*****************************************************************
02/12/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.35
*****************************************************************
   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 New York Times reporter who got Iraqi WMDs wrong now highlights Iran
2 US: NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges
3 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran denies aiding Iraqi militants 
4 Guardian Unlimited: US financial squeeze on Iran yields results
5 New York Times: U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites - 
6 BBC NEWS: Iran president attacks US claims
7 Reuters: EU sees new ambition by Iran for nuclear talks
8 AFP: Iran mentions 'Swiss plan' on nuclear crisis 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Softens His Tone on Iraq 
10 AFP: US happy with IAEA's reduction of technical assistance to Iran 
11 AFP: EU leaves door open for Iran talks, endorses UN sanctions - 
12 AFP: Iran rejects 'baseless' US charges on Iraq bombs 
13 Guardian Unlimited: EU Ministers OK Plan for Iran Sanctions
14 AFP: White House vouches for Iran weapons charge 
15 AFP: Bush dismisses 'noise' of US attack on Iran 
16 AFP: White House unyielding on Iran nuclear talks 
17 AFP: Iran not welcome in US-Russian initiative against nuclear terro
18 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: Nuclear Talks - Who Blinks First?
19 Guardian Unlimited: SKorea: NKorea Nuke Talks to Be Extended 
20 New York Times: Nuclear Talks on North Korea Hit Roadblock - 
21 Reuters: North Korea talks clouded by energy dispute
22 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Accord Advances
23 AFP: China issues text on start to NKorean nuclear disarmament 
24 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Captivated by U.S. Nuclear Envoy
25 US: Antiwar.com: Secrets Bush and Cheney Can't 'Declassify' - 
26 Guardian Unlimited: Gates Vows Cooperation With Pakistan 
27 Ynetnews: Only nuclear bomb can stop Israeli digging, Egypt MP says 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
28 US: BAS Nuclear Roundtable: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists endors
29 US: ALJ: Hearing set for nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle | 
30 Helsingin Sanomat: Finnish President sees nuclear power as "a short-
31 AU ABC: Alice Springs council to vote on nuclear issue
32 US: BAS: No to Nuclear Energy
33 RIA Novosti: Russia set to launch first unit of NPP in India in 2008
34 US: toledoblade.com: DTE Energy to seek another reactor at Fermi
35 US: DFP: DTE Energy chief to discuss nuclear power in Michigan today
36 FIA: NPP Kozloduy�s units don�t stand good chances of reopening
37 US: Business Review: Benefits of nuclear power touted at energy foru
38 UK: The Herald : Sky's the limit for nuclear
39 FR: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
40 US: FR: Regulatory Guide for licensing 
41 US: FR: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear 
42 US: FR: Energy Northwest; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
43 Prague Daily Monitor: Half of fuel at Temelin´s 1st unit checked - 
44 US: Gristmill: Nuclear: re-evaluated and still sucky | 
45 AFP: Putin offers Saudi atomic energy cooperation 
46 US: HVNS: Spano wants Indian Point out, but is less adamant on NYRI
47 AFP: South Africa to build second nuclear reactor 
48 NewsRoom Finland: Nuclear no permanent solution to climate change -
49 Ottawa Citizen: Albertans divided over nuclear-fuelled oilsands
50 SNA: Bulgaria: Clear Support for Bulgaria's Nuke "Hard to Get"
51 Ynetnews: Israel plans to build nuclear power plant, official says -
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
52 [v911t] DU Film avail. must see
53 US: NRC: Finds Problem with Tank Design of Low to Moderate Safety 
54 US: ENS: Aerospace Giant to Pay $12 Million for Discharge Violations
55 US: Radioactive issue inspires grass-roots activism
56 US: cbs4denver.com: Study Of Drilling At Former Nuke-Test Site Delay
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
57 [NYTr] Radioactive Cargo to Transit Panama Canal
58 US: Guardian Unlimited: Uranium miners merge | | 
59 US: AU ABC: Hearing begins over disputed uranium land claim
60 US: DailyBulletin.com: State takeover of perchlorate fight welcome
61 US: Daily Herald: Lawmakers want out of radioactive waste oversight
 
                           PEACE
 
62 BBC NEWS: Anti-nuclear protesters arrested
63 AU ABC: Alice council rejects nuclear-free zone bid. 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
64 Hanford News: Hanford Briefs
65 Hanford News: Chemical engineer makes reactors in his basement
66 Daily Herald: Fermilab wows 2,000 at open house
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 New York Times reporter who got Iraqi WMDs wrong now highlights Iran claims
 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:01:03 -0600 (CST)


February 11, 2007 
Editor and Publisher	 
www.editorandpublisher.com

'NYT' reporter who got Iraqi WMDs wrong now highlights Iran claims

By 

Greg Mitchell

New York - Saturday's New York Times features an article, posted at the top
of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is
supplying the "deadliest weapon aimed at American troops" in Iraq. The
author notes, "Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on
Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile." 

What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than "civilian
and military officials from a broad range of government agencies." 

Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are
unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon,
the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some
of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about
Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. 

Gordon wrote with Miller the paper's most widely criticized -- even by the
Times itself -- WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, "aluminum tubes" story
that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it
on TV talk shows. 

When the Times eventually carried an editors' note that admitted some of its
Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon
stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the
newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The
article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that
the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they
were intended for a nuclear weapons program." 

This, of course, proved bogus. 

The Times "mea-culpa" story dryly observed: "The article gave no hint of a
debate over the tubes," adding, "The White House did much to increase the
impact of The Times article." This was the famous "mushroom cloud" over
America article. 

Gordon also wrote, following Secretary of State Colin Powell's crucial, and
appallingly wrong, speech to the United Nations in 2003 that helped sell the
war, that "it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case
against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence
information." 

Now, more than four years later, Gordon reveals: "The Bush administration is
expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies
regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link,
including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent
American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad."
Gordon's unnamed sources throughout the story are variously described as
"Administration officials," "intelligence experts" and "American
intelligence." 

Today, in contrast to the Times' report, Dafna Linzer in The Washington Post
simply notes, "Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial
numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the
material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence." 

For some perspective, here is how that "mushroom cloud" Gordon-Miller story
of Sept. 8, 2002, opened: 

"More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass
destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has
embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush
administration officials said today. 

"In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially
designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as
components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several
efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or
intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence,
where they came from or how they were stopped. 

"The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum
tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for
Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship
the material had taken place in recent months. 

"The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest
in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent
months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American
intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the
West. 

"Iraq's nuclear program is not Washington's only concern. An Iraqi defector
said Mr. Hussein had also heightened his efforts to develop new types of
chemical weapons. An Iraqi opposition leader also gave American officials a
paper from Iranian intelligence indicating that Mr. Hussein has authorized
regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to put down any
Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur if the United States attacks.. 

"'The jewel in the crown is nuclear,'' a senior administration official
said. 'The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his
threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole
card. The question is not, why now?' the official added, referring to a
potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. 'The question is why
waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the
harder he will be to deal with.' 

"Hard-liners are alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace
and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war.
Conscious of this lapse in the past, they argue that Washington dare not
wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a
nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a
mushroom cloud."

======

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content
_id=1003544369# 

======
*****************************************************************
 2 NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges
 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:54:19 -0600 (CST)


February 11, 2007
Juan Cole     

NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges 

Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around Repeat of Judy Miller
Scandal

This NYT article [ http://tinyurl.com/2mppzc ] depends on unnamed USG
sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in
Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator
bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:

' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for
a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less
than a quarter of the total, military officials say.' 

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops
were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the
casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil,
or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the
enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving
high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that
some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to
rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops: 

Robert Burns of AP [ http://tinyurl.com/2n4zk5 ] observes, 

"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a
higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the
course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in
Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP
count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there
were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31." 

Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7
percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't
fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all
Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by
Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of
Shiites!

The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is
killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite
neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running
interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that
very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's
article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided
EFPs. 

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is
giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are
killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If
Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is
the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops
killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently. 

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling
these things than that there is direct government-to-militia transfer. It is
possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't
have been Iran's fault.

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed
with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are
then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This
problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab
guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers
bring in from Iran.

We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to
cooperate with Washington [http://tinyurl.com/yq6c5u ] in overthrowing
Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could
have had Iran on its side in Iraq!

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops
operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian
government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious
Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are
being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone
should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't
Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be
being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West
Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's
talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear
display here.

For more skepticism, see this column at Huffington 
[ http://tinyurl.com/yoyue2 ]

=========
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran denies aiding Iraqi militants 

Ahmadinejad says US claims are smokescreen

Mark Tran and agencies

Monday February 12, 2007

Guardian Unlimited
 
Under a picture of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad tells Iranians he is prepared to talk to the west. 
Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today accused the US of
seeking to blame others for its problems in Iraq.

In an interview with the US TV network, ABC, Mr Ahmadinejad did not
address directly American charges that Iran was supplying Iraqi
insurgents with sophisticated explosive devices but claimed the
White House was simply trying to save face over bad decisions in
Iraq.

"I think that Americans have made a mistake in Iraq and
unfortunately are losing," Mr Ahmadinejad said, "...and that's why
they are trying to point their fingers to other people and pointing
fingers to others will not solve the problem."

The US and Iran, who have had not had diplomatic relations since 
the US embassy siege in Tehran in 1979, have been locked in a war 
of words in recent weeks.

As the Washington and Tehran traded accusations, several bombs went
off in crowded markets in Baghdad killing at least 76 people, the
latest in a spate of particularly bloody atrocities.

Britain today weighed into the issue of alleged Iranian support for
the insurgency by backing US claims of Iran's complicity at the
highest level with insurgent attacks on American and allied forces
that have left 170 soldiers dead.

"The prime minister has been at the cutting edge of identifying this
problem," Tony Blair's office said. "We continue to say what
actually is the case, which is that we keep finding this weaponry
which we do not believe can be sourced from anywhere else."

Mr Blair first expressed concern in October 2005 about technology
for roadside bombs and other weapons entering Iraq from Iran, the
prime minister's official spokesman said.

Pressed on the accusation of Iranian involvement, Mr Ahmadinejad
said peace and security would return to Iraq only when foreign
forces leave.

"We shy away from any kind of conflict and any kind of bloodshed,"
he said. "We are opposed to any kind of conflict and also the
presence of foreign forces in Iraq and that's why we are opposed to
the presence of Americans."

Iran also says it is hardly surprising Iranian weapons are in Iraq
as the two countries fought between 1980 and 1988, and that Tehran
had armed militia groups fighting Saddam Hussein.

Democratic party officials in the US have also reacted with
scepticism at the accusations, amid fears that the Bush
administration is building up a case for attacking Iran. Democratic
opposition is set to crystalise in a resolution in the House of
Representatives opposing Mr Bush's troop "surge".

"The administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much
like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on
accountability," said Ron Wyden, a member on the Senate intelligence
committee.

The US has been steadily increasing pressure on Iran in recent
weeks. A second aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in the gulf
within the next few days and Mr Bush has authorised US forces to
kill or capture Iranians thought to be helping Iraqi insurgents.

In a separate development, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels
moved ahead with plans to implement UN sanctions against Iran for
its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the international atomic energy agency,
the UN nuclear watchdog, repeated his appeal for a "time out" if
Tehran suspends enrichment.

"The two parties need to take a time out," he told reporters after
meeting the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt.

The EU decision follows agreement by the UN security council in
December to impose sanctions targeting officials and programmes
linked to Iran's nuclear programme, amid western suspicions that
Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: US financial squeeze on Iran yields results

Simon Tisdall

Tuesday February 13, 2007

Iran's weekend offer to resume nuclear negotiations, coupled with 
new flexibility over how and where future uranium enrichment 
trials may be conducted, represents the first clear evidence that 
domestic and international pressure on Tehran's hardliners is 
beginning to bear fruit.

But the US military build-up in the Gulf, UN sanctions, or even 
Washington's latest Iraq "dossier", are not primarily responsible 
for this apparent shift: American meddling with the mullahs' 
money has been much more effective.

Since imposing penalties last autumn on Iran's largest commercial 
bank, Bank Saderat, for allegedly transferring funds to Hizbullah 
and other "terrorist organisations", the US treasury and 
associated agencies have been spinning an expanding, entangling 
web of unilateral sanctions and other punitive measures around 
Iran's financial institutions and commercial enterprises.

Where direct US regulatory enforcement is impossible, as with
European businesses trading with Iran, American political,
diplomatic and other pressures are proving to be almost equally
effective.

The unexpected success of similar action last year against a Macao
bank used by North Korea's government appears to have provided a
template for the US drive. Another big Iranian state-controlled
bank, Bank Sepah, and its wholly owned UK subsidiary, was targeted
last month. Washington accused the bank of being "the financial
linchpin of Iran's missile procurement network", and off having
links to a North Korean missile technology exporter.

As in other cases, US entities and citizens were barred from dealing
with the bank while assets under US jurisdiction were frozen.
Officials said the US had also "shared information" with European
and other allies and private sector businesses. There is speculation
meanwhile that three other leading Iranian banks, Bank Melli, Bank
Mellat and Bank Tejarat, may be targeted.

Despite legal worries and concerns about "extra-territoriality" -
attempts to apply US laws beyond US shores - European governments
are being urged to curtail all types of business with Iran,
including commodities and manufacturing. This goes far beyond the
measures agreed in December by the UN security council and approved
by EU foreign ministers yesterday.

Further limited UN sanctions will follow if Iran misses the next UN
compliance deadline later this month - but again, the scope of
Washington's action remains far greater.

Unlike the US, which has almost no bilateral trade, the EU is Iran's
top trading partner, with business worth $25bn (�12.8bn) last year.
EU countries provided $18bn in loan guarantees in 2005 to companies
doing business in Iran. All this must stop, the Americans insist, if
Iran's proliferation and terrorism-related activities are to be
effectively discouraged.

Latest figures suggest the strategy is working. Exports from
Germany, which with Italy is Iran's leading European trade partner,
dropped by an estimated 20% last year. "Business dealings are going
backwards, de facto," a Berlin official said. "A lot of German
companies do business with the US. We don't have to say anything.
They've got the message."

Private western banks are also under pressure to comply with what is
rapidly becoming a "Cuba-plus" US-led international embargo, by
withholding letters of credit, loans, loan insurance and transfer
facilities. Barclays plc and HSBC holdings are among those that have
curbed their Iranian dealings.

Iran's oil industry, providing 70% of state revenues and crucial
funding for an extensive welfare state, is a particular US target.
The industry has suffered years of underinvestment and has never
entirely recovered from the Iran-Iraq war. US pressure on western
oil companies and energy-hungry governments such as Japan not to put
money and technology into a country with the world's third largest
oil reserves is intense.

As a result, some estimates suggest Iran's oil exports are falling
by 10% annually. All this hardly helps plans by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad for a 20% increase in budget spending to quell growing
public anger over rising prices and unemployment while maintaining
domestic energy subsidies amounting to a massive 15% of GDP.

Iran's fragile, mismanaged economy, 80% state owned or controlled
and plagued by corruption and inefficiency, is the weak link in its
defences, and Tehran's leaders know it - hence, perhaps, their new
nuclear flexibility. Yet according to Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins
University, Washington's financial squeeze may be unnecessary.

"The mullahs are doing a good job of destroying Iran's economy. They
should be left alone to complete their work," he wrote recently.
"Attacking Iran would allow the regime to escape responsibility for
the economic disaster it created. Worse, an attack could unite Iran
behind the clerical terror sponsors whose grasp on power may be
slipping. For these reasons, the best policy towards Iran may be to
do nothing at all."

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Guardian Newspapers Limited
*****************************************************************
 5 New York Times: U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites - 

Khalid Mohammed/Associated Press

An Iraqi soldier controlled traffic at a vehicle checkpoint in
Baghdad on Sunday.

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: February 12, 2007

BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 � After weeks of internal debate, senior United 
States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table 
their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that 
Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the 
most lethal weapons in the war. They said those weapons had been 
used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.

Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat
canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper
that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed
penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by
American and Iraqi troops here.

In a news briefing held under strict security, the officials spread
out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and
rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the
officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories.
The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that
Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for
use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was
an inference based on general intelligence assessments.

That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it,
seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the
Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems
in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with
Iran.

Officials at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad said they had no comment
on the American accusations, the latest in a back-and-forth between
the countries as tension has escalated over Tehran�s rising
influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and suspicions
about its nuclear energy program. And while the Americans displayed
what they said was the physical evidence of their claims about
Iran�s role in Iraq, they also left many questions unanswered,
including proof that the Iranian government was directing the
delivery of weapons.

The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on
anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of
American and Iraqi troops. A senior United States military official
gave a partial answer, saying that without anonymity, a senior
Defense Department analyst who participated in the briefing could
not have contributed.

The officials also were defensive about the timing of disclosing
such incriminating evidence, since they had known about it as early
as 2004. They said E.F.P. attacks had nearly doubled in 2006
compared with the previous year and a half.

�The reason we�re talking about this right now is the vast increase
in the number of E.F.P.s being found,� one official said.
American-led forces in Iraq, the official said, �are not trying to
hype this up to be more than it is.�

Whatever doubts were created about the timing and circumstances of
the weapons disclosures, the direct physical evidence presented on
Sunday was extraordinary.

The officials said the E.F.P. weapons arrived in Iraq in the form of
what they described as a �kit� containing high-grade metals and
highly machined parts � like a shaped, concave lid that folds into a
molten ball while hurtling toward its target.

For the first time, American officials provided a specific casualty
total from these weapons, saying they had killed more than 170
Americans and wounded 620 since June 2004, when one of the devices
first killed a service member.

But then the officials went much further, asserting without specific
evidence that the Iranian security apparatus, called the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force controlled delivery of the
materials to Iraq. And in a further inference, the officials
asserted that the Quds Force, sometimes called the I.R.G.C. - Quds,
could be involved only with Iranian government complicity

�We have been able to determine that this material, especially on
the E.F.P. level, is coming from the I.R.G.C. - Quds Force,� said
the senior defense analyst. That, the analyst said, meant direction
for the operation was �coming from the highest levels of the Iranian
government.�

At least one shipment of E.F.P.s was captured as it was smuggled
from Iran into southern Iraq in 2005, the officials said. Caches and
arrays of E.F.P.s, as well as mortars and other weapons traceable to
Iran, have been repeatedly found inside Iraq in areas dominated by
militias known to have ties to Iran, the officials said. One cache
of antitank rocket-propelled grenades and other items was seized as
recently as Jan. 23, the officials said.

The precise machining of E.F.P. components, the officials said, also
links the weapons to Iran. �We have no evidence that this has ever
been done in Iraq,� the senior military official said.

 The officials also gave fresh details on recent American raids 
in Baghdad and the northern city of Erbil in which Quds Force 
members were picked up and accused of working with extremist 
groups to plan attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

Some of the five Iranians still being detained after they were 
picked up in Erbil on Jan. 11 had been flushing documents down a 
toilet when they were found, the defense analyst said, and they 
had recently been engaged in "changing their appearance" - 
apparently shaving their heads, though for what reason the 
analyst did not know.

An earlier raid in Baghdad was carried out, the officials said, 
after American forces received word that the No. 2 Quds Force 
official, whom they identified as Mohsin Chizari, was 
unexpectedly in Iraq. When Mr. Chizari was picked up in a raid in 
December, he was carrying false identification, the officials 
said.

He was later released to the Iraqi government with another 
Iranian official who was picked up at the same time. The Iraqis 
asked both Iranians to leave the country.

The senior defense analyst said there was no direct link between 
the detained Iranians and the physical evidence presented on 
Sunday. But the analyst said, "the overall tenor" of the evidence 
was that Mr. Chizari was implicated in bringing E.F.P.s into 
Iraq.

The briefing also presented new information on what the Americans 
call the smuggling routes. There are three main routes, officials 
said: the Mandelli border crossing, east of Baghdad; the Mehran 
crossing, in the marshes to the south; and in the southern city 
of Basra.

Paid Iraqis, rather than Iranians themselves, carry the materials 
across the border, the officials said.

The senior military official blamed recent press reports for, he 
said, overstating the importance of the weapons presentation, 
which had been delayed. Part of the delay reflected a view among 
officials in Washington that the original presentation was 
insufficiently strong. Officials here did not address that 
element of the internal debate.

The senior American military official did make it clear that 
declassifying the material took place only after weeks of 
analysis on what information could be useful to hostile forces - 
information that has mostly been kept out of the public eye since 
the E.F.P.s began turning up in Iraq. "We publicly have not 
acknowledged E.F.P.s for the past two years," the senior military 
official said.

Laid out on the tables themselves were the tailfins of dozens of 
apparently used mortar shells, as well as intact mortar shells, 
rocket-propelled grenades, cases for some of the weaponry, the 
E.F.P., and two identification cards the officials said were 
taken in the Erbil raid.

The shells had serial numbers in English in order to comply with 
international standards for arms, the officials said. One 
grenade, for instance, was marked with the serial number 
P.G.7-AT-1 followed by LOT:5-31-2006. The officials said that the 
serial numbers clearly identified the grenade as being of Iranian 
manufacture and the date showed that it had been made in 2006.

Commanders in Baghdad are acutely aware of the deadly E.F.P.s. 
Col. Steve Townsend, commander of the Third Stryker Brigade 
Combat Team in Baghdad, said his unit has encountered about a 
dozen E.F.P.s in the past two months.

Iran's role in Iraq has been discussed in recent months in public 
and private testimony by senior intelligence officials. In 
testimony last month, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, said "there's a clear line of 
evidence that points out the Iranians want to punish the United 
States, hurt the United States in Iraq, tie down the United 
States in Iraq, so that our other options in the region, against 
other activities the Iranians might have, would be limited."

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who 
chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last month that he 
believed that Iranian operatives inside Iraq were supporting 
Shiite militias and working against American troops.

But he also asserted that the White House had a poor 
understanding of Iranian calculations and added that he was 
concerned that the Bush administration was building a case for a 
more confrontational policy toward Tehran.

Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad, and 
Michael R. Gordon and Felicity Barringer from Washington.
*****************************************************************
 6 BBC NEWS: Iran president attacks US claims

Last Updated: Monday, 12 February 2007, 13:05 GMT

Mr Ahmadinejad said foreign forces should leave Iraq

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says US accusations Tehran 
is fomenting violence in Iraq are an attempt to hide Washington's 
own failures.

Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments in a rare US television 
interview on Monday.

US officials in Iraq had said they had evidence that Iran was 
providing weapons to Shia militias who attacked the US military.

'Baseless propaganda'

In the interview with ABC Television in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad 
was questioned repeatedly about the US claims.

Anyone who wants to attack our country will be seriously punished

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

He said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US
forces.

"There should be no foreigners there in Iraq. And then you see that
you have peace in Iraq," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

He said any claims of Iranian military supplies should have a "court
to prove the case".

Mr Ahmadinejad said: "We have made it clear the lack of security in
Iraq is to our disadvantage."

Earlier Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini had
called the US allegations baseless propaganda.

He said Washington had a long history of fabricating evidence.

We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of
the Iranian government

On Sunday, US officials said they had proof that Iran had provided
sophisticated weapons which had been used to kill American soldiers
in Iraq.

The US claims have not been independently verified.

The Bush administration denies it is planning to invade Iran but has
indicated it is willing to use military force to deal with any
Iranian interference inside Iraq.

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried
to falsify evidence before, and it would be a mistake to create a
premise for future military action.

Mr Ahmadinejad told ABC he thought the possibility of an attack
"very low".

"We believe there are wise people in the US who will stop such
illegal actions," he said.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 7 Reuters: EU sees new ambition by Iran for nuclear talks

Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:27PM EST

By Mark John and Darren Ennis

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU leaders said on Monday Iran was showing "new
ambition" to negotiate an end to a nuclear row with the West and the
door was open for new talks, but they also agreed to implement UN
sanctions to keep pressure on Tehran.

Officials said the sanctions would strictly echo a UN resolution
aimed at making Iran suspend efforts to make nuclear fuel, which
Tehran says is meant only to generate electricity but the West
suspects is a disguised quest for atomic bombs.

Diplomats said the EU measures would include travel bans on Iranian
nuclear officials, a call on states to prevent Iranian nationals
from studying sensitive technologies on their soil, while leaving
open the possibility of further action.

However European countries, some enjoying major trade relations with
Iran, continue to resist American appeals for them to join a
U.S.-led financial embargo against Tehran.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and German Foreign Minister
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who restored tentative contacts with Iran
at a security conference in Munich on Sunday, said new opportunities
had arisen for talks with Tehran.

"We both have the impression that in Iran there is a new ambition to
return to the negotiating table," Steinmeier said, referring to
meetings he and Solana conducted with Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani at the weekend.

"In the course of the next few days, we will have to sound out
whether they (Iran) can pursue that line," Steinmeier told a
Brussels news conference.  Continued...

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran mentions 'Swiss plan' on nuclear crisis 

Monday February 12, 11:40 AM

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has said Switzerland had drawn up an offer to 
ease the standoff between Tehran and the West over the Islamic 
republic's controversial nuclear programme.

"We still do not have the contents of what the Swiss have 
proposed but if these propositions guarantee the right of Iran to 
nuclear materials this can be examined," said foreign ministry 
spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini.

It was the first time such an approach by Switzerland, which 
represents US interests in Tehran in the absence of an American 
embassy, had been evoked by Iranian officials. A diplomat at the 
Swiss embassy declined to comment.

"We are due to officially receive this plan, perhaps our officials
including (chief nuclear negotiator Ali) Larijani have already
received it," Hosseini told reporters Monday.

"They must examine the details and the technical conditions but we
are ready to consider any plan which guarantees our rights."

Just after Hosseini's comments, Iranian state radio reported that
Larijani would be holding talks on Monday with Swiss President and
Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey in Bern.

Larijani had the day earlier held talks with Western officials
including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on the sidelines of
the annual security conference in Munich.

He said that Iran was open to talks on its nuclear programme but
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear to a rally that Tehran
would only negotiate if it was no longer required to suspend uranium
enrichment as a precondition.

"During negotiations all the questions can be examined, they can
even present the question of a suspension to be examined," said
Hosseini, reaffirming Iran's position.

Hosseini also denied speculation Iran had offered to stop putting
material into its uranium enriching centrifuges at its key nuclear
plant in Natanz in the centre of the country.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, a charge
denied by Tehran which insists its atomic programme is peaceful in
nature.

Although the Washington has said it wants the nuclear standoff
resolved through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action
to thwart Iran's atomic drive.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Softens His Tone on Iraq 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 12, 2007 10:01 PM

AP Photo NY196, NY193, NY192, NY191

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

Associated Press Writer

 TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president, who has berated 
the United States and refused to compromise on his nuclear 
program, is now softening his tone, saying Monday he wants 
dialogue rather than confrontation in Iraq. Tehran also denied it 
gave sophisticated weapons to militants to attack U.S. forces.

  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that turmoil in Iraq is 
bad for his country and dialogue - not force - was the solution 
to the region's conflicts.

  ``We shy away from any kind of conflict, any kind of 
bloodshed,'' Ahmadinejad told ABC's ``Good Morning America.'' 
``As we have said repeatedly, we think that the world problems 
can be solved through dialogue, through the use of logic and a 
sense of friendship. There is no need for the use of force.''

   Known for his inflammatory anti-Western rhetoric, Ahmadinejad 
in recent weeks has taken a milder approach to diplomacy. The 
change in tone comes at a time when domestic criticism of the 
controversial leader has increased, with both reformers and 
fellow conservatives complaining that Ahmadinejad spends too much 
time criticizing the United States and Israel, and not enough on 
internal issues such as Iran's struggling economy.

  At the same time, the U.S. appears to be hardening its 
accusations against Iran, including claims that the highest 
levels of the Iranian leadership armed Shiites in Iraq with 
sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more 
than 170 troops from the U.S.-led coalition.

  Iran on Monday staunchly denied the accusations, comparing them 
to Washington's allegations before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of 
Iraq that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass 
destruction. No such weapons were ever found.

     ``Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as 
evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating 
evidence. Such charges are unacceptable,'' Foreign Ministry 
spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in Tehran.

  The White House on Monday did not back down from its 
allegations, saying it was confident the report about the weapons 
flow from Iran to Iraq was accurate.

 ``This is providing - presenting evidence to the effect that 
there's been the shipment of weaponry, lethal weaponry into Iraq, 
some of it of Iranian providence,'' White House spokesman Tony 
Snow said. ``And this is something that we think if the president 
of Iran wants to put a stop to it, we wish him luck and hope 
he'll do it real soon.''

   But Ahmadinejad dismissed the allegations as ``pieces of 
paper'' that don't prove the claims, emphasizing instead that 
Iran's security was dependent on Iraq's stability.

    ``Our position regarding Iraq is very clear. We are asking 
for peace. We're asking for security. And we will be sad to see 
people get killed, no matter who they are,'' he said.

 Ahmadinejad, who was elected more than a year ago, has focused 
much of his diplomacy on verbally attacking the U.S. and Israel. 
In December, he hosted a conference that questioned whether the 
Nazi Holocaust took place and has called for Israel to be ``wiped 
off the map.''

   Despite drawing world attention, his hard-line tactics have 
not boosted his popularity at home. Ahmadinejad suffered an 
embarrassing blow in December's municipal elections, which were 
widely seen as a referendum on his support. At the same time, 
newspaper editorials urging him to cool down and focus on issues 
closer to home began popping up.

 In what may have been one of his biggest steps backward, 
Ahmadinejad this week refrained from making a widely anticipated 
announcement Sunday about Iran's contentious nuclear program that 
was sure to have provoked the U.S. and its allies who allege 
Tehran is secretly developing atomic weapons.

     Ahmadinejad had hinted he was going to announce on the 28th 
anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that saw hard-line clerics 
take power in Iran that his country had begun installing 3,000 
centrifuges at its nuclear plant at Natanz - a move widely seen 
as a defiant gesture to international community, which has 
demanded Iran suspend uranium enrichment. Iran insists its 
program is for peaceful purposes.

  But during the ceremonies Sunday, Ahmadinejad never mentioned 
the centrifuges. And although he vowed not to give up enrichment, 
he said his country was prepared to talk.

  The change in tone comes as the U.N. Security Council threatens 
to slap steeper sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend 
enrichment, a potential pathway to developing nuclear arms. The 
Security Council first agreed two months ago to impose limited 
sanctions on Iran.

  The United States and Iran have regarded each other with 
distrust and suspicion since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. 
Embassy in Tehran by militant students. Recent suggestions for 
the two countries to talk have been dismissed on both sides.

  The White House recently authorized U.S. troops in Iraq to kill 
or capture Iranian agents deemed to be a threat. Earlier this 
month, gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms seized an Iranian 
diplomat as he drove through central Baghdad. That incident came 
nearly a month after the U.S. detained five Iranians in northern 
Iraq. In December, two diplomats were released to Iranian 
officials after being detained for more than a week.

  When asked Monday about the detentions, Ahmadinejad said 
arresting people without charging them is not the solution.

  ``I think this was childish of the U.S. government to do 
something like arresting defenseless people, not allowing them to 
talk to anyone,'' he told ABC. ``This is not a solution to the 
problem. The solution is somewhere else.''

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: US happy with IAEA's reduction of technical assistance to Iran -

by Michael Adler Mon Feb 12, 3:51 PM ET

VIENNA (AFP) - The United States signaled that the UN atomic 
agency's cuts in aid to Iran met requirements for tough measures 
intended to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's reduction of technical aid
to Iran's nuclear program by nearly a half appears to comply with
sanctions levied by the UN Security Council, the US ambassador to
the IAEA told AFP Monday.

"Our preliminary analysis is that the IAEA approach meets the
requirements of UNSCR 1737," the Security Council resolution adopted
December 23, Gregory Schulte said.

"We are still carefully studying the (IAEA) report," issued last
Friday, Schulte added.

It was the first US reaction since the IAEA reported that it had
frozen almost half its assistance programmes to Iran as part of the
United Nations sanctions. The United States had wanted sharp cuts.

Security Council resolution 1737 called for stopping IAEA aid to
Iran that could possibly help it make nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is for electricity generation.
Washington says Tehran is secretly developing the bomb.

Last Friday's report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei came ahead of a
meeting of the agency's 35-nation board of governors in March that
will review aid, as well as another report by ElBaradei on whether
Iran is honouring UN calls for it to suspend sensitive nuclear fuel
work.

Out of 55 national and regional projects that the IAEA has with
Iran, 22, or 40 percent, were either totally or partially frozen,
said the confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

Though the measures have been taken, the IAEA's board of governors
could alter them when it reviews the report in the meeting in Vienna
starting March 5.

"We have received the IAEA report and are pleased that the IAEA has
decided to cut technical assistance to 22 projects," Schulte said.

"We appreciate the due diligence and careful work that the IAEA put
into producing" the report.

Schulte said Tehran must "understand that it will not be 'business
as usual'" as long as Iran "does not enact the suspension of
proliferation-sensitive activities the UN Security Council has
mandated, and continues on the path toward nuclear weapons."

Schulte said Iran must take action to meet UN demands rather than
merely offer new talks.

Tehran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told a security
conference in Germany on Sunday that Iran was ready to return to the
negotiating table.

"We've heard a lot of talk before. We are really looking for
action," Schulte said, in comments reported by his spokesman.

Nuclear talks between the European Union and Iran collapsed last
year, leading to the UN Security Council imposing in December
sanctions on Tehran for failing to stop enriching uranium, which
makes fuel for civilian power reactors but also atom bomb material.

ElBaradei had in January proposed a "time out" in the confrontation,
saying that in simultaneous moves Iran should suspend enrichment and
the United Nations hold off on sanctions.

This is unacceptable to the United States which wants Iran to honour
the UN Security Council call in a resolution for it to first, and
unconditionally, stop all work on enriching uranium.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: EU leaves door open for Iran talks, endorses UN sanctions - 

by Lorne Cook Mon Feb 12, 2:32 PM ET

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Union welcomed possible new talks 
to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions but pushed ahead with UN 
sanctions to punish Tehran for its refusal to stop enriching 
uranium.

EU foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, pledged to press on with
their "twin track" approach of keeping the door open to negotiations
with Iran while endorsing specially targetted UN Security Council
measures.

"We are not seeking escalation. We want a solution. We will take
every opportunity to reach that objective," said German Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country holds the EU's
rotating presidency.

But he added, given the Islamic republic's foot-dragging in past
talks, that: "We need to see what the signals are from Iran, whether
they are serious."

"The next step," British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said
after the meeting, "is to give full implementation to the sanctions
that have been agreed, but to continue to emphasise that the door
remains open to Iran to come to negotiations if they are prepared to
act as the international community has sought."

Talks between Iran, three European nations -- Germany, Britain and
France -- and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
collapsed last year over Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium
enrichment.

That impasse led the UN Security Council to impose limited sanctions.

The EU three, backed by Solana, had offered Tehran political and
economic incentives to suspend its enrichment activities and the
bloc insists that offer still stands.

On Sunday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ari Larijani, suggested
that Iran would be willing to resume talks.

"The political will of Iran is aimed at a negotiated settlement of
the case. We don't want to aggravate the situation in the region,"
he told a high-level security conference in Munich.

He said he had sent a letter to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the
Vienna-based IAEA nuclear watchdog, offering to work out all
remaining points.

Steinmeier, who with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana held
talks with the envoy on Sunday, said: "This was a speech which
signalled that Iran has an interest in returning and continuing with
the negotiating process."

According to an EU official, Larijani is sincere in wanting talks to
resume, with Iran growing increasingly concerned as a series of
political deadlines approach at the United Nations and the IAEA.

After Monday's EU meeting, Solana played down hopes for any major
breakthrough but said he believed "there is a new chance for
constructive and positive dialogue."

As they sat, the ministers endorsed UN Security Council resolution
1737, passed in December, imposing sanctions for Iran's repeated
refusal to fully cooperate with the UN atomic energy watchdog or
suspend enrichment.

The political agreement, which could take legal effect within two
weeks, outlaws the exportation of nuclear and ballistic technology
to Iran, as well as imposes visa bans and an asset freeze on some
Iranian officials.

Highly-enriched uranium can be used to build an atom bomb and the
West fears that the Islamic republic could be trying to develop such
a weapon under the cover of a civilian nuclear programme.

Iran maintains that it is only exercising its right as a signatory
of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear
technology to meet its energy needs.

ElBaradei, who was in Brussels and had telephone talks with Solana,
said that "Iran wouldn't lose anything by agreeing temporarily to
take a time out."


Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Iran rejects 'baseless' US charges on Iraq bombs 

by Stuart Williams Mon Feb 12, 7:03 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has angrily dismissed as "baseless" propaganda
US charges that its agents had smuggled armour-piercing bombs to
Shiite militias in Iraq, amid mounting tensions with its arch-enemy.

"The US accusations from the past months concerning Iran's
implication in the troubles in Iraq are without foundation," said
foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini.

"They have made these allegations with the aim of creating
propaganda and these are unacceptable allegations," he told
reporters Monday.

An anonymous group of senior US officials had shown journalists in
Baghdad what they said was proof that Iranian agents have smuggled
weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators", a form
of roadside bomb.

These bombs, they said, have killed 170 American and allied troops
since May 2004. The defence officials refused to allow reporters to
name them or record their briefing, but released pictures of alleged
Iranian arms.

"The Americans' claim of unveiling documents about Iran's
interference in Iraq is a grotesque show and a rusty weapon," said
the influential head of parliament's foreign affairs and security
committee, Alaeddin Borujerdi.

"The manner of presenting this claim, in a session with reporters,
without filming and recording equipment, and with unnamed officials,
is a trick unacceptable to other countries," he added according to
the Mehr agency.

The allegations were the most specific of a string of accusations
the United States has levelled over Iran's role in Iraq, largely
focussed on its alleged material support for Shiite militias.

They also came amid mounting US exasperation at Iran's refusal to
halt sensitive nuclear activities, which Washington believes are
aimed at making a atomic bomb. Iran insists its nuclear programme is
peaceful.

Although Washington has said it wants the nuclear standoff resolved
through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action to thwart
Iran's atomic drive.

However the new accusations against Iran were not greeted with
universal credence in Washington.

Several Democratic senators said they were unsure about the White
House's real motives, particularly after a report that accused US
officials of creating "inappropriate" intelligence linking Saddam
Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

"I look at this with a degree of scepticism, based on the record
that these intelligence operations have provided us in the past,"
said Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Former Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry said:
"Every leader in the region and every observer, every expert here in
our country, tells us that Iran does not want a complete and total
implosion in Iraq."

The allegations would be met by "a sceptical Congress, and
appropriately so, because of the last experience with Iraq."

Hosseini retorted for his part: "Even the US Congress has not been
convinced by the claims of American officials. Even the CIA has said
that it cannot accuse Iran of being implicated in the troubles in
Iraq."

Iran also denied that any members of Al-Qaeda are in the Islamic
republic, following a US press report that President George W. Bush
was mulling publicly accusing Tehran of having links to the network

"At the moment, there are no Al-Qaeda members in Iran," Intelligence
Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie was quoted as saying by the
government daily Iran.

Meanwhile, the US Newsweek magazine carried a report quoting a
former security official as saying White House officials are trying
to provoke Iran into an action the United States could use as an
excuse for an attack.

"They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians
do something (the United States) would be forced to retaliate for,"
said Hillary Mann, former director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs
at the National Security Council, which reports to the White House.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: EU Ministers OK Plan for Iran Sanctions

From the Associated Press

Monday February 12, 2007 5:46 PM

AP Photo VM107

By CONSTANT BRAND

Associated Press Writer

 BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - EU foreign ministers approved plans 
Monday to implement U.N. sanctions against Iran, and the U.N. 
nuclear watchdog agency's chief appealed for a ``timeout'' on 
sanctions if Tehran suspends uranium enrichment.

  Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, said his proposal, first offered a few weeks ago, was 
meant to end the standoff between the West and Iran over its 
nuclear program.

  ``The two parties need to take a timeout,'' he said after 
meeting Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.

   ``Sanctions are an important tool, but sanctions alone will 
not solve the issue,'' he said, adding there was ``a need to 
return to creative diplomacy.''

   ElBaradei urged Tehran to seize ``a window of opportunity ... 
to listen to the international community's need for reassurances 
about the peaceful nature of their nuclear program.''

  ``I don't think Iran will lose anything by agreeing temporarily 
to take a timeout,'' ElBaradei said.

  His plan calls for Iran to suspend its nuclear development 
program and the U.N. to suspend the application of sanctions so 
that talks on Tehran's intentions can resume.

   ElBaradei did not discuss Iran with EU foreign ministers who 
met separately and approved plans Monday for the way they will 
implement U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran for its refusal to halt 
uranium enrichment.

   The U.N. Security Council agreed in December to impose 
sanctions targeting people and programs linked to Iran's nuclear 
program, which the United States, EU and others fear is being 
used to make weapons.

  Under the Dec. 23 decision, Iran was given two months to return 
to negotiations.

    On Sunday, EU foreign policy Javier Solana and German Foreign 
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier met with Iran's top national 
security official Ali Larijani - the first talks since 
negotiations collapsed last year.

 At a security conference in Munich, Larijani said Iran was ready 
to restart negotiations with the international community, but 
said it would not suspend its nuclear program as a precondition 
for talks. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said his 
country would not give up uranium enrichment but was prepared to 
talk.

                   EU officials reacted cautiously.

    ``I continue to be realistic,'' Solana said. ``We are open to 
negotiation, but Iran knows what we want them to do.''

    French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste Blazy said the latest 
Iranian overtures ``do not answer'' U.N. demands that it suspend 
its enrichment program.

 On the sanctions, an implementation deal among all 27 EU nations 
had been held up because of a squabble between Spain and Britain 
over how the British colony of Gibraltar, which Spain claims for 
itself, would implement the sanctions.

  The Security Council imposed limited sanctions to punish Iran 
for defying a resolution demanding that it suspend uranium 
enrichment, a process that can produce material to fuel nuclear 
reactors or to build bombs.

    Monday's decision means that all EU governments will 
uniformly implement regulations imposing the U.N. sanctions, 
which include a ban on selling materials and technology that 
could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs and the 
freezing of assets of 10 Iranian companies and individuals.

  The EU already has in place a de-facto 10-year ban on the sale 
of weapons to Iran. Its foreign ministers reiterated that a 
package of economic incentives remains on offer if Tehran 
abandons nuclear enrichment.

    Monday's move on the U.N. sanctions does not go far enough 
for Washington, however, which has called on European nations to 
follow the U.S. in cutting trade ties with Tehran.

 Diplomats in Brussels said EU governments are free to go beyond 
the U.N. sanctions if they wish.

   EU nations have long been divided over whether to cut trade 
ties with Tehran, especially when many of them are keen to keep 
investments in Iran's lucrative oil and gas sector.

                                 ---

    Associated Press Writer Paul Ames contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: White House vouches for Iran weapons charge 

by Olivier Knox Mon Feb 12, 12:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House, its credibility damaged in
invading Iraq, vouched for charges that Iran

Asked whether Washington was confident in the accusations, spokesman
Tony Snow replied "Yes."

Asked whether the United States was confident that the weaponry was
coming into Iraq with Tehran's approval, Snow replied: "Yes."

But he said that the allegations made by US defense officials in
Baghdad Sunday that Iran is supplying potent munitions to Iraqi
fighters is not a shift in US rhetoric.

"I don't think there's a change of tone on our part," he said. "I
think that there have been attempts, with all due respect, in the
press to try to whip this up -- 'is the administration going after
Iran?'"

"I'm glad you raised it again, because we're not," said Snow.

Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini
categorically rejected the charge as "without foundation" and said
US officials "made these allegations with the aim of creating
propaganda."

Snow's comments came one day after top US defense officials said in
Baghdad that sophisticated Iranian-built bombs smuggled into Iraq
have killed at least 170 US and allied soldiers since June 2004 and
wounded 620 more.

Three coalition officials met international and Iraqi journalists to
point the finger at the Al-Qods brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard, Tehran's elite forces.

They spoke on condition of anonymity and cameras and recording
devices were barred from the briefing, at which an array of mortar
shells and booby traps were laid out for inspection.

Snow defended the restrictions, saying that "If it had been on the
record, one of the key briefers wouldn't have been able to brief."

"So the question is whether reporters would get the information or
not, and it was decided to do it in such a way that they could do it
on background and reporters would have access to the information,"
the spokesman added.

US President George W. Bush's administration, still smarting from
the now-discredited charges that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction, has struggled with how to back up its
allegations against Iran.

After promising for weeks to reveal evidence underpinning its
allegations that Tehran had been arming Iraqi insurgents, the White
House scrapped a briefing almost at the last minute.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated.
And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts,"
Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley said February 2.

But opposition Democrats and even some of Bush's Republicans have
scolded the administration and warned that they hear echoes of the
flawed case for the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

Republican Representative Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) said
before the Baghdad briefing that "unproven charges" that Iran seeks
nuclear weapons "are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made
against Iraq before we invaded that country."

So do "unproven accusations of Iranian support for the Iraqi
insurgency," he said. "This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came
first and proof was supposed to come later -- only that proof never
came because the accusations turned out to be false."

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: Bush dismisses 'noise' of US attack on Iran 

by Olivier Knox Mon Feb 12, 5:32 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush dismissed talk of 
a coming US attack on Iran as "noise" by his critics, as the 
White House blamed the media for escalating war worries.

But the Pentagon has said a US military buildup in the Gulf is a
message to "potential adversaries" in the region, and Bush has vowed
to crush any Iranian networks fuelling violence claiming the lives
of US soldiers in Iraq.

"I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, 'he wants to
go to war,' is -- first of all I don't understand the tactics, and I
guess I would say it's political," Bush told CSPAN television in an
interview.

"On the other hand, I hope that the members of Congress,
particularly in the opposition party, understand the great danger of
Iran having a nuclear weapon," the US president said.

Referring to the nuclear dispute, Bush said he had "a comprehensive
policy aimed to solve this peacefully" and vowed to "press hard" for
Iran to freeze sensitive nuclear work that could be a key step
towards an atomic arsenal.

Tehran has rejected charges of smuggling bombs to insurgents who
target US troops as "without foundation" and has repeatedly denied
Washington's allegations that its nuclear program hides a quest for
an atomic bomb.

The White House, its credibility badly damaged by the flawed case
for invading Iraq, vouched for charges that Iranians had been arming
insurgents in Iraq with deadly bombs with the knowledge of the
government in Tehran, while denying that this spells likely military
action.

"I don't think there's a change of tone on our part," said spokesman
Tony Snow. "I think that there have been attempts, with all due
respect, in the press to try to whip this up -- 'is the
administration going after Iran?'"

"I'm glad you raised it again, because we're not," said Snow.

Asked to give proof that Tehran knew about the bomb shipments, the
spokesman replied: "Let me put it this way: There's not a whole lot
of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes
to something like that."

"To counter that position, you would have to assume that people were
able of putting together sophisticated weaponry, moving it across a
border into a theater of war and doing so unbeknownst and unbidden,"
he said.

Snow declined to offer more details, referring reporters to the
Pentagon, and when asked whether the US military had provided him
details of the case against Iran he replied: "I didn't get briefed
on it."

His comments came one day after top US defense officials said in
Baghdad that sophisticated Iranian-built bombs smuggled into Iraq
have killed at least 170 US and allied soldiers since June 2004 and
wounded 620 more.

Three coalition officials met international and Iraqi journalists to
point the finger at the Al-Qods brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard, Tehran's elite forces.

They spoke on condition of anonymity and cameras and recording
devices were barred from the briefing, at which an array of mortar
shells and booby traps were laid out for inspection.

US President George W. Bush's administration, still smarting from
the now-discredited charges that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction, has struggled with how to back up its
allegations against Iran.

After promising for weeks to reveal evidence underpinning its
allegations that Tehran had been arming Iraqi insurgents, the White
House scrapped a briefing almost at the last minute.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated.
And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts,"
Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley said February 2.

But opposition Democrats and even some of Bush's Republicans have
scolded the administration and warned that they hear echoes of the
flawed case for the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: White House unyielding on Iran nuclear talks 

Mon Feb 12, 12:44 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House said Iran needed to halt
sensitive nuclear work, downplaying comments from Tehran's top
nuclear negotiator that the Islamic republic was prepared to resume
talks.

"The Iranians know not merely what they need to say, but what they
need to do," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

"They need to step away from doing enrichment and reprocessing
activities, and also from developing a nuclear program that could
yield nuclear weapons," the spokesman said, renewing Washington's
longstanding conditions.

Iran risks more extensive economic sanctions if it fails to comply
with a UN Security Council deadline of February 21 to stop uranium
enrichment.

Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told the Munich
Conference on Security Policy Sunday that Iran was prepared to limit
enrichment "to certain levels."

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear
weapons, a charge denied by Tehran, which insists its atomic program
is for peaceful purposes.

Snow reiterated Washington's offer to help Iran build a civilian
nuclear power program, but stressed that "they ought to be able to
have nuclear power without having the capacity to develop nuclear
weapons, with the ability to threaten their neighbors.

"And should they decide to move in that direction -- we have made
very generous offers in terms of how we're going to respond," said
Snow.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: Iran not welcome in US-Russian initiative against nuclear terrorism

Mon Feb 12, 4:53 PM

ANKARA (AFP) - Iran is not welcome in a fledgling multilateral
initiative, led by the United States and Russia, to combat nuclear
terrorism, a senior US official said here.

"We would welcome nations who are committed to combatting nuclear
terrorism... I don't think we have to be explicit and say that we
would not welcome states that facilitate terrorism and are seeking
nuclear weapons," US Under Secretary of State for arms control and
international security, Robert Joseph, told reporters when asked
whether Iran may join.

He was speaking on the first day of two-day talks between senior
diplomats from 13 countries who support the Global Initiative to
Combat Nuclear Terrorism, spearheaded jointly by the United States
and Russia.

It was the second meeting of the group since the initiative was
launched in July with the aim of outlining rules to ensure tighter
control over nuclear materials and facilities, combatting
trafficking in nuclear substances and preempting would-be nuclear
attackers.

The Russian co-chair of the talks, deputy foreign minister Sergey
Kislyak, stressed that the initiative "is not targetted against any
specific country," adding that the dispute over Iran's nuclear
programme should be resolved through negotiations.

"Here we are dealing with systematic work to combat the phenomenon
of nuclear terrorism and to deny them any possibility of getting
access to nuclear materials anywhere in the world," he said.

A joint statement by the participants said they were aiming at
broadening the group and welcome new partners by their next meeting
in Kazakhstan in June.

Joseph said the initiative was still at an early stage and "we have
a great deal of work to go to build our capacities to deal with a
nuclear terror threat wherever it may come from."

Beside the host country Turkey, the other members of the group are
Australia, Canada, China, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Morocco and the United Kingdom.


*****************************************************************
 18 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: Nuclear Talks - Who Blinks First?
 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:17:35 -0800


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP WD DV EN IP NU=20
NORTH KOREA: Nuclear Talks - Who Blinks First?
Antoaneta Bezlova

BEIJING, Feb 12 (IPS) - Despite great expectations for a breakthrough dea=
l on ending North Korea's nuclear crisis four days of tough international=
  negotiations sponsored by China have produced little hope of a quick res=
olution.

The surge of optimism which accompanied the beginning of the talks on  Th=
ursday, vanished by the weekend when it became clear that North Korea wan=
ted huge amounts of energy assistance in return for shutting down its nuc=
lear programme.

How the participating countries will foot the bill for the energy aid to =
North Korea, following the sealing of its main nuclear reactor, has becom=
e a new stumbling block in the tortuous negotiations. What comes first --=
  the aid or the halt to the nuclear programme continued to plague the pro=
gress of the talks.

=94The chicken or the egg modus operandi of the talks is something we hav=
e seen before,=94 Li Dunqiu, an expert on the Korean peninsula at the Chi=
nese Academy of Social Sciences, said. =94The big sticking point is who i=
s going to compromise first -- North Korea or the United States.=94

Pyongyang's insistence on =94first energy assistance, then denuclearisati=
on=94 was the reason for the premature ending of an earlier phase of Chin=
a-hosted talks.

Four of North Korea's neighbours -- South Korea, Japan, China and Russia-=
- and the United States have conducted a series of multilateral talks wit=
h Pyongyang over the last three years, hoping to persuade the Stalinist r=
egime of Kim Jong-Il to give up its nuclear weapons.

But the regime sees its arsenal as a bargaining chip for demanding aid an=
d security assurances and has not made any steps towards disarming. Rathe=
r, Pyongyang used its ballistic missiles tests last July and its undergro=
und nuclear test in October to wring more concessions from China -- its m=
ain trading partner, and South Korea, its largest humanitarian benefactor=
=2E

Analysts believe that North Korea's nuclear provocations have also forced=
  the U.S. to agree to concessions it previously refused to consider, like=
  holding bilateral talks with Pyongyang and negotiating over frozen North=
  Korean funds.

In 2005, the U.S. riled Pyongyang by forcing Macao's Banco Delta Asia to =
cease business with North Korea because of accusations of money launderin=
g and counterfeiting. In retaliation, Pyongyang boycotted the six-party t=
alks until December, suggesting that the U.S. should discuss ways to lift=
  the sanctions outside the six-party talks.

Last month the U.S. had one-on-one talks with North Korea in Berlin, pavi=
ng the way for Pyongyang's return to the negotiating table. A pro-Pyongya=
ng newspaper based in Japan claimed Sunday that during the Berlin talks W=
ashington promised to lift financial sanctions imposed on North Korea wit=
hin 30 days in return for North Korea taking the first step towards disma=
ntling its nuclear weapons programme within 60 days.

The U.S. pointsman for the six-party talks, Christopher Hill, denied the =
report in the Japanese =91Asahi' newspaper that North Korea and the U.S. =
had signed a =94memorandum=94 in their Berlin meeting. The Asahi earlier =
said Hill and his North Korean counterpart, Kim Kye-gwan, had already sig=
ned a pact in which North Korea allegedly agreed to shut down its nuclear=
  reactor in Yongbyon and accepted an international inspection in exchange=
  for energy and humanitarian aid.

But a China-drafted deal distributed to all national delegations at the b=
eginning of the current round of talks dovetailed with the rough terms of=
  the agreement reported by the media. The host country's draft stipulates=
  that North Korea would freeze its main nuclear-related facilities within=
  two months in return for alternative energy supplies.

While the U.S. is seeking a permanent halt to North Korea's nuclear progr=
amme, experts say Pyongyang is intent on enforcing a =94freeze=94 of its =
nuclear capacities =FB a measure that could be quickly undone if negotiat=
ions for energy and aid break down.

Such a scenario unfolded in 2002 when the 1994 Agreed Framework between t=
he Clinton administration and North Korea collapsed and Pyongyang expelle=
d the International Atomic Energy Authority inspectors. Under the landmar=
k deal
signed between Washington and Pyongyang in 1994, North Korea had agreed t=
o =94freeze=94 its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for free oil del=
iveries and the gift of two light-water reactors worth 4.5 billion dollar=
s.

=94We're not looking to provide energy assistance so that they could avoi=
d taking further the steps on denuclearisation,=94 U.S. negotiator Hill s=
aid Sunday. =94We understand that you can't just get there in one jump --=
you have to take several steps, so we're prepared to take several steps.=94

He added:'' We want to help their economy, and especially we want to help=
  the North Korean people who we believe have suffered enough. But the way=
  to help them is to get them to give up these weapons.=94

North Korea is said to have demanded energy aid equivalent of 2 million K=
w a year, in exchange for taking steps to scrap its nuclear programme. Bu=
t this is far more than the 500,000 tons of heavy fuel set out in the 199=
4 agreement.

With Monday set as the final day of negotiations, China has proposed the =
setting up of working groups that would continue talks on the amount of e=
nergy aid and the way the participating parties would share the cost.
*****
+Nuclear Ambitions - IPS Special Coverage
(http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp)
+POLITICS: North Korea Wins Nuclear Poker Round
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D35346)
(END/IPS/AP/IP/WD/NU/DV/EN/AB/RDR/07)



=20
=3D 02121000 ORP006
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: SKorea: NKorea Nuke Talks to Be Extended 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 12, 2007 12:31 PM

AP Photo XED101

By JAE-SOON CHANG

Associated Press Writer

 BEIJING (AP) - Talks on North Korea's nuclear program were 
likely to be extended a day in a possible sign of narrowing 
differences, a South Korean official said Monday, as envoys lay 
responsibility for resolving the long-running standoff solely on 
Pyongyang.

  Over the previous four days, the six-country talks in Beijing 
have stalled over disagreements on energy assistance for the 
North in exchange for its abandonment of nuclear weapons.

    ``It is up to the North Koreans. We have put everything on 
the table. We have offered a way forward on a number of issues. 
They just need to make a decision,'' U.S. Assistant Secretary of 
State Christopher Hill told reporters before Monday's session, 
which he said would be the last day of talks.

  But later after a series of meetings between delegations, a 
South Korean official said negotiations were expected to be 
extended another day.

 ``Consultations among the countries are under way in a more 
sincere manner,'' the official said on condition of anonymity due 
to the ongoing diplomacy. ``The talks are expected to continue 
tomorrow although China has not yet made any decision.''

   Delegates remained in negotiations at a Chinese state 
guesthouse into the evening Monday.

   The current round of six-nation talks began on a promising 
note after the United States and North Korea signaled a 
willingness to compromise. But negotiations quickly became mired 
on the energy issue.

  The negotiations - which include the two Koreas, the U.S., 
Japan, China and Russia - have plodded on intermittently for more 
than three years.

  Adding pressure on the delegates was a sense that failure to 
reach an agreement this time could permanently doom the talks.

  ``There's a certain life cycle to these negotiations,'' Hill 
said Monday. If North Korea rejects the current proposal, the 
American diplomat speculated that there would ``be some political 
climate change, if not in the U.S., then maybe among some other 
countries.''

    But he added, ``I don't want to predict that this is the last 
chance.''

  Negotiators had hoped the latest round would result in North 
Korea taking its first concrete steps in dismantling its nuclear 
program, an issue that became especially critical after the North 
conducted its first nuclear test explosion in October.

   The issue that had previously stalled the talks - U.S. 
financial restrictions against a Macau bank with North Korean 
accounts - was not an obstacle this time.

  Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported Monday that the U.S. 
told North Korea last month it is prepared to proclaim that $11 
million in Pyongyang's assets at the bank was legitimately 
earned, and was not related to alleged North Korean crimes 
including counterfeiting and money laundering.

  The move would allow the money to be released from accounts 
frozen after Washington blacklisted the bank in 2005.

                                 ---

 Associated Press reporters Audra Ang and Hiroko Tabuchi 
contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 New York Times: Nuclear Talks on North Korea Hit Roadblock - 

By JIM YARDLEY and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: February 12, 2007

BEIJING, Feb. 11 � Negotiations on a step-by-step deal that the 
Bush administration hopes will lead North Korea to give up its 
nuclear weapons program appeared near collapse on Sunday over 
North Korea�s demands for huge shipments of fuel oil and 
electricity before agreeing to a schedule for turning over its 
nuclear weapons and fuel.

Christopher R. Hill, the United States? chief negotiator, met with
North Korea?s envoy on Sunday.

The chief American envoy, Christopher R. Hill, said he and North
Korea�s envoy, Kim Kye-gwan, held a �lengthy and very frank� meeting
on Sunday. But Mr. Hill seemed much less optimistic that a deal
could be struck. Negotiators are planning to end the talks on
Monday, and other envoys were pessimistic that any breakthrough
would emerge on the final day.

Meanwhile, a summary of the proposed agreement being circulated
among senior policy makers in Washington makes it clear that even if
the North agreed to take the listed first steps � sealing its main
nuclear reactor and inviting international inspectors back into the
country � there was no specified time period during which it would
be required to turn over any nuclear weapons or weapons fuel that it
has produced in recent years. And such a turnover would happen only
after reaching another agreement.

In essence, the agreement Mr. Hill, an assistant secretary of state,
is negotiating could prevent the North from producing more weapons,
but defers discussions over the weapons and fuel it has stockpiled.
Mr. Hill had earlier suggested that if there was agreement,
follow-up talks could be set up in March and April.

The summary calls for all six nations in the talks � the others are
South Korea, Japan, China and Russia � to �create working groups for
full and rapid implementation� of a September 2005 agreement in
which the North agreed in principle to abandon its nuclear weapons.

But in the past, the North Korean envoys to similar working groups
have proven to have no real negotiating authority. Furthermore, the
proposed agreement sets no dates on nuclear action beyond shutting
down the nuclear plant at Yongbyon and allowing inspectors in within
60 days; it leaves unresolved what the North would get in return.
The summary was given to The New York Times by a person trying to
explain the timing and vagueness of the deal�s elements.

After months of preparation that created unusual optimism within the
Bush administration, failure to reach even a preliminary agreement
could cast doubt on the prospects of disarming North Korea in the
administration�s last two years. Several Asian diplomats said they
feared that North Korea had sensed the American distraction in Iraq
and could be trying to run out the clock until the election of a new
president.

At the same time, the North is under pressure because of the
effectiveness of financial sanctions, particularly those aimed at
Kim Jong-il and other North Korean leaders, and it may feel this is
a good time to extract concessions from the South Korean government,
which is clinging to economic ties to the North.

Mr. Hill, a seasoned negotiator who played a critical role in the
Dayton accords that ended conflict in the Balkans in 1995, made it
clear that the United States would not sign a deal that provided
North Korea with energy but failed to ensure that it gave up its
nuclear material.

�We�re not looking to provide energy assistance so that they could
avoid taking the further steps on denuclearization,� he said at a
news conference late Sunday in Beijing. �We understand that you
can�t just get there in one jump, you have to take several steps, so
we�re prepared to take several steps.�

He added, �But we�re not interested in providing that kind of
assistance so that they don�t have to take the next step.�

In the past, the North has always insisted that it get rewards
before giving away the nuclear ability that Mr. Kim regards as his
sole international bargaining chip.

Kyodo, the Japanese news agency, has reported that North Korea wants
an annual energy package of two million tons of fuel oil and two
million kilowatts of electricity for taking the first steps in the
agreement. It quoted unidentifed diplomatic contacts who said the
North also wanted a short-term infusion of hundreds of thousands of
tons of fuel oil almost immediately. That presumably would be a
reward for shutting down Yongbyon, even though it does not provide
electric energy.

 Any deal would inevitably be compared with the 1994 agreement 
between the Clinton administration and North Korea. President 
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have criticized that 
accord because it involved a "freeze" on activity that the North 
could quickly reverse, and because it left the shipment of 
weapons and fuel out of the country to the very end. The 
agreement fell apart in 2002, and the North is believed to have 
then converted its spent nuclear fuel into weapons.

The North tested its first nuclear device in October, though with 
only partial success.

Outside experts familiar with the outlines of the proposed deal 
say that the Bush administration would give up relatively little 
at the beginning, but it would also receive little.

"Freezing and disabling Yongbyon is an important but modest 
step," said Michael Green, who negotiated with North Korea as the 
top Asia expert at the National Security Council until he left a 
year ago. "It does not yet capture harvested plutonium and the 
existing weapons."

If a deal holds together, he said, "the key will be retaining 
leverage" on the North by preventing China, Russia and South 
Korea from increasing their economic cooperation so much that 
that their actions negate the United Nations Security Council 
sanctions on the North.

According to the outline, the proposed agreement would establish 
"tight timelines for actions that are measured in months, not 
years," and would include a flurry of moves in the first 60 days, 
among them the closing of the Yongbyon facilities.

Inspectors would return to the country for the first time in more 
than four years, and the North would have to declare "all of its 
existing nuclear programs." That is a reference to the American 
accusation that the North has a hidden program to enrich uranium, 
purchased from the rogue Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. 
The North once admitted to the existence of the program, American 
officials say, but has since denied it.

The working groups outlined by the proposed agreement would 
discuss denuclearization, economic and energy cooperation, 
normalization of diplomatic relations, and a peace treaty 
formally ending the Korean War. The North's commitments, the 
document says, "are to all five other parties, including China," 
and it says that "conventional energy assistance will be 
determined by the working group and will be commensurate with the 
steps" North Korea takes to fulfill its commitments.

The huge annual energy package North Korea is demanding would 
eclipse the aid provided under the 1994 deal, when the North was 
promised light-water nuclear reactors with a generating capacity 
of two million kilowatts of electricity, as well as a temporary 
fix of 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.

The chief Japanese envoy, Kenichiro Sasae, told Kyodo, "The 
problem is that North Korea has excessive expectations about 
this, and unless it reconsiders this issue, an agreement will be 
difficult."

North Korea's insistence on the package deflated the optimism 
that had infused the early days of this round of talks and spread 
to senior officials in the White House, who said they expected a 
deal this weekend.

By Sunday afternoon, diplomats had decided that Monday would be 
the final day of talks, agreement or no. According to Reuters, 
South Korea's representative, Chun Yung-woo, blamed the size of 
the energy package "and the scope, pace and range of the North's 
actions to denuclearize" for the stalemate.

The Russian envoy, Aleksandr Losyukov, suggested that the best 
outcome might be a "chairman's statement" by China that 
summarized the negotiations.

"It seems the chances to reach a joint statement are slim," Mr. 
Losyukov said, according to Xinhua, China's official news agency.

Jim Yardley reported from Beijing, and David E. Sanger from 
Washington.
*****************************************************************
 21 Reuters: North Korea talks clouded by energy dispute

Sat 10 Feb 2007 5:17 PM ET

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Prospects for an initial agreement on
ending North Korea's nuclear arms programme were clouded on Sunday
as talks entered a fourth day without an accord on how to compensate
Pyongyang for moving to disarm.

Envoys to the talks from North and South Korea, the United States,
Russia, Japan and host China have agreed on most of a plan that
would oblige Pyongyang to shut down nuclear activities in return for
economic and security assurances.

But North Korea is at odds with the other five countries over a
single paragraph of the draft agreement, top U.S. envoy Christopher
Hill told reporters late on Saturday.

"If we can get closure on this issue, we can solve an overall
problem and get a set of initial actions," he said.

Disagreement could delay, if not scuttle, the plan and undermine the
whole talks, Hill added.

"If we don't solve this I think it's sort of tough to reconvene the
six parties," he said.

The row is the latest act in a long-running drama setting a wary and
isolated North Korea against the five other countries, which have
urged it to end nuclear weapons ambitions that culminated in the
North's first atomic test blast in October.

Hill has refused to say exactly what is snagging negotiations. But
other diplomats have said the row is over the energy and aid
incentives Pyongyang would receive in return for shutting down its
Yongbyon nuclear plant, which makes plutonium usable in nuclear
weapons.

"A huge gap remains between North Korea and the five countries in
terms of figures and volume," one source close to the talks said.


ILLICIT

In September 2005, six-party talks agreed a joint statement
sketching out the nuclear disarmament steps Pyongyang needed to take
to secure fuel and economic aid, as well as political acceptance
from its longtime adversary, the United States.

But that deal languished after Washington accused North Korea in
late 2005 of laundering income from counterfeiting U.S. currency and
other illicit business.

The ensuing crackdown on a bank in Macau enraged Pyongyang, which
stayed away from the six-party talks until international
condemnation after the nuclear test drew it back in December.

Japan's Kyodo news agency said that at the latest talks North Korea
had demanded energy aid equivalent to more than 2 million tonnes of
fuel oil annually in exchange for the initial steps towards
abandoning its nuclear weapons capability.

China's envoy Wu Dawei had said the talks would likely last three or
four days. Negotiators still hoped to agree on a joint statement and
it was worth staying in China and trying to clinch the deal, Hill
said.

"If I didn't think there was a prospect, I would be on a plane out
of here," he said on Saturday.

Japan's chief negotiator Kenichiro Sasae sounded a bleaker note, as
he has in previous days.

"Issues have been narrowed, but we can't see any solution to several
issues," Sasae said on Saturday. "North Korea and the five countries
are considerably far apart."


� Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.  
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Accord Advances

By BURT HERMAN

Associated Press Writer

 BEIJING (AP) - A tentative agreement Tuesday on initial steps 
toward North Korea's nuclear disarmament could set the stage for 
the first concrete progress after more than three years of talks 
marked by delays, deadlock and the communist country's first 
nuclear test explosion.

      The U.S. envoy to the talks, Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill, emerged in the early morning hours of Tuesday 
looking weary after a marathon 16-hour negotiating session and 
announced that a tentative deal had been struck at the latest 
round of six-nation talks on the North's nuclear program.

 The draft agreement contained commitments on disarmament and 
energy assistance along with ``initial actions'' to be taken by 
certain deadlines, Hill said. Working groups will be set up, 
hopefully in a month, laying out a framework for dealing with 
regional tensions, he added.

          He declined to give further details of the draft.

  The agreement could herald the first step toward disarmament 
since the talks began in 2003. The process reached its lowest 
point in October when North Korea conducted its first nuclear 
test explosion, alarming the world and triggering U.N. sanctions.

  In the last few days, the talks had appeared to be on the verge 
of foundering and envoys made clear that their frustration was 
increasing and their patience growing thin. The current round was 
to conclude on Monday but as they progressed toward a deal, 
negotiators extended it late into the night and then into the 
early hours of Tuesday.

   Hill said the draft agreement still must be reviewed by the 
home governments of the six countries at the talks, but he was 
upbeat about it. He said he was in ``constant communication'' 
with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

      ``We feel it's an excellent draft, I don't think we're the 
problem,'' he said.

  North Korea did not immediately make any public comment, but 
South Korea's envoy Chun Yung-woo said he believed the proposal 
would be acceptable to Pyongyang.

 Chun said the five other countries agreed to evenly share the 
energy aid outlined under the deal.

    However, Japan and Russia were more noncommittal. The 
Japanese envoy, Kenichiro Sasae, said it was ``too early to 
tell'' whether Tokyo was satisfied. And Russian Deputy Foreign 
Minister Alexander Losyukov said there were ``many questions 
regarding details,'' Russia's Itar-Tass news agency reported.

  Hill said the parties to the talks will meet again later 
Tuesday.

 In September 2005, North Korea was promised energy aid and 
security guarantees in exchange for a pledge to abandon its 
nuclear programs. But talks on implementing that agreement 
snarled on other issues and that plan went nowhere.

  Hill has repeatedly said he hoped a resolution would help 
improve stability in a region filled with bitter historical 
disputes. The two Koreas remain technically at war since their 
1950-53 conflict ended in a cease-fire that has never been 
replaced by a peace treaty.

     ``We're trying to do more than just do denuclearization for 
energy,'' Hill said. ``We're trying to address some of the 
underlying problems.''

    Though he did not provide specifics, North Korea has demanded 
improved relations with the United States. Japan and North Korea 
remain fiercely antagonistic in part because of North Korea's 
acknowledged but unresolved abductions of Japanese citizens.

    The current talks began Thursday on a promising note after 
the United States and North Korea held an unusual meeting last 
month in Germany and signaled a willingness to compromise.

    But negotiations quickly became mired on the issue of how 
much energy aid the impoverished and isolated communist country 
would get as an inducement for initial steps toward disarmament.

 ``It's always 3 yards, 3 yards, 3 yards, and it's always fourth 
and one. Then you make a first down and do 3 more yards,'' Hill 
said early Tuesday, using a football metaphor. ``It's painful.''

 During the days of arduous negotiations, he said ``everybody has 
had to make some changes to narrow the differences.''

  Some delegates at the talks - which also include China, Russia 
and South Korea - had called North Korea's demands for energy 
excessive.

 South Korean and Japanese media reports gave varying accounts of 
how much energy North Korea was demanding, including up to 2 
million kilowatts of electricity or 2 million tons of heavy fuel 
oil.

 Chinese envoy Wu Dawei told a visiting Japanese lawmaker that 
North Korea had agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor and 
submit a list of its atomic facilities. But the size of the 
energy aid Pyongyang would get in return was still undecided, the 
lawmaker, Fukushiro Nukaga, told reporters Monday.

  Under a 1994 U.S.-North Korea disarmament agreement, the North 
was to receive 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year before 
construction was completed of two nuclear reactors that would be 
able to generate 2 million kilowatts of electricity.

 That deal fell apart in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the 
North of conducting a secret uranium enrichment program, sparking 
the latest nuclear crisis.

                                 ---

  Associated Press reporters Jae-soon Chang, Charles Hutzler, 
Alexa Olesen and Hiroko Tabuchi contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: China issues text on start to NKorean nuclear disarmament 

Mon Feb 12, 3:04 PM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - China issued a "final text" outlining how to 
begin abolishing North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the chief 
US envoy said following a marathon round of six-nation 
disarmament negotiations.

"The Chinese side distributed a final text which will be referred to
the capitals of the delegations. We will have another meeting
tomorrow and we will see if we can get it approved," Christopher
Hill told reporters.

Hill described the text as "excellent" and said it outlined initial
actions the parties involved in the talks could take to kickstart
the process of North Korea ending its nuclear weapons drive.

He said it was based on a six-party deal in September 2005 that
subsequently fell apart in which North Korea agreed to give up its
nuclear weapons programme in return for security guarantees, energy
benefits and other aid.

"It was a long day -- lot of effort by a lot of people," Hill said,
referring to the negotiations that started at 10:00 am (0200 GMT) on
Monday and did not finish until 16 hours later.

"I think we made a lot of progress."

The six-nation talks began in 2003 with the intent of convincing
North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme, but failed to
prevent the isolated communist nation from conducting its first
atomic test in October last year.

The latest round of the six-party forum -- which involve host China,
the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia -- began on
Thursday last week.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Captivated by U.S. Nuclear Envoy

From the Associated Press

Monday February 12, 2007 10:16 PM

By HIROKO TABUCHI

Associated Press Writer

 BEIJING (AP) - Little known in his home country, the 
boyish-looking U.S. nuclear envoy has become something of a 
celebrity in China's capital for his role in talks on North 
Korea's atomic weapons program.

 ``He's so charming and attractive,'' said Li Kenna, a desk clerk 
at the five-star hotel where U.S. Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill stays. ``He sometimes asks me how I am in the 
mornings. He's one of our nicest guests.''

 Hill - who has faced down Slobodan Milosevic and barricaded 
himself against mobs in Macedonia as a negotiator in the Bosnia 
and Kosovo crises - has been making visits to Beijing for years, 
with troops of reporters flying in from South Korea and Japan to 
cover his wrangling with North Korea over a deal that would rid 
the communist country of its nuclear weapons program.

  His easygoing manner has also won over the media in comparison 
to the stonewall public relations efforts put forward by some of 
the other countries in the talks.

    And with the negotiations taking place for hours on end 
behind closed doors, the idle time fuels speculation and jokes 
about Hill, including his clothes sense.

 The Beijing winter means Hill has been wearing a winter jacket 
that looks like it had been bought from a discount store, one 
Japanese reporter said. But he said Hill still looks good in it 
anyway.

  The interest in Hill may also stem from the fact that he speaks 
to the media every morning and evening, while his North Korean 
counterpart Kim Kye Gwan gives only the occasional chaotic news 
conference.

   Hill, a Boston Red Sox fan, also won over the Japanese media 
by turning up for meetings in Tokyo wearing a Seibu Lions 
baseball cap. The Red Sox just signed pitching star Daisuke 
Matsuzaka from the Lions.

   A career foreign service officer who has served five 
presidents, Hill speaks Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and 
Albanian.

 Interest in Hill, who is on the evening television news every 
day in Beijing, has even extended to the security men surrounding 
him.

  One bodyguard has been dubbed ``Matrix'' by Japanese reporters 
for his sleek sunglasses which look like they came from the 
science fiction movie. But even when the guard turned up in a new 
camel coat, he still did not outshine the boss's jacket.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 25 Antiwar.com: Secrets Bush and Cheney Can't 'Declassify' - 

by Gordon Prather

February 12, 2007

If "reporters" covering the Scooter Libby trial for alleged perjury
and obstruction of justice had bothered to read President Bush's
Executive Order 12958 of March 28, 2003 � entitled "Classified
National Security Information" � they would know that it does not
give the vice president the authority to declassify anything.

In particular, it does not give Cheney the authority to declassify
portions of the "highly classified" October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

And that Executive Order Directive most certainly does not � could
not � give anyone the authority to willfully violate the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which states

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."

And yet, Pete Yost reported in the Chicago Sun-Times on Feb. 16,
2006,

"When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions
to a grand jury that he'd been authorized by superiors to spread
sensitive information, the prosecutor did not specify which
superiors.

"But in an interview, Cheney said there is an executive order that
gives the vice president the authority to declassify information.

"'I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated
in declassification decisions,' Cheney said.

"Asked for details, he said, 'I don't want to get into that. There's
an executive order that specifies who has classification authority,
and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but
also includes the vice president.'"

What "sensitive information" was Libby claiming he was authorized to
spread?

Yost apparently assumes the sensitive information Cheney was talking
about was Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative.

"Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said Cheney's
ex-chief of staff could point to authorization as part of his
strategy.

"'If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions
related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the
truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of
information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally
different case than one centered around the activities of Libby,'
Ray said."

And it looks like Libby's the way the case is � perhaps
inadvertently � shaping up that way.

But on the basis of Libby's just released grand jury testimony, it
appears he was then referring to having authorization to leak still
classified portions of the 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD capabilities with
the intention of discrediting former ambassador Joe Wilson, the
State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as well as
the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Now, Libby could argue � perhaps successfully � that the National
Security Information he was leaking should never have been
classified in the first place or was no longer was deserving of such
classification.

National Security Information is classified as "Top Secret" if its
unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security.

National Security Information is classified as "Secret" if its
unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause
"damage" to national security.

The NIE itself, produced by the National Intelligence Council, was
given an overall classification by the director of central
intelligence of "Top Secret."

However, even some of the individual key findings in it didn't merit
qualify as top secret, or even secret, classifications.

In particular, when it came to the "intelligence" about Iraq seeking
"yellowcake" from Niger, according to the report of the Senate
Select Committee on prewar Iraqi intelligence,

"The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the
key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information
be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR [State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research] Iraq nuclear
analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium
reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their
disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution.

"The NIO [National Intelligence Officer coordinating the preparation
of the NIE] said he did not recall anyone really supporting
including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was
reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium
information did not need to be part of the key judgments.

"He told Committee staff he suggested that 'We'll leave it in the
paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots.
But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments.'"

So if the vice president had asked DCI George Tenet to declassify
the "uranium issue" portion of the still top secret NIE, Tenet would
no doubt have obliged. After all, Tenet had already authorized a
non-classifed version of the NIE.

But what could the top secret NIE contain in a footnote that could
possibly counter what IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei had
already said in his absolutely devastating March 7, 2003, report to
the UN Security Council?

"The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that
Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The
investigation was centered on documents provided by a number of
States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the
sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

"The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq
and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took
place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive
explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit
by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including
Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to
the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming
from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the
form, format, contents, and signatures of that correspondence with
those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the
concurrence of outside experts, that these documents � which formed
the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between
Iraq and Niger � are in fact not authentic. We have therefore
concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

Antiwar.com Home Page

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the
Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development
Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather
also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs
to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate
Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and
Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

 
Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Gates Vows Cooperation With Pakistan 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 12, 2007 10:31 AM

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

Associated Press Writer

 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pentagon chief Robert Gates vowed 
Monday that the United States will not neglect Afghanistan and 
will work with the government of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez 
Musharraf to combat the Taliban in the neighboring country.

 After meeting with Musharraf for about an hour at one of 
Musharaff's homes in Islamabad, Gates told reporters the two had 
discussed how Pakistan and the United States can work together on 
a spring offensive against the Taliban.

  Gates also said he hopes to play a constructive role in 
improving the relationship between Musharaff and the Afghan 
government.

  He reiterated other U.S. officials' remarks that the United 
States neglected Afghanistan for 20 years, contributing to a rise 
of terrorism in the region and the strengthening of al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan where the terrorist group was harbored by the 
Taliban.

           ``We won't make that mistake again,'' Gates aid.

     Before leaving Munich, where he attended a regional security 
conference, Gates responded Sunday to Russian President Vladimir 
Putin's assault on U.S. foreign policy by saying ``one Cold War 
is enough'' and that he would go to Moscow to try to reduce 
tensions. Gates also sought more allied help in Afghanistan.

    He delivered his first speech as Pentagon chief at a security 
conference in Germany and then flew to Pakistan to discuss fears 
of a renewed spring offensive by Taliban fighters in neighboring 
Afghanistan.

   Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, 
has faced charges that the Taliban militia stage attacks from 
Pakistan against Afghan government troops and NATO- and U.S.-led 
coalition troops.

   Gates' rebuke of the Russian president relied on humor and 
some pointed jabs.

 ``As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost 
filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost,'' Gates 
said. Then, as the audience chuckled, the defense secretary said 
he has accepted Putin's invitation to visit Russia.

    ``We all face many common problems and challenges that must 
be addressed in partnership with other countries, including 
Russia,'' said Gates. ``One Cold War was quite enough.''

     In his speech Saturday, Putin blamed U.S. foreign policy for 
inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend 
themselves from an ``almost uncontained use of military force.''

 The Russian leader said ``unilateral, illegitimate actions have 
not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further 
conflicts'' and that ``one state, the United States, has 
overstepped its national borders in every way.''

  Gates also made an urgent call for NATO allies to live up to 
their promises to supply military and economic aid for 
Afghanistan.

 ``It is vitally important that the success Afghanistan has 
achieved not be allowed to slip away through neglect or lack of 
political will or resolve,'' Gates said. Failure to muster a 
strong military effort combined with economic development and a 
counternarcotics plan ``would be a mark of shame,'' he said.

 Gates also said that prisoner abuse scandals in Iraq and 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other mistakes have damaged America's 
reputation. It will take work, he said, to prove that the U.S. 
still is a force for good in the world.

  While he did not mention the war in Iraq, Gates told officials 
at the security conference that Washington must do a better job 
of explaining its policies and actions.

 For the past century, he said, most people believed that ``while 
we might from time to time do something stupid, that we were a 
force for good in the world.''

 Many continue to believe that, Gates said. But, he added, ``I 
think we also have made some mistakes and have not presented our 
case as well as we might in many instances. I think we have to 
work on that.''

     The bulk of his speech was devoted to the future of the NATO 
alliance and the need to work together to defend against threats.

  Gates also sketched out the challenges ahead, from Iran's 
nuclear ambitions and the situation in the Middle East to China's 
recent anti-satellite tests and Russia's arms sales.

  Just eight weeks on the job, Gates used the conference and a 
NATO gathering this past week to debut on the international stage 
and meet privately with some of his counterparts.

   In other comments, he said the Bush administration would like 
to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, but there are 
some terrorists there who should never be let free. Gates also 
said detainee trials there will be conducted in the open and with 
adequate defense for the prisoners.

  The first public test of Gates' diplomatic skills came at a 
venue that at times was dominated by his more bombastic Pentagon 
predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

 So as Gates neared the end of his remarks, he made a deliberate 
move to separate himself from Rumsfeld.

  In the run-up to the Iraq war, Rumsfeld sharply criticized 
nations opposed to the conflict - specifically France and Germany 
- and referred to them as part of ``Old Europe.''

   Without mentioning Rumsfeld's name, Gates said some people 
have tried to divide the allies along lines such as East and 
West, North and South.

 ``I'm even told that some have even spoken in terms of 'old' 
Europe versus 'new,''' Gates said. ``All of these 
characterizations belong in the past.''

   In Pakistan, Gates planned talks with the president, Gen. 
Pervez Musharraf and other top officials on cooperation in 
counterterrorism and efforts by Pakistan to stop militants from 
moving across the border with Afghanistan, a senior Pakistani 
government official said Sunday. The official spoke on condition 
of anonymity because he did not have the authority to speak 
formally about Gates' visit.

   Pakistan denies the charges that the Taliban are staging 
attacks from inside Pakistan and says it has deployed some 80,000 
troops along its rugged border with Afghanistan to track down 
militants.

 Pakistan's border regions along Afghanistan long have been 
suspected to be the hiding places for al-Qaida leader Osama bin 
Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

    American forces in eastern Afghanistan have launched 
artillery rounds into Pakistan to strike Taliban fighters who 
attack remote U.S. outposts, the commander of U.S. forces in the 
region told The Associated Press on Sunday.

     Musharraf acknowledged recently that his outgunned Pakistani 
frontier guards have allowed insurgents to cross the border and 
said the army soon would fence parts of the border to stem the 
problem.

    The Pentagon has plans to extend its recent buildup of 
several thousand combat troops in Afghanistan, initially 
announced as lasting until late spring, well into next year, a 
senior U.S. military official said last week.

 That move would keep U.S. troop levels at between 26,000 and 
27,000 until at least the spring of 2008.

                                 ---

   Associated Press writers Sadaqat Jan in Islamabad, Pakistan, 
and Robert Burns at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, contributed to 
this report.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 27 Ynetnews: Only nuclear bomb can stop Israeli digging, Egypt MP says - 

Israel News, 

Egyptian parliament convenes special meeting to discuss works near
Mugrabi Gate; legislators from President Mubarak's party call to
'trample' 1979 peace treaty with Israel; 'that cursed Israel is
trying to destroy al-Aqsa mosque,' member of President Mubarak's
party says

Reuters and Ynetnews

Published: 02.12.07, 23:07 / Israel News


"That cursed Israel is trying to destroy al-Aqsa mosque...Nothing 
will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes it out 
of existence." Mohamed el-Katatny of President Hosni Mubarak's 
National Democratic Party (NDP) told the Egyptian Parliament.

During the special parliamentary meeting, which was convened to
discuss controversial renovations near the Mugrabi Gate in East
Jerusalem, other members of el-Katatny's party called to revoke
Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

"The war with Israel is still ongoing whether we like it or not,"
NDP legislator Khalifa Radwan said.

Mohamed Amer, another ruling party member, said: "What this
(Israeli) gang is doing makes me demand that we trample over all the
agreements we signed."

The parliament has little say in national security issues or foreign
policy, ultimately dictated by Mubarak who has rejected similar
calls in the past.

'Incitement for political gains'

Israeli leaders have stated that the works, meant to fortify an
existing structure outside of the Temple Mount, are causing no
damage to Al-Aqsa mosque and that Arab claims to the contrary are
nothing more than incitement by extremists.

Last week, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said "There are
irresponsible people, who know perfectly well that there is no
damage being done to any holy site, who are abusing the Israeli
democracy to incite religious sentiments for political gains."


Nonetheless, Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski suspended construction
late Sunday night in response to recent Arab-Israeli protests and
Israeli authorities said on Monday they would reconsider the planned
construction work near the mosque. 

 
Copyright &copy; Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 28 BAS Nuclear Roundtable: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists endorses
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:06:31 -0500



  Dear All,
                 Please, in particular, note the
Roundtable at the bottom of this article and
become involved. Please forward this to other
lists and interested parties. Purportedly
oppossing nuclear power, being concerned with
climate change and supporting nuclear power is
inherently sychophrenic and "The Bulletin Of The
Atomic Scientists" needs to hear this from us.

  -Bill Smirnow

From: Steven Starr
To: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:32 AM
Subject: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
endorses nuclear power as "an alternative energy
source"


 Dear Caucus Members,

 In the January/February 2007 edition of the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , the BAS board
of directors state (on page 71) that, "Major
progress towards a safer world would include
engaging in serious and candid discussion about
the potential expansion of nuclear power
worldwide.  As a means of addressing the threats
from climate change, nuclear power should be
considered as an alternative energy source."  In
the next paragraph, the board also states that, "
. . . nuclear energy production does not produce
carbon dioxide . . ".

On the back cover of this same edition, the BAS
has an advertisement by the McGraw-Hill Companies
for the 3rd Annual platts Nuclear Energy
conference, offering "Opportunities for Growth and
Investment in North America", including "Timelines
for licensing and building new nuclear plants" and
"Nuclear new build in Canada".

 Although the BAS directors chose to bury their
endorsement of nuclear power at the end of the
last article in their magazine, this policy
decision does not seem to me to be an
insignificant announcement.  For years the BAS has
consistently and frequently stated that nuclear
weapons and nuclear energy are inextricably
linked, i.e., the proliferation of nuclear weapons
has been and will continue to be a direct result
of the construction of nuclear power plants.  Why
is the BAS now suddenly willing to ignore this
fundamental issue?

Ironically enough, the BAS board members
apparently didn't believe the article they
published by Amory Lovins which appeared about 20
pages prior to their nuclear endorsement (page
47-48, ibid); Lovins notes that "nuclear [power]
displaces 2-10 times less coal-burning per dollar
than micropower or efficient use, and does so more
slowly".  Although a nuclear power plant itself
releases no carbon dioxide, the vast
infrastructure necessary to create nuclear energy
uses enormous amounts of fossil fuel and coal . .
. and this fact should not come as a surprise to
the BAS board members.

One more thing . . . in this edition the BAS has
chosen to begin placing a primary focus upon
climate change in conjunction with the dangers of
nuclear weaponry.  Yet in this publication, they
apparently chose to make no mention of three very
important new articles on the climatic,
atmospheric and societal effects of regional and
global nuclear conflicts by Robock,Toon, Turco,
Oman, Stenchikov and Bardeen (see
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acpd-6-11745.pdf
and
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acpd-6-11817.pdf
and
ttp://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/nw4.pdf  ).

Why is this?  Many other publications and media
have covered this story (for example, see
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/bob8.asp
and
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2720173&page=1
and
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003108.html )
Science News states that, "the results of today's
climate simulations-which are much more
sophisticated than those that were available in
the 1980s-suggest that even a nuclear exchange of
just a few dozen weapons could cool Earth
substantially for a decade or more."

If the BAS wants to focus on climate change, I
suggest that they focus upon nuclear winter first.
Meanwhile, the board of directors should
reconsider their new elevation of nuclear power to
"an alternative energy source".

The BAS website has just announced that beginning
on February 18th, they will hold an Online
Roundtable on Nuclear Power and Climate Change
(see http://www.thebulletin.org/ ).   Anyone who
is interested in this issue should make sure that
the BAS hears from them.



Sincerely,

Steven Starr





*****************************************************************
 29 ALJ: Hearing set for nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle | 

ajc.com

AHEAD OF THE CURVE 

By STACY SHELTON

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 02/12/07

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board is holding a pre-hearing conference at 9 a.m. Tuesday in 
Waynesboro, near Augusta, to hear arguments for and against 
granting Southern Nuclear Operating Co. an early site permit to 
add two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Five environmental 
groups are protesting the proposed units, citing concerns about 
the impact on the Savannah River, low-income and minority 
communities nearby, potential terrorist attacks and energy 
alternatives.

The pre-hearing conference will be in the auditorium of the 
Augusta Technical College's Waynesboro/Burke Campus at 216 Ga. 24 
S.

ajc.com    

� 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 
*****************************************************************
 30 Helsingin Sanomat: Finnish President sees nuclear power as "a short-term medicine"

Tarja Halonen

In an interview with the daily newspaper The Australian, Finland's
President Tarja Halonen has commented that nuclear power is only "a
short-term medicine" rather than a permanent solution to climate
change.

      President Tarja Halonen and her spouse Dr Pentti Arajärvi are
to make a state visit to Australia on February 13th to 17th, and
accompanying the President will be a delegation of Finnish
innovation experts.
     
Halonen told The Australian that nuclear power could distract
attention and investments away from the development of renewable
sources of energy and ways of cutting the overall use of energy.

      "That's why I'm afraid it's just an aspirin, a short-term
medicine", she was quoted as saying.

      "If you have a headache you take a pill, yes, but you should
also be interested in why you have a headache in the first place",
Halonen added.

      The President noted further that climate change is a fact, and
while nuclear power could help to reduce it, it also has many
negative side-effects. For example, it is acceptable to safe
societies only. Another problem is nuclear waste.

      "In its way it is a bill that is partly paid by the coming
generations", Halonen concluded.

      President Halonen also has misgivings about the use of nuclear
technology for military purposes.

      Instead, President Halonen hopes that Australia and other
countries including the USA, who have refused to sign the Kyoto
Protocol, would sign up to a new agreement to control emissions.

  12.2.2007 - TODAY
*****************************************************************
 31 AU ABC: Alice Springs council to vote on nuclear issue

ABC Northern Territory

Monday, 12 February 2007. 14:40 (AEDT)Monday, 12 February 2007.

Alice Springs Town Council will vote whether to declare Alice
Springs a nuclear-free zone at a committee meeting tonight.

The vote is symbolic rather than legally binding.

It comes after an Arid Lands Environment Centre petition of about
1,200 signatures and more than 130 letters from local businesses
calling on council to support the idea of Alice Springs as a
nuclear-free town.

Mayor Fran Kilgariff says while she is against a nuclear free dump
near Alice Springs, she will not be supporting the motion.

"Because of the current exploration for uranium that's going on in
town or around town, and the potential economic benefits to Alice
Springs' businesses which might be involved in mining and the fact
that we already have uranium products coming through the town
weekly," she said.

*****************************************************************
 32 BAS: No to Nuclear Energy

By Toshiyuki Toyoda

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Last October, I received a letter from the Bulletin's Board of
Directors inviting me to make a presentation at a conference on the
Future of Nuclear Energy in Chicago. I was a little bit surprised
that they offered to cover all travel expenses. It was hard to
imagine the Bulletin with an abundance of funding. In any case, due
to health reasons, I couldn't attend. Instead, I sent the following
contribution:

From the invitation, I understand that the main theme of this
conference is the future of nuclear energy during the next 20 years.
What I would like to say is that the next 20 years could cause a
disastrous 2,000 years for humankind if we allow a resurgence of the
nuclear energy industry worldwide. If my health permitted--and if my
old friends Bernard T. Feld and David R. Inglis were still alive--I
would be at the conference with them, chastening those who harbor a
malicious plan to exploit climate change for the benefit of the
nuclear industry.

When nuclear power was first introduced, government officials and
so-called experts from elite institutions assured its safety and
economic success. Now we know that they lied, or they were totally
ignorant.

We witnessed nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and
more. One thing common in these nuclear disasters is that
authorities, i.e., governments and nuclear industries, always tried
to hide essential information necessary to assess the scale of
danger and also the true causes of the disasters.

Remarks made by those pro-nuclear experts always underestimate the
possible danger of the nuclear disaster, and they are never shy to
deceive people. I remember one of these experts (perhaps a professor
at a prestigious university) said that because the probability of a
nuclear accident is much smaller than a jumbo jet crash, it is
ridiculous to worry. I believe he deliberately avoided discussing
the expectation value. For college students who learned probability
theory, it should be obvious that the relevant quantity is the
expectation value and not the probability itself. But for common
people, it may not be. I think this example typifies the general
attitude of those pro-nuclear experts.

Some time ago in Japan, an official institution of a pro-nuclear
group circulated hundreds of copies of a promotional video for
children. In the video, it was shown that plutonium was so safe that
one could even drink it! When I heard the story, I couldn’t
believe that a human, particularly one who certainly knew the danger
of plutonium, could make such a devilish propaganda video. I suspect
that similar deceiving propaganda is distributed worldwide.

Even though they are dishonest and shamelessly indifferent to the
future welfare of humankind, they are protected to lie under the
guard of secrecy for national security, because nuclear technology
is inherently connected to nuclear weapons. The amount of energy
released in a single nuclear reaction is on the order of 1,000,000
electron volts, while the typical chemical reaction yields only a
few electron volts. 1 This enormous amount of energy makes a nuclear
reaction particularly suitable for destructive purposes and not for
peaceful uses.

That amount of disastrous energy is also emitted from nuclear waste
for hundreds of years. One can see the risk of nuclear waste vividly
in the recent brief prepared by Greenpeace. 2 Everywhere else in the
world will face this same problem if we allow further nuclear power
plants. We have no right to leave dangerously radioactive high-level
nuclear waste for generations for thousands of years. That would be
the ultimate sin to the future of humankind and to the future of
this planet.

You may ask that if nuclear energy is excluded, what alternatives do
we have? The answer is given in a book written by Inglis in 1978,
Wind Power and Other Energy Options. 3 It seems obvious to me that
governments and industries have deliberately undermined such energy
options. Their sin should never be forgiven. 1 David Rittenhouse
Inglis, Nuclear Energy: Its Physics and Its Social Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1973.
2 The Nuclear Waste Crisis in France, Greenpeace Briefing Document,
May 30, 2006.

3 David Rittenhouse Inglis, Wind Power and Other Energy Options, The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1978.
 
THE BULLETIN ONLINE

� 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Remote Address: 69.36.186.201 � Server: www.thebulletin.org


*****************************************************************
 33 RIA Novosti: Russia set to launch first unit of NPP in India in 2008

15:19 | 12/ 02/ 2007
 
MOSCOW, February 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has experienced
difficulties with the construction of India's Kudankulam nuclear
power plant, but the first unit will nevertheless go online in 2008,
the head of Atomstroyexport said Monday.

Atomstroyexport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and services
export monopoly, has been building the Kudankulam plant in the
southern province of Tamil Nadu since 2002, in line with a 1988
agreement between India and the Soviet Union and an addendum signed
in 1998.

During Russian President Vladimir Putin's two-day visit to India in
January, Russia agreed to build four more power reactors for the
nuclear plant.

"To be honest, the construction of the Kudankulam NPP has
experienced some problems," Sergei Shmatko said. "We [Russia] had
problems with equipment deliveries, and India with the organization
of construction work. But the year 2006 turned out to be crucial in
some ways, and we managed to establish an atmosphere of complete
understanding and trust with the customer."

He added that the work was currently being carried out in a standard
mode and that the first unit would be put into operation in 2008,
and not in 2007 as previously announced.

The project, which was developed by Russian nuclear scientists and
leading nuclear energy enterprises, stipulates the construction of
third-generation water-cooled reactors with a capacity of 1,000 MW
each and upgraded security systems.

Water-cooled power reactors are the most popular type of reactors
used across the world. Some 250 water-cooled reactors operate in
various countries, including 49 made by Russia.

The NPP-92 project's main advantage lies in its use of advanced
equipment, involving several consecutive protection barriers
combined with passive and active security systems.

The reactors also incorporate specialized equipment to track, cool
and localize core meltdowns beneath the reactor shell, and have a
protection system against earthquakes, hurricanes, and crashed
planes.

Two power units at Kudankulam have already withstood a tsunami
thanks to specially designed wave barriers.

Russia and India will be able to start implementing the new
agreement only after the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which
controls nuclear exports and where Russia is a member, lifts its
restrictions on India.

India, a confirmed nuclear power, has never been party to the 1968
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and has been under U.S.,
Japanese and European sanctions since 1998 when it first tested
nuclear weapons, but the sanctions do not cover the agreement to
build the first two reactors of Kudankulam because it was reached
before the ban.

The bilateral agreement to build the four additional reactors for
Kudankulam also contained New Delhi's obligation to keep Russia's
nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel under the guarantees of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, during
their entire operational life. India has still to conclude an
agreement on the guarantees with the agency.

RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
 34 toledoblade.com: DTE Energy to seek another reactor at Fermi

Article published Monday, February 12, 2007

BLADE STAFF

NEWPORT, Mich. � DTE Energy today announced it will pursue a license
to build an additional nuclear reactor on its Fermi nuclear complex
here, which houses the operating Fermi 2 reactor and used to house
an experimental reactor known as Fermi 1.

Anthony Earley Jr., DTE chairman and chief executive officer, told
the Detroit Economic Club in a speech today that the new reactor
would likely cost about $3 billion. Millions are expected to be
spent just in the preparation of the license application just to see
if the project is viable.

No new nuclear plants have been licensed for construction since half
the core of Unit 2 melted at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant
near Harrbisburg, Pa., in March, 1979. Applications for new reactors
had ceased months prior to that, due to cost overruns in
construction of new reactors.

Some utilities in the South, buoyed by incentives under the Bush
administration, have recently expressed interest. DTE is to first to
apply from the Midwest.


 � 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 ,
(419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
 35 DFP: DTE Energy chief to discuss nuclear power in Michigan today

Detroit Free Press

FREEP.COM

February 12, 2007

By ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA

FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

DTE Energy Chairman and CEO Anthony Earley will make a speech 
about the importance of nuclear power in Michigan energy 
portfolio at the Detroit Economic Club at 1 p.m. today.

For more than a year, Earley has been talking up the importance 
nuclear power as a clean source of energy for Michigan. DTE 
Energy owns and operates Fermi 2 nuclear power plant in Monroe.

DTE Energy, parent company of Detroit Edison and Michigan 
Consolidated Gas, provides electricity to 1.8 million customers 
in Southeast Michigan and natural gas to about 1.2 million 
consumers.

For more information on the speech, go to www.econclub.org or 
call 313 963-8547.

Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or 
abodipo@freepress.com. .

and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005. � Copyright 2007
*****************************************************************
 36 FIA: NPP Kozloduy�s units don�t stand good chances of reopening

: Bulgarian Energy Minister

FOCUS Information Agency

12 February 2007 | 21:07 | FOCUS News Agency

Vratsa. �Units 3 and 4 of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) Kozloduy 
don�t stand good chances of reopening�, Bulgarian Minister of 
Economy and Energy Rumen Ovcharov said in the town of Vratsa, a 
correspondent of FOCUS News Agency reported. �If there are any 
chances at all, they are based on two arguments. First, Bulgaria 
is already an EU member state. Second, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, 
Greece and other states in the region are in a very complex 
situation because of the energy crisis following the shutdown of 
the two units. The activities aimed at saving the units are for 
the sake of foreign countries� needs, Ovcharov said.



Information Agency FOCUS
is a member of FIBEP
and is certified under the


*****************************************************************
 37 Business Review: Benefits of nuclear power touted at energy forum - 

(Albany):

The Business Review (Albany) - 1:36 PM EST Monday, February 12, 2007

New York's utilities should be allowed to increase their rates, 
according to Patrick Curran, executive director of the Energy 
Association of New York. Curran will use an energy forum being 
held at the Crown Plaza Hotel in downtown Albany, N.Y., on Feb. 
13 to make that case.

The energy forum is being sponsored by the New York Affordable 
Energy Alliance, a downstate industry and business group which 
supports the continued operation of the Indian Point nuclear 
power plant in Westchester County.

The 10 a.m. forum discussion will be the centerpiece of an effort to
convince the public, state legislators and state regulators that New
York's energy policy needs to change to allow new generators to be
built while keeping current plants on line, said Paul Steidler, a
spokesman for the Energy Alliance.

The Business Council of Westchester, Boilermakers Local No. 5 from
Long Island, the Independent Power Producers of New York Inc., and a
one-time founder of Greenpeace who now advocates for nuclear power
will participate in the discussion.

Curran, who represents National Grid, and Entergy Nuclear Operations
Inc., the company which owns Indian Point, said that
politically-driven decisions to hold-down energy delivery company
rates are endangering the reliability of the state's electricity
system. The utilities need capital to keep the system operating and
rates need to reflect that, Curran said.

The Independent Power Producers, which represents the state's
generating companies, sees this as a chance to make the case for
putting back in place a law that governs power plant siting. In the
absence of such a law, which was allowed to expire, local
communities can block power plants that are needed to ensure that
the state has enough electricity, said Christopher LaRoe, the
group's spokesman.

The Affordable Energy Alliance has invited Patrick Moore, the
chairman of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., a Vancouver, British
Columbia, company, to make the case on the need to address global
warming by utilizing nuclear power, Steidler said.


� 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All
*****************************************************************
 38 UK: The Herald : Sky's the limit for nuclear

Web Issue 2756 

DAVID BLACK February 12 2007

Hunterston nuclear power station

There's a nuclear war coming. One in which it will be the smart who
pile in and the foolish who stay on the sidelines. And one where the
yields will be measured not in megatons, but in pounds sterling.
Billions of them.

The opening rounds are already being fought and the big boys are
already in play - the multinational construction companies, the
global engineering groups and, if they too are smart, the law firms
hungry for big deals to close.

Next month, the government will publish its White Paper on the
future of the UK's energy supply. It is the worst-kept secret in
Whitehall that top of the list will be proposals to renew the UK's
commitment to nuclear power.

Battle lines between the pros and the antis are already being drawn,
but according to Hamish Lal, partner in Scottish-based law firm
Dundas & Wilson since last year, they are too late and on the wrong
battlefield.

The argument is not just about being "greener" than thou. It is also
about commercial sense, national security, and climate change. And
it is an argument that has largely already been decided. Nuclear is
not an industry waiting for this coming environmental debate to be
settled. Its future is not in limbo somewhere over the horizon. It
is here, now.

Lal is a barrister and D&W's expert on the nuclear industry. And he
is leading the charge for this Scottish Big Four player in what
promises to be one of the contract battles of the century.

Forget booting the door down to win work from constructors bidding
for the 2012 London Olympics' contracts, says Lal. That entire deal
is probably worth just �5bn.

Instead, think nuclear. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
alone already has �64bn to throw around over the next 30 years or
so. That is the entire Olympics' budget every year until 2040. And
we have not started talking about any new reactor build programmes.
Even the most hidebound senior partner can see where the percentage
fees are going on that kind of money.

Lal, 37, has a law degree from Oxford, a PhD from Dundee and a civil
engineering degree. His CV lists his specialisation as "contentious
and non-contentious construction, engineering and project finance
law". His weapon of choice is his expertise in the intricacies of
NEC3 - the New Engineering Contract template the government is now
applying to everything from offshore work and the Olympic
construction contracts, to nuclear decommissioning. Lal said: "When
you talk to the mandarins in Whitehall, they have decided: we need
nuclear power.

"We need it for socio-economic reasons. In other words, cheap
electricity. We need it for national security reasons. They do not
want to wake up one morning and have Gazprom tell us their
inter-connectors are empty. And we need it because it is carbon
neutral and will help us meet our Kyoto agreements.

"In England, the debate has been settled. Scotland is now the
battleground. Both SNP and Scottish Labour are anti-nuclear, so the
industry must start to lobby now if Scotland is to reap the full
benefit."

Benefits are already there. BNFL at Sellafield continues to process
spent fuel from UK, French and Japanese reactors, and British Energy
still runs reactors. In all there is about 2.3 million cubic metres
of waste to be disposed of. That involves the construction of
long-term settling ponds where the waste "cools" over decades. The
ponds require roofs, and evaporators to process the contaminated
atmosphere within.

Then there are the reactor decommissioning contracts. At present the
UK has 19 reactors generating 20% of our electricity. Those reactors
will be off grid by 2023.

Every major construction and engineering group in the world has
divisions already bidding for all those contracts. And D&W's Lal is
there to bid for the right to close them. It is a field in which he
has a head start. He does not know of another Scottish firm with a
nuclear specialist partner on board.

He will not be drawn on how much this might eventually be worth to
D&W's bottom line, save to say the sky's the limit. And he has not
started talking about the new reactor building programme that must
inevitably follow.

Lal said: "There will be legal issues to be resolved first. Where?
Let us say they will be built at existing sites, because the jobs,
experience and infrastructure are already there. But British Energy
own 65% of those sites and the other UK generators, the National
Powers and the E.ONs and RWEs are likely to cry not fair!'. That
will have to be resolved.

"The government say the planning process will be streamlined so that
we are not waiting years for a decision. There will be issues there
to be resolved. Then there will be the debate over who carries the
decommissioning and the waste (financial) risks. The government has
already said, it will not be us'. So who? And how?"

Lal's strategy is to accumulate experience in those processes so
that when it actually comes to, say, British Energy saying, "we want
a power station here', they're going to come to us to draw up the
deal."

It is a bonanza that Scotland could well miss out on. An
anti-nuclear Scottish Labour or SNP-controlled parliament would have
devolved power over the planning process no matter what Westminster
might say.

Yet Lal feels they are missing the point. Their objections are to
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl-generation reactors: huge, vastly
exorbitant to run, with radioactive legacies for generations to
come. But technology moves on. The current designs are to those, as
a 747 would be to the Wright Brothers' first effort. Together, their
legacy is 2.3 million cubic metres of pretty "hot" waste. But 10 new
generation reactors built now, would generate just 100,000 cubic
metres of a far lower grade material in the course of their working
lives, says Lal.

"I started neither pro nor anti," says Lal of the coming nuclear
versus environment debate. "But we are a nuclear power. And you
can't put the genie back in the bottle. If the question is how do we
have cheap, clean, secure energy, what do you think the answer is?"

l Hamish Lal will address a seminar on the nuclear industry at D&W's
office at Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh on March 16,
2007.

� All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without

Copyright � 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 39 FR: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Doc E7-2321

[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)] 
[Notices] [Page 6609-6611] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12fe07-115]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-272]

 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating 
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-35 issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for 
operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim), located in 
Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

    The amendment request dated January 15, 2007, supercedes the 
previously submitted license amendment request dated April 12, 2006, 
proposing new Pressure-Temperature (PT) curves and to extend the 
applicability of current PT limits expressed in Technical Specification 
Figures 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3 through the end of operating cycle 18.

    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 6610]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed License Amendment (LA) does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. There are no physical changes to the 
plant being introduced by the proposed changes to a restriction 
associated with the pressure-temperature curves. The proposed change 
does not modify the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (i.e., there 
are no changes in operating pressure, materials, or seismic        
z
loading). The proposed change does not adversely affect the 
integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary such that its 
function in the control of radiological consequences is affected.

    The current pressure-temperature curves were generated in 
accordance with the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix G, and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section Xl, Appendix G and 
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, ``Radiation Embrittlement of 
Reactor Vessel Materials.'' The current pressure-temperature curves 
were established in compliance with the methodology used to 
calculate and predict effects of radiation on embrittlement of 
reactor vessel beltline materials. The use of the proposed pressure-
temperature curves through operating cycle 18 is acceptable because 
sufficient margin exists between the actual Effective Full Power 
Years (EFPYs) and the Effective Full Power Years used to establish 
the 48 EFPY curve. This proposed license amendment provides 
compliance with the intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and 
provides margins of safety that assure reactor vessel integrity.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

    2. Does the [proposed] change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed license amendment does not create the possibility 
of new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. The pressure-temperature curves were generated in 
accordance with the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix G, and ASME B&PV Code, Section Xl, Appendix G. 
Compliance with the proposed pressure-temperature curves will ensure 
the avoidance of conditions in which brittle fracture of primary 
coolant pressure boundary materials is possible because such 
compliance with the current pressure-temperature curves provides 
sufficient protection against a nonductile-type fracture of the 
reactor pressure vessel. No new modes of operation are introduced by 
the proposed change. The proposed change will not create any failure 
mode not bounded by previously evaluated accidents. Further, the 
proposed change does not affect any activities or equipment and is 
not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident 
sequence. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The current curves are based on established NRC and ASME 
methodologies in force when LA 197 was approved. The proposed 
license amendment requests the use of the proposed curves for two 
additional operating cycles. This is acceptable because sufficient 
margin exists between actual EFPYs and the EFPYs used in the 
development of the existing curves to yield a conservatism factor 
slightly in excess of 1.8.

    Operation within the current limits ensures that the reactor 
vessel materials will continue to behave in a non-brittle manner, 
thereby preserving the original safety design bases. No plant safety 
limits, set points, or design parameters are adversely affected by 
the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.

    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.

 If a request for a hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of

[[Page 6611]]

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/
petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 
(3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible 
effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding 
on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also 
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks 
to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. 

The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the 
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.

    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be sent to Travis C. McCullough, 
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 
Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601, attorney for the licensee.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated January 15, 2007, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of February 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James Kim, Project 
Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 
E7-2321 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 40 FR: Regulatory Guide for licensing 

Doc E7-2372

[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)] 
[Notices] [Page 6620-6622] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12fe07-118]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Final Regulatory Guides: Impending Issuance, Availability, and 
Applicability to New Reactor Licensing

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance, Availability, and Applicability of Final Regulatory 
Guides for New Reactor Licensing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently 
reviewing and revising numerous guides in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
(RG) Series. This series has been developed to describe, and make 
available to the public, methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff 
for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques 
that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated 
accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications 
for permits and licenses.

Availability And Dates

    The NRC will make each new or revised RG publicly available through 
the following electronic distribution channels:

     The NRC's Electronic Reading Room on the agency's public 
Web site, in the Regulatory Guides document collection, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/
.

     The NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (using the ADAMS 

accession number specified in the footer on the first page of each 
regulatory guide).
    Please note that the NRC does not intend to distribute printed 
copies of these revised RGs unless specifically requested on an 
individual basis with adequate justification. Requests for single 
copies should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and 
Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by 
fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. In 
addition, the NRC does not intend to issue separate notices of issuance 
and availability. Consequently, interested parties should regularly 
peruse the previously specified electronic distribution channels to 
identify newly revised RGs.
    RGs are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to 
reproduce them. Copies of each RG and other related publicly available 
documents, including public comments received, can be viewed 
electronically on computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
which is located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, Room O-1 F21, and is open to the public on Federal 
workdays from 7:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will make copies of documents for a fee. Selected documents, including 
public comments on the DGs, can also be viewed and downloaded 
electronically via ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html.
 If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you encounter 

problems in accessing the documents stored in ADAMS, contact the PDR 
Reference Staff at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
PDR@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The revised versions of the RGs will not be 
used as a backfit to any previously issued staff position for existing 
nuclear power reactors. The purpose of the ongoing revision of the 
NRC's RGs is to ensure that prospective applicants have complete, 
accurate, and current guidance for use in preparing early site permit 
(ESP), design certification (DC), and combined license (COL) 
applications for proposed new reactors. In particular, the NRC staff 
ensures that the agency's regulatory guidance is

[[Page 6621]]

consistent with the rulemaking, ``Licenses, Certifications, and 
Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants'' (Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 52)). The proposed rule was published 
in the Federal Register on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12781).
    Over the past several months, the NRC has issued drafts of the 
revised RGs for a 45-day public comment period. The NRC staff is 
currently addressing the stakeholder comments received on these RGs.

Discussion

    The NRC regulates the siting, construction, and operation of 
commercially owned nuclear power facilities in the United States 
through a combination of regulatory requirements, licensing, and 
oversight (including inspection). These activities enable the agency to 
fulfill its mission to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use 
of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate 
protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and 
security, and protect the environment.
    In late 2000, the NRC became aware that some electric companies 
were exploring the option of building new nuclear power plants in the 
United States. As a result, in February 2001, the Commission issued a 
staff requirements memorandum (SRM COMJSM-00-0003) directing the staff 
to (1) assess its technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities, as 
well as its readiness to review new license applications and inspect 
new nuclear power plants; (2) examine the regulatory infrastructure for 
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, as well as other applicable regulations; and 
(3) identify any enhancements needed to ensure that the agency is 
prepared to review ESP, DC, and COL applications for new nuclear power 
plants.
    In response to the Commission's SRM, the staff issued SECY-01-0188, 
``Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment'' (FLIRA), in 
October 2001. In addition, although the FLIRA stated that the staff 
considers the agency's current regulatory infrastructure adequate to 
support new reactor licensing, the staff has undertaken major 
infrastructure changes to make new licensing reviews more effective and 
efficient, and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on future 
applicants. The staff's ongoing review and revision of the NRC's RGs is 
one significant aspect of these infrastructure changes.
    Through the years, the NRC has established 10 broad divisions of 
RGs, of which the following are the subject of the staff's particular 
efforts to support new reactor licensing.
     Division 1, Power Reactors
     Division 4, Environmental and Siting
     Division 8, Occupational Health
    Of these Divisions, the NRC identified a select group of RGs that 
required revision and are currently being updated to (1) ensure 
consistency with the rulemaking to update 10 CFR Part 52; (2) ensure 
coherence with NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of 
Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (SRP), which is also 
undergoing staff review and revision; and (3) provide prospective 
applicants with complete, accurate, and current guidance for use in 
preparing ESP, DC, and COL applications for proposed new reactors. 
Following is a list of RGs along with the Draft Guide (DG) numbers used 
during the public comment period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  RG                                DG title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7 DG-1117..........................  Control of Combustible Gas
                                        Concentrations in Containment
                                        Following a Loss-of-Coolant
                                        Accident.
1.9 DG-1172..........................  Application and Testing of Safety-
                                        Related Diesel Generators in
                                        Nuclear Power Plants.
1.13 DG-1162.........................  Spent Fuel Storage Facility
                                        Design Basis.
1.20 DG-1163.........................  Comprehensive Vibration
                                        Assessment Program for Reactor
                                        Internals During Preoperational
                                        and Initial Startup Testing.
1.23 DG-1164.........................  Meteorological Monitoring
                                        Programs for Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
1.26 DG-1152.........................  Quality Group Classifications and
                                        Standards for Water-, Steam-,
                                        and Radioactive-Waste-Containing
                                        Components of Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
1.29 DG-1156.........................  Seismic Design Classification.
1.37 DG-1165.........................  Quality Assurance Requirements
                                        for Cleaning of Fluid Systems
                                        and Associated Components of
                                        Water-Cooled Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
1.57 DG-1158.........................  Design Limits and Loading
                                        Combinations for Metal Primary
                                        Reactor Containment System
                                        Components.
1.61 DG-1157.........................  Damping Values for Seismic Design
                                        of Nuclear Power Plants.
1.68 DG-1166.........................  Initial Test Programs for Water-
                                        Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
1.71 DG-1167.........................  Welder Qualification for Areas of
                                        Limited Accessibility.
1.76 DG-1143.........................  Design Basis Tornado and Tornado
                                        Missiles for Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
1.92 DG-1127.........................  Combining Modal Responses and
                                        Spatial Components in Seismic
                                        Response Analysis.
1.93 DG-1153.........................  Availability of Electric Power
                                        Sources.
1.97 DG-1128.........................  Criteria for Accident Monitoring
                                        Instrumentation for Nuclear
                                        Power Plants.
1.112 DG-1160........................  Calculation of Releases of
                                        Radioactive Materials in Gaseous
                                        and Liquid Effluents from Light-
                                        Water-Cooled Power Reactors.
1.124 DG-1168........................  Service Limits and Loading
                                        Combinations for Class 1 Linear-
                                        Type Component Supports.
1.128 DG-1154........................  Installation Design and
                                        Installation of Vented Lead-Acid
                                        Storage Batteries for Nuclear
                                        Power Plants.
1.129 DG-1155........................  Maintenance, Testing, and
                                        Replacement of Vented Lead-Acid
                                        Storage Batteries for Nuclear
                                        Power Plants.
1.130 DG-1169........................  Service Limits and Loading
                                        Combinations for Class 1 Plate-
                                        and-Shell-Type Component
                                        Supports.
1.136 DG-1159........................  Design Limits, Loading
                                        Combinations, Materials,
                                        Construction, and Testing of
                                        Concrete Containments.
1.189 DG-1170........................  Fire Protection for Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
1.196 DG-1171........................  Control Room Habitability at
                                        Light-Water Nuclear Power
                                        Reactors.
1.200 DG-1161........................  An Approach for Determining the
                                        Technical Adequacy of
                                        Probabilistic Risk Assessment
                                        Results for Risk-Informed
                                        Activities.
1.205 DG-1139........................  Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
                                        Fire Protection for Existing
                                        Light-Water Nuclear Power
                                        Plants.
4.15 DG-4010.........................  Quality Assurance for
                                        Radiological Monitoring Programs
                                        (Inception through Normal
                                        Operations to License
                                        Termination)--Effluent Streams
                                        and the Environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6622]]

 The staff is also currently developing the following new RGs to provide
 prospective applicants with complete, accurate, and current guidance
 for use in preparing ESP, DC, and COL applications for proposed new
 reactors:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.206 DG-1145........................  Combined License Applications for
                                        Nuclear Power Plants (LWR
                                        Edition).
1.207 DG-1144........................  Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue
                                        Analyses Incorporating the Life
                                        Reduction of Metal Components
                                        Due to the Effects of the Light
                                        Reactor Water Environment for
                                        New Reactors.
1.208 DG-1146........................  A Performance-Based Approach to
                                        Define the Site-Specific
                                        Earthquake Ground Motion.
1.209 DG-1142........................  Guidelines for Environmental
                                        Qualification of Safety Related
                                        Computer-Based Instrumentation
                                        and Control Systems in Nuclear
                                        Power Plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC finalized and published Revision 2 of RG 1.92 (July 2006), 
Revision 4 of RG 1.97 (July 2006), Revision 1 to RG 1.196 and Revision 
1 of RG 1.200 (January 2007), and RG 1.205 (June 2006). The NRC plans 
to issue the remaining revised RGs as they are finalized between 
February and March of 2007. The staff has determined that the RGs 
listed previously may be uniformly applied (consistent with the staff 
guidance provided in the SRP) to the ESP, DC, and COL applications 
submitted for proposed new reactors.

Comment Procedures

    The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in 
connection with improvements to published RGs, as well as items for 
inclusion in RGs that are currently being developed. You may submit 
comments by any of the following methods:
     Mail comments to Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing 
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (MS T-6 D59).
     Hand-deliver comments to Rulemaking, Directives, and 
Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
     Fax comments to Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at (301) 
415-5144.
     E-mail comments to NRCREP@nrc.gov.
    Contact Information: Contact information for use in obtaining 
printed or electronic copies of the revised RGs is provided in the 
section on Availability And Dates. Contact information for use in 
submitting comments is provided in the section on Comment Procedures. 
Comments or questions about the NRC's revision of RGs to support new 
reactor licensing should be addressed to Jimi T. Yerokun at (301) 415-
0585 or by e-mail to JTY@nrc.gov.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February, 2007.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Farouk Eltawila,
Director, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 [FR Doc. E7-2372 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 41 FR: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear 

Doc E7-2373

[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)] 
[Notices] [Page 6611-6612] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12fe07-116]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412]
 
Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and 
NPF-73, issued to the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant 
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 51.21 
and 51.32, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding 
of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would be a conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (CTSs) to the Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITSs) format based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 2. The proposed action 
is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 25, 
2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, April 19, 
September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The Commission's ``Proposed Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788), 
dated February 6, 1987, contained an Interim Policy Statement that set 
forth objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements 
and operating restrictions should be included in the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. When it issued the 
Interim Policy Statement, the Commission also

[[Page 6612]]

requested comments on it. Subsequently, to implement the Interim Policy 
Statement, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff began 
developing standard TSs (STSs) for reactors supplied by each vendor. 
The Commission then published its ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (58 FR 39132), 
dated July 22, 1993, in which it addressed comments received on the 
Interim Policy Statement, and incorporated experience in developing the 
STSs. The Final Policy Statement formed the basis for a revision to 10 
CFR 50.36 (60 FR 36953), dated July 19, 1995, that codified the 
criteria for determining the content of TSs. The NRC Committee to 
Review Generic Requirements reviewed the STSs, made note of their 
safety merits, and indicated its support of conversion by operating 
plants to the STSs. For BVPS-1 and 2, NUREG-1431 documents the STSs and 
forms the basis for the BVPS-1 and 2 conversion to the ITSs.
    The proposed changes to the CTSs are based on NUREG-1431 and the 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this 
action is to rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTSs (i.e., to 
convert the CTSs to the ITSs). Emphasis was placed on human factors 
principles to improve clarity and understanding.
    Some specifications in the CTSs would be relocated. Such relocated 
specifications would include those requirements which do not meet the 
10 CFR 50.36 selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to 
the TS Bases document, the BVPS-1 and 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report, the Core Operating Limits Report, the operational quality 
assurance plan, plant procedures, or other licensee-controlled 
documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-controlled documents 
does not eliminate them, but rather places them under more appropriate 
regulatory controls (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.59) to 
manage their implementation and future changes.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the conversion to ITSs would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents. The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because 
no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed 
amendment. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents and has no other effect on the environment. Therefore, there 
are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and, thus, 
the proposed action will not have any significant impact to the human 
environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. Thus, the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
BVPS-1 and 2 dated July 1973 and September 1985, respectively.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 23, 2007, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Lawrence Ryan, of 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 29, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated 
February 25, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 11, 2005, 
April 19, September 9, October 24, and December 7, 2006, and the 
information provided to the NRC staff through the joint NRC/BVPS ITS 
Conversion web page. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/adams.html.
 Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact 
the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2007.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nadiyah S. Morgan,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-2373 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 42 FR: Energy Northwest; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Doc E7-2374

[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)] 
[Notices] [Page 6606-6609] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12fe07-114]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-397]

Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-21, issued to Energy Northwest (the licensee), for operation of the 
Columbia Generating Station located in Benton County, Washington.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
3.6.1.7, ``Suppression Chamber-to-Drywell Vacuum Breakers,'' to allow a 
one-time extension to the current closure verification surveillance 
requirement (SR) for one of two

[[Page 6607]]

redundant disks in one of nine vacuum breakers until reliable position 
indication can be restored in the main control room during the next 
refueling outage (R-18). Verification of closure of each vacuum breaker 
disk is currently required every 14 days by SR 3.6.1.7.1. The licensee 
requested that the proposed change be considered on an exigent basis.
    The licensee stated that during the January 6, 2007, functional 
test of vacuum breaker CVB-V-1JK, one of the redundant disks in the 
vacuum breaker assembly did not meet the procedurally defined 
acceptance criteria for open or close due to an issue with position 
indication limit switches. This problem has resulted in unreliable 
position indication for closure of the rear disk of the vacuum breaker 
and requires an alternate method of closure verification be employed 
(i.e., a differential pressure test). Consistent with SR 3.6.1.7.1, 
this test must be performed every 14 days. However, performance of the 
alternate test creates an unnecessary increase in plant risk relative 
to other compensatory options.
    The proposed one-time change to TS 3.6.1.7 would revise SR 
3.6.1.7.1 by adding a note to provide an extension to the SR for the 
rear disk of vacuum breaker CVB-V-1JK. This extension would remain in 
effect until the end of R-18, currently scheduled to begin on May 12, 
2007.
    On January 6, 2007, during a functional test of vacuum breaker CVB-
V-1JK, the rear disk of the vacuum breaker did not meet the 
procedurally defined acceptance criteria for open or close due to an 
issue with the position indication limit switches. When CVB-V-1JK was 
cycled from the control room, the close position indication did not 
extinguish and prevented the open position indication from 
illuminating. The separate full open indication did illuminate, 
indicating that the rear disk opened as expected; however, the closure 
of the disk could not be confirmed using normal position indication.
    With unreliable position indication in the main control room for 
the rear disk of vacuum breaker CVB-1JK, the alternate method of 
closure verification using the differential pressure test is required. 
This test, as described in the TS Bases, involves establishing a 
differential pressure between the drywell and suppression chamber equal 
to, or in excess of, 0.5 pounds per square inch differential (psid) to 
verify that the disk being tested can maintain that differential for 60 
minutes. Current test procedures specify that a differential pressure 
of 0.7 to 0.75 psid be established between the drywell and suppression 
chamber. This value provides margin to accommodate minor internal 
drywell temperature changes during the testing. Maintaining a 
differential pressure between the drywell and suppression chamber is a 
positive indication that the vacuum breaker disk being tested is 
closed. This test was performed on the rear disk of vacuum breaker CVB-
V-1JK on January 8, 2007, and again on January 22, 2007, and confirmed 
that the disk was seated. The degraded limit switches and associated 
circuitry are located in the inerted wetwell and cannot be accessed to 
restore normal position indication in the control room for the rear 
disk of vacuum breaker CVB-V-1JK while at power. Therefore, continued 
compliance with SR 3.6.1.7.1 would require that this pressure test be 
performed every 14 days.
    The licensee stated that when performing the vacuum breaker closure 
differential pressure test, drywell pressure is increased from near 
atmospheric conditions to approximately 45 percent of the Drywell 
Pressure--High scram setpoint of 1.68 pounds per square inch gauge. 
Frequent differential pressure testing places the plant in a condition 
with degraded margin for a reactor scram. This increases the risk of an 
inadvertent reactor scram from a minor drywell pressure transient which 
may have been managed by the operator if it occurred at a normal 
drywell pressure and can unduly challenge plant safety systems and 
personnel. Furthermore, when performing the differential pressure test 
to verify continued closure of the rear disk of vacuum breaker CVB-V-
1JK, the front disk is required to be open for at least 60 minutes 
while the test is being performed which degrades the capability of the 
vacuum breaker assembly to prevent bypass leakage when required. As 
previously discussed, TS 3.6.1.7 recognizes this increase in plant risk 
by drawing a distinction between an actual communication path and a 
potential communication path in the derivation of entry conditions and 
required actions.
    The licensee concluded that a more appropriate method to maintain 
public health and safety is to ensure that both disks of vacuum breaker 
CVB-V-1JK continue to maintain their current closed position without a 
change of state. Operating in this configuration, both the front and 
rear disks of vacuum breaker CVB-V-1JK would conservatively not be 
credited to perform the open safety function and would be declared 
inoperable for opening. Both disks are currently closed and have been 
verified as such using the normal position indication in the control 
room for the front disk and by the differential pressure test for the 
rear disk. This configuration is currently allowed by TS 3.6.1.7, since 
only seven of nine vacuum breakers are required to be operable for 
opening while in Modes 1, 2, and 3. In addition, with vacuum breaker 
CVB-V-1JK declared inoperable for the open function, SR 3.6.1.7.2 would 
not be required to be performed and the breaker disks would not need to 
be cycled.
    Continued operation in this manner until the end of R-18 would 
ensure that plant risk is minimized but also requires an extension from 
the current 14-day interval of SR 3.6.1.7.1. The proposed change is 
necessary because continued performance of SR 3.6.1.7.1 for the rear 
disk of CVB-V-1JK results in putting the plant in a condition that 
unduly increases the risk of an inadvertent reactor scram challenging 
both plant systems and personnel. Failure to perform the differential 
pressure test required by SR 3.6.1.7.1 would result in a failed 
verification of the current closed state of these vacuum breakers. TS 
3.6.1.7 would then require placing the reactor in Mode 3 within the 
next 84 hours and Mode 4 in the following 24 hours and would also 
challenge plant system and personnel.
    The licensee states that it will continue to verify that the front 
disk of CVB-V-1JK and both disks of the other 8 vacuum breakers are 
closed every 14 days as required by SR 3.6.1.7.1. If reasonable 
evidence is discovered to conclude that the rear disk of vacuum breaker 
CVB-V-1JK may no longer be in a closed position, the licensee states 
that it will take compensatory measures to verify that this disk is 
closed within 72 hours or declare the disk not closed and enter the 
appropriate action statement. In the proposed note, evidence that the 
rear disk may no longer be in a closed position is defined as evidence 
that the front disk has opened or that the rear disk has experienced a 
differential pressure in the direction that could cause the disk to 
open.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in

[[Page 6608]]

accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required 
by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Proper functioning of the suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum 
breakers is required for accident mitigation. Failure of the vacuum 
breakers is not assumed as an accident initiator for any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, any potential failure of a vacuum 
breaker to perform when necessary will not affect the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    During a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident], the vacuum breakers 
are assumed to initially be closed to limit drywell-to-suppression 
chamber bypass leakage and must be capable of re-closing following a 
suppression pool swell event. The vacuum breakers open to prevent an 
excessive vacuum in the drywell. The proposed change will not affect 
the capability of the required vacuum breakers to perform their open 
and close safety functions since the change only affects position 
verification and high confidence is assured that the disk remains 
closed. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers are used to 
mitigate the potential consequences of an accident. The proposed 
change does not affect the capability of required vacuum breakers to 
perform their open and closed safety functions. Thus, the initial 
conditions assumed in the accident analysis are not affected. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a change to plant design and 
does not involve any new modes of operation or testing methods. 
Accordingly, the required vacuum breakers will continue to perform 
their accident mitigation safety functions as previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The extension of the closure verification surveillance interval 
for one of the two disks in a vacuum breaker for approximately 4 
months is not risk significant as all required safety functions will 
continue to be performed. The vacuum breakers are not modified by 
the proposed amendment. The accident analysis assumptions for the 
closed safety functions of the vacuum breakers are satisfied when at 
least one of the disks in each of the nine vacuum breaker lines are 
fully closed and capable of re-closing following a suppression pool 
swell. The additional disk in each line satisfies the single failure 
criterion. The open safety function of the vacuum breakers is 
satisfied when 6 of the 9 vacuum breaker assemblies open during a 
DBA [design basis accident]. The other vacuum breakers satisfy the 
single failure criterion and provide additional defense-in-depth. 
Since all of the vacuum breakers are considered to perform their 
close safety function and 8 of 9 would be available to perform their 
open safety function, the proposed change will not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which 
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.
 If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible

[[Page 6609]]

effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding 
on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also 
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks 
to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to 
matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The 
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be sent to William A. Horin, Esq., 
Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817, 
attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 2, 2007, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-2374 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 43 Prague Daily Monitor: Half of fuel at Temelin´s 1st unit checked - 

Monday, 12 February 2007 

by Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / published 12 February 2007

Half of the fuel assemblies in the reactor of the first block of the
nuclear power plant at Temelin, southern Bohemia, have been checked,
Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar told CTK today.

Two weeks ago, the plant was shut down for two months because of
problems with the fuel supplied by US company Westinghouse.

Some of the assemblies showed bigger deformations than had been
expected.

Technicians will replace one quarter of the fuel with an improved
one, also produced by Westinghouse.

The block is to be launched again in late March.

The first unit will be shut down for two months again in August, and
one quarter of the fuel will be replaced.

Part of the rotor will also be replaced and the unit´s capacity,
currently 1,000 megawatts (MW), will rise by 20 MW.

The plant's critics claim that the fuel's deformation affects the
plant's safety.

The Czech State Authority for Nuclear Safety SUJB says the plant
meets all safety standards.

Austrian opponents of the Temelin nuclear power plant will stage
another blockade of the Austrian-Czech border crossing
Wullowitz-Dolni Dvoriste from 10:00 to 12:00 CET on February 14.

The activists want to protest against the alleged Czech violation of
the Austrian-Czech agreement on Temelin's safety and the sluggish
stance of the Austrian government on the matter.

This story copyright 2007 CTK Czech News Agency
The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its
content.


copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.
*****************************************************************
 44 Gristmill: Nuclear: re-evaluated and still sucky | 

Posted by David Roberts at 9:28 AM on 12 Feb 2007

As far as I can tell, there are precisely three environmentalists of
any note who have come to support nuclear power: James Lovelock,
Stewart Brand, and Patrick Moore. It's become something of a parlor
game for journalists to mix and match those three names in an effort
to claim that there's a "growing debate" among environmentalists
about nuclear.

As far as Moore goes, I wonder how much time has to pass before
journalists stop calling him "the former head of Greenpeace" and
start calling him an industry lobbyist? This Wall Street Journal
mash note manages to burn through several hundred words about
Moore's miraculous conversion without ever mentioning that he's a
paid shill for the nuclear industry. Isn't that relevant?

Anyway, it's always amusing to see mainstream journalists'
unshakable conviction that greens oppose nuclear power because their
brains stopped working in the '70s. It simply never crosses their
minds that greens have "re-evaluated" nuclear power and found it
(still) wanting. This notion that global warming is supposed to spur
new support for nukes makes no sense -- global warming just means we
need to allocate our resources as intelligently as possible, and
sinking billions of taxpayer dollars into trying to revive the
moribund nuclear power industry is a waste of money that would have
more impact spent elsewhere.


NUCLEAR ENERGY: the other inconvenient truth

Nuclear      $45 / MWh and baseload capable
Wind         $70 / MWh and variable
Solar       $160 / MWh and variable
IGCC+CCS     $80 / MWh and baseload capable

One of these has the lowest carbon footptint,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf
That same one also has the lowest cost.  If we use the lowest carbon
footprint, lowest cost electricity source we maximize GHG emission
reduction for dollars invested.

What else?  The world is already radioactive.  Learn about cosmic
and terrestrial natural background radiation.

What else?  Nuclear weapons?  Proliferation?  Nobody needs nuclear
electricity generation to enrich U for a simple gun-type U-235 bomb.
Denying ourselves emission-free nuclear electricity does nothing to
prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.  In fact, the opposite is
true, you can police/safeguard materials only if you ARE involved.

Waste?  Let's talk about it.  Spent fuel.  A contained solid, held
in posession, not sent up a stack.  Meanwhile, 900 tons of CO2 per
second are being dumped into the atmosphere.  That makes nuclear
energy a model of responsible waste management.

What about longevity of nuclear waste?  What about longevity of CO2!
 Study ocean carbonate chemistry.  Study what we know about the
ocean's rate of response to the PETM.  Study the work of such
authors as Christopher Sabine or David Archer (U of Chicago).  Be
assured, the CO2 event we're starting is every bit as long lasting
as nuclear issues.  Did you know 7% of today's CO2 emissions will
still be in the atmosphere 100,000 year from now?  True.  Remember
the glacial maximum that was supposed to be peaking in 80,000 years?
 Cancelled.

This whole thing is much, much, much bigger than most of you
realize.  Your great-great-grandkid's lives?  Have you seen Mad Max?
 Their great-great-grandkids lives . . . have you seen Clan of the
Cave Bear?

If you think we have the time and luxury of not choosing nuclear,
then you don't understand the science of climate.

Learn ocean carbonate chemistry.  Study the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum carbon incursion.  Study natural background radiation. 
Think about the fact that life evolved in a world that was already
full of ionizing radiation.  Think about that. 
Radiation ... life evolved in it!

Study.  Learn.  Think.

by dbinid at 10:43 AM on 12 Feb 2007

Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
�2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with
*****************************************************************
 45 AFP: Putin offers Saudi atomic energy cooperation 

by Lydia Georgi Mon Feb 12, 7:58 AM ET

RIYADH (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to help
Saudi Arabia develop atomic energy and pledged to develop ties with
the Islamic world during his first visit to Riyadh, a key US ally.

Putin listed Monday the "development of atomic energy" as one of the
potential areas of cooperation between Moscow and Riyadh, according
to an Arabic interpretation of his remarks made in Russian.

The offer, on the second day of a regional tour by Putin to boost
military and energy ties with traditional US allies, follows an
announcement by oil-rich Gulf Arab states two months ago to pursue
nuclear energy technology.

Russia is also building a nuclear reactor in Iran amid an
international standoff with the West, which suspects the Islamic
republic is seeking nuclear weapons, a charge denied by Iran.

"Russia is determined to enhance cooperation with the Islamic
world," Putin told a forum of Saudi and Russian businessmen on the
second day of his trip, which has put the seal on the improving ties
between Moscow and Riyadh.

The Muslim kingdom, a staunch Cold War ally of Washington, has
rolled out the red carpet for Putin, whose country's oil output is
exceeded only by regional powerhouse Saudi Arabia.

King Abdullah on Sunday hailed him as "a statesman, a man of peace,
a man of justice."

Putin, whose country has been trying to restore its international
clout, set the stage for his three-nation Middle East tour with a
scathing attack on Washington's foreign policy, describing US
dominance as "ruinous."

He told businessmen in Riyadh that Russia is a multi-ethnic,
multi-religious country where Christians and Muslims coexist
peacefully, and had long experience in promoting cooperation between
ethnic groups and religions.

"Russia is bent on pursuing this approach in all regions, including
the Middle East and the Arab Gulf," he said.

He apparently made no mention of Russia's military campaigns that
have killed thousands in the mainly Muslim breakaway province of
Chechnya, which has been wracked by conflict for most of the last 12
years.

Putin brought along the leader of the mostly Muslim region of
Tatarstan, Mintimir Shaimiyev, who received from Abdullah the "King
Faisal International Award for Service to Islam," an annual prize
worth 200,000 dollars.

During a meeting Sunday, Putin and Abdullah "discussed the full
range of developments on the regional and international scenes,
chiefly... the Palestinian issue and the situation in Iraq,"
official Saudi media reported.

Putin's visit came amid increasingly open Russian criticism of
Western policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Moscow
describing as "counterproductive" the boycott of the elected
Islamist-led Palestinian government.

King Abdullah, who hosted talks in Mecca last week that led to a
breakthrough Palestinian national unity accord, said Russia had an
important role to play in achieving Middle East peace through its
position as one of the process's sponsors.

Putin, whose government is anxious to sell weapons to a country that
has traditionally relied on Western manufacturers, also met on
Monday with Crown Prince and Defence Minister Prince Sultan bin
Abdul Aziz.

A diplomatic source has said Putin's talks were expected to lead to
a "verbal understanding" on the sale of about 150 Russian T-90
battle tanks to Riyadh, which is seeking to diversify its defence
systems.

King Abdullah stressed the importance of the world's two top oil
producers cooperating to keep world markets stable after prices
soared late last year only to drop back sharply.

Later Monday, Putin was to head to the gas-rich tiny emirate of
Qatar, headquarters for the commanders of US forces in the Middle
East.

Qatar has the world's third largest reserves of gas after Russia and
Iran and analysts said Putin was likely to discuss proposals for a
gas version of the oil cartel OPEC.

He was then due to travel on to Jordan, where he will meet King
Abdullah II and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 HVNS: Spano wants Indian Point out, but is less adamant on NYRI

Hudson Valley News story

Monday, February 12, 2007

  Monticello &ndash; Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano is 
as adamant as ever on the need to shut down Indian Point, as a 
nuclear facility.  Asked if he thinks the Ulster County 
Legislature&rsquo;s pending memorializing resolution calling on 
congress to change the relicensing criteria would work, Spano is 
in full support:

  &ldquo;If you have criteria for siting a plant, then 
you&rsquo;ve got to use the same criteria for relicensing a 
plant.&rdquo;

      Spano says it was actually their idea, some time ago, that 
relicensing should be based on the same criteria as was used to 
issue the original license: does a nuclear power plant belong in 
a specific location.

 As for what to do with the plant, Spano says either convert it 
to a non-nuclear energy source, or find replacement energy. 


                      Democrat Spano chats with Republican 
Sullivan County Legislator Leni Binder

Time would fix that, he says. &ldquo;If you have a five-year leeway,
the market itself would take care of the 2,000 megawatts.&rdquo; 

Asked if Spano things the New York Regional Interconnection power
line could be a source of some of that additional power.

&ldquo;The only thing we&rsquo;re against right now is bringing the
gas lines through Westchester County through our park system. 
That&rsquo;s all.  We were certainly in favor of bringing additional
energy down in any form, as long as it didn&rsquo;t disrupt the
quality of life in the county.&rdquo;

Spano made his comments while visiting officials in Sullivan County,
where there is strong opposition to a project officials say would be
very disruptive to the quality of life.

The NYRI line would stop in eastern Orange County, on the other side
of the Hudson River, about 30 miles from Westchester County. 

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only
                     Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 47 AFP: South Africa to build second nuclear reactor 

Mon Feb 12, 2:48 PM ET

CAPE TOWN (AFP) - South Africa is to build a second nuclear power 
plant generating more than 1,000 megawatts of electricity, the 
government announced.

"The decision to build a second plant has been taken," Trade and
Industry Minister Alec Erwin told reporters in Cape Town.

"We hope to take a decision on the preferred bidder in the first
quarter of this year."

South Africa has one nuclear power station at Koeberg near Cape
Town, producing about six percent of the country's electricity.
South Africa is a uranium producer, but enriched uranium for Koeberg
is imported from France.

The government announced last year it was probing the viability of a
uranium enrichment programme, stressing it had no intention of
developing nuclear weapons.

South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons programme in the early
1990s during its transition from white minority rule to a democratic
state.

The country, which has defended Iran's right to enrich uranium for
peaceful purposes, is a member of the International Atomic Energy
Agency and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Erwin said nuclear energy formed part of a broad effort to secure
energy supply in a country recently plagued by power outages in big
cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town.

The country was also developing a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 48 NewsRoom Finland: Nuclear no permanent solution to climate change -

Finnish president

12.2.2007 at 9:11

Tarja Halonen, the president of Finland, was quoted as saying by the
Australian on Monday that she did not consider the construction of
further nuclear power generating capacity to be the solution to
climate change.

President Halonen was interviewed by the newspaper just before her
visit to Australia.

President Halonen told the daily that she was afraid nuclear power
was "just an aspirin, a short-term medicine", adding it might
distract attention from developing renewable energy and reducing
energy consumption.

"If you have a headache you take a pill, but you should also be
interested in why you have a headache in the first place," President
Halonen told the Australian.

The president added that she hoped all countries would ratify the
Kyoto protocol, something countries like Australia and the United
States have refused to do.

President Halonen's state visit to Australia is to begin on Tuesday.

Finland's fifth nuclear power station is scheduled to go online in
2009.

Erkki Virtanen, the permanent secretary at the Finnish trade and
industry ministry, told commercial broadcaster MTV3 on Monday that
emission reduction targets and energy demand could not be met
without a sixth nuclear power station.

/STT/

� Copyright STT 2007

� 1995 � 2005, Virtual Finland
Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
*****************************************************************
 49 Ottawa Citizen: Albertans divided over nuclear-fuelled oilsands

canada.com where perspectives connect

Jason Fekete and Tony Seskus, The Calgary Herald

Published: Monday, February 12, 2007

CALGARY As Ottawa and Alberta prepare to introduce long-awaited 
greenhouse gas regulations, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmac's top 
lieutenant says nuclear power is a natural fit for the oilsands 
and the only way to achieve substantial emissions reductions.

But a new poll suggests the nuclear option could face considerable
resistance from Albertans, particularly in the north and among a
majority of women.

Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove — who holds the
province’s purse strings — said using nuclear power for some of
Alberta’s energy-intensive oilsands projects would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and generate much-needed electricity for
the province.

“It would seem to be such a natural fit that I hope we make all
the effort we have to to understand that option,” said Snelgrove.
“You have the push on one hand for clean air — CO2 reductions
— but out of the same field ‘Don’t do nuclear.’ What else
could we do except shut down?”

The federal and provincial governments are both expected to
introduce in the coming weeks intensity-based regulations (carbon
dioxide per barrel) for the oilsands, rather than absolute
reductions being demanded by political opponents and environmental
groups.

There’s growing speculation, however, that Prime Minister Stephen
Harper may introduce more stringent emissions regulations than first
thought, which could lead to Ottawa butting heads with Alberta on
the issue.

A new poll by Cameron Strategy, provided to CanWest News Service,
suggests nuclear power for the oilsands is highly contentious in
Alberta.

The poll of 812 Albertans shows using nuclear power in the oilsands
is a “very divisive issue,” with 45 per cent backing the concept
and 43 per cent against. Twelve per cent weren’t sure.

Opposition grows in northern Alberta — home of the oilsands —
where 53 per cent of residents disapprove of introducing a nuclear
option, while only 36 per cent support it.

“It has all the makings of a major, major controversy. You’ll
have different camps lining up against each other,” said Bruce
Cameron, president of Cameron Strategy, which conducted the survey
Jan. 22-30.

For his part, the province’s environment minister, Rob Renner,
said he’s skeptical about nuclear energy for the oilsands and has
concerns over how to dispose of nuclear waste.

“We obviously have no experience with it in Alberta,” Renner
said in January. “It’s worth looking at, but I think it’s a
very long-term solution.”

The poll is considered accurate within four percentage points, 19
times out of 20.

The poll comes as the idea of nuclear power in the oilsands appears
to be gathering steam with the federal government.

Last month, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said nuclear power
is an option worth pursuing as petroleum producers look to decrease
reliance on natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions.

Oil companies burn vast amounts of natural gas to extract
molasses-like bitumen from oilsands, but nuclear energy is
emission-free and doesn’t spew greenhouse gases, Lunn argued.

“Obviously, there are some real good benefits attached to it,”
Murray Elston, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, added
in a phone interview Friday.

However, critics charge the nuclear option isn’t economic,
environmentally friendly or emissions free. They would like
Alberta’s decision makers to leave the strategy on the shelf and
study other options.

“We would certainly recommend that the oilsands industry and
government not even take the time to look at that,” said Dan
Woynillowicz, policy analyst at environmental think-tank the Pembina
Institute.

jfekete@theherald.canwest.com
tseskus@theherald.canwest.com

© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest
*****************************************************************
 50 SNA: Bulgaria: Clear Support for Bulgaria's Nuke "Hard to Get"

Bulgaria in EU: 12 February 2007, Monday.

Bulgaria will find it quite hard to receive clear and concrete
support for the revival of Units 3&4 of the Nuclear Power Plant in
Kozloduy, the Economy and Energy Minister commented.

Rumen Ovcharov spoke before a gathering of the socialist party in
Vratsa, just 100 kilometers away from Kozloduy, and had to answer
lots of questions about the fate of the reactors.

People wanted to know whether Ovcharov had received any support for
the nukes' revival during his visit in London, Darik News revealed.
He explained that what he got was mostly understanding that Bulgaria
should stay the main energy producer in the region.

Bulgaria had to close four of its six nuke units as agreed upon in
the accession treaty with the EU. As a result countries in the
region are starting to feel the weight of a looming energy crisis.

novinite.com  Forum  Google  Tourism  Business  MobileBulgaria    


     All Rights Reserved � Novinite Ltd., 2001-2007 - Copyright &

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news
provider in English that informs its readers about the latest
Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online
newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
*****************************************************************
 51 Ynetnews: Israel plans to build nuclear power plant, official says - 

Israel Money, 

Country considering erection of atomic energy plant, in light of 
Israel's growing energy needs, head of Israel Electric Corp says

Amir Ben David

Published: 02.12.07, 09:39 / Israel Money

The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) is mulling the
construction of a nuclear power plant in Israel, Director-General of
the Israel Electric Corp Uri Bin-Nun said.

 Ben-Nun was quoting the head of the IAEC, Gideon Frank.

 The IAEC said in response that "the idea to erect a nuclear power
plant for electricity generation is not new. In light of the State
of Israel's energy needs, it's only natural that we have shown
interest in the subject."

 However, the commission stressed that the issue will not be put up
for discussion in the near future.

 Several weeks ago, National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben
Eliezer said Israel should look into the possibility of generating
power "through unconventional measures."

 Israel has already designated an area in the south of the country
near Shivta, not far from the Egyptian border, for the purpose of
constructing the plant.

 The publication of Israel's plan in the area several years ago
roused anger in Egypt, which claimed that an accident in the place
might severely affect it.

 However, the situation has changed since, and in recent months both
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah spoke of
the possibility of building nuclear power planst in their countries.

Copyright &copy; Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 52 [v911t] DU Film avail. must see
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:43:54 -0600 (CST)


Award winning  BEYOND TREASON is now available for 20.00.

Many thanks to Power Hour productions and William Lewis Films for
making this movie which has been shown extensively and is the
recipient of the Grand Festival award at the film festival in
Berkeley, CA.   A cd of documents retrieved under the Freedom if
Information act is enclosed.   This documentary and cd are the only
thing needed to present the case of depleted uranium to the world.
Beyond Treason, put together in exceptional soundbites, offers the
viewer / reader all one need's to never be snowed about depleted
uranium again.

Introduction: Featuring combat airborne medic and former US Army
Drill Sergeant Dennis Kyne; Beyond Treason also has Leuren Moret,
a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory whistleblower; and Doug Rokke, Phd.,
a US Army Major who was appointed by name to manage the DU clean
up of Desert Storm.

In exceptional detail these three explain the battle field effects
of vaccinations, uranium and other incredible problems associated
with the assault on the middle east.

Joyce Riley,  former CPT US Air Force, explains many of the situations
veterans are faced with under these circumstances and does a wonderful
job of introducing: Bob Jones, Mark Zeller, and Dan Topoloski, all
veterans of Operation Desert Storm.....who give us detailed accounts
of their experiences as well.

This is a four star movie.  It will assist anyone looking to
understand the global ramifications of the United States use of
depleted uranium

You can purchase as many copies of this DVD, with a shipping fee
of 5.00.

Please visit today or send this email on to anyone you feel needs
to be made aware of depleted uranium.

It is omnicidal....

http://www.denniskyne.com/beyondtreason.htm  to purchase your copy
today.

Dennis Kyne Support the Truth www.denniskyne.com

--------------------------------- Never Miss an Email Stay connected
with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!

*****************************************************************
 53 NRC: Finds Problem with Tank Design of Low to Moderate Safety 
Significance

News Release - Region III - 2007-002 - NRC 


U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final 
determination that the calculation method used by Clinton Nuclear 
Power Station to ensure proper functioning of a pump needed in 
certain accident conditions was inadequate. The NRC determined 
the issue to be of low to moderate safety significance. The plant 
is operated by Exelon Generation Co.

 The calculation problem had to do with the minimum level of 
water in the reactor core isolation cooling water storage tank to 
ensure continued operation of the high pressure core spray pump.

 The high pressure core spray pump draws water from the tank to 
cool the reactor when the regular source of cooling water becomes 
unavailable in certain accident conditions.

   A 2006 NRC inspection concluded that the mistake in 
calculations would result in rendering the pump unavailable to 
perform its safety function in certain accident conditions. The 
low water level in the tank would lead to entraining air into the 
pump suction line and preventing the pump from functioning 
properly.

   The utility has taken corrective actions to address the 
problem. James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator, said: 
&ldquo;Even though regular plant operations were not affected by 
this issue and the plant continued to be safe, the NRC&rsquo;s 
finding shows how important it is to thoroughly review the design 
calculations for safety-significant equipment.&rdquo;

     The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance 
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start 
with &ldquo;green&rdquo; and then increase to 
&ldquo;white,&rdquo; &ldquo;yellow&rdquo; or &ldquo;red,&rdquo; 
commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 
White findings normally result in additional NRC inspections and 
meetings with the utility. Based on the white finding, the NRC 
issued a Notice of Violation to Exelon Generation Co. for its 
failure to ensure the adequacy of design of the high pressure 
core spray system. The company is required to respond to the 
Notice of Violation within 30 days, describing its corrective 
actions and steps it is taking to prevent a recurrence of the 
violation.

  The letter notifying Exelon of the white finding will be 
available from the NRC&rsquo;s Region III Office of Public 
Affairs or in the NRC&rsquo;s online document library at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

                   Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer Last revised 
Monday, February 12, 2007

*****************************************************************
 54 ENS: Aerospace Giant to Pay $12 Million for Discharge Violations

Environment News Service (ENS)

HARTFORD, Connecticut Aerospace systems manufacturer Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation, of Windsor Locks, Connecticut, pleaded
guilty on Thursday before U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson in
Hartford to two counts of violating the federal Clean Water Act. The
company admitted discharging hexavalent chromium and copper to the
Farmington River in excess of its permit limits.

In a binding plea agreement filed with the Court, Hamilton
Sundstrand has agreed to be placed on probation for a period of five
years and to pay a fine in the amount of $1 million. Other
penalties, contributions to environmental programs and facility
upgrades will cost the company about $11 million.

With more than 16,000 employees and facilities throughout the world,
Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., is
among the largest global suppliers of technologically advanced
aerospace and industrial products.

Hamilton Sundstrand designs and manufactures environmental control,
life support and other systems for a variety of space applications,
including the Space Shuttle orbiters and the International Space
Station. (Photo courtesy NASA)

At its headquarters facility in Windsor Locks, Hamilton Sundstrand
manufactures air, spacecraft and marine control systems and
components, and in the process generates various metal finishing and
parts-testing wastewaters that contain toxic pollutants, including
chromium and copper.

Some of those wastewaters were treated on-site in Hamilton
Sundstrand�s wastewater treatment system before being discharged
into the Farmington River under an federal permit. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit established
numerical limits at specified discharge locations for a list of
pollutants, including hexavalent chromium and copper.

The results of required monitoring were required to be submitted to
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, CT DEP, in
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports, DMRs.

In pleading guilty, Hamilton Sundstrand admitted that, from 2001
through 2003, the chrome reactor did not meet hexavalent chromium
permit limits on a consistent basis. When grab samples revealed
hexavalent chromium levels above permit limits, Hamilton Sundstrand
sometimes omitted the data from Daily Records Sheets entirely.

At other times, the data was recorded on the Daily Records Sheets
and then altered to conceal the permit violations.

In either case, the chrome violations were not reported to CT DEP on
the monthly DMRs. Instead, Hamilton Sundstrand knowingly submitted
monthly DMRs that falsely presented altered and selected data as
"representative" of the chrome reactor discharge, thereby concealing
repeated violations of its NPDES permit.

Hamilton Sundstrand also admitted that, on August 29, 2003, the
beginning of Labor Day Weekend, its employees transferred the
contents of a tank containing chelated copper to a holding tank in
the wastewater treatment area and then into the wastewater treatment
system.

The concentrated solution from the tank contaminated more than
100,000 gallons of wastewater, and turned the contents of the entire
system blue.

Some facility systems continued to operate throughout the holiday
weekend and wastewater continued to enter the treatment system,
until by Monday, September 1, 2003, the system was nearing capacity.

Rather than stopping or rerouting wastewater flows, Hamilton
Sundstrand knowingly discharged tens of thousands of gallons of
contaminated wastewater to the Farmington River between the morning
of September 1 and the morning of September 2, 2003.



The Farmington River, part of which is a federally designated Wild
and Scenic River (Photo courtesy National Park Service)

The wastewater was not analyzed prior to the discharge and CT DEP
was not notified.

Subsequent analysis of a sample of the contaminated wastewater
gathered on September 2, 2003 revealed concentrations of copper more
than seven times over the maximum levels allowed by the NPDES permit.

Samples gathered on September 3, 2003 violated both daily maximum
and monthly average limits for copper. Samples collected on
September 3, 2003 and September 9, 2003 also violated the permit�s
aquatic toxicity limits.

In addition to the $1 million fine, Hamilton Sundstrand has also
agreed to:
* Make a contribution in the amount of $500,000 to the Connecticut
  Statewide Supplemental Environment Programs, SEP, Account, managed
  by the CT DEP. The contribution will fund ecosystem management
  projects in the Farmington River Basin, including, but not limited
  to, river restoration, dam removal, fish habitat enhancement,
  sediment removal, and stream bank stabilization.


* Make a contribution in the amount of $2 million to the
  Connecticut Statewide SEP Account to be used to address the water
  quality impacts caused by farmland application of surplus manure
  from dairy farms.


* Make a contribution in the amount of $500,000 to the Connecticut
  Statewide SEP Account to procure or to develop and implement an
  electronic information management system for data required under
  the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

  The Connecticut DEP intends that this system will make monitoring
  data available to the public over the internet and will provide
  the Connecticut DEP with enhanced capabilities to monitor and
  assure compliance with permit terms and conditions.


* Reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
  nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide below current levels by
  installing and operating a 5.4 megawatt modern gas turbine
  cogeneration-based combined heat and power facility by July 1,
  2011.

  Hamilton Sundstrand will contribute a $2,400,000 grant payment
  that it will receive from the Connecticut Department of Public
  Utility Control for constructing the Cogeneration Facility to the
  Connecticut Statewide SEP Account.


* Eliminate all process wastewater discharges to the Farmington
  River, reduce groundwater remediation effluent discharges to the
  Farmington River, and improve its wastewater and reuse water
  collection and treatment facilities by installing and operating a
  Wastewater Treatment Facility Process Wastewater and Groundwater
  Reuse System, and expanding and reconfiguring its facilities for
  storing process wastewater, remediation groundwater, chromium
  process wastewater, and boiler and cooling tower waters;
  reconfiguring and relocating portions of its groundwater treatment
  systems; and modifying its WTF control room computer equipment.
These environmental upgrades and improvements are expected to cost
Hamilton Sundstrand approximately $5,600,000. If the costs are less,
Hamilton Sundstrand has agreed to pay the difference to the
Connecticut Statewide SEP Account.

Hamilton Sundstrand has also agreed to submit regular progress
reports to the Government and CT DEP and to institute a strict
environmental compliance and training program. These include a
regular certification by the president of Hamilton Sundstrand that
the company is in compliance with the requirements of the Clean
Water Act.

 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved.
              The ENS website is maintained by HKCR LLC
*****************************************************************
 55 Radioactive issue inspires grass-roots activism

By TOM NAMAKO Staff Writer, (856) 794-5115

Published: Monday, February 12, 2007

Terry Ragone, of Newfield, is part of a grass-roots effort to 
stop Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.'s plan to bury radioactive 
waste in the borough.

NEWFIELD — Terry Ragone and Loretta Williams are none of the 
following: High-powered attorneys. Environmental experts. Nuclear 
scientists.

Ragone, instead, lives in a century-old farmhouse off a dirt road in
the borough and works with a performing-arts center in Philadelphia.

And Williams lives with her sister in an impeccably clean home just
down the road, and is a voracious reader of current events and
political history.

To them, the argument against a local company's plan to bury
radioactive waste in the borough is common sense: businesses and
residents will leave. There will be negative health effects. The
water will become (even more) contaminated.

They've even picked up some key terms to frame their arguments. It's
almost comical to hear Williams, a spunky woman with thick red
glasses, talk about today's fluctuating uranium market from her
white recliner. Ragone can define complex nuclear measurements
easily. (She keeps the heat out of her house in the summer with a
truly scientific method: she stuffs newspapers between the door and
door frame.)

But, as both found out last week, their efforts may not be enough.

For the past 13 years, Ragone and Williams have spearheaded a
grass-roots opposition to Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.'s plan to
bury uranium and thorium waste in its backyard. Williams distributed
fliers outside the post office. Ragone started a “Shieldalloy
Update” newsletter. Both cultivated contacts with state, federal
and industry officials.

People started paying attention. Public meetings, like the most
recent events in December, were packed and heated.

But today, the issue has moved past public hearings and fliers. It's
at a legal level that federal and Shieldalloy officials both
basically said Ragone and Williams aren't experienced enough to
handle.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the plan to
dispose of the low-level radioactive rocks and dust by burying it
and capping it with dirt, grass and stone. If approved in October
2008, it would become the first official nuclear waste dump in New
Jersey.

One of the last ways to stop the NRC's review has come and gone.
Residents, politicians and the state were encouraged to bring
specific complaints about the plan to a panel of three judges at a
hearing. Ragone and Williams were the only two borough residents
without any other affiliations to file for a hearing.

Last week, the NRC asked to have Williams' request dismissed and
Shieldalloy asked to have Ragone's thrown out. The fight is now even
more difficult, she said.

“The Petitioner has not set forth any admissible contention,”
read the NRC letter Williams received last week. She keeps all her
Shieldalloy information in a wood clothes dresser in her home.

“Rather than set out a concise, specific statement of the issue or
issues to be placed in controversy accompanied by an explanation of
the basis of the contention and a brief statement of the facts or
expert opinions supporting the contention, the Hearing Request
consists only of vague statements of general concern,” the NRC
said.

In other words, Williams didn't know the ins and outs of NRC
regulations. Shieldalloy said the same about Ragone's concerns.

“We don't have the time, the money or the resources to conduct any
large legal investigation,” Williams said. “They know that, and
it's taking away the voice of the people who are going to be
affected most by this proposal.”

Both said it makes it seem like the NRC wants to bury the waste in
Newfield.

“They're certainly making it seem that way,” Ragone said.

That idea, Ragone said, is spreading throughout the borough.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said the agency is giving its
opinions on the contentions one at a time. The state Department of
Environmental Protection, freeholders in Cumberland and Gloucester
counties, Newfield Borough and several Gloucester County politicians
have all filed a hearing request.

“The staff is not there to be adversarial,” Sheehan said.
“They're looking at it from a regulatory perspective, and giving
responses once they're reviewed.”

But Williams wants to know who, besides some attorneys and
environmental experts, can reach into the depths of the NRC's
regulations and make a real argument?

“I felt like saying to them ‘You change your rules all the time.
How am I supposed to keep up with them?'” Williams said.

Dismissing letters or not, Ragone plans on being there until the
dispute is settled — in Newfield's favor, of course.

Last week, she went to a common metal shelf in the small borough
library and picked out a white binder full of documents dating back
at least 13 years — the notice of Shieldalloy's original plan in
the federal register, old newsletter filings, minutes from public
meetings.

She held the volume gently and put it back with care. She searched
some loose pages around it to see if they were related.

“It's our little file here, our way to keep a history of how we
opposed this plan,” Ragone said. “It'll show that we never gave
up.”

To e-mail Tom Namako at The Press:

TNamako@pressofac.com
*****************************************************************
 56 cbs4denver.com: Study Of Drilling At Former Nuke-Test Site Delayed

Feb 12, 2007 10:44 am US/Mountain

(AP) GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. The release of a report on the potential
effects of drilling for natural gas at the site of a 1969
underground nuclear explosion has been delayed until late spring,
the Energy Department said.

The study was to be released last month but was undergoing reviews,
DOE officials said.

The site is near Rulison, about 40 miles northeast of Grand Junction
and 150 miles west of Denver.

The federal study is to gauge whether radioactive byproducts have
migrated from the site and whether drilling could affect any
movement of contaminants.

The report will be also be used to set new boundaries for drilling
around the site. Drilling is currently barred within a half-mile of
the site.

The Atomic Energy Commission detonated a 43-kiloton bomb at the site
to free gas about 8,400 feet below the surface, but the gas was
considered too radioactive to be sold commercially.

The DOE began deactivating and cleaning the surface of the site in
the 1970s and finished in 1998.


� MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 57 [NYTr] Radioactive Cargo to Transit Panama Canal
 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:57:14 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Radioactive Cargo to Transit Panama Canal

Panama, Feb 12 (Prensa Latina) Despite protests from ecology groups, the
cargo ship Pacific Sandpiper will cross the Panama canal with a 
radioactive cargo.

The ship owner says Pacific Sandpiper -from Pacific Nuclear Transport
Limited Co- set sail from France with 130 containers of residue and is to
reach Japan the second half of March.

Neither the company nor the local government has revealed the date of the
crossing, fearing attacks or protests by environmental activists who fear
an accident could seriously affect the waterway and or the environment.

ef ccs emw rob

PL-28
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 58 Guardian Unlimited: Uranium miners merge | | 

Terry Macalister

Monday February 12, 2007

The scramble for uranium to supply a future breed of nuclear 
reactors has led to a $5bn (�2.6bn) merger of two of the sector's 
biggest mining companies, Uranium One and UrAsia Energy, which is 
listed in London.

Neal Froneman, chief executive of Uranium One and prospective 
boss of the Canadian-based combined group, said he expected to 
see the price of uranium rise from $75 a pound to over $100 by 
the middle of this year.

"For the next five years there will be a significant constraint 
on supply," he added.

A new report from accountant Ernst & Young showed uranium represents
10% of its mining index compared with 1% only 12 months earlier,
underlining the way mining companies in this part of the minerals
world have been rushing to raise money on London's junior stock
market, Aim.

Shares in Uranium One and UrAsia raced forward by more than 10% as
analysts saw the two firms giving themselves a stronger position in
a fast-consolidating sector.

BHP spent more than $7bn in 2005 taking control of WMC Resources,
which controls Olympic Dam in South Australia, the biggest uranium
mine in the world.

Uranium One expects to complete its acquisition of UrAsia by May by
offering its shareholders 0.45 shares in Uranium One for each share
in UrAsia. The two firms together will have more than 7m lbs of
annual production from five operations.

Mr Froneman said they would benefit from being the only big uranium
miner to have production in each of the five biggest resource areas:
Kazakhstan, South Africa, Australia, Canada and the US.

"We will have one of the lowest production costs, which amounts to
between $10 and $12 per pound," he added.

Some of the uranium is supplied to European customers but the
company declined to name them.

British Energy, one of the nuclear power utilities that needs to buy
uranium, said recently that its land could be used for building a
new generation of plants in Britain following a green light to the
industry in the government's energy review.

There has also been speculation the state could be about to offload
its 65% stake in the company through a share sale.

British Energy, which has been dogged by failures in its ageing
stations, will be asked to clarify the situation when it reports
third-quarter financial results tomorrow.

� Email business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 59 AU ABC: Hearing begins over disputed uranium land claim

ABC 783 Alice Springs

Monday, 12 February 2007. 18:50 (AEDT)Monday, 12 February 2007.

A hearing has begun in the Northern Territory Supreme Court over
disputed uranium deposits in Central Australia worth billions of
dollars.

Entrepreneur Norm McCleary was among a group who staked a midnight
claim over the Angela and Pamela uranium deposits near Alice Springs
last December.

He believes he beat dozens of multi-national mining companies who
launched electronic exploration applications, and has taken his case
to the Supreme Court.

During legal argument today, lawyers for the NT Government described
the case as "extraordinary" and an effort to get the jump on other
applications by using a technicality out of the Act.

The case is expected to run for three days.

*****************************************************************
 60 DailyBulletin.com: State takeover of perchlorate fight welcome

Article Launched: 02/12/2007 12:00:00 AM PST

It's been 10 years since perchlorate was found to be contaminating
the groundwater in Rialto and Colton, and still, little has been
accomplished in getting the suspected polluters to pay for the
cleanup.

Though the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has
accused three corporations and the county of leaking or dumping the
chemical into the groundwater, not to mention Rialto's and Colton's
lawsuits naming an assortment of defendants, it has been
unsuccessful at getting the issue resolved.

Though the tainted water is not being served to local residents and
the county - which was not responsible for the original
contamination but bought land tainted by the chemical - has begun
the cleanup to safeguard local wells, it is a major, costly headache
that nags on year after year. At least 22 wells in Rialto, Colton
and Fontana have been fouled with the chemical that threatens
thyroid function, and several have been shut down.

Aggravated at the regional board's lack of progress - as we all are
- as the perchlorate plume continues to push southeastward, the
state Water Resources Control Board has shoved aside the local
agency and plans to hold a hearing at the earliest possible date.

At long last, accountability may be at hand. And, we would hope, 
some definitive action.

The local board has long pressed Goodrich Corp., Emhart Industries
Inc. and Pryo Spectaculars Inc. to take responsibility, to no avail.
Goodrich has paid $4 million so far, but it has been just a drop in
the bucket compared with the anticipated $200 million to $300
million total cost of wellhead treatment and cleanup.

Further stalling the effort, Emhart, a subsidiary of Black & Decker
Corp., has lodged bias charges against the regional board, though it
has as yet paid nothing toward the cleanup.

So now, the state board has decided to hear the issue. And we'd have
to agree, it looks to be the quickest, and we hope the most
effective, way to go.

For his part, the state agency's acting executive director, Thomas
Howard, has made it his goal to reach a decision that will be
"bullet proof" and not lead to years of court battles. We can only
hope that turns out to be the case.

Over the last decade, as the suspected polluters have balked at
accepting responsibility for the cleanup, perchlorate has continued
to creep from Rialto's north end toward Colton - about on a par with
the crawling pace of justice. It's about time the state stepped in
and forced those liable for the mess to pay their share.


Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
 61 Daily Herald: Lawmakers want out of radioactive waste oversight

Monday, February 12, 2007

PAUL FOY - The Associated Press   

CLIVE, Utah -- State lawmakers say EnergySolutions is such a good
company, they don't need to regulate every little thing about its
radioactive-waste dump.

So lawmakers are moving to cut themselves and the governor out of
politically sensitive approvals needed for a near doubling of
EnergySolutions' landfill in the Utah desert about 72 miles west of
Salt Lake City.

Legislators want to leave the decision to state regulators, who
already agreed to let the company merge two waste cells into one
supercell. EnergySolutions wants to fill in the middle and pile
waste 83 feet high, up from the 47 feet currently allowed.

Legislation that would rescind the political approvals needed for
EnergySolutions' expansion already has the Senate's backing and
seems assured of passage in the House. The bill goes to a House
committee this week. Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman says he hasn't
taken a position on it yet.

Abdicating oversight is a curious position for Utah's legislators,
who seem eager this year to regulate everything from tanning salons
to school clubs and cell-phone use by teenage drivers -- but not
radioactive waste.

"They feel the pull of this company, but they know the public is
very suspicious of anything nuclear," said Vanessa Pierce, executive
director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, known as HEAL
Utah. "They don't want to be on record in support of the expansion
of this site."

EnergySolutions is a generous political donor in Utah and says it
doesn't apologize for that. It doled out $189,020 in political
donations last year in Utah, including money to 75 of 104
legislators, according to filings at the lieutenant governor's
office.

EnergySolutions officials say they have about 15 years left before
their radioactive-waste dump fills up to the current level allowed.
But they say they need to go higher for "operational efficiencies."
Some parts of the waste piles are approaching the maximum allowed 47
feet -- and they don't want to have to cap that waste now, if
they're just going to have to cap it again later at a higher level.

EnergySolutions vice president Greg Hopkins said there's no need for
"political tinkering in a technical process" that would add 36 feet
to the company's landfill.

For regulators, it wasn't a hard decision. They looked only at the
engineering merits of EnergySolutions' upward expansion.

The Legislature and Huntsman, however, operate under political
pressure, and radioactivity of any kind is a volatile political
issue in Utah, which was downwind of 928 open-air atomic blasts
conducted in Nevada from 1951 to 1962.

Huntsman last year vetoed a bill that would cut him -- but not the
Legislature -- out of EnergySolutions regulatory affairs, saying it
would weaken his authority "to protect Utah's image and
environment." He hasn't said where he stands on the latest proposal.

"At this point, the governor is allowing the bill to work its way
through the process and will make a final decision when there's a
final decision to be made," Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower said.

EnergySolutions would still need the political consent of the
Legislature and governor to expand onto an adjoining mile-square
parcel of land -- a plan also approved by regulators. But the
company withdrew its request in 2005 in deference to Huntsman, who
at the same time was fighting a nuclear waste stockpile at an
American Indian reservation in another part of Utah's west desert.

Now, with that fight behind them, Utah lawmakers are poised to
unshackle themselves from EnergySolutions and avoid taking a vote on
the upward expansion. They say the company is a good corporate
citizen that never had a major accident and employs 270 people.

"Nobody lives there," said Rep. James Gowans, D-Tooele, the House
sponsor of Senate Bill 155, which would repeal the political
approvals. The bill also would take away Tooele County's say in the
onsite expansion.

Gowans said there's little danger at EnergySolutions' mile-square
radioactive dump. The country's largest and only privately owned
radioactive dump, it takes only slightly radioactive waste -- the
lowest classification. The company says its workers are exposed, on
average, to radiation equal to only 1 1/2 X-rays a year.

Out in Utah's west desert last week, there were few signs of
activity at the landfill. EnergySolutions officials said they were
in a lull, with few deliveries of medical waste, contaminated soil
or assorted debris from nuclear power plants and decommissioned
defense depots.

Workers were tipping over a few rail cars of contaminated dirt.
Bulldozers were flattening some waste. A 6,000-horsepower shredder
for chopping contaminated machinery into small bits was standing
idle. It consumes so much power it operates only at night to avoid
hogging electricity and dimming lights in distant towns.

EnergySolutions needs political approval for any expansions that
exceed 50 percent of its licensed capacity. HEAL's policy director,
Christopher Thomas, said piling waste up 83 feet would break that
threshold.

The public-health group not only opposes the piling up of waste, it
sued regulators for signing off on an expansion to adjacent land.
The case is waiting a hearing at the Utah Supreme Court.

Senate Bill 155 "rewrites the law in the middle of the process for
one and only one company, and allows any expansion, no matter how
great, to occur at EnergySolutions as long as state regulators
approve it," Thomas said.

Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, said leaving state regulators in
charge of EnergySolutions hasn't always worked.

Envirocare of Utah's radioactive waste landfill in Clive was
approved in 1988 by Larry F. Anderson, then director of the Utah
Division of Radiation Control. Anderson was later convicted of
bribery charges for taking gold coins and a Park City condominium
from Envirocare's founder and former owner, Khosrow B. Semnani, who
pleaded guilty to a charge of tax evasion.

"The bureaucrats don't have the most stellar track record," McCoy
said.

EnergySolutions was formed a year ago by the merger of four
companies, including Envirocare, and promotes itself as a nuclear
services provider specializing in decommissioning plants and
transporting, processing and disposing of waste. This story appeared
in The Daily Herald on page A1.
 
Copyright � 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 62 BBC NEWS: Anti-nuclear protesters arrested

Glasgow and West | 

Last Updated: Monday, 12 February 2007, 13:52 GMT

A year of protests are taking place at Faslane on the Clyde

Twelve anti-nuclear protesters have been arrested at the home of 
the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent.

The demonstrators from Coventry were taking part in a year-long 
blockade of the Faslane naval base on the Clyde.

The Faslane 365 campaign started in October and has seen groups 
travel from across the world to protest.

The Navy has four submarines based at Faslane which carry Trident
missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

Prime Minister Tony Blair last year announced plans to upgrade
Trident at a cost of up to �20bn.

Alan Sprung, a spokesman for the Coventry group, said: "This
peaceful protest was designed to encourage the government to
reconsider its proposal to spend tens of billions of pounds of
taxpayers' money on replacing a weapons system which will ultimately
make us even less secure than we already are."

Mr Sprung's daughter and wife were among those arrested, he said.

* BBC Copyright
*****************************************************************
 63 AU ABC: Alice council rejects nuclear-free zone bid. 

13/02/2007. 

ABC News Online

An Alice Springs Council committee has voted down a recommendation
to declare the town a nuclear-free zone.

Almost 100 people squeezed into the Council chambers to lobby last
night's meeting to make the declaration as a symbolic gesture, after
earlier holding up banners pleading for a solar, not nuclear, city.

They called out "shame" and "spineless" as the motion from Alderman
Meredith Campbell was voted down 5-4.

Mayor Fran Kilgariff says some aldermen felt they could not support
the declaration because it did not reflect the whole community's
view and it would have no legal effect.

"I am happy - I didn't vote for this," she said.

"It's not something that I wanted to see, perhaps putting a brake on
exploration or mining activity and henceforth business in Alice
Springs, so from my point of view this outcome is good."

Anti-nuclear campaigner Lenny Aronsten says many aldermen were
concerned they did not have enough information about nuclear
technology.

"A few people did express that they were open to learning and
they're open to listening to the debate. That is positive," he said.

"I'm certainly disappointed. I didn't think it was a done deal or
anything but I'm certainly disappointed in the outcome, there's no
doubt about that."

Mr Aronsten says he fears the implications for nuclear industries
and waste in the Northern Territory.

"My concern both as a citizen and as a health professional is that
this is an enormous public health issue," he said.

"We cannot rush into this and one might say that it's not terra
nullius we're talking about, it's cerebra nullius we're talking
about, as far as Canberra is concerned."

*****************************************************************
 64 Hanford News: Hanford Briefs

This story was published Monday, February 12th, 2007

By the Herald staff

Hanford cleanup topic of Congress briefing Hanford cleanup will 
be the subject of a briefing for members of Congress and their 
staff March 29 in Washington, D.C.

Rep. Doc Hastings, a Pasco Republican and chairman of the House 
Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, announced the schedule for the briefing 
series. The one-hour briefings highlight a different cleanup site 
each week, with presentations from site managers and contractors.



Promotions

- Dottie Norman has been named Fluor Hanford's director of central
plateau surveillance and maintenance at Hanford as part of changes
in the Department of Energy contractor's central plateau
deactivation and decommissioning organization.

- Rob Gregory, previously director of central plateau surveillance
and maintenance, has been appointed Fluor Hanford facility director
of Hanford's T Plant.

- Mike Stevens, director of deactivation and
decommissioning/remediation projects for Fluor Hanford, is assuming
new responsibilities for the U Canyon remediation project.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 65 Hanford News: Chemical engineer makes reactors in his basement

This story was published Monday, February 12th, 2007

By Eric Hand, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

ST. LOUIS - The students and employees orbit the hulking machine, 
pausing to tighten a nut or bend a gas line or fasten an 
electrical lead.

BASF, the largest chemical company in the world, is paying 
$375,000 for this machine, one of just 20 in the world that can 
lead the search for new catalysts, the chemical engines that 
power much of our industrial economy, from fuels to fabrics to 
plastics to fertilizer.

Washington University chemical engineer John Gleaves sets his
super-sized canister of Diet Coke down and admires the complexity of
the gleaming, stainless steel contraption he invented: the gas
ovens, the quadrupole mass spectrometer, the liquid nitrogen steam
that burbles out from the vacuum pump.

But what Gleaves really likes is the wooden cabinetry on which it
rests. He's used mahogany, birch and cherry. This is Gleaves' first
"walnut edition."

"I like it to look like furniture," he says.

With his beaming eyes and salt-and-pepper beard, Gleaves, 60, makes
a good Santa Claus - especially as he busies his elves with a
Temporal Analysis of Products reactor, or TAP reactor. The machines
take more than six months to build and require thousands of parts.
They are coveted by academics but affordable only for big chemical
companies, most of them in Europe.

"This is really 'Made in the USA,"' Gleaves said.

More specifically, this is really made in his basement - in a
playful workshop of welding torches, band saws, drill presses, mills
and lathes. The basement lies underneath an 11,000-square-foot house
on 127 rural acres near Foley in Lincoln County, Mo., a few miles
from the Mississippi River floodplain amid fallow fields of corn and
soy.

You see the 80-foot-tall observatory tower, capped by a rotating
copper dome. The wraparound porches and decks. The to-be-determined
extensions and outbuildings. Then you learn that Gleaves and his
family built the house - more of a compound, really - all by
themselves.

The house is the largest manifestation of Gleaves' building
instincts, and within its belly lies the scientific culmination of a
tinkering life.

Gregory Yablonsky, a Russian emigre who develops the mathematical
theories that underpin Gleaves' reactors, has a name for the house:
"The Chateau."

It was once just fields on a plateau above the Little Sandy Creek
near an old Civil War cemetery. After buying the land, Gleaves and
his wife, Janice, made scouting trips and camped in tents. John went
to work on the architectural plans for a house.

They practiced their carpentry on a gazebo. Next came a test
two-story cabin.

Then, on a rainy day 20 years ago, a bulldozer tugged the first of
two tractor-trailers, laden with 8-inch logs, up the steep gravel
road to the site. Work began on the main house. No one in the family
was exempt. The work went on in all seasons, sometimes until
midnight.

"I remember when it was freezing and we were outside pounding in
12-inch spikes," recalled Gleaves' son Christopher, 33. "Dad said,
'Everybody who is inside in a nice warm environment watching TV -
they won't remember that. But we'll remember this."'

They sold their "subdivision" house - Gleaves uses the word as an
adjective, like "store-bought" - to pay for the construction
materials. They moved into a trailer closer to the site. They used
more than a mile of logs. The money ran out before they had windows.
Gleaves took on another loan.

In hindsight, he says it was a risky endeavor, but it seems to have
paid off. Gleaves, his wife and three children all live there, along
with eight dogs, eight cats and three horses.

Gleaves has always been building something. He was raised in a
modest Louisville, Ky., family in which the family's first car, TV
and air conditioner were met with some celebration. At the Kentucky
Derby, they sat in the infield, not the stands of high society.

Around the time he went to kindergarten, his mother taught him how
to use a saw. By age 10, he was raiding his chemistry set to make
fireworks for neighborhood Fourth of July shows. Later projects
included sail cars, robots and nail guns.

After earning a Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Gleaves worked at Monsanto in the 1980s. There, he
found a way to combine his passion for chemistry with his knack for
tinkering: He invented the TAP reactor.

"Most people didn't believe it would work," Gleaves said.

Monsanto let Gleaves leave to set up a company to make and market
the machines, but the spinoff failed. Gleaves kept at it in his
basement and eventually formed his own company, even as he joined
Washington University's chemical engineering department.

Catalysts are the keys that unlock chemical reactions. Just as
locksmiths spin through rings of skeleton keys searching for one
that fits the lock, companies spend a lot of time and money testing
potential catalysts, one by one, under varying temperatures and
pressures. Gleaves' reactors allow scientists to interrogate
catalysts and test many variables all at once.

Patrick L. Mills, now a chemical engineer at Texas A&M University at
Kingsville, knew Gleaves while working at Monsanto and used a TAP
reactor in the 1990s while working at DuPont.

Mills said the reactor helped DuPont find the catalyst for making
ozone-safe propellants in aerosol sprays. Existing propellants were
destroying the ozone layer. The 1989 Montreal Protocol forced
manufacturers to find replacements.

The TAP reactor also helped DuPont find catalysts important in
making Lycra, a brand of spandex. Mills says using the TAP reactor
is "like having a conversation with the catalyst."

"There's nothing else quite like it," he said.

Gleaves juggles his basement-based company with his Washington
University laboratory. But the ethos in each place is the same.

Graduate student John Parai said Gleaves tells his students they're
in the wrong place if they're afraid to pick up a hammer.

Gleaves once left former graduate student Rebecca Fushimi on her own
to take apart a TAP reactor and put it back together again.

"You have to suffer through your mistakes to get past your fears,"
Gleaves said.

Fushimi is now a part of the "ragtag bunch" (Gleaves' term) who
engineer the reactors. On a recent Saturday, everyone traveled to
the Chateau to get the reactor ready to show off to BASF scientists,
who were coming for demonstrations. Parai came, too, so he could
play with a reactor that's better than the one in the laboratory, a
hand-me-down from Shell Oil that's wrapped in tinfoil and fiberglass
bandages.

Parai, the resident joker, hassled Fushimi, saying she skimped on
the reactor's operating system by using Windows XP Home. Fushimi,
the software wizard, peered at a computer reading of the residual
gases left in the reaction chamber. Jim Pittman, an expert
machinist, fired up a welding torch and spliced together an
intricate gas manifold.

Yablonsky, the diffident theoretician - who says he was stuck for
decades in a Siberian research institute after being kicked out of
the Communist Party - avoided the fray. He quietly edited an
academic paper at a lectern.

From the kitchen came the smell of lunch: fresh-baked cookies and
vegetable beef soup. The ragtag bunch is really a part of Gleaves'
extended family.

With four other groups interested in buying a reactor, Gleaves said,
he'll have to build a bigger machine shop. First, he has to deliver
on the BASF order. Then the labor of love begins all over again.
Each reactor is a little different from the one before.

"We design, build, then redesign," Gleaves said.

At the leading edge of technology, there's no instruction manual,
but there is room to tinker.

---

(c) 2007, St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 66 Daily Herald: Fermilab wows 2,000 at open house

Kane County

By Mark Foster

Daily Herald Correspondent

Posted Monday, February 12, 2007

From gravity to rocket propulsion, some of the nation�s future
scientists received a crash course in physics Sunday at Fermilab in
Batavia.

Children and their parents met with scientists, watched physics
demonstrations, toured the laboratory�s high-tech facilities and
were exposed to ideas and information designed to get them thinking
about the future.

�A lot of the jobs these kids are going to have haven�t been
invented yet,� said Mike Knapp, a middle school science teacher from
Glendale Heights and a member of the Friends of Fermilab group.

An estimated 2,000 people showed up for the open house at Wilson
Hall, the main laboratory at the 6,800-acre federal site along
Batavia�s eastern edge.

One of the most popular programs was �Cryogenics with Mr. Freeze,�
as hundreds gathered in Ramsey Auditorium to watch in amazement the
properties of liquid nitrogen.

�You use science in your everyday life and you don�t even realize
it,� Zimmerman told the audience.

Sergio and Gloria Wall of Batavia brought their sons Jonathan, 10,
and Eric, 13, to the open house for a second year.

�It really gets them into science, which is good,� Gloria said.

Formally known as Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the Batavia
facility is home to the world�s most powerful particle accelerator,
where scientists study the structure of matter and seek clues into
the formation of the universe.

Fermilab is named for physicist Enrico Fermi, who fled fascist Italy
after winning the Nobel Prize in 1938 and was responsible for the
world�s first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction at the
University of Chicago in 1942.

Michael Cooke, a graduate student at Fermilab, was teaching young
people geometry by folding a round paper plate into a
three-dimensional pyramid-like shape known as a tetrahedron.

�I get a huge range of questions,� Cooke said. �Kids read up before
they come here and ask about Einstein and relativity. It�s very
surprising.�

Children poked wires into balls of clay, attempting to determine the
shape of a solid object inside.

�This relates pretty directly to what we do here,� Cooke said,
noting that Fermilab scientists cannot directly observe the
subatomic particles they are studying. �We have to use indirect ways
to make a measurement.�

Up on Wilson Hall�s 15th floor observation deck, visitors were able
to �ask a scientist� about Fermilab and science.

�Most of the questions come from the kids,� physicist Herman White
said. �Like, �Where do we get our power?� Or, �Why do we have a herd
of buffalo?��

Electricity comes from the power grid, and the buffalo are a part of
the laboratory�s history, White said, noting that Fermilab�s first
director, Robert Wilson, sought to make the lab grounds attractive.

� 2006 Daily Herald, Paddock Publications, Inc. |
    
*****************************************************************

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