "It would make
[renewables investment] much, much less risky," says Dr Woodman.

In Denmark - a world leader in renewables, along with the
Netherlands and Switzerland - 3% of electricity came from
renewables in 1991, but that figure had risen to 25% by 2004.
Although the UK's target is for 6.7% of electricity to come from
renewable sources, the actual figure may be only half that level.

The Carbon Trustestimates that Britain is falling well behind
its projected 2010 target - and that it may only reach 5% by
then. Alistair Darling, the trade secretary, has made friendly
noises about the renewables sector and it will soon be evident
how much he is prepared to back them up with money and
assistance.

Significant infrastructure changes would also be needed, not
least to make regional electricity distribution pipes work in
two directions to receive energy from local sources, as well as
supplying it. But if 117 years ago Bradford was able to finance
its own electricity project (the country's first publicly funded
scheme), and if London could spawn 70 electricity authorities in
1918, the potential clearly exists for far more local input than
we have today.
 
   Useful links  

Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
British Wind Energy Association

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 37 BBC: Labour and the nuclear lobby
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
 
Analysis By Brian Wheeler Political reporter, BBC News   

[Sellafield]                            

Nuclear power has battled to overcome an image problem

Anti-nuclear campaigners like to portray the government as being
in the pocket of the nuclear industry. 

How else, they argue, do you explain the return to favour -
expected to be confirmed this week by the government's energy
review - of an industry once written-off as dirty, dangerous and
cripplingly expensive? 

The picture put forward by some critics is certainly a powerful
one. It suggests the image of the hapless minister being
schmoozed into submission by smooth-talking former party
grandees now in the pay of nuclear multinationals. 

In the background there would be briefings with sympathetic
scientists, fact-finding missions to exotic locations, dubious
statistics advanced over the brandy and cigars. 

But how much truth is there in all of this? And how much
influence do lobbyists on both sides of the nuclear debate
actually have on government policy? 

Most industries and large organisations, including the BBC, use
lobbyists. They are often former ministers or senior
journalists, who have contacts in government and offer advice on
how to influence policy. 

I don't believe Tony Blair h been influenced by lobbying 
Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigner      

The lobbying industry has tried to clean up its act since 1998's
cash-for-access scandal, which saw Peter Mandelson's spin doctor
Derek Draper fired over his links with lobbyists, but it remains
controversial. 

The Hansard Society last week launched an investigation into the
role of lobbyists, under the title Friend or Foe?, questioning
their influence on British democracy and asking whether they can
be trusted. 

Lobbyists working for the nuclear industry, which employs 40,000
people in the UK, have always been well-funded, but since the
1986 Chernobyl disaster were widely assumed to be fighting a
losing battle. 

Sophisticated campaign 

But as the debate about Britain's future energy needs has
intensified, the industry's reputation has been rehabilitated,
with Labour politicians at least. 

[Alan Donnelly]                                 

Nuclear lobbyist Alan Donnelly is a former Labour MEP                                                          

"There has been a very sophisticated public relations campaign
by the nuclear industry, using climate change, using energy
security, saying that nuclear is now cheap and safe, and a few
years ago the technology was dead in the water," says Andy
Rowell of Greenpeace-funded Nuclear Spin website. 

There are certainly no shortage of links between the nuclear
industry and the New Labour establishment. 

Since 2004, BNFL, the government-owned nuclear reactor operator,
has used lobbyists Weber Shandwick to help it push the case for
new nuclear plants. 

Fast-track planning 

Weber Shandwick's UK arm is headed by Colin Byrne, the Labour
Party's former chief press officer and an ex-spin doctor for
Prince Charles. 

French energy giant EDF has also been at the forefront of the
campaign to change perceptions of nuclear power. 

[Lord Cunningham]

Lord Cunningham was Tony Blair's 'Cabinet enforcer'                                                              

The company, which operates 58 nuclear reactors in France and is
already a big player in the UK electricity market, has said it
is ready to invest in a new generation of plants in the UK,
provided it gets the go-ahead from government. 

It has successfully lobbied ministers to introduce a fast-track
planning process to make it easier to build new plants without
lengthy public enquiries. 

Chancellor Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, is EDF's head of
media relations in the UK. 

One of the most well-connected nuclear lobbyists is Alan
Donnelly, former leader of the Labour group in the European
Parliament. 

Mr Donnelly's company, Sovereign Strategy, represents US
engineering giant Fluor, one of the world's biggest nuclear
contractors, which is currently vying for a slice of the UK's
£70bn nuclear clean-up market - but like other US firms, such as
Bechtel, also has an eye on future nuclear build. 

Kitchen row 

On its website, Sovereign Strategy, offers among other services,
"pathways to the decision makers in national governments". 

Its board members include Tory peer Lady Maitland and
pro-nuclear Labour peer Lord Cunningham, Tony Blair's former
"cabinet enforcer" and the ex chairman of the Friends of
Sellafield campaign. 

Lord Cunningham is also "legislative chair" of the Transatlantic
Nuclear Energy Forum, an organisation founded and run by Mr
Donnelly, that aims to foster "strong relationships" between
nuclear power companies and governments. 

Tony Blair has spoken at events organised by Sovereign Strategy,
including last year's North East Economic Forum in his
Sedgefield constituency, where he was reportedly introduced by a
Fluor executive. 

It was nonsense, but that's t way it goes Alan Donnelly           

But it is Mr Donnelly's links with environment minister David
Miliband which created a stir earlier this year, when the Sunday
Times ran a story about the lobbyist paying £2,000 towards the
refurbishment of Mr Miliband's constituency office. 

Mr Donnelly insisted he was acting in his capacity as the
chairman of Mr Miliband's constituency Labour Party in South
Shields. Both men have firmly denied any impropriety. 

Writing in the July edition of Public Affairs News, Mr Donnelly
said the money had been declared - and he had given it because
he has been a Labour Party member for 32 years "and the party
workers needed the kitchen fixing". 

He wrote: "The crux of the story was this: That David Miliband
would be so ecstatic with the £2,000 spent on his constituency
kitchen that, were he fortunate enough to become environment
secretary one day, he'd pull out all the stops to award one of
our clients the contract to build a whole raft of nuclear power
stations. 

"It was nonsense, but that's the way it goes." 

Peers' payment 

Sovereign Strategy has also been criticised by the Association
of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) - of which it is
not a member - for having parliamentarians on its payroll,
something the trade body prohibits in its code of conduct. 

"We pay them for their work because they deserve to be paid for
their time," Mr Donnelly wrote of the two peers who sit on his
board. 

Labour has often castigated t old boy network, the public school 
tie and so on, but they have a similar network. It depends who 
you know in the unions or ex-Labour ministers Jean McSorely 
Greenpeace      

He insists Sovereign takes its ethical responsibilities "very
seriously", refusing to get involved in the running of
cross-party parliamentary groups - some of which have accepted
funds from lobbyists - as this "lacks transparency". 

He also defends his company's donations to the Labour Party
which, he says, are "not on a 'cash-for-coronets' scale" and
says that his company is not the only lobbyist to have funded
the party. 

Lobbyists such as Sovereign and Weber Shandwick rely on their
contacts in the corridors of power to impress potential clients
and bring in new business. 

Green lobby 

But how much influence do they actually wield over government
policy? 

And what about the role of the anti-nuclear lobby - groups such
as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth - less well-funded,
perhaps, but arguably no less well-connected, and with a canny
knack for grabbing headlines? 

There are many links between the government and the green lobby
- although several former advisers are now firmly opposed to its
policies. 

Greenpeace executive director Stephen Tindale, a former special
adviser to Labour ministers Chris Smith and Michael Meacher, has
been highly critical of the government's nuclear policy. 

Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance, who was a special
adviser to Margaret Beckett when she was environment secretary,
has also attacked what he called Tony Blair's "obsession" with
nuclear power. 

And the government's independent Sustainable Development
Commission, chaired by ex-Friends of the Earth chief Jonathan
Porritt, has also been sceptical about nuclear. 

'Old boy network' 

Because it is made up of voluntary organisations or charities,
the green lobby can claim to have a certain amount of public
support, which can help open doors in Whitehall. 

But it is not enough for green campaigners just to be seen as
"nice people", argues Greenpeace's Jean McSorely - they must
also have the stronger arguments. 

The pro-nuclear lobby has been clever in using environmental
arguments, on climate change, and the security of supply issue,
to push its case, she says. 

She believes Greenpeace has a stronger scientific case, but, she
argues, it does not always get a fair chance to make it. 

"The access industry gets is just phenomenal compared to green
groups," she tells the BBC News website. 

"Labour has often castigated the old boy network, the public
school tie and so on, but they have a similar network. It
depends who you know in the unions or ex-Labour ministers. 

"People may accept that as the way things are, but there needs
to be more transparency." 

Blair advisers 

Having said that, she does not believe Mr Blair has been made to
change his mind by the efforts of the pro-nuclear lobby - he was
already a convert. 

It was Mr Blair, she argues, who in 2003 insisted on the door
being left open for nuclear in the government's energy white
paper, which proposed a large increase in renewable energy. 

[Tony Blair at CBI dinner in May]                               

Tony Blair used a CBI dinner to say nuclear was back with a 
vengeance                      

"I don't believe Tony Blair has been influenced by lobbying.
Both he and the industry have just been waiting for the right
time to make their move", says Ms McSorely. 

Where the lobbyists come in, she argues, is in "shoring up"
support among other Cabinet ministers, MPs and the general
public, and smoothing away potential opposition. 

Industry voice 

Mr Blair is thought to have made the decision to hold an energy
review - potentially paving the way for the return of nuclear -
after a meeting last September at Chequers with his advisers and
representatives of the nuclear industry. 

Those close to the debate believe it is these advisers - such as
former BBC director general Lord Birt, industry adviser Geoffrey
Norris and the government's chief scientific adviser Sir David
King - who have most influenced the prime minister's thinking. 

Insiders argue that Mr Blair is more than capable of making his
own mind up based on the available evidence and the nuclear
industry also rejects the suggestion it is given special access
to ministers and other decision-makers. 

With the industry employing 40,000 people in the UK, nuclear has
a right to make its voice heard in government, argues John
McNamara, of the Nuclear Industry Association. 

He adds: "It should not come as a surprise that we do as much as
we can to represent the interests of our industry, like any
other large industrial sector." 
*****************************************************************
 38 BBC: Investors to calculate nuclear returns
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006

Analysis By Jorn Madslien Business reporter, BBC News   

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to make public 
Britain's intention to invite the private sector to build a 
series of new nuclear power plants. 

[Nuclear sign painted on barrel of waste] 
Investors are wary about taking on unquantifiable risk

He will most likely argue that such newbuilds would not only be
cleaner than fossil fuels, but also be a commercially attractive
alternative that could be achieved without subsidies. 

And he will no doubt be met with a host of naysayers who will
point out that that so far nuclear power plants have been hugely
expensive to build, their running costs have been large, the
bill for cleaning up after them is set to run into billions of
pounds, and across the board cost overruns are common. 

But while the antis feel empowered by their arsenal of economic
arguments, proponents insist costs have plummeted. 

And in truth, who is right depends largely on who does the
maths, and how. 

Risks and rewards 

It may be tempting to think that the private sector would be
perfectly capable of figuring out whether their involvement in
the construction of new nuclear power plants is a good idea or
not. 

But investors and companies, who carefully balance risks versus
potential rewards, will only get involved if the government
first creates a framework that dramatically reduces uncertainty. 

The suppliers claim that th new generation of plants will be 
cheaper and quicker to build (and) safer to operate... [but] 
there is no commercial operating data to support these claims at 
present Deloitte 
	 	 	 			 		 	 	   	
Therefore, given that the government will be eager to ensure
that the private sector carries the financial and reputation
risks of building and operating nuclear power plants, it will do
all it can to facilitate investment. 

"They've got to provide the framework," says energy expert Mark
Spelman of Accenture, a consultancy. 

Removing red tape by simplifying licensing and planning rules
with regards to newbuilds would go some way towards mollifying
concerned investors. 

Nuclear power production is nearly carbon free, unlike
alternatives like gas, oil and coal, so raising the cost of
rival energy generation from fossil fuel would also make nuclear
investment look more tempting. 

Measures such as carbon pricing, emissions trading and
polluter-pays style taxes would help "encourage investment in
low carbon technologies", according to the Royal Society. 

Again, points out Mr Spelman, investors want a clearly mapped
out framework. "People want to know where they stand," he says. 

Investors will also want to make sure that that the demand is
there for the power they will be producing. Unlike fossil fuel
plants, nuclear power plants cannot be mothballed during periods
of low demand. 

It is therefore likely that nuclear plants will be held as part
of diversified portfolios also containing oil, gas, coal, wind
and biofuel investment. 

Safe investment? 

If private investors can be convinced they will be permitted to
build the plants needed, it will then be time to consider the
price of bricks and mortar. 

[Nuclear waste reprocessing at Sellafield]                              

The government must still take responsibility for the waste                                                  

They will be looking at a catalogue of new generation nuclear
reactors, on offer from suppliers in France, Germany, the US and
Canada. 

"The suppliers claim that this new generation of plants will be
cheaper and quicker to build, safer to operate through more
passive safety systems, and enhance performance," observes
Deloitte, a consultancy, in a report. 

But not so fast. 

Deloitte also adds that "there is no commercial operating data
to support these claims at present". 

Major commitment 

New generation nuclear power plants might be cheaper to
construct then they used to be, but they would still require a
huge financial commitment. 

"Nuclear suppliers ha indicated that savings on subsequent plants 
can be between 10% and 40% of the cost of the first plant," 
observes Deloitte.      

Deloitte Mapping out a nuclear future

One likely way forward, therefore, would be for investors to
join together in a consortium that jointly decides on building a
fleet of identical power plants - rather than each investor
choosing different, competing reactor designs. 

Such a consortium, Mr Spelman predicts, is likely to be composed
of major power generators such as British Energy, as well as RWE
and E.ON of Germany and EDF of France. Investment banks would
also get involved to raise the finance, he adds. p> The
consortium model, then would take advantage of economies of
scale - and it might also operate something like a monopoly,
creating high barriers to entry into the market by rivals. 

The risk to reputations should the projects run into problems
would also be shared. 

And a consortium would also be able to negotiate hard with
reactor suppliers, who could find themselves in an
all-or-nothing situation: the chosen reactor supplier would rake
it in, while its rivals would be left out of the game. 

A fleet of identical power plants would also be an efficient way
of using scarce manpower in the UK. Building the first plant
would enable a single group of specialists to apply what they
have learnt to the entire fleet. Upfront licensing costs for one
design could be spread across each duplicate plant. 

"Nuclear suppliers have indicated that savings on subsequent
plants can be between 10%-40% of the cost of the first plant,"
observes Deloitte. 

But even more crucially: huge cost savings could be achieved
from dealing with just one type of nuclear waste. 

Politically, this would be crucial for the government, which
would probably have to take on the responsibility - if not all
the cost - of decommissioning and waste disposal. 		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 39 BBC: MPs warn of UK energy review rush
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 9 July 2006

[Nuclear sign painted on barrel of waste]                               

The energy review is set to be dominated by the nuclear question                    
			   		
The UK is in danger of rushing through key energy policy 
decisions, an influential group of MPs has warned. 

The Trade and Industry Committee said it was concerned that the 
outcome of the government's energy review had been decided in 
advance. 

The group urged further consultation and said that problems with 
an energy shortfall may have been overestimated. 

It added that the best way forward may be to extend the life of 
some nuclear plants rather than close them down. 

'Past mistakes' 

The government is expected to release its energy review on 
Tuesday, setting out its plans for the development of the UK's 
energy sector, and how to tackle controversial topics that 
include the future of nuclear and renewable power. 

The energy review stateme cannot be the government's final word 
Trade and Industry Select Committee Mapping out a nuclear future                            

Newspaper reports over the weekend suggested the government was 
preparing to announce that nuclear power was "economically 
viable". 

It is also said to want a large increase in power from sources 
such as wind and solar. 

"It is vital that energy policy is based on a full consideration 
of the evidence and has broad political and public support," said 
committee chairman Peter Luff. 

"Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past." 

According to Mr Luff, the government review "risks being seen as 
little more than a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the 
prime minister took some time ago". 

In May, Mr Blair said that the issue of nuclear power was "back 
on the agenda with a vengeance", a comment that many observers 
saw as a strong signal that his administration was throwing its 
weight behind nuclear power. 

[Drums of nuclear waste]

F new nuclear build to take place, the government would have to 
address some of the disadvantages that face both nuclear and 
other low-carbon technologies The Trade and Industry Select 
Committee 

According to the MPs, another reason for the scepticism was the 
fact that the government did not carry out a full assessment of 
the UK's projected future generating capacity before undertaking 
its review. 

The group also said that the lack of preparation would probably 
make it harder for the government to win the cross-party backing 
it needs for its review. 

"Whilst energy policy requires political as well as economic 
judgements, the failure to include the main political parties in 
the process militates against the possibility that they will sign 
up to the final outcome," the group said. 

The committee added that ministers should not favour one source 
of energy supply over another. The government, it said, should be 
"technology neutral" and let the market determine how best to 
supply the UK's energy needs. 

Energy generation and supply have climbed to the top of the 
agenda as the UK becomes more dependent on foreign suppliers, and 
has to decommission ageing nuclear and coal-fired power plants. 

The committee said that one way of ensuring a more stable and 
steady supply of power would be to extend the life of the UK's 
nuclear reactors. 

Should the nuclear plants get "life extensions" then the 
potential energy gap faced by the government will not be as 
severe as that which the current energy review assumes, the MPs 
said. 

However, if new nuclear plants are needed, then the government 
has to set out a workable and long-term framework for energy 
pricing that will allow private companies to secure the financing 
they need to pay for projects. 

"For new nuclear build to take place, the government would have 
to address some of the disadvantages that face both nuclear and 
other low-carbon technologies," the committee said in its report. 

A key factor will be winning over the public, especially in 
sensitive and ethical areas such as the disposal and creation of 
nuclear waste, and the MPs urged the government to continue its 
process of consultation. 

"The energy review statement cannot be the government's final 
word," the committee said.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 40 BBC: Review says 'no need for nuclear'
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
 
[Blacklaw wind farm]                            

There are concerns about the idea of an onshore wind farm cap                                                            

An energy review published by the SNP has found that Scotland 
produces six times more energy than it uses. 

It also highlighted research which found Scotland has one of the 
best climates in Europe for using solar heat in buildings. 

However, the review said there should be a cap on onshore wind 
farms, although added that there was a "big future" for offshore 
wind farms. 

The SNP said its report showed nuclear energy was no longer 
needed. 

The review found that Scotland exports more than 10 times the 
oil, about six times more gas, and produces almost twice as much 
coal as it uses. 

A nation that already produc six times the amount of energy it 
consumes has no need for nuclear Richard Lochhead SNP     

It also said the country exports almost 24% more electricity than 
is needed to meet demand in Scotland, meaning the country is 
therefore not in the same position as the rest of the UK. 

Those behind the review concluded that previous assessments of 
the energy potential of the Pentland Firth may have 
underestimated the generation capacity from tidal power. 

They said that using turbines designed for deployment at a depth 
of 70m could exceed present UK nuclear capacity. 

It also said that at least 20% of transport fuels could come from 
Scottish-grown bio-sources and farm wastes. 

Professor Stephen Salter, who chaired the review, said: "Scotland 
is blessed with a variety of useable renewable and clean carbon 
technologies. 

"The review makes clear the potential for a clean energy future, 
but it is now up to the people and politicians to make the right 
decisions for our nation." 

[Waves]
The report said tidal power was being underestimated                                                          

Mike Weir, the SNP's energy spokesperson in the House of Commons, 
said: "This report is a real eye opener for anyone who believes 
Scotland needs new nuclear power stations. 

"Scotland is in a very different position from the rest of the 
UK. We must stand firm and reject a step backward to the nuclear 
age." 

Maf Smith, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said: "We're 
glad to see that the SNP recognise the potential of offshore wind 
and marine energy, but concerned about sceptical comments on 
onshore wind, considering it is the stepping stone that will help 
Scotland make the transition to developing these emerging 
technologies." 

Dr Richard Dixon, director of environmental charity WWF Scotland, 
said: "This report presents an attractive and compelling vision 
of a prosperous, highly-efficient, renewable-powered and 
nuclear-free Scotland." 

However, Dr Dixon also raised concerns about the proposed cap on 
onshore wind farms which he said could hamper the fight against 
climate change.                                                          
*****************************************************************
 41 BBC: French nuclear reactor maker eyes UK
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
 
By Rory Cellan-Jones 

Business correspondent, BBC News, Chalon-sur-Saone, France   

In the French town of Chalon-sur-Saone, the world's busiest
nuclear factory is building the components for a new plant in
Finland. 

[Areva nuclear plant]                                                  

We not require government subsidy Robert Davies, marketing 
director, Areva 
	 	 	 			 		 	 	   	
If the UK Energy Review gives the green light to nuclear power,
the French company Areva will be very keen to build its new
design - the European Pressurised Water Reactor, or EPR - in
Britain. 

Areva's factory in Burgundy has built a quarter of all the
world's nuclear reactors, including the French generators that
provide 80% of the country's electricity. 

But it nearly closed five years ago as demand for nuclear power
dried up. 

Now it is expanding fast as many countries try to extend the
lives of their reactors - or start building new plants - and it
is handling orders from the United States and China as well as
Finland. 

No subsidies 

It may be a modern industry but the Areva factory gives the
impression of an old-fashioned metal-bashing business - cranes
lifting huge lumps of steel, sparks flying as workers weld
together giant sections of what will eventually be the steam
generating equipment for a nuclear plant. 

[Areva nuclear plant]                           

Renewed demand for nuclear has safeguarded French jobs                                                             

The sections leave the factory on barges and make their way by
river and sea to their final destinations. 

In another part of the plant a team is polishing the new reactor
head for Sizewell B, part of the work Areva is already doing for
the UK nuclear industry. 

The company - 97% owned by the French government - has appointed
a former Royal Navy captain as its UK marketing director. 

Robert Davies says that once the UK government gives the
go-ahead, Areva could move quickly to build a plant. 

"Given a fair wind it could be ready by 2017," he says. 

And Mr Davies dismisses the accusation that the EPR will be like
previous generations of nuclear power plants, over-budget and
behind schedule. 

"I put it as the difference between the Concorde and the Boeing
747," he says. 

"The 747 is an economic plane and we will build an economic
plant. We do not require government subsidy." 

Learning curve 

What anyone who decides to build a reactor in the UK will need
is clarity about the cost of dealing with waste. 

In Finland, the government has already decided to bury waste
deep underground near the new EPR, which Areva has started
building. 

But this project has already run into trouble. 

A year in, this £2bn plant is already nine months behind
schedule after construction difficulties dismissed as "teething
troubles" by Areva. 

The company says it will learn from its experience with this
first EPR and from the new plant it will then build in Normandy. 

Long-term certainty 

French anti-nuclear groups says Britain should beware of getting
into bed with Areva. 

[Areva nuclear plant]                           

Nuclear power is no longer a popular option in France                                                              

"The EPR is very expensive and all the problems with waste have
yet to be solved," says Philippe Brousse, who works for the "Get
out of nuclear" network. 

Mr Brousse says a majority of the French now rejects plans to
build new nuclear plants. 

Areva is convinced that nuclear power is enjoying a renaissance
as the price of oil and gas soars and countries seek to cut
their carbon emissions. 

But its potential customers in the UK will have to be confident
that the economic argument for re-starting the nuclear programme
will still look sound a decade from now. 
*****************************************************************
 42 Platts: NRC staff supports early site permit for North Anna
 
Washington (Platts)--7Jul2006
 
NRC should issue an early site permit for Dominion's North Anna, 
the staff concluded in a preliminary recommendation July 6. 

The staff's recommendation was detailed in a supplemental draft 
environmental impact statement (EIS) and was based on a revised 
environmental report from Dominion consultations with other 
federal, state, and local agencies, and the staff's review. 

The staff reached the same conclusion in its original draft EIS, 
but had to revise the document after Dominion changed its 
application to increase the power level for the possible future 
units 3 and 4 and made changes to the cooling system for the 
proposed unit 3. 

The staff review schedule targets finalizing the EIS in late 
December and issuing a final supplemental safety evaluation 
report in mid-November. A commission decision is targeted for 
December 2007.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 43 The Herald: MPs warn Blair on nuclear energy strategy   

Web Issue 2568     July 10 2006      

  Michael Settle, Political Correspondent     July 10 2006   
    
  Tony Blair may be convinced the future is nuclear but he has a
tough battle on his hands convincing even his own MPs.

 Today the Prime Minister is warned by an influential group
about the dangers of rushing into the construction of new
nuclear power stations.

 On the eve of the eagerly-awaited publication of the
government's energy review tomorrow, members of the House of
Commons Trade and Industry Committee accuse ministers of failing
to carry out a "full and proper assessment" of future energy
needs.

 The cross-party body urges the government to ensure it has
"broad political and public support" for its policy before
pressing ahead with potentially far-reaching decisions.

 Struggling to convince his own MPs, Mr Blair has an even bigger
battle to persuade the public. An ICM survey for GMTV published
yesterday showed that only 38% of people wanted nuclear power to
play a role in meeting Britain's future energy needs.

 The vast majority opted for renewables  some 79% wanted solar
to play a part, 76% backed wind while half said they would like
to see more efficient coal and gas-fired power stations having a
role.

 Almost three-quarters, some 72%, of respondents, said that they
would be concerned if a nuclear power station was built near
them. Asked how they rated the safety of nuclear power, 16%
described it as "very safe", 42% as "quite safe", 24% as "not
very safe" and 12% as "not safe at all". 

The government's review is expected to conclude that nuclear
power is now viable and should play a role in meeting Britain's
future energy needs alongside a five-fold expansion in
"renewables" such as solar and wind power.

 It will argue that without nuclear power, Britain will become
dependent on gas for 55% of its energy needs by 2020  up from
38% currently  with up to 90% of that imported from potentially
unstable regions such as the Middle East, Central Asia and
Russia.

 With the impending closure of older nuclear and coal-fired
power stations, 25 gigawatts of new electricity generating
capacity will have to be built by 2020. This is the equivalent
of 30% of current capacity. It is thought that the Department of
Trade and Industry envisages building six modern nuclear power
stations, each capable of generating 1.6 gigawatts of power.

 With Scottish opposition seemingly inevitable, these are likely
to be in England. 

But at the same time, the review will set out proposals to raise
the proportion of electricity generated through renewables from
4% to 20% with support for technologies such as offshore wind
farms which are currently deemed to be uneconomic. 

Officials drawing up the report are also said to have raised the
issue of a ban on standby buttons on electrical equipment after
they found that in five years one-third of household energy will
be down to gadgets for TVs and DVD players.

 Last week, in an interview with The Herald, Alistair Darling,
the Industry Secretary, raised the issue of energy companies
selling "energy-saving devices" in a move to compel householders
to cut down on their consumption. 

In its report, the Commons committee says: "A full and proper
assessment of the projected future generating capacity should
have been conducted to inform debate before the government
undertook its review."

 The option of extending the life of some existing nuclear
stations could mean "the potential energy gap faced by the
government will not be as severe as that which the current
energy review assumes".

 It stresses that if the government does opt for a new
generation of nuclear power stations, all the costs of building,
operating and decommissioning should fall to the private-sector
investors who build them and not to the taxpayer.

 In Scotland, where the energy issue is likely to play a major
role in party politics up to next year's Holyrood elections,
Jack McConnell has come under fire over nuclear new-build. The
First Minister's position is that there will be no new Scottish
nuclear power stations until the issue of waste management is
resolved. 

While last week David Cameron said that the Tories would develop
a new generation of nuclear power stations only as a "last
resort", yesterday Alan Duncan, the Shadow Trade Secretary, made
clear his party would not try to stop construction of any new
nuclear power stations if they won the next general election. 
Ahead of next weekend's G8 summit, leaked documents yesterday
suggested an action plan for "global energy security" is to be
agreed at St Petersburg, involving a mass expansion of nuclear
power.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 44 Platts: EU states should individually decide whether to use nuclear power
 
London (Platts)--10Jul2006
 
Whether to use nuclear power should continue to be up to 
individual European Union states, Finnish Prime Minister Matti 
Vanhanen said in a speech to the Business Leaders Convention in 
St. Petersburg July 7. 

He said that energy issues will be key both for the upcoming G8 
summit and during the Finnish presidency of the EU. Finland 
assumed the European Union presidency at the beginning of the 
month. 

The G8 summit is scheduled for July 15-17 in St. Petersburg. 
Vanhanen said that, while the choice of nuclear or other types of 
generation should not be a blanket EU decision, the EU still has 
"a crucial role to play in building a real internal market in 
energy."

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 45 Burlington Free Press: My Turn: Reliable power for Vermont

| Opinion 

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont 

Published: Monday, July 10, 2006

 By Robert Schulz
 
Based upon the Searsburg experience, over 200 wind generators
would be required to produce only 10 percent of Vermont’s
electricity needs. Wind farms are unsightly, they destroy
ridgelines, disrupt wildlife habitats, and require additional
power lines so as to connect to the grid.

 Their performance is subject to the vagaries of the weather;
when you need power, there may be no wind. Their main virtues
are that they do not produce green-house gas, and guarantee a
high return for their investors. There is another solution to
Vermont’s energy needs, and I suggest that a second nuclear
power plant be given serious consideration. 

        Nuclear power plants do not depend upon the vagaries of the
weather, and are operational 90 percent of the time. They do not
emit green house gases, may be situated on 100 acres or less of
flat land, and will not affect our ridgelines or wildlife
habitats. As for being targets for terrorists, their containment
vessels are invulnerable to aircraft used as missiles and may be
placed underground. But best of all, a single plant of modern
design producing 500 megawatts could satisfy close to 70 percent
of Vermont’s current electricity needs. 

        There are currently 103 nuclear power plants in the United
States that produce 20 percent of our electricity. By
comparison, nuclear plants in France produce 80 percent of that
country’s electricity. Worldwide, there are 440 nuclear power
plants, and many nations are building or planning to build more.
As to safety, there have been only two accidents at nuclear
plants over the past half-century. Damage to the Three Mile
Island boiling-water plant was confined to the containment
vessel, and was caused by operators who over-rode automatic
shutdown controls. As for Chernobyl, its graphite core was long
predicted to fail. There are no longer any graphite-core power
reactors in operation anywhere. Current designs for
boiling-water reactors are predictably even more foolproof and
efficient than those that have been providing us with
electricity for the past 20 years or more. 

Most opposition to nuclear power derives from the storage and
disposal of radioactive waste. Spent fuel cells are currently
stored on site but safe, long-term storage facilities are under
development. As spent fuel cells retain about 95 percent of
their original energy content in the form of uranium and
plutonium, it would make sense to reprocess these cells.
Reprocessing would retrieve fuel for future use while separating
out shorter-lived radioactive waste whose storage problems can
be more readily and safely dealt with. 

        Until the controlled fusion of hydrogen is achieved,
conventional nuclear power offers the only practical means for
Vermont to have reliable and sufficient electric power while not
contaminating the atmosphere with green-house gases or
devastating our ridge lines. 

Robert Schulz lives in Johnson. 


Copyright ©2006 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 Independent: MPs warn Blair over nuclear review sham 

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor 

Published: 10 July 2006 

A cross-party committee of MPs has warned the Prime Minister
against using the Government's energy review as a charade to
allow a new generation of nuclear power stations. 

Tomorrow's publication of the final report by Malcolm Wicks, the
Energy Minister conducting the review, will give the green light
to more nuclear power plants by concluding that nuclear power is
economically viable. The Wicks report will also propose a
five-fold increase in energy generation from wind, solar, tidal
and agricultural sources. The 120-page report says nuclear power
should have a role because it is economically viable, and does
not in itself create carbon emissions which contribute to
climate change. 

His review concludes that nuclear plants must be financed and
operated by the private sector and there will be no subsidy to
prop them up. His findings will be welcomed by the
Labour-dominated Commons Select Committee on trade and industry
which said there should be no attempt to rig the market with
billions of pounds in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. 

The MPs said it should be for the market to decide whether new
nuclear power stations would provide an adequate return for
investors. 

But the MPs are likely to view assurances by the Government with
scepticism. They underlined concerns that the outcome of the
Government's Energy Review has been determined before adequate
consideration of important evidence. The committee, chaired by
Tory MP Peter Luff, said "a full and proper assessment of the
projected future generating capacity should have been conducted
to inform debate before the Government undertook its review". 

Mr Luff said: "The Government's Energy Review risks being seen
as little more than a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision
the Prime Minister took some time ago." 

The MPs raise concerns that the review is being done with little
consideration of the need for cross-party involvement. "While we
do not deny energy policy requires political as well as economic
judgements, the failure to include the main political parties in
the process militates against the possibility that they will
sign up to the final outcome." 

Stephen Hale, a former special adviser to former environment
minister Margaret Beckett, said in The Observer: "The depressing
truth is that the review was done primarily as a springboard to
formally initiate the government's nuclear position." 

The committee also said the Government's argument that there was
a gap in the energy market which had to be filled by nuclear
power was "overstated". 

The MPs said if the life of existing nuclear plants could be
extended, "the potential energy gap faced by the Government will
not be as severe as that which the Energy Review assumes". 

The Government will emphasise that nuclear power will be given
the go-ahead only as part of a package of energy plans,
including greater use of renewable energy and more investment in
energy saving devices. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 47 ajc.com: Opportunity for overdue change | 

[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Published on: 07/10/06                                                                                                                                          
	 	 	 		 	 	
A lot of Georgians who usually ignore the machinations of the 
state Public Service Commission started paying attention last 
winter when their home energy bills soared out of control. For 
that and other reasons, the primary races for two seats on the 
PSC are too important for voters to dismiss. 

The five commissioners responsible for regulating investor-owned
utilities and other consumer industries are elected statewide
but represent geographic districts where they are required to
live. Commissioner Stan Wise of District 5, a Republican, and
Commissioner David Burgess of District 3, a Democrat, face
challenges from newcomers whose campaigns underscore discontent
with the incumbents' strong propensity to vote in favor of
utilities and against the best interests of the rate-paying
public who pays their salaries.

Although he's a long shot, Republican Newt Nickell is an
antidote to Wise, who doesn't deserve a third six-year term.
Nickell, a citizen-activist from Cobb County, co-founded a
grass-roots organization that fought against the installation of
overhead transmission lines and later helped draft reforms to
the state's eminent domain law. A retired IBM service manager,
Nickell may be overmatched in terms of experience, but his lack
of guile and his common sense are refreshing and much-needed. 

Nickell has vowed to reject gifts, dinners, and campaign
contributions from individuals who work for regulated utilities.
Wise cheerfully accepts such goodies with the air of entitlement
that often afflicts officials who have been around too long. 

Nickell also opposes private, off-the-record conversations with
parties that have an interest in the outcome of cases before the
commission, a practice that Wise blithely finds acceptable.
Georgia and Louisiana are the only two states that allow
regulators to engage in "ex parte" communications that threaten
open and honest government. The winner of this Republican
primary will face Democrat Dawn Randolph in November. 

No Democrat has filed to run against Burgess in the July 18
primary. Of the two Atlanta-based Republicans vying to unseat
Burgess in the general election, Chuck Eaton is the superior
candidate over Mark Parkman. A Realtor with an accounting
background and strong party ties, Eaton is intelligent and
well-versed in regulatory issues, for a novice. Like Nickell, he
could help restore balance to the industry-tilted commission. 

Eaton envisions a beefed-up Consumers Utility Counsel, the
toothless state agency often involved in utility rate cases. He
is also more thoughtful about nuclear energy and said he'd
pursue "performance-based rate-making" that creates incentives
for utilities to invest in efficiency improvements. 

Eaton says some examples of ex parte communications "make my
stomach turn" but stops short of opposing them outright.
Parkman, however, is untroubled by the practice altogether. It's
time that practice changed, and the only way that will happen is
by changing commissioners. 

 Lyle V. Harris, for the editorial board (lharris@ajc.com)

© 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | | | | |
*****************************************************************
 48 AFP: Energy top issue for Europe, main topic at G8 - Blair 

 Mon Jul 10, 8:48 AM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Energy is one of the most important issues facing 
European governments and will be the main topic at an upcoming 
Group of Eight (G8) summit in Russia, Prime Minister Tony Blair" 
/> Tony Blairhas said. 

Blair was speaking Monday on the eve of the publication of a 
major energy review by his own government, which is expected to 
endorse greater use of nuclear power. 

"I think the summit will focus particularly ... on the issue of
energy and energy security and supply," Blair told a joint news
conference in London with visiting Latvian President Vaira
Vike-Freiberga. 

He was referring to the meeting between the leaders of eight of
the world's most powerful countries, hosted by Russian President
Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putin, which is due to start in
Saint Petersburg on Saturday. 

"I think ... this issue to do with European policy towards
energy is one of the most important issues that confronts Europe
today," Blair said. 

"I think right round Europe and the rest of the world people
want diverse sources of energy to give us a balanced energy mix
and allow us to make sure that we have energy security in a
world of rising prices," he said. 

"I would have thought that probably would be the main topic in
the G8 summit." 

Newspaper reports over the weekend suggested that the British
government's energy review will conclude that nuclear power is
now viable and should play a role in meeting Britain's future
energy needs alongside a five-fold expansion in renewable
sources, such as solar and wind power. 

The G8 groups Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia and the United States. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 49 Telegraph: Don't rush into nuclear power, MPs warn Blair
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Graeme Wilson, Political Correspondent

(Filed: 10/07/2006)

Tony Blair must not give "preferential treatment" to nuclear
power when the Government unveils its long-awaited energy review
this week, a committee of MPs says today. 

In a hard-hitting report, the Labour-dominated committee warns
the Prime Minister not to rush into hasty decisions on nuclear
power which will end up shaping Britain's energy policies for
decades to come. 

It also voices concern that ministers may have overstated the
''energy gap'', which has raised fears that Britain will become
dangerously dependent on gas imported from countries such as
Russia. 

The intervention by the Commons trade and industry committee
comes as the Government prepares to publish its energy review
tomorrow. 

The document is expected to conclude that nuclear power should
play a core role in Britain's energy supplies in the future,
with as many as six new power stations being built. 

Ministers tried to defuse the controversy over the weekend by
briefing the "green" side of the review to Sunday newspapers,
including a pledge to deliver a five-fold increase in renewable
energy. The review is expected to outline plans to support wind,
solar, tidal and agricultural sources of energy and increase
their output from four per cent to 20 per cent. 

However, the whole exercise was branded a sham yesterday by
Stephen Hale, who was a special adviser to Margaret Beckett when
she was Labour's environment secretary. "The depressing truth is
that the review was undertaken primarily to act as a springboard
to formally initiate the Government's nuclear position," said Mr
Hale. He added that Mr Blair had "refused to consider the
alternatives" to nuclear. 

His concerns are mirrored in today's report by the select
committee, which voices unease at the haste with which Mr Blair
has decided that nuclear is the way forward. 

Peter Luff, the committee's Conservative chairman, said: "It is
vital that the Government's energy policy is based on a full
consideration of the evidence and has broad political and public
support - otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. 

"However, the Government's Energy Review risks being seen as
little more than a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the
Prime Minister took some time ago." 

Today's report from the committee makes clear that nuclear power
must not be given special favours in terms of funding or
planning regulations. 

It voices concern that the focus on nuclear could distract
support away from renewables and energy efficiency. 

The MPs also argue that state subsidies must not be provided to
bankroll the building of new nuclear power stations. 

"The Government should make it clear that all the costs of
building, operating and decommissioning new nuclear power
stations will fall to the private sector investors who build
those stations." 

There are also concerns that the risk of Britain facing energy
shortages in the future may have been exaggerated. The report
argues that if some of Britain's existing nuclear power stations
were given extensions to operate longer "then the potential
energy gap faced by the Government will not be as severe as the
current Energy Review assumes". 

The MPs say that ministers must also develop a clear strategy on
how to dispose of the stations' radioactive waste, arguing that
the policies of successive Governments on this issue have been
"woeful''.   

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 50 Scotsman.com: New nuclear power plants plan warning
 
Edinburgh Evening News" />Mon 10 Jul 2006        

A GROUP of MPs is to warn the Government against rushing into
building a new generation of nuclear power stations. 

The Commons Trade and Industry Committee was expected to accuse
ministers of failing to carry out a "full and proper assessment"
of future energy needs. 

The cross-party committee was to urge the Government to ensure
it has "broad political and public support" for its policy
before going ahead. The committee's Government Energy Review was
expected to conclude that nuclear power is now viable and should
play a role in meeting Britain's future energy needs, alongside
renewables like solar and wind power. 

But it also claimed the expected future "energy gap" may not be
as great as the Government predicts. 

According to advance released extracts from the report, it will
say that "a full and proper assessment of the projected future
generating capacity should have been conducted to inform
debate". 

It will say that the option of extending the life of some
existing nuclear stations could mean that "the potential energy
gap faced by the Government will not be as severe as that which
the current Energy Review assumes." 

It will say that if the Government does opt for a new generation
of nuclear power stations, all the costs of building, operating
and decommissioning should fall to the private sector investors
who build them and not the taxpayer. 

The committee will also criticise the Government for failing to
build a cross-party consensus on future energy policy. 

2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 51 Scotsman.com: Political lead will create nuclear jobs boom
 
10 Jul 2006        

JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR 

UNCERTAINTY about the Scottish Executive's policy on nuclear
power could deter international energy giants from investing in
new nuclear plants in Scotland, an industry leader has warned. 

Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry
Association, said that Scotland could lose out on millions of
pounds of investment creating thousands of well-paid jobs
because Scottish ministers have not matched moves by the UK
government. 

Tony Blair's energy review is expected to be published tomorrow
and confirm that the Prime Minister will streamline the planning
application process in England and Wales to usher in a new wave
of reactors with as many as six new plants envisaged initially. 

And while the Prime Minister has been clear about his support
for the nuclear industry, Jack McConnell, the First Minister has
publicly equivocated and let it be known that he hopes Scotland
can get by without new reactors. 

The lack of clear political support could cost Scotland dearly,
Mr Parker told The Scotsman. 

"All the companies that are considering investing in nuclear new
build talk about reducing political risk - if there is the
chance that there is more political risk in Scotland, it may
well affect decisions about where to invest," he said. 

Mr Parker said Scotland's apparent reluctance was "strange",
given the potential economic benefits of a nuclear new-build. 

According to the NIA, constructing each new nuclear plant would
create about 1,400 new jobs and inject millions into the local
economy. 

Mr Parker added that several Scottish-based companies, including
Weir, Halcrow and Mitsui Babcock, were keen to bid for
construction work. 

*****************************************************************
 52 Scotsman.com: Blair gives go-ahead for nuclear power stations

Last updated: 10-Jul-06 00:31 BST 
 
JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR 

TONY Blair will today give the go-ahead to a new generation of
nuclear power stations, but also promise a massive expansion of
"green" energy sources like wind and wave power. 

The government's energy review will confirm that at least half
of Britain's 12 working nuclear reactors will be replaced when
they come to the end of their working lives over the next
decade. 

In an attempt to assuage the environmental lobby, which mostly
opposes nuclear power, the review will also suggest that
"renewable" power sources like wind farms and solar cells could
be expanded to provide as much as 20 per cent of Britain's
electricity. Renewables currently generate only 4 per cent of UK
electricity. 

There will be no direct subsidy for new nuclear power stations
or renewables, but the government will propose a "carbon
pricing" market system that would give both sources of energy a
financial advantage over fossil fuels like coal and gas, which
emit carbon dioxide when burned. The new reactors will be built
on the sites of the old stations, two of which are in Scotland. 

To smooth the way for new nuclear power stations, English
planning regulations will be changed, with local authorities
possibly being stripped of the right to block new plants. But
the Scottish Executive will retain the legal power to block new
nuclear stations. 

Environmental groups last night accused Mr Blair of being
obsessed with nuclear power and ignoring the potential of
renewables to provide even more power. 

"The Energy Review is a golden opportunity to lead the world in
the development of a low-carbon economy," said Tony Juniper of
Friends of the Earth. 

"We can do this without wasting more money on dirty and
dangerous nuclear power." 

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat industry spokesman, said Mr Blair
has "surrendered" to pressure from the pro-nuclear lobby. 

"The country now faces a costly, ineffective and unpredictable
approach to the future of our environment," he added 


©2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 53 AU ABC: Bourke council considers housing nuclear power plant.
                   
11/07/2006. ABC News Online
 	
A New South Wales council has expressed interest in housing a
nuclear power plant because of the jobs and economic growth it
could bring to the drought-stricken area.

 The Bourke Shire Council in the far west of New South Wales is
to seek more information from the Federal Government about the
requirements for a nuclear site.

 Bourke Mayor Wayne O'Malley says any associated environmental
and health concerns are yet to be considered.

 "That is yet to be evaluated by [the] council and that is why
we're seeking information rather than making a decision without
all the facts at hand," he said. 

"We believe it's better to get all the information first,
analyse it and make a decision after that."

 He says the council will investigate what requirements there
are related to population density, climate and water usage.

 Cr O'Malley believes the council cannot ignore the jobs and
economic opportunities that a nuclear reactor could bring to the
community.

 "The council is looking at anything that might encourage
industry to come to our local area to produce some employment
and with the drought the employment has been reduced
dramatically," he said. 

"Of course the irrigation industry and the town's businesses
have suffered greatly because of that and consequently
employment has fallen sharply." 

*****************************************************************
 54 Scotsman.com: Green revolution is heralded for Scotland
 
[Scotsman.com News]

Last updated: 10-Jul-06 00:31 BST 

HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR      

Key quote "The cost of renewables is going down and the price of
fossil fuel-based electricity is going up. In the long-term,
these will be seen as an asset for a property in the same way as
insulation is seen as an asset." - A spokesman for the Executive 

Story in full
ALL new property developments in Scotland will need to produce
some of their own electricity through a micro-renewable
generating plant, under one of Britain's most radical energy
initiatives unveiled by Scottish ministers yesterday. 

The plan is aimed at big developments such as schools,
hospitals, council buildings and factories, but it will also
affect large housing developments, particularly council and
housing association projects. Malcolm Chisholm, the Communities
Minister, said small developments - those with just a few new
homes - would be exempt, but all others would have to conform to
the new rules. 

Ministers want to make sure that every new development produces
at least 10 per cent of its electricity but the exact level will
be decided at the end of a three-month consultation period. 

Whatever target is agreed, the Executive's plan represents a
step-change in the approach of government towards micro-
renewables and a major new requirement for the building
industry. 

Solar panels, wind turbines, biofuels, photovoltaic cells,
hydro-electricity or ground-source heat pumps can all be used to
generate electricity and any one, or a combination of them, will
have to be fitted to any new development. 

Ministers intend to make the system compulsory and it will
almost certainly mean that builders will not get planning
permission for new developments unless they can show how
micro-renewables fit into their plans. 

The single biggest uncertainty for developers, however, is the
cost of introducing micro-renewables into every new project of
any size. 

Housing associations which have already installed wind turbines
have received government grants to offset some of the cost and
it is not yet clear what government funding will be available
and how much of the extra cost will be left to developers to
pick up. 

A spokeswoman for Homes for Scotland, which represents
developers, said the issue would be discussed before a formal
response was put to the Executive. However, she added that there
was a chance that at least some of the cost might be passed on
to buyers of new homes. 

She said: "The success of such a policy will depend on the
availability of the technology at costs that home-buyers are
willing to absorb, and this also points to the importance of
having a campaign to raise public awareness on renewable
resources to accompany any statutory measures." 

With wind turbines costing between Â£1,500 and Â£5,000 and some
government money likely to be available, the add-on cost to
home-buyers is likely to be slight - possibly as little as Â£100
or so on to the cost of a new flat. But the Executive may find
it has to win over worried developers before it can get business
endorsement for the scheme. 

The advantage for home-owners is that they will get an
energy-saving device on their homes, reducing their electricity
bills and making the house more attractive to buyers when they
come to sell. 

A spokesman for the Executive conceded there might be a small
cost passed on to new home-buyers, but stressed that ministers
would wait until the end of the consultation to decide on the
level of government grants and exactly how to implement the
policy. He argued that the addition of micro-renewables in a
housing development would actually make the homes more desirable
to potential buyers. 

The spokesman said: "The cost of renewables is going down and
the price of fossil fuel-based electricity is going up. In the
long-term, these will be seen as an asset for a property in the
same way as insulation is seen as an asset." 

Mr Chisholm launched the consultation paper at a sheltered
housing development in Edinburgh which has already installed a
silent rooftop wind turbine to power all the communal heating
and lighting in the building. 

Ewan Fraser, the chief executive of Dunedin Canmore Housing
Association, which owns the building, said the turbine saved
about Â£300 a year in electricity costs and with a lifetime of
about 50 or 60 years for the building, would prove to be an
extremely economical investment. 

Mr Fraser said it was particularly important for the elderly
residents because they were on fixed incomes and found rising
fuel bills hard to cope with. 

"These people live in affordable housing and anything we can do
to make it more affordable is a good thing," he said. Launching
the initiative, Mr Chisholm said: "For new developments, we
propose that a minimum of 10 per cent of their energy needs are
met by on-site renewables. 

"Scotland is the first country in the UK to propose such a
requirement so we are keen to hear everybody's views on how and
where it should apply." 

The Executive has set a target of generating 40 per cent of
Scotland's energy through renewables by 2020, but privately they
expect to hit that target a few years early. 
The options on offer for a micro-renewable future ...
 
Small-scale hydro
 

These turn the power of streams or other small water courses
into electricity with small-scale turbines. 

The source has to be close to the home, so it can only be used
in rural areas. 

The turbine can, though, be connected to the grid which means
that any energy not used can be sold to electricity companies. 

The costs are high, anything from Â£20-Â£25,000 up to Â£200,000
or even more for big schemes, but they could save more than
Â£1,000 by meeting all a household's energy needs. 

The scheme's actual output will depend on the flow rate of the
water and the height of the drop but they can be very efficient
and provide all a household's energy needs, saving the
householder Â£1,000 a year or more. 
Wind energy
 

WIND turbines use lift forces to turn aerodynamic blades that
turn a rotor, which creates electricity. 

Wind speed increases with height so it is best to have the
turbine high on a mast or tower. They can be attached to
buildings and are a convenient way of offsetting rising
electricity bills. 

Turbines cost from Â£3,000 to Â£18,000 depending on size and
whether they are connected to the grid or not, but some are
expected on the market soon for as little as Â£1,500. 

A medium-sized turbine can be expected to save about Â£300 a
year in electricity costs. One advantage of turbines is that
relatively minor increases in speed result in large changes in
potential output. 

Small-scale wind power is particularly suitable for remote,
off-grid locations where conventional methods are expensive or
impractical. 
Solar photovoltaic
 

These are cells which convert solar radiation into electricity.
They use energy from the sun to run appliances and lighting but
they require only daylight, not direct sunlight, to generate
electricity. 

The photovoltaic cell consists of one or two layers of a
semi-conducting material, usually silicon. When light shines on
the cell, it creates an electric field across the layers,
causing electricity to flow. The greater the intensity of the
light, the greater the flow of electricity. 

Householders have to have south-facing roofs and the average
system costs between Â£6,000 and Â£18,000 to install. Savings
could be a couple of hundred pounds a year as well as 325kg of
carbon a year. 
Ground-source heat


THESE pumps transfer heat from the ground into a building to
warm rooms and, in some cases, to heat water. 

The system is based on lengths of pipe buried in the ground,
filled with a mixture of water and anti-freeze, which is pumped
round the pipe, absorbing heat from the ground, to be
transferred to the home. 

A typical system costs Â£6,400-Â£9,600 to install, plus the
price of connection to the heat-distribution system. This can
vary with property and location. 

Generally, ground source heat pumps are cheaper to run than oil
systems, LPG or electricity storage heaters, and are 

a good option where gas is unavailable. For every unit of
electricity used to pump the heat, three to four units of heat
are produced. 
Biomass
 

Biomass is fuel, usually compressed into pellets or chips, which
is burned in domestic stoves. 

It is organic matter, and the carbon dioxide released when it is
burned is balanced by that absorbed during its production. 

The stoves cost between Â£1,500 and Â£5,000 to buy and install
but the fuel costs extra and depends on the proximity of a
biomass supplier. 

The amount of money saved depends on the type of fuel being
replaced, but is likely to save a household from Â£100 to
several hundred pounds a year. 

Biomass not only helps save money in fuel costs, but it also
helps the environment by using up material which would otherwise
go to landfill sites. 
Solar water heaters
 

These use heat from the sun alongside a conventional water
heater. Panels collect the heat then a cylinder stores the hot
water that is heated during the day. They can provide almost all
of a household's hot water during the summer months and about 50
per cent all year round. 

Homeowners need a south-facing roof and a compatible
water-heating system to make use of this technology. 

The standard system can be installed for Â£2,000 - Â£3,000 with
advanced models costing up to Â£4,500. Savings can amount to
anywhere between Â£300 and Â£1,000 depending on the size of the
house. The average domestic system reduces carbon dioxide
emissions by around 400kg per year. 
Coal would plug 20-year 'energy gap' under SNP
 

AN SNP administration would extend the life of Scotland's
existing coal-fired power station at Longannet and import both
coal and gas to see the country through the next 20 years until
renewable energy really took off, the party said yesterday. 

Publishing their own energy review, the nationalists insisted
that Scotland could thrive without any new nuclear power
stations, relying primarily on renewables for long-term energy
needs. 

But they conceded that there was a problem with the next 20
years, with Scotland's existing nuclear and conventional power
stations due to be decommissioned and before renewable energy is
big enough to tackle Scotland's energy needs. 

During this "energy gap", the SNP would extend the life of the
Longannet coal-fired station, but convert it to become a much
greener station, using Scottish open-cast coal and imported
coal. 

At the moment, Longannet produces carbon dioxide from the coal
it burns but the Nationalists believe this could be captured and
fed back into the coal seams under the Firth of Forth, reducing
emissions considerably. 

This approach, combined with importing gas and coal to feed
newer, cleaner gas and coal-fired stations, and driving hard on
renewables, could see Scotland through without any new nuclear
stations, the SNP claimed. 


2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 55 AP Wire: Startup of second nuclear facility begins at Savannah River Site

| 07/10/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

AIKEN, S.C. - Operations have begun at a second facility at the
Savannah River Site to immobilize nuclear waste in glass logs,
federal officials announced Monday. 

The first glass waste storage building used for the last decade
is nearing capacity. The new facility has the capacity to store
2,340 canisters and shouldn't fill until 2015, U.S. Department
of Energy officials said. 

The construction of the second facility was begun two years ago
by the Department of Energy. It was completed over two months
ahead of schedule and $8 million under the total project cost,
officials said. 

There are roughly 36 million gallons of radioactive waste at SRS
left over from Cold War-era bomb making. About 34 million
gallons of the waste stored in the tanks is made up of salt
waste, which the agency considers low-activity and can be left
behind at the site. The high-level radioactive waste is
converted into the glass logs. 

The Department of Energy has said a facility to separate the
high- and low-level radioactive nuclear waste stored in
underground tanks at the site will be delayed until 2011. In
March, the SRS Citizens Advisory Board's waste management
committee wrote a letter to the federal government saying that
construction delays for a nuclear waste processing facility at
the site could cost taxpayers $1 billion. 

*****************************************************************
 56 Seattle Times: Columbia River toxins moving up food chain
 
Monday, July 10, 2006 - Page updated at 07:41 AM 	
     	 	
By Seattle Times staff reporter                                                                                    

MIKE SIEGEL / THE SEATTLE TIMES 					 					

Visitors to Crown Point on the Oregon side of the Columbia River
look eastward up the Columbia Gorge. Despite the area's natural
beauty, evidence of serious toxic contamination in the river has
been quietly growing in recent years. 				 				 				 					

Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, a 
nonprofit citizens group concerned about the river, checks on 
water quality near Vancouver, Wash.                                                                                                                                     

MIKE SIEGEL / THE SEATTLE TIMES 					 					

A fisherman tries his luck off Kelly Point near Portland. Banned
chemicals such as PCBs and DDT have accumulated in Columbia
River fish at some of the highest levels in the Northwest. 				
				 				  
VANCOUVER, Wash.  First were the crayfish near Bonneville Dam,
so loaded with toxins that scientists wondered how they could
still be alive. 

Then researchers learned Columbia River fish were contaminated
enough that nearby tribes face dramatically higher risks of
disease. Scientists since have found deformed sturgeon, uranium
building up in clams near the Hanford nuclear reservation, and
water in parts of the last stretch of the river as contaminated
as Seattle's Duwamish River, a federal Superfund site. 

Over the past five years, virtually unnoticed amid other issues,
scientists have unearthed a wealth of new information detailing
the extent of toxic contamination in the Columbia River, enough
that the Environmental Protection Agency added the entire
1,200-mile river to a shortlist of major waterways demanding
national attention. 

"Salmon recovery and dams have been what people have been
focused on," said Mary Lou Soscia, who coordinates Columbia
River pollution issues for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). "But you can't talk about a healthy Columbia without
talking about toxics." 

Two centuries after Lewis and Clark followed the river on their
final push to the Pacific, the federal government, states and
tribes are embarking on an unusually systematic attempt to
assess how pollution in the Columbia is altering Northwest
ecology. 

So far the steps being taken are rudimentary, with modest goals:
identify the worst contaminants, figure out where they are
coming from, and reduce them by 10 percent in fish and water in
five years. But those next few years could lay the groundwork
for grander restoration efforts to come. 

"The Columbia is a huge, dynamic river system," said Michael
Gearheard, who oversees water issues for the EPA in the
Northwest. "Is it in crisis? No. But there are areas that merit
concern. We want to understand where contamination is coming
from, and make sure it is stopped." 

Unexpected findings 

It's hardly a secret that the Columbia River is polluted. It's
been known for years that heavy metals have washed into Lake
Roosevelt from a mine in British Columbia, and that Portland
Harbor was contaminated by decades of boat-building and
steel-milling. 

But some of the findings of the past several years have caught
officials off-guard: 

" Five years ago, a half-century-old pile of poisonous
mercury-vapor lamps was discovered in the river near Bonneville
Dam, 40 miles east of Portland. The river bottom there was so
high in cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that
crayfish, a favorite of local fishermen, had 15,000 times more
PCBs than is considered safe. The worst of the dump has now been
cleaned up, but researchers fear there may be other dumps like
it. 

" Last year, scientists at the Hanford nuclear reservation found
another vast plume of highly radioactive technetium-99 in
groundwater that is moving toward the river. It's the most
threatening of several plumes that contaminate 80 square miles
of groundwater. The Government Accountability Office recently
said efforts to keep Hanford contamination from the river are
often "not satisfactory." 

" Because the Columbia and its tributaries drain an area about
the size of France, "legacy pollutants"  chemicals banned in
the 1970s such as PCBs and DDT  still flush into the river from
farms, roads, construction sites and stormwater systems. They
accumulate in fish and other animals at some of the highest
levels in the Northwest. 

" Newer chemicals, such as pesticides, are entering the river.
The amount of PBDE flame retardants in fish near the headwaters
in Canada is doubling every few years. 

" For some Native Americans, who eat up to 11 times more fish
than other Americans, the risk of cancer from toxins in Columbia
River salmon may be as high as 1 in 500, the EPA suggested four
years ago, which is far higher than the agency's threshold for
concern. Risks are even greater for those who eat mostly
sturgeon, which have so many chemicals in their bodies scientist
believe it's causing the fish's population to decline. Even
juvenile salmon may collect enough contaminants to make them
more susceptible to disease. 

And pollution in the Columbia seems to "move up the food chain
faster than in other places in the Northwest," said Jeremy Buck,
a scientist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who has
studied ospreys along the river. 

Oversight scattered 

Few American rivers have been asked to do as much as the
Columbia and its tributaries. 

The river system provides recreation and drinking water and
helps irrigate a quarter-million square miles of sage desert.
It's a highway for farm goods. Thanks to 55 dams, it supplies
the cheapest power in the nation, and a lot of it. 

Yet unlike Puget Sound, which has been systematically monitored
for years, the Columbia system is so huge and regulated by so
many different entities that attempts to assess its health have
been piecemeal at best. 

"It's just unbelievable that all our information on the Columbia
is scattered in about 20 different places," said the EPA's
Soscia. 

For instance, in 2005 the state Department of Ecology found that
PCBs and DDT in the lower river regularly exceeded water-quality
standards. But the study didn't examine the water upstream of
Bonneville Dam, even though researchers believe most DDT is
coming from agricultural land above Bonneville. 

Meanwhile, large-scale cleanup projects on the Columbia proceed
slowly. 

The Army Corps of Engineers began investigating a landfill near
Bonneville Dam 10 years ago, but it still isn't clean. Seven
years ago, the Colville Confederated Tribes urged the EPA to
find out whether mining pollution in the Upper Columbia was
harming their health. The agency is still investigating. 

"It's been our sense that Puget Sound gets far more attention
with respect to water quality, restoration and basic
protection," said Charles Hudson, spokesman for the Columbia
River Intertribal Fish Commission. "We sometimes feel Western
Washington considers Eastern Washington a sacrifice zone." 

In fact, it's often difficult to measure how much has really
changed since a major study of the river concluded in the
mid-1990s that the Columbia contains "potentially harmful
levels" of toxics. 

"Based on what I'm familiar with, I think levels in the Columbia
are better than they were in the 1960s," said Lyndal Johnson, a
toxicologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 

"But I don't think they've improved much in the last 10 years." 

New look at pollution 

The EPA, the tribes and the states of Oregon and Washington are
hoping to change that. 

In the past few years, they have tried coordinating studies to
determine the extent of pollution in the river, from Canada to
the Pacific. 

Later this summer, the results of two detailed studies are
expected. One looked at contaminants in the Columbia estuary.
The other, by the federal Department of Energy, is a compilation
of all available information on the health of the entire river. 

And this year the Columbia was placed with Puget Sound, the
Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound
and the Gulf of Mexico on a list of the EPA's top water
priorities for the next five years. 

For now, that means the EPA expects to propose a series of small
projects to clean up river sediment. Soscia said it also would
work with Oregon to toughen water-quality standards to reduce
the amount of pollution industries are allowed to spill into the
river. 

Some of the work already has begun. 

A few years ago, Eugene Foster, an Oregon state toxicologist,
began working with some farmers to help them cut back on
agricultural runoff that was contaminating tributaries with
chemicals and insecticide. 

Now the orchardists are changing how and where they apply
pesticides. They have been better managing how water passes over
soil that still has DDT in it. And they are reducing pesticide
concentrations. 

Similar work has been done along the Yakima River, and both
Washington and Oregon are slowly expanding those programs to
other Columbia tributaries. 

"We've got a marathon ahead of us," Soscia said. 

But, "I've worked at EPA for 22 years," she added. 

"This is the most important thing I could do in my last years at
the agency." 

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or 	 		 		
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company 	 	 		 		

*****************************************************************
 57 SignOnSanDiego.com: Wildfires bracket Nevada town near Death Valley National Park
 
By Ken Ritter ASSOCIATED PRESS

 1:13 p.m. July 10, 2006

 LAS VEGAS  Wildfires bracketed the southern Nevada town of
Beatty on Monday, with about 400 firefighters digging in to stop
flames from getting closer than three miles, a fire incident
commander said. 

Our priority is to secure the flanks that would have potential
to burn toward Beatty, said Merrill Saleen, who put containment
of the so-called Beatty and Sawtooth fires at 10 percent. 

Saleen said he planned to meet Monday evening with some of
Beatty's 1,032 residents, whom he said might get six to eight
hours to clear out if ordered to evacuate. 

He said he had plenty of resources to fight the
lightning-ignited fires burning through dry desert grasses and
brush in rocky mountain terrain. He said crews hoped to have
containment before Wednesday, when forecasts called for hot, dry
winds that could hamper firefighting. 

Neither the 29-square-mile Beatty Fire, burning about five miles
east of Beatty, nor the five-square-mile Sawtooth Fire about
three miles west of town, threatened U.S. 95, the main road to
Las Vegas and Reno. 

No injuries were reported, Saleen said, and no structures were
immediately threatened. 

Both fires started Saturday, a day after Saleen and his Boise,
Idaho-based federal firefighting group finished containing a
series of wildfires in the vast Desert National Wildlife Refuge
north of Las Vegas. 

Those lightning-sparked blazes, including the Gass Complex and
the Vegas Fire, covered 62 square miles in a wildlife refuge
that is home to desert bighorn sheep and the endangered desert
tortoise. 

Saleen said firefighters have taken care not to injure tortoises
and desert toads that he said are attracted by the scent of
water and burrow into shady areas around and beneath
firefighting equipment. 

In Beatty, federal firefighters were bolstered by state, county
and local firefighters from Las Vegas, 115 miles away, plus six
helicopters and two bulldozers. 

Saleen said the 3,500-acre Sawtooth Fire burned within a few
hundred feet of the eastern edge of the huge Death Valley
National Park, which is mostly in California. 

The 18,600-acre Beatty Fire was less than three miles west of a
Nellis Air Force Base bombing range and Yucca Mountain, on the
western edge of government's secure Nevada Test Site. 

Firefighters contained the Mid-Valley Fire last week in the
Nevada Test Site after authorities said it covered 8,500 acres
about 10 miles east of Yucca Mountain. Authorities said that
fire was not in areas used for nuclear weapons testing from
1951-1992, and no structures were damaged. 

We're optimistic we'll keep it off the test site, Saleen said
Monday of the Beatty Fire, which he said might find little new
fuel in an area that burned last summer. 

 On the Net: 
National Interagency Fire Center Incident Management Report: 

2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site
   
*****************************************************************
 58 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                        FR Doc E6-10708 
[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 38906-38908] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10jy06-84]                         
 
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 
172nd meeting on July 17-20, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Monday, July 17, 
2006 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Statement (Open)--The ACNW 
Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the 
meeting.
 
8:35 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Briefing on 
Exploratory Drilling of Aeromagnetic Anomalies in the Yucca 
Mountain Region (Open)--A DOE representative will present an 
evaluation of the results of this drilling which has been done in 
support of the ongoing update of the 1996 expert elicitation on 
Probabilistic Volcanic Hazard Analysis.
 
9:45-11:45 a.m.: NRC Staff Review of Revised International 
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Recommendations 
(Open)--Briefing by and discussions with NRC staff 
representatives regarding their review of the June 5, 2006, ICRP 
report titled ``Draft Recommendations of the International 
Commission on Radiological Protection.'' 2 p.m.-3 p.m.: Exchange 
of Information between NMSS Management and ACNW Members 
(Open)--NMSS management will brief the Committee about the 
upcoming office reorganization. ACNW staff will brief NMSS 
management about the revised action plan and how it reflects 
recent Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs).
 
3 p.m.-5 p.m.: Discussion of Draft ACNW Letter Reports 
(Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW letters.
 
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 ACNW Working Group Meeting (WGM) on 
predicting the performance of Cementitious Barriers for Near 
Surface Disposal (Open).
 
8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Remarks and Introductions--The ACNW 
Chairman, Dr. Michael Ryan will make opening remarks regarding 
the conduct of today's sessions. ACNW Vice Chairman Allen Croff 
will provide an overview of the WGM, including the meeting 
purpose and scope, and introduce invited subject matter experts.
 
Session I: Where Are Cementitious Materials Used and How Are They 
Important to Performance Assessment? 8:45 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Use of 
Cementitious Materials to Dispose of Wastes Determined to be 
Non-HLW (Dr. Christine A. Langton Savannah River National Lab, 
SRNL)--Dr. Langton will discuss cementitious waste forms and 
cement types and environments.
 
9:15 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: What Functions do Cementitious Materials 
Perform that are Important to Assessing System Performance (i.e., 
What do we Want Grouts to do?) (Professor David Kosson, 
Vanderbilt University)-- Professor Kosson will discuss the 
functions of cementitious materials; e.g., control water 
infiltration, control Eh of infiltrating water, and prevent 
subsidence.
 
9:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Panel Discussion (All)--Vice Chairman Croff 
will moderate a panel discussion of Session I topics by the 
Committee members and invited subject matter experts.
 
Session II: How Can Grouts Fail and What Can Cause Grout Failure? 
10:30 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Failure Processes and Mechanisms (Dr. 
Rachel Detwiler, Braun Intertec Corporation)--Dr. Detwiler will 
discuss failure processes and mechanisms of cementitious 
materials.
 
11:15 a.m.-12 p.m.: Causes of Failure of Cementitious Materials 
(Professor Barry Sheetz, Pennsylvania State 
University)--Professor Sheetz will discuss specific causes that 
are important to failure of cementitious materials.
 
12 p.m.-12:30 p.m.: Panel Discussion--Vice Chairman Croff will 
moderate a panel discussion of Session II topics by the Committee 
members and invited subject matter experts.
 
Session III: State-of-the-Art in Long-Term Prediction of 
Cementitious Material Performance 1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Current 
Capability to Predict the Conditions and Processes Important to 
Cement Failure (Professor Fred Glasser, Aberdeen University, 
UK)--Professor Glasser will discuss current capability to predict 
the conditions and processes important to cement failure, and the 
affect of failures on cement performance, based on modern 
experience, experiment, and observation.
 
2:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Current Capability to Predict the Conditions 
and Processes Important to Cement
 
[[Page 38907]] Failure (Dr. Leslie Dole, Oak Ridge National Lab, 
ORNL)--Dr. Dole will discuss current capability to predict the 
conditions and processes important to cement failure, and the 
affect of failures on cement performance, based on archeological 
evidence obtained from ancient cementitious materials and natural 
analogues.
 
3 p.m.-4 p.m.: Current Capability to Predict the Conditions and 
Processes Important to Cement Failure (Dr. Ed Garboczi, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST)--Dr. Garboczi will 
discuss current capability to predict the conditions and 
processes important to cement failure, and the affect of failures 
on cement performance, based on computation.
 
4 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Panel Discussion--Vice Chairman Croff will 
moderate a panel discussion of Session III topics by the 
Committee members and invited subject matter experts.
 
Session IV: Wrap-Up 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Comprehensive Roundtable 
Discussion--Vice Chairman Croff will moderate a comprehensive 
roundtable discussion of the WGM topics by the Committee members 
and invited subject matter experts.
 
5 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Path Forward (Committee Members and ACNW 
Staff)--Vice Chairman Croff will moderate a discussion of the 
path forward on cementitious materials by the Committee members 
and ACNW staff.
 
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by 
the ACNW Chairman (Open)--The Chairman will make opening remarks 
regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: NRC Draft Rule/Guidance on Preventing Legacy 
Sites (Open)--NMSS staff will present preliminary plans for 
development of requirements and guidance for the scheduled 
rulemaking on prevention of legacy sites.
 
10:15 a.m.-12:15 a.m.: Expanded Potential NRC Use of the Center 
for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA) Expertise 
(Closed)--The Committee will meet with representatives of the 
Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Nuclear 
Regulatory Research (RES), and Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) 
and discuss these Offices' assessments of potential expanded use 
of the CNWRA expertise.
 
Note: This portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant 5 
U.S.C. 552b ( c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and 
personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules 
and practices of the Agency, and information the release of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.
 
1 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Discussion of Potential ACNW Letter Reports 
(Open)-- The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW letters.
 
Thursday, July 20, 2006 8 a.m.-8:05 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the 
ACNW Chairman (Open)--The Chairman will make opening remarks 
regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:05 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Briefing on 
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) (Open)--DOE representatives 
and supporting national laboratories will brief the Committee on 
AFCI processes and technologies. DOE's AFCI mission is to develop 
proliferation-resistant spent fuel treatment and transmutation 
technologies to enable transition from once-through fuel cycle to 
a closed fuel cycle.
 
10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Standard Review Plan for Activities 
Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste Determinations 
(Open)--NMSS staff will address specific topics, comments, and 
questions identified by the Committee in their review of the 
draft ``Standard Review Plan for Activities Related to U.S. 
Department of Energy Waste Determinations'' (NUREG-1854).
 
1:30 p.m.-3 p.m.: RES/NMSS Dry Cask Storage Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment (PRA) Study (Open)--RES and NMSS representatives will 
present their draft final report ``A Pilot Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment of a Dry Cask Storage System at a Nuclear Plant,'' as 
well as address its future applicability not only for other 
storage systems but as guidance for assessing risk to the public 
and identifying dominant contributors to risk.
 
3:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Dry 
Cask Storage Probabilistic Risk Assessment Study (Open)--An EPRI 
representative will address the Committee with the methodology, 
results, conclusions and proposed applicability of their study: 
EPRI Report 1009691, ``Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of 
Bolted Storage Casks.'' 4:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Discussion of 
Potential ACNW Letter Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue 
discussion of proposed ACNW reports.
 
5:30 p.m.-6 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and 
specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, 
as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may 
include future Committee Meetings.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 
59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written 
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 
301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance 
as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to 
schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such 
statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras 
during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the 
meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding 
the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by 
contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the 
possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted 
by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the 
meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Dias as to 
their particular needs. In accordance with subsection 10(d) 
Public Law 92-463, I have determined that it is necessary to 
close portions of this meeting noted above to discuss 
organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to 
internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information 
the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.
 
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling 
on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and 
the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. 
Dias. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter 
reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 
at , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the 
Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document 
system (ADAMS) which is
 
[[Page 38908]] accessible from the NRC Web site at  
reading-rm/adams.html or reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW 
Mtg schedules/agendas).
 
Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW 
Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 
p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The 
availability of video teleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
Dated: July 3, 2006.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10708 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 59 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning And 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10709 
[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 38908] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10jy06-85]                         
 
Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear 
Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on July 
17, 2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and 
practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Monday, 
July 17, 2006--1 p.m.-2 p.m. The Committee will discuss proposed 
ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting 
is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone: (301) 415-6805) between 8:15 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so 
that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that 
are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 
5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to 
contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: June 30, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10709 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 60 NEWS.com.au: Uranium miners clash over deposits 

(10-07-2006)
 
By Robin Bromby

A BATTLE is likely to erupt over two of Australia's more
promising undeveloped uranium deposits. Paladin Resources is
expected to announce today or tomorrow a takeover of Valhalla
Uranium, which holds a 50 per cent interest in the Valhalla and
Skal deposits near Mt Isa. 

Both companies went into a trading halt on Friday, but not
before Valhalla's share price had moved sharply upward in the
preceding few days, rising from $1.01 on Monday to $1.22 when
the shares were suspended. 

But Paladin's move is unlikely to have a smooth run: it will
almost certainly trigger a legal battle with the other partner
at Mt Isa, Summit Resources, which has a pre-emptive right to
buy out its partner's interests. 

It is understood that Paladin decided to buy the company --
Valhalla -- rather than the share in the deposits in order to
bypass the pre-emptive right. 

Summit is unlikely to take this lying down. 

Meanwhile, it has emerged that Canada's Mega Uranium is 
continuing to scout Australia for uranium projects to add to the 
ones it has already locked into its portfolio. 

The company, which bought Hindmarsh Resources earlier this year,
is now in the process of taking over Redport with the support of
that company's directors. 

Paladin is now clearly joining the race to acquire Australian
uranium assets, a signal that consolidation in the sector is
well and truly under way. 

It is also significant in that it shows Paladin is turning its
eyes back to Australia after making its name in Africa. 

Its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia is 70 per cent complete with
commissioning on target for September. 

And Paladin continues to explore its advanced Kayelekera project
in Malawi, with the most recent resource statement indicating it
is sitting on 15,670 tonnes of uranium. 

Paladin also has two substantial deposits within Western
Australia -- at Manyingee, with 12,000 tonnes, and Oobagooma
with 9950 tonnes of uranium. 

Owning half of Valhalla and Skal -- where high-grade uranium and
vanadium drilling has been reported -- would put Paladin in a
strong position if and when the West Australian and Queensland
Labor government bans on uranium mining are lifted. 

Valhalla has a resource of 16,560 tonnes of uranium with
drilling continuing, while Skal, 10km away, has similar
mineralisation. 

The Paladin move on Valhalla, which was a spin-off from Resolute
Mining, will now trigger speculation about Summit Resources
itself as a potential takeover target. 

"It's amazing it hasn't happened already," one industry insider
said yesterday. But he added that Summit, now capitalised at
$280 million, would be an expensive acquisition. 

*****************************************************************
 61 PRN: Fluor Ltd and British Nuclear Group Team to Win Key Foothold In
Russian Nuclear Clean-Up: Financial News - 

Source: Fluor Corporation  

Monday July 10, 1:04 am ET 

LONDON, July 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Fluor Limited, the 
United Kingdom operating arm of Fluor Corporation (NYSE: - ), and 
British Nuclear Group's specialist decommissioning business, 
Project Services, announced today that their partnership has 
successfully secured a contract with the Russian Foundation for 
Environmental Safety of Power Engineering.

Fluor Ltd and Project Services will assist with the 
decommissioning of the retired Russian nuclear-powered naval 
fleet and associated spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 
management near the Barents Sea ports of Murmansk and 
Archangelsk. This will provide Fluor and British Nuclear Group a 
crucial strategic foothold in the clean-up of Russia's nuclear 
legacy, an emerging market that is expected to be worth billions 
of pounds.

The contract involves Fluor and British Nuclear Group working
alongside Russian government organisation, Rosatom, as it
develops the Russian Federation's programme for cleaning up the
former Soviet navy's nuclear legacy. The combined capabilities
of Fluor's project management and decommissioning experience and
British Nuclear Group's technical clean-up expertise will assist
Rosatom in building its own framework for tackling the
significant and highly complex radiological challenges that
exist in the northwest region of Russia.

Paul Hamer, Managing Director of British Nuclear Group Project
Services, said: "Nuclear clean-up is a global challenge and is
of growing importance. We are delighted to have this key
partnership with Fluor that combines the best clean-up expertise
and talent to help put in place frameworks that enable such
challenges to be met as quickly and as safely as possible."

Patrick Flaherty, Managing Director of Fluor Ltd, said: "Fluor
welcomes the opportunity to leverage its nuclear waste clean-up
and project management expertise to help the Russian Government
dispose of these aging materials and reclaim the affected areas.
We feel very fortunate to be working so closely with a quality
partner like British Nuclear Group and we both understand how
important this project is to all of Europe."

Activities to establish this are funded by the Northern
Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP) Support Fund, managed
by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to
tackle the environmental hazards in Russia's north-west and with
contributions from Canada, Denmark, the European Commission,
Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia,
Sweden and the United Kingdom and a donation of Belgium.

Fabrizio Saccomanni, Vice-President of the EBRD, declared: "We
look forward to seeing that the cooperative effort between the
leading Russian experts and Fluor Ltd/British Nuclear Group Team
delivers a top class product on the shortest possible timeframe."

The initial scope of work will include: establishing a
computer-based program management tool to help guide the
implementation of a comprehensive strategic master plan and
providing project management and decommissioning technical
support to the Russian Federation's efforts to develop an
integrated work programme for the decommissioning of nuclear
submarines and service vessels, the management of spent nuclear
fuel and radioactive waste, and the environmental rehabilitation
of radioactively contaminated sites in northwest Russia.

Fluor Corporation (NYSE: - ) provides services on a global basis
in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction,
operations, maintenance and project management. Now
headquartered in Irving, Texas, Fluor is a FORTUNE 500 company
with revenues of $13.2 billion in 2005. For more information
visit .

    Contact: Keith Stephens Fluor Corporation Media Relations 
469.398.7624 tel /214.864.2105 mobile Janet Kearns Fluor Ltd 
Media Relations (44) 19 32246120/ (44) 78 02373466 Ken 
Lockwood/Jason Landkamer Fluor Investor Relations 469.398.7220 / 
469.398.7222 tel Ben Todd (44) 19 25834431/ (44) 77 38039640 Dan 
Gould (44) 19 25834853/ (44) 77 38039639 British Nuclear Group 
Press Office FLRG

Source: Fluor Corporation

Copyright © 2006 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Republication
*****************************************************************
 62 BBC: South East MEP in nuclear
 
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
 
An MEP has joined protesters in a blockade at a nuclear weapons 
factory. 

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP for South East England, took part 
in a protest organised by Block the Builders at the Aldermaston 
site in Berkshire. 

The aim of the protest was to disrupt work on the construction of 
new weapons-related facilities at the site. 

Thames Valley Police say about 50 protesters took part in the 
blockade and officers made ten arrests. 

The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites, at Aldermaston and 
Burghfield, are the headquarters of Britain's nuclear development 
programme. 

We will continue to peaceful disrupt work at Aldermaston until 
the government calls a halt to its plans Caroline Lucas, MEP for 
South East England      

Ms Lucas has previously called for a public inquiry into plans 
for the expansion of the Aldermaston factory. 

She said: "Documents obtained recently from the MoD under the 
Freedom of Information Act confirm that Aldermaston-based warhead 
convoys are vulnerable to accidental detonation and we will 
continue to peacefully disrupt work at Aldermaston until the 
government calls a halt to its plans." 

Campaigners gathered at the factory at about 0700 BST on Monday 
in an attempt to stop workers getting on site. 

Officers from Thames Valley Police put up a restriction zone to 
contain protesters outside the factory grounds. 

'Business as usual' 

Sian Jones from Block the Builders said they still managed to 
disrupt traffic in the area and she was happy with how the 
protest went. 

She told BBC News Interactive: "We've had good support from 
people in some position who care about this issue, so we've had 
some success. 

"Although the government says a decision hasn't been taken yet on 
a replacement for Trident, from where we are here in Aldermaston, 
it looks as though that decision has been taken." 

A spokeswoman from AWE said people had a right to protest but the 
demonstration was nothing out of the ordinary and it was business 
as usual at the facility.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 63 DOE: Office of Science; Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
 
                        FR Doc E6-10725 
[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 38868] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10jy06-37]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy 
Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice 
of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, August 3, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday, 
August 4, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 
5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Talamini; Office of Basic 
Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; Germantown Building, 
Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 
903-4563
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of 
this meeting is to provide advice and guidance with respect to 
the basic energy sciences research program.
 
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the 
following: News from the Office of Science.
 
News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
 
Report of COV of Materials Sciences and Engineering Division.
 
Report of BES Basic Research Needs Workshops.
 
Update of DOE Lab Working Group.
 
Planned BES ``Basic Research Needs'' Workshops and Grand 
Challenges Workshop.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you 
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like 
to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, 
you should contact Karen Talamini at 301-903-6594 (fax) or 
(e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at 
least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Reasonable provision 
will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the 
agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting 
to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment 
will follow the 10-minute rule.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room; 1E-190, Forrestal Building; 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20585; between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
 
Issued in Washington, DC on July 3, 2006.
 
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10725 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 64 lamonitor.com: LANL Foundation puts down roots 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS

roger@lamonitor.com 
Monitor Assistant Editor

ESPA„OLA - Sen. Pete Domenici head-lined a group of dignitaries
in celebrating a new phase in the 10-year ascent of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory Foundation. 

"The foundation builds its home," he said in his remarks Friday,
moments before he helped dig out a few ceremonial shovelfuls of
earth to mark the start of construction on a million dollar,
6,600-square-foot building.

"We really needed meeting space in Espanola," said LANL
Foundation Director Susan Herrera. "There is nothing to rent." 
She said the building, to be constructed by next spring, would
be "the new place for collaborative thinking for communities in
northern New Mexico."

Herrera recalled that the organization started with $2 million
in 1997. She said the endowment has grown to $56.3 million and
has become one of the largest foundations in the state. 
"The goal is $100 million in seven years," she said.

Over the last decade, Domenici has been instrumental in raising
a lot of the money, using his influence as chair of the Energy
and Water Appropriation Subcommittee to write a $25 million item
into the appropriation bill for the first seven years. Another
$10 million followed that.

The building will be located in the Industrial Park in the
northwestern part of the city, overlooking the foothills of the
Sangre de Cristo mountains and the lush valley where the Rio
Grande and the Chama River converge.

The facility will include a 100-seat auditorium and a 50-person
classroom equipped with wireless laptop computers.

The foundation has given 1,300 grants to educational and social
service entities in the region during the last nine years, now
averaging about $3 million a year. A third of that is spent in
Espanola, Herrera said, another reason to be there.

Foundation grants bolster educational enrichment and outreach.
They also underwrite community non-profits and a LANL employee
scholarship employment fund.

A new major gifts campaign, which has already raised $9 million,
is expected to provide future support for four specially
targeted foundation funds, the Fund for Early Childhood
Development, the Fund for Northern New Mexico Scholarships, the
Fund for Public Education and the Best Use Fund.

The Northern New Mexico Math and Science Academy, a national
model for providing tools, training and advanced degrees for
middle school math and science teachers, will use a part of the
building.

The state government now picks up part of the costs for the
academy and has added a million dollars to the budget of the
foundation's "First Born" initiative that works with parents to
develop healthy mental, social and emotional support for the
first three years of a child's development.

The laboratory matches employees' scholarship contributions and
has promised to step up its overall contributions. A laboratory
contractor, Los Alamos Technical Associates, led a team of
subcontractors that provided a $115,000 donation to the
foundation in May.

Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM, told a gathering of friends and supporters
of the foundation that the educational investments would
translate into economic returns over time. He and Domenici
joined LANL Director Michael Anastasio, Espanola Mayor, Joe
Maestas, Rep. Jeanette Wallace of Los Alamos, Rep. Nick Salazar
of Espanola, foundation board officers and members, patrons and
grant recipients to celebrate the day.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 65 Technology Review: DOE's Blurred Nuclear Vision

Emerging Technologies and their Impact
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 		
 		
A consistent strategy is the key to a successful nuclear future.
		
By Andrew C. Kadak 		 		 			

In the mid-1990s, many people were ready to write off the
nuclear industry. Nuclear power plants were being shut down as
troublesome and uneconomical. Four of the nine plants operating
in New England closed; as CEO of Yankee Atomic Electric Company,
I presided over the closure of the Yankee Rowe plant in western
Massachusetts. Neglect in Washington, across several
administrations, contributed to this state of affairs. Under
President Clinton, support for nuclear-engineering programs was
cut for several years.

But while the future of nuclear power was apparently dimming,
nuclear utilities improved operations and made money with
existing plants. And then the Clinton administration began to
quietly renew funding for nuclear research. This resurgence of
support was largely driven by global-warming concerns. Although
no one was seriously considering opening new nuclear plants in
the near term, the U.S. Department of Energy began examining
what technologies would be needed in the next 20 to 30 years.

The resulting Generation IV Nuclear Initiative was launched in
2000. An international team identified a need for near-term
solutions, so the DOE then established "Nuclear Power 2010" to
help make new plants operational by that year.

In 2003, the department announced the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative to find better ways of processing and utilizing
nuclear waste. But the department's new initiatives kept coming.
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project was supposed to
demonstrate not only electricity generation but also hydrogen
production, as part of President Bush's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative. This year, the DOE unveiled the latest in its series
of initiatives: the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (or GNEP;
see "The Best Nuclear Option"), a plan for reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel while preventing proliferation.

Each of these initiatives redirected DOE labs to new missions
they lacked the funding to fulfill. The national labs struggled
to keep up. Universities saw projects dropped. Programs that
were beginning to make progress were canceled or put on hold.

And one can only imagine the impact on established programs at
the national labs. Once a program is stopped, restarting it
becomes difficult; once money is diverted, it is hard to get
back. 

The DOE has changed direction so many times in such a short
period that it is in danger of going nowhere. What should it do?
Given finite resources, focus on the top priorities. Without a
nuclear renaissance -- which means real orders for new plants --
there will be less need for GNEP's novel solution to the waste
problem. The department should spend resources to ensure that a
renaissance actually occurs. In other words, help with
engineering, to lessen the high initial costs. Do not discourage
and confuse the utilities; instead, ensure that a repository
will be in place to handle nuclear waste, in whatever form it
takes. Establish a strategy for deploying the next generation of
nuclear plants.

Finally, conduct the necessary research before choosing
technologies for reducing the volume and radioactivity of spent
fuel, as MIT's 2003 study "The Future of Nuclear Power"
recommended. And above all, stay on one course long enough for
limited resources to be spent wisely -- and not wasted by more
changes in direction. 

Andrew C. Kadak is Professor of the Practice in the Department
of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT. 		 		  

 		 		
*****************************************************************
 66 KnoxNews: Cleaning up Melton Valley                                      

$360 million project intended to slow flow of radioactive 
migration

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

July 10, 2006                                                           

OAK RIDGE - Melton Valley bore the nastiness of the nuclear dawn. 

During the World War II Manhattan Project and many years that 
followed, the valley was a dumping ground for the Oak Ridge 
nuclear operations. 

Hazardous wastes were put into unlined pits and trenches, ponds 
and underground tanks. In some cases, radioactive liquids were 
poured directly into the ground. The native clay tied up much of 
the radioactivity, at least for the short term, but over time the 
pollutants bled into the groundwater and local creeks - with some 
of the stuff eventually reaching downstream reservoirs. 

Now, the good news: a six-year Superfund project, costing about
$360 million, is reshaping Melton Valley for the future. 

About 145 acres of old burial sites have been capped, contoured
and reseeded to prevent the influx of rainwater. More than 100
wells have been plugged to keep deep-lying contamination
associated with old waste injections from rising toward the
surface. Dozens of dirty facilities have been demolished.
Waste-holding ponds have been drained. Thousands of tons of
radioactive soil have been excavated throughout the valley.
Grout has been injected into underground waste zones with the
worst leakage. 

Preliminary sampling results suggest the radioactive migration
has slowed, perhaps a trend for years to come. 

"The early indications are promising," said Charlie Johnson,
manager of projects for Bechtel Jacobs Co., the U.S. Department
of Energy's environmental cleanup contractor. 

John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight chief in Oak
Ridge, said it's premature to make a statement on water quality,
even though there appears to be improvements. 

Owsley emphasized the six-year remediation in Melton Valley is
not a final action. The ultimate cleanup steps won't be decided
for another 10 years, after there's been time to evaluate the
results of work done under the "interim" agreement signed in
2000 by the state of Tennessee, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and DOE, he said. 

"We expect (the capping and other activities) to be effective,
but to what degree we don't know," Owsley said. "The final
remedy for the area will be based on how effective these are in
slowing down the flow of contamination." 

Bechtel Jacobs has drawn fire for safety issues in recent years
and has fallen behind on the cleanup and closure of the former
K-25 uranium-enrichment plant. 

But the Melton Valley project, which includes dozens of major
actions, is reportedly ahead of schedule and should be completed
sometime this fall. It is a key milestone in Bechtel Jacobs'
incentive-laden contract with DOE. 

"Almost everything is finished, and the hard stuff is behind us
now," Vince Adams, a manager in DOE's Oak Ridge field office,
said during a tour of Melton Valley. 

Workers are finishing up the last of the landfill caps and
cleaning up the 7841 Scrapyard, a fenced area that collected
radioactive junk over the past 30 years. 

The scrapyard work contained some surprises, including the
presence of mercury and other toxic materials in containers that
supposedly had been cleaned out years ago, Johnson said. He said
workers recently encountered some unidentified "white powders,"
which were sent to a laboratory for analysis. 

Oak Ridge contractors typically try to decontaminate pieces of
heavy equipment that have been used in nuclear operations so
they can be returned to operation. 

However, a backhoe used at a waste-injection site will have to
be disposed of in its entirety, Johnson said. Radioactive
material infiltrated the backhoe's internal workings, making it
impossible to clean to acceptable standards, he said. 

Though reluctant to draw cleanup conclusions at this point,
Owsley complimented the cleanup contractor, saying the completed
work "has been very well done." 

Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight
Committee, which monitors environmental activities for local
governments, said the work in Melton Valley is important for the
region's future. 

"All those pits and trenches have some really dangerous wastes
buried there - not just radioactive wastes but hazardous
chemicals, too," Gawarecki said. "You would never get permission
to bury those kinds of things today." 

The capping of old waste sites should cut the flow of hazardous
materials into the groundwater and local bodies of water and
allow the radioactivity to decay to more acceptable levels over
the next 300 years, she said. 

The Melton Valley project is one of DOE's largest environmental
accomplishments nationwide, not just in Oak Ridge, Gawarecki
said. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************