*****************************************************************
02/15/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.38
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 New York Times: Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain - 
2 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Urges Economic Sanctions for Iran 
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq's Iranian Links Fall Under Scrutiny 
4 UPI: Iran may follow N. Korean precedent
5 AFP: Clinton to Bush: no attack on Iran without Congress approval -
6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Iran Is Source of Deadly Weapons
7 Guardian Unlimited: Report: North Korea Ready to Disarm 
8 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Likely to Act Swiftly Under Six-Party Agree
9 Reuters: Pope sees nuclear arms race risk in Korea region
10 Guardian Unlimited: White House Calms GOP Base on Korea Deal 
11 UPI: Russia to write off most N. Korean debt
12 Korea Times: Korea-US FTA Talks Make Substantial Progress
13 AFP: Bush urges China to keep pressure on North Korea 
14 Guardian Unlimited: Pelosi: Bush Lacks Authority to Invade 
15 US: Korea Herald: [William Pfaff] Bush still fomenting clash of civi
16 US: TomPaine.com: Facts? Who Needs Facts?
17 Not in our name: campaign launched against Trident - British nuclear
18 [NYTr] Leading UK Citizens Launch anti-Nuke Weapons Campaign
19 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Russia May Exit 1987 Arms Treaty 
20 RIA Novosti: Missile defense and its consequences
21 UPI: Ruling throws wrench in U.K. nuclear plans
22 UPI: Analysis: The roar of the bear
23 UPI: Russia may scrap INF treaty: top general
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 British Government Nuclear Plans declared unlawful by High Court
25 [NukeNet] New Nuke Planning in Ontario
26 Guardian Unlimited: Greenpeace wins N-power ruling 
27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power policy 'unlawful' 
28 Guardian Unlimited: Pretending to listen
29 Guardian Unlimited: Now the fallout from high court nuclear reaction
30 Guardian Unlimited: The judgment: 'The document contained no informa
31 Guardian Unlimited: Government loses nuclear power case 
32 US: FR: NRC: Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commiss
33 US: Star-Telegram: Official touts atomic energy
34 FT.com: UK - Minsters seek to hurry nuclear consultation
35 BBC NEWS: Nuclear review 'was misleading'
36 BBC NEWS: Nuclear site operator fined 140k
37 BBC NEWS: Blair defiant over nuclear plans
38 US: ePolitix.com: DTI stands by nuclear decision
39 West Australian: Nuclear committee under tight deadline
40 AFP: Britain forced to rethink nuclear power plans - 
41 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Activists say state lax on VY
42 US: Chillicothe Gazette: $238.8M requested for plant operations
43 The Herald: Nuclear plan climbdown as judge rules talks flawed
44 The Herald: Nuclear debate needs fresh source of energy
45 Independent: PM's nuclear power consultation was a sham, court rules
46 US: FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcom
47 US: FR: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommitte
48 US: FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcom
49 US: FR: NRC: FONSI on DLAF Binghamton NY 
50 US: FR: NRC: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notic
51 US: Detroit News: Coal, nuclear power still state's best bets
52 FT.com: UK - Environmentalists hail nuclear ruling
53 US: toledoblade.com: Industry group backs more nuke plants
54 US: recordonline.com: Keep Indian Point safe
55 Reuters: British court ruling blow for Blair's nuclear plans
56 Reuters: Suez denies took decision to build nuclear plant 
57 Guardian Unlimited: Q&A: The facts about government's nuclear policy
58 Japan Times: Nuclear research body chided for leaking Fugen defect d
59 CBC News: Bruce Power expects harsh AG report
60 US: Newsday.com: Bury ghost of LI nuclear plant - 
61 US: Tampabay: Pay me now, and then pay me later
62 Guardian Unlimited: Judge deals blow to Blair's nuclear plans 
63 Whitehaven News: New boss of UKAEA
64 Whitehaven News: MP slams Greenpeace nuclear victory
65 Comment is free: Labour's nuclear disaster
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
66 BBC NEWS: Positive polonium test on guest
67 US: Spectrum: Downwinders on Discovery Channel Thursday
68 US: City on a Hill Press: Bomb Testing Brings Bad Memories - 
69 IAEA: New Symbol Launched to Warn Public About Radiation Dangers
70 US: LasVegasNOW.com: Nevada Test Site Workers Get Hopeful Boost From
71 UPI: U.N. unveils new radiation warning symbol
72 Whitehaven News: Radioactivity on Braystones beach
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
73 US: Guardian Unlimited: Records May Be Exhumed From Nuclear Dump
74 AU The Age: NT to get Lucas Heights waste: senator - 
75 AU ABC: Govt told to 'come clean' on NT waste dump
76 US: West Australian: No review of uranium export policy - govt
77 Independent: Dounreay operator fined 140k
78 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Fast reactors
79 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Doubling nuke waste
80 US: DailyBulletin.com: Aerojet site may look serene, but several are
81 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers seek to dilute N-waste expansion ov
82 US: Deseret Nnews: Veto-proof waste bill?
83 US: AU ABC: Company to search for uranium in central Aust. 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
84 [NYTr] Top Nuke Weapons Scientist Speaks Out
85 Tri-City Herald: Senate sets Hanford's fiscal budget
86 FR: DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 New York Times: Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain - 

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Bush left Wednesday after his news conference at the White
House, in which he talked about Iran and North Korea, among other
topics.

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and MARC SANTORA

Published: February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — President Bush said Wednesday that he was 
certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied 
Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had 
killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether 
Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.

Why Accuse Iran of Meddling Now? U.S. Officials Explain 

(February 15, 2007)

Mr. Bush’s remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date
that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part
of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more
direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons — and to push
back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the
conclusions was not credible.

Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House,
Mr. Bush dismissed as “preposterous” the contention by some skeptics
that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about
Iran’s role. He publicly endorsed assertions that had until now been
presented only by anonymous military and intelligence officials, who
have said that an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps known as the Quds Force has provided Shiite militias in Iraq
with the sophisticated weapons that have been responsible for
killing at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more than 600.

“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian
government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have
harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for
improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know
whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of
the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and
it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”

The House of Representatives is debating a resolution disapproving
of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to
Iraq. And so Mr. Bush used his appearance to defend that decision as
necessary in the face of deteriorating security in Baghdad. Asked
about a possible American response to Iranian interference, he said,
“We will continue to protect our troops.” With skeptics asking why
the intelligence about Iran’s meddling is coming to light now, a
number of possibilities have been raised, including the increase in
attacks and American casualties in recent months.

American intelligence officials have said they think that top
leaders in Iran must have approved of the attacks on the American
forces, in part because the Quds Force has historically reported to
the country’s top religious leaders. But aides to Mr. Bush, mindful
of the criticism about its use of intelligence before the Iraq war,
said the White House wanted to be careful not to make that kind of
accusation without hard proof.

As Mr. Bush discussed Iran in Washington, the chief American
military spokesman in Baghdad provided a more detailed,
on-the-record account of how the administration believed the
weapons, particularly lethal explosive devices known as explosively
formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, got to Iraq. The spokesman, Maj.
Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, was also careful not to link the
actions of the Quds Force directly to Iran’s top leaders. He said
American assertions about a link between the weapons and the force
were based on information obtained from people, including Iranians,
detained in Iraq in the past 60 days.

“They in fact have told us that the Quds Force provides support to
extremist groups here in Iraq in the forms of both money and
weaponry,” General Caldwell said. He added: “They have talked about
how there are extremist elements that are given this material in
Iran and then it is smuggled into Iraq. We have in fact stopped some
at the border and discovered it there, coming from Iran into Iraq.”

The coordinated messages out of Baghdad and Washington were an
effort by the White House to tamp down reports of divisions within
the American government about who in Iran should be held responsible
for the weapons shipments. A senior Defense analyst said at a
briefing in Baghdad over the weekend that the effort was being
directed “from the highest levels of the Iranian government.” But
Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered
a contradictory account this week, telling The Associated Press that
while some bomb materials were made in Iran, “that does not
translate that the Iranian government, per se, for sure, is directly
involved in doing this.”

At Wednesday’s news conference, Mr. Bush suggested that it did not
matter whether senior leaders were involved. “What matters is, is
that we’re responding,” Mr. Bush said. He said that if the United
States found either networks or individuals “who are moving these
devices into Iraq, we will deal with them.”

Some experts said the question of Iran’s responsibility remained
important. “There’s a big difference between saying that there is a
rogue element doing things and then asking the Iranian government to
rein it in, as opposed to saying this is a calculated deliberate
strategy of the Iranian government,” said Vali Nasr, a Middle East
scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. “That has very
different implications in terms of how do you hold Iran culpable.”

The administration’s claims about Iran have been met with intense
skepticism, from Democrats in Congress and from experts like David
Kay, who led the search for illicit weapons in Iraq. Some critics
have said the White House is using Iran as a scapegoat for its
problems in Iraq, and some have suggested that the administration,
which has been trying to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear
program, is laying the foundation for another war.

On Wednesday, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for
president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, took to the
Senate floor to call on Mr. Bush to seek authorization for any
military action against Iran. “We cannot and we must not allow
recent history to repeat itself,” she said.

Mr. Bush has said that he has no intention of invading Iran and that
any suggestion that he was trying to provoke Iran “is just a wrong
way to characterize the commander in chief’s decision to do what is
necessary to protect our soldiers in harm’s way.” But experts say
that the ratcheting up of accusations could provoke a confrontation.
Gary Sick, an expert on Iran at Columbia University, said there was
a “danger of accidental war.” He said, “If anything goes wrong, if
something happens, there’s an unexplained explosion and we kidnap an
Iranian, and the Iranians respond to that somehow, this could get
out of control.”

Mr. Bush has also refused to meet with Iran’s leaders, and he said
Wednesday that he did not believe that it would be an effective way
of persuading the Iranians to give up their nuclear goals. “This is
a world in which people say, ‘Meet! Sit down and meet!’ ” he said.
“And my answer is, if it yields results, that’s what I’m interested
in.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington, and Marc Santora from
Baghdad.

*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Urges Economic Sanctions for Iran 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 12:31 PM
AP Photo JRL832

By ARON HELLER

Associated Press Writer

 ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed 
to a Turkish inspection of the construction work at disputed holy 
site in Jerusalem, the Turkish prime minister said Thursday.

  Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Olmert had shown him photographs of 
the construction work during a meeting between the two, but 
failed to convince him that it would not harm the holy sites 
there. The Israeli premier agreed to a Turkish suggestion for a 
technical team from Turkey to inspect the site, he said.

    The dispute centers on a new walkway Israel is building to 
the compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews 
as the Temple Mount. The walkway is meant to replace an earthen 
ramp that partially collapsed in a snowstorm three years ago. 
Israeli work at the site has prompted clashes between 
Palestinians and Israeli police during the past week.

      The Turkish leader had criticized Israel for allowing the 
construction near a disputed holy site in Jerusalem a day before 
Olmert's arrival.

 Olmert arrived in Turkey late Wednesday for a two-day visit, 
hoping to discuss ways to rein in Iran's suspected efforts to 
build nuclear weapons.

  The Israeli leader said in remarks published Thursday that 
tougher economic sanctions against Iran would force Tehran to 
``review'' its nuclear program.

 The U.N. Security Council has imposed limited sanctions on Iran, 
but many countries are reluctant to go further and cut all trade 
ties to the energy-rich country. Washington has urged European 
nations to follow the U.S. in cutting such ties with Tehran.

 ``If economic sanctions were imposed, Iran would be forced to 
review its position,'' Olmert said in an apparent reference to a 
more robust approach to sanctions.

 ``I believe that Turkey and many other countries will need to 
change their ties with Iran,'' he said in an interview with 
Turkey's Milliyet newspaper. Turkey buys natural gas from Iran.

   The U.N. Security Council agreed in December to impose 
sanctions targeting people and programs linked to Iran's nuclear 
program, which the United States, the European Union and others 
fear is being used to make weapons. Under the Dec. 23 decision, 
Iran was given two months to return to negotiations.

     Erdogan was expected to press Olmert to ease restrictions on 
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

  Olmert had earlier said he expected productive talks with 
Turkish leaders. He was scheduled to meet with Erdogan, Foreign 
Minister Abdullah Gul and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer on 
Thursday before returning home.

  Turkey's Islamic government has good relations with both Syria 
and Hamas, the militant Islamic group that heads the Palestinian 
government, and also with Iran, with which it shares a long 
border.

  Israel considers Iran a strategic threat, suspecting that Iran 
is building nuclear weapons, despite its denials. Iran's 
president has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the 
map. Olmert hopes to enlist Turkey in accelerated efforts to keep 
Iran from going nuclear.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq's Iranian Links Fall Under Scrutiny 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 9:46 AM

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

AP Special Correspondent

 In Iraq, the ties to neighboring Iran are as apparent as the 
desert sun. They reach back to Islam's earliest days, and before.

   But the ``Iran connection'' this week took on a darker, 
murkier look. Questions, contradictions and discrepancies swirled 
around a U.S. report that officials at the highest levels in Iran 
were ordering arms flows into the Iraqi conflict.

    Experts aren't surprised by the American claims. Iran's 
Shiite Muslim government supported Iraq's underground Shiite 
opposition in the 1980s and 1990s, when Saddam Hussein's 
Baathists, mostly from the rival Sunni sect, ruled in Baghdad.

 ``Logically'' - now that those Shiites are in power - ``the 
Iranians would keep up their involvement, their support,'' said 
retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former U.S. Middle East 
commander.

  But both Zinni and Joost Hiltermann, a respected Mideast 
political analyst, see a new ``dangerous game'' under way 
involving the weapons.

  To Zinni, it's the Iranians who risk further destabilizing Iraq 
by arming Shiite militias, one side in Iraq's civil war. 
``They're working against Iraq coming together,'' he said. ``I 
think we're headed toward (U.S.-Iranian) confrontation.''

 To Hiltermann, Mideast director for the authoritative 
International Crisis Group, Washington may be steering close to 
the edge as it tries also to pressure Tehran into shutting down 
its nuclear program. The Americans not only have angrily 
denounced Iran's role in Iraq, but U.S. forces in Iraq also have 
detained at least eight Iranians.

  ``What's not clear is whether the Bush administration is trying 
to provoke Iran into lashing back, which then gives a pretext for 
an attack on Iran,'' Hiltermann said by telephone from Amman, 
Jordan.

   The close ties between Iran's Persians and Iraq's Arabs date 
to antiquity and are cemented by the Shiite religion of both 
countries' majorities.

 Persian migrants helped populate Baghdad after it was founded in 
762 A.D. Today, thousands of pilgrims flow back and forth across 
the border, visiting Shiite holy places in both countries. Iraq's 
leading Shiite clergyman is an Iranian, and its president since 
2005, Jalal Talabani, has longstanding links with Tehran.

    As U.S. reconstruction funds dwindled last year, the Iranians 
stepped in, earmarking $1 billion to help rebuild Iraq's electric 
grid and other infrastructure. An Iranian aid group has sent 
ambulances and doctors to Iraq. Iranian businessmen are 
investing, particularly in Iraq's Shiite-dominated south. 
Hiltermann's research group reported in 2005 the Iranians had 
built an intelligence network, including paid informers, in 
Baghdad and elsewhere.

 The Americans contend the Iranians also are supplying mortar 
rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and other arms to Iraq's Shiite 
militias, including sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 
scores of U.S. soldiers.

   In Baghdad last Sunday, senior U.S. military officials, 
briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, displayed seized 
weapons they said were made in Iran. They alleged that Iran's top 
leadership had authorized supplying the killer bombs.

        The allegations quickly raised questions, however, as:

 -The briefers offered no direct evidence linking the roadside 
bombs to upper Tehran leadership.

  -They said the ``machining process'' to make the explosive 
device was Iranian. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on Feb. 
9, had said it was markings on the explosives that were ``pretty 
good'' evidence of Iranian origin.

     -The British military previously stopped linking such bombs 
explicitly to Iran because the bombmaking technology can be found 
elsewhere in the Mideast, The Times of London reported.

  -And, within a day of the Baghdad briefing, the top officer in 
the U.S. military, Gen. Peter Pace, said he wasn't sure the 
Iranian government was involved.

 White House spokesman Tony Snow said the U.S. leadership was 
sure of the Tehran government's involvement. But then, in a news 
conference on Wednesday, President Bush said he didn't know 
whether the weapons were ``ordered from the top echelons of 
government.''

  Said the International Crisis Group's Hiltermann, ``It could 
have been smugglers.''

  Retired Army Col. Paul Hughes, a U.S. military planner in 
Baghdad following the 2003 invasion, now with the U.S. Institute 
of Peace, said Gen. Pace's statement ``is probably not far off 
the mark.'' Iran's Revolutionary Guards and other security forces 
often act independently, he said.

  ``I don't know where anyone is going to find the smoking gun'' 
of high-level Iranian authorization, he said. ``It's hard to 
follow things back and say the supreme leader is pulling the 
strings.''

   The weapons allegations against Iran aren't new. Both Zinni 
and Hughes suggested they were being revived now because 
Washington wants to rally international pressure - especially 
from Russia and China - to cut off Iranian support for Shiite 
militias, major actors in Iraq's sectarian violence.

  ``This all is tied to getting rid of the militias,'' said 
Hughes.

    But both ex-officers said the Bush administration should talk 
directly to Iran about Iraq, as recommended by James Baker's 
blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group, on which Hughes served as a 
military adviser.

        ``There has to be some kind of dialogue,'' said Zinni.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 4 UPI: Iran may follow N. Korean precedent

United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM

TEHRAN, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Several Iranian officials are proposing
their nation take a hard-line stance regarding nuclear talks to win
a deal similar to that of North Korea.

As nuclear talks between Iran and members of the international
community continue, the Los Angeles Times reported many Iranian
politicians have suggested using the North Korean deal as a model to
base further negotiations.

Experts said many Iranian politicians labeled the deal a victory for
North Korea as the United States offered incentives prior to any
dismantling of area nuclear plants.

"The hard-liners, perhaps impressed by North Korea's achievement,
are now inclined to be more resilient and more uncompromising,"
Tehran University professor of politics Sadegh Zibakalam said. "They
say if North Korea could do it, why shouldn't we? Why should we let
the United States dictate to us rather than negotiate with us?"

News of the possible influence of the North Korean deal comes after
many in the U.S. government criticized President George W. Bush for
being too lenient in nuclear talks.

Yet the Bush administration has remained adamant that peaceful
diplomatic means be used in situations like North Korea and Iran to
obtain results, the Times said.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: Clinton to Bush: no attack on Iran without Congress approval -

Wed Feb 14, 11:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senator Hillary Clinton has warned President
George W. Bush against going to war against Iran without the
approval of Congress.

Clinton said the Bush administration would be wrong to assume it
could attack Iran based on the 2001 Congress resolution allowing
force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks and a
2002 vote authorizing war against Iraq.

The 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful voted in favor of the Iraq
war in 2002, a vote that she has refused to say was a mistake
despite calls by anti-war Democrats for her to recant it.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the
administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force
against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran
without further congressional authorization," Clinton said in the
Senate.

"Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing
force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes
force against Iran," she said.

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against
Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that
authority," she said.

Her comments came as Bush said an elite force of Iran's
Revolutionary Guards was the source of powerful new bombs used by
insurgents against US soldiers in Iraq, although he said he was
unsure whether Iran's leaders were behind the shipments of arms.

The allegations of Iranian bombs in Iraq and Washington's dispute
with Tehran over its controversial nuclear program have raised
concerns of a possible war.

But Bush said Wednesday there was "good progress" toward solving the
nuclear dispute "peacefully."

On Monday, he dismissed talk of a likely US attack on Iran as
"noise" from his critics.

Western powers fear Iran would use its nuclear technology to build a
nuclear bomb, but Tehran insists its program is solely to meet its
energy needs.

A dozen lawmakers in the House of Representatives, including
Democrats and members of Bush's Republican party, introduced
legislation last month barring the White House from attacking Iran
without Congress's green light.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Iran Is Source of Deadly Weapons

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 8:31 AM

AP Photo WHGH106

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

  WASHINGTON (AP) - Challenged on the accuracy of U.S. 
intelligence, President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the 
Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill 
American soldiers in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top 
echelon of Iran's government was responsible.

 Bush, at a news conference, also said he would fight any attempt 
by the Democratic-controlled Congress to cut off money for the 
war. ``They need to fund our troops and the need to make sure we 
have the flexibility necessary to get the job done,'' he said.

   The House is expected to vote Friday on a nonbinding 
resolution opposing Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional 
troops to Iraq.

  The meeting with reporters in the East Room was Bush's first 
news conference since Dec. 20 and the first since he announced 
the troop buildup in Iraq. The four-year-old war hangs heavily on 
his presidency, and Bush's approval rating in an Associated 
Press-Ipsos poll in February matched an all-time low of 32 
percent.

     Iran was a dominant theme of reporters' questions because of 
conflicting statements about U.S. intelligence in Iran and 
recurring speculation that Bush is looking for an excuse to 
attack the Islamic republic, which is believed by Washington and 
its allies to be seeking nuclear weapons.

  Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a 
hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, ``Does this mean you're 
trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to 
protect our troops.''

   There have been mixed signals in the administration about 
Iran's involvement in supplying Shiite groups in Iraq with a 
particularly lethal type of roadside bombs known as explosively 
formed penetrators.

    Three senior U.S. military officials, at a weekend briefing 
in Baghdad, said the highest levels of the Iranian government had 
ordered the weapons smuggled into Iraq. They based their claim on 
the belief the weapons are moving into Iraq through the Iran's 
Revolutionary Guards elite Quds Force.

   But Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
said later he was not ready to conclude that Iran's top leaders 
were behind the attacks. Some lawmakers also have questioned the 
administration's statements.

 Wading into the debate, Bush said the Quds Force was 
instrumental in supplying the weapons - ``we know that,'' he said 
- and that the Quds Force was part of the Iranian government. 
``That's a known,'' he said. ``What we don't know is whether or 
not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what 
they did.''

   Pressed again on the subject, Bush displayed some irritation 
and said, ``Whether (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad 
ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we 
do know that they're there and I intend to do something about it. 
And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're 
going to protect our troops.'' Ahmadinejad has denied Iran was 
behind the attacks.

   Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee emerged from 
a classified briefing Wednesday saying they wanted more 
information about Iran. The committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, 
said it was unclear to him precisely what the administration 
knows about the Tehran government's ties to the weapons found in 
Iraq.

 ``There seems to be some disarray,'' said Levin, D-Mich. He said 
he eventually hopes to see some declassified information on the 
subject.

  Bush came into the news conference after receiving a briefing 
from Baghdad by Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. 
forces in Iraq.

  Bush said he talked with Petraeus about coordination between 
Iraqi and coalition forces, and that while it seemed to be good, 
more work was needed on developing an efficient 
command-and-control structure.

 Bush responded carefully when asked about Russian President 
Vladimir Putin's accusations Saturday that the United States was 
undermining global security and provoking a nuclear arms race. 
The depth of Putin's criticism surprised U.S. officials.

  Bush said Putin was ``the same strong-willed person'' he has 
known since 2001 and there is a ``complicated relationship'' 
between Washington and Moscow.

                     On other matters, Bush said:

 -The agreement announced Tuesday to shut down North Korea's 
nuclear program in exchange for fuel assistance was ``a good 
first step.'' He said he strongly disagreed with former U.N. 
Ambassador John Bolton that it was a bad deal.

 -He will not comment on the 2008 presidential race. ``I will 
resist all temptation to become the pundit-in-chief.''

     -He will not comment on whether he authorized members of his 
administration to leak the identity of Valerie Plame, a one-time 
CIA officer whose husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, 
criticized the administration's case for the Iraq war. Similarly, 
Bush refused to say whether he might pardon I. Lewis ``Scooter 
Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby is on 
trial on charges of lying and obstructing the investigation into 
the Plame's identity.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Report: North Korea Ready to Disarm 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 1:16 PM

TOKYO (AP) - North Korea's top envoy to six-nation talks on his 
country's nuclear program said Pyongyang is ready to implement 
the nuclear disarmament agreement reached earlier this week, a 
news report said Thursday.

 ``The talks went well,'' Kyodo News agency quoted North Korean 
Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan as saying at Pyongyang's 
airport on his return from the Beijing session.

 ``We are ready to implement the results of the meeting,'' he 
said at the airport to both Russia's ambassador to Pyongyang and 
a senior Chinese Embassy official, according to Kyodo.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007



*****************************************************************
 8 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Likely to Act Swiftly Under Six-Party Agreement

Updated Feb.15,2007 12:40 KST

U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday called the pact reached at
the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear development program
"the first step toward implementing¡± a statement of principles
agreed in September 2005. Economic, humanitarian and energy
assistance will be provided "as the North carries out its
commitments to disable its nuclear facilities," he said. White House
spokesman Tony Snow said, "If they don't abide by the terms, they
don't get the benefits they desire," adding, "There is still a
possibility of sanctions through the international community." The
statements make it clear that the agreement is premised on the
North's will to implement it.

From the perspective of the U.S., the accord aims not only to
resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis but to attempt a general
shift in U.S. relations with North Korea, the Korean Peninsula and
Northeast Asia. Working groups are soon to discuss denuclearizing
the Korean Peninsula, normalizing Washington-Pyongyang ties and
establishing peace and security frameworks in Northeast Asia.
Washington insists all these matters depend on how North Korea acts
from the initial stage -- the shutdown of nuclear facilities and
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The worst-case scenario for the U.S. is to repeat the nightmarish
failure of the 1994 Geneva Accords. There is also a pragmatic reason
for the Bush administration, mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, to
achieve results in its negotiations with North Korea. In America,
suspicions over the North¡¯s will to implement the agreement are
widespread. "This is a freeze with a promise to negotiate subsequent
disarmament," said Gary Samore, director of studies at the Council
on Foreign Relations, who took part in the nuclear negotiations with
North Korea under the Clinton administration. "And a North Korean
promise to negotiate later is pretty worthless." Joel Wit, a former
State Department official who coordinated the Agreed Framework in
1994, commented, "It gives the illusion of moving more rapidly to
disarmament, but it doesn't really require anything to happen in the
second phase." Underlying those remarks is a fundamental distrust of
North Korea.

The Bush administration is therefore likely to act promptly lest
Pyongyang has a change of heart. Washington will want to rid
Pyongyang of a justification to retreat by easing financial
sanctions and unfreezing part of North Korea¡¯s accounts in Macau¡¯s
Banco Delta Asia. The U.S. is also expected to act swiftly in
removing North Korea from the list of states sponsoring terrorism
and in terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy
Act, the foundation of sanctions against the North. There is a
chance that the frozen assets of 12 North Korean businesses in the
U.S., a largely symbolic measure, will be freed.



By boldly implementing its commitments, the U.S. would increase
pressure on the North to take corresponding steps and ask other
countries surrounding Korea like China to participate in efforts to
keep North Korea from retreating. That Bush said in his statement,
"I commend Secretary of State Rice and Ambassador Hill ... for their
hard work" suggests that the pragmatic camp led by Rice will keep
playing the leading role. Congress, where the Democrats who called
for bilateral talks with Pyongyang now hold sway, is expected to
accept the pact as significant if not enough. Former U.S. ambassador
to Korea Thomas Hubbard said heavy oil aid to North Korea in return
for the North's initial actions will face no serious problems in
Congress, and that Congress approval may not even be needed if funds
are used out of the humanitarian aid budget.

(englishnews@chosun.com )

*****************************************************************
 9 Reuters: Pope sees nuclear arms race risk in Korea region

Thu 15 Feb 2007 7:20 AM ET

VATICAN CITY, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Thursday he
was concerned about the possibility of a nuclear arms race in Asia
and urged peaceful efforts to resolve the problem of North Korea's
nuclear ambitions.

The Pontiff received South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in a week
when North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme
in return for energy aid.

Benedict said he was praying for peace and stability on the divided
peninsula.

"The risk of a nuclear arms race in the region is a further source
of concern, fully shared by the Holy See," the Pope said in a
written message.

"I urge all interested parties to make every effort to resolve the
present tensions through peaceful means and to refrain from any
gesture or initiative that might endanger the negotiations, while
ensuring that the most vulnerable part of the North Korean
population has access to humanitarian aid."

North and South Korea agreed to restart high-level talks after the
nuclear deal, paving the way for food aid to resume to the communist
state.

South Korea suspended aid after missile tests by the North last July
and there had been no top-level meetings between the two since the
October nuclear test.


© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.  
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: White House Calms GOP Base on Korea Deal 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 10:16 PM

By BEN FELLER

Associated Press Writer

 WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday sought to ease 
concern among conservatives, including at least one key aide to 
President Bush, that a nuclear disarmament deal with North Korea 
goes too easy on the communist country.

  One provision that conservatives find particularly troubling 
could allow North Korea to be removed from a list of 
terror-sponsoring states. One of Bush's deputy national security 
advisers, Elliott Abrams, raised alarms about that section in a 
series of e-mails.

 White House press secretary Tony Snow said he spoke with Abrams 
and assured him North Korea will not be removed from the list 
unless it changes it behavior.

  ``The North Koreans don't get it for free,'' Snow said. 
``They've got to earn it, like everything else.''

  ``We've seen conservatives criticizing this provision because 
they want the same kind of reassurance,'' Snow said. ``So here it 
is - no political deal, it has to be based on facts and 
performance on the part of the North Koreans.''

 Snow said Abrams was reassured about the terms, and that Abrams 
did not oppose the deal - he was just seeking clarification.

  Asked if Abrams was satisfied with the answers he'd received, 
Snow said: ``Yes. I can say that without reservation.''

  ``In this White House, people do express their opinions freely 
and give their advice,'' Snow responded after Abrams' skepticism 
had made its way into the newspaper.

   That disclosure of Abrams' concerns came after John Bolton, 
who until recently was Bush's U.N. ambassador, said the agreement 
rewards North Korea for bad behavior. He called the agreement 
``fundamentally flawed.'' Bush said in a news conference on 
Wednesday that he strongly disagreed with that assessment, and 
that North Korea would receive no aid unless it lives up to its 
end of the deal.

 Bush underscored that point Thursday in a conversation with 
Chinese President Hu Jintao. Bush congratulated Hu about the 
important role China played in reaching disarmament deal.

 ``President Bush told President Hu that it was now up to the 
leader of North Korea to live up to the commitments made in order 
to create a better life for the North Korean people,'' said 
Bush's national security spokesman, Gordon Johndroe.

    Under the first phase of the breakthrough agreement reached 
in Beijing on Tuesday, North Korea would 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 from the other countries participating in 
the six-party talks - the United States, South Korea, Russia, 
China and Japan. The United States will also begin the process of 
removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring 
state, but no deadlines have been set.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 11 UPI: Russia to write off most N. Korean debt

United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 14, 2007 at 6:03 PM

ABU DHABI, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Russia will write off most of North
Korea's $8 billion debt regardless of Pyongyang's nuclear deal,
Russia's foreign minister said Wednesday.

"We are completing negotiations on Pyongyang's debt to Russia and we
think this will help ease North Korea's economic and financial
problems," the Russian Information Agency Novisti quoted Sergei
Lavrov as saying onboard a plane to the United Arab Emirates from
India.

Under Tuesday's agreement, North Korea said it would freeze the
reactor at the heart of its nuclear program and let international
inspectors back into the country, in return for about $400 million
in fuel oil and aid.

Russia's envoy to the six-nation talks, Alexander Losyukov, denied
reports Russia would write off North Korea's debt completely.

He said the two countries would discuss the matter in March.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Times: Korea-US FTA Talks Make Substantial Progress

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

South Korean and U.S. negotiators concluded their latest round of
free trade agreement talks in Washington, D.C., Wednesday after
making "substantial" headway in their nine-month-old negotiations,
the Yonhap News Agency reported.

Encouraged by a telephone conversation by their presidents
expressing their strong commitment to the success of the talks, both
sides agreed to meet again in early March, a few weeks before their
preset deadline.

``We've just concluded our seventh round, and in my view, the most
successful negotiating round so far," Yonhap quoted Wendy Cutler,
the chief U.S. negotiator, as telling reporters after ending the
four-day talks.

``Despite the icy conditions outside, there have been signs of
spring in the negotiations, and the mood of these meetings has been
more upbeat than it has been for several rounds," she said,
referring to the winter weather in the U.S. capital.

Cutler said she had no major breakthrough to announce right now but
she was confident that the talks can be successfully wrapped up by
the end of March.

Chief Korea negotiator Kim Jong-hoon said a deal was not imminent
but a solid foundation has been laid for a future agreement.

"At this point, I can say both sides have already laid the
groundwork to sign an agreement before the deadline," Kim said,
adding that more work has to be done to tackle unresolved issues.

Yonhap, the semi-official Korean news agency, reported that U.S.
officials have until April 2 to submit a deal for a mandatory 90-day
congressional review for a yes-or-no vote without amendments under
U.S. President George W. Bush's trade promotion authority, which
expires on July 1.

The deal, if adopted, also requires approval by Korea's National
Assembly where supporters outnumber opponents.

Several hours earlier, Korean President Roh Moo-hyun on a state
visit to Spain had a 10-minute telephone conversation with U.S.
President George W. Bush, during which they reconfirmed their
commitment to the success of the trade talks, both sides said.

Yonhap said the main purpose of the telephone call was to assess the
results of the latest round of six-party nuclear disarmament talks
that ended in Beijing on Tuesday after adopting a much sought-after
deal for North Korea to disarm in exchange for aid and political
rewards.

The two presidents "agreed to continue encouraging one another,
allowing the (free trade agreement) delegations to demonstrate
flexibility and take the initiative in seeking a mutually satisfying
way of reaching agreement in a timely manner," Roh's office said in
a statement posted on its Web site.

The top South Korean negotiator, Kim, said delegates were elated by
the Roh-Bush phone conversation.

Despite the lack of a clear breakthrough and a looming deadline,
officials of both sides were more positive than ever before.

"I don't underestimate the challenges facing us, but the prospects
are good and we made substantial progress this week," Cutler said.

Both sides decided to hold the next and eighth round in Seoul from
March 8-12. South Korean officials said one more round, a ninth
round, may likely be held in late March.

Some key issues, including U.S. anti-dumping trade remedies and
South Korean auto taxation and pharmaceutical pricing, remain
unresolved but Cutler said the negotiators have "a clear idea of the
path forward."

Cutler cited that specific achievements reached in Washington this
week include duty-free status for electronically traded products
such as software, music and movies and rules of origin for critical
products such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics.

"On industrial market access, the sides agreed to tariff
improvements in important sectors such as chemicals, cosmetics,
industrial machinery and IT," she said.

Kim said both sides have agreed to immediately abolish tariffs on
about 85 percent of industrial goods so far, excluding some
sensitive farm products and automobiles.

"As the negotiations enter into their homestretch, I restrain myself
from talking too much publicly," Kim said, indicating that a
"package deal" may be imminent.

One of the most sensitive issues that both sides have barely touched
is rice, the South Korean staple.

While Cutler has said rice would be discussed at some point, Kim has
argued rice should be excluded from the proposed deal, given the
crop's political sensitivity for South Korean farmers.

Kim said he was determined to shield rice from the deal.

02-15-2007 19:53
  
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: Bush urges China to keep pressure on North Korea 

by Olivier Knox Thu Feb 15, 4:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush urged Chinese
President Hu Jintao to keep enforcing UN-imposed sanctions on North
Korea despite a landmark nuclear accord, the White House said.

Bush had previously reached out to leaders of Japan and South Korea
and has worked to dispel worries among his conservative core
supporters that the agreement gives too much to North Korea and
requires too little.

US officials say they want to hammer home the message at home and
abroad that the accord is a starting point, not the finish line, for
marathon efforts to strip North Korea of nuclear weapons.

In a telephone call to Hu, Bush "emphasized the continued need for
nations to fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 1718," US
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters.

That measure condemned North Korea's October 9 nuclear test and
imposed a raft of financial and other sanctions in response, and
Washington wants no let-up by Pyongyang's chief patron Beijing.

Bush and Hu spoke two days after six-party talks hosted in Beijing
and grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea, and the
United States yielded a breakthrough deal that Washington has touted
as a first step towards stripping the Stalinist regime of any
nuclear weapons.

"President Bush spoke with Chinese President Hu Jintao this morning
to congratulate him on the important role that China played in
coming to the agreement reached earlier this week," said Johndroe.

Bush told Hu "it was now up to the leader of North Korea to live up
to the commitments made in order to create a better life for the
North Korean people," the spokesman said in a statement.

"They also discussed the situation in Sudan and President Bush urged
President Hu to use China's influence with President (Omar
el-)Bashir to gain rapid acceptance of the entry of United Nations
troops in order to relieve the suffering of the Sudanese people," he
added.

The two leaders agreed that they are "working well together" on a
range of issues and Bush wished Hu and the Chinese people a very
happy Chinese new year, said Johndroe.

On the home front, the White House labored to reassure wary
conservatives that North Korea was not getting rewards -- like being
removed from the US list of state sponsors of terror -- before
earning them.

One of Bush's top national security advisers, Middle East expert
Elliott Abrams, expressed concerns in a series of emails to other
National Security Council members.

"He had the same concern that many people have had, which is, 'is
this a political deal; are you trying to offer a political deal to
the North Koreans, saying, if you come to the table, all is
forgiven, we'll delist you?,'" said Bush spokesman Tony Snow.

"And the answer is, no; just as we have done with other states, you
still have performance requirements before you get delisted," said
Snow. "They've got to earn it. It has to be based on facts and
performance."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Pelosi: Bush Lacks Authority to Invade 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 9:46 PM

AP Photo BAG117, BAG114

By DAVID ESPO

AP Special Correspondent

   WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday 
that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without 
specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the 
commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his 
troop buildup in Iraq.

  Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports 
a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran ``and I take him 
at his word.''

   At the same time, she said, ``I do believe that Congress 
should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there 
is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go 
into Iran.''

    Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House 
moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding 
measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while 
expressing support for the troops.

     Passage of the measure was expected Friday. Pelosi and other 
Democrats have said approval would mark the first step in an 
effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to 
change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. 
troops.

 Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to 
House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to 
hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.

         But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.

 ``This may become the first time in the history of the United 
States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into 
battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to 
succeed in that battle,'' the president said.

 The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last 
week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

    Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt 
the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to 
kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the 
top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.

  Administration critics have accused the president of looking 
for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at 
loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a 
nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.

  Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a 
hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, ``Does this mean you're 
trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to 
protect our troops.''

 Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to 
insert provisions that would make it harder for the 
administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an 
additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.

   Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said 
the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed 
must meet formal Army readiness standards.

 Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any 
military action against Iran without specific congressional 
approval.

 Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, ``I fully support 
that.'' She added that she would propose it as stand-alone 
legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more 
money for the Iraq war.

     Bush has said he intends to go ahead with the troop buildup 
regardless of nonbinding expressions of disapproval in Congress.

 But, Pelosi said, ``I don't think that the president can 
completely ignore it.''

  She spoke down the hall from the House chamber, where 
Republicans and Democrats alternated turns at the microphone in a 
debate on the war.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 15 Korea Herald: [William Pfaff] Bush still fomenting clash of civilizations

Editorial/Op-Ed

PARIS - The discovery of the obvious is not a convincing casus
belli, and the recent presentation in Baghdad of munitions of
Iranian origin found in Iraq, merited comparison with Claude Rains'
declaration that he was "shocked, shocked!" when told that gambling
took place in Humphrey Bogart's Casablanca saloon.

Some critics of the George W. Bush administration, some specialists
in Iranian arms, and some reporters have been skeptical about the
Baghdad presentation, but I would think it perfectly reasonable for
Iran to supply weapons to the Shiite militias and insurgents in Iraq.

The United States has been trying to overthrow Iran's Islamist
government since 1979. It has successfully organized U.N. Security
Council sanctions against the country for its nuclear activities,
and sponsors opponents of the regime, anti-regime propaganda and
political warfare activities. American agents allegedly have been
inside Iran promoting resistance among the Kurdish and
Turkic-speaking minorities.

Since the beginning of 2007, Washington and Tel Aviv have been
trumpeting threats against Iran, and circulating rumors of bombing
attacks - even nuclear ones - to destroy Iran's nuclear
installations.

It would seem obvious that within the limits imposed by concern for
regional stability, the Iranians would do whatever they can to make
the American occupation of Iraq as costly as possible. Even if they
are caught doing it, they can assume this would make little
difference to a Bush administration and Israeli government
determined to attack Iran - whatever the American public thinks.

On Feb. 8, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the
administration may intend to attack. He described a sequence of
actions that could furnish "a pretext for war."

He said that in administration circles and among its neoconservative
allies, "a mythical historical narrative" is being spun to justify
war. It claims that Iraq and Iran are part of "the decisive
ideological struggle of our time," in succession to Nazism and
Stalinism, an idea was first put forward by the American pro-Israel
zealot Norman Podhoretz. (Podhoretz was also the first to redefine
anti-Semitism as criticism of Israeli government policy, now all the
rage in right-wing American Jewish circles.)

This is pernicious balderdash. It is historical gibberish to compare
the separate attempts of two totalitarian great powers - one of
them, Germany, probably the most important industrial state of the
pre-war era, and the other a postwar nuclear power - to establish
world-dominating positions, with the phenomenon of Islamic
extremism, a minor force inside contemporary Islamic society, and a
negligible one outside the Third World.

The construction of this mythical narrative rests upon a naive
conception of international progress, which has been accepted and
celebrated by past Democratic administrations and liberal political
forces, as well as American business conservatives and ideological
neoconservatives. This holds that an increasingly globalized and
integrated world society is marching unstoppably toward universal
prosperity and democracy: as the New York Times writer Roger Cohen
has forecast, "a century that will make a diverse world more
unified, prosperous and free than ever before."

This simplistic faith in progress invites an equivalent
exaggeration, and demonization, of whatever challenges it. Thus the
neoconservatives have seized upon the Islamist fantasy of recreating
a great caliphate that would include the Mideast, Africa, Spain,
Islamized Britain, Mediterranean and Balkan Europe, and the Near
East on to Central Asia. Malaysia, Indonesia and (why not?)
ex-Moghul India could be part of it. it could even include Muslim
China and Mindanao, where American army advisors are already
alongside the Philippine army to fight the Muslim separatists that
the same American army failed to defeat in 1899-1913; our
great-grandfathers' "Moro rebels" are now identified by the Bush
administration as a "terrorist movement."

It is not a joke, though, that in important Western political and
policy circles, people are amalgamating the war in Iraq, now
essentially sectarian, religious and tribal, with: the struggles in
Lebanon and Palestine; Hamas and Hezbollah (hence indirectly with
Iran and Syria); NATO's war against the Taliban in Afghanistan; the
war against terrorist bands in East Africa and Arabia; the war
against the "Islamic Courts" in Somalia; Sudan's humanitarian crisis
in Darfur and attendant struggles among political factions in Chad
and the Central African Republic - and the "war" against disaffected
Muslim youths in British, French and German ghettos.

All is seen as making up an integrated and titanic global struggle
which will make it necessary for America to be mobilized for
generations - and in the immediate future to bomb Iran.

If that is not a sufficiently intimidating prospect, consider that
an Israeli attack on Iran, which inevitably would produce Iranian
retaliation against American forces in the region, or the deliberate
American provocation whose possibility Brzezinski noted in his
Senate testimony, could set this whole conflagration going, to the
patriotic acclaim of part of the American public, all of the
neoconservatives, and to the (short-lived) satisfaction of Richard
Cheney and George W. Bush.

Visit William Pfaff's website at www.williampfaff.com - Ed.

2007.02.15

*****************************************************************
 16 TomPaine.com: Facts? Who Needs Facts?

Francesca Grifo

February 15, 2007

Dr. Francesca Grifo is senior scientist and director of the
Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Formed in 1969, UCS is the leading science-based nonprofit working
for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Federal government science has been distorted, manipulated and
suppressed on everything from childhood lead poisoning to toxic
mercury emissions, with serious consequences for our health, safety
and environment. And through executive order, the Bush
administration has attempted to centralize decision-making power in
the White House, in the process preventing independent science from
informing policy. This cannot be allowed to continue. Congress must
act to restore scientific integrity and checks and balances to the
federal policy-making process.

If recent activity in the House and Senate is any indication,
Congress intends to hold the administration accountable for its
abuse of the scientific process. Congress held two hearings in as
many weeks—one in the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee and another in the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee—to investigate allegations that federal
scientists face political barriers in communicating their work
outside their agencies.

The hearings focused on climate change, “Exhibit A” in the
administration’s abuse of science. A recent investigation  by the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government
Accountability Project (GAP) exposed new evidence of widespread
political interference across federal science agencies.

The joint investigative report by UCS and GAP, which includes a
survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies
and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for
climate change research but broad interference in communicating
scientific results. As part of the report, UCS sent a questionnaire
to 1,600 federal climate scientists, and 150 scientists reported
personally experiencing at least 435 occurrences of political
interference in their work over the past five years.

Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally
experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,”
“global warming” or other similar terms from a variety of
communications. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had
perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review
of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings.
And nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new
or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related
work.

The 40 expert interviews included in the report revealed restrictive
media policies that impaired timely release of information to help
policy makers and the public understand global warming science.
Scientists reported unnecessary delays and misrepresentation of
press releases on new research, requirements for pre-approval for
press interviews and agency public affairs officials listening in on
interviews between journalists and scientists.

These political barriers to communicating science are not unique to
global warming research. The problem has surfaced in many federal
science agencies whose staff work on topics ranging from airborne
bacteria to endangered species. Of the more than 1,800 federal
scientists across nine agencies who have responded to questionnaires
about this issue, 699 scientists (39 percent) report that they fear
retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency’s
mission-driven work. This number should be zero.

UCS has documented scores of specific examples of abuse in its “A to
Z Guide to Political Interference in Science ." These take many
forms—from censorship and suppression of federal science, to
dissemination of inaccurate science-based information to the
manipulation of scientific advice. More than 11,500 scientists,
including 52 Nobel laureates and science advisors to both Republican
and Democratic presidents dating back 50 years, have signed a
statement condemning this interference and calling for a restoration
of scientific integrity to federal policy making.

But while Congress has begun to wake up to this problem, the
administration is attempting a power grab of a different sort,
pulling the rug out from under federal agencies. In amendments to a
new executive order released in January, the Bush
administration quietly transferred power from federal agencies to
the White House when it comes to new regulations and guidance
documents promulgated by federal agencies.

This new rule places political appointees deeper inside federal
scientific agencies where they could more easily prevent
inconvenient science from ever seeing the light of day. Rather than
upholding the work of federal scientists and shielding it from
political interference, this rule creates an added layer of
political sign-off in agency work.

All branches of government must have access to independent,
scientific advice. The thousands of scientists employed by the
federal government represent a tremendous resource. Without access
to the best available science on climate change and other issues,
the public’s understanding will suffer, and our leaders will be
unable to make fully informed decisions about our health, safety and
environment.

Congress and federal agency leaders should implement reforms that
will prevent the continued interference with science for political
purposes. Congress must act to protect scientists who speak out when
they see interference or suppression of science and all agency
policies must affirmatively educate their employees of their rights
under these statutes. And federal agencies should immediately enact
communications policies that protect the rights of taxpayer-funded
scientists to communicate freely about their results with the media
and the public without prior approval from the executive branch.

 © 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's
Future 

*****************************************************************
 17 Not in our name: campaign launched against Trident - British nuclear missile program
 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:01:04 -0600 (CST)


Not in our name: campaign launched against Trident

Exclusive: Leading figures from politics, religion, the arts and the military
demand halt to replacement

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2271662.ece

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 15 February 2007

A powerful coalition of 100 scientists, lawyers, church leaders, actors,
writers and MPs is today demanding a halt to the rush by Tony Blair towards a
replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear weapon system.

Stephen Hawking, the astrophysicist, is among the prominent figures fronting
the campaign, which will strengthen growing demands in Parliament for the vote
on the replacement of the nuclear weapons system to be delayed until a full
debate on the options has taken place.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Right Rev Rowan Williams, the author Zadie
Smith, the actress Emma Thompson, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and
the architect Richard Rogers have also signed a statement objecting to a hasty
decision.

They question the wisdom of rushing into the replacement of the Trident system
with a Cold War-style generation of submarine-launched nuclear missiles at a
cost of #65bn over its 30 years of service, while the most serious threat is
now posed by terror groups that cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons.

The presence of Professor Hawking's name in the list will add weight to the
voices raised against the Government's drive for a replacement for Trident. It
is the first time he has publicly attacked the haste with which the cabinet
decision was taken in favour of replacing the nuclear weapon in December. His
previous political intervention came in 2004 when the author of A Brief History
of Time attacked the loss of 100,000 lives in Iraq as a " war crime".

In a statement to The Independent yesterday, Professor Hawking said: " Nuclear
war remains the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. To replace
Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction and increase the
risk. It would also be a complete waste of money because there are no
circumstances in which we would use it independently."

The campaign's statement is intended as a rebuke to ministers who campaigners
argue are misleading the public over the replacement of Trident as they did
during the build-up to the war in Iraq. Four years ago today, more than a
million people marched in London - many carrying banners bearing the slogan
"Not In My Name" - in protest at the imminent conflict in Iraq.

"Parliament is being rushed into an early decision," the campaign statement
says. They add there is "the suspicion that evidence which supports a position
the Prime Minister is already committed to is being used selectively and
uncritically". They compare it to "the notorious weapons of mass destruction"
dossier, which said Iraq's weapons were " ready to use in 45 minutes". The
Cabinet was accused of signing a blank cheque when it rubber-stamped the
decision to replace Trident only hours before a government White Paper
supporting the decision was published.

The coalition will invite comparisons with the Committee of 100 who opposed the
Polaris system in the 1960s. But this is no simple "ban the bomb" campaign,
although it is supported by many who do not want Britain to have any nuclear
weapons. They make clear in their statement released today that they want a
full debate before any decision is reached. They have the support of many MPs
who are not in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, a policy that made the
Labour Party unelectable in the 1980s.

Gordon Brown has made it clear he supports a full-scale replacement for
Trident, but significantly, the list of objectors includes a close ally of the
Chancellor, Nicholas Brown, a former minister. His name could embolden more MPs
to join the campaign for a delay in any decision, which is expected before
Easter.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said Britain should delay a
decision until a review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in
2010. Jon Trickett, the Labour MP and chairman of the Compass group of MPs,
compared the haste over a decision on the Trident replacement with the " dodgy
dossier" before the rush to war on Iraq. "Some may be convinced that Trident
needs to be replaced but this process is totally false," he said. "I hope this
will electrify MPs. We have a significant part of the cultural, political,
religious and military establishment signed up to this statement."

The campaigners insist that the existing system can be continued in service at
least until the end of the decade before a final decision has to be taken. The
White Paper rejected cheaper alternatives such as air-launched cruise missiles
with nuclear warheads and came down firmly in favour of a new generation of
submarine launched nuclear ballistic missiles.

The White Paper said the replacement for Trident would cost #15bn to #20bn, but
senior defence officials confirmed that it could cost #1.5bn a year to run,
raising the cost to #65bn over its 30 years in service.
'Nuclear bombs are not a deterrent'

Professor Stephen Hawking:

"Nuclear war remains the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. To
replace Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction. It would
also be a waste of money because there are no circumstances in which we would
use it independently."

Sir Richard Jolly:

"Britain's military spending is already the second highest in the world. More
spending on nuclear submarines will only make the world more dangerous. We need
to invest in diplomacy, the only solution."

Vivienne Westwood:

"Nuclear bombs are not a deterrent. Are we seriously saying we would be
prepared to inflict nuclear war on the already suffering people of the planet?
Tony Blair doesn't want to go down in history - he wants to go down with
history."

Ken Livingstone:

"The Cold War is long over. The great challenge of the 21st century will be to
prevent catastrophic climate change. Rather than wasting billions on new
weapons of mass destruction, Britain should demonstrate real world leadership
by investing in a radical programme to cut carbon emissions."

Sir Menzies Campbell:

"If Britain is to take full advantage of the review conference on the
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010, it makes sense to take a final decision on
whether to replace Trident after we are aware about the outcome of that
conference. Going into the talks, Britain should signal that it will reduce its
warhead stockpile and operational nuclear capability by 50 per cent."

Helena Kennedy QC:

"Nuclear missiles are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction and, for me,
renewal is a moral question. As international law makes clear, a nuclear strike
cannot make distinctions between combatants and non-combatants - so innocent
civilians face death, irradiation, burns, cancers, destruction of their
environment and fallout on neighbouring states - the whole vista is too
terrible to contemplate."

Jon Trickett MP:

"The Trident debate has been unnecessarily truncated, facts have been
inadequately explained and MPs are justifiably irritated at the Government's
heavy-handed approach. The last thing we need is the Blair era bowing out with
yet another decision forced through the Commons by whips, a large-scale
rebellion and the need to rely on Tory support."

The names behind the anti-nuclear petition

We believe that:

* Britain should not be rushed into a premature decision to replace its Trident
nuclear weapons system;

* More time should be taken for parliamentary and public scrutiny and debate;

* The urgent need is both to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to new
countries, and for all states which possess them to move more rapidly and
substantially towards nuclear disarmament;

* The priority for the Government should be a renewed diplomatic initiative to
seek a breakthrough in disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations, similar
to the lead it has taken in relation to such global challenges as climate
change and poverty.

Diane Abbott MP

Damon Albarn musician

Lord Archer of Sandwell QC

Professor Frank Barnaby nuclear consultant, ORG

Professor Keith Barnham

General Sir Hugh Beach

Anhil Bhanot

Professor Ken Booth

Nick Brown MP

Colin Burgon MP

Professor Roy Butterfield

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Thomas Butler

Julia Buxton

Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell MP

Colin Challen MP chair of All Party Group on Climate Change

Katy Clark MP

Jarvis Cocker musician

Jonathan Coe novelist

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Jon Cruddas MP

Anne Cryer MP

Baroness David

Carol Ann Duffy poet and playwright

George Galloway MP

Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden

Neil Gerrard MP

Dr Ian Gibson MP

John Gittings academic

John Grogan MP

John Harris writer

Nick Harvey MP

Professor Stephen Hawking

Professor Tim Jackson Sustainable Development Commission

Bianca Jagger human rights campaigner

Lord Joffe

George Joffi Centre for International Studies, Cambridge University

Professor Sir Richard Jolly former assistant secretary general of the UN

Rebecca Johnson director of Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Tony Juniper environmental campaigner

John Kampfner editor of New Statesman

Helena Kennedy QC

Professor Tom Kibble

Peter Kilfoyle MP

Glenys Kinnock MEP

Hari Kunzru Novelist

Neal Lawson director of Compass

Ken Livingstone

Elfyn Llywd MP leader of Plaid Cymru

Air Commodore Alistair Mackie

Kate Macintosh RIBA

Safraz Manzoor Broadcaster and Writer

Austin Mitchell MP

Michael Moore MP

Cardinal O'Brien

Stuart Parkinson

Gordon Prentice MP

Adam Price MP

Rt Rev Timothy Radcliffe former master of the Dominican order

General the Lord Ramsbotham

Louise Richards anti-poverty campaigner

Linda Riordan MP

Tony Robinson actor and broadcaster

Lord Rogers of Riverside architect

Joan Ruddock MP

Alex Salmond MP

Will Self writer

Marsha Singh MP

Professor John Sloboda

Zadie Smith novelist

Sir Peter Soulsby MP

Gavin Strang MP

Graham Stringer MP

David Taylor MP

Emma Thompson actress

Baroness Tonge

Jon Trickett MP

Professor David Webb

Phillip Webber

Vivienne Westwood fashion designer

Professor John Whitelegg

Baroness Williams of Crosby

Thom Yorke musician

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Rev Rowan Williams
*****************************************************************
 18 [NYTr] Leading UK Citizens Launch anti-Nuke Weapons Campaign
 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:41 -0500 (EST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Marcus (activ-l)

The Independent - Feb 15, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2271662.ece

Not in our name: campaign launched against Trident

Leading figures from politics, religion, the arts and the military 
demand halt to replacement

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

A powerful coalition of 100 scientists, lawyers, church leaders, actors,
writers and MPs is today demanding a halt to the rush by Tony Blair towards a
replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear weapon system.

Stephen Hawking, the astrophysicist, is among the prominent figures fronting
the campaign, which will strengthen growing demands in Parliament for the vote
on the replacement of the nuclear weapons system to be delayed until a full
debate on the options has taken place.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Right Rev Rowan Williams, the author Zadie
Smith, the actress Emma Thompson, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and
the architect Richard Rogers have also signed a statement objecting to a hasty
decision.

They question the wisdom of rushing into the replacement of the Trident system
with a Cold War-style generation of submarine-launched nuclear missiles at a
cost of #65bn over its 30 years of service, while the most serious threat is
now posed by terror groups that cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons.

The presence of Professor Hawking's name in the list will add weight to the
voices raised against the Government's drive for a replacement for Trident. It
is the first time he has publicly attacked the haste with which the cabinet
decision was taken in favour of replacing the nuclear weapon in December. His
previous political intervention came in 2004 when the author of A Brief History
of Time attacked the loss of 100,000 lives in Iraq as a " war crime".

In a statement to The Independent yesterday, Professor Hawking said: " Nuclear
war remains the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. To replace
Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction and increase the
risk. It would also be a complete waste of money because there are no
circumstances in which we would use it independently."

The campaign's statement is intended as a rebuke to ministers who campaigners
argue are misleading the public over the replacement of Trident as they did
during the build-up to the war in Iraq. Four years ago today, more than a
million people marched in London - many carrying banners bearing the slogan
"Not In My Name" - in protest at the imminent conflict in Iraq.

"Parliament is being rushed into an early decision," the campaign statement
says. They add there is "the suspicion that evidence which supports a position
the Prime Minister is already committed to is being used selectively and
uncritically". They compare it to "the notorious weapons of mass destruction"
dossier, which said Iraq's weapons were " ready to use in 45 minutes". The
Cabinet was accused of signing a blank cheque when it rubber-stamped the
decision to replace Trident only hours before a government White Paper
supporting the decision was published.

The coalition will invite comparisons with the Committee of 100 who opposed the
Polaris system in the 1960s. But this is no simple "ban the bomb" campaign,
although it is supported by many who do not want Britain to have any nuclear
weapons. They make clear in their statement released today that they want a
full debate before any decision is reached. They have the support of many MPs
who are not in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, a policy that made the
Labour Party unelectable in the 1980s.

Gordon Brown has made it clear he supports a full-scale replacement for
Trident, but significantly, the list of objectors includes a close ally of the
Chancellor, Nicholas Brown, a former minister. His name could embolden more MPs
to join the campaign for a delay in any decision, which is expected before
Easter.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said Britain should delay a
decision until a review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in
2010. Jon Trickett, the Labour MP and chairman of the Compass group of MPs,
compared the haste over a decision on the Trident replacement with the " dodgy
dossier" before the rush to war on Iraq. "Some may be convinced that Trident
needs to be replaced but this process is totally false," he said. "I hope this
will electrify MPs. We have a significant part of the cultural, political,
religious and military establishment signed up to this statement."

The campaigners insist that the existing system can be continued in service at
least until the end of the decade before a final decision has to be taken. The
White Paper rejected cheaper alternatives such as air-launched cruise missiles
with nuclear warheads and came down firmly in favour of a new generation of
submarine launched nuclear ballistic missiles.

The White Paper said the replacement for Trident would cost #15bn to #20bn, but
senior defence officials confirmed that it could cost #1.5bn a year to run,
raising the cost to #65bn over its 30 years in service.
'Nuclear bombs are not a deterrent'

Professor Stephen Hawking:

"Nuclear war remains the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. To
replace Trident would make it more difficult to get arms reduction. It would
also be a waste of money because there are no circumstances in which we would
use it independently."

Sir Richard Jolly:

"Britain's military spending is already the second highest in the world. More
spending on nuclear submarines will only make the world more dangerous. We need
to invest in diplomacy, the only solution."

Vivienne Westwood:

"Nuclear bombs are not a deterrent. Are we seriously saying we would be
prepared to inflict nuclear war on the already suffering people of the planet?
Tony Blair doesn't want to go down in history - he wants to go down with
history."

Ken Livingstone:

"The Cold War is long over. The great challenge of the 21st century will be to
prevent catastrophic climate change. Rather than wasting billions on new
weapons of mass destruction, Britain should demonstrate real world leadership
by investing in a radical programme to cut carbon emissions."

Sir Menzies Campbell:

"If Britain is to take full advantage of the review conference on the
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010, it makes sense to take a final decision on
whether to replace Trident after we are aware about the outcome of that
conference. Going into the talks, Britain should signal that it will reduce its
warhead stockpile and operational nuclear capability by 50 per cent."

Helena Kennedy QC:

"Nuclear missiles are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction and, for me,
renewal is a moral question. As international law makes clear, a nuclear strike
cannot make distinctions between combatants and non-combatants - so innocent
civilians face death, irradiation, burns, cancers, destruction of their
environment and fallout on neighbouring states - the whole vista is too
terrible to contemplate."

Jon Trickett MP:

"The Trident debate has been unnecessarily truncated, facts have been
inadequately explained and MPs are justifiably irritated at the Government's
heavy-handed approach. The last thing we need is the Blair era bowing out with
yet another decision forced through the Commons by whips, a large-scale
rebellion and the need to rely on Tory support."

The names behind the anti-nuclear petition

We believe that:

* Britain should not be rushed into a premature decision to replace its Trident
nuclear weapons system;

* More time should be taken for parliamentary and public scrutiny and debate;

* The urgent need is both to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to new
countries, and for all states which possess them to move more rapidly and
substantially towards nuclear disarmament;

* The priority for the Government should be a renewed diplomatic initiative to
seek a breakthrough in disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations, similar
to the lead it has taken in relation to such global challenges as climate
change and poverty.

Diane Abbott MP

Damon Albarn musician

Lord Archer of Sandwell QC

Professor Frank Barnaby nuclear consultant, ORG

Professor Keith Barnham

General Sir Hugh Beach

Anhil Bhanot

Professor Ken Booth

Nick Brown MP

Colin Burgon MP

Professor Roy Butterfield

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Thomas Butler

Julia Buxton

Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell MP

Colin Challen MP chair of All Party Group on Climate Change

Katy Clark MP

Jarvis Cocker musician

Jonathan Coe novelist

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Jon Cruddas MP

Anne Cryer MP

Baroness David

Carol Ann Duffy poet and playwright

George Galloway MP

Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden

Neil Gerrard MP

Dr Ian Gibson MP

John Gittings academic

John Grogan MP

John Harris writer

Nick Harvey MP

Professor Stephen Hawking

Professor Tim Jackson Sustainable Development Commission

Bianca Jagger human rights campaigner

Lord Joffe

George Joffi Centre for International Studies, Cambridge University

Professor Sir Richard Jolly former assistant secretary general of the UN

Rebecca Johnson director of Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Tony Juniper environmental campaigner

John Kampfner editor of New Statesman

Helena Kennedy QC

Professor Tom Kibble

Peter Kilfoyle MP

Glenys Kinnock MEP

Hari Kunzru Novelist

Neal Lawson director of Compass

Ken Livingstone

Elfyn Llywd MP leader of Plaid Cymru

Air Commodore Alistair Mackie

Kate Macintosh RIBA

Safraz Manzoor Broadcaster and Writer

Austin Mitchell MP

Michael Moore MP

Cardinal O'Brien

Stuart Parkinson

Gordon Prentice MP

Adam Price MP

Rt Rev Timothy Radcliffe former master of the Dominican order

General the Lord Ramsbotham

Louise Richards anti-poverty campaigner

Linda Riordan MP

Tony Robinson actor and broadcaster

Lord Rogers of Riverside architect

Joan Ruddock MP

Alex Salmond MP

Will Self writer

Marsha Singh MP

Professor John Sloboda

Zadie Smith novelist

Sir Peter Soulsby MP

Gavin Strang MP

Graham Stringer MP

David Taylor MP

Emma Thompson actress

Baroness Tonge

Jon Trickett MP

Professor David Webb

Phillip Webber

Vivienne Westwood fashion designer

Professor John Whitelegg

Baroness Williams of Crosby

Thom Yorke musician

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Rev Rowan Williams
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Russia May Exit 1987 Arms Treaty 

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 12:46 PM

  MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian general said Thursday that Moscow 
may unilaterally opt out of a Soviet-era arms reduction treaty 
with the United States, Russian news agencies reported.

  Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian military's 
General Staff, was quoted by ITAR-Tass and Interfax as saying 
that Russia could pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty, negotiated between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev 
and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

 He said the decision would depend on the United States' actions 
with its proposed missile defense system, parts of which 
Washington is seeking to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic.

 The treaty eliminated an entire class of medium-range missiles 
that had been based in Europe.

  Baluyevsky's comments come after President Vladimir Putin said 
on Saturday that the INF treaty no longer serves Russia's 
interests.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 RIA Novosti: Missile defense and its consequences

Opinion & analysis - 

15:59 | 15/ 02/ 2007
 
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - The
first, ground-based stage of the U.S. missile defense program has
successfully been completed.

There is not much time left before the start of a battle royal for
the right to place missile defense components, i.e. weapons, in
space.

Fortunately, the success of the proponents of orbital duels is not
pre-determined. "We have repeatedly come up with initiatives aimed
at preventing the use of weapons in space," said Russian President
Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in
mid-February. "Today I would like to tell you that we have drafted
an agreement on the prevention of weapons deployment in space. Very
soon it will be made into an official proposal. Let us work on it
together." Of course, there is little hope that the Russian
initiative will have a serious influence on the missile defense
program. Nevertheless, a barrier must be placed across weapons' path
to space.

In discussing the danger of anti-missile efforts in their present
form, let us start with purely military problems. Does the U.S.
system pose a threat to Russia? The answer is unequivocal: it does
not.

At present, the U.S. has two deployment areas for extraterrestrial
kinetic interceptors: 14 silo-based anti-missile units in Alaska and
another two in California. Soon another 10 may be deployed in
Poland, with support infrastructure in the form of a ground-based
radar in the Czech Republic.

A prominent Russian military expert and former head of the Defense
Ministry's Space Research Institute, Major General Vladimir Dvorkin,
says, "the creation of one missile defense deployment area in the
Czech Republic, Poland and other eastern European countries and the
deployment of a dozen of anti-missile units in each does not pose
any threat to the Russian strategic containment potential. It would
take hundreds of deployment areas and thousands of anti-missile
units to damage this potential."

Moreover, despite the impressive characteristics of the U.S.
Ground-Based Interceptor - an intercepting height of up to 1,500 km
and a directed-fire range of up to 4,000 km, it cannot guarantee the
destruction of warheads in the middle of the launch trajectory from
Russian deployment sites, which is very inconvenient for the
Americans. At the same time, to destroy them at the most convenient
point, the beginning of the trajectory, the interceptor must be
located within 500 km of the target, which is also impossible
geographically.

However, the first two stages of the interceptor are flesh of the
flesh of the second and third stages of the Minuteman II ICBM. So it
will not take much imagination to deploy Minuteman III's, which have
about the same length and maximum diameter as the Minuteman II,
instead of the announced conventional antimissiles.

Yet there is a greater danger. Russian leaders have repeatedly said
that they will give an "asymmetrical," cheaper, but "extremely
effective" answer to the U.S. antimissile defense system. This
answer was quite clear. In mid-2006, Chief of the Russian General
Staff Yuri Baluyevsky said, "We have practically found adequate and
asymmetrical methods that allow us to say: the existing and
prospective ABM will be successfully penetrated by our
intercontinental ballistic missiles and their warheads."

This launches a boundless program for the improvement of offensive
nuclear weapons. The response will be the appearance of the
prospective ABM, this time partially space-deployed.

The result will be a new battlefield with its own "front line" and
"fortifications." Given that over 180 countries are involved in
space activities and at least 40 of them use information from orbit
for some or other defense purposes, it is hard to find an
alternative to Putin's Munich proposal and to argue with Vladimir
Dvorkin, who said, "The proposed ban on weapons deployment in space
should be viewed as an invitation to develop and adopt a countries'
code of behavior in space. It could ban all actions aimed at
destroying space systems, including weapons deployment."

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and
may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board

*****************************************************************
 21 UPI: Ruling throws wrench in U.K. nuclear plans

United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 15, 2007 at 9:50 AM

LONDON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Britain's nuclear power policy is up in the
air after London court victory by the environmental group Greenpeace.

A judge on London's High Court ruled that England's consultation
process while reviewing energy policy in 2006 was "very seriously
flawed" and "procedurally unfair," the Financial Times reported
Thursday.

The newspaper said that the government had been expected to release
a white paper in March approving a new generation of nuclear power
plants. Last July, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling
told Parliament that more nuclear power had to be part of Britain's
energy mix.

The court's ruling said that information on two issues, economics on
the new plants and the disposal of nuclear waste, had been
inadequate during the consultation period.

The Financial Times said the judge's decision, which was given
orally because of urgency, is subject to appeal.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 UPI: Analysis: The roar of the bear

United Press International - 

2/14/2007 7:01:00 PM -0500

By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- President Vladimir Putin's tough talk
about U.S. foreign policy at the annual Munich Conference on
Security Policy this weekend should not be shrugged off as mere
diplomatic rhetoric: Putin's comments reveal the transformed
strategic scenario facing the United States in the coming decades.

Putin's comments in Munich were no one-off phenomenon. On Wednesday,
he renewed them during a visit to Jordan. Speaking in Amman the
Russian president accused the Bush administration of trying to
increase tensions with Moscow in order "to solve its domestic
problems and secure more substantial defense spending."

"I have an impression that some partners are promoting themselves
and have started using the non-existent Russian threat to get more
money from the U.S. Congress for military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the expensive missile defense project," Putin said
according to an RIA Novosti report

Some countries "speak about (the) U.S. administration rudely and
confrontationally and insult it. We believe it is unacceptable.
Others speak about it in undertones," Putin said. "It is better to
speak directly and openly."

For the past five and a half years since the terror attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, U.S. national security policies have been focused on the
Middle East and the international war on terror. Unprecedented
financial resources have been poured into funding these initiatives.
Major wars are still being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of
that grand strategy, and a confrontation with Iran is looming.

Through most of that time, Russia was a significant ally to the
United States, especially in the rapid campaign to topple the
Taliban in Afghanistan and to drive al-Qaida out of its safe haven
there in late 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks. But Putin's comments,
following a range of major issues where U.S. and Russian strategic
interests have been clashing head-on, signal that a new and very
different era is about to confront U.S. military and dipomatic
policymakers.

As Russian military analyst Alexander Bogatyroyov wrote in an
analysis for RIA Novosti, republished today by United Press
International, Putin has authorized a massive expenditure program to
modernize and upgrade the Russian armed forces, especially the Army
and Navy.

U.S. policies on pushing to deploy ballistic missile defense radars
and even missile systems in entral Europe have alarmed and angered
the Kremlin. The U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple long-time dictator
Saddam Hussein was seen as a bold and destabilizing upset of the
long-standing balance-of-forces in the Middle East. Russian
officials have long felt uneasy at what they see as the aggressive
U.S. promotion of anti-Russian democratic movements in former Soviet
republics in Europe and Central Asia, from Georgia to Kyrgyzstan.

There has been a widespread assumption in Washington for many years
that there was nothing Russia could do to block or retaliate against
such U.S. policies. But that is no longer the case. Soaring global
energy prices have given Moscow a fiscal bonanza and the resources
to upgrade their conventional armed forces on a scale not seen in
nearly 30 years.

Putin's tough talk is backed by that fiscal power and reviving
military muscle.

Russia has also just finished supplying its most advanced
anti-aircraft missile defense system, the Tor-M1, to Iran. The
Tor-M1 is supposed to be effective up to 30,000 feet but it has not
yet been subjected to the test of preemptive knock out strikes and
evasive measures by the U.S. Air Force. Russia has also supplied a
variety of anti-ship weapons to the Iranian navy. which is also
equipped with the Sunburn, the Chinese version of the Russian
N-SS-22 Moskvit, the Mach 2 low-level anti-ship weapon that was
expressly designed to "kill" large warships, including U.S. aircraft
carriers. If the United States and Iran clash in a full-scale
conflict, Iran will be armed with these formidable Russian-designed
or made tactical weapons, and both Russian and U.S. military
analysts will be able to study how effective the Russian weapons are
against long-dominant U.S. aircraft and warships.

Even the huge resources deployed in the war against terror would
shrink into insignificance compared with the size of the commitment
that the United States would have to make to guard against a renewal
of strategic global rivalry and tensions with Russia. Russian
officials have expressed their unease with a wide range of U.S.
policies for many years without seeing their concerns being acted
upon to any significant degree. The only way U.S. policymakers can
hope to head off such a formidable global challenge is by making
significant concessions, or negotiating new compromises with Moscow
in key areas where they have never bothered to do so before.

There is as yet no sign of any such realpolitik being considered in
the corridors of power in Washington.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 UPI: Russia may scrap INF treaty: top general

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

2/15/2007 12:46:00 PM -0500

MOSCOW, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Russia's top soldier warned Thursday his
country could pull out of the 19-year-old Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty.

Such an action could leave Western Europe exposed for the first time
in a generation to the threat of intermediate-range Russian
ballistic missiles.

"It is possible for a party to abandon the treaty (unilaterally) if
it provides convincing evidence that it is necessary to do so," said
four star Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, the Chief of Russia's General
Staff. "We have such evidence at present," he said Thursday
according to a report from the RIA Novosti news agency.

"Unfortunately, by adhering to the INF treaty, Russia lost many
unique missile systems," Baluyevsky said. His forthright threat
followed comments last week by his boss Russian Defense Minsiter
Sergei Ivanov wondering whether last Soviet President Mikhail
Giorbachev had made a mistake by agreeing to sign the INF.

"Baluyvsky's remarks could be interpreted as a strong warning to the
United States regarding its plans to deploy elements of its
anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and as
a follow up to recent statements made by Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov," RIA Novosti said.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference on Feb. 10, Putin
warned that if the Bush administration pushed ahead with its
determination to deploy anti-ballistic missile defenses in Central
Europe, it could set off a new arms race.

RIA Novosti noted that the INF treaty, signed in Washington on Dec.
8, 1987, had led to the destruction of U.S. and Soviet nuclear and
conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with
ranges of 300 miles to 3,400 miles. "By the treaty's deadline of
June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 such weapons had been destroyed, 846
by the United States and 1,846 by the Soviet Union," the report said.

The INF Treaty came into effect in June 1988 and has no time limit
or end point.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 British Government Nuclear Plans declared unlawful by High Court
 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:51:19 -0600 (CST)


Government's Nuclear Plans declared unlawful by High Court
 
For immediate release: 15 February 2007
 
THE GOVERNMENT'S decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations
was today declared to be unlawful in the High Court.
 
The Government will have to conduct a new, fuller review if they want to
justify the future of nuclear power in the UK.
 
In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Sullivan agreed
with Greenpeace, who brought the case, that the energy review was not
the 'fullest public consultation' the Government had committed itself to
before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The
commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.
 
Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously
flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair"
because insufficient information had been made available by the
Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".
 
The court had heard last week that the Government failed to present
clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new
generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive
waste and financial costs. Greenpeace and other groups were also denied
the opportunity to comment on relevant documents which the Government
failed to disclose.
 
Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The
Government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a
sham, and we're pleased that the Judge has agreed with us.
 
"The Government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept
relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to the
drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.
 
"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to
climate change as it only represents 3.6% of our total energy. It's
entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective, safer and
cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs and cut climate
change emissions. 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut C02
emissions by 4%. As well as being too little, it will also be too late.
Climate wrecking emissions need to be cut now, not in 20 years."
 
ENDS
 
For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865
8255 
 
Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change:
 
*	10 new nuclear power stations would only cut the UK's c02
emissions by 4%. This would be wiped out by the predicted rise in
aircraft emissions alone. 
 
*	New nuclear power is not a relevant or timely response to the
immediate need to reduce C02 emissions. Any nuclear new build programme
would not see the first reactor come online until around 2018 at the
earliest, with the main delivery of the programme not arriving until
around 2025-2030. C02 emissions need to be cut years before. 
 
*	Nuclear power's effect on C02 emissions is very small. Although
nuclear power currently provides about 20% of our electricity (reactor
problems regularly reduce this), it only provides 3.6% of the UK's total
energy. 
 
*	Nuclear power stations only marginally address hot water and
central heating needs, and don't meet needs for transport at all. 
 
*	There is no safe solution to nuclear waste. 
 
*	There is a much cheaper, better way to meet our energy needs and
cut C02 emissions. A decentralised energy system will slash C02 and cost
far less than a new generation of nuclear power stations, making maximum
use of combined heat and power and renewable energy. 
*****************************************************************
 25 [NukeNet] New Nuke Planning in Ontario
 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:48:21 -0800


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


http://www.simcoereformer.ca/News/287785.html

Nuclear plant public meetings planned
Haldimand endorses $2-billion proposal for Nanticoke nuclear plant

Monte Sonnenberg SIMCOE REFORMER
Thursday February 15, 2007

Norfolk and Haldimand are preparing for the possibility of a nuclear
generating station coming to the Nanticoke Industrial Park.

Yesterday, Norfolk Mayor Dennis Travale said plans are underway to
host public information meetings across the county for people wanting
to learn more.

During his speech to the Simcoe and District Chamber of Commerce,
Travale suggested these forums will be staged over two weeks in mid-March.

Panels would be brought together featuring representatives of the
Bruce nuclear generating station on Lake Huron, nuclear critics from
Greenpeace and politicians from Grey-Bruce who will speak about the
Bruce plant's impact on their community.

"You'll have your technical questions answered as well as your social
questions," Travale said.

A similar dialogue was expected in Haldimand. However, in a surprise
move Monday night, Haldimand council passed a resolution saying the
county is interested in hosting a nuclear plant.

Hagersville Coun. Tony Dalimonte tabled the motion without warning.
It passed 5-2. Mayor Marie Trainer and Dunnville Coun. Lorne Boyko
voted against. The pair felt the vote was premature because the
public has not had an opportunity to comment.

"We said the public should be educated first," Trainer said
yesterday. "They have a lot of questions. Once they have their
answers, then ask the public if they want this plant. I feel council
was making a decision without consulting the people."

During a recent meeting to discuss the proposed closure of the
Nanticoke Generating Station, Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan
asked Trainer what she thought of the industrial park playing host to
a nuclear plant. Haldimand council hopes to present Duncan with a
copy of Monday's resolution during the annual joint meeting of the
Rural Ontario Municipal Association and the Ontario Good Roads
Association in Toronto at the end of the month.

The possibility of a nuclear facility in Nanticoke was the subject of
a private meeting in Simcoe Saturday at the constituency office of MP
Diane Finley.

Attending was Duncan Hawethorne, chair of the Canadian Nuclear
Association, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and president
and CEO of Bruce Power, Finley, Trainer, Travale and local MPP Toby Barrett.

Travale has asked Norfolk council to delay a debate and resolution of
its own until residents have an opportunity to think about a plant
and have their questions answered.

Travale said the construction of a nuclear plant in Nanticoke would
coincide with the closure of four of six boiler units at the giant
coal-fired station. A reactor would take about eight years to build
and cost nearly $2 billion. The plant would create 1,200 full-time
jobs. This is double the number of people working at Nanticoke.

Due to air-quality issues, the McGuinty government wants to close all
coal-fired generating stations in Ontario by 2014. The Nanticoke
Industrial Park is a prime candidate for a reactor because it is
remote from populated areas, is located beside a large body of water
and has a massive transmission corridor extending north from the
station into the provincial heartland.

Monte Sonnenberg
519-426-5710 ext. 150
msonnenberg@bowesnet.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Greenpeace wins N-power ruling 

Press Association
Thursday February 15, 2007 11:18 AM

The Government is facing the prospect of having to reconsider its
decision to back the building of new nuclear power stations
following a legal victory won by environmental campaign group
Greenpeace in the High Court.

A judge ruled that the Government's consultation process before
making the decision last year was "seriously flawed" and
"procedurally unfair". He granted Greenpeace an order quashing the
decision as "unlawful".

The judgment, subject to any appeal, is expected to result in a
fresh public consultation.

Greenpeace accused the Government of reneging on its promise to
carry out "the fullest consultation" before making a decision on
nuclear new build.

It complained that the Government failed to present clear proposals
and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of
nuclear power stations, such as disposal of radioactive waste and
the financial costs of new build.

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, contesting the
judicial review, argued that the energy review was only part of an
ongoing process which would ensure full consultation.

But Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and
radically wrong" with the consultation exercise.

The consultation document gave every appearance of being simply an
"issues paper". It contained no actual proposals and, even if it
had, the information given to consultees was "wholly insufficient
for them to make an intelligent response".

Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Duncan said: "This is an
astonishing ruling. What it really says is that the Government has
been shown up as fundamentally deceitful.

"Behind their headlines saying they would consult widely on this
important decision, they had no intention of doing so. In a
typically deceitful way they said one thing and did another. Now
they have been shown up in court for having done so."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power policy 'unlawful' 

Press Association

Thursday February 15, 2007 5:13 PM

The Government's decision to opt for a new generation of nuclear
power stations was declared unlawful by a High Court judge because
of a "seriously flawed" public consultation process.

Greenpeace won a hard-hitting ruling from Mr Justice Sullivan that
the consultation exercise which preceded the decision made last July
was "procedurally unfair" and in some respects "not merely
inadequate but also misleading".

The Government was later accused of being "fundamentally deceitful"
after the judge said the consultation document contained no actual
proposals on how to deal with two key issues and, even if it had,
the information given to Greenpeace and other consultees was "wholly
insufficient for them to make an intelligent response".

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling was given permission
to appeal, although he said later that "it might be better just to
consult again on the nuclear issue".

He denied the original consultation was seriously flawed, but told
BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "The thing that concerns me more
than anything else is that we are in a race against time here.
Climate change is a major problem for us, we cannot become overly
dependent on oil and gas for generating our energy.

"That is why the Government believed that nuclear ought to play a
part in that energy mix. Clearly the best thing to do now is to
accept the judge's verdict, to learn from what went wrong, to put it
right and consult properly, to make sure we can get the process back
on track."

Greenpeace accused the Government of reneging on its promise to
carry out "the fullest consultation" before making a decision on
nuclear new build.

The judge upheld its complaint that the Government failed to present
clear proposals and information on two crucial issues surrounding a
new generation of nuclear power stations - disposal of radioactive
waste and the financial costs of new build.

Greenpeace said after its court victory that the Government would
have to conduct a new, fuller review if it wanted to justify the
future of nuclear power in the UK.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The
Government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a
sham, and we're pleased that the judge has agreed with us."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: Pretending to listen

Nuclear power

Pretending to listen

Friday February 16, 2007

The Guardian

Promises to consult slip easily from the lips of politicians who 
have already made up their minds. The pursuit of debate and 
consensus can disguise a deeper insistence that only one course 
of action is right, and what is called consultation is then 
nothing more than a delayed exercise in justification. That is as 
true of the present pretence of a debate about the replacement of 
Trident, after the decision to go ahead was made, as it is of 
yesterday's court ruling on nuclear power. A prime minister who 
parades his decisiveness, taking unpopular decisions because he 
thinks they are right, has been caught out offering a sham 
consultation on an issue where his mind was obviously made up.

Mr Justice Sullivan did not hide his dismay yesterday at this abuse
of process, declaring that "something has gone clearly and radically
wrong". A government which in 2003 offered the "fullest possible
public consultation" before any decision to build more nuclear power
stations either did not mean what it said, or broke its promise.
There was no consultation. When it put the issue out for
consideration, as it had to, the prime minister had already declared
that nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance": he was
not about to retreat in the face of new evidence or different views.
All that was allowed, as the judge pointed out yesterday, was a
limited charade. No supporting evidence was offered on the economics
of nuclear power. On waste, such information as was put forward was
"not merely inadequate but also misleading". The result was that
interested groups were being asked to give their views on the back
of evidence that was "wholly insufficient for them to make an
intelligent choice".

As so often with this government, slapdash behaviour is now being
justified by the good intentions that lay behind it. Alistair
Darling excused himself yesterday by saying that climate change was
"a race against time" - as if the flawed process was proof of honest
urgency, not a con trick. But offering shallow evidence to support
fixed opinions is a route to bad decision making. The Iraq war
stands as a warning. The case for nuclear power is better than that,
but the government has not made it properly. The economics are
uncertain (which is why the Treasury opposed it in 2003) and the
question of waste is unanswered. Together, these factors may be
enough to stop any construction, however keen politicians are to
push ahead. By making a definite decision on such uncertain grounds,
ministers have doubly misled the public: into thinking it is being
asked for its opinion, when it is not, and into thinking that the
facts are solid, when they are not.

The intrusion of the courts into such areas of government is an
awkward business, but if ministers resent it, then they have only
their own behaviour to blame. Judicial review can consider process
but not policy, and though yesterday's ruling will disrupt the
process it is unlikely to reverse the policy. There could be an
appeal, but yesterday's extemporary ruling was so strong that it is
unlikely that one will succeed. The energy white paper is still
promised for next month, but a new round of consultation should come
first. Anything else will reek of legacy-chasing by a prime minister
running out of time.

The new debate will be better informed. But the decision is unlikely
to change. Nor should it, necessarily. In the end, no amount of
consultation can hide the fact that nuclear power involves a choice
that will leave one side unhappy. This is true of other areas where
the government claims to consult too: road pricing, hospital
closures or the House of Lords. There is more arrogance about
pretending to listen than there is in announcing a decision and
defending it. If the government is certain that it wants more
nuclear stations, it should say so; if it wants to hear opinions
first, it should do so. Trying to have things both ways is a feeble
way to behave.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: Now the fallout from high court nuclear reaction

John Vidal and Terry Macalister

Friday February 16, 2007
The Guardian

Though yesterday's decision seemed to take ministers, Greenpeace 
- and the media - by surprise, the path to the high court ruling 
was littered with clues.

For months, if not years, the government had been warned 
consistently by its own advisers, Labour backbenchers and 
scientists that the 2006 energy review looked like a charade, and 
that it had been set up solely to pave the way for a new 
generation of nuclear power stations, rather than to allow proper 
consultation.

The 2003 energy white paper had promised that any decision to
introduce nuclear power would be preceded by "the fullest public
consultation", particularly over the issues of economics and nuclear
waste. But for many consultees it seemed that a decision had already
been taken.

Greenpeace argued in the high court that Mr Blair and a succession
of ministers and advisers, including chief scientist Sir David King,
made it clear for months before the consultation opened that nuclear
power was essential.

A Chequers meeting reportedly gave nuclear power the unofficial
green light, a speech from Mr Blair to the CBI made it clear that it
was favoured, and the Department of Trade and Industry gave heavy
hints that it would be subsidised. Although energy minister Malcolm
Wicks said that the review would not be biased, few people believed
that a decision had not already been made.

Colin Challen, chair of the all-party Commons climate change group,
warned at the time that there was "a predisposition within the
government to accept new nuclear " and that any review would only
have one outcome. Stephen Hale, former special adviser to the then
environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said at the time: "The
truth is that the review was undertaken primarily to act as a
springboard to initiate the government's nuclear position." A group
of British scientists said in a letter to the journal Nature: "There
is a widespread perception that the government has made its mind up."

There was increasing disquiet once the consultation process opened.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, head of the government's sustainable
development commission and environment adviser to Mr Blair, said:
"If the door has closed on objections to new nuclear build, the
government should say so. Then we can have an honest debate, and not
one which is merely about mollifying public opinion." Individuals
and groups were forced to use the Freedom of Information Act to
extract material from the government about its real intentions.

"When it arrived, months after the end of the consultation period ,
the economics paper was entirely blacked out. The government put
nothing in the public domain that could be challenged. They did not
allow any debate about future waste, only the legacy of the last
years," said John Sauven, campaigns director of Greenpeace.

Mr Justice Sullivan yesterday said the consultation had been
"misleading" and "seriously flawed". "As a consultation it was
manifestly inadequate. There was insufficient information for
consultees to give an intelligent response. There was no information
on the issues, particularly economics and waste. [Here] all the
information of any substance only emerged after the consultation had
concluded".

He also said that the government had departed from its promises.
"There was no consultation, let alone the fullest consultation.
Therefore it was procedurally unfair."This was not an energy review.
It was a sham exercise that ignored issues like terrorism, and
proliferation and limited itself to a small amount of electricity
provision," said Mr Sauven.

Ministers were not the only ones upset by the judge's ruling. The
nuclear industry and employers' groups were furious too. It was,
they argued, against the national interest for there to be further
delays on nuclear new building plans.

The Nuclear Industry Association said the public dialogue had
already been very thorough and new nuclear plants were needed as
soon as possible to help keep the lights on and as a low carbon
generator to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"What this ruling may do, however, is to delay action to deal with
these problems which with a generating gap approaching in the next
decade, cannot be good for the national interest," said Nuclear
Industry Association chief executive Keith Parker.

The CBI said energy security was one of the most vital issues facing
the country so proper consultation was vital - but so too was early
action. "One third of our electricity generation needs to be
replaced by 2020, so anything that delays the government in
providing a clear framework for potential investors risks causing
energy shortages that could cost the economy dear," argued the CBI
director general, Richard Lambert.

The DTI said it recognised the court case left it with a requirement
for further consultation but insisted it could keep its basic energy
plans on course. "We continue to believe nuclear power has a role to
play in cutting emissions and helping to give this country the
energy security it needs. This is why we will press on with
publication of the energy white paper and why we are confident in
the strength of our arguments to engage in further consultation,"
said a DTI spokesman.

Useful link
Government's report on the energy review

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian Unlimited: The judgment: 'The document contained no information of substance'

Friday February 16, 2007

The Guardian

Mr Justice Sullivan quashed the government's decision to build a new
generation of nuclear power stations as "unlawful" in a damning
judgment which gives little scope for an appeal.

The courts cannot interfere with government policy and there is
nothing to stop ministers reaching the same conclusion again, but
the judge ruled that the consultation exercise last year was
"seriously flawed" and the process "manifestly inadequate and
unfair". He said something had gone "clearly and radically wrong"
with the report the government produced.

"The 2006 consultation document contained no information of any
substance on any of the issues identified as being of crucial
importance," he said. It gave every appearance of being simply an
"issues paper". It contained no actual proposals and, even if it
had, the information given to consultees was "wholly insufficient
for them to make an intelligent response".

The judge said the document lacked information of any substance on
the two crucially important issues - the financial cost of new build
and the disposal of radioactive waste. The information given on
waste was "not merely inadequate but also misleading. There could be
no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation, if the
substance of these two issues was not consulted on before a decision
was made," he said.

The judge granted the government leave to appeal against his
decision, not on the basis that an appeal had any real prospect of
success, but because the case involved issues of importance to the
public and the government.

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Government loses nuclear power case 

Deborah Summers and agencies

Thursday February 15, 2007

Guardian Unlimited

Sellafield nuclear processing plant. Photograph: Christopher
Furlong/Getty

The government today signalled its determination to press ahead with
plans for new nuclear power stations, despite losing a high court
battle with Greenpeace.

The trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, said he would
"take on board" today's court ruling, which found that the review
process used to decide whether to support the construction of new
plants was "very seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".

Mr Darling said: "I will ensure we now do a proper consultation ...
It is important that we do reach a view on what the future should
be."

A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman said the judgment was
about the process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear
power.

The department said a decision needed to be taken by the end of the
year on whether to build nuclear power stations.

"We continue to believe nuclear power has a role to play in cutting
emissions and helping to give this country the energy security it
needs," the department said in a statement.

"This is why we will press on with publication of the energy white
paper and why we are confident in the strength of our arguments to
engage in further consultation."

At the high court earlier today, Mr Justice Sullivan granted the
environmental group Greenpeace an order quashing the government's
decision to build new nuclear power stations.

Greenpeace had accused the government of reneging on its promise to
carry out "the fullest consultation" before making its decision.

It said the government failed to present clear proposals and
information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear
plants, such as the disposal of radioactive waste and the financial
costs of building new plants.

Mr Justice Sullivan said the consultation document gave every
appearance of being simply an "issues paper".

It contained no actual proposals and, even if it had, the
information given to consultees was "wholly insufficient for them to
make an intelligent response".

The information given on waste was "not merely inadequate but also
misleading".

Sarah North, the head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The
government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a
sham, and we're pleased that the judge has agreed with us ...
They've now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a
proper and lengthy review."

Peter Luff, the chairman of the Commons trade and industry select
committee, described Greenpeace's success as a "a hollow victory".

The Conservative MP said the government had been rushing the
consultation to make up for lost time, but he insisted nuclear power
was still necessary to secure future energy supplies.

 Useful links
Greenpeace
Department of Trade and Industry
British Energy
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
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
*****************************************************************
 32 FR: NRC: Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Doc 07-736

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)] 
[Notices] [Page 7482] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15fe07-109]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Sunshine Federal Register Notice


Date: Weeks of February 19, 26, 2007.

Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

Status: Public and Closed.

Additional Matters To Be Considered: 

Week of February 19, 2007

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1)

Week of February 26, 2007--Tentative

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) (Tentative)
* * * * *
    *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-
1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-
1662.
* * * * *
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.ons/ (ACRS & [fxsp0]nrc.[fxsp0]gov/what-we-do/policy-making/

schedule.[fxsp0]html.
* * * * *
    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability 
Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, 
or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting 
notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in 
receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send 
an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.

    Dated: February 12, 2007.
Michelle Schroll,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-736 Filed 2-13-07; 12:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 33 Star-Telegram: Official touts atomic energy

02/15/2007 | 

By DAN PILLER

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

HOUSTON - Nuclear power is the ultimate answer to America's future
power-generation needs, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said
Wednesday to an international forum of energy-industry executives.

"The only way to meet our future needs for power will be through
nuclear energy," Bodman said at the annual meeting of Cambridge
Energy Research Associates. "We are trying to streamline the
licensing process to get some new plants built. The U.S. hasn't
built a new nuclear plant in more than 30 years."

Nuclear power was dealt a crippling blow with the 1979 accident at
the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Since then, the
electric-utility industry has turned to natural gas as its fuel of
choice in the generation of electricity. But a fourfold increase in
the price of natural gas, fed largely by increased demand from 70
new generating plants in Texas and more than 250 other generating
plants throughout the United States, has caused the utility industry
to swing away from natural gas for its future generating plants.

Texas has become a focal point for the new electricity-generating
policy, with TXU Corp.'s proposal to build 11 coal-fired generating
plants in North, East and South Central Texas. TXU and Gov. Rick
Perry, who has ordered state regulators to speed consideration of
TXU's proposal, both argue that the state faces potential
blackout-causing electricity shortages as soon as 2010 if new
capacity isn't brought on line, but environmentalists have formed a
substantial coalition to fight the plants.

In addition to the expected lineup of environmental activists,
opponents include mayors, such as Laura Miller of Dallas and Robert
Cluck of Arlington, as well as the Baptist General Convention of
Texas.

Business groups also have emerged as opponents, and one such group,
the Clean Sky Coalition, has launched a substantial print and Inter-
net campaign against the plants, with some of the money coming from
natural gas producers.

Bodman on Wednesday declined to endorse or criticize TXU's plans for
the new coal-fired plants, but he argued for "clean coal" technology
and said, "I hope state regulatory bodies pay attention so that we
burn coal in the cleanest way possible."

Bodman said he hadn't studied TXU's proposal, which would add more
than 9,000 megawatts to its 18,300 megawatts of generating capacity.
TXU says the conventional, pulverized-coal-burning system proposed
for its plants would reduce carbon emissions because carbon would be
captured rather than released into the atmosphere.

Although TXU has argued that its new technology would actually
reduce emissions at an unspecified future date, opponents say that
TXU and the state would be missing an opportunity to take advantage
of new coal-gasification technology that is widely expected to be
the future of coal-fired generation.

TXU has said that such technology, now in use at just a single
generating plant in Florida, is not ready for the much larger scale
needed in Texas.

At a news conference after his speech, Bodman was asked for his
definition of "clean" coal technology. "I find the term 'clean coal'
a difficult term to use," he said, but added that his definition
includes a variety of technologies, including carbon sequestration
and gasification. He didn't comment specifically on the TXU proposal.

TXU has said that it has long-term plans to add to nuclear
generating capacity; it now has just one, 2,300-megawatt facility at
Glen Rose south of Fort Worth. However, it takes 10 years to get
permits for a plant, so nuclear power can't meet more immediate
needs.

Also on Wednesday, TXU asked the Environmental Defense Fund to pull
a series of television ads attacking the coal-plant proposal,
calling them false and misleading.


Dan Piller, 817-390-7719 danpil@star-telegram.com

| Copyright | About the McClatchy Company
*****************************************************************
 34 FT.com: UK - Minsters seek to hurry nuclear consultation

By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent

Published: February 15 2007 20:41 | Last updated: February 15 2007
20:41

Ministers will try to rush through a new public consultation on
nuclear power in an effort to keep Tony Blairâ€™s energy reforms on
track.

Whitehall insiders believe publication of the energy white paper,
which had been planned for the end of March, could be delayed after
the Greenpeace ruling. But the hope in the Department of Trade and
Industry was that the consultation could take place in parallel with
the work on the white paper, which will also contain proposals to
promote renewable power and energy efficiency.

Thursdayâ€™s ruling caused chaos in the government as Downing Street
and the DTI scrambled to interpret the implications for the energy
reviewâ€™s backing of new nuclear plants, seen by Mr Blair as part
of his legacy for when he leaves office. It is likely to be two
weeks before lawyers are able to scrutinise the written version of
the oral judgment, complicating the decision over what to do with
the review.

Nevertheless, Alistair Darling, trade and industry secretary, struck
a defiant note as he toured broadcasting studios, insisting this was
an argument over process not the principle of nuclear power. The
government would press on with its review. It would be â€œbetterâ€
to consult further rather than contest the judgeâ€™s decision.

His remarks suggest that, whileâ€‰theâ€‰government sought and was
granted leave to appeal, it is likely instead to comply with the
ruling.

There is a strong political incentive to do this. If ministers are
to be believed when they say they want to give the public the
fullest possible say in the decision to build new nuclear capacity,
as a 2003 white paper promised, then a public fight in court would
send the wrong message. It looks certain that the public will
haveâ€‰aâ€‰moreâ€‰informed chance to comment on two contentious
elements of the review the judge felt had been missing from the
original flawed consultation.

In practice, this means the DTI will have to publish a new set of
papers that spell out the economic costs involved with building
nuclear power stations and, perhaps most controversially, the issue
of radioactive waste disposal.

It is well over a year since Mr Blair announced at a Confederation
of British Industry conference, soon after the 2005 general
election, that ministers would consult on energy needs. The
timetable was tight, the period for canvassing public opinion on new
nuclear plants crammed into a few months. It was assumed the review
would support new nuclear power stations, but, and this was the
judgeâ€™s view, little of the detail that was to emerge later had
been published at the time.

The risk now for Mr Blair, who wants to maintain nuclearâ€™s share
of the energy mix post-2020 to keep carbon emissions in check and
reduce dependence on im-ported gas, is that an outcry over the
planned storage and burial deep underground of nuclear waste could
derail his reforms. Ministers plan to offer towns and villages
incentives to host waste dumps, but there is little evidence of any
appetite for this.

The issue for the government appears genuinely to be one of
timetabling and process. The view in Whitehall on Thursday was that
a further consultation, while a setback, need not lead to big delays.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

* Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007. "FT" and "Financial
  Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. Privacy policy
*****************************************************************
 35 BBC NEWS: Nuclear review 'was misleading'

Last Updated: Thursday, 15 February 2007, 18:10 GMT

Ministers say nuclear power will cut carbon emissions


A High Court judge has ordered a rethink of the government's nuclear
power plans, after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners
Greenpeace.

A judge ruled that the consultation process before the decision last
year had been "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally
unfair".

Greenpeace said ministers should "go back to the drawing board".

The government will consult again, but still favoured nuclear power
being "back on the agenda".

"If we don't replace the existing nuclear power stations then,
first, I can not see how we are going to meet our climate change
targets," he said.

"And secondly we will end up as we move as a country from self
sufficiency in gas to importing large amounts of foreign gas.... we
are going to be dependent on very uncertain supplies of energy and
that would be bad for business and bad for the consumer."

The government has stressed that the judge's ruling was on the
"process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear power".

'Updating'

Greenpeace's Emma Gibson told the BBC: "The government's so-called
consultation was a sham and we are very pleased the judge has agreed
with us on that.

"If Tony Blair wants to continue with his misguided plan for a whole
new generation of nuclear power stations, the government will have
to go back to the drawing board."


The government has been shown up as fundamentally deceitful

Alan Duncan, Conservatives

In 2003, the Energy White Paper described nuclear power as an
"unattractive option".

It said before any decision was taken to build more stations, there
would have to be "the fullest possibly public consultation and the
publication of a further white paper setting out our proposals."

The government launched a fresh energy review in January 2006, and
after public consultation in July published a report, The Energy
Challenge, which said "new nuclear power stations would make a
significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals".

In court, Greenpeace said the consultation had not fulfilled the
promise to carry out "the fullest public consultation".

It complained that there had been a failure to present clear
proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of
radioactive waste and building costs.

'Radically wrong'

The government had argued that the energy review was only part of an
ongoing process which would ensure full consultation.

But Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and
radically wrong".

The consultation document had given every appearance of being simply
an "issues paper".

Mr Justice Sullivan

Profile: Mr Justice Sullivan

Labour and nuclear lobby

It had contained no actual proposals and the information given to
consultees had been "wholly insufficient for them to make an
intelligent response".

The judge said information given on waste had been "not merely
inadequate but also misleading".

Fairness required that consultees should be given a proper
opportunity to respond to that substantial amount of new material
before any decision was taken.

'Tough choices'

"There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest
consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted
on before a decision was made," said the judge.

"There was therefore procedural unfairness and a breach of
Greenpeace's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest
consultation before a decision was taken."

A guide to nuclear power

The judge granted what he called a "quashing order".

Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "This is an
astonishing ruling.

"What it really says is that the government has been shown up as
fundamentally deceitful."

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The
judgement really shows you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a
matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate.

"It's a real slap in the face for prime minister's sofa style of
government."

And Green Party principal speaker Sian Berry said: "Today's historic
result shows that the government have got a fight on their hands.

"The Energy Review was clearly just a rubber-stamping exercise for a
decision the prime minister had already taken."

The government says its proposals, including building more nuclear
plants, will cut carbon emissions by 19 to 25 million tonnes by
2020, compared with projections based on current trends.


*****************************************************************
 36 BBC NEWS: Nuclear site operator fined 140k

Last Updated: Thursday, 15 February 2007, 17:42 GMT

Fragments of fuel were allowed to enter Dounreay's effluent pipe

The operator of a nuclear plant in Caithness has been fined £140,000
for illegally dumping waste.

Just hours later a suspected rogue radioactive particle potentially
linked to the incidents at Dounreay was found washed up on a nearby
beach.

The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) pleaded guilty to four
charges under the Radioactive Substances Act at Wick Sheriff Court
earlier this month.

The UKAEA said a "suspect particle" was found by its monitoring team
at Sandside Beach at 1400 GMT on Thursday - less than five hours
after the authority was handed down its fine.

A spokesman said it would be 24 hours before experts complete their
analysis of the fragment, which was registering radioactivity.

It was believed to be the 85th particle to be found at Sandside.

We accept that mistakes were made and regret those mistakes

Dr John Crofts
UKAEA director of safety

Geoffrey Minter, who owns the beach, said the UKAEA had "rightly
been punished" for practices of more than 20 years ago.

Sheriff Andrew Berry had deferred sentence until Thursday after
hearing from the fiscal and UKAEA's solicitor.

UKAEA's court appearance followed a report to the procurator fiscal
by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa).

The company admitted illegally dumping solid nuclear waste in a
landfill site at Dounreay and three charges of allowing fragments of
irradiated nuclear fuel to enter the plant's liquid effluent
discharge pipe into the Pentland Firth.

UKAEA's director of safety, Dr John Crofts, said: "We accept that
mistakes were made and regret those mistakes.

"We too share the view that this is an unacceptable legacy of the
Dounreay experiment."

He added: "Our priority has been and will continue to be to minimise
the risk to people and the environment."

Power stations

Eleanor Scott, Green MSP for Highlands and Islands, said the case
highlighted the dangers of nuclear power.

She added: "There must be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

*****************************************************************
 37 BBC NEWS: Blair defiant over nuclear plans

Last Updated: Thursday, 15 February 2007, 20:34 GMT

Mr Blair says nuclear power is needed to cut carbon emissions

Tony Blair has said he is still firmly behind the construction of
new nuclear power stations, despite losing a High Court battle with
Greenpeace.

The court found the decision to back a new generation of power
stations was unlawful, because of a "seriously flawed" public
consultation process.

Ministers plan to re-consult, but say nuclear power is the best way
to tackle climate change and energy security.



'Bad for business'

He said it was important to have nuclear power "back on the agenda".

"If we don't replace the existing nuclear power stations then,
first, I cannot see how we are going to meet our climate change
targets.

"And secondly we... will move to a situation that without nuclear
power we are going to be dependent on very uncertain supplies of
energy and that would be bad for business and bad for the consumer."

Something has gone clearly and radically wrong

Mr Justice Sullivan


Greenpeace brought the case after accusing the government of
reneging on its promise to carry out "the fullest consultation"
before deciding about whether to build new power stations.

In 2003 the government had described nuclear power as an
"unattractive option".

But by July 2006 its report The Energy Challenge, said "new nuclear
power stations would make a significant contribution to meeting our
energy policy goals".

Greenpeace argued, and the judge agreed, that the consultation in
2006 did not give enough information about radioactive waste
disposal and the costs involved.

'Wholly insufficient'

And he said the information given to Greenpeace and other consultees
was "wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response".

Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and radically
wrong".

"There was therefore procedural unfairness and a breach of
Greenpeace's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest
consultation before a decision was taken," he said.

The decision means the government has to pause in its plans for a
new generation of nuclear power stations, as it will now have to
hold another consultation process.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Emma Gibson told the BBC the consultation had
been a "sham".

"If Tony Blair wants to continue with his misguided plan for a whole
new generation of nuclear power stations, the government will have
to go back to the drawing board," she said.

Green Party spokeswoman Sian Berry also said the Energy Review had
merely been a "rubber-stamping exercise".

Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan desribed it as "an
astonishing ruling" which showed up the government as "fundamentally
deceitful."

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The
judgement really shows you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a
matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate.

"It's a real slap in the face for the prime minister's sofa style of
government."

The government says its proposals, including building more nuclear
plants, will cut carbon emissions by 19 to 25 million tonnes by
2020, compared with projections based on current trends.


*****************************************************************
 38 ePolitix.com: DTI stands by nuclear decision

Following a High Court ruling overturning its decision to back the
building of new nuclear power stations, the Department of Trade and
Industry has insisted that its decision was "right in principle".

In an embarrassing decision for ministers and officials, a judge
backed Greenpeace's complaint that the consultation process had been
"seriously flawed" and procedurally unfair".

Following the decision, which can be appealed, the government is
expected to undertake a new public consultation on the issue.

Mr Justice Sullivan said "something has gone clearly and radically
wrong" with the process.

The consultation document was described as more like an "issues
paper" and contained no information on the economics of nuclear
power and plans for waste disposal.

"There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest
consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted
on before a decision was made," said the judge.

"There was therefore procedural unfairness and a breach of
Greenpeace's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest
consultation before a decision was taken."

A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry insisted the
judgment "is about the process of consultation, not the principle of
nuclear power".

"We will of course consult further," he said.

"Tackling climate change takes leadership, taking on tough long-term
choices. This is why we continue to believe nuclear power has a role
to play in cutting emissions and helping to give this country the
energy security it needs.

"This is why we will press on with publication of the energy white
paper and why we are confident in the strength of our arguments to
engage in further consultation.

"Over the next two decades the UK is likely to need around 25 giga
watts of new electricity generation capacity. We need as much of
this as possible to be low carbon.

"Everyone involved in this debate needs to answer how we do that.
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

"A balanced approach is needed - a greater role for renewables and
other low carbon sources allied to a strong focus on energy
efficiency is we believe the right one." 

Published: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:21:28 GMT+00


©2007 ePolitix.com 
*****************************************************************
 39 West Australian: Nuclear committee under tight deadline

thewest.com.au

15th February 2007, 21:22 WST


The federal government appears to be racing towards making
recommendations on developing nuclear power generation in Australia.

Officials say an inter-departmental committee (IDC) has been given a
tight deadline of just a few months to make recommendations to
government on a response to the Switkowski report into the viability
of nuclear energy.

The government-appointed taskforce headed by former Telstra chief
Ziggy Switkowski has suggested 25 nuclear reactors could produce a
third of Australia's electricity by 2050.

The controversial report, released in November, found nuclear
reactors would need to be built close to population centres, mainly
on the east coast, but that nuclear power would not be competitive
with coal unless a price was placed on carbon emissions.

The Department of Industry, which heads the IDC, revealed late
Thursday it was working at breakneck pace to provide recommendations
to government.

"We're working towards the first quarter of this year," department
deputy secretary John Ryan said.

He could not reveal any detail of what the advice might be, but said
the committee's recommendations would form the basis of the
government's formal response to the Switkowski report.

"The nature of that advice to government we can't comment on," Mr
Ryan said.

"It's bringing forward on a whole of government basis a series of
recommendations as to how it might deal with those issues."

As well as Dr Switkowski's report, the IDC is also considering
options for the future of uranium mining in Australia.

Dr Switkowski has tipped that Australia could have nuclear reactors
up and running in 10 years. AAP


thewest.com.au

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 AFP: Britain forced to rethink nuclear power plans - 

Thursday February 15, 07:39 PM

By Michael Thurston

LONDON (AFP) - The government's plans to build a new generation of
nuclear power plants have been dealt an embarrassing blow by a court
ruling in favour of environmental group Greenpeace.

The High Court in London ruled Thursday that a government decision
last year to approve plans for new nuclear power plants was illegal
because public consultations were flawed.

In its court action Greenpeace accused Prime Minister Tony Blair's
government of failing to carry out "the fullest public consultation"
before taking a decision last year.

A judge ruled that the government's consultation process before
making the decision was "seriously flawed" as well as "procedurally
unfair," and granted Greenpeace an order quashing the decision
because if was "unlawful."

The ruling is subject to a possible appeal.

Greenpeace hailed the ruling.

"The government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was
obviously a sham, and we're pleased that the judge has agreed with
us," said Sarah North, head of the group's nuclear campaign.

"The government completely failed to consult adequately and even
kept relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back
to the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review," she
added.

Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built
in the 1960s and 1970s, providing about 25 percent of the country's
electricity, compared with natural gas which provides about 40
percent.

Advocates of new reactors -- which emit virtually no carbon dioxide
-- argue they would help Britain meet its pledge to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010.

For the government, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling
argued that the energy review referred to by Greenpeace was only
part of an ongoing process which would ensure full consultation.

But the High Court judge ruled that "something has gone clearly and
radically wrong" with the consultation exercise.

The consultation paper distributed to the public seemed to be only
an "issues paper," he said, adding that the information contained in
it was "wholly insufficient for (people) to make an intelligent
response."

He ruled that the document contained no substantial information on
two key issues: economics and waste disposal. On the latter the
consultation paper was "not merely inadequate but also misleading,"
said the judge.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) sought to downplay the
significance of the ruling. "This judgment is about the process of
consultation, not the principle of nuclear power," said a spokesman.

"Tackling climate change takes leadership, taking on tough long-term
choices.

"This is why we continue to believe nuclear power has a role to play
in cutting emissions and helping to give this country the energy
security it needs."

Meanwhile, there was further bad news for the government Thursday
after a Scottish court fined the DTI-funded UK Atomic Energy
Authority (UKAEA) 140,000 pounds (208,000 euros, 274,000 dollars)
for breaching disposal laws.

UKAEA admitted four charges of illegally releasing radioactive
particles into the sea and illegally dumping radioactive nuclear
waste over a 20-year period at the Dounreay site it operates in
northern Scotland.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 41 Brattleboro Reformer: Activists say state lax on VY

BRATTLEBORO, VT

By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

Thursday, February 15

BRATTLEBORO -- A recent court decision has some anti-nuclear
activists wondering why Vermont is not as active as other states
when it comes to representing its constituents' environmental
concerns.

On Jan. 25, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York
City told the Environmental Protection Agency it had to either
clarify or change the laws regarding the intake and discharge of
cooling waters in America's power plants.

The decision was rendered in Riverkeeper, et al. vs. the
Environmental Protection Agency. Delaware, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York were co-plaintiffs with
Riverkeeper and several other environmental organizations.

In 2004, Riverkeeper charged the EPA had not adequately considered
"the best technology available" for minimizing the impact of taking
cooling water from a body of water.

Riverkeeper argued that the best technology for most power plants
would be a closed-loop cooling system, which would kill fewer marine
organisms.

The court of appeals agreed and told the EPA to explain how it came
to the conclusion that the best technology available was too
expensive.

"For us, the larger question is, where is Vermont's advocacy for 
the environment, for nuclear safety and security," said Ray 
Shadis, a consultant for the New England Coalition, a nuclear 
watchdog group.

"The Massachusetts attorney general filed a contention on spent fuel
security and accident consequences," said Shadis. "The New York
attorney general issued a press release condemning the NRC for
ducking the lessons of Sept. 11, and coming up short on nuclear
plant security."

In addition, said Shadis, congressmen from New York and Connecticut
have introduced legislation that would require an independent safety
assessment, such as was done at Maine Yankee and for Indian Point,
also owned by Entergy and also up for license renewal.

"In Vermont, the Department of Public Service opposed our efforts to
get even a truncated version of an independent safety assessment
performed prior to extended power uprate and supported the Public
Service Board's decision to accept a puny and inadequate pilot
engineering inspection instead," Shadis said.

Rather than wait for the EPA to respond to the court's ruling,
Connecticut is adapting new, more stringent regulations of its own
that will affect the Millstone nuclear power plant on Long Island
Sound, which has been operating with an emergency discharge permit
since its old five-year permit expired.

"Connecticut has made it clear it will not wait for further action
and it will go ahead and write its own regulations," said Diana
Sidebotham, of the New England Coalition. "Vermont should do
likewise."

A spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, Jason Gibbs, said the state is
currently reviewing the decision and "evaluating the best ways to
regulate Entergy's use of cooling water to ensure the safe and
environmentally responsible operation of the plant. If that requires
revisiting the rules, we'll certainly look at that."

The state's attorney general is responsible for filing suit in court
on behalf of state residents, said Gibbs. Attorney General William
Sorrell was not available for comment Wednesday evening.

Like Connecticut, Vermont, through its Agency of Natural Resources,
handles discharge permitting. Last year, Vermont Yankee was granted
a permit amendment allowing Yankee to draw in more river water for
cooling. The permit was appealed on several contentions by groups
including the New England Coalition and the Connecticut River
Watershed Council.

On Wednesday, oral arguments that were to be heard in the Vermont
Supreme Court related to those contentions were postponed due to
weather.

"Vermont does enforce those rules," said Brian Kooiker, the chief of
discharge permitting for Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources. "The
EPA has delegated the Clean Water Act permit issuance and
enforcement authority to the state."

The focus of the rules, he said, "is to reduce impacts on biota that
might be drawn into the intake."

He said the court of appeal's decision "increases the level of
uncertainty," not knowing exactly what rules the state needs to
administer for the EPA.

"From our point of view, it is certainly an issue," he said. "The
court decision creates uncertainty as to what are the rules that we
have to apply."

Though the NRC doesn't look to enforce the Clean Water Act, it does
look to see that all the permits have been filed and approved before
approving a license renewal.

"This will impact the EPA, but not us," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman
for the NRC.

This court decision was the latest in a series of court decisions
that have a potential to affect the licensing renewal of Vermont
Yankee.

A decision by a federal court in California, rendered last month,
may force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change the way it
evaluates the safety of on site spent fuel storage.

And in Massachusetts, the Bay State's attorney general is appealing
a decision that denied its request to halt the license renewal
process at both Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim, in Plymouth, Mass.

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or (802)
254-2311, ext. 273.


  New England Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 42 Chillicothe Gazette: $238.8M requested for plant operations

Construction, cleanup continues at Piketon

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Thursday, February 15, 2007   

By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer

The Department of Energy entered a $238.8 million budget request for
the 2008 fiscal year earlier this month to guide operations at the
Piketon plant, which is a "significant increase from previous
years," according to Laura Schachter, public affairs officer at the
Portsmouth and Paducah project office.

The 2007 budget request, which hasn't yet been approved by Congress,
was for $239 million. The department's fiscal year is from Oct. 1 to
Sept. 30.

Schachter said the Piketon site is currently operating under funding
levels appropriated in 2006 because of a continuing resolution
passed by Congress, but it isn't affecting any of the current
projects. "Our projects at the Piketon site are moving along quite
well," she said. "We're able to continue our clean-up project pretty
much without impact."

The 2008 budget request supports the ventures, she said.

Schachter noted construction is continuing on the facility for the
depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, which will convert
about 22,000 cylinders containing the material to a more stable
chemical for either re-use or disposal.

"It's a by-product from when they did uranium enrichment at
Piketon," she said.

Construction is scheduled to wrap up on the facility this year, she
said, and next year, actual operations are slated to begin. The
construction has been ongoing since July 2004.

Schachter said the request also supports the treatment of a
groundwater plume contaminated with trichloroethylene, an in-
dustrial solvent.

"It's a common industrial solvent that was used at the site years
ago," she said.

She said an oxidant is injected into the plume area and it
chemically breaks down the contamination.

"It's an exciting project," she said. "It treats the actual
contamination. It will be going on for the next few years."

The site also is continuing to demolish smaller, inactive
facilities, she said, and it has removed 13 of 14 buildings, which
have all been of different sizes.

"We're on our last building," she said. The last structure is
expected to be removed this spring.

The projects the DOE plans to complete in 2007 will allow it to
"focus in 2008 to further risk reduction and transition to future
decontamination and decommissioning," she wrote in an e-mail. She
said the program for the decontamination and decommissioning of
"huge" process buildings hasn't yet been finalized.

Just because the site is working with the 2006 funding levels, which
were $286 million, doesn't mean that it is operating with that much
money, she said.

"It appears our projects will be able to continue as planned," she
said.

Schachter added the the department has already begun working on the
2009 budget request.

Overall, the DOE requested $24.3 billion for its 2008 budget.


(Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at
anlykins@nncogannett.com)

Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 The Herald: Nuclear plan climbdown as judge rules talks flawed

Web Issue 2759 February 16 2007   
  
CATHERINE MacLEOD, Political Editor February 16 2007

The government has been forced to reconsult on its plans to build a
new generation of nuclear plants after a High Court judge in London
yesterday decreed an earlier consultation had been flawed.

Greenpeace, the environmental group, succeeded in mounting a legal
challenge against the government, claiming it had failed to carry
out the fullest public consultation before publishing its
conclusions last year.

The organisation complained there had been a failure to present
clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of
radioactive waste and building costs during the six-month
consultation.

The government will not appeal against the decision and will
reconsult, but, according to Alistair Darling, Trade and Industry
Secretary, it will maintain its support for the nuclear option.

Speaking on the BBC's World at One, he said counter views would be
taken into consideration but he said that on a matter as important
as climate change it was not possible to stand back and be
ambivalent about the country's energy supply.

There are more efficient, safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power
Sarah North, Greenpeace

He pointed out the judge's ruling was on the process of
consultation, not the principle of nuclear power.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The
government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a
sham, and we're pleased that the judge has agreed with us. The
government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept
relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to
the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.

"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to
climate change as it only represents 3.6% of our total energy.

"It's entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective,
safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs
and cut climate change emissions," she added.

The government had argued the energy review was only part of a
process which would ensure full consultation but Mr Justice Sullivan
found something had gone clearly and radically wrong with the
process.

The consultation document, he said, had given every appearance of
being simply an issues paper, and he found the information on waste
had been not merely inadequate but also misleading. He granted what
he called a quashing order.

Alan Duncan, Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, said: "What it
really says is the government has been shown up as fundamentally
deceitful."

Chris Hulne, LibDem environment spokesman, said: "The judgment shows
you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a matter as important as
nuclear power without a proper public debate."

Peter Luff, Tory chairman of the Trade and Industry Select
Committee, described the decision as a hollow victory.

He said the government had been rushing the consultation to make up
for lost time, but insisted nuclear power was still necessary to
secure future energy supplies.

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 44 The Herald: Nuclear debate needs fresh source of energy

Web Issue 2759 February 16 2007   
  
ALF YOUNG 

THE first thing to be said about Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling on a
new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain is that the
Blair government richly deserves this consultational comeuppance. It
is, as one political opponent aptly observed yesterday, a judgment
on the Prime Minister's sofa-style approach to decision-making. As
former cabinet colleague Charles Clarke warned last year: "Major
policy issues . . . cannot simply be dealt with as an aside at the
CBI's annual dinner or a half sentence at the Guildhall."

Tony Blair has had nearly 10 years to face up to the growing threat
from climate change and the inevitable consequences for how we power
and light our homes, work and public spaces in future. Our existing
stock of nuclear stations, still generating a fifth of all the UK's
electricity needs, is well into middle age, heading for retirement.

How to replace that capacity - and ageing fossil-fuelled plants as
well - is an issue that's been crying out for clear leadership and
informed advocacy for years. But New Labour has fudged that
challenge, cowering behind successive, voluminous energy reviews,
while the prime minister smuggled his own conversion to a new
nuclear build programme into an aside in a speech to industrialists.

Blair's 2003 energy white paper had parked the nuclear question as
an "unattractive option". Its 2006 successor review contemplated, at
most, four stations' worth (six gigawatts) of replacement capacity,
none of it coming on stream until 2021, dangerously close to the
horizon where all the existing stations, bar Sizewell, would have
closed and be facing decommissioning. Yet, almost as a throwaway
line - or was it quiver of resolve? - the prime minister told
business leaders the nuclear option was back on the agenda "with a
vengeance". Tony Blair could take us into a deeply unpopular war in
Iraq.

But he couldn't summon up such decisive leadership on how best to
keep the lights on, at home, 20 years from now.

His anointed successor sometimes trades in the same brand of
subterfuge. Gordon Brown, it was, who signalled Labour's intention
to replace Trident in that half sentence at a Lord Mayor's Banquet
in the Guildhall. And now Mr Justice Sullivan has caught them out,
finding in favour of Greenpeace in language which echoes his
judgment, nearly a year ago, that the system of control orders used
against terrorism suspects was "an affront to justice".

Those of us in favour of maximising renewable resources without
abandoning proven ways of generating carbon-free electricity need to
make our voices heard

Something had "gone clearly and radically wrong" with the
consultation exercise, the judge ruled. The review was, in essence,
an issues paper. It contained no actual proposals and the
information on offer was "wholly insufficient for them to make an
intelligent response". With a new white paper imminent, ministers
are resigned to starting the consultation process all over again.
But, in spite of their cries about resolving this issue now being "a
race against time", this administration has only itself to blame. It
should have had the guts to place its energy cards clearly face up
on the table years ago. It didn't.

That said, despite the jubilation across the green lobby, this
judgment is not a ruling on the wisdom or otherwise of building a
new generation of nuclear power plants. Symbolically, three days
before Mr Justice Sullivan ruled the government had behaved in a way
that was "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair", the main
Royal Courts of Justice building in London was plunged into
darkness, thanks to a massive power failure in the Aldwych area.

The issue of security of supply will not go away. And away from the
trench warfare of the pro and anti-nuclear lobbies - where no amount
of consultation will change fixed mindsets materially - there is a
vast body of floating opinion that is almost certainly open to
reasoned leadership on the best way forward. Instead, it has been
treated to sustained fudge and spin from those whose minds are
closed on both sides of this debate.

The government's consultation may have been a sham, as Greenpeace
alleges. But the willingness of Greenpeace to contemplate a mixed
economy in energy supply, one that includes a continuing element of
nuclear generation, is non-existent. It resorts to the same tricks
politicians deploy over how to fill the 20% of the UK's electricity
needs currently supplied from nuclear stations.

It's not really 20%, they tell you. Reactor problems regularly
reduce this. And, even if it is a fifth, its impact on reducing CO2
emissions is very small. It only provides 3.6% of the UK's total
energy, after all. I am quoting directly from Greenpeace's press
release yesterday. But if that 20% is not replaced and is filled by
burning more fossil fuels instead, we will simply add to our carbon
emissions, not reduce them.

"While they talk about transitioning to a low-carbon system," wrote
Patrick Moore, a lifelong environmentalist and co-founder of
Greenpeace, in yesterday's Independent, "they dismiss nuclear, the
only energy source capable of actually delivering us from an
increasing use of fossil fuels and their resulting carbon emissions.

"It is simply not credible to claim that wind and solar energy can
replace coal and natural gas. Wind and solar are, by nature,
intermittent, and therefore not capable of delivering the baseload
power required for an energy grid . . . Simply put, the only choice
is between fossil fuel and nuclear."

Oh no it's not, the green lobby will counter. Go for a decentralised
energy system instead, they will urge, one based on maximum use of
combined heat and power and renewable energy, when anyone who has
ever looked seriously at the numbers knows that approach can never
fill the approaching nuclear void. They know it can't.

For their ultimate aim is to shock us all out of our
energy-profligate ways. And demonising nuclear power to such an
extent in the public mind that no new station will ever be
constructed again is part of a dream of turning the clock back to
pre-industrial times. If the price is burning even more fossil fuel
in the short-term, so be it.

Those of us who are in favour of maximising our renewable resources
and our collective commitment to energy-efficient living, but who
also believe it would be madness to abandon proven ways of
generating large quantities of carbon-free electricity from nuclear
fission, need to make our voices heard in this increasingly sterile
stand-off. The Blair government has flunked it. Greenpeace and its
allies are impervious to any nuclear compromise. We need to rescue
the concept of sustainability from those whose minds are closed on
this issue.

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 45 Independent: PM's nuclear power consultation was a sham, court rules

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

Published: 16 February 2007

Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations
have been thrown into disarray after the High Court ruled that the
Government had been acting illegally by staging a "sham"
consultation exercise.

Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was
dealt a humiliating blow yesterday when he was forced to concede
that he will have to start a new round of consultations on nuclear
power after Greenpeace, the environmental campaign group, won the
case against the Government.

Greenpeace accused the Government of acting illegally by failing to
consult properly on its nuclear power plans before giving them the
go-ahead. Upholding their complaint, Mr Justice Sullivan criticised
the consultation exercise, which lasted only 12 weeks as "seriously
flawed", "misleading" and "procedurally unfair".

The consultation document gave every appearance of being simply an
"issues paper", he said. It contained no actual proposals and, even
if it had, the information given to the public was "wholly
insufficient for them to make an intelligent response", added the
judge.

The ruling follows allegations in The Independent by two leading
scientists that Mr Blair manipulated a report by an independent body
reviewing options for nuclear waste disposal to reassure public
confidence about the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power
stations.

Mr Darling made it clear that the Government still intended to reach
a decision by the end of the year and he cited an article in The
Independent by Patrick Moore, a former leader of Greenpeace, in
favour of the nuclear programme. Repeatedly pressed on BBC News 24
to rule out nuclear power, Mr Darling said: "We will do the
consultation, we will do it properly, but we do need to reach a
decision on this.

"Before the end of the year, we have to got to be in a position
where we have made decisions. Otherwise, we will have power stations
going out of commission and we will not have anything else to
replace them with."

The Government was given leave to appeal against the judgment but it
is unlikely to do so. Mr Darling said: "I think it might be better
just to consult again on the nuclear issue."

The court decision could force the Prime Minister to delay an energy
White Paper that was due to be published next month. Mr Blair was
planning to present nuclear power as a vital ingredient in Britain's
energy programme, both to combat global warming, and to ensure
security of energy supplies against the threat of blackmail over gas
by Russia or oil by Middle East rogue states. The CBI also warned
that the judgment threatened to delay important investment plans in
nuclear energy.

Greenpeace's Emma Gibson said: "The Government's so-called
consultation was a sham and we are very pleased the judge has agreed
with us on that. If Tony Blair wants to continue with his misguided
plan for a whole new generation of nuclear power stations, the
Government will have to go back to the drawing board."

Alan Simpson, a leading member of the left-wing Campaign Group of
Labour MPs, said: "This is an astonishing but fantastic judgment. It
shows the Government's energy policy is nothing more than a cover-up
for not knowing what to do about the existing waste and a cover-up
for a sham consultation... Blair should shelve the plans."

The judgment was described as a "slap in the face" for the Prime
Minister's "sofa style of government" by the Liberal Democrat
environment spokesman, Chris Huhne. "The judgment really shows you
can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a matter as important as
nuclear power without a proper public debate," he said.

© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 46 FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Revised

FR Doc E7-2603

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7480]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-105]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


    The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena 
scheduled for Monday, February 26 and Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland in Room T-2B3 has been rescheduled 
for a one day meeting on Tuesday, February 27, 2007. All other items 
pertaining to this meeting remain the same as published previously in 
the Federal Register on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4303).

    For Future Information Contact: Mr. Ralph Caruso, cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer (Telephone: 301-415-8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (ET) or by e-mail rxc@nrc.gov.

    Dated: February 8, 2007.
David C. Fischer,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E7-2603 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 47 FR: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels; Postponed

Doc E7-2620

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7480]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-106]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor 
Fuels scheduled to be held on February 22, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been postponed. Notice of this 
meeting was published on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 (72 FR 4537). 
Rescheduling of this meeting will be announced in a future Federal 
Register Notice.
    For future information contact: Mr. Ralph Caruso, cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer (telephone 301/415-8065) between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET) or by e-mail rxc@nrc.gov.

    Dated: February 8, 2007.
David C. Fischer,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 [FR Doc. E7-2620 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 48 FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels; Postponed

Doc E7-2622

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7481]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-107]                         

[[Page 7481]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor 
Fuels scheduled to be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, Room T-2B3, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been postponed to 
Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 1 p.m. until the conclusion of business. Also, 
a portion of this meeting may be closed to discuss industry proprietary 
information applicable to this matter, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
    All other items pertaining to this meeting remain the same as 
published previously in the Federal Register on Friday, February 2, 
2007 (72 FR 5087).
    For future information contact: Mr. Gary Hammer, cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer (telephone 301/415-7363) between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET) or by e-mail: cgh@nrc.gov.

    Date: February 8, 2007.
David C. Fischer,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-2622 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 49 FR: NRC: FONSI on DLAF Binghamton NY 

Doc E7-2641

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7478-7480]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-104]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 04000341]

 
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License 
No. STC-133, for Unrestricted Release of the Defense Logistics Agency's 
Facility in Binghamton, New York

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact for license amendment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, 
Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 
I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone 610-
337-5366; fax number 610-337-5393; or by e-mail: drl1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the 
issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. STC-
133. This license is held by Defense Logistics Agency (the Licensee), 
for its Defense National Stockpile Center Binghamton Depot, located at 
Hoyt Avenue in Binghamton, New York (the Facility). Issuance of the 
amendment would

[[Page 7479]]

authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee 
requested this action in a letter dated October 16, 2006. The NRC has 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed 
action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC 
has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 
appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be 
issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA 
in the Federal Register.

II. Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would approve the Licensee's October 16, 2006, 
license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for 
unrestricted use. License No. STC-133 was issued on July 27, 1983, 
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been amended periodically since 
that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed 
byproduct material for purposes of storage, sampling, repackaging, and 
transferring materials.
    The Facility is situated on 57 acres of land and consists of 
warehouse and office space. The Facility is located in a mixed 
residential/industrial area. Within the Facility, use of licensed 
materials was confined to the fire station and warehouses 8, 10, 11, 
12, 13, and 14. The area of use totaled approximately 34,000 square 
feet.
    On December 10, 2004, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and 
initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the 
Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the 
Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination 
activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation 
safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to 
submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup 
activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for 
routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and 
provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the 
criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the 
Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the 
Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following 
radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: Natural uranium 
and thorium. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee 
conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the 
Facility affected by these radionuclides.
    The Licensee conducted a final status survey on November 7-10, 
2005, June 15-23, 2006, July 4-6, 2006, and August 3 and 4, 2006. This 
survey covered the areas of use as stated in the Final Status Survey 
Plan, dated February 2006. The final status survey report was enclosed 
with the Licensee's amendment request dated October 16, 2006, and an 
additional information letter dated December 19, 2006. The Licensee 
elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for 
unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by developing 
derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) for its Facility. The 
Licensee conducted site-specific dose modeling using input parameters 
specific to the Facility and a conservative assumption that all 
residual radioactivity is in equilibrium. Federal Guidance Report 
Number 13 was used to modify the dose conversion factors because it is 
based on an improved, more realistic dosimetry model. The selected 
critical age group is adults as the expected future use of this 
facility will be industrial. Based on the type of building, railroad 
distribution, and truck access, there is no compelling evidence to 
indicate that the building will be used for anything other than 
industrial activities. The Licensee thus determined the maximum amount 
of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, materials, 
and soils that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR 
Part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC previously reviewed the 
Licensee's methodology and proposed DCGLs, and concluded that the 
proposed DCGLs are acceptable for use as release criteria at the 
Facility. The NRC's approval of the Licensee's proposed DCGLs was 
published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, August 22, 2006, Volume 
71, No. 162, pages 48952 and 48953. The Licensee's final status survey 
results were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable.
    The NRC staff conducted a confirmatory survey June 15-16, 2006. 
None of the confirmatory sample results exceeded the DCGLs established 
for the Facility. Based on its review, the staff has determined that 
the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on 
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear 
Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and 
ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental 
impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC 
staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey 
report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted 
the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to 
the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other 
radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could 
result in cumulative environmental impacts.
    The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for 
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its 
review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity 
at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, 
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative 
the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the 
staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment 
request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it 
conflicts with 10 CFR 40.42(d), requiring that decommissioning of 
source material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after 
licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final 
status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements 
of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the 
amendment request would result in no change in current environmental 
impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-
action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative 
is accordingly not further considered.

Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent 
with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria

[[Page 7480]]

specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC 
staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State 
of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation for review on 
December 27, 2006. On January 29, 2007, New York State responded by 
electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and 
otherwise had no comments.
    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that 
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential 
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that 
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant 
Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application for 
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available 
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
 From this site, you can access the 

NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents 
related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS 
accession numbers.
    1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;''
    2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;''
    3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental 
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 
Functions;''
    4. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support 
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities;''
    5. ``Radiological Historical Site Assessment Report, Defense 
National Stockpile Center, Binghamton Deport, Binghamton, NY'' dated 
February 2006 [ML060730408];
    6. ``Final Status Survey Plan, DNSC, Binghamton Depot, Binghamton, 
NY'' dated February 2006 [ML060730389];
    7. ``Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials 
License No. STC-133 Authorizing the Use of Site-Specific Derived 
Concentration Guideline Levels for Unrestricted Release of the Defense 
Logistics Agency, Defense Nuclear Supply Center Depot in Binghamton, 
NY'' published in the Federal Register Volume 71, Number 162 on August 
22, 2006, pages 48952 and 48953;
    8. Defense Logistics Agency, Submittal of Final Status Survey 
Report for the Defense National Stockpile, Binghamton, NY Depot dated 
October 16, 2006 [ML062970211];
    9. Defense Logistics Agency, Deficiency Response Letter dated 
December 19, 2006 [ML063540612]; and
    10. Defense Logistics Agency, Deficiency Response Facsimilie dated 
January 3, 2007 [ML070040099].
    If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 
F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, this 5th 
day of February 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region 1.
 [FR Doc. E7-2641 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 50 FR: NRC: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice

Doc E7-2669

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7481-7482]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-108]                         


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


    In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the 
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on 
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on March 8-10, 2007, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was 
previously published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, November 15, 
2006 (71 FR 66561).

Thursday, March 8, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 
Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--
The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of 
the meeting.
    8:35 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Technical Basis Associated with the Proposed 
NRC Staff Action for Dealing with the Dissimilar Metal Weld Issue 
(Open/Closed)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors, 
and the Nuclear Energy Institute regarding the technical basis for the 
proposed regulatory action for dealing with the dissimilar metal weld 
issue stemming from the Wolf Creek pressurizer weld flaws, as well as 
the industry activities associated with this matter.

    Note: A portion of this session may be closed to discuss 
industry proprietary information applicable to this matter, pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

    10:30 a.m.-12 noon: Proposed Revisions to Standard Review Plan 
(SRP) Sections (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and 
hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding SRP 
Sections 15.0, Accident Analysis--Introduction, and 15.9, BWR Core 
Stability.
    1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Final Results of the Chemical Effects Head 
Loss Tests Related to the Resolution of the PWR Sump Performance Issues 
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions 
with representatives of the NRC staff regarding final results of the 
chemical effects head loss tests in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) 
sump pool environment, and related matters.
    3:45 p.m.-5:15 p.m.: Technology Neutral Licensing Framework and 
Related Matters (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and 
hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the 
Technology Neutral Licensing Framework, and the Commission request in 
the November 8, 2006 Staff Requirements Memorandum that the ACRS 
provide its views to the Commission with respect to the staff's work on 
Technology Neutral Licensing Framework with the focus on ensuring the 
value of such an approach versus the development of a licensing 
framework for specific designs.
    5:30 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee 
will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this 
meeting, as well as a proposed ACRS report on the TRACE thermal-
hydraulic system analysis code.

Friday, March 9, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 
Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--
The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of 
the meeting.
    8:35 a.m.-9 a.m.: Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Guides and SRP 
Sections in Support of New Reactor Licensing (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss and determine whether to review proposed revisions to certain 
regulatory guides and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections related to 
new reactor licensing.
    9 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and 
Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will discuss the 
recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding 
items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future 
meetings. Also, it will hear a report of the Planning and Procedures 
Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, 
including anticipated workload and member assignments.
    9:45 a.m.-10 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and 
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses from 
the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and 
recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters.
    10:15 a.m.-12 noon: Safeguards and Security Matters (Closed) (Room 
T-8E8)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions 
with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the research on 
mitigating strategies for new reactor designs.

    Note: This session will be closed to protect information 
classified as National Security information as well as safeguards 
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (3).

    1:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.

Saturday, March 10, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 
Rockville, Maryland

    8:30a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will continue discussion of proposed ACRS reports.
    12:30 p.m.-1 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss 
matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and 
specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as 
time and availability of information permit.
    Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 
58015). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may 
be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the 
nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during 
the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days 
before the meeting, if possible, so that

[[Page 7482]]

appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the 
meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and 
television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected 
portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information 
regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by 
contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of 
the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by 
the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, 
persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff 
if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
    In accordance with Subsection 10(d) P.L. 92-463, I have determined 
that it will be necessary to close portions of this meeting to discuss 
industry proprietary information, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and 
to protect information classified as National Security information as 
well as safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (3).
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's 
ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and 
the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 
4 p.m., (ET).
    ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are 
available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or by 
calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available 
Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which 
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & 
oc-collections/ (ACRS & 
ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
    Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio 
Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., 
(ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of 
this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will 
be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the 
equipment and facilities that they use to establish the 
videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing 
services is not guaranteed.

     Dated: February 9, 2007.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-2669 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 51 Detroit News: Coal, nuclear power still state's best bets

* Detnews.com

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Survey says residents unsure about sources of state's electricity

Michigan residents support the construction of a clean-coal power
plant, saying the promotion of renewable energy and conservation as
the key to securing the state's energy future is overly optimistic.

But, according to a new survey, most residents don't know how their
electricity is generated and many assumptions of the market are
unrealistic. Given the need for more base electricity generation in
Michigan, a better understanding of the state's energy
infrastructure is needed.

Consumers and business owners say they think the state's largest
sources of power are coal (31 percent) and natural gas (30 percent).
Nuclear power was estimated at 7 percent with the remaining coming
from hydroelectric, oil, renewable sources and conservation.

In fact, coal accounts for 56 percent of the state's power, followed
by nuclear power at 23 percent and natural gas at 13 percent.

Coal is still the best choice because it's the cheapest and most
readily available. And it's a domestic solution. Technological
advancements also make it cleaner -- reducing pollution by as much
as two-thirds -- compared with today's coal-fired power plants.

Michigan needs at least one new power plant to satisfy demand
increases of 1.2 percent a year and the quickest and best way to
satisfy that demand is with a clean-coal power plant. The state's
nuclear power grid also must be expanded.

When provided with facts, Michigan residents approve of both sources
of power. That's an encouraging sign, but further energy education
is needed.

© Copyright 2007 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 52 FT.com: UK - Environmentalists hail nuclear ruling

Financial Times FT.com

By Nikki Tait, Christopher Adams and Salamander Davoudi

Published: February 15 2007 20:49 | Last updated: February 15 2007
20:49

Environmental campaigners could hardly contain their delight on
Thursday morning, as a High Court judge announced that their legal
challenge over the way the government arrived at its pro-nuclear
energy strategy had succeeded.

The judicial review challenge mounted by Greenpeace had centred on
the process that led up to the publication of the governmentâ€™s
Energy Review Report last July. Alistair Darling, trade and industry
secretary, told parliament, on the basis of the report, that nuclear
power had to be part of Britainâ€™s energy supply over the next 40
years.

However, in the High Court this month, lawyers for Greenpeace argued
there had been inadequate consultation before the report was
released, and insufficient information available in time.

The government, the campaign group argued, needed to â€œgo back to
the drawing-boardâ€ and â€œlaunch a proper debate on the UKâ€™s
future energy needsâ€.

On Thursday, Mr Justice Sullivan, a highly experienced
administrative court judge, largely agreed. The consultation, he
said, had indeed been â€œseriously flawedâ€ and something had gone
â€œclearly and radically wrongâ€.

The governmentâ€™s consultation document would have been perfectly
adequate had it simply been an â€œissues paperâ€, but it was
â€œmanifestly inadequateâ€ as a consultation paper.

The judge pointed out that it contained no information of any
substance on two critical issues â€“ the economics of new nuclear
building and the disposal of waste. All the information of any
substance on those issues only emerged after the consultation period
had concluded.

â€œThere could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest
consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted
on before a decision was made,â€ he said. â€œThere was therefore
procedural unfairness and a breach of Greenpeaceâ€™s legitimate
expectation that there would be the fullest consultation before a
decision was taken.â€

But if that left environmentalists triumphant, other reactions were
diverse.

The DTI itself said that it would â€œof courseâ€ consult further
but also press on with publication of the pending energy white
paper, which had been scheduled for March. But it gave no details of
any revised timing.

Opposition politicians accused ministers of duping the public. Alan
Duncan, shadow trade and industry secretary, said: â€œThis is an
astonishing ruling. What it really says is that the government has
been shown up as fundamentally deceitful.â€

In the scientific community, Dr Jeremy Leggett, chief executive of
Solar Century and Charterhouse Fellow in Solar Energy at Oxford
Universityâ€™s Environmental Change Institute, described
Thursdayâ€™s events as â€œa shattering blow for the nuclear
industryâ€ but â€œa victory for common senseâ€.

â€œWhatever the outcome of the High Courtâ€™s pondering, and
whatever one thinks about the safety and security issues, nuclear
power cannot be deployed quickly enough to help us, given the
magnitude of the energy problems we have,â€ he commented.

Meanwhile, a stark warning came from Richard Lambert,
director-general of the Confederation of British Industry. â€œEnergy
security is one of the most vital issues facing the country so
proper consultation is vital â€“ but so, too, is early action,â€ he
said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 53 toledoblade.com: Industry group backs more nuke plants

Article published Thursday, February 15, 2007

By TOM HENRY

BLADE STAFF WRITER

DTE Energy's interest in building the Midwest's first new nuclear 
plant in years appears to be supported by former Michigan Gov. 
John Engler and a Washington lobbyist group that represents the 
nation's largest manufacturers.

In a report yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers 
called for more nuclear power nationwide.

Manufacturing is the nation's largest energy user and an 
important part of the economy in northwest Ohio and southeast 
Michigan.

DTE, Detroit Edison's parent, on Monday announced plans to seek a 
license to build another nuclear plant at its Fermi nuclear 
complex in northern Monroe County.

Mr. Engler is the manufacturing association's president and chief 
executive officer. Nine months ago, he made his first pitch for 
nuclear power on behalf of the industry group at the Nuclear 
Energy Institute's annual conference in San Francisco.

Nuclear was not the sole focus of his group's new report. But a 
white paper accompanying it called for:

•More ways to facilitate nuclear growth than what President Bush 
has under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

•More interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, rather than waiting 
for Nevada's Yucca Mountain to open as the national dump.

•More streamlining of new license applications by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.

•Some $100 million for expanding university nuclear physics 
programs and $500 million a year for developing advanced fuel 
cycles and in trying to reprocess nuclear fuel. Reprocessing has 
been banned in the United States since President Gerald Ford's 
administration.

"One of the keys to diversifying America's energy portfolio is to 
increase America's capacity to produce home-grown nuclear 
energy," the white paper said. It called upon the United States 
to "develop a pro-nuclear growth agenda."

The manufacturers' association gave several other ideas for 
making the country more energy independent, from clean coal to 
renewable energy. It suggested a campaign to elevate the "energy 
intelligence" of Americans.

DTE expects to spend $30 million to prepare its license 
application for the plant. The utility pegs the cost of the plant 
at $3 billion.

The Fermi site, 30 miles north of Toledo, houses the Fermi 2 
reactor that went online in 1985. Its operating license, good 
through 2025, could be extended by 20 years.

The NRC has not received an application to build a new nuclear 
plant for more than 30 years because of cost overruns, post-Three 
Mile Island regulations, and uncertainty over where to bury 
radioactive waste the plants generate.

Some 16 utilities, mostly in the South, are discussing the 
possibility of building more than 30 plants.

The NRC expects to start reviewing the first four to five license 
applications in the fall.

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
*****************************************************************
 54 recordonline.com: Keep Indian Point safe

February 15, 2007

Our new congressman has the right idea when it comes to the Indian
Point nuclear power plants in Buchanan. Any decision to extend the
life of the operation should have scrutiny beyond the normal
procedures of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John Hall and those who joined him in the request noted that with
the increase in population during the past 40 years, a plant could
not get approval to locate there today. They also questioned the
evacuation plans, calling them unworkable. It does not take a
nuclear scientist to imagine what would happen once the alarm
sounded because of a serious problem at Indian Point.

Hall wants to hold up any relicensing until required repairs or
changes have been made. Those who have not followed this issue
closely should be forgiven if they find the need for such a request
alarming. Why would the NRC approve continued operation until
everything was in working order?

Congress should, of course, approve this legislation as soon as
possible to ensure the continued supply of electricity and the
continued safety of those who live near Indian Point. Then it should
take the next logical step and expand this legislation. As the need
for energy supply increases, we will see more proposals for more
nuclear power plants, and these standards should apply to all of
them.

Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving
New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100
*****************************************************************
 55 Reuters: British court ruling blow for Blair's nuclear plans

Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:44PM EST

By Adrian Croft

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge struck a blow at Prime Minister
Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations on
Thursday, forcing the government into another public consultation
that could delay new nuclear plants.

High Court judge Jeremy Sullivan handed a stinging rebuke to Blair's
government, saying the public consultation it carried out before
deciding Britain needed new nuclear power stations was "inadequate"
and "wrong".

The ruling was a setback for Blair, who has made it a priority of
his final months in office to win backing for a new generation of
nuclear power stations -- a policy opposed by some members of his
Labour Party.

But the prime minister said he would push on regardless because
failure to act would "betray the long-term future of the country".

"If we don't replace our existing nuclear power stations which are
coming to an end, we will find it virtually impossible to meet our
climate change targets (and) we'll end up importing even larger
amounts of foreign gas," Blair told Sky News.

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government
would give interested parties a new chance to comment -- a process
that usually takes three months.

"Clearly the best thing to do now is to accept the judge's verdict,
to learn from what went wrong, to put it right and consult properly
to make sure we can get the process back on track," Darling told the
BBC.  Continued...


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 56 Reuters: Suez denies took decision to build nuclear plant 

Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:59AM EST

PARIS, Feb 15 (Reuters) - French utility Suez (LYOE.PA: Quote,
Profile, Research) on Thursday denied it had taken a decision to
build a nuclear plant in France, saying no decision had been made to
this day on developing its nuclear activities. "Informations
reported in the press according to which Suez would have taken a
decision to build a nuclear plant in Tricastin are erroneous," the
group said in a statement.

Earlier on Thursday, Les Echos newspaper reported that Suez had
sought permission to build a nuclear electricity plant and was
looking to build a next generation EPR reactor, developed by Areva
(CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Siemens (SIEGn.DE: Quote,
Profile, Research), near Tricastin in the country's Drome region.

Les Echos said no final go ahead was expected from the French
government before elections scheduled in April and May.

Suez - which is in merger discussions with state-controlled Gaz de
France (GAZ.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) - currently has no nuclear
reactors in France but has experience in operating them in
neighbouring Belgium through its Electrabel subsidiary.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 57 Guardian Unlimited: Q&A: The facts about government's nuclear policy 

The high court says the government failed to properly consult the
public on nuclear power. Matt Weaver explains the issue

Thursday February 15, 2007

Guardian Unlimited

Sizewell B nuclear power station. Photograph: Graham Turner

What has happened?

A high court judge has ruled that the way the government consulted
on plans to build a new generation of nuclear power station was
"flawed" and "unfair".

Why?
Greenpeace, which brought the case, pointed out that the government
had promised the "fullest public consultation" on nuclear power. It
argued the government failed to provide key information on the
proposed power stations, such as the cost and the disposal of
radioactive waste. Mr Justice Sullivan agreed and ruled that the
consultation exercise was "misleading".

Does this mean the government can't go ahead with new power stations?
No. But it does mean the government will have to consult again on
the proposals.

Will it delay the building of new power stations?
Yes. And time is running out. Campaigners claim that even before
today's judgment any benefits from new nuclear power would have been
too little and too late to cut carbon dioxide emissions by enough to
justify the enormous cost of the project.

What is the political damage?
High. The decision reinforces the widely held view that the
government had made up its mind before consulting the public about
nuclear power. The judgment suggests the consultation exercise was
bogus. The Conservatives said the government had been shown up as
"fundamentally deceitful".

Does it reopen the debate about nuclear power?
Yes. In a 2003 energy paper the government described nuclear power
as an "unattractive option". Ministers then change their minds.
Today's judgment could mean that there is a proper debate about
whether they were right to change tack.

What does the government say?
Trade and Industry secretary Alistair Darling, says he accepts the
judgment and that a new consultation process will now take place.
But he insists nuclear power has a key role to play in cutting
emissions.

What happens if the public oppose the plan?
The government insists it will take note. "There is no point in
consulting if you don't listen to what people say," Mr Darling said.
But he also pointed out that time is running out to cut carbon
emissions.

What does Greenpeace say?

It urges the government to think again. In a statement it said:
"It's stunningly obvious that there are more efficient, effective,
safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet energy demands and
cut climate change emissions. A legitimate energy review would have
delivered very different conclusions from the one that backed
nuclear power."

 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
*****************************************************************
 58 Japan Times: Nuclear research body chided for leaking Fugen defect data

  Web  japantimes.co.jp   

Friday, Feb. 16, 2007

Kyodo News

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency will temporarily stop
commissioning research work to another government-linked agency,
citing problems with information management following a media report
last week about substandard walls at a defunct reactor facility,
nuclear safety agency officials said Thursday.

After the daily Mainichi Shimbun reported on the subject, the Japan
Atomic Energy Agency announced Saturday an examination showed that
concrete walls at a key building at the Fugen prototype reactor
plant in Fukui Prefecture were failing.

An official at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said of the
research agency, "We cannot overlook its responsibility for failing
to fully account for the problem this time and allowing data on
which experts have yet to form a unified evaluation to be released
unchecked."

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency ruled out the possibility of a data
leak from the agency because only a limited number of people had
access to the data.

The examination of building design standards was conducted as part
of research into the safety of obsolete reactors and involved
examining the strength of concrete walls at the Fugen reactor, which
ceased operations in 2003.

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency was contracted to perform studies
using grants provided by the government through the Japan Nuclear
Safety Organization. The contract was worth around 200 million yen
in fiscal 2006.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has asked the organization
to not commission any more work in fiscal 2007, which begins April
1, the officials said.

The examination, based on samples extracted from walls, showed the
concrete walls of one of the reactor's auxiliary buildings did not
meet design standards, a result that differed from data obtained in
an earlier test using a different method.

The nuclear safety agency has asked the atomic energy agency, which
had a subcontractor conduct the examination, to look into the
accuracy of the results, in part because similar results have
normally not been seen at nuclear reactors that were in operation
for nearly 30 years, according to the officials.

The Japan Times
*****************************************************************
 59 CBC News: Bruce Power expects harsh AG report

Last Updated: Thursday, February 15, 2007 | 9:49 AM ET

Ontario's auditor general is reviewing whether electricity
consumersÂ are payingÂ too much for the province's controversial
deal with a private company to refurbish its reactors, but the head
of the company says the provincial watchdog has already made up its
mind.

The province struck a $4.25-billion deal with Bruce Power in the
fall of 2005 to refurbish four nuclear reactorsÂ to address
Ontario'sÂ concerns of future energy shortages.

Bruce Power CEO and president Duncan Hawthorne anticipates an
unnecessarily critical review from Auditor General Jim McCarter of
the deal and the amount of money hydro consumers will be paying for
the increased power generation.

"I expect it to be negative. I expect it to be totally lacking any
context in terms of the contribution we've made to the industry,"
Hawthorne told reporters Wednesday.

The deal calls for the nuclear power facility near Lake Huron to
reopen Units 1 and 2 at Bruce A, rebuild Unit 3 when it reaches the
end of its operational life and replace the steam generators in Unit
4.

The project has come under fire because some say it could lead to
higher rates on hydro bills.

NDP Leader Howard Hampton has referred to it as a sweetheart deal
for the private company because ratepayers and taxpayers are picking
up some of the costs that he says should be borne by the company.

Hawthorne defends the work done at Bruce, saying Ontario would have
experienced blackouts in the summers of 2004 and 2005 if not for his
nuclear power plant.

The auditor general would not comment, saying only that the report
will be released next month.

Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
*****************************************************************
 60 Newsday.com: Bury ghost of LI nuclear plant - 

Editorials

Suffolk, LIPA should settle lawsuit

February 15, 2007

The Suffolk County Legislature needs to finally bury the ghost of
the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Three decades later, the evil
spirits of the failed plant are being conjured up once again, this
time in a dispute about settling a lawsuit that disputed the
settlement of an even earlier lawsuit.

In 2000, the Long Island Power Authority agreed to accept $620
million, about half of the $1.4 million judgment it was owed for an
overassessment of the Shoreham plant. The money was recovered by
charges on electric bills. The settlement ended a period of weakened
bond rating for Suffolk and the threat of a 25-percent hike in
property taxes for county residents. A fiscally struggling Nassau
County agreed to the deal in return for a $25-million "clean energy"
grant, which everyone knew (and this newspaper said many times)
would be used to plug a budget hole.

Two years later, however, the Suffolk legislature filed a suit
claiming LIPA ratepayers in the county were overcharged in the
collection of that $620 million and that the payment to Nassau was
improper. The suit languished until last summer, when County
Executive Steve Levy agreed to accept $16 million from LIPA to
settle it. But some lawmakers are now objecting, producing a long
overdue audit which puts a $25-million price tag on their claim.

LIPA denies it miscalculated the payment but it is willing to pay
$16 million to Suffolk just to end the lawsuit. And ending it is the
only course that makes sense. LIPA ratepayers are the ones shelling
out for the public agency's high-priced lawyers and Suffolk
taxpayers are paying by the hour for the legislature's outside
counsel. For the few additional cents Suffolk residents might get
back, they already will have paid through the nose.


Privacy Policy. Copyright Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
 61 Tampabay: Pay me now, and then pay me later

By HOWARD TROXLER

Published February 15, 2007

I was walking down the street Wednesday when I ran into my electric
company. He was smiling. Dollar bills were falling out of his
pockets.

"Hey, give me some more of your money right now," said my electric
company, holding out his hand.

"I already paid my bill this month," I said.

"Doesn't matter," E.C. beamed. "Under the new rules in Florida, I
can start billing you for that new nuclear power plant I am thinking
about building."

I thought about that for a minute. "You can bill me for thinking
about it?"

"Yep-er-oo-nie," he said. "Planning it, finding a site for it,
getting the permits, all kinds of stuff. I just got a new rule
passed by the Public Service Commission on Tuesday."

He pulled out a piece of paper and showed me.

I whistled with admiration. "That is a beauty of a rule," I
admitted. "How'd you get THAT passed?"

"It weren't nothin'," he said modestly. "Really, the hard part was
getting the Legislature to pass a law last spring. The rest was a
snap."

"So, you can start billing me just like that?"

"Well, not exactly," E.C. said. "First, I have to get the PSC to
agree there's a need for my nuke. But the law makes that pretty much
automatic, too."

"How come," I asked, "I have to pay in advance for a power plant
that isn't selling me any electricity yet?"

"Welcome to the new world," E.C. said. "Sure, in the old days, me
and my investors had to scratch up the money for a plant on the
front end.

"But this is better," he continued. "This way you'll get socked in
little steps, instead of all at once. So, really, we're doing all
this for you."

"Wait a minute," I said. "Does this mean you can spend as much
durn-tootin' money along the way as you want, and I have to pay?
What if you guys pad the bill?

"We would never do that," he said, as a chunk of unnecessarily
high-priced coal fell out of his other pocket. "Whoops, heh, heh,
where'd THAT come from?" he asked.

I said I thought there ought to be an outside check.

"But that's going to happen," E.C. reassured me. "We'll have to file
paperwork every year to prove that we spent the money prudently."

"Who do you prove that to?"

"The Public Service Commission, of course! So, you see, you're in
good hands."

I asked what happened if the plant doesn't get built. Would I get my
money back?

"Of course not," he said. "You don't expect US to pay for it if it
goes wrong, do you?"

"I have another question," I said.

"Shoot."

"It seems to me that under this new law and this new rule, that all
the risk of building a nuke has been transferred from your investors
to your customers."

"Correctamundo."

"Well, my friends in the business world keep telling me about the
virtue of capitalism, and risk-taking, and how that's what makes
corporate America great. But it looks to me like you just got a law
passed saying all your expenses are covered by the public, no matter
what."

"Right again. What is your question?"

"Well," I said, "don't take this the wrong way, but - doesn't this
make you kind of a socialist or something?"

E.C. was offended. "No need for cheap shots," he said.

I gave up. "Look, just send me a bill," I said.

"Oh, don't worry about that," he said.

[Last modified February 15, 2007, 05:19:00]

© 2007 ? All Rights Reserved ? St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South ? St. Petersburg, FL 33701 ? 727-893-8111
*****************************************************************
 62 Guardian Unlimited: Judge deals blow to Blair's nuclear plans 

Court rules consultation on power stations was 'misleading and
flawed'

Will Woodward, chief political correspondent

Friday February 16, 2007

Tony Blair at a visit to the Sellafield nuclear power plant.
Photograph: John Giles/PA

Tony Blair's plan to pave the way for a new generation of nuclear
power stations by the time he leaves office was in disarray
yesterday after the high court ruled the government had carried out
a "misleading" and "seriously flawed" consultation on its energy
review.

Mr Justice Sullivan's judgment forces the government to canvass
public opinion once again and is likely to force a delay of several
months in the publication of the energy white paper, which had been
expected in March.

The judge delivered a significant symbolic victory to Greenpeace.
The organisation had applied for judicial review of the 12-week
consultation last year which it condemned as a sham.

The prime minister insisted last night that new nuclear power
stations had to be part of future energy provision. "This won't
affect the policy at all," he said. The trade and industry
secretary, Alistair Darling, said he was unlikely to appeal against
the ruling, and promised "to put it right and consult properly, to
make sure we can get the process back on track".

Ministers will decide next week whether to go ahead with the white
paper next month. They believe they may technically be able to
proceed even if the new consultation has not been completed, but
realise that could be another PR disaster.

Mr Darling said climate change meant the UK was "in a race against
time" to reduce dependency on oil and gas, and deliver a 60% cut in
CO2 emissions by 2050. "On a matter so important as climate change
it just isn't possible to stand back and say: 'We don't have any
views'," he told the BBC.

Last July the government gave the green light to new nuclear power
stations, promising to speed up the planning and regulatory regime
but insisting they had to be funded by private investors.

Whitehall sources stressed yesterday that new nuclear power stations
would not appear before the late 2010s at the earliest, and that
timetable was unaffected by yesterday's judgment.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: "The
judgment really shows you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a
matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate."

Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, said: "This is
an astonishing ruling. The government has been shown up as
fundamentally deceitful."

Nuclear energy accounts for 19% of UK energy but the phasing out of
existing plants means that by 2020 it will only provide 7%. But Mr
Blair wants new stations to be built in order to deliver up to 40%
of future supply.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said ministers
had "now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a proper
and lengthy review".

Mr Justice Sullivan said something had gone "clearly and radically
wrong" with the consultation paper, issued last January. "The 2006
consultation document contained no information of any substance on
any of the issues identified as being of crucial importance," he
said. "It was not merely inadequate but it was also misleading."

Greenpeace argues that nuclear energy is not as
environmentally-friendly as the government claims. "Nuclear power is
a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change as
it only represents 3.6% of our total energy," said Ms North.


 Useful link
Government's report on the energy review

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 63 Whitehaven News: New boss of UKAEA

Published on 15/02/2007

THE former boss of the Dounreay nuclear site has been promoted to
the post of chief executive of the UK Atomic Energy Authority
(UKAEA).

Norman Harrison was previously acting chief operating officer for
the UKAEA.

His new post comes with a salary of Â£183,000.

UKAEA is a public body, reporting to the Department of Trade and
Industry.

Mr Harrison joined UKAEA in 2003 as director of Dounreay and a
member of the UKAEA board. He became acting chief operating officer
of UKAEA in August 2006.

His career before joining UKAEA was in the nuclear power generation
sector.

He was station director at Heysham 1, in Lancashire before being
appointed director of Sizewell B, in Suffolk.

A native of Manchester and chemist by profession, he achieved the
top national award when qualifying as a graduate of the Royal
Society of Chemistry.


www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy
*****************************************************************
 64 Whitehaven News: MP slams Greenpeace nuclear victory

Published on 15/02/2007

Sellafield (Picture by Daniel Lithgow)

By Alan Irving

COPELANDS MP Jamie Reed has hit out angrily over what might be a
lengthy legal delay in building new nuclear reactors.

It follows todays success in the High Court by Greenpeace for a
judicial review into the governments plans for the new build.

Government wants new electricity-generating nuclear reactors to
combat the effects of climate change and also meed Britains
future energy needs.

Sellafield is seen to be one of the preferred locations to build one
of the powerful modern reactors following the recent closure of
Calder Hall and help absorb the siteâ€™s predicted job losses
through nuclear clean up.

Jamie Reed said: â€œI would expect the government to appeal
immediately against the granting of this judicial review and I am
urging them to do so. Yet again Greenpeace has shown they are no
friends to West Cumbria and West Cumbrians. They are also going
against the will of parliament which is looking to new nuclear build
in the UK as part of the armoury to combat climate change.

"They are more obsessed with their anti-nuclear prejudice than
caring about the welfare of the planet."

In todayâ€™s High Court proceedings, Greenpeace brought a lawsuit to
force the government to review the proposals, saying that ministers
had failed to present clear information on key issues such as the
disposal of radioactive waste.

Justice Jeremy Sullivan today backed the group's application for a
judicial review of the nuclear proposals saying that the
consultation process leading up to the decisions was "seriously
flawed".




View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital
reproduction, just like the printed copy at
www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy

Other stories from this category that may interest you:
* School to close for day
* Police dog lunges at passer-by
* New hotel for harbour?
* Could flood risk sink Â£55m Pow Beck plan?
* Sellafield emails â€˜were not racistâ€™
* TV channel Five finally coming to Whitehaven
* Meals on Wheels cost rises
* Council tax to be agreed
* Unemployment rises 2.6%
* Little Man fails to raise the big laughs but worth a look


Back















































* Home
* News
  o Crime
  o Courts
  o Health
  o Education
  o Farming
  o Business
  o Your Area

*  
* Pictures
* Sport
* Haven
* People
* Leisure
* Weekend
* Digital Switchover
* Weddings
*  
* e-Shopping
*  
* Comment
* Choices at 16
* Blogs
* Local History
* Cartoons
* Competition
* Forums
* Local Information
*  
* Weather
* Links
*  
* Whats On
* Find It
* Buy The Paper
* Money Matters
* Digital Copy
* Readers Travel
* Readers Offer
* Dating
*  
* About Us
* Contact Us
* Circulation
* Advertising
* Work For Us
* Legal Stuff
*  
* NW Evening Mail
* Cumberland News
* Times &amp; Star
* News &amp; Star
* Business Gazette
* Cumbria Life
* Cumbria Online
* CN Letterbox
* DGB Life




ARCHIVE SEARCH




EMAIL UPDATES


















nw evening mail | cumberland news | times and star | news and star






*****************************************************************
 65 Comment is free: Labour's nuclear disaster

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > John Vidal

After losing to Greenpeace in a high-court ruling, the government
should now know that it cannot treat the environment lightly.

John Vidal

February 15, 2007 6:24 PM |

Well, was the government's decision last autumn to go for more
nuclear power a fait accompli? Had a decision been taken well before
the public consultation even began? Was Mr Blair being wholly honest
when he said that nuclear power was up for discussion?

The jury on these questions is out, but Mr Justice Sullivan in the
high court this morning ruling on a Greenpeace appeal was in no
doubt that the government had fundamentally let down the public,
breaking a solemn promise and not allowing real debate.

He didn't mince words. "The consultation was very seriously flawed,"
he said. "Something went radically wrong." "It was manifestly
inadequate." "It gave consultees inadequate information to make
intelligent decisions." Above all, it was judicially "unfair".

There was never going to be consensus on an issue that so clearly
divides people but, he said, the public was given superficial,
rushed and even misleading information. As leading ecologist and
government adviser Jonathon Porritt put it, with something as
important as nuclear power, it is "a precondition that people must
feel a decision has been taken in a responsible way".

The judge was damning in the detail, too. The government had failed
to put up any information about the economics of nuclear power and
it had misled the public about the waste issue. The most important
information, he said, only emerged after the consultation process
was over, and then only because it was forced out of them by freedom
of information rules.

Last night it seemed as if the government was going to press on with
its energy white paper next month, regardless of the ruling. It was
certainly not going to risk a second drubbing in the courts by
appealing and it is horrified by the idea of starting the
consultation process all over again.

The smart money was on it making a nod to further consultation in
the white paper, and hoping to get away with it.

Has it learned nothing? At the very least it should be engraved on
ministers' desks that consultation is a right not a privilege, and
that the environment cannot be treated in a cavalier fashion - by
prime ministers or anyone else.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 66 BBC NEWS: Positive polonium test on guest

Last Updated: Thursday, 15 February 2007, 16:34 GMT

Scotland Yard is investigating Alexander Litvinenko's murder


Another person has tested positive for the radioactive substance
which killed a former Russian spy.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said the test had been carried
out on a guest at The Pine Bar at the Millennium Hotel in London's
Mayfair.

Alexander Litvinenko drank there with associates on the day he is
believed to have been poisoned, 1 November.



Mr Litvinenko, 43, visited a number of sites in the capital on 1
November, including several hotels, an Italian restaurant in Mayfair
and the Itsu sushi bar in Piccadilly.

Last week the HPA revealed two more people had tested positive for
the radioactive substance, one of whom had also visited The Pine Bar.

Cancer risk

The HPA said the 16 who have tested positive for higher levels are
not expected to fall ill in the short term but do have a greater
risk of developing cancer in the long term.

A spokeswoman for the HPA has said they are just 0.05% more likely
to develop the disease than any other member of the public.

The latest update from the HPA says traces of polonium-210 have been
found in the urine of 679 people.

Of those, 560 had results of less than 30 millibecquerels (mBq) per
day, which is "below reporting levels".

Levels of up to 15 mBq can be found in the urine naturally.

A total of 119 people had "probable contact" with polonium-210 but
with "no health concern to the individual".

*****************************************************************
 67 Spectrum: Downwinders on Discovery Channel Thursday

www.thespectrum.com - The Spectrum, St. George, UT

Thursday, February 15, 2007   

ST. GEORGE  Southern Utah will be featured Thursday night on a
Discovery Channel telecast of “Best Evidence.

The science-oriented series will deal with atomic testing at the
Nevada Test Site and nuclear fallout that spread from there. The
program is scheduled to air at 9 p.m. (EST). Please check local
listings.

Several St. George residents will be featured during the broadcast,
which will also take a look at the cast and crew of the film “The
Conqueror.”

For years there has been speculation that John Wayne, Susan Hayward,
Agness Moorehead and others involved with the film contracted cancer
because of their exposure to nuclear fallout while filming in the
desert near Washington County.

Of the 220 persons who worked on the film, 91 contracted cancer and
46 died from it. Scientists say that under normal circumstances,
only 30 people from a group that size would suffer a similar fate.

Originally published February 14, 2007 Print this article Email this

Copyright ©2007 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 68 City on a Hill Press: Bomb Testing Brings Bad Memories - 

Federal government plan to test conventional bomb in Nevada faces
local opposition

By Sophia Kirschenman

St. George is a sleepy town in southern Utah known for its trails,
year-round golf courses and for being a “downwinder”—a title earned
for being located downwind from a Nevada site where 952 bombs were
tested between 1951 and 1992.

Many of the locals in St. George and other nearby areas have died or
developed cancer due to the radioactive ash they played in as
children. The radiation has now contaminated their soil and
groundwater as well as their bodies.

The federal government—which once told residents that bomb tests
would do no harm to local communities—proposed last year to once
again use the Nevada test site.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) planned to detonate the
700-ton ammonium nitrate-and-fuel oil conventional bomb, code-named
“Divine Strake,” in June 2006.

If executed, the test will show how deep tunnels in the United
States would be affected should there be an attack on U.S. complexes
or buildings.

The action was halted by a Reno attorney Robert Hagar, who filed a
lawsuit against Divine Strake on behalf of the Winnemucca Indian
Colony as well as several other individuals. Hagar is deeply opposed
to Divine Strake and believes that it would cause great harm.

“It’s a terrible situation when our fellow citizens are terrorized
by our government,” Hagar said. “If another country were threatening
to detonate a dirty bomb, we would attack them.”

He believes that he will be able to stop further attempts to
complete Divine Strake.

“They chickened out twice. Do I think that I’ll be able to stop them
a third time?” Hagar said. “Yes. I believe that this blast will
never happen.”

While Robert Hager expresses grave concerns over potential bomb
testing, others, such as Darwin Morgan, spokesperson for the Nevada
test site, do not believe that the bomb will emit radiation in large
enough quantities to have any effect.

“The radiation is less than what you find while watching TV,” Morgan
said. “[But] it’s not my place to say whether a person should or
should not be concerned.”

Officials have considered moving test sites, though doing so would
cost $100 million and take at least three years of planning. If kept
in Nevada, the test would only cost $5 million and could be
completed this year.

Andrew Kishner, founder of StopDivineStrake.com, a website dedicated
to informing the public and opposing further testing, discussed how
the previous tests not only harmed the local environment but
actually spread across the country.

“What I learned was that the fallout from tests conducted in Nevada
beginning in 1951 actually affected people’s health, mostly in the
form of thyroid diseases and thyroid cancer, in the Northeast,”
Kishner said. “Radioactive clouds from both above ground and leaky
underground testing reached New York State and parts of New England.”

According to Kishner, the government has stated that every county in
the continental United States was affected during U.S. nuclear
testing.

“No one upwind or downwind is safe when our government begins
playing with nuclear bombs or the remains of past nuclear tests,”
Kishner said.

Last month there were meetings in St. George, Las Vegas, Salt Lake
City and Boise where downwinders expressed their concerns about
Divine Strake.

“I’m a downwinder. My life has been shaped by what happened to me at
the hands of my government,” said local resident Mary Dickson at the
hearing in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Jan. 24. “I have thyroid
cancer and I lost a sister to lupus. In the neighborhood I grew up
in I’ve counted 45 people who died of fallout-related illnesses. We
traded our trust for our lives. We won’t do it again.”

A status hearing on the case filed by Robert Hager is scheduled for
March 2. No date for Divine Strake is currently set, but without
further postponement or legal issues the test could occur as early
as this spring.


In Volume 41, Issue 16

*****************************************************************
 69 IAEA: New Symbol Launched to Warn Public About Radiation Dangers

Web IAEA.org

15 February 2007

The new supplementary radiation warning symbol. [Graphic in PDF]

  New Radiation Symbol (Interview with Carolyn MacKenzie, IAEA)

With radiating waves, a skull and crossbones and a running person, a
new ionizing radiation warning symbol is being introduced to
supplement the traditional international symbol for radiation, the
three cornered trefoil.

The new symbol is being launched today by the IAEA and the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to help reduce
needless deaths and serious injuries from accidental exposure to
large radioactive sources. It will serve as a supplementary warning
to the trefoil, which has no intuitive meaning and little
recognition beyond those educated in its significance.

"I believe the international recognition of the specific expertise
of both organizations will ensure that the new standard will be
accepted and applied by governments and industry to improve the
safety of nuclear applications, protection of people and the
environment," said Ms. Eliana Amaral, Director, Division of
Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety, IAEA.

The new symbol is aimed at alerting anyone, anywhere to the
potential dangers of being close to a large source of ionizing
radiation, the result of a five-year project conducted in 11
countries around the world. The symbol was tested with different
population groups - mixed ages, varying educational backgrounds,
male and female - to ensure that its message of "danger - stay away"
was crystal clear and understood by all.

"We can´t teach the world about radiation," said Carolyn Mac Kenzie,
an IAEA radiation specialist who helped develop the symbol, "but we
can warn people about dangerous sources for the price of sticker."

The new symbol, developed by human factor experts, graphic artists,
and radiation protection experts, was tested by the Gallup Institute
on a total of 1 650 individuals in Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, Kenya,
Saudi Arabia, China, India, Thailand, Poland, Ukraine and the United
States.

The symbol is intended for IAEA Category 1, 2 and 3 sources defined
as dangerous sources capable of death or serious injury, including
food irradiators, teletherapy machines for cancer treatment and
industrial radiography units. The symbol is to be placed on the
device housing the source, as a warning not to dismantle the device
or to get any closer. It will not be visible under normal use, only
if someone attempts to disassemble the device. The symbol will not
be located on building access doors, transportation packages or
containers.

"The new ionizing radiation warning symbol (ISO 21482) is the latest
successful result of long-standing cooperation between the IAEA and
ISO. We encourage the symbol´s rapid adoption by the international
community," said ISO Secretary-General Alan Bryden.

Many source manufacturers plan to use the symbol on new large
sources. Strategies to apply the symbol on existing large sources
are being developed by the IAEA.

For more information, contact Danielle Dahlstrom, IAEA Press Office.

Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 70 LasVegasNOW.com: Nevada Test Site Workers Get Hopeful Boost From Senator Reid

Slaughter cleaned out tunnels after underground tests were set off
at the Nevada Test Site. He personally witnessed several explosions.

"It just seems to me when you get over one hurdle there's another
one waiting. You know, they just don't want to finalize this thing,
and in my opinion they just hope you die and go away," Ray Slaughter
stated.

Hundreds of sick and dying workers from the Nevada Test Site are
hopeful they'll be compensated for their illnesses now that Senator
Harry Reid has offered new legislation.

Reid's bill, which was introduced Thursday, would expand eligibility
for those who may have contracted cancer because of exposure to
radiation.

The I-Team's George Knapp has more on the legislation and the
problems it doesn't address. 

"It just seems to me when you get over one hurdle there's another
one waiting. You know, they just don't want to finalize this thing,
and in my opinion they just hope you die and go away," Ray Slaughter
stated.

Slaughter cleaned out tunnels after underground tests were set off
at the Nevada Test Site. He personally witnessed several explosions.
As the first on the scene, Slaughter was exposed to killer radiation
and toxic chemicals.

His doctors say the radiation left him with two different types of
cancer. Those doctors gave him two years to live. That was a year
ago, and it's obvious by looking at him that Slaughter's clock is
ticking. He knows the chances that he will receive compensation are
growing slimmer by the day.

"I haven't been feeling well at all. So, I don't know if they're
growing and they're doing something. I know that the tumors are
growing and coming back. I know that," he continued.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid says his new legislation will help
Slaughter and hundreds of other Test Site workers who are dying
receive compensation for service to the country.

Reid's office sent the I-Team this statement: "I care about these
Test Site workers because they, along with many other people, but
not anyone that did any more than they, were responsible for winning
the Cold War. The things that went on there allowed us to defeat, in
the Cold War, the Soviet Union. That's how important this is."

The bill would allow anyone who worked at the Test Site before 1993
to cut through the beauracratic  red tape and get the help they need
by putting them in what is called a "special exemption cohort,"
which would mean almost all atomic workers who develop certain
deadly diseases would be eligible for compensation.

Right now, two thirds of the dying Test Site workers don't qualify
at all, and less than 5-percent of those who are eligible have
received benefits. Slaughter's testimony in front of Congress in
2000 helped spark legislation to pay dying nuclear workers up to
$150,000 each. But for Slaughter and other Cold War veterans, it may
be too little, too late.

"Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which is not one of the 22 registered
cancers, and lymphoma. And based on the silicosis, I contracted
diabetes, heart problems, and all kinds of different health problems
that they've paid me for," Ray Slaughter explained. "I recently had
a CAT scan done and it showed some stuff on my lung, and kidney and
adrenal gland."

This week, Slaughter drove to Las Vegas for yet another in a long
line of medical screenings. He says his doctor told him that
radiation does not cause cancer. Disgusted, Slaughter is almost
ready to give up, which is what he things the government wants him
to do.

Eligible workers are put through what is called "dose
reconstruction." It's a process that uses records from as long as 50
years ago to estimate how much radiation workers may have been
exposed to. But Slaughter says it's a joke. Many times workers would
take their radiation gauges off, and many of the records are
incomplete or destroyed.

Ray said, "They're bogus. They're totally bogus in my opinion,
because, you know, one year I got the maximum dose in three days --
the yearly dose -- and the next year I got zero. It doesn't make any
sense. And I was constantly doing re-entry."

A government study agrees, saying the test drastically
underestimates the amount of radiation each worker received. But for
Slaughter and other nuclear workers, the problem isn't just getting
the government to recognize that their cancers are linked to the
Test Site, it's getting them to cut the beauracratic  run-around and
recognize them for their service and sacrifice.

"It's just one hurdle after another. I said, why can't you just say
yeah, you've got lymphoma, which you've done partially, and your
entitled to have a full body impairment rating and be compensated
accordingly? That's all I'm asking." Ray explained.

Senator Reid says the money to help the workers has already been
appropriated but the Bush administration won't spend it. He hopes to
change that before Ray Slaughter dies.

Other big name senators have joined the fight for nuclear workers in
their states.

Illinois senator Barack O'Bama is fighting for compensation for
workers at 17 separate sites there. And New York Senator Charles
Schumer successfully got a resource center built in western New York.

Email your comments to Investigative Reporter George Knapp.

 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 71 UPI: U.N. unveils new radiation warning symbol

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

2/15/2007 2:53:00 PM -0500

VIENNA, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- A new radiation warning symbol -- with
radiating waves, a skull and crossbones and a running person -- has
been unveiled by the United Nations.

The new symbol, meant to reduce deaths and injuries from accidental
exposure to radioactive sources, was launched Thursday by the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the International
Organization for Standardization. It will be placed on sources of
radiation like food irradiators and cancer treatment machines.

The symbol has a bright red background and will only be seen if
someone attempts to disassemble a device that is a source of
dangerous radiation. It will not be located on building access
doors, transportation packages or containers, said the IAEA
announcement.

The IAEA said it is changing the warning symbol from the old three
cornered trefoil because the old symbol was not well recognized. The
new symbol was tested with different population groups to ensure it
will be universally understood, the IAEA said.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 72 Whitehaven News: Radioactivity on Braystones beach

Published on 15/02/2007

RADIOACTIVE contamination from Sellafield has been detected on
Braystones beach following recently improved monitoring.

British Nuclear Group has reported in the Sellafield newsletter that
â€œa week of radiological monitoring was carried out at Braystones
beach between Monday January 29 and Friday 2.

â€œThe monitoring was in line with an Environment Agency statutory
requirement.

â€œAs a result of the monitoring we have removed three contaminated
items from the beach. These are being fully analysed to determine
their source.

â€œThe Environment Agency is aware of the finds. Two of the finds
are of minor significance and are below the limit of detection
specified by the Environment Agency.

â€œThe third, detected at a depth of approximately 15 centimetres,
is of less significance than the two minor finds for external
contact but of greater significance if inhaled or ingested.

â€œThe chance of this happening while on the beach is extremely
small and the overall health risk to a member of the public is of
the order one in a hundred million â€“ it is safe to be on the
beach.â€

In the 1980s there was outcry after a beach ban was introduced
because of contamination of the beaches around Sellafield.

Dr Rex Strong, head of strategy and standards, said: â€œIt is
important we put this find into context to reassure people.

â€œWe 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 and the results will allow us
to develop a new programme of monitoring.â€

Work is still ongoing to fully characterise the contaminated items
recovered from Sellafield beach during the first phase of enhanced
beach monitoring carried out between 28 November and 1 December 2006.

This monitoring resulted in detection and recovery of ten items of
minor contamination. All ten items have been confirmed as below the
limit of detection specified by the Environment Agency.

These finds are as a result of new technology being used and as such
the current beach monitoring programme is being reviewed in response
to the recovery of these items. Any proposed improvements to the
programme will be discussed with the Environment Agency.

www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy
*****************************************************************
 73 Guardian Unlimited: Records May Be Exhumed From Nuclear Dump

From the Associated Press

Thursday February 15, 2007 7:31 AM

      DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - Records buried in a landfill used for 
radioactive waste may be dug up to determine whether 
cancer-stricken workers from a defunct nuclear-weapons plant 
qualify for compensation, a federal official said.

 At least a dozen pallets of cardboard boxes, six 55-gallon drums 
and 11 safes containing classified records from the Mound weapons 
plant in Miamisburg, Ohio, were buried in underground shafts of 
the landfill at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in 
2005.

  Nobody knows the condition of the records, and the U.S. 
Department of Energy says it could take up to 18 months and cost 
as much as $9 million to unearth and decontaminate them.

     Larry Elliott, the director of compensation analysis for the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, said the 
records could help officials get a clear picture of the hazards 
workers faced at the weapons plant.

      ``We are open-minded as to whether (the records) should be 
exhumed,'' Elliott said. ``This is an interesting problem, and 
we're doing the best we can to make sure that we have the 
documents we need to do our work.''

  Elliott's office oversees a method of estimating workers' 
exposure to harmful radiation and chemicals. If the probability 
is at least 50 percent that a worker's cancer was caused by 
on-the-job exposure, the worker qualifies for federal cash and 
medical benefits.

 Elliott said he will know within weeks whether it will be 
necessary to exhume the records.

  Department of Energy spokeswoman Megan Barnett said Wednesday 
that the agency was looking for related material, including 
possible duplicates to the records.

  Mound began making triggers and detonators for nuclear weapons 
in 1949 and employed more than 2,000 workers at its peak. The 
Department of Energy ended production at the plant in 1996.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 74 AU The Age: NT to get Lucas Heights waste: senator - 

National - theage.com.au

February 15, 2007 - 6:18PM

 The Northern Territory will be a dumping ground for parts of
Sydney's decommissioned Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, a Labor
senator fears.

Senator Trish Crossin said officials, questioned at a Senate
estimates committee in Canberra yesterday, had confirmed sections of
the former reactor would be making their way north.

"This seems to contradict assurances given on the day of the
decommissioning by Lucas Heights staff that none of the old reactor
was coming to the NT," she said today.

The Lucas Heights rector was shut down last month after nearly 50
years of splitting atoms.

Fuel will be removed and fluids drained from the facility, before
short-lived radioactive materials within the reactor are left to
decay.

The 10-year process will be complete once the reactor itself is
dismantled, radioactive waste removed and the site redeveloped.

Senator Crossin said most of the details were still cloudy.

"It is concerning that while the government is hell bent on building
new reactors that details of decommissioning our oldest reactor,
such as the volume of intermediate waste and the storing of its
radioactive parts, are so vague," she said.

AAP

Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 75 AU ABC: Govt told to 'come clean' on NT waste dump

ABC Northern Territory  

Thursday, 15 February 2007. 09:29 (AEDT)Thursday, 15 February 2007.

The Northern Territory's Labor Senator, Trish Crossin, has accused
the Federal Government of lying after it admitted yesterday the
Territory will be a dump site for Sydney's decommissioned Lucas
Heights reactor.

Senator Crossin says officials told a Senate estimates about the
Commonwealth's dumping plan, despite assurances on the day of the
decommissioning that waste would not be heading for the Territory.

Senator Crossin says the Commonwealth will not say exactly how much
waste there will be or where it will go.

"Every time I go to estimates I find another saga, another story,"
she said.

"And we really need them to come clean and be honest and give us the
whole picture about exactly what it is we're going to be asked to
store on behalf of the Commonwealth."

Senator Crossin says the Federal Government has told her it is in
discussions with the Northern Land Council about where the waste
will be dumped.

"What we've got is a nuclear waste dump being constructed in the
Northern Territory under secrecy," she said.

"Why can't this Federal Government be open and honest about what it
is they are talking about with the Northern Land Council, if it's
going to be Muckaty Station then let us all know."


*****************************************************************
 76 West Australian: No review of uranium export policy - govt

thewest.com.au

15th February 2007, 14:46 WST

Australia is not formally reviewing its policy on uranium exports to
make way for trade with India, foreign affairs officials say.

Australia has so far refused to consider selling the resource to the
sub-continent because nuclear-armed India is not a signatory to the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

But last month Foreign Minister Alexander Downer appeared to have
softened his position.

In a speech to an energy forum in Los Angeles, Mr Downer indicated
it was an issue still up for discussion between the two countries.

Despite the minister's comments, the Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade (DFAT) on Thursday said it believed there was no formal
review of policy underway.

"I don't think there is a review," DFAT's acting assistant secretary
for arms control and counter proliferation Gita Kamath told the
Senate foreign affairs committee.

"I think we have the current policy.

"It's keeping the whole issue under review."

Her answer confused Labor's Senator leader Chris Evans.

"What's the issue - world peace, or exporting uranium to India?"
Senator Evans said.

But Ms Kamath said the Nuclear Suppliers Group - of which Australia
is a member - would have to change its guidelines that prevent
uranium supply to countries which are not signatories to the NPT.

Discussions within that group were confidential between the
governments, she said.

One of the government's chief nuclear advisers last week tipped
Australia could be selling uranium to India within a decade.

Former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, who headed the government's
nuclear task force, believes it may not be too long before India
follows in the footsteps of China, which last year got the green
light to buy Australian uranium.

China is a party to the NPT. AAP

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 77 Independent: Dounreay operator fined 140k

By Paul Kelbie, Scotland Correspondent

Published: 16 February 2007

The UK Atomic Energy Authority has been fined £140,000 for releasing
radioactive particles into the sea and illegally dumping radioactive
waste.

As the operator of the nuclear plant at Dounreay, Caithness, the
UKAEA was responsible for a number of leaks and safety breaches over
a 20-year period.

After an investigation by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
(Sepa), UKAEA bosses admitted disposing of radioactive waste at a
landfill site at the plant between 1963 and 1975 and three charges
of allowing nuclear fuel particles to be released through drains
into the Pentland Firth. All the offences, which contravened the
Radioactive Substances Act, took place between 1963 and 1984.

Wick Sheriff Court was told that six of the recovered particles were
considered very dangerous and could be fatal if ingested.

John Crofts, UKAEA's director of safety, said afterwards: "We accept
that mistakes were made and regret those mistakes."

Dounreay shut in 1994 and is due to be decommissioned by 2033.



© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 78 Salt Lake Tribune: Fast reactors

Editorials

Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated: 02/14/2007 07:52:06 PM MST

After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth," I believe that we, as citizens
of the world, need to find a better way to produce power to prevent
global warming. Nuclear energy is an obvious answer because it is
cheap, clean power.

    However, America's nuclear plants have several shortcomings.
First, only one-twentieth of the available energy is converted into
electricity. Second, the waste is problematic, remaining radioactive
for up to 10,000 years. It can greatly harm one's health and could
be used in nuclear weapons.

    However, there is an experimental design, known as a fast
reactor, which is much more efficient than traditional reactors
because nuclear waste could fuel it. After the fuel has been used,
the radioactive material would be reused and the byproducts placed
in a storage site. This method would use almost all available energy.

    The fast reactor has been around for 10 years, but only two
exist. Fast reactors would be 99 percent more efficient. The waste
would be much safer and could not be used in nuclear weapons. Also,
no greenhouse gases would be emitted. If this new design is so much
more efficient, why don't we use it?
   
    Matthew Bohman
    Salt Lake City
  
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 79 Salt Lake Tribune: Doubling nuke waste

Editorials

Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated: 02/14/2007 07:52:05 PM MST

There are only two instances when the Utah Legislature must get
involved in nuclear waste disposal issues.

    One, if EnergySolutions seeks to increase its disposal capacity
by more than 50 percent. And two, if nuclear waste will be dumped on
a new parcel of land. If the Legislature is incapable of making
those simple policy decisions, then maybe we should take them out of
the process.

    Unfortunately, SB155 also silences the governor and prevents
local elected officials from deciding how much nuclear waste should
be dumped in Utah. If SB155 passes, the sole decision would rest
with unelected bureaucrats (who repeatedly say they will not factor
Utah's policy interests into their decisions).

    Ironically, the Legislature tried last year to gain more control
over these types of decisions while weakening the governor's ability
to stop nuclear waste expansions. Fortunately, they failed. This
year, they apparently want no power to decide whether
EnergySolutions can stack nuclear waste twice as high.

    These two positions obviously conflict. Yet what remains
consistent is the Legislature's unyielding desire to make it easier
for EnergySolutions to dump more nuclear waste in Utah.
   
    Jason Groenewold
    Salt Lake City
  
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 80 DailyBulletin.com: Aerojet site may look serene, but several areas still contaminated

By Shelli DeRobertis, Staff Writer

Article Launched: 02/15/2007 12:00:00 AM PST

CHINO HILLS - The road to the 400-acre Aerojet site winds for about
a mile and a half along grass-covered hills that act as a haven to
grazing cows.

Near the entryway of the former military equipment-testing site, an
abandoned administration building on one hill overlooks a parking
lot and helicopter pad.

Photo Gallery: Aerojet Facility Clean Up in Chino Hills, 02/15

======================================================================

The cracked pavement leads through dry, rugged brush and tall weeds
that cover hills of various sizes. Branching off the road are lots
showing the different testing sites that once claimed their own
spaces, like campers in a campground.

But it's not what's on top of the ground that's of interest to
Aerojet officials and Chino Hills residents. It's what lies beneath.

Of 29 identified locations on the Aerojet site where munitions
testing took place, 10 continue to be the focus of the company's $40
million cleanup effort, which started soon after Aerojet closed the
plant in 1995.

Aerojet, a rocket and missile propulsion systems maker based in
Sacramento, is a subsidiary of GenCorp, headquartered in Rancho
Cordova.

Aerojet's development and testing methods caused toxic contamination
of the Rancho Cordova site, which was designated as an Environmental
Protection Agency Superfund site.

GenCorp reported 2006 sales of $621.1 million and a net loss for the
year of $38.5 million, which included an $8.5 million charge for
settlement of environmental toxic tort cases.

In order for Aerojet's land in Chino Hills to be cleared for sale,
the state Department of Toxic Substances Control must deem the site
relatively free of harmful chemicals, including depleted uranium.

Terrance Griffin, executive vice president of Aerojet/GenCorp, said
Aerojet didn't make depleted uranium on site, but the company used
it for testing "because it was a dense metal that would penetrate
thick armor."

A narrow dirt path teeters along the edge of a steep cliff where,
approximately 300 feet below, a densely vegetated canyon was used
for testing weapons. Mostly guns were fired here.

The location is known as the Open Burn/Open Detonation area, or 1
Charlie. The site's subsurface water is being monitored for the
presence of perchlorate, a chemical used in manufacturing rocket
fuel that has contaminated some Southern California groundwater
basins.

Aerojet already has swept 1 Charlie for ordnance - leftover
munitions and explosives. Eighty-five thousand tons of material were
processed as part of corrective measures, Aerojet Director Scott
Goulart said.

Heading farther south on the main road, the vegetation becomes
colorful near a seasonal wash that has water trickling through its
mile-long stretch.

Various places along the wash have been tested repeatedly, Goulart
said, but the wash hasn't been a cleanup concern.

"None of the concentrations detected at any point in the creek, to
date, pose a risk," Goulart said.

Goulart also said equipment used to monitor air had reported
uncontaminated air.

DTSC required strategic placement of the air monitors, equipment
that resemble a bladeless windmill.

Aerojet submitted a report on recent surface water tested from one
of its areas called Upper A 12, and DTSC Branch Chief Karen Baker
said the levels of depleted uranium came back as being too high.

Baker said a report filed by Aerojet on the area in 2004 showed
acceptable levels of depleted uranium at 400 parts per billion.

But the November 2006 report filed by Aerojet on depleted uranium
levels for Upper Area A 12 showed 1,410 parts per billion.

She said that when depleted uranium exceeds 1,300 parts per billion,
it poses a public safety and health concern.

Baker said DTSC recently informed Aerojet that "because of the
increase, your concentration is now above the level, and therefore
you need to go back and re-evaluate the Upper A 12, and continue to
do sampling after rainfall events."

Before Aerojet receives permission to sell or develop the property,
it must first work with the city of Chino Hills to decide what the
future land use will be.

It is currently zoned rural residential, allowing two units per
acre, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.

"As we start looking at how we need to clean things up," Goulart
said, Aerojet will use hypothetical scenarios for the future use of
the property.

Those scenarios could include residential, industrial, or office
zoned land uses.

He said within the next 18-24 months, the series of scenarios will
be presented to DTSC as alternatives for the property's use, which
will be a cooperative effort between the city and Aerojet.

Mayor Pro Tem Curt Hagman said the city is restricted on what it can
do, and when Chino Hills incorporated in 1991 the zoning on the
Aerojet property was part of the master plan.

"It's rural residential, and we have gone over no scenarios to
change it," Hagman said, adding that he agreed with Mayor Gwenn
Norton-Perry that the council's main goal is the safety of the
city's residents.

"We need to ensure the safety of our residents and future residents
of Chino Hills," Norton-Perry said.

"At the sake of not developing the area - that's fine with me."

Baker said that DTSC will continue meeting with Aerojet in the next
two years until a decision on the fate of the land is reached.

"They will formally propose to us what they want to do with the
land," Baker said. "If we agree, we then formally put it out for
public comment and the city decides what they want, and follow a
process designated to land use."

Norton-Perry said that two years isn't enough time for the decisions
to be made, because "it's not a rosy picture."



Staff writer Shelli DeRobertis can be reached by e-mail at
shelli.derobertis@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-8555.


Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
 81 Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers seek to dilute N-waste expansion oversight

Veto-proof bill would let EnergySolutions off the governor-approval
hook

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 02/15/2007 12:52:39 AM MST

Lawmakers and EnergySolutions weren't about to let Gov. Jon M.
Huntsman Jr. break their hearts again.

    So, they passed a bill Wednesday easing political oversight of
the company's radioactive waste landfill and sent the measure to
Huntsman on Valentine's Day with veto-proof majorities in both the
House and Senate.

   The governor gave a cold shoulder to the company last year, just
when it needed his approval to expand the Tooele County landfill,
the largest of its kind in the nation. And, when lawmakers came to
the company's defense by trying through legislation to take away the
governor's final word on major waste projects, the Republican
governor dumped the bill and lawmakers failed to muster the votes to
override his veto.

    The latest effort to accommodate EnergySolutions' expansion
plans was sent to the governor with a 55-10 vote by the House on
Wednesday. And, within minutes, the Senate blessed a last-minute
House amendment with its own 22-5 vote.

    Overriding a veto requires a minimum of 50 votes in the House
and 20 in the Senate.

   Spokesman Mike Mower said the governor, who refused contributions
from the company and its owners during his 2004 campaign, is
studying the bill. The measure would eliminate the political
approval process for EnergySolutions alone and allows the company to
take as much waste as it wants within its current boundary as 
long as it is no hotter than the low-level material now 
permitted.

    ?Gov. Huntsman,? said Mower, ?has not made a final decision on
whether he will sign the bill.?

    Meanwhile, the company and its opponents both say they haven't
spoken with the governor about it. Huntsman has 10 days to decide,
and with 14 days left in the 2007 legislative session, lawmakers
would have enough time to override a veto.

    Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of
Utah, called the bill a ?get-out-of-jail-free card? for the state's
Department of Environmental Quality. The group and at least one
former company executive had signaled over the last year that they
might fight the state over its interpretation of the 1990 law.

    Opponents contend regulators failed to enforce a part of the law
that would have forced several expansions to go before Tooele
County, the Legislature and the governor - including a pending
expansion that would allow waste to be piled 85 feet high, or 8
stories tall.

    Despite this ?50-percent rule? that triggers the political
approvals, the Division of Radiation Control has amended
EnergySolutions' license more than 80 times in the past 19 years and
has never directed the company to get the Legislature and the
governor to approve those changes, many of them large expansions.

    Critics - 666 public comments on the request have been under
review since November - seemed poised to press their case on appeal
and perhaps, to put the state's interpretation of the 50-percent
rule on trial in court.

    Rep. Richard Wheeler, R-Ephraim, said he wants no say over what
happens at EnergySolutions' current site.

    ?My plea is: let's let the regulators do their jobs,? he said.

    fahys@sltrib.com
  
SB155

   Would remove political oversight from EnergySolutions' expansion
within current boundary

   Next step: Goes to the governor for signature
  
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 82 Deseret Nnews: Veto-proof waste bill?

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Copyright 2007 Deseret Morning News

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

      With both houses passing the EnergySolutions bill, opponents
have pinned their hopes on a veto by Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. But
the measure, SB155, passed with majorities that would be ? if
lawmakers stick with their earlier votes ? veto-proof.
      However, there's no guarantee legislators would override a
veto. If the governor vetoes the bill, the Legislature might not
have an override session; if they do have the session, some
vote-switching could occur.
      Overwhelming passage happened despite public opinion that was
solidly against SB155. A new Deseret News-KSL-TV poll showed 78
percent opposed, 18 percent favoring and 4 percent undecided.
      The bill removes the authority of the governor, Legislature
and local zoning officials to approve or disapprove changes in
EnergySolutions' nuclear waste disposal on Section 32, the square
mile it owns in Tooele County. Proponents say the Legislature
mistakenly imposed such restrictions in 2005.
      But if EnergySolutions wants to expand its work beyond Section
32 or change the type of material it handles ? presently limited to
Class A waste, having the lowest radioactivity ? it needs approval
from governor, legislators and county zoning.
      The bill whizzed through the Senate last week, 22-5 with two
not voting. On Wednesday, it met little opposition in the House,
passing 55-10. To override a veto, the Senate need muster only 20
votes and the House, 50.
      Last week, Mike Mower, spokesman for the governor, said
Huntsman was evaluating the bill and had not "made a final decision
on whether or not he will sign this legislation."
      The House sponsor, Rep. James R. Gowans, R-Tooele, emphasized,
"No new waste is being requested. No additional land area is being
requested" in the bill.
      Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake, questioned Gowans on the
details of the measure. "Is it possible under those two lines (in
the bill) that more than the EnergySolutions location out by Tooele
would qualify?" she asked.
      "Not in this bill," Gowans replied.
      She asked if the bill would allow a site in Carbon County to
begin disposing of uranium tailings, and Gowans said no.
      "It's really easy to get pulled away from the core issue,"
said Rep. Richard Wheeler, R-Ephraim. "As a policy body, we need to
decide which things need to be political and which things need to be
regulatory."
      The bill passed the House with an amendment. It bounced back
to the Senate, which concurred with the change. It now awaits action
by Huntsman.
      "We're pleased with the outcome," said Mark Walker, spokesman
for EnergySolutions. "We feel that it's the right decision, and we
look forward to continued work and success with Section 32 at our
facility.
      "We appreciate the Legislature considering the bill and
looking at it for its merits, and for the work that went into it and
the time they spent" with SB155.
      Vanessa Pierce, director of the Health Environment Alliance of
Utah, said passage of SB155 "shows how incredibly out of touch
legislators are from their constituents and the general public," she
said in an e-mail to the Deseret Morning News.
      "EnergySolutions had an army of lobbyists supporting SB155,"
she said, adding that the company made generous donations to
legislators. "It's no wonder this bill passed so handily."
      Pierce added, "The power to stop this bill is now in the
governor's hands."
      In the poll, 8 percent strongly favored the bill, 10 percent
somewhat favored; 12 percent somewhat opposed and 66 percent
strongly opposed it. Altogether, 418 Utahns were interviewed and the
results have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.

E-mail: bau@desnews.com

© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company

*****************************************************************
 83 AU ABC: Company to search for uranium in central Aust. 

16/02/2007. ABC News Online

A South Australian based uranium company has acquired an exploration
project in central Australia.

Toro Energy Limited will spend about $3 million over the next three
years to explore uranium opportunities at the Napperby site, 150
kilometres north-west of Alice Springs.

The public company says it will give about $2 million of its shares
to the site's owner, Deep Yellow, to explore the land.

Toro Energy's Greg Hall says the company will look at development
opportunities at the site.

"Deep Yellow are a major and experienced exploration company, so
they've found a potential resource," he said.

"Their preference now is to go look for other potential resources
elsewhere while our preference is to be a developer of resources and
so we want, Toro Energy wants to see whether this project is one
that can be taken forward to developing a mine."

&copy; 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 84 [NYTr] Top Nuke Weapons Scientist Speaks Out
 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:07:40 -0500 (EST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Roger Herried (activ-l)

San Francisco Chronicle via Radbull Mailing List - Feb 14, 2007
http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/radbull

Hanford News: 

Los Alamos scientist criticizes federal approach to arsenal

By James Sterngold
San Francisco Chronicle

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - 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
United States 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.

(Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service,
www.scrippsnews.com.)

(c) 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.


       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 85 Tri-City Herald: Senate sets Hanford's fiscal budget

Published Thursday, February 15th, 2007

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

The U.S. Senate approved legislation Wednesday setting the fiscal
2007 budget for Hanford.

The bill, approved by the U.S. House last month, gives the
Department of Energy broad authority on how it spends money in the
fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

DOE has 30 days from enactment of the bill to submit a report to
Congress on how it plans to spend the money.

But Hanford officials say top DOE officials plan to restore full
funding for construction of Hanford's vitrification plant and spend
$1.88 billion at the nuclear reservation in the current year, up
from $1.75 billion in fiscal 2006.

Work is continuing on the $12.3 billion vitrification plant based on
an annual budget of $526 million, the amount set for fiscal year
2006. Because of studies and other costs, the 2006 amount available
to contractor Bechtel National was actually closer to $490 million.

If technical issues are resolved and the plant also receives $690
million in 2008 as the Bush administration has requested,
construction hiring at the plant could begin to ramp up in the fall.

DOE would plan to spend about $274 million at the tank farms this
year, which is down by about $52 million from 2006. The decrease
would mean no money for the construction of the bulk vitrification
pilot plant this year, which has technical issues that need to be
resolved. The Bush administration has proposed continuing the cut
through fiscal 2008.

Other work at Hanford, which falls under the DOE Richland Operations
Office, would receive $917 million under tentative plans. That's up
from $900 million in fiscal 2006.

Work would continue at the same level and DOE could meet its legal
requirements for cleanup assigned to the Richland Operations Office,
according to DOE officials. Contractors working for the office
include Fluor Hanford and Washington Closure Hanford.

DOE and the majority of other federal agencies have been operating
under a continuing resolution since Oct. 1, when the fiscal year
started, without a budget approved. When Democrats took control of
Congress, leaders announced they would move on to work on the fiscal
2008 budget rather than working on a detailed 2007 budget for the
remainder of the year.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 86 FR: DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting

Doc E7-2670

[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]               
[Page 7430-7431]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-48]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Meetings.

SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy 
Agency (IEA) will meet on February 20 and 21, 2007, at the headquarters 
of the IEA in Paris, France, including in connection with a joint 
meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and 
the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market on February 20, and a 
meeting of SEQ on February 21.

DATES: February 20-21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: 9, rue de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration, Paris, France.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General 
for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-6738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) 
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) 
(EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided:
    Meetings of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International 
Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue 
de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration, Paris, France, on February 20, 2007, 
beginning at 11 a.m. and continuing on February 21, 2007, at 9 a.m. and 
10 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by 
representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a joint meeting 
of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's 
Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) on February 20 beginning at 11 
a.m.; at a preparatory encounter among IAB members on February 21 from 
approximately 9 a.m. to approximately 9:30 a.m.; and at a meeting of 
the SEQ on February 21 beginning at 10 a.m.
    The agenda of the joint SEQ/SOM meeting on February 20 is under the 
control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is expected that the SEQ and the SOM 
will adopt the following agenda:
    1. Adoption of the Agenda of the Joint SEQ/SOM Session.
    2. Approval of the Summary Record of the November 2006 Joint SEQ/
SOM Session.

Part I: Market Updates

    3. Natural Gas Market Update.
    4. Current and Medium-term Oil Market Update.

[[Page 7431]]

Part II: Workshop on Resource Nationalism

    5. From Resource Nationalism to Resource Management.
    6. Russian Oil and Gas in Perspective.
    7. Venezuela: Going Full Circle.
    8. Assessing Investment Risks: Case Studies Impact of Contract and 
Ownership Change.
    9. Resource Nationalism--Implications for Security and Supply.
    10. Other Business.
    The agenda of the IAB meeting on February 21, 2007, is review of 
the agenda for the SEQ meeting on that date beginning at 10 a.m.
    The agenda of the SEQ meeting on February 21, 2007 is under the 
control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the 
following agenda:
1. Adoption of the Agenda.
2. Approval of the Summary Record of the 118th Meeting. Approval of the 
Summary Record of the Joint Session of the SEQ/SOM.
3. Status of Compliance with IEP Stockholding Commitments.
    --Reports by Non-Complying Member countries.
4. Program of Work.
    --The SEQ Program of Work and Budget for 2007-2008.
    --Schedule of Upcoming Activities.
5. Emergency Response Review Program.
    --Emergency Response Review of Switzerland.
    --Emergency Response Review of Germany.
6. The Druzhba Pipeline Disruption of January 2007.
    --Overview of the January 2007 Druzhba Pipeline Disruption.
    --Lessons Learned by Member and Candidate Countries.
7. Report on Current Activities of the IAB.
8. Emergency Response Exercise 4.
    --First Steps Toward ERE 4.
5. Emergency Response Review Program (continued).
    --Emergency Response Review of Austria.
    --Emergency Response Review of the Slovak Republic.
9. Other Emergency Response Activities.
10. Activities with Non-Member Countries and International 
Organizations.
    --Update on Situation of Applicant Countries.
    --Office of Global Dialogue Activities.
11. Documents for Information.
    --Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Member Countries on October 1, 
2006.
    --Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on October 
1, 2006.
    --Base Period Final Consumption: 4Q 2005-3Q 2006.
    --Monthly Oil Statistics: November 2006.
    --Update of Emergency Contacts List.
12. Other Business.
    --Panel of Arbitrators Nominations.
    --Dates of Next SEQ Meetings.
    As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB 
are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; 
representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency 
Questions and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets; 
representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the 
Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of 
Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the 
IAB, the SEQ, the SOM, or the IEA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 12, 2007.
Samuel M. Bradley,
Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security 
Programs.
 [FR Doc. E7-2670 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************