*****************************************************************
02/13/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.36
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] ex-Spook Sues CIA: Firing Due to WMD Pressure
2 A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear 
3 AFP: EU recognises Iran's nuclear ambitions hard to curb - 
4 Reuters: Senior atom inspector removed from Iran post 
5 AFP: Iran opposes 'any' nuclear proliferation - Ahmadinejad 
6 AFP: Iran keeping enrichment to low levels - FM 
7 AFP: Israel will face Iran on its own: cabinet minister
8 AFP: Bush dismisses as 'noise' talk of US attack on Iran 
9 UPI: Iran says it's ready for new nuke talks
10 [southnews] N. Korea to shut N-reactor in return for aid: Six nation
11 Secretary-general Welcomes Deal On Non-nuclear Korean Peninsula
12 Korea Herald: Comments on nuclear breakthrough
13 Korea Herald: Concerns rise over Seoul's share
14 Korea Herald: Accord reached on North Korea nukes
15 BBC NEWS: N Korea agrees disarmament steps
16 Guardian Unlimited: Key Points of N. Korea Disarmament Deal
17 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament 
18 Reuters: US Treasury ready to resolve N.Korean bank accounts 
19 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Making N. Korea Stick to Deal
20 Reuters: Details on N.Korea nuclear deal
21 Reuters: ANALYSTS' VIEW-North Korea nuclear deal 
22 UPI: N. Korea agrees to close nuclear plant
23 UPI: Bush hails N. Korea nuclear agreement
24 Korea Times: Full Text of Denuclearization Agreement
25 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Hails Agreement With North Korea
26 AFP: Deal agreed to shut key NKorea nuclear facilities 
27 AFP: Six-party talks yield one mln tonnes oil for NKorea - report - 
28 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang deal: fuel for scepticism 
29 UPI: U.N. supports deal on non-nuclear N.Korea
30 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea to shut down nuclear reactor in arms
31 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: The absurdity of 'what-if?'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
32 Independent: British Energy seeks partners for new wave of nuclear p
33 US: toledoblade.com: New reactor planned for Fermi site
34 London Times: Nuclear group seeks private equity cash
35 US: Detroit News: Text of Early's speech: The Nuclear Renaissance: I
36 London Times: British Energy lacks clout for nuclear quest -
37 US: PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Congress might stiffen nuke site licens
38 Reuters: Brit. Energy seeks partners for new nuclear plants 
39 HVN: Hall calls for strict Independent Safety Assessment at Indian P
40 US: SFSS: Rule OK'd allowing FPL to recover some costs before plant 
41 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy looks for power generation partne
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
42 US: [du-list] CNN Transcripts on DU From Tuesday's show
43 US: Government Executive: Lawmakers re-introduce whistleblower, ethi
44 US: Spectrum: S. Utahns are not expendable
45 US: Spectrum: 10,000 responses to Divine Strake test
46 US: KOTV.com: Depleted Uranium Removed From Oklahoma Facility
47 barrow in furness: Radiation found on the beach
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
48 World Nuclear News: Last shipment of vitrified HLW leaves for Japan
49 Kansas City Star: Forget Yucca Mountain
50 US: AP Wire: Congressman worries about nuke waste facility in Oak Ri
51 US: Herald News: Nuclear recycling project here?
52 Las Vegas SUN: Old Yucca firm joins new review
53 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Council to mull GNEP payment
54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: No bumps in the road for EnergySolutions
55 Reid: REID STATEMENT ON "INDEPENDENT" REVIEW OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN
56 US: Guardian Unlimited: $5bn deal creates major power in uranium sup
57 World Nuclear News: USEC revises costs, capacity and schedule for en
 
                           PEACE
 
58 [NYTr] A Nuclear-Free Korean Peninsula? Tenuous Deal Struck
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
59 SF New Mexican: LANL director: Congress ready to intervene
60 Hanford News: Hanford Briefs
61 Tri-City Herald: Hanford landfill under scrutiny
62 Hanford News: Nuclear society to play host to Chernobyl cleanup spea
63 Sf Chron: Los Alamos scientist criticizes federal approach to arsena
64 Daily Astorian: Hanford's problems must be contained
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] ex-Spook Sues CIA: Firing Due to WMD Pressure
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:42:17 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
US News and World Report via Truthout - Feb 9, 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307N.shtml

Ex-Agent Ties Firing to CIA Pressure on WMD

By Chitra Ragavan
US News & World Report

A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as "Doe,"
allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq
was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his
lawsuit against the CIA. The judge has ordered both parties to submit
discovery requests-evidence they want for their case-to be completed by
March 15, according to the CIA agent's lawyer and a spokesman for the
Justice Department, which is defending the CIA in court.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued her ruling after what
Doe's attorney, Roy Krieger, described as an extraordinary, secret
status conference by telephone this afternoon that lasted nearly a half
an hour. So concerned was the CIA about the agent's identity becoming
public that the Justice Department prevailed upon the judge to issue a
highly restrictive order regarding press contacts by the agent and
Krieger. The order barred them from "requesting, allowing, encouraging,
or directing" any members of the media from appearing at Krieger's
office or even within a two-block vicinity of the building where he
works or of any other location of the status conference, until two hours
after the conference was completed.

Krieger and his client were also barred from notifying the media
ahead of time about the status conference or its location. The judge
sealed her order until 2 p.m. today.

"They are worried about his photograph being taken or his likeness
being sketched," Krieger told U.S. News, "because if his appearance
became public, we are told we will lose one of our most valued assets
because [the asset has] been publicly associated with him."

At the hearing, Krieger said, Justice Department attorney Marcia
Tiersky told Kessler the department wanted to file a motion for summary
judgment, leading to dismissal of the case, before discovery commenced.
In response to Kessler's request for a basis for summary judgment,
according to Krieger and the Justice Department, Tiersky said that the
department would produce affidavits in support of the move. But the
judge, indicating that she viewed this as a delaying tactic, said she
would allow the discovery process to begin.

This is the second setback for the government in this case. In
January, Kessler decided on technical grounds that the CIA employee's
lawsuit could not be dismissed. However, the judge did not rule on the
agent's central claim that he was fired because he refused to alter
intelligence that contradicted the Bush administration's central
rationale for the war in Iraq. In that earlier ruling, Kessler said that
the covert agent could plausibly argue that his firing was based on
allegedly false information placed in his personnel file. Krieger said
that his client had gathered intelligence from several countries in the
Middle East, including Iraq.

The intelligence was picked up as the United States began its push
for invading Iraq in 2003. As has been widely reported, the Bush
administration has since failed to find any weapons of mass destruction.
The CIA agent has alleged in his suit that supervisors told him they
would notify President Bush that he had found contradictory information
but that they failed to follow through on their promise.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear War 
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:38:24 -0600 (CST)


February 10, 2007
Global Research
www.globalresearch.ca

Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia)

A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear War 

by 

Dmitriy Sedov

In my paper entitled 2007: Opening a New Page in the Worlds History,
published in September, 2006, I examined the possibility that a US strike on
Iran using small-scale nuclear munitions [mini-nukes] would be launched, and
that the strike would become the beginning of an epoch of nuclear wars.
There were various responses to the paper. Some authors, including
recognized experts, doubted the possibility of such a development. At
present, few people doubt that there will be a strike on Iran. Rather, the
question is whether nuclear or conventional weapons will be used in the
offensive. 
In this context, I would like to present the following considerations. 

1. An attack on Iran is motivated by nothing but the US domestic political
expediency and the unlimited appetites of the countrys military-industrial
complex. President G. Bush has no choice  his only option is a
breakthrough. The problem does not originate from the total failure of his
doctrine of the war on international terrorism. If the US political elite
represented by Bush based its decisions solely on the estimates of the
damage to its public image that might be caused by the fiasco of the global
anti-terrorist campaign, it would have extremely serious reservations about
starting a new regional war. However, they are motivated by something else 
they need to continue Bushs politics backed by a conglomerate of weapons
suppliers, who established control over the countrys oversized military
spending. Should Bush recognize being defeated and withdraw the US military
forces from the Middle East, the Democrats elite would overtake the
financial leverage, and a major redistribution of the military commissioning
would follow. When such enormous funds are at stake, peoples lives and
those of entire nations become tokens in the game. For these operations, the
destiny of the Middle East and its nations means absolutely nothing, just as
the lives of the Vietnamese and the Cambodians showered with napalm and
defoliants meant nothing either. One must be naove to suppose that the
Pentagon machine will stop and miss the new incredibly high profits. 

2. The coming war between the US and Iran has to conform to certain
parameters defined a priori. The US is tired of Iraq, and the public opinion
in the country is turning increasingly anti-war. Therefore, the offensive
against Iran has to be swift and victorious. This will save Bushs political
group and give it a higher rating in the country. There can be no doubt that
a successful aggression will make Bush extremely popular in the US  in this
anti-Christian society the pagan god of victory has long taken the place of
the Savior. A triumph will make the US public blind and deaf  it will
remain unaware of the price of the US victory for the nations of the Middle
East. The crucial circumstance is that only nuclear weapons can guarantee
the US victory in this war. Knowing that the US failed to win even in Iraq,
a country plagued by religious and ethnic strife, one cannot expect it to
prevail in the united and spiritually strong Iran. Only the use of nuclear
weapons can make it possible to cause severe damage to the Iranian control
system hidden in bunkers and, importantly, to behead its leadership no
matter how deep underground it might be hiding. Iran without its leaders and
with a paralyzed system of control, with an army devastated by baby nukes,
is the only option which suits the US - it agrees to talk about peace only
to a totally subdued offender. Such talks would let the US leaders old
dream of a Middle Eastern Disneyland, mastered by the US and Israel, come
true. 

Here are the facts which illustrate the process of preparation for the
devastation of Iran: 

- The UN Security Council Resolution envisions that a further tightening of
the sanctions imposed on Iran must take place after February 21, 2006. From
the standpoint of international law, this is a pretext (essentially, a poor
one, but one that does exist) to legalize an aggression against the country.

- Two US aircraft carrier groups armed with nukes are moving into the
region. The US aircraft carrier groups have been on missions 5 times over
the past 15 years. In 4 cases out of the 5, they launched military
offensives. In March, 2007 both groups are to take their combat positions. 

- Additional ground forces have been shifted to the border between Iraq and
Iran. Preparations for a new phase of hostilities are underway. 

- In February, Patriot missile defense systems will be ready to defend
Israel and the aircraft carrier groups from enemy airstrikes. 

- British combat engineers are entering the regions of the future fighting,
clearly in order to operate in the Strait of Ormuz, where Iranians are most
likely to lay mines. 

- The US and Israel launched a powerful information and propaganda campaign
preparing the global public opinion for the aggression. 

- CENTCOMs Commander John Abizaid, an opponent of the war with Iran,
resigned. His position was taken over by Admiral W. Fallon, a veteran of the
1991 Iraq and 1995 Bosnia campaigns. 

- John Negroponte has been removed from his position as the Director of
National Intelligence for persistently resisting the use of force against
Iran. 

- Tony. Blair, the staff peacemaker for the Middle East, never mentions a
peaceful settlement of the Iran dossier. He makes no attempts to find a way
to resolve the crisis in a peaceful way, and this is highly indicative. 

All of the above constitute evidence of Iran being prepared for sacrifice.
Will a major provocation be orchestrated for this purpose? 

A number of observers opine that Washington needs one. We believe that what
we will see is going to be a plain cowboy-style scenario like the one which
materialized in Iraq. The media has never stop debating the issue of the
Iranian atomic bomb  just as they focused on Saddam. Husseins weapons
of mass destruction. It is time for them to start. It absolutely does not
matter that eventually nothing of the kind will be found in Iran. Those who
disagree will be silenced by force. 

The question is  will such a breakthrough do George  Bush any good? The
idea of attacking Iran was born in the primitive minds of those who, just
for the sake of their profits, can sell the rope on which they will be
hanged. This time it will be neither they nor their children who will perish
in the nuclear Holocaust, and theyd rather not worry that by this they will
take the whole of  mankind a step closer to total catastrophe. 

Dmitriy Sedov 

========

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SED20070210&
articleId=4729

========
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: EU recognises Iran's nuclear ambitions hard to curb - 

Tuesday February 13, 11:16 AM

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Union believes Iran is unlikely to 
negotiate seriously on its nuclear programme and there is little 
the West can do to stop it developing an atomic bomb, according 
to an internal document.

The text, drawn up by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, 
discussed by the bloc's ambassadors and revealed in Tuesday's 
Financial Times newspaper, said there was little real hope that 
Tehran would resume talks soon.

It said Iran's rejection last year of an EU package to halt 
uranium enrichment "makes it difficult to believe that, at least 
in the short run, (Iran) would be ready to establish the 
conditions for the resumption of negotiations."

Solana's spokeswoman, Cristina Gallach, said the "reflection paper",
dated February 7, did not "present the current situation as
irreversible", nor did it cast doubt over the EU's "twin track
approach".

In an effort to encourage Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon, the
bloc is keeping alive talks on a package of incentives aimed at
halting enrichment while pressing ahead with fully implementing UN
Security Council sanctions.

"In practice... the Iranians have pursued their programme at their
own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather
than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)," the document said.

"Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating
process have not so far succeeded... The problems with Iran will not
be resolved through economic sanctions alone," it added.

"At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to
enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme."

With rumblings growing in the United States of possible military
action against Iran, one EU diplomat said he believed the document
had been leaked to serve the interests of those "who want to
dramatise the situation."

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday, Solana acknowledged
that "the chances are not great" of resuming negotiations with Iran,
although he insisted the door remains open to such talks.

Yet even if they did get underway, there is no guarantee the talks
would not be dogged by the Iranian brinkmanship that marred previous
rounds.

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 its 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.

Talks between Iran, three European nations -- Germany, Britain and
France -- Solana, and the IAEA collapsed last year over Tehran's
refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

That impasse led the UN Security Council in December to impose
targetted sanctions.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 4 Reuters: Senior atom inspector removed from Iran post 

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:43AM EST

By Mark Heinrich - Exclusive

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The veteran official who has overseen U.N.
nuclear inspections in Iran has been removed from his post nine
months after Tehran banned him from entering the country, a senior
diplomat said on Tuesday.

Chris Charlier, a Belgian in charge of the Iran dossier at the
International Atomic Energy Agency, will be switched to IAEA section
head for Brazil and Argentina from April 1, said the diplomat,
familiar with agency operations.

Iran, slapped with U.N. sanctions in December for refusing to stop
enriching uranium for nuclear fuel and impeding IAEA inquiries
spurred by suspicions of a covert atom bomb project, had written the
IAEA last month demanding Charlier's ouster.

The senior diplomat said IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei had decided
to take Charlier off the Iran file not to appease Iran, whose demand
Washington called "outrageous", but because the Iranian ban had
handicapped his ability to perform his job.

He dismissed Iranian allegations that Charlier was biased against
Tehran and had passed confidential data about Iranian nuclear sites
to Western powers arrayed against Tehran.

"But there was no magic solution. Iran will not give Charlier a
visa. Being unable to go into Iran, he could not do the job
effectively enough. Charlier was told of the decision last week,"
the diplomat told Reuters.

Charlier, with 25 years experience in the IAEA, is to be replaced as
Iran section head by another inspector of similar seniority with
previous experience in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  Continued...

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: Iran opposes 'any' nuclear proliferation - Ahmadinejad 

Tuesday February 13, 01:47 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said
his country opposes "any" proliferation of nuclear weapons and
remained open to negotiations, in a US television interview.

Asked if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, as the United States
suspects, the Iranian leader said nuclear weapons were a thing of
the past.

"We are opposed to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and nuclear weapons. We believe that the time is now over for
nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad told ABC Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad held open the door to further negotiations.

"We're always ready to talk within the framework of regulations and
as long as the rights of the human nation are safeguarded," he said.

"We are a member of the agency (International Atomic Energy Agency)
and we would like to benefit from what we're entitled to. Within
this framework we're ready to negotiate, he said.

The rare US interview in Tehran came amid mounting US exasperation
at Iran's refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities, which
Washington believes are aimed at making an atomic bomb. Iran insists
its nuclear programme is peaceful.

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.

Iran risks more extensive economic measures if it fails to comply
with a UN Security Council deadline of February 21 to stop uranium
enrichment.

Responding to Bush's insistence that Iran would not be allowed to
have nuclear weapons, the Iranian president said "of course the
American president doesn't feel obliged to speak within any
framework of law ... he thinks to be above the law.

"We work within the (IAEA) agency. And we work based on laws and
regulations, and we want to have what we are entitled to, not more,
and not less," he said.

Asked about his contention that Israel should be "wiped off" the map
and the prospects for finding a Middle East peace that would
recognize the right of Israel to exist, Ahmadinejad defended the
right of Palestinians to decide.

"We say that based on the charter of the UN, and based on the
current international regulations, let Palestine decide," he said.

The Iranian president chastised Diane Sawyer, the ABC journalist who
conducted the interview, at the end of their talk, she said.

"He turned around to me and said your questions are combative. Women
should not be asking tough questions about war, women should ask
about love, culture and family," she said.

Copyright � 2007 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: Iran keeping enrichment to low levels - FM 

Tue Feb 13, 12:00 PM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran is enriching uranium to a low level only, the 
foreign minister has said, amid suggestions imposing a limit on 
the process could break the deadlock in its standoff with the 
West.

"The level of enrichment for nuclear fuel is generally defined as
being between 3.5 percent and five percent," Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters Tuesday after meeting his Kuwaiti
counterpart Sheikh Mohammad al-Sabah.

"We define our enrichment as being within the necessary ceiling to
make fuel for our civilian nuclear power stations," he added.

Such levels of uranium enrichment are well off those required to
make a nuclear bomb, which is believed to need uranium enriched to
around 90 percent.

Mottaki's comments came after chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani
said on his weekend visit to the Munich security conference Iran
could accept a limit on its enrichment as a guarantee it was not
seeking nuclear weapons.

"There are suggestions that we operate centrifuges that can only
produce low enriched uranium, to four percent. This could be an
approach.

"It would not be fair as other countries are enriching to very high
levels. But we could be ready for this concession," Larijani told
the Munich-based Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

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 Washington has said it wants the nuclear standoff resolved
through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action to thwart
Iran's atomic drive.

Both Larijani and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have said in the
last days that Iran remains open to talks over its nuclear
programme, but will not accept suspending enrichment as a
precondition.

Larijani on Monday met Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey amid talk
of a "Swiss plan" to break the deadlock, although Larijani
emphasised that Switzerland was acting in the role of "facilitator."

"There was no question of a plan, I do not confirm that," Larijani
was quoted by Iranian state television as saying on Tuesday.

"It was rather playing a part in resolving the problem as a country
that wants to be a facilitator. We welcome that."

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Israel will face Iran on its own: cabinet minister

Tuesday February 13, 07:32 AM

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel will have to confront the perceived nuclear
threat from Iran on its own, the country's ultra-rightwing Strategic
Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman has said.

"We will have to face the Iranians alone, because Israel cannot
remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop
non-conventional weapons," he told public radio when asked about a
possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

He criticised an EU report leaked to the Financial Times that with
Iran unlikely to negotiate seriously on its nuclear programme, the
international community can do little to prevent Tehran from
developing an atomic bomb.

"Any surrender to Iran can only encourage the aggressiveness and
unbridled aspirations of this country which wants to foist its power
on the Middle East," Lieberman said.

Iran insists its programme aims to generate nuclear energy for
civilian purposes, but world powers suspect it of wanting to develop
nuclear arms and last year the UN Security Council passed economic
sanctions against Tehran.

Israel is considered to be the sole if undeclared nuclear weapons
power in the Middle East. It does not officially acknowledge that it
has an arsenal although Olmert appeared to do so in an apparent
lapse last year.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Bush dismisses as 'noise' talk of US attack on Iran 

by Olivier Knox Tue Feb 13, 7:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has warned of the
danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran but dismissed talk of a likely
US attack on Iran as "noise" from his critics.

The comments came after the Pentagon said a US military buildup in
the Gulf represented a message to "potential adversaries" in the
region, and Bush himself has vowed to crush any Iranian networks
fueling violence that claims 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 Tuesday.

"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 tarnished 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. It denied however that this will likely result
in US 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.

Snow was asked to give proof that Tehran knew about the bomb
shipments.

"There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government,
especially when it comes to something like that," he said. "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."

Snow declined to offer more details, referring reporters to the
Pentagon. 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 military officials in Baghdad
said 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 officials with the US-led coalition met foreign 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.

Opposition Democrats and even some of Bush's Republicans have
criticized the administration for its tough talk on Iran, warning
that they hear echoes of the flawed case for the March 2003 US-led
invasion of Iraq.

"I look at this with a degree of skepticism, 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, who has expressed an interest in
running for president in 2008.

Dodd told CBS television Sunday he had no doubt that Iran played a
role in the current unrest in Iraq but believed the issue should be
resolved through diplomacy.

"It seems to me until we engage them in some way on a multiple of
issues, including this one, it's only going to get worse," Dodd said.

Senator and former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said
the administration's charges of Iranian meddling will be met by "a
skeptical congress, and appropriately so, because of the last
experience with Iraq."

The Bush 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's national security adviser Stephen Hadley said February 2.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 UPI: Iran says it's ready for new nuke talks

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

2/13/2007 6:12:00 PM -0500

TEHRAN, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Iran said Monday it was ready to hold new
talks on halting its controversial nuclear program.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently stated its readiness
to discuss various issues through negotiations, even the issue of
suspending work on uranium enrichment," Foreign Ministry's spokesman
Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said according to a report carried by the RIA
Novosti news agency.

However, Hosseini's comments appeared unlikely to impress the U.S.
government. They echoed remarks Sunday by Iran's maverick president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Tehran was prepared to participate in fair
negotiations on its uranium enrichment without preconditions. But
Ahmadinejad also pledged that Iran would publicly proclaim a major
step forward in its nuclear program by April 9.

"Many experts believe (that) could be the construction of new
centrifuges at a nuclear facility at Natanz," RIA Novosti said.

"Iran launched a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges at
Natanz in October 2006, and earlier said it will have a total of
3,000 centrifuges there by end of March 2007. The long-term target
is 60,000, enough to advance to industrial-scale enrichment," the
Russian news agency said.

"Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that another
session of the Iran-6 mediation group on Tehran's controversial
nuclear program could take place before the international nuclear
watchdog submits a report to the U.N. Security Council," RIA Novosti
said.

The Iran-6 group is comprised of Russia, the United States, Britain,
France, Germany and China.

� Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 [southnews] N. Korea to shut N-reactor in return for aid: Six nations strike landmark deal
 
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:28:02 -0600 (CST)


North Korea agreed to take steps towards nuclear disarmament under a 
groundbreaking deal struck on Tuesday that will bring the communist 
state some $300 million worth of aid.

N. Korea to shut N-reactor in return for aid: Six nations strike 
landmark deal

BEIJING, Feb 13: North Korea agreed to take steps towards nuclear 
disarmament under a groundbreaking deal struck on Tuesday that will 
bring the communist state some $300 million worth of aid.

Under the agreement, which was reached by six countries in Beijing after 
nearly a week of talks, Pyongyang will freeze the reactor at the heart 
of its nuclear programme and allow international inspections of the site.

But North Korea later appeared to backtrack, with official media saying 
the deal only required the temporary suspension of its nuclear sites.

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said the US was misinterpreting 
the agreement, which referred only to the temporary suspension of the 
operation of its nuclear facilities. The text of the deal makes no 
reference to a temporary suspension.

The United States also agreed to resolve the issue of frozen North 
Korean bank accounts in Macaus Banco Delta Asia within 30 days, chief 
US negotiator Christopher Hill told reporters.

Washington will initiate, under a separate bilateral forum, a process to 
remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, four 
months after the secretive states stunning test of a nuclear device.

We think its a very important first step toward the denuclearisation 
of North Korea and the Korean peninsula, White House spokesman Tony 
Snow said in Washington.

Mr Snow insisted the ultimate goal is: When this is concluded there 
will be no nuclear technology in North Korea, period.

He said, however, that Pyongyang faces the continuing threat of 
international sanctions if it reneges on the deal.

Mr Hill and North Korean envoy Kim Kye-gwan warmly shook hands and 
patted one anothers arms during a closing reception.

The KCNA said the other parties decided to offer economic and energy aid 
equivalent to one million tons of heavy oil in connection with North 
Korea's temporary suspension of the operation of its nuclear facilities.

Washington-led trade sanctions, which anger Pyongyang, will also begin 
to be lifted from a country President George Bush once lumped with Iran 
and Iraq on an axis of evil.

The deal says North Korea must take steps to shut down its main nuclear 
reactor within 60 days. In return, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel 
oil or economic aid of equal value.

The North will receive another 950,000 tons of fuel oil or equivalent 
when it takes further steps to disable its nuclear capabilities, 
including providing a complete inventory of its plutonium -- the fuel 
used in Pyongyang's first nuclear test blast in October.

The one million tons of fuel would be worth $300 million at current prices.

The steps for now do not involve providing 2,000 megawatts of 
electricity -- at an estimated cost of $8.55 billion over 10 years and 
about equal to North Koreas current output -- that South Korea pledged 
in Sept 2005 and which is due after North Korea's denuclearisation is 
completed.

The proposed plan hammered out by the two Koreas, the United States, 
Japan, Russia, and China will only be the first step in locating and 
dismantling North Koreas nuclear arms activities, leaving many 
questions to future negotiations.

One area of uncertainty is whether Pyongyang has a highly enriched 
uranium programme, as alleged by Washington. North Korea has not 
acknowledged the existence of such a programme.

DOUBTS VOICED: As details of the draft leaked out, Japan was already 
voicing doubt that any agreement could be made to stick.

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, said the communist state 
should not be rewarded for partially dismantling its nuclear 
programme.Reuters

______________________________________________

Text of the Feb. 13, 2007, Six-Party Agreement
February 13, 2007 17 43 GMT

Editor's Note: Following is the official text of the statement from the 
latest round of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, as 
provided by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

2007/02/13

The Third Session of the Fifth Round of the Six-Party Talks was held in 
Beijing among the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation 
and the United States of America from 8 to 13 February 2007.

Mr. Wu Dawei, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, Mr. Kim Gye 
Gwan, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK; Mr. Kenichiro Sasae, 
Director-General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs of Japan; Mr. Chun Yung-woo, Special Representative for Korean 
Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs of the ROK Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs and Trade; Mr. Alexander Losyukov, Deputy Minister of Foreign 
Affairs of the Russian Federation; and Mr. Christopher Hill, Assistant 
Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Department of State 
of the United States attended the talks as heads of their respective 
delegations.

Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei chaired the talks.

I. The Parties held serious and productive discussions on the actions 
each party will take in the initial phase for the implementation of the 
Joint Statement of 19 September 2005. The Parties reaffirmed their 
common goal and will to achieve early denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula in a peaceful manner and reiterated that they would earnestly 
fulfill their commitments in the Joint Statement. The Parties agreed to 
take coordinated steps to implement the Joint Statement in a phased 
manner in line with the principle of "action for action".

II. The Parties agreed to take the following actions in parallel in the 
initial phase:

1. The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual 
abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing 
facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary 
monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and the DPRK.

2. The DPRK will discuss with other parties a list of all its nuclear 
programs as described in the Joint Statement, including plutonium 
extracted from used fuel rods, that would be abandoned pursuant to the 
Joint Statement.

3. The DPRK and the US will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving 
pending bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations. 
The US will begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as 
a state-sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the 
application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK.

4. The DPRK and Japan will start bilateral talks aimed at taking steps 
to normalize their relations in accordance with the Pyongyang 
Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the 
outstanding issues of concern.

5. Recalling Section 1 and 3 of the Joint Statement of 19 September 
2005, the Parties agreed to cooperate in economic, energy and 
humanitarian assistance to the DPRK. In this regard, the Parties agreed 
to the provision of emergency energy assistance to the DPRK in the 
initial phase. The initial shipment of emergency energy assistance 
equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) will commence within 
next 60 days.

The Parties agreed that the above-mentioned initial actions will be 
implemented within next 60 days and that they will take coordinated 
steps toward this goal.

III. The Parties agreed on the establishment of the following Working 
Groups (WG) in order to carry out the initial actions and for the 
purpose of full implementation of the Joint Statement:

1. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

2. Normalization of DPRK-US relations

3. Normalization of DPRK-Japan relations

4. Economy and Energy Cooperation

5. Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism

The WGs will discuss and formulate specific plans for the implementation 
of the Joint Statement in their respective areas. The WGs shall report 
to the Six-Party Heads of Delegation Meeting on the progress of their 
work. In principle, progress in one WG shall not affect progress in 
other WGs. Plans made by the five WGs will be implemented as a whole in 
a coordinated manner.

The Parties agreed that all WGs will meet within next 30 days.

IV. During the period of the Initial Actions phase and the next phase ? 
which includes provision by the DPRK of a complete declaration of all 
nuclear programs and disablement of all existing nuclear facilities, 
including graphite-moderated reactors and reprocessing plant ? economic, 
energy and humanitarian assistance up to the equivalent of 1 million 
tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO), including the initial shipment equivalent 
to 50,000 tons of HFO, will be provided to the DPRK.

The detailed modalities of the said assistance will be determined 
through consultations and appropriate assessments in the Working Group 
on Economic and Energy Cooperation.

V. Once the initial actions are implemented, the Six Parties will 
promptly hold a ministerial meeting to confirm implementation of the 
Joint Statement and explore ways and means for promoting security 
cooperation in Northeast Asia.

VI. The Parties reaffirmed that they will take positive steps to 
increase mutual trust, and will make joint efforts for lasting peace and 
stability in Northeast Asia. The directly related parties will negotiate 
a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate 
separate forum.

VII. The Parties agreed to hold the Sixth Round of the Six-Party Talks 
on 19 March 2007 to hear reports of WGs and discuss on actions for the 
next phase.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=284314&selected=Analyses

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 11 Secretary-general Welcomes Deal On Non-nuclear Korean Peninsula
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:01:24 -0500

SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES DEAL ON NON-NUCLEAR KOREAN PENINSULA
 
New York, Feb 13 2007  3:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today strongly welcomed 
the nuclear agreement reached at six-party talks in Beijing, 
describing it as the first step towards a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula 
and urging all sides to �sustain the current positive momentum� 
and ensure the accord is implemented.

�The Secretary-General is encouraged that this constructive effort 
by the international community can eventually result in strengthening 
the global non-proliferation regime, as well as in contributing 
to durable peace, security and prosperity in the region,� a 
spokesperson for Mr. Ban said, referring to the deal aimed at implementing 
the 2005 Joint Statement on denuclearizing the peninsula.

�This agreement represents the first practical stage towards a non-nuclear 
Peninsula,� Marie Okabe added in a <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2443">statement. 
�The Secretary-General also 
welcomes the commitment by all participants to move expeditiously 
towards the next stage of this process.�

Toward that end, the planned establishment of five working groups 
�should allow the participants to address the wide ranges of issues 
relating to the region in a comprehensive way.�

The statement urged the participants to �make every effort to sustain 
the current positive momentum and ensure that this accord is 
implemented as agreed.�

The six-party talks involve the Democratic People�s Republic of Korea 
(DPRK), China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the 
United States and have been going on sporadically in Beijing for 
several years, but have so far failed to end nuclear weapons on the 
peninsula. The DPRK carried out its first proclaimed nuclear test 
in October, after which the Security Council imposed sanctions 
on the country. 
 2007-02-13 00:00:00.000 


___________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ 
_______________________________

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Herald: Comments on nuclear breakthrough

From news reports

John Bolton:

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., harshly 
criticized the deal and urged President George W. Bush to reject 
it, saying it made the U.S. look weak.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," he told CNN. "It sends 
exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the 
world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State 
Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this 
case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only 
partially what needs to be done to dismantle the nuclear 
program."

Bill Richardson:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential
candidate. said the agreement "takes the right path."

"Although the devil is in the details, this is a first important
step that might lead to the denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula," Richardson a former U.S. energy secretary and ambassador
to the UN who has held discussions with North Korean officials, said
in an e-mailed statement.

Robert Einhorn:

Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies' International Security Program in Washington,
said the extent of proposed North Korean actions was crucial.

"Have they agreed to suspend temporarily? Have they agreed to
disable parts of the facility in a way that made it difficult to
resume activity quickly?" said Einhorn, a former assistant secretary
of state for nonproliferation. "The U.S. would want whatever steps
to be irreversible. And the North Koreans will want it to be quickly
reversible."

Einhorn said the North Korean 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon makes
enough plutonium to produce one nuclear bomb a year and operates
alongside a reprocessing plant that separates plutonium from spent
fuel.

2007.02.14
*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Herald: Concerns rise over Seoul's share
 
Deal to pave way for resumption of inter-Korean relations

By Jin Dae-woong

South Koreans welcomed yesterday's breakthrough in the six-nation
talks over North Korean nuclear programs. But concerns were growing
over the financial burden Seoul is likely to shoulder in exchange of
Pyongyang's dismantlement of its nuclear programs.

Top negotiators from the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and
the two Koreas yesterday reached a deal under which North Korea
would get heavy fuel oil and other humanitarian and economic aid in
return for its "initial actions" to dismantle nuclear programs.

Their joint statement calls on the communist nation to "shut down"
its five-megawatt Yongbyon atomic facilities within 60 days and to
enter a "disabling" stage within another certain period.

"The planned energy aid will comprise 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil
and some electricity," South Korea's envoy Chun Yung-woo told
reporters. "Through intensive negotiations, we eliminated
differences over most major disputes, including the first steps,
reciprocal steps and the size of energy aid."

South Korean experts and officials yesterday welcomed the first
specific progress made since September 2005 and expressed upbeat
prospects for inter-Korean relations which have been suspended since
Pyongyang's test of a nuclear device last October.

Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung said recently the inter-Korean
dialogue, humanitarian aid and other activity will normalize should
the nuclear problem be resolved.

South Korea's relations with North Korea struck a sour note since
the North's July missile test and the detonation of a nuclear device
in October last year.

The Seoul government has since suspended all food and fertilizer
aid. But the Unification Ministry has been committed in principle to
enhancing exchanges with the reclusive regime with the ultimate aim
of reunification.

With the international aid deal, South-North Korean relations will
be renewed beginning with Seoul's provision of its share of the
proposed energy aid.

However, critics in South Korea harbor concerns the deal will be a
financial burden for Seoul.

South Korea and three other partner countries expect Japan to agree
on the principle of equally sharing the burden of the energy and
humanitarian assistance for the North, Chun said, adding the details
will be decided at a related "working group" to be formed soon.

Japan is also expected to join the provision when its disagreement
with North Korea over pending issues including kidnapping cases is
resolved, Chun said.

Despite the agreed principle of "even sharing of the burden," some
critics argue that Seoul will have to shoulder the largest share
because it is likely to chair a working group on economic and energy
assistance to the North under the agreed six-nation resolution
framework.

Analysts say if the North is given 500,000 tons of heavy oil, South
Korea and other four parties should pay $30 million to $40 million
respectively.

In addition, South Korea will spend another 8 trillion won ($8.5
billion) over 10 years following its 2005 offer to supply the North
with 2 million kilowatts of electricity in return for abandoning its
nuclear ambitions, they said.

The 2 million kilowatts of electrical power is equal to the amount
which two light-water reactors that were to have been built under a
1994 accord between the United States and North Korea would have
generated.

Upon reaching the Geneva Agreement, North Korea froze its nuclear
reactor and the United States and the allies began constructing a
light-water reactor as compensation.

When the North's dismantling process goes well, the parties to the
six-party talks will also construct new light-water reactors for the
communist nation, which would cost them 1 trillion won ($1.1
billion), analysts said.

Under such concerns over the bulky burden, South Korea's main
opposition Grand National Party has warned that the Seoul government
should refrain from taking a leading role in the aid proposal.

"The issue of providing North Korea with heavy oil should be shared
fairly among the participants of the six-party talks and the
government should do its utmost to achieve this arrangement," GNP
spokeswoman Na Kyung-won said in a recent statement.

She said the party welcomes any progress that could address
Pyongyang's nuclear programs, but said South Korea should not be
forced to solely pay for all the expenditures.

The GNP has long been critical of the government's assistance
programs to the North, claiming they have served to extend the life
of the totalitarian Kim Jong-il regime with financial support to the
impoverished nation.

(davidpooh@heraldm.com)

2007.02.14
*****************************************************************
 14 Korea Herald: Accord reached on North Korea nukes
 
N.K. to get 500,000 tons of heavy oil for shutting down reactor

From news reports

BEIJING - Marathon talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear
weapons program secured a major breakthrough on Tuesday with a joint
agreement on the first steps towards disarmament, envoys said.

Following 16 hours of grueling negotiations that finished at 2:00
a.m. on Tuesday (1800 GMT Monday), envoys said China had circulated
a draft joint statement outlining the initial actions Pyongyang
would take to end its nuclear drive and the economic rewards it
would receive in return.

U.S. chief envoy Christopher Hill described the draft agreement as
"excellent," and said he hoped China would be able to release a
confirmed accord following one final round of meetings on Tuesday.

A satellite picture of North Korea`s five-megawatt nuclear reactor
site in Yongbyon. [Korea Herald file]
The agreement contained commitments on disarmament and energy
assistance along with "initial actions" to be taken by certain
deadlines, Hill said. While Hill and other envoys did not specify
the details, they made it clear that North Korea - one of the
world's poorest nations - would be given rich incentives in terms of
oil and other energy aid if it began disarming.

"North Korea will get rewarded.. as it moves towards the dismantling
of its nuclear programs," South Korean negotiator Chun Yung-woo said.

Sources said the deal involved North Korea disabling its
five-megawatt Yongbyon nuclear reactor and other atomic facilities
within the next two months.

In return it would receive alternative energy equivalent to one
million tons of heavy fuel oil each year.

The Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun said the North would get an
initial aid supply worth 50,000 tons of heavy oil after it shuts
down the reactor and allows international inspectors. North Korea
would get an additional 950,000 tons upon completing that first step
and agreeing to disable its nuclear facilities, it said.

Left for later discussion would be what to do with the atomic
weapons the North now is believed to possess - a half-dozen or more
by expert estimates. The deal also reportedly fails to address the
additional uranium enrichment program that Washington accuses North
Korea of having.

All six heads of delegations met Tuesday morning, where they made
some "suggestions of technical changes, but the draft was virtually
concluded," a South Korean official said on condition of anonymity.
A full session of negotiators was expected later Tuesday.

The accord would also set up working groups expected to discuss
issues including normalizing relations between countries and finally
establishing a permanent peace settlement to replace the cease-fire
that ended the Korean War in 1953.

The tentative agreement came just four months after North Korea
conducted its first atomic test - an event that triggered United
Nations sanctions and breathed new urgency into the stuttering
six-party forum that began in 2003.

The fifth day of the current round of talks began early Monday with
Hill saying he was not prepared to bargain any further and North
Korea refusing to give more ground on its demands for oil and other
incentives.

But amid fears the six-nation forum could collapse entirely if a
deal was not reached, envoys bunkered down for the last-chance
negotiations.

Hill said North Korea, like the other five nations in the forum, had
compromised on its position during Monday's marathon session.

"It was a long day - lot of effort by a lot of people," a
weary-looking Hill said in a 3:00 a.m. press conference in the lobby
of his hotel. "I think we made a lot of progress."

South Korea's Chun said North Korean envoy Kim Kye-gwan had agreed
to all the details in the joint statement ahead of China circulating
it for final approval.

"We, the delegates, have agreed on the initial steps for North Korea
to take for its denuclearization," Chun told reporters.

"North Korea has agreed to the wording and all the figures
stipulated in it."

Nevertheless, Chun, Hill and Japanese envoy Kenichiro Sasae all
cautioned there was still no guarantee the deal would get the final
green light and, even if it did, would ensure that North Korea
remained committed to disarmament.

"We are not done. This is essentially some initial action so we have
got a long way to go," Hill said.

Indeed, Hill said Tuesday's deal was based on a six-party agreement
made in September 2005 in which North Korea agreed to give up its
nuclear weapons program in return for security guarantees, energy
benefits and other aid.

That agreement fell apart two months later over North Korean
objections to U.S. sanctions imposed against it for money laundering
and counterfeiting - and Pyongyang then conducted its nuclear test
last October.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also flagged further obstacles to
be overcome on Tuesday, saying his country would not fund the new
deal due to an unresolved row over the North's past kidnappings of
Japanese citizens.

2007.02.14
*****************************************************************
 15 BBC NEWS: N Korea agrees disarmament steps

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 February 2007, 15:23 GMT

US envoy Christopher Hill says there is still a way to go

North Korea has agreed to take the first steps towards nuclear
disarmament, as part of a deal reached during six-nation talks in
Beijing.

Under the agreement, Pyongyang has promised to shut down its main
nuclear reactor in return for fuel aid.

The US and Japan have also pledged to begin talks with North Korea
on building closer ties.

Mr Wu said the deal was "favourable for the peace process in
north-east Asia and for the improvement of ties between relevant
countries".

White House spokesman Tony Snow called it "a very important first
step" towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

Delegates from the two Koreas, the US, China, Japan and Russia had
been meeting in Beijing since Thursday.

They worked late into Monday night to try and hammer out the final
details of the deal.

'One phase'

Under the agreement, Pyongyang has pledged to close its Yongbyon
reactor within 60 days, in return for 50,000 metric tons of fuel aid
or economic aid of equal value.

The closure of Yongbyon will be verified by international inspectors.
 
N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons

But not thought to have any small enough to put in a missile

Could try dropping from plane, though world watching closely


The North will eventually receive another one million tonnes of fuel
oil or an equivalent when it permanently disables its nuclear
operations.

The US has agreed to begin the process of removing North Korea from
its list of terror states and establish diplomatic relations.

Japan will also discuss normalising relations with the North.

Chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, said the agreement reached
this week was "only one phase of denuclearisation. We're not done."

One of the topics that looks set to be left for later discussion is
the fate of any nuclear weapons the North already possesses.

Signs of progress

In Washington, Mr Snow hailed the deal but sounded a note of caution.

"If they don't abide by the terms, they don't get the benefits they
desire," he said.

"There's still the possibility of sanctions through the
international community."

Other US figures had earlier voiced scepticism.

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, said North
Korea should not be rewarded with "massive shipments of heavy fuel
oil" for only partially dismantling its nuclear arsenal.

"It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around
the world," Mr Bolton told CNN.

And while Japan has approved the joint agreement, Foreign Minister
Taro Aso was quoted as saying that Tokyo would not provide aid as
there had been no progress on the issue of Japanese nationals
abducted by the North in the 1970s and 80s.

But despite the difficulties ahead, analysts say this deal is an
important sign of progress, after more than three years of talks.

The previous deal, agreed in September 2005, rapidly fell apart over
differences between North Korea and the US over implementation.


*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Key Points of N. Korea Disarmament Deal

From the Associated Press

Tuesday February 13, 2007 9:46 AM

By The Associated Press

   The following are key points of an agreement reached Tuesday 
on steps for North Korea to end its nuclear weapons development:

 - Within 60 days, the North must shut down and seal its main 
nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital Pyongyang. 
International inspectors should be allowed to verify the process. 
For the initial steps, North Korea will get energy, food and 
other aid worth 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.

  - The United States will begin bilateral talks with North Korea 
to normalize their relations and will begin the processes of 
removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring 
state and also ending U.S. trade sanctions, but no deadline was 
set.

   - Japan will begin bilateral talks with North Korea to 
normalize their relations.

 - After 60 days, foreign ministers of all the countries will 
meet to confirm the implementation of the agreement and talk 
about security cooperation in northeast Asia. Some countries will 
hold a separate forum on negotiations for a permanent peace 
settlement to replace the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean 
War.

 - The North must provide a complete list of its nuclear programs 
and disable all existing nuclear facilities. In return, the North 
will get aid in corresponding steps worth 950,000 tons of heavy 
fuel oil - details of which will be addressed in later working 
group discussions.

 - Five working groups will be created: denuclearization, 
U.S.-North Korea relations, Japan-North Korea relations, economic 
cooperation and on a peace and security mechanism in northeast 
Asia.

           - The six-nation talks will meet again March 19.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament 

From the Associated Press

Tuesday February 13, 2007 12:01 PM

AP Photo TOK207

By BURT HERMAN

Associated Press Writer

   BEIJING (AP) - North Korea agreed Tuesday after arduous talks 
to shut down its main nuclear reactor and eventually dismantle 
its atomic weapons program, just four months after the communist 
state shocked the world by testing a nuclear bomb.

 The deal marks the first concrete plan for disarmament in more 
than three years of six-nation negotiations, and could 
potentially herald a new era of cooperation in the region with 
the North's longtime foes - the United States and Japan - also 
agreeing to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang.

  Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 
50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and 
sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at 
Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international 
inspectors.

   For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all 
nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 
950,000 tons in aid.

  The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at 
a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if 
there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all 
stood and applauded.

  The main U.S. nuclear envoy said Washington was satisfied with 
an agreement on initial steps for North Korea to disarm but 
called it just the start of the process.

  ``Obviously we have a long way to go, but we're very pleased 
with this agreement,'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher 
Hill told reporters. ``It's a very solid step forward.''

   North Korea and United States also will embark on talks aimed 
at resolving disputes and restarting diplomatic relations, Wu 
said. The Korean peninsula has technically remained in a state of 
war for more than a half-century since the Korean War ended in a 
1953 cease-fire.

   The United States will begin the process of removing North 
Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also 
on ending U.S. trade sanctions, but no deadlines was set, 
according to the agreement.

   Hill said that Washington also had pledged to resolve 
financial restrictions against a bank where North Korea held 
accounts within a month.

 Washington's blacklisting of a Macau bank in September 2005 had 
been an obstacle to nuclear talks, leading the North to a 
more-than-yearlong boycott during which it tested its first 
nuclear bomb.

   Japan and North Korea also will seek to normalize relations. 
But Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in Tokyo that his 
country would not yet join in giving aid to the North. Japan has 
said it wants to resolve the issue of abductions of its citizens 
that Pyongyang has admitted to but not addressed to Tokyo's 
satisfaction.

  If Pyongyang follows through with its promises, they would be 
the first moves the communist nation has made to scale back its 
atomic development after more than three years of six-nation 
negotiations marked by delays, deadlock and the North's first 
nuclear test explosion in October.

  Making sure that Pyongyang declares all its nuclear facilities 
and shuts them down is likely to prove arduous, nuclear experts 
have said.

 North Korea has sidestepped previous agreements, allegedly 
running a uranium-based weapons program even as it froze a 
plutonium-based one - sparking the latest nuclear crisis in late 
2002. The country is believed to have countless mountainside 
tunnels in which to hide projects.

   Already before its adoption, the deal drew strong criticism 
from John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., who urged 
President Bush to reject it.

  ``I am very disturbed by this deal,'' Bolton told CNN. ``It 
sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around 
the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State 
Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this 
case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only 
partially what needs to be done.''

   The deal requires the North to state all its nuclear programs 
- including plutonium it has already extracted from the Yongbyon 
reactor, the agreement says.

    After the initial 60 days, a joint meeting will be convened 
of foreign ministers from all countries at the talks - China, 
Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas.

 Under the agreement, five working groups are to meet within 30 
days: denuclearization, normalization of U.S.-North Korea 
relations, normalization of North Korea-Japan relations, economy 
and energy cooperation, and peace and security in northeast Asia.

   Another meeting of the nuclear envoys was scheduled March 19 
to check on the groups' progress.

 Hill said the North Koreans had insisted that the specific 
amount of aid they were to receive in the agreement was spelled 
out during the six-nation negotiations - and not left to a later 
working group to address - as the U.S. had wanted.

 In return, Hill said the negotiators moved to also discuss the 
next step in disarmament, the actual disabling of the North's 
programs so they could not easily be restarted.

 ``We took what was essentially a sticking point and used it as a 
way to make further progress on the road to denuclearization,'' 
he said.

 In September 2005, North Korea was promised energy aid and 
security guarantees in exchange for pledging to abandon its 
nuclear programs. But talks on implementing that agreement 
repeatedly stalled on other issues.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 18 Reuters: US Treasury ready to resolve N.Korean bank accounts 

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:41PM EST

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury is ready to take
steps to resolve disputed North Korean accounts at Macau's Banco
Delta Asia, including separating out legitimate assets from those
linked to illicit activities, a top Treasury official said on
Tuesday.

"I think we're at the point now where we do have enough information
and have had enough discussions that we can begin taking steps to
resolve the Banco Delta Asia matter," said Daniel Glaser, the
Treasury's deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and
financial crimes.

Glaser declined to offer specific information regarding accounts, or
how much of the frozen $24 million in North Korean funds would be
released.

"It's never been our position that accounts in which there's no
relation to illicit activity should be held indefinitely. That's one
of the things that we're going to be working towards as we bring
this matter to resolution," Glaser told reporters at a Korean
symposium in Washington.

Glaser's comments came just hours after North Korea agreed to take
steps toward nuclear disarmament under a groundbreaking deal in
Beijing that will freeze its main nuclear reactor and allow
international inspections of the site.

As part of the deal reached in the six-nation talks, Washington
agreed to resolve the issue of frozen North Korean accounts at Banco
Delta Asia within 30 days, the chief U.S. negotiator Christopher
Hill said in Beijing.  Continued...

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Making N. Korea Stick to Deal

From the Associated Press

Tuesday February 13, 2007 4:46 PM

By CHARLES HUTZLER

Associated Press Writer

    BEIJING (AP) - The negotiation that yielded Tuesday's 
landmark agreement for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons 
programs now gives way to a more arduous phase: making sure the 
communist country keeps its promises. Secretive, belligerent and 
with a reputation for skirting past deals, North Korea makes a 
rough prospect for arms control inspectors, experts said. It 
allegedly set up a secret nuclear weapons program, even as it 
shut down a different program a decade ago and put it under U.N. 
inspection.

 Its mountainous terrain is pockmarked with tunnels and bunkers 
ideal for hiding bombs, materials and production lines. U.S. 
technical crews visited a suspected North Korean underground 
nuclear site, once in 1999 and again in 2000, only to find a 
suspiciously empty tunnel complex.

   ``How much nuclear material it has, how much it has produced 
and whether they've hidden any, we have our estimates. But no one 
can say for certain,'' said Liu Gongliang, a nuclear physicist 
who has tried to track North Korea's nuclear program for the 
Chinese government.

   As the United States, China and other regional partners look 
to enforce their hard won agreement, getting past North Korea's 
usual intransigence is critical. Success in ridding North Korea 
of all its nuclear weapons programs would make the country a 
model of disarmament, like South Africa in the 1990s and Libya 
this decade.

 Failure risks stoking tensions anew in often hostile Northeast 
Asia where U.S. troops are stationed to defend allies Japan and 
South Korea against a huge North Korean military.

    North Korea has refined enough plutonium from its main, known 
facility - a 5-megawatt reactor based on a Soviet design and its 
associated processing plant in Yongbyon - to make from four to 13 
nuclear bombs, according to the Institute for Science and 
International Security, a disarmament think tank in Washington.

 Under Tuesday's accord, North Korea committed to first shutting 
down Yongbyon, accounting for all its nuclear facilities and 
eventually dismantling them all. But though the Yongbyon reactor 
was put under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection as 
part of 1994 deal with the United States, the entire facility has 
never been opened for inspection.

  That deal unraveled after Washington accused Pyongyang in 2002 
of running a parallel weapons project enriching uranium, a 
program the new agreement has assigned to a working group to 
resolve later. North Korea may have other undeclared and unknown 
facilities and materials, experts said.

 Ultimately there is the question of whether Kim Jong Il, 
dictator of an impoverished and politically isolated country, 
intends to relinquish his nuclear weapons.

      Jin Linbo, a North Korean watcher at China's Institute for 
International Studies, said North Korean Vice Foreign Minister 
Kim Kye Gwan was quoted last December as telling South Korean and 
Japanese reporters, ``Do you believe we developed and sustained 
our nuclear weapons programs for so long just to give them up?''

    Other governments have developed nuclear weapons for 
political popularity, diplomacy or security, Jin said. ``But 
North Korea is not like other countries. They need it for food, 
they need it for fuel, for clothing to wear'' and cannot afford 
to bargain it away cheaply, he said. ``So I'm very pessimistic.''

   Cooperation is considered critical for a successful 
disarmament. Inspectors had trouble uncovering the extent of 
South Africa's program even with assistance from the government. 
North Korea is suspected of having hidden some of its processed 
plutonium despite allowing in the U.N. inspectors under the 1994 
agreement, said Liu, the Chinese physicist.

    ``South Africa was a model,'' Liu said. ``Without that kind 
of cooperation it's extremely tough. If you say 'we think you 
have more fuel,' they won't acknowledge it, and if you think 
you've got it all, they'll keep any remaining materials for 
later.''


Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Reuters: Details on N.Korea nuclear deal

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:42AM EST

(Reuters) - The six countries in talks to end North Korea's nuclear
weapons programs agreed on Tuesday on specific disarming steps from
Pyongyang in return for aid. Following are details of the deal,
according to diplomatic sources.

SHUTDOWN AS INITIAL STEPS

North Korea will begin initial steps toward denuclearization within
60 days of the announcement of the agreement. South Korea, China,
the United States and Russia -- but not Japan -- will provide 50,000
tons of fuel oil or an equivalent value of economic or humanitarian
aide in return.

North Korea will shut down its Yongbyon nuclear complex, including
its 5 megawatt reactor and its plutonium reprocessing plant, within
the 60 days and seal all facilities there.

It will also accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors back to the site within the 60 days. These steps would
ensure that North Korea's ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium
is disabled.

PATH TO COMPLETE DENUCLEARISATION

North Korea will subsequently complete measures to "disable" its
nuclear programs and receive 950,000 tons of fuel oil, or the
equivalent value in the form of economic or humanitarian aid, from
the four countries.

The 1 million tons of fuel would be worth around $30O million at
current prices for Asian benchmark high-sulphur heavy fuel oil,
which is used in power stations, shipping and elsewhere. 

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 Reuters: ANALYSTS' VIEW-North Korea nuclear deal 

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:36AM EST

BEIJING (Reuters) - Following are comments on the nuclear
disarmament deal reached with North Korea at six-party talks on
Tuesday.

Zhang Liangui, expert on North Korea at the Chinese Communist
Party's Central Party School, a key thinktank: "This is a step
forward. But freezing, suspending, disabling isn't necessarily the
same as abandonment. So we still need to discount the possibility
that North Korea will really abandon nuclear weapons. That's a much
more difficult and long-term issue."

- - - -

Peter Beck, Seoul-based Korea analyst with the International Crisis
Group:

"I'm a bit underwhelmed. But it's one small step forward. I'm
disappointed if this is all they agreed to. We're in for many more
long and painful negotiations before this becomes more than a piece
of paper."

Though he welcomed a proposed freeze of the nuclear plant he said it
remained far from the demand that North Korea completely dismantle
its nuclear program.

- - - -

Shunji Hiraiwa, Korea expert at Japan's Shizuoka Prefectural
University:  Continued...


� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 UPI: N. Korea agrees to close nuclear plant

United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 13, 2007 at 6:49 AM

BEIJING, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Three years of six-nation haggling 
ended in Beijing on Tuesday with North Korea agreeing to close 
its nuclear facilities in exchange for oil and aid.

In announcing the breakthrough, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu
Dawei said North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the
United States will convene March 19 for further talks, the Kyodo
news service reported.

The talks' summary statement said Pyongyang "will shut down and seal
for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear
facility, including the reprocessing facility, and invite back"
inspectors from the U.N. nuclear agency, the Yonhap news service
said.


In return, North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil
and a further 950,000 tons of oil as the dismantling progresses.


Other aspects of the deal require the United States' to remove of
North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism and the
lifting of U.S. economic sanctions.


Last October, Pyongyang test-fired an atomic bomb underground,
prompting the latest round of talks.

� Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 UPI: Bush hails N. Korea nuclear agreement

United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush Tuesday
hailed the agreement reached in Beijing that will see North Korea
end its nuclear program in exchange for oil and aid.

The agreement at the six-party talks came after three years of 
negotiating with the Communist country. The United States will no 
longer consider North Korea a sponsor of terrorism and will lift 
sanctions once it dismantles its nuclear facilities.

"I am pleased with the agreements reached today at the Six Party 
Talks in Beijing," Bush said in a statement. "These talks 
represent the best opportunity to use diplomacy to address North 
Korea's nuclear programs. They reflect the common commitment of 
the participants to a Korean Peninsula that is free of nuclear 
weapons."

Bush said the agreement is the first step toward implementing the 
2005 goal of a "nuclear weapons free peninsula."

Within the next 60 days, North Korea will "shut down and seal all 
operations at the primary nuclear facilities it has used to 
produce weapons-grade plutonium and has agreed to allow 
international inspectors to verify and monitor this process," 
Bush said, as well as disclose all of its nuclear programs and 
disable its existing facilities.

In exchange, the other parties will provide it will "cooperate in 
economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance to North Korea." 
The nations involved will meet again March 19 for further talks.

� Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Korea Times: Full Text of Denuclearization Agreement

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

The following is the full text of ��Initial Actions for the
Implementation of the Joint Statement�� adopted at the latest round
of six-nation negotiations over North Korea's nuclear weapons
program in Beijing on Feb. 13.

Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement

The third session of the fifth round of the Six-Party Talks was held
in Beijing among the People's Republic of China, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the
Russian Federation and the United States of America from 8 to 13
February 2007.

Wu Dawei, vice minister of foreign affairs of the PRC, Kim Gye-gwan,
vice minister of foreign affairs of the DPRK; Kenichiro Sasae,
director-general for Asian and Oceanian affairs, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan; Chun Yung-woo, special representative for Korean
Peninsula peace and security affairs of the ROK Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade; Alexander Losyukov, deputy minister of foreign
affairs of the Russian Federation; and Christopher Hill, assistant
secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs of the Department of
State of the United States attended the talks as heads of their
respective delegations.

Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei chaired the talks.

I. The parties held serious and productive discussions on the
actions each party will take in the initial phase for the
implementation of the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005. The
parties reaffirmed their common goal and will to achieve early
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and
reiterated that they would earnestly fulfill their commitment in the
Joint Statement. The parties agreed to take coordinated steps to
implement the Joint Statement in a phased manner in line with the
principle of action for action.

II. The parties agreed to take the following actions in parallel in
the initial phase:

1. The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual
abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the
reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all
necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and
the DPRK.

2. The DPRK will discuss with other parties a list of all its
nuclear program as described in the Joint Statement, including
plutonium extracted from used fuel rods, that would be abandoned
pursuant to the Joint Statement.

3. The DPRK and the U.S. will start bilateral talks aimed at
resolving pending bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic
relations. The U.S. will begin the process of removing the
designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism and advance
the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the
Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK.

4. The DPRK and Japan will start bilateral talks aimed at taking
steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the Pyongyang
Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and
the outstanding issues of concern.

5. Recalling Section 1 and 3 of the Joint Statement of 19 September
2005, the parties agreed to cooperate in economic, energy and
humanitarian assistance to the DPRK. In this regard, the parties
agreed to the provision of emergency energy assistance to the DPRK
in the initial phase. The initial shipment of emergency energy
assistance equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil will commence
within next 60 days.

The parties agreed that the above-mentioned initial actions will be
implemented within next 60 days and that they will take coordinated
steps toward this goal.

III. The Parties agreed on the establishment of the following
Working Groups (WG) in order to carry out the initial actions and
for the purpose of full implementation of the Joint Statement:

&nbsp&nbsp 1. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

&nbsp&nbsp 2. Normalization of DPRK-U.S. relations

&nbsp&nbsp 3. Normalization of DPRK-Japan relations

&nbsp&nbsp 4. Economy and energy cooperation

&nbsp&nbsp 5. Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism

The WGs will discuss and formulate specific plans for the
implementation of the Joint Statement in their respective areas. The
WGs shall report to the Six-Party Heads of Delegation Meeting on the
progress of their work. In principle, progress in one WG shall not
affect progress in other WGs. Plans made by the five WGs will be
implemented as a whole in a coordinated manner.

The Parties agreed that all WGs will meet within next 30 days.

IV. During the period of the Initial Actions phase and the next
phase _ which includes provision by the DPRK of a complete
declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of all existing
nuclear facilities, including graphite-moderated reactors and
reprocessing plant _ economic, energy and humanitarian assistance up
to the equivalent of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO),
including the initial shipment equivalent to 50,000 tons of HFO,
will be provided to the DPRK.

The detailed modalities of the said assistance will be determined
through consultations and appropriate assessments in the Working
Group on Economic and Energy Cooperation.

V. Once the initial actions are implemented, the Six Parties will
promptly hold a ministerial meeting to confirm implementation of the
Joint Statement and explore ways and means for promoting security
cooperation in Northeast Asia.

VI. The Parties reaffirmed that they will take positive steps to
increase mutual trust, and will make joint efforts for lasting peace
and stability in Northeast Asia. The directly related parties will
negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an
appropriate separate forum.

VII. The Parties agreed to hold the sixth round of the Six-Party
Talks on 19 March 2007 to hear reports of WGs and discuss on actions
for the next phase.

02-13-2007 20:39
*****************************************************************
 25 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Hails Agreement With North Korea

From the Associated Press

Tuesday February 13, 2007 10:46 PM

AP Photo TOK207, TOK214, BEJ111

By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush defended a landmark nuclear 
agreement reached Tuesday with North Korea, calling it ``the best 
opportunity'' for diplomacy to succeed in ridding the Pyongyang 
government of all atomic weapons and capabilities.

  ``I am pleased with the agreements reached today at the 
six-party talks in Beijing,'' the president said in a statement 
read by his press secretary, Tony Snow.

   ``These talks represent the best opportunity to use diplomacy 
to address North Korea's nuclear programs,'' Bush added. ``They 
reflect the common commitment of the participants to a Korean 
Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons.''

  Under the first phase of the agreement announced in Beijing, 
North Korea would be required to shut down its main nuclear 
reactor and allow U.N. inspectors back into the country within 60 
days. In return, it would receive aid equal to 50,000 tons of 
heavy fuel oil.

    Put off until a later date would be negotiations about how to 
completely dismantle all its nuclear facilities, declare and 
relinquish whatever weapons and fuel it has stockpiled and decide 
the fate of a parallel weapons project involving the enrichment 
of uranium.

 Compliance by North Korea - a secretive regime that has spurned 
many prior agreements - would bring it hundreds of thousands of 
tons more in heavy fuel oil and other aid, plus talks on 
normalizing relations with the United States, removing North 
Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and 
ending U.S. trade sanctions.

 ``If they don't abide by the terms, they don't get the benefits 
they desire,'' White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

 Added Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: ``This is still the 
first quarter, there is still a lot of time to go on the clock. 
But the six parties have now taken a promising step in the right 
direction.''

 But the agreement drew strong criticism from former U.N. 
Ambassador John Bolton, who urged Bush to reject it.

  ``I am very disturbed by this deal,'' Bolton told CNN. ``It 
sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around 
the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State 
Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this 
case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only 
partially what needs to be done.''

  Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department official who 
visited North Korea with then-Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright, said Americans should applaud the agreement, but he 
predicted it would come under heavy questioning from both the 
right and the left.

 He said, ``I think a number of people are going to ask the 
question `Couldn't this deal have been concluded three or four 
years ago before North Korea conducted its nuclear test and 
acquired enough additional plutonium to build anywhere from six 
to 10 nuclear weapons?'''

    Mike Green, former senior director for Asian affairs on 
Bush's National Security Council, said it's impossible to know 
now whether the North Koreans are serious about de-nuclearization 
or merely stalling for time.

          ``The track record so far is not good,'' he said.

  But Snow said that while much work remains to be done, the deal 
is the best path to ensure a de-nuclearized Korean Peninsula.

   ``This is also not a case where we are going to be swapping 
one nuclear technology for another,'' he said. ``When this is 
concluded, there will be no nuclear technology in North Korea.''

    The agreement does ``absolutely not'' reward North Korean bad 
behavior, Snow argued. For one thing, the initial fuel aid given 
to North Korea is only a tiny fraction - 5 percent - of the 
country's oil consumption.

  ``They not only have to act, they have to do it in a pretty 
small window,'' he said. ``There's a level of accountability here 
for the North Koreans that has been absent in the past, and if 
they don't move forward, they don't get the diplomatic 
recognition they want.''

 Snow said the agreement was stronger than previous deals with 
North Korea because the United States was not the only party. And 
it does not remove the threat of economic sanctions that have 
been authorized by the United Nations.

       ``There is still a possibility of sanctions through the 
international community,'' Snow said. ``And there is considerably 
more leverage on the North Koreans by virtue of the fact that you 
have the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese and the 
Russians also involved here. They're answerable not merely to the 
United States, but in fact to their own neighbors who are 
significant stakeholders in this.''

   Financial sanctions imposed on North Korea because of 
suspected counterfeiting have been a major sticking point for 
Pyongyang. Washington shifted on its insistence that that issue 
remain separate from the nuclear talks.

    In Sept. 15, 2005, the U.S. blacklisted a Macau-based bank 
for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering by North Korea. 
The bank froze North Korean assets, which led Pyongyang to 
boycott the six-nation talks for more than a year. The United 
States pledged to address the matter within 30 days, Hill said.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 26 AFP: Deal agreed to shut key NKorea nuclear facilities 

by Jun Kwanwoo and Shigemi Sato Tue Feb 13, 7:20 AM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea has agreed to shut down key nuclear 
facilities within two months in exchange for badly needed fuel, 
part of a broad agreement aimed at ending the regime's 
controversial nuclear programme.

In return, the United States would hold direct talks on diplomatic
relations with North Korea -- a member of US President George W.
Bush's "axis of evil -- and begin looking at removing it from the US
list of terrorist nations.

The deal came after nearly a week of gruelling six-nation talks in
Beijing aimed at convincing the secretive Stalinist state, which
tested an atomic bomb for the first time in October, to abandon its
nuclear weapons.

Chinese negotiator Wu Dawei said an "important consensus" had been
reached at the talks, which would resume in Beijing on March 19 to
verify that the deal is being properly implemented.

"It marks an important and solid step for the six-party talks and a
nuclear-free Korean peninsula," Wu told reporters Tuesday. "This
progress has made the talks a success."

Under the deal, North Korea would have 60 days to shut down its main
Yongbyon nuclear reactor and allow United Nations nuclear inspectors
back into the country.

Meanwhile, the energy-starved regime would receive a first tranche
of 50,000 tonnes of fuel oil -- part of an eventual one million
tonnes if the accord progresses as spelt out and the North
permanently disables its key nuclear facilities.

Chief US envoy Christopher Hill said he was pleased with the outcome
but warned there was stil a long way to go before the end goal of a
denuclearised North Korea was achieved.

"This is only the end of the beginning of the process. We have a lot
of work to do," he told reporters.

Previously, North Korea agreed at six-way talks in September 2005 to
scrap its atomic plans but then boycotted the negotiations for over
a year, and still earlier agreements foundered on disputes between
Washington and Pyongyang.

South Korea, the United States, China, Russia and Japan have been
holding nearly four years of on-again, off-again talks with the
North, one of the poorest and most isolated nations in the world.

In 2002, President Bush lumped North Korea in with Iran and pre-war
Iraq as an "axis of evil" linked to the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction -- while the North has repeatedly condemned
Washington's "hostile policy".

But with the new deal, the two countries will "start bilateral talks
aimed at resolving pending bilateral issues and moving toward full
diplomatic relations," the joint statement said.

Removing the North from the US list of terrorist sponsors could also
clear the way for US firms to do business with North Korea.

According to the new agreement, North Korea would "shut down and
seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment" its main Yongbyon
nuclear plant and make an accounting of all its nuclear programmes
and capabilities.

Included in that list would be plutonium already extracted from fuel
rods, which outside analysts have estimated would be enough for the
North to make several nuclear weapons.

But the public announcement made no mention of previous US
allegations that the North was secretly enriching uranium -- a
charge that led to the breakdown of a previous agreement to help
Pyongyang build nuclear reactors for energy.

North Korea had repeatedly said it would not make concessions until
the United States ended financial sanctions aimed at blocking its
access to the international banking system.

There was also no mention of those unilateral sanctions in the joint
deal, but Hill told reporters afterwards that United States now
intended to resolve the dispute within 30 days.

The joint announcement did say that North Korea would address
another tricky bilateral dispute -- its abductions of Japanese
nationals in the 1970s.

But within an hour of the announcement, Japanese Foreign Minister
Taro Aso said his country would not provide energy aid until
"progress" was made on the abductions issue. Japan believes the
North is still holding some of its people.

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 27 AFP: Six-party talks yield one mln tonnes oil for NKorea - report - 

Mon Feb 12, 10:09 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A breakthrough in talks aimed at weaning North
Korea from its nuclear ambitions will include one million tonnes of
fuel oil plus electricity for the impoverished country, a US news
report has said.

A major sticking point in the six-party talks held in Beijing had
been North Korea's demand for two million tonnes of fuel oil and two
million kilowatts of power before it would agree to shut down its
nuclear program, ABC News reported.

However, a compromise has been reached as part of the package, at a
million tonnes of fuel oil, the US broadcaster said, without
mentioning a source.

The deal still needs final approval from the governments of each of
the six nations involved -- host China, the two Koreas, the United
States, Japan and Russia -- and could yet fall apart, negotiators
warned.

China has circulated a "final" joint statement outlining the first
steps North Korea would take to end its nuclear drive and the
economic rewards it would receive in return, said envoys meeting in
Beijing.

The chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, described the text as
"excellent."

North Korea carried out its first atomic bomb test in October,
triggering United Nations sanctions on the impoverished nation and
breathing new urgency into the six-party forum.

Copyright � 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang deal: fuel for scepticism 

Tuesday February 13 2007

The problem with igloos | Home | Road charge petition was a
car crash waiting to happen

By Mark Tran / World news 12:35pm

Kim Jong-il and North Korean soldiers.

Photo: Korea Central News Agency/APIt is hard to avoid the
conclusion that Kim Jong-il has got what he wants by behaving badly,
as John Bolton, the hawkish former US ambassador to the UN, is
arguing.

But then the Bush administration contributed to the diplomatic mess
in the first place with its own ineptitude.

Six-nation talks on the North's nuclear programme were going nowhere
when Pyongyang literally dropped a bombshell by conducting a nuclear
test last October.

That typically brazen display of brinkmanship lit a fire under
diplomatic bottoms in the US, Russia, Japan and South Korea, who
decided that it was time to restart the moribund negotiations.

Under today's no-nukes for fuel deal, North Korea - an economic
basket case - will shut down its main reactor within 60 days and
move towards eventually dismantling its atomic weapons programme. In
return, it gets much-needed energy supplies. There is plenty of room
for scepticism.

The Free Thinking Americans blog argues that North Korea is, yet
again, playing the US for a fool.

Scepticism is in order because we have been here before, most
recently in 2005 and back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was in the
White House.

The 2005 agreement unravelled when the Bush administration froze
some North Korean bank accounts in Macao. Pyongyang walked out of
the six-party talks in a huff and proceeded to conduct its test.

It is the Americans who have had to back down on those sanctions to
get us back to where we were two years ago.

Both sides blinked, but George Bush, embroiled in Iraq and
increasingly isolated at home, needed a foreign policy success.
China comes out of this with its prestige enhanced. It was Beijing
that pushed for the resumption of the six-party talks and it was
Beijing - angered at Pyongyang's test - that told Kim Jong-il it was
time to put his nuclear toys back in the cupboard.

Now there will be questions on whether today's agreement holds any
lessons for dealing with Iran's uranium enrichment. There are signs
that Iran is feeling the financial squeeze from US measures, as the
Guardian's Simon Tisdall writes today, and that Iran's supreme
authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is none too happy with the
blustering style of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Notwithstanding the caveats surrounding the deal on North Korea, it
is not a bad model for the impasse with Iran, with which the US
still refuses to deal directly.

Contemporaria

This post was last changed at 12:35 PM, February 13 2007, at a time
when the top headline on Guardian Unlimited was Police criticised
over terror raid, and the top headline from the BBC was Police
criticised on terror raid, and there were posts elsewhere tagged
with these same keywords:

The post was written by Mark Tran. You can email the author at
mark.tran@guardian.co.uk


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 29 UPI: U.N. supports deal on non-nuclear N.Korea

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

2/13/2007 7:20:00 PM -0500

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban 
Ki-Moon says he welcomes the Korean Peninsula nuclear agreement 
reached at six-party talks in Beijing.

"The Secretary-General is encouraged that this constructive 
effort by the international community can eventually result in 
strengthening the global non-proliferation regime, as well as in 
contributing to durable peace, security and prosperity in the 
region," a spokeswoman for Ban said Tuesday, referring to the 
deal aimed at implementing the 2005 joint statement on 
denuclearizing the peninsula.

The six-party talks involve China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, 
South Korea and the United States and have been going on 
intermittently in Beijing for several years.

Within the next 60 days, North Korea will shut down all 
operations at its primary nuclear facilities. In exchange, the 
other parties will provide it with economic, humanitarian, and 
energy assistance.

North Korea carried out its first nuclear test last October, 
after which the Security Council imposed sanctions.

"This agreement represents the first practical stage towards a 
non-nuclear peninsula," the spokeswoman said. "The 
secretary-general also welcomes the commitment by all 
participants to move expeditiously towards the next stage of this 
process."

� Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea to shut down nuclear reactor in arms for energy deal 

North and South Korea | 

Jonathan Watts in Beijing and Julian Borger

Wednesday February 14, 2007

North Korea yesterday promised to shut down its nuclear reactor 
and re-admit international inspectors, as first steps towards 
eventual disarmament, in return for millions of dollars worth of 
oil.

The arms-for-energy deal clinched in Beijing represents a 
breakthrough after more than three fruitless years of talks 
involving six nations. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza 
Rice said on Tuesday it should serve as an example to Iran, which 
is currently under UN sanctions for refusing to halt uranium 
enrichment.

Yesterday's deal, which the White House welcomed as "a very
important first step" towards North Korea's nuclear disarmament, was
only achieved after significant US concessions.

American negotiators agreed to bilateral talks that Washington had
previously rejected and promised to "resolve" restrictions on North
Korean-related accounts in Macau within the next month.

Furthermore, the deal - hammered out by both Koreas, the US, Japan,
Russia, and China - does not require the North to dismantle its
existing warheads, of which there are thought to be between eight
and ten. Christopher Hill, the lead US negotiator, conceded the
long-term disarmament of North Korea had "a long way to go".

Over the next 60 days, North Korea must seal its 5 megawatt reactor
at Yongbyon, allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and make an inventory of all its nuclear programmes.

In return, the regime will receive 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil,
which it badly needs to keep functioning, or economic aid of equal
value. The US will also begin the process of normalising diplomatic
relations and removing North Korea from its list of state-sponsors
of terrorism.

Conservative critics in Washington said it resembled the nuclear
freeze negotiated by the Clinton administration in 1994, which was
much derided by the Bush White House as naive, and which broke down
in 2002 over US allegations of covert uranium enrichment.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, rejected the parallel
with 1994, arguing: "This implementing agreement has the advantage
of being multilateral" involving North Korea's powerful neighbours
such as China and Russia who had the power "not only to make a deal
to but to make sure one sticks".

She said it should be seen "as a message to Iran" that the
international community can achieve important results when it worked
together.

Diplomats from the region generally welcomed the agreement but said
it left the most difficult decisions about denuclearisation still to
be faced.

"This does not solve the problem in any fundamental way. But at the
moment it is the best deal we can get. We must start somewhere,"
said Ham Seung Joo, a former South Korean foreign minister. "The
most we can hope is that one day we will look back and say this is
the deal that kept North Korea from strengthening its nuclear
arsenal."

One diplomat said: "You could say the North Koreans have already
achieved what they wanted to achieve. They have already acquired
nuclear weapons, and the time is right for them to do a deal."

No deadline is set for North Korea to fully dismantle its nuclear
stockpile, but if it takes irreversible concrete steps towards that
goal it will be entitled to another 950,000 tonnes of fuel oil or an
equivalent $290m in aid. Once it dismantles all its nuclear weapons
programmes, South Korea has promised to supply 2,000 megawatts of
electricity - worth $8.5bn - under an earlier agreement.

While today's document makes no mention of uranium, the subject
cannot be avoided when the two sides begin to discuss the North's
atomic weapons programmes in the next two months.

"We don't have an agreement at this point even on the existence of
this programme but I certainly have made very clear repeatedly that
we need to ensure we know the status of that," Mr Hill said.

In Washington, such loopholes could prove a problem when the deal
comes before Congress for approval. Even before it was adopted, John
Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, called on president George
Bush to reject it.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," Mr Bolton said. "It sends
exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world:
'If we hold out long enough, wear down the state department
negotiators, eventually you get rewarded.'"

Backstory

The deal is supposed to revive the September 2005 agreement that
collapsed within four months - North Korea reneged because of US
action over alleged financial scams. Nine months later Pyongyang
conducted its first nuclear test.

The brinkmanship dates back to 1993 when North Korea threatened to
build a bomb. Bill Clinton made a deal to help build two nuclear
power stations in return for a freeze on nuclear weapons. That fell
apart in 2002 when George Bush included North Korea in his axis of
evil and the US accused it of developing a bomb in secret.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: The absurdity of 'what-if?'

The decision by Britain to renew its Trident missile system is
another sign of the flawed logic and obsessive-compulsive thinking
produced by nuclear weapons.

Peter Scoblic

February 13, 2007 9:01 PM | Printable version

"What if?" The question is the mantra of the war-gamer. What if a
friendly state becomes hostile? What if enemy forces surge beyond
expectations? What if defenses do not work as planned? The higher
the potential costs of the answer, the greater the question's
significance. And, when it comes to nuclear matters, what-ifs,
however iffy, assume fantastic importance. As debate heats up over
Tony Blair's decision to refurbish Britain's aging nuclear
deterrent, what-ifs are now swarming around Britain's defense
establishment like malarial mosquitoes - dangerous and persistent.

"What if" is the essential argument - if it can be called that - for
the government's decision to continue deploying 16 megatons of
destructive power in the post-Cold War world, even though Britain's
deterrent does not actually deter. After all, nuclear weapons will
not dissuade a terrorist attack, and a nuclear conflict between
states is most likely to occur between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir, or possibly between China and the United States over
Taiwan. True, the US may militarily confront Iran - as might Israel.
Nuclear deterrents clearly remain relevant even in a world focused
on terrorism, but it's hard to imagine a scenario in which Britain
figures.

And, yet, what if? What if Iran or North Korea held London hostage
to prevent an attack by US or Nato forces aimed at destroying its
nuclear infrastructure? It's a prudent question. Which is why the
dominant metaphor of the Trident debate has been that of insurance,
the incarnation of humanity's aversion to risk. As the Economist
approvingly opened an editorial on the subject, "Like a wise
householder protecting his home against remote but catastrophic
risks, Tony Blair says his decision on December 4th to build a new
generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons was just 'insurance'
in a turbulent world."

But there may be a more apt, if less flattering, analogy. Nuclear
weapons have a way of producing obsessive-compulsive thinking in
military strategists. War planners may begin with a rational
premise, proceed via logical steps, and yet arrive at an absurd
worst-case conclusion. The phenomenon is reminiscent of an
obsessive-compulsive who gets out of bed several times a night to
check if he has turned off the oven, even if he's almost certain he
did so hours earlier. The potentially catastrophic consequence of
being wrong - a fatal gas explosion - make disrupting his sleep a
wise investment. The benefits outweigh the costs. Repeated over
time, however, such behavior results in neurotic paralysis. Actions
that are rational on a small scale become profoundly irrational on a
large scale.

American nuclear policy during the Cold War often exhibited such
characteristics. Although America had thousands of warheads capable
of raining millions of Hiroshimas worth of destruction on the Soviet
Union, Washington often feared it was underarmed. Why? In the 1970s,
some American strategists posited a "third strike" dilemma. In this
scenario, the Soviet Union might knock out U.S. land-based Minutemen
silos - a so-called "counterforce" strike that purposely avoided our
cities - while retaining some nuclear weapons in reserve. The fear
was that, even though the United States could retaliate using
missiles from its nuclear submarines (which are essentially
invulnerable because they're hard to detect), it would choose not
to. After all, the Soviets could then strike yet again, destroying
our cities. American fear of this vulnerability prompted a late
surge in the Cold War arms race.

This thinking seemed rational, but its veneer of logic concealed
serious flaws. For one thing, the enormous destructive power of even
a single nuclear weapon makes leaders risk averse. Even when the US
had a theoretical first-strike capability, as during the Cuban
missile crisis, it was restrained by the possibility that a handful
of Soviet missiles might survive to retaliate against American
cities. Furthermore, the US would have been hard-pressed to identify
a Soviet attack as "only" counterforce: thousands of incoming
warheads would have looked like an all-out attack and prompted a
rapid response. Finally, even if it had been possible to discern the
"limited" nature of such a pulse-pounding onslaught, it is
impossible to believe that an American president would not have
responded after the 2,000 megatons of explosives needed to
obliterate the Minutemen had detonated on American soil.

Britain must ask itself whether the seduction of the what-if has not
lured it to an illogical conclusion. The odds of Iran or North Korea
attacking Britain with a nuclear missile are vanishingly small. For
one thing, neither state yet has such a capability. For another, an
attack on Britain would be considered an attack on Nato, which
includes the US with its still-formidable atomic arsenal. Finally,
it's worth noting that if Britain "disarmed," it would retain the
knowledge - and perhaps the fissile material - to reconstitute its
weapons. No state could attack Britain without expecting an eventual
nuclear response.

To the extent that any country needs these weapons, Britain and
France arguably need them the least. Non-nuclear states facing
nuclear foes, such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, have a much
stronger case. Yet the UK cannot shake its compulsion to keep them.
We must ask, if a state under no direct threat from another nuclear
state cannot afford to disarm, then who could, and when? Blair has
suggested that Britain might need nuclear weapons in the eventuality
that a rogue state helped a terrorist group build a nuclear weapon.
But, if the specter of Iran and North Korea giving bombs to
terrorists is reason enough for a deterrent, then every potential
terrorist target ought to have nuclear weapons. In other words,
everyone should.

Faced with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, hawks and
doves from George Bush to Kofi Annan have concluded that the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty needs rejuvenation. Eliminating Trident
would not transform Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into a mensch. But
disarmament - a striking action, brave for its clean break with past
nuclear thinking - might catapult Britain to a position of moral
leadership on nuclear issues, a position the Bush administration
abdicated long ago. Used effectively, such leadership could breathe
new life into the NPT, allowing us to finally stop thinking about
what if, and start thinking about what next.


Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 32 Independent: British Energy seeks partners for new wave of nuclear power plants

Hardcore greens may wring their hands. But the nuclear lobby
believes the numbers add up

By James Moore

Published: 14 February 2007

In an announcement calculated to turn hardened greens bright red
with rage, British Energy called yesterday for partners to join
forces with the company to bid for a new generation of nuclear power
stations.

Its chief executive Bill Coley is not being fussy. The offer, he
says, is open to fellow energy groups, construction companies, even
businesses with a rapacious demand for electricity and an interest
in investing in capacity.

With an increasing realisation among policymakers that cutting
carbon emissions is essential, Mr Coley believes his time has come.
He says that even with the emissions that activity such as building
nuclear plants and mining uranium produces, nuclear power accounts
for just 5 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity
generated, comparable to wind power. By contrast, gas generates 400
grams and coal 900 grams.

It came as the company, once a financial disaster zone, showed that
money could be made from nuclear power generation. Pre-tax profits
for the nine months to 1 January almost doubled to �626m, from �347m
during the nine months to 1 January 2006, on turnover of �2.1bn
(�1.7bn).

Of course, British Energy has previously been bailed out by the
Government and this time benefited greatly from high electricity
prices (the price it achieved was �40.80 per mega watt hour, up 41
per cent).

Deep within the results statement, it had to concede that it may not
be able to justify keeping the troubled Hinkley Point (returning in
March) and Hunterston (return again delayed until April) power
plants open beyond 2011 due to cracking at the boilers which means
they will come back on line at only 70 per cent of capacity.

So with an increasingly cantankerous suite of ageing power plants to
deal with, British Energy needs the Government to approve new
construction when it announces the results of its energy review in
the spring.

Making a bold announcement at least helped divert attention away
from its issues with its creaking plants. But even so, Mr Coley was
talking a good game.

Part of the problem with nuclear power - indeed, part of the problem
with any major project of any kind in the UK - remains the tortuous
approval process, requiring strategic government approval, safety
approval and planning approval.

Sizewell B, Britain's only pressurised water reactor, was bogged
down in inquiries for years and earlier plants faced similar issues.

The Government has promised action to streamline the process and it
will have to if it is to persuade private capital to commit because
delays and complications before work can get under way can add
hundreds of millions to the cost of building a new plant.

Mr Coley says this cannot be allowed to happen in future. But he
points out that one advantage enjoyed by British Energy is that it
has a bank of existing sites which are suitable for the building of
new power plants (usually next to old ones).

And he argues that because the company has made efforts to build
relationships with the locals - and provides jobs to significant
numbers of them - there tends to be far less hostility than building
a plant on a greenfield site.

"There is no question that there is an extended permit and planning
process and all of those in the industry have said that this is one
of the issues that has to be addressed, not just for new nuclear but
other energy, so people can have certainty before committing
capital," he says.

But, Mr Coley adds, if this could be resolved then new plants could
be built within as little as five years and, all being well, the
first could be on line by 2018.

This being Britain, of course, that may be just a tad optimistic.

But once built, Mr Coley says, British Energy will be able to rely
on the experiences of other generators in other countries to help
with any difficulties from thereon in, something that has not been
available to Britain's previous generation of nuclear plants. The
first two generations of British nuclear stations were gas-cooled,
when most of the world was building water-cooled reactors. This
meant that advice and help when it came to dealing with operational
and technical difficulties was all but impossible to find.

Next time, if the DTI approves new plants, British Energy and its
competitors will base the designs on those used for other nuclear
stations already operating around the world. All these factors
combined should make new plants economically viable. And it is not
only British Energy that thinks so. France's nuclear generator, EDF
Energy, agrees and wants to join the party.

Lakis Athanasiou, analyst at Collins Stewart, says that any
consideration of the economics of nuclear is, at the moment,
distorted by the glut of gas in the UK because of new pipelines and
a mild winter.

This has kept energy prices in Britain down, but that is unlikely to
last. Given their recent behaviour, it is no surprise that the
Russians have been mooting Opec-style structures to keep gas prices
high, but elements in Norway are not averse either.

And anyway, he points out, with tough new EU environmental rules due
to come in in 2015, many UK power plants will be forced to close.
That leaves a desperate need for new capacity.

Mr Athanasiou thinks plants funded by the private sector can be made
economically viable but argues that the Government should still have
a role in dealing with nuclear waste.

Waste also concerns environmentalists such as Friends of the Earth.
A spokesman yesterday dismissed the arguments of British Energy,
saying it did not take into account the "hidden costs" of nuclear
energy, particularly that of dealing with waste.

FoE also points to its own study, which criticises nuclear power on
economic grounds. It says: "The UK does not have a good history of
building nuclear reactors to time and cost. The last time Britain
built a series of nuclear power plants, the Advanced Gas-cooled
Reactors (AGRs), each was slightly different to the last. They took
an average of nearly 13 years from start of construction to first
power. Cost over-runs and delays have also dogged other nuclear
investments."

In saying this, the environmental movement is voicing the fears and
concerns of many Britons, and many Labour MPs who got their start in
politics in the anti-nuclear movement and view the prospect of a new
generation of plants with horror.

But alternative energy (such as wind power) is still expensive and
often has vocal opponents of its own. And, with lurid and
frightening predictions over what will happen to the planet if we
fail to act to curtail carbon emissions, the likes of Mr Coley will
continue to argue that nuclear has a vital role to play.

Hardcore environmentalists may wring their hands and call for a move
to zero economic growth, even a return to a more pastoral existence.
But Mr Coley and his French competitors believe the numbers add up
and analysts like Mr Athanasiou agree (albeit with some important
qualifications). Putting up with their product might be unpalatable,
but it is the pragmatic choice, a price that has to be paid to keep
the glaciers from melting any more.

� 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 33 toledoblade.com: New reactor planned for Fermi site

Article published Tuesday, February 13, 2007

NUCLEAR POWER

DTE Energy is Midwest's 1st to seek OK since '70s

MORE PLANTS?

America has 103 operating nuclear plants. But no applications to 
build new ones have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for almost 30 years. But now:

? Sixteeen utilities, in response to President Bush�s incentives, 
have made plans to submit applications. DTE Energy, the parent 
company of Detroit Edison, yesterday became the 15th to go 
public.

? DTE is the fi rst from the Midwest to announce. It plans to 
spend $30 million to submit its application by the fall of 2008.

? The cost of a new plant itself would be $3 billion.

? Fermi 2 is licensed to operate until 2025. But DTE is expected 
to seek a 20-year extension to the operating license for that 
plant.

By TOM HENRY
BLADE STAFF WRITER

NEWPORT, Mich. - DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit 
Edison, yesterday said it will apply for a license to build 
another nuclear reactor on its Fermi nuclear complex 30 miles 
north of Toledo.

The northern Monroe County site houses the operating Fermi 2 plant,
which is licensed through 2025. It used to house an experimental
reactor known as Fermi 1, which was shut down in 1972.

The announcement was made yesterday at a Detroit Economic Club 
luncheon by Anthony Earley, Jr., DTE chairman and chief executive 
officer.

Mr. Earley said during his speech that a new plant would cost 
about $3 billion.

Before moving forward to build it, the company will have to weigh 
fluctuating energy market conditions and what the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has to say about the company's license 
application.

The application is expected to cost $30 million to prepare. The 
company plans to submit its application in the fall of 2008, John 
Austerberry, DTE spokesman, said.

If it breaks ground on a new plant before 2013, DTE could be 
eligible for $300 million or more in incentives under the Federal 
Energy Policy Act, he said.

No applications for new nuclear plants have been submitted to the 
NRC since half the core of Unit 2 melted at the Three Mile Island 
nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in March, 1979.

Applications for new reactors ceased months prior to that, 
though, because of cost overruns that made Wall Street nervous 
about continuing to invest in nuclear power.

The industry's future became bleaker after it was mired in 
post-Three Mile Island regulations.

Its hopes of a renaissance have been complicated by a ban against 
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that has been in effect since 
former President Gerald Ford's administration as well as the 
highly contentious and unresolved issue of where to bury those 
radioactive uranium-filled fuel rods from the reactor cores.

The U.S. Department of Energy in June, 2008, is expected to 
submit its application to have the NRC consider Nevada's Yucca 
Mountain as the national disposal site.

The industry sees a renaissance on the horizon, but concedes 
numerous hurdles still exist.

Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 
nuclear industry's Washington-based lobbying group, said DTE is 
the 15th company to announce plans for submitting license 
applications for new reactor designs.

The Bush Administration is promoting them with various 
incentives. Nearly all the other 14 are in the South.

DTE is the first from the Midwest to announce its intention to 
seek a license for a new plant.

Eliot Brenner, director of the NRC's office of public affairs, 
told The Blade last night he knows of one other utility that 
plans to apply for a license but - citing proprietary reasons - 
wants to keep its intentions secret for now.

DTE is proposing just one new reactor. Several others have 
announced plans for multiple reactors.

Nationally, the NRC knows of at least 16 utilities contemplating 
more than 30 new reactors, Mr. Brenner said.

He said the federal agency will spend about 2 1/2 years on a core 
review of each application, plus another 12 months devoted to 
fine-tuning technical specifications for those that successfully 
meet the objectives of the process. Some could be streamlined to 
save time.

The NRC expects to receive applications from the first four to 
five utilities this fall and another six to eight in 2008, Mr. 
Brenner said.

Jim Riccio, nuclear power analyst for Greenpeace, one of the 
world's most outspoken anti-nuclear groups, said he doubts 
projects will be viable.

"Nuclear power is still prohibitively expensive," he said, citing 
a Congressional Budget Office report that predicts a high default 
rate on loan guarantees. "So why is Congress willing to risk my 
tax dollars on this unsound investment?"

But DTE is determined to take the next step.

Although Mr. Austerberry said the utility's decision was not tied 
to the Jan. 30 release of Michigan's so-called 21st Century 
Energy Plan, Mr. Earley noted it in his remarks.

He said he was pleased the report "recognized the need for 
structural changes" in Michigan's energy portfolio.

The report, written by J. Peter Lark, the state's public service 
commission chairman and ordered by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, called 
for at least 10 percent of the state's energy to come from wind, 
solar, and other renewable sources by 2015.

It also included a recommendation for a new baseload power plant 
to help meet Michigan's growing energy needs. However, the report 
did not specify whether the plant had to be nuclear or 
coal-fired, the nation's two most prevalent types.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 � 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
*****************************************************************
 34 London Times: Nuclear group seeks private equity cash

February 14, 2007

Joe Bolger, Steve Hawkes and Christine Buckley

British Energy yesterday opened the door to a private equity tie-up
as it called for external investors to help to fund its anticipated
investment in the UK&rsquo;s �30 billion nuclear programme.

Bill Coley, chief executive, is understood to have spent several
months approaching energy groups to raise funds for the construction
of nuclear power stations. Yesterday he launched an open search to
include private equity groups and infrastructure investment funds.

He said that British Energy, which generates about a fifth of the
UK&rsquo;s electricity, would be open to talk to a range of
investment partners, from utility and energy generators to funds
looking to invest capital in the development of new projects.

The industry is awaiting an Energy White Paper from Alistair
Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, due out next month, which
should give further details on who will be liable for
decommissioning of new facilities and other plans for the nuclear
industry.

EDF, E.ON, Iberdrola and RWE, the European utilities groups, and
Areva, the French nuclear group, are all thought to be interested in
entering the UK nuclear market, although it remains unclear whether
they would wish to do so with British Energy or separately.

City sources claimed that private equity groups were likely to be
interested in joining a consortium rather than partnering alone.

Increased nuclear capacity is crucial to the UK&rsquo;s energy
requirements, as existing facilities are decommissioned and as
economic growth fuels demand for electricity.

Most of the UK&rsquo;s nuclear facilities are due to be
decommissioned over the next two decades. In addition the UK faces a
drop-off in supply from coal-fired power stations.

Yesterday&rsquo;s move will throw further doubt on the
Government&rsquo;s ability to offload its 65 per cent stake in the
energy group, as potential purchasers could instead choose to
partner the company.

Mr Coley said that the company should prove attractive to potential
partners because of its pool of experienced workers and knowledge of
the regulatory system in the UK.

He said the company also had sites that could be suitable for a new
nuclear facility. He refused to rule out the possibility that the
group would return to previously drawn-up plans to expand its
Sizewell site with a third reactor - Sizewell C.

 The Times and The Sunday Times.
*****************************************************************
 35 Detroit News: Text of Early's speech: The Nuclear Renaissance: Is it real?

* Detnews.com

Monday, February 12, 2007

Text of the speech by Anthony F. Earley Jr., DTE Energy Chairman and
CEO, to the Economic Club of Detroit, on Feb. 12, 2007:

Around five years ago I talked to the Economic Club of Detroit about
fundamental changes underway in the energy industry. Then, electric
utilities across the country were dealing with the unintended
consequences of a patchwork of deregulation efforts. Electric
utilities, the classic "widows and orphans" investment, became as
volatile as the trading pit at a commodities exchange. It seemed the
electric industry was making headlines daily.

Unfortunately, the headlines were rarely positive. Most dealt with
power shortages, soaring prices, trading disasters and the swift
consolidation of our industry. At the extremes, we saw one of the 10
largest corporations in America, Enron, disappear in a blitz of
scandals. Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the most respected names in
our industry, was forced into bankruptcy by a regulatory scheme
created by California that was positively insane. Two other
California utilities teetered on the brink, and ultimately the
fiasco cost Gov. Gray Davis his job.

I wish I could tell you that all of this ended with California. But
other states created new regulatory rules based on market rates but
then enacted multi-year transition periods. Those transitions are
now coming to an end and we're seeing another wave of silliness.

In Maryland, Constellation Energy's Baltimore Gas & Electric
subsidiary announced a 72 percent rate increase for residential
customers to bring it in line with the market. The legislature
promptly tried to fire the Public Service Commission, the Maryland
Supreme Court denounced the legislators' actions as
unconstitutional, and just two weeks ago, as the new governor was
trying to clean up the mess, the Commission chairman resigned.

In Illinois a similar story is unfolding. Illinois' utilities were
forced to sell most of their power plants and required to buy
electricity from the marketplace. After a five-year transition,
companies like Exelon went out for bids and came home with sticker
shock. Then, to shield residents and businesses from unstable and
much higher market rates, the state told the utilities that they'd
have to eat the difference - meaning utilities would lose money on
every kilowatt of electricity they sold. Exelon's Commonwealth
Edison unit has said that will lead to certain bankruptcy if a deal
is not cut. But that's another story, for another time. It does,
however, drive home the point that electric markets can be
exceedingly volatile if not handled carefully.

When I addressed this group in 2002, my comments about nuclear
energy were brief and pretty discouraging. I predicted that while
most nuclear power plants would have their licenses renewed, no new
nuclear power plants would be built in the U.S. to accommodate
growing demand.

Today I'm here to tell you that I was dead wrong. Despite the
condition of our economy, within the next decade, Michigan - and the
rest of our country for that matter - will need more electricity . .
. a lot more. And pollution free nuclear power has to be an
important part of the mix.

Today I am pleased to announce that DTE Energy has started work on
preparing a license application for a new nuclear plant at our
existing Fermi site near Monroe. This is the first step to providing
clean, reliable and affordable energy for the better part of the
rest of this century. And with it we will provide thousands of
highly paid jobs to highly skilled Michigan workers. But despite my
enthusiasm, let me be clear that we have not yet made a final
decision to build. Rather we are preserving our option to build at
some point in the future by beginning the long and complex licensing
process now.

Given the four-to-five-year time frame for the federal licensing
process, and the five-to-six-year construction period, we need to
take this step immediately to have any chance of having a new plant
operating in the next decade. Also, moving ahead now positions us to
take advantage of the attractive, but time limited, financial
incentives included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We'll keep you
posted as we move through this challenging process.

As demand grows for electricity, so should nuclear energy's stake in
our nation's fuel mix. A report by the North American Electric
Reliability Council warns that U.S. demand for electricity is
increasing three times as fast as resources are being added to our
electric grid.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2030,
electricity sales in our country will increase by 45 percent. Just
to keep our current fuel mix, we'll need 50 additional nuclear
plants, 93 wind farms (with thousands of windmills), 279 natural gas
plants, and 261 new coal plants.Even if you cut those numbers in
half, we need a massive infrastructure construction program.

Closer to home, our state will require at least one new baseload
plant by 2015, according to the just published Michigan 21st Century
Energy Plan. And we'll need additional plants soon after that.

How will we address the growing need for electricity? You'll hear a
lot of talk in the coming months about energy efficiency, renewable
energy and new technologies. We need them all. But if we're brutally
honest with ourselves, they are only a part of the solution for the
foreseeable future. To put it another way, we will never run an auto
assembly line or a cold-rolled steel mill using windmills or solar
panels. You need big baseload nuclear and coal power plants to keep
them running.

That's what I'd like to talk about today - the resurgence of nuclear
energy and the vital role I think it will play in powering the
future of our nation and our state.

It's easy for me to admit my flawed prediction of five years ago
because it's incredibly exciting for me to be standing before you
discussing the possibilities for nuclear power.

My experience in the nuclear industry dates back 36 years when, to
become a commissioned officer on a nuclear submarine, I had to run
the gauntlet of an Admiral Rickover interview just to get into the
program. Admiral Rickover, of course, was the father of the nuclear
Navy. Every officer who qualified in nuclear submarines had to pass
his scrutiny and then learn in endless detail both the elegance and
the complexities of the technology.

Later, in my civilian career in a large law firm, I worked on
licensing proceedings for nuclear plants. That led to a position at
Long Island Lighting Company where I was introduced to the bare
knuckles politics of the technology. I arrived in New York in time
to complete the 20-year licensing and construction process for the
Shoreham nuclear power station, a saga marked with bitter political
battles. Ultimately, we sold a perfectly good plant to the state of
New York to end decades of controversy. The state shut down the
plant. And Mario Cuomo lost his job in the fallout from that
decision.

When I moved to Detroit Edison in 1994, the utility had just
recovered from the financial stress associated with building its
Fermi 2 nuclear power plant. In those days, the financial risks
associated with nuclear plants - licensing, construction and
operations - were overwhelming. Based on what I'd experienced, I
would have bet money that I'd never see a new nuclear plant built in
this country in my working lifetime. Now, as chairman of the Nuclear
Energy Institute, the trade association of the American nuclear
industry, I can tell you that I was sorely mistaken. Today, there
are plans pending for building up to 32 new reactors across the
country. Utilities have spent more than $1.5 billion so far in the
planning stages. While no shovel has hit the ground yet, the change
in the environment is unmistakable.

What happened?

I've already mentioned the growing need for large-scale baseload
electric generation. If we don't start soon, the California energy
crisis will seem like a minor inconvenience.

The increased volatility of natural gas prices and limited supply
also has played a role. In the early 1990s, natural gas was
inexpensive and gas-fired generation was a low-risk investment.
Federal policy encouraged a massive build of gas-fired plants, but
discouraged exploration and production of gas in areas considered
environmentally sensitive. Since the laws of supply and demand had
not been repealed, gas prices skyrocketed. At today's prices,
natural gas-fired power is not a cost-effective option.

Growing environmental concern is another factor causing the public
to take a closer look at nuclear energy. With mounting evidence of
the negative impact of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases,
nuclear power is an attractive alternative to fossil-fuel
generation. Nuclear power plants do not emit any greenhouse gases or
controlled air pollutants.

The superb performance of our nation's 103 operating nuclear plants
is another reason to revisit this technology. With plants operating
at or near record levels during the past six years, we're more
comfortable with nuclear power. It's proven itself clean, safe,
reliable and affordable. And that's with a generation of plants
designed in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already certified new
standardized advanced-plant designs for the U.S. These
next-generation nuclear plants incorporate features designed to make
them simpler, safer, and less costly to build and operate. Some of
these simplified plants have been built overseas in a fraction of
the time it took to build our current plants.

As a result, nuclear energy is finding favor with growing numbers of
people and institutions. Who would have thought that a co-founder of
Greenpeace and the author of the Whole Earth Catalog would become
advocates of nuclear power? Yet Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand
agree that nuclear energy must be part of America's energy future.

In fact, seven in 10 Americans now favor the use of nuclear energy
to produce electricity, according to a 2006 national survey prepared
by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The survey
found that the public associates nuclear energy most closely with
clean air, reliability, efficiency, and energy independence.

And many people in Michigan agree. In November, a national group
advocating for nuclear energy launched its efforts in Michigan and
announced a state coalition to further its cause. The Clean and Safe
Energy Coalition - or CASE Coalition as it's called - is
aggressively promoting nuclear energy as part of an affordable,
reliable and clean electricity supply for our state and the nation.

Membership in this coalition in Michigan is as diverse as the
Michigan Chamber of Commerce; labor organizations like the Teamsters
and IBEW; the Michigan Retailers Association; state representatives,
senators, civic leaders, and business leaders across the state.

So why the buzz? First, nuclear plants provide low cost electricity
at extremely high levels of safety and reliability; second, it's
electricity produced at a stable price without the punishing
volatility of gas-fired generation and third, it's power generation
with a negligible impact on the environment.

This final point has become one of nuclear's strongest assets.
Nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide which creates greenhouses
gases. They emit no sulfur dioxide which produces acid rain. And
they emit no nitrogen oxide. That means no ozone. The U.S.
Department of Energy says that the single most effective emission
control strategy for utilities has been to increase nuclear power
production.

It will be more than just utilities that benefit. With the increased
emphasis on plug-in-hybrids in the automotive sector, those vehicles
will only be as clean as the fuel used to make the electricity.

Reliable. Affordable. Clean. Other plants have one or two of these
attributes, but only nuclear plants can boast all three.

Fitch Rating agency recently said it right: "It is no longer a
question of whether there will be new nuclear plants." So what's the
hold up?

I've already mentioned my personal experience -- the siting,
permitting and licensing processes for nuclear plants historically
have been lengthy and up-front capital costs are steep. From
application to operation, it takes at least a decade to build a
nuclear power plant and it comes with around a $3 billion price tag,
depending on its size.

Fortunately, at the federal level, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had
a number of innovative provisions to facilitate the licensing
process and reduce financial risk.

At the state level, we still have major barriers. What company would
be willing to make a $3 billion investment without some sort of
assurance that it could recover its costs? That's the dilemma for
Michigan utilities caught in a hybrid regulatory environment. The
partially regulated and partially competitive structure in Michigan
fails to provide the certainty required for the power plant
investment critical to the state's future. Michigan must take
control of its energy fate and fix its regulatory structure. I'm
pleased to say that Michigan's recently released 21st Century Energy
Plan recognized the need for structural changes. Now we have to be
bold and make them.

Another perceived hurdle is the disposal of used nuclear fuel. Yucca
Mountain was designated by Congress as a national repository site in
2002 after decades of scientific study. Nuclear energy customers
across the U.S. have already paid $28 billion through their electric
bills to fund this project.

However, Nevada has opposed the project at every turn and Congress
has used most of the funds to balance the federal budget. As the
debate over where to store waste continues, the U.S. is producing
2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year, with 50,000 metric tons
held on site at existing nuclear facilities. While that approach may
be inefficient, it is perfectly safe.

For example, at our Fermi 2 nuclear plant, used fuel has accumulated
in our fuel pool which will reach capacity in 2010. We will build a
dry cask storage facility similar to the two other facilities
already in place at other Michigan nuclear plants. These facilities
can safely store waste for decades.

Meanwhile, the current political stalemate over long term solutions
may be a blessing in disguise. While the Department of Energy is
targeting 2020 to begin accepting used fuel rods at Yucca Mountain,
progress has become problematic since U.S. Sen. Harry Reid from
Nevada, a long and vigorous opponent of the Yucca repository, has
become the Senate Majority Leader. We now need to explore other
options. In fact, the nuclear fuel left in these used fuel rods has
immense value so we really do not want to "dispose" of them. The
political logjam on Yucca may give us the opportunity to rethink
nuclear fuel policy.

The bottom line is that the used fuel debate is a political and
policy debate, not a safety debate. Used fuel can be stored for
decades in fuel pools and dry cask storage sites in total safety. We
cannot delay the start of a new generation of nuclear plants while
waiting for these endless political debates to play out.

While my theme today is the revival of nuclear power as a major part
of the path to a clean, safe and affordable energy future, it's not
a "uranium bullet" -- no single source of energy can or should
supply all our needs. The key is maintaining a diverse mix of fuels
in our energy portfolio.

Today 27 percent of Michigan's electricity is generated by four
nuclear plants. Coal fuels about 58 percent of total generation, and
natural gas fuels more than 11 percent.

Given these numbers and despite all the talk about climate change
and carbon dioxide emissions, the reality is coal-fired generation
will be the workhorse of the American electric grid for most of this
century. Our challenge is to continue to develop technologies to
make new coal plants cleaner than ever.

We also need to accelerate our development of renewable energy
resources. These resources can play a useful role in helping us meet
our goals.

At DTE Energy, we announced a new program called GreenCurrents that
will give our 2.2 million electric customers a renewable energy
option. Once it's approved by the MPSC, this voluntary program will
give customers the ability to buy power created from wind, sun,
water, biomass and other environmentally friendly sources for just a
few additional dollars a month.

Our company already produces alternative energy through biomass
projects. We are also an industry leader in reforestation projects,
and in wildlife habitat restoration and preservation.

Finally, we need to aggressively pursue programs to help consumers
and businesses be more efficient in their use of energy. This is
easier said than done. It's like trying to force consumers to give
up their SUVs.

When I was president of Long Island Lighting Company, we launched an
aggressive energy conservation program in the wake of the loss of
the Shoreham nuclear plant. One of the offerings was a time-of-use
rate structure that sold discounted electricity in off-peak hours.

Wanting to lead by example, I signed up for the rate and proudly
informed my wife, Sarah, that she would now have to do the laundry
after 10 p.m. to take advantage of the great deal. Well, with four
young boys, we were off that rate very quickly.

Our challenge will be to find easily understood programs that are in
the economic best interest of both the customer and the utilities
offering them. Detroit Edison has done that in the industrial
sector. As part of contractual agreements with our largest
industrial customers, a staff of 60 people have helped those
customers save over $400 million in the last 10 years. We just need
to get the incentives right.

Everyone in this room understands that our economic growth is
inextricably linked to affordable, abundant electricity. You know
that and I know that. And so do the policy makers in many countries
across the globe.

That's why a nuclear renaissance is already occurring in many parts
of the world. Currently, 30 countries worldwide are operating 442
nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 29 new nuclear
plants were under construction in 12 countries but none in the U.S.

France's 59 nuclear power plants generate more than 78 percent of
its electricity. China and India are both embarking on ambitious
plans to add more nuclear capacity over the next decade.

China plans to add as many as 63 nuclear reactors, nearly
quadrupling its current fleet of 16. India is building 7 reactors.
Russia is building five, with plans for 42 new nuclear plants by
2030.

Here in Michigan, we have the opportunity to participate in the
early stages of our nation's nuclear energy resurgence while
providing solid solutions for concerns about the environment, energy
reliability and energy costs.

Moreover, nuclear power plants provide thousands of highly paid
construction jobs and long-term employment for hundreds of
engineers, scientists and skilled technicians - just the kind of new
economy jobs we need.

But Michigan must act to remove its regulatory barriers. If that
happens, DTE Energy is committed to keeping nuclear energy as a
critical and growing segment of our energy portfolio well into the
21st century.

� Copyright 2007 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 London Times: British Energy lacks clout for nuclear quest -

From Times Online

February 13, 2007

British Energy is no longer in recovery mode but lacks the muscle 
to capitalise on the Government's nuclear future

Steve Hawkes

Bill Coley, the chief executive of British Energy, holds most of the
cards when it comes to Britain&rsquo;s next generation of nuclear
facilities, but he cannot go it alone.

British Energy owns the UK&rsquo;s eight existing sites and, with
the Government set to back a nuclear future that requires new plants
to be built on the same land, it can hardly lose.

But the company lacks the financial muscle to carry out development
itself.

But the absence of embarrassing shutdowns at three sites, at a 
time of record electricity prices, would have been more 
impressive still.

British Energy needs European heavyweights, such as RWE or EDF, 
more than it seems to think.

Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.
*****************************************************************
 37 PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Congress might stiffen nuke site license rule

  Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Indian Point may need new review

CORTLANDT - Indian Point would have to submit to an independent
safety assessment to extend its nuclear plants' licenses through
2035 if federal lawmakers succeed with legislation introduced Monday.

Standing on the banks of the Hudson River with the nuclear facility
behind them, U.S. Reps.John Hall, D-Dover Plains; Nita Lowey,
D-Harrison; Eliot Engel, D-Bronx; and Westchester County Executive
Andrew Spano said a new Democrat-controlled Congress may make this
bill successful where others like it have failed.

"This one would actually make the re-licensing contingent on the
(assessment) and any problems that it shows up being remediated,"
Hall said. "It's that simple: no (assessment), no recommendations,
no re-licensing."

Indian Point opponents have lobbied hard for what would be the
agency's second such in-depth study, citing continuing leaks of
tritium and strontium 90, unplanned reactor shutdowns, emergency
siren failures and workers worried about retribution when they point
out safety issues.

Agency won't budge

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the 103 working
nuclear plants in the U.S., has never tailored its re-licensing
criteria to individual nuclear plants, agency spokesman Neil Sheehan
said.

"The commission has been unequivocal on that," Sheehan said.
"They've said 'We developed license-renewal regulations in the 90s
after considerable thought and deliberation, and there were
opportunities at that point for public input.' They're satisfied
that that program captures the right elements."

Congress could change Indian Point's re-licensing if Congress
approves the measure and the president signs it.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has already vowed to introduce
legislation in the Senate, as she did last year.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates the two working
nuclear reactors at the Buchanan site, has said it will seek a
license extension to 2013 for Indian Point 2 and 2015 for Indian
Point 3.


   Copyright � 2006 PoughkeepsieJournal.com

*****************************************************************
 38 Reuters: Brit. Energy seeks partners for new nuclear plants 

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:25PM EST

By Marc Jones

LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Britain could have new nuclear power
plants built and running as soon as 2016 if the government confirms
its backing for nuclear as a possible cleaner alternative to fossil
fuels, British Energy (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) says.

The nuclear power firm, Britain's biggest energy producer, said on
Tuesday it was inviting potential partners to submit proposals to
build new nuclear plants in anticipation that the government would
give the firm go-ahead in the next few months.

"We have today launched a process to invite potential partners for
new nuclear generation projects in the UK," Chief Executive Bill
Coley said in a statement. "Construction of new nuclear power
stations is critical to meeting the UK's security of supply and
climate change objectives."

Coley told reporters on a conference call that Britain could see the
first of the new plants completed as soon as 2016.

"It is not unrealistic to expect you could have new nuclear on line
in 2018, or you could perhaps go ahead of that depending on how the
(planning) process works."

"There's a lot of uncertainty in this. 2016 may be an optimistic
number, and 2018 might be a pessimistic number," added finance
director Stephen Billingham.  Continued...

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 39 HVN: Hall calls for strict Independent Safety Assessment at Indian Point

Hudson Valley News story

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Hall, left, and Engel, who calls the current environmental issues 
surrounding IP "unacceptable"

Cordial words, following the news
conference, between Hall and Steets

Cortlandt - Congressman John Hall is introducing legislation &ndash;
a bill requiring a tough new Independent Safety Assessment for the
Indian Point Nuclear Facility in Buchanan. 

Hall announced the legislation on the banks of the Hudson, just
north of Peekskill, and in sight of the IP domes.  He was joined by
two co-sponsors, Reps Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel, and Westchester
County Executive Andrew Spano. 

All have been vocal opponents of the pending relicensing of IP. 

Hall&rsquo;s bill would require the completion of an ISA within six
months of passage, and that any findings of the ISA to be
implemented prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewal of
IP&rsquo;s license.

&ldquo;I believe this legislation is vitally important because the
Indian Point Power Plants have one of the worst safety records of
any nuclear power plants in the United States.  What&rsquo;s more,
they are located in open of the most densely populated areas of the
country.  Eight percent of the entire population of the United
States lives within the 50-mile radius of these plants.&rdquo;

Hall said there is no way a nuclear power plant would ever be sited
in what is now a densely populated area.

Point conceded, said Entergy spokesman Jim Steets, who attended the
news conference, but Steets argued, Indian point is where it is, and
is operating well in the eyes of regulatory authorities.

&ldquo;We have assessments in front of us as we have had them in the
past, and of course in the past, we have done extremely well.  The
NRC has declared Indian Point safe and secure.&rdquo;

Hall says his bill would carry the standard for compliance
&ldquo;beyond standard Nuclear Regulatory Commission review for
relicensing&rdquo;.

Other cosponsors include Reps. Maurice Hinchey of Ulster County and
Christopher Says of Connecticut.

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only
                     Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 40 SFSS: Rule OK'd allowing FPL to recover some costs before plant goes online

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

By Joseph Mann sun-sentinel.com

Posted February 13 2007, 1:09 PM EST

State regulators Tuesday adopted new rules that allow 
investor-owned utilities like Florida Power & Light Co. to 
recover planning and pre-construction costs of nuclear power 
plants before the facilities go into operation.

These rules open the door for Juno Beach-based FPL and St. 
Petersburg-based Progress Energy Florida to advance plans for 
proposed nuclear plants in Florida.

The new rules approved by the Public Service Commission also open
the door to higher bills for FPL customers, since "prudent" costs
would be passed along to customers, probably as a surcharge.

FPL has not formally decided it will build a new nuclear plant,
which could cost $5 billion to $6 billion and could take a decade or
more to complete. But the company expects to announce the location
of the site of its proposed nuclear plant in coming months. Progress
last year chose a site in Levy County for its proposed plant.

Phasing in the recovery of costs will ease the "rate shock"
impacting utility customers when an expensive nuclear plant is put
into operation, the PSC said in a statement. Regulators also said
that even though nuclear plants are expensive to build, they are
usually the least expensive type of power plant to operate over the
long term.

"A diverse and balanced mix of fuel sources protects customers from
significant price fluctuations and makes fuel-related power
disruptions less likely, said PSC Chairman Lisa Polak Edgar.

The PSC currently is operating with only three of its five members.
Gov. Charlie Crist earlier this year named replacements for two PSC
members appointed by former Gov. Bush, saying he wanted
"consumer-friendly" commission members looking out for the interests
of the public.

Joseph Mann can be reached at jmann@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4665.

Copyright � 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 41 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy looks for power generation partners 

Julia Kollewe

Tuesday February 13, 2007

British Energy said today it is inviting proposals from potential
partners to build new power stations after the government backed
nuclear power as a possible cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.

The move came as the nuclear energy group doubled profits, despite
its recent prolonged boiler issues.

Pre-tax profits jumped to �622m for the nine months to the end of
December from �314m a year earlier. Revenues climbed to �2.1bn from
�1.7bn.

Output, however, was lower than in the year-ago period mainly
because of losses incurred in connection with boiler issues at the
Hinkley Point and Hunterston power stations and repairs to cracked
pipes at Hartlepool.

Britain's biggest energy producer expects to complete the repair
work by the end of March.

Bill Coley, British Energy's chief executive, said: "We have today
launched a process to invite potential partners for new nuclear
generation projects in the UK.

"Construction of new nuclear power stations is crucial to meeting
the UK's security of supply and climate change objectives."

The government said last summer that it believes nuclear power "has
a role to play" in future electricity generation, partly because it
produces less carbon than fossil fuels and would help meet targets
to reduce greenhouse gases.

Following consultation, the government is expected to confirm its
policy on new nuclear power stations in a White Paper due to be
published in the spring.

Shares were down 2.25p to 421.75p in morning trading.

� Email business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 42 [du-list] CNN Transcripts on DU From Tuesday's show
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:53:56 -0800


<x-flowed>

CNN - AMERICAN MORNING Transcripts on Depleted Uranium - Tuesday, February 
6th, 2007

<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/06/ltm.02.html>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/06/ltm.02.html 
**See below

O'BRIEN: Well, now to our AMERICAN MORNING special investigation on the 
fallout, if you will, from the use of depleted uranium in the war zone. It 
can cut through a foot of enemy armor and leave behind radioactive dust 
that some say is making vets sick.

AMERICAN MORNING's Greg Hunter joining us now with part two of the series.

Good morning, Greg.

GREG HUNTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Miles.

Depleted uranium, the controversial weapon and the radioactive dust it 
creates are at the center of a debate that just won't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HUNTER (voice-over): Samala (ph), Iraq, spring 2003, Iraq, site of a fierce 
coalition offensive. Soldiers operating, sleeping, eating in areas that 
were hit by depleted uranium, or D.U.

For some soldiers it marked the beginning of another type of battle. These 
five National Guard veterans claim they got sick from serving there.

RAYMOND RAMOS, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: I just got to the point where I could not 
physically stand sometimes. The headaches were unbearable. I would get 
dizzy spells.

HUNTER: They report similar ailments: painful urination, headaches and 
joint pain. They say Army doctors blame their symptoms on posttraumatic 
stress.

We showed them a tape the Army made in 1995, a tape the Army never 
distributed. It warned of potential D.U. hazards. The Army's expert on D.U. 
training concedes some information contained on the tape is true. For 
instance, inhaling radioactive particles can be harmful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Alpha is the least penetrating but is the most hazardous 
if it does get into the body.

HUNTER (on camera): So you're saying in part this is correct, but too much 
information?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It really doesn't provide any useful information to the 
soldier.

HUNTER (voice-over): These vets say they were never warned about D.U. 
They're suing the Army for what they say is knowingly exposing them to D.U. 
dust and failing to properly treat them.

ANTHONY YONNONE, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: They didn't furnish us with any of that 
information.

HUNTER (on camera): At all?

YONNONE: At all. HUNTER: Does it make you angry?

YONNONE: Absolutely.

HUNTER: Why?

YONNONE: Because here we are sick. We don't know why. The Army don't know 
why, and they're just calling us liars.

HUNTER (voice-over): The veterans' claims against the government may be 
barred by a statute that protects the military from lawsuits by soldiers. 
But a judge is permitting the soldiers' claims of malpractice to go forward.

DR. ASAF DURAKOVIC, URANIUM MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER: I personally call it 
not so depleted uranium.

HUNTER: In the 1990s Dr. Asaf Durakovic studied D.U. health effects for the 
U.S. military. Now a private researcher, Durakovic says his own test of 
these veterans showed abnormally high levels of D.U. in their urine and 
that those levels pose a serious health threat.

DURAKOVIC: There is genetic change in chromosoma of the regions (ph) in the 
people who have been found positive with depleted uranium.

HUNTER: The military's overall health expert says tests on thousands of 
veterans from both Iraq wars have produced very few positive D.U. tests.

DR. MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HEALTH AFFAIRS: We are not 
seeing it in 74 individuals who are most heavily exposed, and that, I 
think, is really the golden standard if you take a look at people who had 
heavy exposure, internalization, some still having the depleted uranium in 
their bodies, still excreting very high levels in their urine, and their 
health appears at this point to be normal.

HUNTER: Some scientists and politicians claim the Army's testing is not 
sophisticated enough. Connecticut state representative Pat Dillon helped 
pass legislation allowing her state to do its own testing of National 
Guardsmen.

PAT DILLON, CONNECTICUT STATE REPRESENTATIVE: It's a heavy metal. It gets 
absorbed into your bones. So I don't think that the test that they're using 
is sensitive enough to find whether or not you've been contaminated.

HUNTER: The Army tells CNN its policy is to get every soldier training in 
depleted uranium and hazard protection. It also has an updated 
instructional video, produced in 2000.

We asked why these soldiers say not only did they not see the video, but 
they knew nothing about D.U. before going to Iraq.

COL. MARK MELANSON, WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER: I'm not able to give 
you any statistics on who received training and who didn't receive 
training. I can just talk about the training that was provided and what the 
policy is.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNTER: Dr. Durakovic says one thing is for sure: a large part of Iraq is 
contaminated, particularly in the south where heavy tank battle took place. 
He calls it, quote, "a radiological sewer." The Army adamantly denies that.

O'BRIEN: When you go back and look at another war and another toxic agent, 
in that case Agent Orange in Vietnam. Veterans there had similar claims. 
Were sick because we were in contact with this Agent Orange. Ultimately, 
did they get claims from the military, and is that likely what's going to 
happen here?

HUNTER: Some did, but it took decades. And let me tell you, Agent Orange is 
tame compared to radiological dust that you can breathe into your lungs, 
stays in your body forever, has a half life of 4.5 billion years. This 
stuff stays around forever. So it is -- it is quite a controversy.

O'BRIEN: Keep us posted, Greg. Greg Hunter, thank you very much.

In just a little while, Sanjay Gupta will join us, and he'll explain a 
little bit more about the medical implications of contact to this depleted 
uranium -- Alina.


Sanjay, good morning. So first things first, what are the symptoms of D.U. 
poisoning?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's sort of short-term symptoms 
and longer-term symptoms, and, you know, this is a difficult thing. The 
jury is still out among many researchers in terms of what's causing when 
and at what time.

But if you look at some of the early things, you can get things like nausea 
and vomiting as your G.I. tract sort of reacts to the depleted uranium. 
Also, kidney problems potentially and skin lesions.

There have been some case reports that it could possibly cause irritability 
and behavioral changes, as well, but that's not really nailed down.

Longer term, it can get a little bit more complicated. You might develop 
things like an immune system damage. So you could actually suppress your 
white blood cells, those sort of -- those fighting cells of infection.

Lung cancer potentially as well, although, again, it's somewhat 
controversial studies. And potentially birth defects in the offspring of 
people who were exposed to depleted uranium, as well.

Alina, I should say -- I think as Greg pointed out as well, the depleted 
uranium and its potential link to Gulf War syndrome is one of the most 
controversial things probably that exists in medicine. A lot of people sort 
of focused on it. Probably not enough studies as of yet, still.

CHO: All right. So what about treatment? Is there any treatment for this?

GUPTA: Well, not really. I mean, first of all, it's very hard to know, for 
example, if someone has actually been exposed. You can test it in the 
blood. You can actually get some blood tests that will tell if you have 
higher levels of the particular isotope associated with depleted uranium, 
but for the most part you've got to let the thing sort of run out its course.

It can cause damage to cells, and if those cells actually turn into tumor 
cells, for example, you obviously have to treat the cancer or remove the 
tumor, but it's hard to treat symptoms of depleted uranium poisoning overall.

CHO: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, live for us in Atlanta. Sanjay, thank you.

GUPTA: Thank you.


---------------------------------
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from 
your Internet provider.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/message/11024;_ylc=X3oDMTM2Y3VqMjIxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BG1zZ0lkAzExMDI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQR0cGNJZAMxMTAyNA-->Messages 
in this topic (1) 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWk0dTltBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BG1zZ0lkAzExMDI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ--?act=reply&messageNum=11024>Reply 
(via web post) | 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDkwMzcwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ-->Start 
a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3N1Y2VlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ-->Messages 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGgxY2lvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Files 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlajU3YWIxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ-->Photos 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbXRkbDFoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Links 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNzlkajU1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Database 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZjJtcWlvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Polls 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaWt0Yms4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ-->Members 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJka2NkajF0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2NhbARzdGltZQMxMTcxMzAyNzI5>Calendar 

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkb2I1b3FkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTcxMzAyNzI5>54ac2a.jpg 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTFwYXRzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Change 
settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: 
<mailto:du-list-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: 
Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest | 
<mailto:du-list-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: 
Traditional>Switch format to Traditional
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdG1jbzB1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTcxMzAyNzI5>Visit 
Your Group | <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use 
| <mailto:du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=>Unsubscribe
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMnJwY2NsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3MTMwMjcyOQ-->Visit 
Your Group
Give Back

<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJtbzJpMmpiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNicmFuZARzdGltZQMxMTcxMzAyNzI5;_ylg=1/SIG=11314uv3k/**http%3A//brand.yahoo.com/forgood>Yahoo! 
for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar

<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJvZGJzZjV2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawN0b29sYmFyBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk-;_ylg=1/SIG=11c6dvmk9/**http%3A//toolbar.yahoo.com/%3F.cpdl=ygrps>Get 
it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups

<http://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJvMWM1c2JpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNncm91cHMyBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzMDI3Mjk->Start 
a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.
.
54ac3d.jpg
__,_._,___  
</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 54ac2a.jpg: 00000001,10af34f8,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 54ac3d.jpg: 00000001,10af34f9,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 43 Government Executive: Lawmakers re-introduce whistleblower, ethics measures 

DAILY BRIEFING

February 13, 2007

By Jenny Mandel jmandel@govexec.com

House lawmakers debated measures Tuesday that would strengthen 
whistleblower protections, restrict "revolving door" employee 
movement between agencies and industry, and require senior 
officials to report meetings with lobbyists and others seeking to 
influence government actions.

Both the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985) and 
the Executive Branch Reform Act (H.R. 984) were introduced in 
similar form in the last Congress, and were overwhelmingly 
approved in committee, only to be sidelined without reaching the 
floor for a vote.

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Tom Davis, R-Va., reintroduced 
the two bills with the hope that they will make better progress 
in the new Congress.

Witnesses from several good-government groups praised the 
whistleblower measure, highlighting language to extend 
protections to scientific, intelligence and transportation 
security employees. They also praised provisions requiring 
officials to look into the potential use of security clearance 
revocations as retribution, and to allow employees to pursue 
whistleblower complaints in court if the Merit Systems Protection 
Board is slow in processing them.

But the advocates said that, to have teeth, the bill would need 
to address the courts that have jurisdiction over whistleblower 
cases. By law, those cases can now be pursued only in the federal 
circuit court. Nick Shwellenbach, an investigator with the 
Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group, 
testified that the federal circuit's record of having decided two 
cases in favor of whistleblowers and 177 cases against 
illustrates the need for a change.

Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., co-sponsor of the bill, said he would 
introduce an amendment to allow consideration of cases in all 
judicial circuits. Tom Devine, legal director for the Government 
Accountability Project, said that without such a fix the issue 
would suffer a "broken record syndrome."

"This is an absolute test of wills between Congress and one 
particular court," Devine said.

Mark Zaid, an attorney who has represented whistleblowers, 
testified that government assertion of state secrets privilege, 
which argues that information cannot be revealed due to security 
considerations, can hamstring litigation on behalf of 
whistleblowers. He said federal agencies "will mislead, and 
arguably lie" in order to protect information, and once facts 
have been declared state secrets, they cannot be used in court to 
support an argument.

Zaid said the matter could be addressed by measures such as 
changing the jurisdictional court, training judges to more 
closely question the assertion of state secrets, or studying 
cases in which the privilege has been used and whether it turned 
out to have been justified.

During a panel to discuss the Executive Branch Reform Act, 
witnesses lauded the expansion of ethics reform beyond lobbying 
and members of Congress into the executive branch.

Like the measure presented last year, the bill would lengthen 
from one to two years the "cooling-off" period before individuals 
can influence decisions about, or lobby on behalf of, private 
interests as they move between the public and private sectors.

The legislation would also require senior officials to report 
quarterly on the "significant" contacts they had with parties 
seeking to influence their decisions, with such reports made 
available to the public. While lawmakers cited a 2002 controversy 
surrounding the participants of meetings with Vice President Dick 
Cheney during formulation of a national energy policy, the bill 
excludes reporting of contact with the president, vice president 
or their chiefs of staff.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Public Citizen, 
said the Office of Government Ethics should be given enforcement 
powers beyond the advisory role it now holds.

Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, questioned whether a mechanism exists 
for parties with business before the government to request and 
pursue the recusal of an official with a potential conflict of 
interest. Holman said no such mechanism exists, and that the best 
option might be to try and generate such pressure through a press 
campaign.

A markup for both bills is scheduled for Wednesday, and the
committee is likely to vote on their passage.

�2007 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 Spectrum: S. Utahns are not expendable

www.thespectrum.com -The Spectrum, St. George, UT Customer Service:  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007   

I left Southern Utah in 1950. Not because of the atomic testing 
fallout, but that would have been a good reason. My grandpa, then 
still working for Utah Power and Light out of Cedar City, worked 
on power lines from St. George to Beaver and east to the Nevada 
border during the years that followed. During the atomic testing, 
while working in the western Utah desert, my grandma described 
him coming home, "red as a beet from head to toe."

Long after his death, he was officially classified as a 
"downwinder," which is our government's way of saying, "Oops!" My 
dad, too, died after five different battles with cancer. And so, 
too, did other family members, and many others from our part of 
Utah.

I have been back in Southern Utah since 2000. I understand what
happened during and after those testing years. What I do not
understand is the current attitude of some of us who live in
Southern Utah, who are "downwind" again and do not seem to care or
are unaware that testing is being resumed! Do we in Southern Utah,
or any part of Utah, believe it's OK to send radioactive debris our
way again? I cannot understand anyone thinking this is the right
thing to do! Divine Strake is not a nuclear test. It's not even a
bomb! It's just a pile of chemicals - ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
- (Remember Oklahoma City?) which will be exploded in a pit. So, why
worry? Here are just a few simple reasons:

Utah's "downwinders" and what the government did to them should
never be forgotten.

Are "real" nuclear tests far behind? Check out a portion of the FY
2007 federal budget document describing this testing: "The Tunnel
Target Defeat ACTD will develop a planning tool that will improve
the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear
yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing
collateral damage."

We are still"downwind" from these tests and so may be the rest of
Utah! Remember, the radioactive plumes of some tests went straight
to St. George while others covered the rest of our state!

Even this non-nuclear test may spew radioactive debris over Utah!

Southern Utahns should not stand for being "expendable" again for
the sake of weapons testing. We should not stand for allowing this
activity to create more "downwinders."

And, one last concern, if or when any of this comes to pass, what do
we think will happen to our vibrant economy? Who will want to live
here? Who will buy those vacant million dollar Parade homes? Not me,
and I am afraid not very many others. Every thinking person will
evacuate this place just as soon as they are able! So, if we don't
care about weapons testing, or we don't care about radioactive dust,
or if we don't care about our friends, relatives and children
becoming "downwinders," then perhaps we care about the plain ol'
dollars and cents of it!

I know the prevailing attitude here is not to question authority.
But we all should be outraged and indignant over this threat to our
future. Some of our politicians and local governments are finally
making their opposition known - others are still silent. We all
should be opposed to this test - individually and collectively. It's
not about being a Republican or a Democrat or being LDS or non-LDS.
It's about being an informed citizen of Southern Utah. Let's tell
our government we and our children are not expendable any more!

Homer H. Kearns, Ph.D., resides in Ivins.

Comments by: SketchboxCreative Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:28 am
Dr. Kearns, well put.

Originally published February 13, 2007 Print this article Email this

Copyright �2007 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 45 Spectrum: 10,000 responses to Divine Strake test

www.thespectrum.com -The Spectrum, St. George, UT Customer Service:  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007   

By PATRICE ST. GERMAIN patrices@thespectrum.com

ST. GEORGE � It will take the National Nuclear Security
Administration/Nevada Site Office at least three to four weeks to go
through the 10,000 or so comments the agency received concerning the
draft environmental assessment for Divine Strake.

Divine Strake, the name for a 700-ton fuel oil and ammonium nitrate
bomb test, is not nuclear, but the site of the proposed test is only
a mile away from where nuclear testing was conducted at the Nevada
Test Site during the Cold War

Last year, the NNSA withdrew its Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) related to the environmental assessment for the test. The
Defense Threat Reduction Agency had scheduled the test for June 2
but postponed the test following questions from Congressman Jim
Matheson and others over health and safety concerns.


�We�ve never had such a big response to an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement,� Kevin Rohrer, spokesman with
NNSA/NSO said.

Originally published February 13, 2007 Print this article Email this

Copyright �2007 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 46 KOTV.com: Depleted Uranium Removed From Oklahoma Facility

KOTV - 2/13/2007 10:53 AM - Updated 2/13/2007 5:32 PM

The U.S. Army is beginning the dangerous task of transporting 
uranium here in Oklahoma. They're removing roughly one million 
pounds of depleted uranium from the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation. 
The uranium is being taken from the company's eastern Oklahoma 
facility in Gore to Nevada, where it will be disposed of. News on 
Six reporter Chris Wright reports on the cleanup.

"It's moving along finally, we can see the end."

John Ellis says the removal of one million pounds of uranium from
his Sequoyah Fuels Corporation has been a long time coming. The
facility used to enrich uranium for the nuclear power plants, but it
closed in 1993. The depleted uranium has remained there ever since,
sealed in 55-gallon drums. As the result of an act of Congress
earlier this year, the Army is now required to remove all the
radioactive material. Most of the uranium was loaded into trucks,
last week. The depleted uranium then made the trek from Gore to a
Nevada testing site near Las Vegas. There are several truckloads
worth of uranium that still needs to be transported, but Ellis says
it is a relief to see most of it gone.

"It's important because there is uranium contamination, radioactive
material on the site which could, if someone was to ingest it or get
to close, cause problems," Ellis said.

Uranium removal is just part of the ongoing cleanup at the facility.
Once the uranium is gone, Sequoyah will then begin to dispose other
contaminated materials at its facility. The company will also begin
work on cleaning up its groundwater. Officials say it will take
several more years to finish the cleanup, at a cost of $30 million.
While there is a lot of work to be done, Sequoyah Fuels says getting
rid of the uranium is at least a step in the right direction. "I'll
be glad to get it done before I retire,” said Ellis. “It's been
a long process." The uranium transportation has not gone smoothly.
One truck went off the road near the Texas border, but no uranium
leaked. The facility in Gore also has a checkered past. It used to
be owned by Kerr-McGee, and was connected to the mysterious death of
Karen Silkwood in 1974. The 1983 movie “Silkwood” was based on
her death.

� 2007 KOTV, A Griffin Communications, LLC Subsidiary
*****************************************************************
 47 barrow in furness: Radiation found on the beach

Published on 13/02/2007

THREE contaminated items have been removed from Braystones beach in
west Cumbria by nuclear bosses.

The items were found during a monitoring exercise last Friday.

Two of the items are said to be of minor significance, while
the third could be dangerous if ingested or inhaled.

The items are now being analysed, but Sellafield bosses say the risk
of radiation to the public is one in one hundred million.

It is not known how the items ended up on the beach.

Dr Rex Strong, British Nuclear Group head of strategy and standards,
said: “It is important we put this find into context to reassure
people.

“We are talking about something the size of a grain of sand,
around six inches below the surface of the beach, and the chance of
a person coming into contact with this is tiny. This has been
discovered due to newer and more sensitive equipment.”


www.nwemail.co.uk/digitalcopy
*****************************************************************
 48 World Nuclear News: Last shipment of vitrified HLW leaves for Japan

13 February 2007

Areva NC has despatched its twelfth andfinal shipment of 
vitrified high-level wastes (HLW) from the La Hague reprocessing 
plant in France to Japan. Six casks holding 130 canisters of HLW 
are now en route via the Panama canal.

Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd's Sandpiper ship (Image: PNTL)
Since the first shipment in 1995, 1310 canisters containing almost
700 tonnes of HLW have been returned to Japan.

The HLW arises from 2940 tonnes of used fuel owned by ten Japanese
power utilities, which was shipped by these utilities to France for
reprocessing between 1969-90. Some used fuel was shipped to UK also.
In the future, reprocessing of Japanese used fuel would be carried
out domestically.

The separated HLW has been mixed with molten borosilicate glass and
poured into 1.3 m-high stainless steel canisters. The waste becomes
locked into the matrix of the glass as it cools, making it stable
and resistant to leaching. Lids are then welded on to the canisters
to seal them. Each canister contains 150 litres of glass weighing
about 400 kilograms. Some 14% of the content is HLW.

The half-tonne stainless steel canisters containing HLW are
transported in specially-engineered, heavily shielded steel and
resin containers called casks (or flasks). Each weighs about 100
tonnes. A cask holds up to 28 canisters of vitrified waste.

The ships involved are 104 m, 5100 tonne, specially designed
double-hulled vessels used only for the transport of nuclear
material. They are owned and operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport
Ltd, based in UK. This latest shipment is in the Pacific Sandpiper,
which left Cherbourg on 8 February and is due in the Japanese port
of Mutsu-Ogawa late in March.

Areva NC
Pacific Nuclear Transport

WNA's Transport of Radioactive
*****************************************************************
 49 Kansas City Star: Forget Yucca Mountain

02/12/2007 | 

U.S. EXCERPTS

Opinion 

Marion Barry

From the Las Vegas Sun

If President Bush were serious about cutting wasteful government
programs, he would not have included nearly $495 million for Yucca
Mountain in his new budget.

There is only one encouraging fact about his budget request for this
unsafe plan to bury high-level nuclear waste under the mountain 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas � it is a lower amount than he asked
for last year.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved designs for on-site
dry storage casks and says they are capable of storing the waste
safely for 100 years. This would provide time to research nuclear
waste disposal and find a much safer solution than Yucca Mountain.

On Marion Barry

From the Washington Post

The U.S. government is justifiably fed up with Marion Barry. It gave
the D.C. Council member and former mayor a break when it placed him
on probation, not in jail, for his failure to file federal and city
tax returns. Barry repaid that leniency by repeating the offense.

Barry believes this to be a private affair; he says he should be
treated �as any other citizen.� Well, most citizens obey the law and
pay their taxes.

*****************************************************************
 50 AP Wire: Congressman worries about nuke waste facility in Oak Ridge

02/13/2007 | 

HeraldLeaderPhoto.com

Associated Press

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. - U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp has strong concerns about
locating a nuclear waste processing facility at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.

The Department of Energy installation is one of 11 sites being
studied as part of the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership.

The strategy would reverse the country's long-held policy banning
the reuse of spent nuclear fuel, which is now stored at nuclear
power plants around the country awaiting the long-stalled opening of
a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The plan also envisions U.S. companies selling reactors and fuel to
developing countries, with the fuel returning to the United States
for reprocessing.

"We're really not aggressively going after it," Wamp, a Chattanooga
Republican who represents Oak Ridge, told The Chattanooga Times Free
Press.

"Once we modernized our facilities (in Oak Ridge) and moved away
from the Manhattan Project era, we do not want waste. We do not want
to process waste. We do not want waste coming in. We want waste
leaving Oak Ridge," he said.

Supporters, however, see the economic benefits of locating some or
all of three proposed facilities - a recycling center, an
experimental advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle
research facility - in Oak Ridge.

"The jobs are important," Lawrence Young said. "And the expertise is
just as important. Oak Ridge truly wants to stay at the forefront of
this technology."

Young heads the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, an
Oak Ridge group that finds commercial uses for former government
facilities. The group received a DOE grant of $894,704 in January to
study Oak Ridge's potential for the nuclear waste processing
operations.

The 10 other candidates include five owned by the Energy Department,
including the Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina.
Others include the Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio, uranium
enrichment sites and the Hanford nuclear site in Washington.

Public hearings at the various sites began Tuesday in Oak Ridge,
with proposals to be submitted to DOE in about 90 days. Oak Ridge
officials say the state will have to OK the local plan, and Congress
will have to fund it - at potentially $20 billion to $40 billion.

Sherill Greene, director of the Oak Ridge Lab's nuclear technology
programs, said recycling the waste is better than storing it.

"I feel a personal responsibility to my children," he said. "I think
about the world they are going to inherit. We have got to solve this
problem, and this is an approach that we can take."

But the Union of Concerned Scientists interest group said any
community hosting a reprocessing facility "will by necessity become
a long-term dump for spent fuel shipped from nuclear plants around
the country."

"Even if this spent fuel is eventually processed," said Ed Lyman,
the group's senior staff scientist, "the residual highly radioactive
wastes will have to stay where they are generated unless another
site and be found to take them - an unlikely prospect."

ON THE NET

DOE reprocessing announcement: http://www.gnep.energy.gov

Information from: Chattanooga Times Free Press,
http://www.timesfreepress.com
*****************************************************************
 51 Herald News: Nuclear recycling project here?

HeraldNewsOnline.com 

February 13, 2007

By BOB OKON Staff writer

Energy officials are looking at a site outside of Morris for a
future nuclear fuel recycling project.

A public hearing on the project will be held next week in Joliet.

The Morris-area site, a General Electric Company facility located
southwest of Exelon Nuclear's Dresden Station, would be combined
with research operations at Argonne National Laboratory. The GE
facility and Argonne are two of 13 sites in eight states being
considered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the government
said Monday as it announced next week's public meeting.

The meeting will be from 6 to 9:30 p.m. on Feb. 22 at the Barber &
Oberwortmann Horticultural Center, 227 N. Gougar Road, Joliet.

"We look forward to gaining a broader understanding of the
environmental conditions under which we will be operating, so we
look forward to getting the local perspective at each site we're
evaluating to potentially build a GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership) site," Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear
energy with the DOE said in the statement.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership project seeks to build
facilities that will recycle spent nuclear fuel and destroy its
long-lived radioactive components.

There is currently no place to ship used nuclear fuel. Plants like
Exelon's Dresden and Braidwood stations have stored used fuel
on-site since the start of operations.

Dresden has begun putting used fuel into dry casks after filling up
its spent-fuel pools, said station spokesman Bob Osgood.

"More and more nuclear facilities are starting to do that because
they're running out of room in the spent-fuel pools," he said.

The government has posted information about the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership program on the Web site www.gnep.gov.

The public comment period on the proposed sites will run through
April 4.

Bob Okon can be reached at (815) 729-6046 or bokon@scn1.com

   � Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy
*****************************************************************
 52 Las Vegas SUN: Old Yucca firm joins new review

Photo: Bob Loux

Today: February 13, 2007 at 7:16:8 PST

Nuclear waste dump foes say 'rubber stamp' effort waste of taxpayer
dollars

By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - To conduct an independent review of the troubled
nuclear waste dump, the Energy Department has hired a firm whose
staff and board include past Yucca Mountain officials.

The firm, Henderson-based Longenecker & Associates, said that none
of the former officials of the Energy Department or its main
contractor, Bechtel SAIC, will play a role in the assessment. The
company says it has assembled a new team of professionals from
elsewhere in the corporate world for the $450,000 contract.

But opponents of the proposed nuclear dump 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas say they expect nothing more than a "rubber stamp" review to
come from the effort.

"It would seem very difficult to get an independent assessment if
you're just turning around and hiring former Yucca Mountain people,"
said Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear
Projects, which has been fighting Yucca Mountain for 25 years.

"These are individuals who are likely responsible for the problems
at Yucca Mountain, now you're going to turn around and hire them?"

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has vowed to
cut Yucca's funding in the department's 2007 budget, said the firm's
report is a waste of taxpayer dollars and "already has no
credibility.

"I don't think anyone would look at that and think it passes the
smell test," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. "It's sort of like
having a failing math student go back and grade his own test," he
said. "If they're paying for an independent review � then it needs
to be independent ... Otherwise you're just seeking advice from
people who are going to tell you what you want to hear."

Ward Sproat, the new director of the Energy Department's civilian
radioactive waste management office, which overseas Yucca Mountain,
announced as soon as he took over last summer that he wanted three
independent reviews of the project that is now 20 years behind
schedule.

Sproat, who is seen as the department's best hope in getting Yucca
Mountain back on track, called for reviews of its engineering, the
draft license application and the quality assurance program.

In explaining his game plan before a House energy subcommittee in
July, Sproat told the panel: "There are a number of process and
organizational issues which must be addressed, all of which are
correctable."

His goal is to get the project to its next milestone of submitting a
construction license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by 2008. The Energy Department has missed similar
deadlines in the past.

The department said Monday that it had awarded Longenecker the first
of those contracts, a six-month engineering review of the civilian
radioactive waste office and its contractor, Bechtel SAIC. The firm
has done work at Yucca Mountain before, mainly in quality assurance
oversight.

Company President John Longenecker said the 10-person team for the
engineering job comes from the ranks of some of the country's
leading corporations, including Fluor and Northrop Grumman.

"We would never consider putting anybody who's ex-DOE on the review
team," Longenecker said Monday.

"The way we propose it is to take a fresh look with people who
haven't been exposed to it," he said. "Our team of 10 is going to be
a totally fresh set of eyes."

The company's Web site lists many former Energy Department officials
on staff. Ronald A. Milner, who spent 10 years as the chief
operating officer of the department's civilian radioactive waste
management office, is part of Longenecker's senior management team.
He was hired in April after retiring from the Energy Department. He
had worked for the department since 1977.

The company also counts on its roster Donald G. Horton, the former
deputy project manager at Yucca Mountain, who also headed up its
quality assurance work.

The company's board includes Donald W. Pearman Jr., who had served
as Bechtel SAIC's deputy general manager at Yucca Mountain. He
previously worked at the Energy Department.

Many of the firms' associates have conducted Yucca-related work.

Longenecker noted the three former Yucca executives were retired and
working mostly on a part-time basis for his firm. He was unable to
immediately forward a list of team members for this contract.

Longenecker said he will oversee the final report, but said he would
not be part of the team because he has done past quality assurance
reviews at Yucca.

The project has suffered from repeated problems in its quality
assurance protocol, some of which were documented in 2004 by the
Government Accountability Office.

The Energy Department stands by its selection, and spokesman Allen
Benson said, "We're quite satisfied we're going to get what it is we
need, which is a fair, outside look."

He noted that federal ethics laws require cooling-off periods before
many former officials can work on past projects in the private
sector.

He added that most of the firms capable of taking on such work would
have staff members who have familiarity with Yucca Mountain.

"The fact that people have worked for us is certainly not a
detriment. It's an asset because they do bring knowledge," Benson
said. "It can't hurt."

But Loux says the department could have hired a firm without ties.

"There are plenty of people out there who have never had anything to
do with Yucca whatsoever," he said. "If you're really looking for
someone independent, you would find someone who hasn't done Yucca
Mountain work." Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.


All contents � 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 53 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Council to mull GNEP payment

By Stella Davis

Article Launched: 02/12/2007 08:45:05 PM MST

CARLSBAD ? The Carlsbad City Council will consider approval of a
$7,000 payment to the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance when it meets today
in regular session.

The city and county are partners with the city of Hobbs and Lea
County in a limited liability company ? Eddy-Lea energy Alliance ?
that was formed to pursue the potential location for a nuclear
fuel-recycling center.

City Administrator Harry Burgess said in a memo to the council that
in order to participate in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
site selection process, the Eddy-Lea Alliance had to secure an
option on the property as a potential site fore the project.

"This option is good for two years and requires specified payments
in order to retain the option," he explained. "Eddy County made the
first payment and the city of Carlsbad is being asked to make the
second payment of $7,000."

The Eddy-Lea Alliance recently received $1.59 million in Department
of Energy funds to conduct suitability studies on the potential
site, which is located halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs. Eleven
sites around the country received $10.4 million to conduct detailed
site studies to determine their viability of hosting either a 
nuclear fuel recycling center or an advanced recycling reactor.

The proposed facilities are part of the DOE's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership.

A nuclear fuel-recycling center would separate spent fuel into
reusable and waste components and then manufacture new nuclear fuel
using the reusable components, according to the DOE. An advanced
recycling center would destroy long-lived radioactive elements in
the new fuel while generating electricity.

The site study will be conducted with Eddy/Lea Energy Alliance
partners Washington Group International and Areva, a French company.
Other items on the agenda include:

n Consideration of several requests that include special use
business permits.

n Appointments to the Carlsbad Museum and Art Center Board of
Trustees, Riverwalk Complex Advisory Board and Senior Center
Development Committee.

Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group
*****************************************************************
 54 Salt Lake Tribune: No bumps in the road for EnergySolutions

Radioactive waste

Article Last Updated: 02/13/2007 09:25:54 AM MST

    A bill that would exempt the EnergySolutions radioactive waste
facility from gubernatorial and legislative oversight when it
expands within existing boundaries continued its smooth journey on
Capitol Hill. Members of the House Natural Resources Committee
endorsed the measure, which previously sailed through the Senate, on
a 13-2 vote. Opponents warned repeatedly that the bill would
"dramatically change" how the state oversees the EnergySolutions
site in Tooele County. "You're talking about exempting the governor,
the Legislature and the county. I don't think it's a good idea,"
said Patrick Cone, a member of the state's Radiation Control Board,
who said he was representing himself. "I urge you to retain public
oversight for the citizens of Utah." But bill proponents argue that
the change is necessary because such oversight was never intended
for the low-level waste EnergySolutions takes. Rather, they say the
extra scrutiny was put into law anticipating the arrival of hotter
waste that the governor and Legislature ultimately spurned. "This
bill only reaffirms the Legislature's original intent," said
EnergySolutions official Ty Rogers. - Joe Baird

    SB155
   Would ease oversight of EnergySolutions expansion within current
boundaries.
    Next step: Goes to full House.

© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 55 Reid: REID STATEMENT ON "INDEPENDENT" REVIEW OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN

02/13/2007

Washington, D.C.- U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada issued the 
following statement after it was exposed that the Department of 
Energy (DOE) has hired Longenecker and Associates to conduct an 
"independent" review of Yucca Mountain. Ronald Milner, who served 
as the chief operating officer for the DOE's Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management, is a member of the senior 
management team of Longenecker and Associates.

"This situation would be laughable if the risks weren't so high. The
man formerly responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Yucca
Mountain Project as a chief operating officer at the DOE now turns
out to be a senior manager at the same firm the DOE just hired to
conduct a review of Yucca. That's like hiring a student who is
failing in literature to grade his own term paper.

"The DOE is planning to waste half a million more taxpayer dollars
on work that will ultimately be meaningless because the company
hired to conduct the review has a major conflict of interest. The
DOE should stop wasting taxpayer dollars and come to the realization
that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is a dying
beast and will never be built. On-site storage is the answer to the
nation's nuclear waste challenges."


Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757
  
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, 
Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 
702-388-5030
  
Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980
  
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)
*****************************************************************
 56 Guardian Unlimited: $5bn deal creates major power in uranium supply 

Terry Macalister
Tuesday February 13, 2007

The scramble for uranium to supply a future breed of nuclear 
reactors has led to a $5bn (�2.5bn) 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 proposed boss 
of the Canadian-based combined group, said he expected to see the 
price of uranium rise from the current level of $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," Mr Froneman 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
sector have been rushing to raise money on London's junior stock
market, Aim.

Shares in Uranium One and UrAsia raced forward by over 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, saying the information was
confidential.

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 that in recent days the state could be about to offload
its 65% stake in the company through a share sale.

British Energy, which has been dogged by operational failures in its
ageing stations recently, will be asked to clarify the situation
when it reports third-quarter financial results today.

Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 57 World Nuclear News: USEC revises costs, capacity and schedule for enrichment plant

13 February 2007

The cost estimate for USEC�s American Centrifuge Plant project has
increased to $2.3 billion, but the company says this will be partly
offset by an increase in plant capacity through improved centrifuge
performance.

Enrichment is a vital step in the process of producing nuclear
reactor fuel. USEC operates the only enrichment plant in the USA, at
Paducah, Kentucky. The American Centrifuge Plant project is one of
two new centrifuge enrichment plants being built in the USA, to
replace the operating gaseous diffusion plant. Centrifuge technology
is about 50 times more energy efficient than diffusion.

Cost estimates for the new plant, to be built at Piketon, Ohio, have
been revised as the result of a comprehensive review, from an
initial cost estimate of $1.7 billion. The new target estimate of
$2.3 billion is still subject to change to reflect the market price
of materials and commercial scale component manufacture. At the same
time, USEC has announced a revised schedule reflecting a previously
announced delay to construction of the lead cascade facility to
allow for additional testing of individual machines.

The testing has revealed that the Lead Cascade centrifuge machine�s
performance exceeds its initial target capacity by 10%. This would
result in an overall increase of the plant�s capacity from 320 SWU *
to 350 SWU, which would also go some way towards offsetting the
increased cost. While the company expects to have sufficient access
to cash to fund activities in 2007, it warns that "some form of
investment or other participation" by a third party and/or the US
government is needed to raise the capital required in 2008 and
beyond to complete on target. To this end, USEC is already exploring
possibilities with companies that may have a strategic interest in
the nuclear fuel business.

The Lead Cascade is expected to be operational by mid-2007, and USEC
is now working towards starting commercial operation in late 2009,
ramping up to 11,500 machines providing about 3.8 million SWU
capacity by 2012.

* SWU, or Separative Work Unit, is the unit used to measure the
energy required to separate uranium-235 from uranium-238.

*****************************************************************
 58 [NYTr] A Nuclear-Free Korean Peninsula? Tenuous Deal Struck
 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:41:06 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[Six-party talks have culminated in an agreement on first steps to 
de-nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. The Christian Science Monitor
calls the deal "tenuous" (2nd item below). -NYTr]

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Korea Peninsula to Be Nuke Free

Beijing, Feb 13 (Prensa Latina) Six-way negotiations on the
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula concluded Tuesday with the signing
of an agreement to define the first steps to carry out this purpose.

Discussion on the document began February 8 and has included six days of
intensive negotiations among delegates from China, the United States,
Russia, Japan, South Korea and the People s Democratic Republic of Korea
(PDRK).

According to the joint declaration, the PDRK will close and seal within 60
days its Yongbyon nuclear facilities and those of re-processing nuclear
fuel and re-invite international nuclear inspectors to the country.

In exchange for this Pyongyang step, other countries are expected to
finance the delivery of one million tons of fuel oil to the PDRK, 50,000 of
which will arrive after fulfilling that date.

Those governments will equally pay for this operation, according to the
declaration published at the end of the fifth round s third session.

sus iff jhb mf

PL-9

                           ***

Christian Science Monitor - Feb 13, 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0214/p01s04-woap.html

Tenuous deal for North Korea
North Korea's agreement to readmit nuclear inspectors happened because it
was a multilateral effort, negotiators say.

By Peter Ford and Donald Kirk

BEIJING AND SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA - If North Korea holds to the pledges it made
Tuesday to fulfill its promise to abandon nuclear weapons, chief US
negotiator Christopher Hill thinks he knows why.

Other attempts to stop Pyongyang going nuclear have failed. This series of
six-party talks has several times seemed on the verge of collapse. But
diplomacy's tentative triumph Tuesday held out the prospect of victory for a
multiparty, political approach to reining in Asia's pariah states. Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice stated the deal should serve as a message to Iran
that the global community will unite to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

After North Korea agreed to start dismantling its nuclear program in return
for oil and economic aid, Mr. Hill, in Beijing, noted that "the first
difference" between this deal and earlier failed efforts "is to make this
really a multilateral effort."

But that optimism, analysts warn, is tempered by a history of broken
promises that are driving the effort now to verify compliance.

"This agreement is a good sign for nuclear disarmament," says Ryoo Gil Jae
of South Korea's University of North Korean Studies, "but maybe we will have
trouble in the future" when the US raises the issue of the uranium program.

Others share similar doubts.

David Straub, former Korea desk chief at the State Department, warns that "a
very great risk is that North Korea is using this as a way to avoid
sanctions, obtain aid, and drag out the nuclear issue until the
international community is accustomed to its being a declared nuclear
state."

The deal, coming four months and four days after Pyongyang exploded its
first nuclear device, requires North Korea to shut down and seal the nuclear
facility that produces the plutonium used in its bombs within 60 days.

North Korea also agreed to provide a list of all its nuclear programs, and
to allow international inspectors to monitor the closure of the nuclear
plant at Yongbyon. In return, the United States and other countries involved
in the negotiations will provide the struggling state with 50,000 tons of
fuel oil, or its equivalent in economic aid, over the next two months.

Hill stressed that Washington does not "want anyone to think these initial
actions are an end in themselves. After 60 days, we are not going to stop
for a couple of years," he said. "We are going to keep right on going with
the second phase," when North Korea will be required to disable all nuclear
facilities in return for another 950,000 tons of oil.

Some observers suggest that this agreement could either resolve years of
conflict or collapse amid more conflict, crisis, and rhetoric as has
happened so often since the division of the Korean peninsula at the end of
World War II.

"It will be the beginning of a new era between North Korea and the United
States," says Cheong Seong Chang, a noted scholar of North Korean affairs,
who is optimistic about the new deal. "North Korea will be able to begin new
reform and a new opening policy."

The promise of such a breakthrough ? distant though it may be ? is held in
the creation of five working groups agreed to on Tuesday. Those groups will
tackle issues ranging from denuclearizing the peninsula to normalizing
Pyongyang's relations with Washington and Tokyo and setting up a "Northeast
Asia Peace and Security Mechanism."

Those provisions make Tuesday's agreement potentially far broader than its
failed predecessor, the 1994 Geneva Framework Agreement.

The political context "would provide stronger and more stable grounding for
anything in the agreement," says Denny Roy, researcher at the Asia Pacific
Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. "But that would be much harder to
achieve."

Given the history of failure in dealing with North Korea, Dr. Roy is
skeptical of the new agreement.

"Seeing this followed through each of the steps, with both sides agreeing
that they have been fulfilled, is a much harder task than simply reaching
the agreement," he cautions.

North Korean state media Tuesday reported that the agreement required only
the "temporary suspension of the country's nuclear activities," raising
doubts about the government's interpretation of the deal.

"It is hard to judge North Korea's behavior this time," says Zhang Liangui,
a North Korea expert at the Chinese Communist Party School in Beijing. "It
is hard to say if they have made a definitive decision to give up nuclear
weapons, or whether this is just another way to deal with the pressure."

One potential sticking point is North Korea's denial that it has a program
to enrich uranium separate from the plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon.
US officials have insisted that program does exist, since Mr. Hill's
predecessor, James Kelly, said Pyongyang admitted it to him in 2002.

North Korean chief delegate Kim Kye Gwan said that his government "was
prepared to sit with us and discuss it and reach a mutually satisfactory
conclusion," Hill said of the allegations. "We need to know precisely what
is involved."

Notably absent from the agreement was any mention of the US blacklisting of
a Macao bank that holds North Korean assets. That sanction was the reason
that North Korea gave for leaving the last round of six-party talks.

Hill said that he had pledged to the North Koreans that the Macao issue
would be "resolved" within 30 days.

One of the working groups, which will meet within 30 days, will also take up
Pyongyang's demand to be removed from Washington's list of states sponsoring
terrorism.

Another working group is to take up normalization of relations between Japan
and North Korea ? a forum in which Japan can demand that North Korea account
for all Japanese kidnapped to North Korea. Japan, alone among the
participants at the talks, balked at providing aid to North Korea, with
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe insisting first on resolution of the
kidnapping issue.

Other working groups are to discuss resolving regional conflicts and a peace
treaty to replace the truce that ended the Korean War in 1953 ? a
longstanding North Korean demand that the North has linked to demands for
withdrawal of American troops from South Korea.

North Korean deals, past and present

The 1994 agreement

1994: North Korea will shut down its nuclear weapons program in Yongbyon.

In return, it will receive two light-water nuclear reactors and 50,000 tons
of heavy fuel oil per year until they go on line.

What happened ...

2002: The US accuses North Korea of seeking to produce weapons-grade uranium
and halts oil supplies.

North Korea expels International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

2006: North Korea tests its first nuclear bomb. The UN Security Council
imposes sweeping sanctions.

The 2007 agreement

2007: North Korea will close its five-megawatt nuclear reactor and
processing facility in Yongbyon.

It will allow international inspections in 60 days and eventually cease all
nuclear operations everywhere.

In exchange, North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil or the
equivalent in economic aid, and 950,000 more tons of heavy fuel (or another
form of energy aid) when its entire nuclear program ends.

The US agreed to begin talks to remove Korea from its list of state sponsors
of terrorism.

Sources: Reuters, Associated Press
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 59 SF New Mexican: LANL director: Congress ready to intervene

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican

February 13, 2007

LOS ALAMOS; Congress will intervene and force change at Los
Alamos National Laboratory if the lab cant improve security on 
its own, lab director Michael Anastasio told reporters Monday.

Anastasio described a recent Congressional hearing where lawmakers
grilled him and others about continued security concerns at the lab.

For some lawmakers, he said, "frustration was high enough that
they felt that if they don't see improvements and change at
the laboratory, that they may need to take it in their own hands to
make some more dramatic change themselves."

The FBI since October has investigated how classified material got
to the Los Alamos home of a former contract employee. No one has
been charged with a crime, but the incident made waves in Washington
and prompted Anastasio to discipline 24 employees and sever a
contract with a company involved in archival work.

He also is leading an effort to improve cyber-security at the lab
after police found portable computer drives at the former
worker's home.

Anastasio shared his observations with lab workers Monday afternoon
before giving a rare interview to local news reporters.

"I went over with them that I do have confidence that the 
laboratory can rise to this, and we can improve the laboratory, 
that it's in our hands," Anastasio said. "And it's a big 
opportunity for us. ... If we fail to do that, we miss our 
opportunity, then the danger is others are going to do it for 
us."

He emphasized that workers need to take personal responsibility 
for their actions and have high expectations for themselves and 
others. "We're all in this together," he said.

Anastasio also addressed recent comments to Congress by Energy 
Secretary Samuel Bodman, remarks that referred to "arrogant" Los 
Alamos scientists in relation to security problems.

"The key is that there is a perception," Anastasio said. "The 
secretary's remarks reflect that. The remarks we saw in the 
hearing reflect that."

But the lab director said he doesn't want to get bogged down in a 
debate.

"Let's move forward," Anastasio said. "Right now, we're at a 
place where there's a set of perceptions, and we've got to change 
those perceptions. And the perceptions are that the lab needs to 
improve."

A tight federal budget and rising costs are pressuring managers 
to make the books balance. Anastasio's company, Los Alamos 
National Security LLC, which manages the lab for the government, 
has laid off some contract workers but none of its 8,920 
permanent employees.

"I still believe the same thing I've been saying, which is we 
don't plan any (reductions in force), don't intend to have any," 
Anastasio said. "That's where we are right now. And unless 
there's some real significant change in the budget picture out in 
the future, which is too early to predict, we think we're on the 
right path, and we're staying with that."

Anastasio is operating with a new deputy director, Jan Van 
Prooyen, after former deputy John Mitchell retired last fall.

"John Mitchell left the laboratory for his own very personal 
reasons after 40 years of national service," Anastasio said. " 
... It was time for him to retire, to sped time with his family 
... And there is nothing more to it than that."

Anastasio also addressed recent announcements made by the 
government that the nuclear-weapons complex could have as much as 
30 percent fewer workers by 2030.

Anastasio's vision for the lab is based on the problems the 
country faces and how the lab can help. "What are the challenges 
the country faces, and how can we take the science and 
engineering and technology of an institution like this and bring 
it to bear?"

He mentioned nuclear weapons, counterterrorism, nuclear 
nonproliferation and energy work as areas on which the lab is 
currently focused.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or 
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.

| �2007, Santa Fe New Mexican
*****************************************************************
 60 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.
*****************************************************************
 61 Tri-City Herald: Hanford landfill under scrutiny

Published Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

More problems have been discovered at Hanford's landfill for
low-level radioactive waste as officials have investigated the
falsification of test data discovered last month.

"The conduct of operations is not what we would hope it would be,"
said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental
Protection Agency.

The Department of Energy has the same concerns about conduct of
operations, said Joe Franco, DOE's assistant manager for Hanford's
river corridor.

Questions have been raised about whether a ground compaction plan is
being followed and whether compaction testing is accurate. In
addition, the regulatory limit for water above the landfill's liner
has been exceeded.

Tests will be done to confirm the integrity of the landfill, called
the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. It has a capacity
of 8 million tons and space saved for expansion.

Chuck Spencer said he plans to emphasize discipline of operations
and safety for Washington Closure Hanford and its subcontractors in
his new role as president of Washington Closure.

The first issue about the landfill was raised Jan. 12, when a
subcontractor discovered a worker had been entering false data for
compaction tests.

After soil and building debris from the cleanup of Hanford is added
to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, bulldozers are
used to compact it to predetermined standards. That ensures settling
does not occur that could disturb the cap that is expected to
eventually be placed over the landfill.

The waste materials management plan for the landfill specifies what
weight of bulldozer must be used for compaction.

But Washington Closure Hanford, the contractor for the site, has not
been using a bulldozer of the size specified to achieve the required
pressure.

Washington Closure believes it is meeting the pressure requirement
for compaction, but it was the contractor's responsibility to have
revised the management plan to reflect the equipment it is using,
Spencer said. The plan also lists the number of passes needed by
heavy equipment to compact the landfill, and he said more passes
than required were done.

EPA also is questioning if compaction testing is being done
correctly. Rather than insert a probe into the soil that would
become radioactively contaminated, the contractor has used a method
that measures compaction by sending gamma rays into the ground and
measuring how much bounces back.

That method has been used since the landfill was established,
Spencer said.

But as the mix of materials buried changes to less soil and more
debris, the methodology will be evaluated, he said.

When EPA officials watched compaction testing equipment demonstrated
at the landfill, the readings varied widely and didn't seem to
correspond to what would be expected based on the type of soil being
tested, Ceto said.

In the third matter, the amount of water allowed to collect on the
landfill's liner twice exceeded regulations, Ceto said.

The problem was caused by a lightning strike last year that affected
the pumps that collect leachate. The problem should have been
discovered and fixed promptly, Spencer said. However, not enough
water collected to exceed the standard for which the liner was
designed, he said.

Until the problem is fixed, a manual pumping system is being used
and the system is being watched closely to make sure water that
collects above the liner does not exceed regulations.

Because of the compaction problems, only testing activities were
allowed at the landfill from Jan. 12 until last Thursday. Then
Washington Closure received permission to continue limited burial of
waste in areas of the landfill with no waste already in place.

Also, work can be done only when a DOE official is there to observe.

Tests are planned to confirm the problems with compaction testing
have not damaged the landfill's integrity. That includes digging up
some areas to make sure there are no voids in the landfill, taking
cone-shaped samples of the soil and doing load testing.

An evaluation of the best techniques to ensure compaction also will
be done, Spencer said.

2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 62 Hanford News: Nuclear society to play host to Chernobyl cleanup speaker

Hanford briefs

This story was published Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

By the Herald staff

A presentation on cleaning up the Chernobyl site is planned by 
the Eastern Washington Section of the American Nuclear Society.

Chuck Hogg will speak. He worked on the project in Ukraine for three
years before returning to the United States in November and
accepting a Bechtel National assignment at Hanford's Waste Treatment
Plant.

His talk will be at 7 p.m. Feb. 20 at the Shilo Inn, Richland. There
is no charge for attending his talk, but those who attend the dinner
meeting an hour earlier will be charged $22. Dinner reservations
should be made by Friday by calling 371-3599 or sending e-mail to
jmperez1@bechtel.com.

2 Hanford briefings scheduled by caucus

The annual briefings by the U.S. House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus
include two sessions on Hanford, announced Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.

The sessions in Washington, D.C., start at 8:30 a.m. Friday with an
overview of planned cleanup in 2008 of Department of Energy nuclear
sites by James Rispoli, DOE assistant secretary for environmental
management.

The Hanford Office of River Protection briefing will be at 8:30 a.m.
March 1 and the Hanford Richland Operations Office briefing will be
at 8:30 a.m. March 29. Locations have yet to be announced.

Bush budget includes dollars for LIGO upgrade

President Bush's budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2008
includes $32.75 million to begin an upgrade of detection equipment
at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO,
at Hanford and Livingston, La.

The two LIGO centers have been working together since November 2005
to detect gravitational waves created by huge releases of energy in
deep space.

The upgraded detector, known as Advanced LIGO, will cover a volume
of space 1,000 times larger than the current detector.

The project will require $205 million over six years. Germany and
the United Kingdom also are contributing instrumentation.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 63 Sf Chron: Los Alamos scientist criticizes federal approach to arsenal

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

(02-13) 04:00 PST Los Alamos, New Mexico -- With the Bush
administration and Congress fighting over how to rebuild the nuclear
weapons complex, one of the country's top weapons designers said he
believes it is time for the United States to consider a radical
shift in policy that would ultimately eliminate the nuclear arsenal.

Joseph Martz, leader of a team designing a new generation of
warheads at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said in a series of
interviews last week that he is troubled by how the debate on
nuclear weapons policy in Washington is focused narrowly on the
number of weapons needed for the future, and how they would be
built, rather than on how to eradicate them entirely.

Lab officials originally refused to give Martz permission to be
interviewed for this article. Martz, however, said he decided to
speak anyway in order to press ideas that he believes can reduce the
risk of nuclear war and carve out a central role for the weapons
labs, which have been threatened with budget cuts. Martz emphasized
that he was expressing only his personal views and not those of the
lab. But his comments still represent the first time in recent years
that a senior scientist inside the weapons program has proposed
making disarmament a concrete policy goal.

Martz said the discussion in Washington needs to reflect
technological breakthroughs found in two prime areas: the weapons
maintenance program, known as stockpile stewardship, and the new
weapon design initiative called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, or
RRW.

Martz's aim is to help policymakers understand that, because of a
more sophisticated grasp of weapons science, the United States can
slowly dismantle its warheads and still protect itself. The country
could also bolster its credibility as a leading voice for
disarmament by ratifying the long-stalled treaty banning underground
testing.

"The time is right," Martz said. "A confluence of events has now
allowed the debate to progress, including the changes in Congress,
the maturation of the stockpile stewardship program and the
recognition by the military that RRW is feasible. A few years ago,
we didn't have that."

The key to the new policy, he said, would be slowly reducing the
number of warheads over a period of years, and during that time
replacing older weapons with the new Reliable Replacement Warhead
weapons as an interim phase. But the final goal, according to Martz,
should be the elimination of the entire arsenal.

What the United States would retain in its place, he argued, would
be the technology to assemble warheads from stockpiled materials if
a grave threat to national security arose. The labs now have the
capability to do that in a relatively short period of time, he said,
without the need for testing. The U.S. nuclear deterrent would be
transformed from thousands of weapons deployed on high alert to what
has come to be known as the "virtual stockpile."

Martz, 41, described this view as part of the evolution in the
thinking of a younger generation of weapons designers eager to rely
more on science than missiles to deter foes.

"You understand what I'm offering here," he said. "I'm offering
through our technological achievements the security we need to enter
into a real discussion" of nuclear disarmament.

Martz believes the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been critical to the
country's security and should be maintained for some years. But the
nuclear policy debate, he said, has focused too much on producing
new bombs and not enough on the next steps needed for broader arms
control initiatives.

"I'm trying to offer solutions that say, 'How can we get the
benefits of deterrence without having to put thousands of warheads
on hair-trigger alert?' " he said.

Some of Martz's ideas have been discussed before, mostly among arms
control experts, and there is disagreement over whether the country
should deploy new generations of warheads, as Martz is proposing,
even as an interim step. These experts argue that the current
stockpile will be safe and reliable for decades, and that building
new warheads is too provocative.

But this is the first time a senior official involved in maintaining
Cold War-era warheads and designing the weapons of the future has
proposed a long-term plan for eliminating them. Under current
policy, officials say the world is too dangerous to consider
eliminating the nuclear deterrent -- the U.S. now has more than
5,000 warheads -- which must be updated indefinitely.

Various treaties have reduced the size of the stockpile -- under the
Moscow Treaty of 2002, the United States will decrease its deployed
arsenal to 2,200 or fewer weapons by 2012 -- but actual disarmament
has never been embraced as a concrete policy objective. In fact,
even opponents of Martz's plan are pleased with his ideas, if only
because it may inspire a debate on disarmament.

"We should be on a glide path to get to lower numbers of weapons,"
said Eugene Habiger, a retired air force general and former head of
the U.S. Strategic Command, which manages the nuclear arsenal. "It's
a glide path we've been on for years, but we need to think about the
next step beyond the Moscow Treaty, and nobody is doing that yet."

Under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, two design teams,
one from Los Alamos and the other from the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, submitted plans in April for a new generation
of warheads. They are supposed to be safer and more reliable than
the older weapons, but they must be built without underground
testing, which has never been done before.

A high-level government body, the Nuclear Weapons Council, is
expected to announce shortly which design it has chosen, or whether,
as some have suggested, it will propose a hybrid, combining elements
of both.

Some experts, however, have been urging a deeper shift. Two
widely-read opinion pieces published in the Wall Street Journal last
month argued for total disarmament.

The essays -- the first by former Secretary of State George Shultz,
former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, and the second
by the former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev -- urged aggressive
steps toward this long ignored goal.

"Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and
practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be
perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral
heritage," the former U.S. officials wrote in their essay.

Martz's ideas get a mixed response from experts. Supporters of the
weapons program maintain that it is naive to even talk about the
elimination of the weapons in a dangerous world. Others argue that
manufacturing new Reliable Replacement Warhead warheads is
unnecessary under any conditions.

Steve Andreasen, who was involved in nuclear weapons policy in the
Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, said he supports the
concept of some kind of virtual nuclear force and elimination of the
weapons, but opposes Martz's view that Reliable Replacement Warhead
warheads ought to be produced and deployed as an interim step. He
said it appears to be a way of maintaining the budgets at the
weapons labs at a time when government officials have talked about
big cuts, and that the new production could encourage more countries
to consider weapons production.

"If someone at the labs is saying producing the RRW is essential for
getting to our vision, I would not agree," said Andreasen.

Others say the issue is not so much numbers of weapons, but how much
U.S. military policy relies on them. Robert Einhorn, a nuclear
policy expert from the Clinton administration who favors arms
control, said he believes the United States should boost its
conventional power to make it more unlikely that it would ever need
to use a nuclear bomb.

"We should be putting far more effort into developing more effective
conventional weapons," he said. "It's hard to imagine a president
using nuclear weapons under almost any circumstance, but no one
doubts our willingness to use conventional weapons."

Martz acknowledged that he is motivated both by a desire to shape
what he thinks could be a smarter policy debate and self-interest.

Los Alamos has been bitterly criticized in Washington for a series
of security lapses, and some lawmakers have threatened to slash its
work and budgets. The criticism has badly harmed morale at the lab,
and Martz believes his ideas would, by enhancing the importance of
the science done at the lab, help maintain budgets and job security,
and also bolster a view that the labs can help reduce international
tensions.

But he also sees in the virtual stockpile a program that would
enable a new generation of weapons scientists to solve some of the
policy conundrums left from the Cold War.

"In many ways, this answers the key question many people are asking,
including people at the labs -- what is the role of the labs today?"
Martz said. "To me the answer is simple. We become the deterrent in
the 21st century."

Livermore appears to have edge in competition to design new warheads

Because of concern over security lapses at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, it appears unlikely that the lab will be declared the
winner of a competition to design a new generation of nuclear
warheads, according to Joseph Martz, head of the Los Alamos design
team.

When Congress voted to authorize development of the new weapon,
called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW, it called for the
country's two weapons labs, Los Alamos and the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, to produce separate proposals.

Martz said the labs handed in their designs -- for a warhead to be
fitted on submarine-based Trident missiles -- in April. He called
the process revolutionary because the weapons have to be not only
safer and more reliable than the current weapons in the stockpile,
but the labs had to guarantee they could manufacture and deploy them
without any underground testing, an unprecedented requirement.

The Livermore design essentially relied on a weapon developed but
never deployed some years ago, which had been thoroughly tested,
Martz said. Los Alamos took more of a chance by designing a warhead
that used elements from previously tested designs, but combined them
in a way that incorporated new safety features.

Those features, Martz said, were intended to prevent both accidental
detonation and unauthorized use.

The Nuclear Weapons Council has been evaluating the two designs and
is expected to render a decision soon.

Martz said there are rumors, which he has not confirmed, that the
weapons council will order the two labs to combine the best elements
of each design, but with Livermore in the lead role.

-- James Sterngold

E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 11

*****************************************************************
 64 Daily Astorian: Hanford's problems must be contained

EDITORIALS Tuesday, February 13, 2007

We ignore the trickling nuclear waste plume because it seems far 
away Like a cancerous tumor we manage to ignore because it isn't 
yet painful and is located somewhere we can't see, the Hanford 
nuclear reservation continues to bubble along.

That it remains worrisome isn't exactly because of lack of money.
The president's total proposed budget for Hanford for the 2008
fiscal year is $1.94 billion, enough to make Washington's Tri-Cities
one of the nation's technological boomtowns. Washington Gov.
Christine Gregoire expressed pleasure last week upon learning the
federal budget restores $690 million in funds previously committed
for a plant that converts some nuclear waste into a form of glass.

In short, there is enough spending and movement to convince most
Americans that there isn't anything to fret about at the remote
desert site.

Unfortunately, we who live along the Columbia River can't afford to
be so complacent.

For one thing, there still is no reason to feel reassured about the
plume of radiation moving toward the river via groundwater. About 60
of Hanford's 177 giant underground storage tanks have leaked,
releasing more than 1 million gallons of radioactive gunk. Stopping
and recovering this material may cost many billions. To put this
into context, consider that it can cost a small fortune just to
clean up the fuel spilled into the soil from the leaking tanks of a
neighborhood gasoline filling station.

Also of concern are government plans to transport additional tons of
radioactive wastes on public highways from other sites to Hanford.
Putting all our deadly nuclear eggs into one carefully managed nest
would have a certain logistical appeal, but there is little about
Hanford that has ever inspired confidence. The decades-long cleanup
of the waste already present there is far from competent or complete.

Finally, the money allocated to the Hanford mess is neither really
lavish nor well-spent. "Don't be deceived by the word 'cleanup,'"
notes a commentator in the online newspaper Grist, "Hanford still
looks like the remnants of a kindergarten classroom after acrylic
paint day - one big eyesore." As we have witnessed in Iraq,
government contractors can burn money by the supertanker-full, and
yet achieve little.

Furthermore, Hanford spending is steadily eroding - in order to stay
level with 2005, the 2008 budget should be $348 million more than
the president has requested.

As we were vividly reminded by a Feb. 6 article detailing the toxins
that accumulate here at the base of the vast Columbia watershed,
what happens upstream from us eventually becomes our problem. It is
vital that we and our congressional leaders concentrate on keeping
Hanford's problems within Hanford, not in the waters and sediment of
our estuary.

 Copyright, 2007 The Daily Astorian, All Rights Reserved (503) 
325-3211 or (800) 781-3211 Software � 1998-2007 1up! Software, 
All Rights Reserved


  

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************