***************************************************************** 02/21/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.43 ***************************************************************** 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 BBC NEWS: Blair announces Iraq troops cut 2 [NYTr] Iran Demands West Halt Enrichment As Well 3 [NYTr] Iran Reaffirms Going Ahead with Pacific Nuke Program 4 [NYTr] US dismisses Iran's offer to halt enrichment 5 US: [NYTr] War on Iran Is Not an Option 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Readies Report on Iran Nuke Program 7 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Calls for Tougher Iran Sanctions 8 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran defiant over nuclear ambitions 9 BBC NEWS: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed 10 BBC NEWS: Iran 'swiftly seeks nuclear goal' 11 Guardian Unlimited: India Bans Atomic Exports to Iran 12 Guardian Unlimited: How far will Iran's bravado go? 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Unyielding on IAEA Nuclear Demands 14 Reuters: UN atomic report may expose Iran to wider sanctions 15 United Press International: Deadline passes, Iran still enriching 16 AFP: Iran defiant ahead of UN nuclear deadline 17 United Press International: Russia warns U.S. on Iran moves 18 UPI: Israel advocates more Iran sanctions 19 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Sets Condition to Halt Nuke Program 20 [NYTr] Diplomacy Works in North Korea, Why Not Iran? 21 Reuters: U.S. urged to reassess claim against North Korea 22 UPI: Cheney sides with Japan over N. Korea 23 Korea Times: Negroponte Could Visit Pyongyang 24 AFP: NKorea can make nuclear warhead for missile - (right wing) expe 25 AFP: SKorea says deal covers all NKorea nuke programmes 26 [NYTr] Russia to Target US Facilities in Poland, Czech Republi 27 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Slams Russian General Over Comments 28 US: NARUC Forum: Remarks as Prepared for Energy Deputy Secretary Cla 29 [NYTr] Lobe: A Tale of Two Interventions 30 RIA Novosti: A bad treaty is better than a good missile 31 Herald: Navy tells Faslane to cut costs by 30m 32 UPI: India, Pakistan sign nuclear treaty 33 AFP: India, Pakistan sign nuke deal in defiance of train attacks NUCLEAR REACTORS 34 nukes to process oil sands? Straightgoods.com 35 Galway Independent: Fahey in favour of nuclear energy debate 36 Xinhua: Indonesia to build nuclear power plant 37 RIA Novosti: Russia, RSA discuss nuclear cooperation program - agenc 38 US: FR: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings 39 Energy Business Review: UK nuclear energy: at a crossroads - 40 US: Capital Times: James Butcher: Nuclear power not good coal substi 41 US: FR: NRC: In the Matter of Dairyland Power Cooperative: La Crosse 42 US: CorpWatch : US: Green like money: Activists counter PG&E's green 43 Edinburgh Evening News: SNP calls for rejection of nuclear plants 44 Leader-Post: Nuclear energy NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 UPI: BMD Focus: Russia's INF threat not bluff NUCLEAR SAFETY 46 US: Spectrum: Divine Strake opposed 47 Norway Post: Continued assistance to nuclear clean-up 48 US: Deseret News: Iron County opposes Divine Strake blast 49 US: National Academies Project: Updated Literature Review of Deplete NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 50 LVN: Editorial: Nevada needs to maximize heightened political clout 51 Nevada Appeal: Reid says Yucca is dead 52 US: Sydney Morning Herald: BHP in spot of bother over uranium contra 53 FR: NWTRB: Yucca Mtg in Berkeley 3-14-07 54 US: Pueblo Chieftain: Cotter sues to take N.J. waste soils 55 US: The State: South Carolina's credibility at stake on nuclear dump 56 Daily Yomiuri: Nuclear fuel agreement mixed blessing 57 Daily Yomiuri: Japan-Russia uranium enrichment deal near 58 US: Herald News: GE bids for nuclear recycling 59 US: businessinafrica.net: southern africa Uranium Group to double pr 60 Sparks Tribune: Nuke waste could travel through Sparks, Reno 61 US: Press Enterprise: Pasadena, NASA disagree on source of water wel 62 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Paul Rolly: Did those crossed wires glow? 63 US: Daily Herald: Argonne could start recycling nuclear fuel 64 US: StockInterview.com: Uranium Resurgence Adds Super Symposium to 2 65 DAWN: Move for indigenous N-fuel capability - PEACE 66 [NYTr] India, Pakistan Sign Nuclear Peace US DEPT. OF ENERGY 67 Earth Times: Bodman calls energy focus a daunting task 68 SF New Mexican: Panel may push for removal of secret work 69 Hanford News: Oregon lawmakers push for protection 70 Times-News: INL breaks ground on energy studies building 71 Seattle Times: Spread of radioactivity at Hanford blamed on lack of 72 Seattle Times: B Reactor at Hanford proposed as national historic la 73 UPI: Safety at nuclear weapon factory evaluated 74 UPI: Bodman calls energy focus a daunting task 75 lamonitor.com: House decries 'LANL problem' 76 KnoxNews: Ex-ORNL subcontractor found guilty in DOE scheme 77 National Academies Project: DOE Cleanup roadmap 78 KnoxNews: Nuke support has a long half-life ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: Blair announces Iraq troops cut Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 18:15 GMT Some 7,000 UK troops are currently serving in Iraq Some 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months, Prime Minister Tony Blair has told MPs. He said the 7,100 serving troops would be cut to 5,500 soon, with hopes that 500 more will leave by late summer. Remaining troops will stay into 2008, to give back-up if necessary and secure borders, but the Iraqis would "write the next chapter" in Basra's history. Mr Blair said Operation Sinbad, aimed at allowing Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in the city, had been successful. He acknowledged that Basra was still "difficult and sometimes dangerous", but he said levels of murder and kidnappings had dropped and reconstruction was under way. "The UK military presence will continue into 2008, for as long as we are wanted and have a job to do. "Increasingly our role will support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly," Mr Blair said. "What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis". He said that it was important to show the Iraqis that Britain - and the other multinational force members - did not intend their forces to stay longer than necessary. Later Defence Security Des Browne said he expected the government to look again at the numbers of troops being withdrawn at the end of the summer. "I am absolutely confident that by the end of the year we will be able to reach the prediction I made which was by the end of this year we will have reduced our troop level by thousands," he said. British forces will hand over all bases to local authorities, except for Basra air base and Basra Palace, and most will withdraw to the air base shortly. Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh told BBC Radio Five Live: "We need to affirm our gratitude and appreciation for the British contribution to the liberation of Iraq. "This redeployment of troops comes in the context of transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqi government. "When we assumed sovereignty two and a half years ago Iraqi security services were almost non-existent. Today we have tens of thousands of Iraqi police and Iraqi military." Conservative leader David Cameron told the Commons that the announcement would be "welcomed in this House, in the country and especially to the families of those serving in Iraq over the coming months." But he said that the security situation in Basra remained "dire" and urged Mr Blair finally to accept the need for an inquiry into the Iraq war to "learn the lessons" of "many bad mistakes". Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, whose party opposed the war in Iraq, said the target should be the full withdrawal of British troops by the end of October. He added that the "unpalatable truth" was that Britain was leaving behind a country on the brink on civil war. "This is a long way short of the beacon of democracy for the Middle East which was promised some four years ago," he said. The proposed cut in numbers of British troops comes at the same time as 21,500 more US troops are being sent to Iraq. President Bush's opponents say it shows the British have split with his policy, but US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the coalition "remains intact". There are approximately 132,000 US personnel currently in Iraq accounting for more than 90% of the occupying force Iraq is divided into 5 main military zones. The US controls the north and west of the country, as well as Baghdad The Centre-South is run Polish forces, but US troops lead any major operations against insurgents in this area The UK's 7,100 soldiers are based in the South East zone. Three provinces - Muthanna, al-Najaf and Dhi Qar are now under provisional Iraqi control. Basra and Maysan provinces are expected to follow suit in the first half of 2007 * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran Demands West Halt Enrichment As Well Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:48:18 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP via Truthout - Feb 20, 2007 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022107P.shtml Iran Sets Condition to Halt Nuke Program By George Jahn The Associated Press Vienna, Austria - Iran's chief nuclear envoy said Tuesday his country wants to negotiate over its uranium enrichment program, on the eve of a U.N. Security Council deadline that carries the threat of harsher sanctions. But the country's hard-line president said Iran will halt enrichment only if Western nations do the same. Sanctions could be triggered by a report from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, to his agency's 35 board-member nations, expected Wednesday. That report is expected to say Iran has expanded enrichment activities instead of freezing them. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to a crowd of thousands in Iran, said his country was ready to stop its enrichment program, but only if Western nations do the same - something the United States and others with similar programs are unlikely to even consider. "Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too," he said. "Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere." The White House dismissed Ahmadinejad's call. "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" White House press secretary Tony Snow asked. "It's pretty clear that the international community has said to the Iranians, `You can have nuclear power but we don't want you to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.' And that is an offer we continue to make." Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad's speech was unusually conciliatory, avoiding fiery denunciations of the West. Iran's call for talks - voiced separately on Tuesday by Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and senior nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani - suggested an attempt to convey flexibility on the eve of the deadline. Mottaki, in Turkey, said talks on the nuclear dispute should try to achieve an agreement allowing "Iran to achieve its rights" while eliminating "concerns" about its nuclear ambitions. Larijani, in Vienna, said his country was "looking for ways and means to start negotiations." But the officials did not offer what the Security Council is demanding _ an immediate and unconditional stop to enrichment. Iran has long insisted that it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. The United States and its allies suspect that Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel, but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an atomic bomb. Asked what Iran was seeking, Larijani said: "Constructive dialogue that could ... address the concerns" of both Tehran, which insists on enrichment as its right, and the world powers that fear the program would be used to develop nuclear arms. While telling reporters his country was prepared to deliver "assurances that there would be no deviation ... toward a nuclear weapons program," he offered no new suggestions - and indirectly ruled out suspending enrichment, saying that was just a "pretext" to put political pressure on his country. Larijani was even more direct in rejecting an enrichment freeze as a precondition for negotiations in talks with ElBaradei, according to diplomats familiar with the substance of their conversation. "He ruled out suspension and said Iran was not afraid of (U.N.) sanctions," one of the diplomats told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because his information was confidential. The diplomat said Larijani told ElBaradei that Iran could consider an enrichment freeze only as a result of talks - and not before sitting down at the negotiating table. Iran has rejected the Security Council resolution as "illegal," and said it would not give up its right to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Tehran's refusal to freeze all its enrichment-related activities prompted the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions targeting its nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them. Back then, it gave the country 60 days to halt enrichment or face additional measures - a deadline that expires Wednesday. Still, no sanctions were expected immediately. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment are expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The council debate will focus on what new nonmilitary sanctions to include in a resolution, the European diplomat said. Possible new sanctions could include a travel ban against individuals on the U.N. list, an expansion of the list, economic measures such as a ban on export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear embargo to an arms embargo, the council diplomat said. But Russia and China, both veto-holding council members with close ties to Iran, are likely to oppose economic sanctions or weapons bans. A travel ban was dropped from the initial resolution because of Moscow's opposition, so tough negotiations are expected, the diplomat said. Striking a combative note after meeting ElBaradei, Larijani warned the United States against opting for force instead of negotiations over the issue of enrichment. "If they ... move into the boxing ring, they would have problems," Larijani told reporters in response to a question about U.S. pressure on Iran to give up enrichment. "But if they sit at the chess table, then both sides would come to a result." With the U.S. recently moving against Iranians whom it accuses of helping Shiite militias in Iraq and beefing up its naval presence in the Persian Gulf, Larijani's comments were seen as veiled warnings that any additional U.S. weight on his country would be met in kind. "Anybody interested in ... irrational moves ... would definitely receive an appropriate response," he said. Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said. The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to the recent buildup of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with the AP and other reporters in Bahrain. The carrier USS John C. Stennis - backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships - arrived in the region Monday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after President Bush ordered the buildup as a show of strength to Iran. [Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareinie in Tehran and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Iran Reaffirms Going Ahead with Pacific Nuke Program Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:36:28 -0500 (EST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Reaffirms Going Ahead with Pacific Nuke Program Tehran, Feb 21 (Prensa Latina) Amidst expectations as UN Security Council term ende today, Iran president Mahmud Ahmadineyad, reaffirmed the Islamic Republic will go ahead with its pacific nuclear program. Last December that organ approved Resolution 1737 establishing economic and technological sanctions against the Persian country if it does not end the uranium enrichment process as part of its pacific nuclear program in a term of 60 days. As the term expired, director of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei will present a new report before the UN Security Council which will evaluate the position assumed by Tehran. >From the evaluation of the document, which would be ready today or Friday, according to AIEA sources, more sanctions could be adopted or they can be lifted altogether. The 27 foreign ministers of the European Union agreed two weeks ago, according to Resolution 1737, they would extend punitive measures to Iran. In a speech given at the town of Amlash, province of Gilan, Ahmadineyad insisted that Iran will continue "until achieving the summit of nuclear knowledge", way through which they will not ever turn back. The eve, Ali Lariyani, Iran's chief negotiator on the nuclear subject, and ElBaradei met in Vienna and ratified Tehran's decision of going ahead with the pacific nuclear program and negotiate to find a way out of the differendum, but without pressures. Lariyani described as constructive the talks with his counterpart and reiterated that Iran does not pretend to develop weapons of mass extermination, besides the fact they did not violate procedures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iranian atomic plants are constrolled by 200-odd inspectors of the AIEA and cameras with round-the-clock supervision of movements in those facilities. On the other hand, the UN Secretary General, Ba Ki Moon, expressed that the Iranian nuclear riff will not be solved through military confrontation, but through diplomatic negotiations. On declarations to the German media, Moon underlined that "any country has the right to exploit atomic energy", but inside the international regulation laws. The President of the Council of the Discerning Convenience System, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanyani, on his part, denounced that from September 11 onward, the United States heightened the hostility against Iran as part of its alleged war on terrorism. He added that Washington's main objective is to solve the problems of Israel in the region and gain control over its oil. In the last few weeks, the United States stepped up its discourse against the Islamic Republic and sent to the region thousands of troops and combat units, in what is considered as a possible aggression, according to experts. ef jcd PL-33 * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] US dismisses Iran's offer to halt enrichment Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:18:48 -0500 (EST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - Feb 21, 2007 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0221/1171998712507.html US dismisses offer to halt enrichment by Denis Staunton in Washington US: The Bush administration has dismissed an Iranian offer to suspend its nuclear fuel production if the United States and other western countries do the same, reports Denis Staunton in Washington. Tehran's offer came as the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said that Iran could be just six months away from being able to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, although it was still five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is today expected to declare that Iran has missed a UN deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce nuclear fuel and, at high levels, weapons-grade nuclear material. "Short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend," he told the Financial Times. The UN security council imposed sanctions on Iran last December and warned that further measures could follow if Tehran failed to suspend uranium enrichment by today. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran would halt its uranium enrichment programme and return to negotiations if western countries reciprocated. "Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle programme too. Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere," he said. White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the Iranian offer, insisting that Iran must unilaterally suspend uranium enrichment to comply with December's security council resolution. "The fact is that we are perfectly happy to help Iran acquire civilian nuclear power. We are not, however - and the international community has made it clear that Iran should not be in a position to develop or possess nuclear weapons . . . That is a false offer because the position of the international community is clear," he said. Washington wants the UN to impose tougher sanctions on Iran if it misses today's deadline but Mr ElBaradei said sanctions alone would prove ineffective unless they are accompanied by negotiations. "Our experience without exception is that sanctions alone do not work and in most cases radicalise the regime and hurt the people who are not supposed to be hurt. So I have a major concern not about sanctions per se but sanctions alone. And sanctions have to be coupled at all times with incentives and a real search for a compromise based on face- saving, based on respect," he said. Mr El Baradei said it was now too late to stop Iran acquiring the knowledge needed to produce a nuclear weapon but added that British and US intelligence reports suggest the country is at least five years away from actually developing an atomic bomb. "Even if the Iranian programme is for peaceful purposes there is no question that at the back of their minds this is a deterrent, that it has a deterrence value as it were. So we need to understand that . . . but to aim at denying a country knowledge is almost impossible, to say the least. And there's a big difference between acquiring the knowledge for enrichment and developing a bomb," he said. Warning that "you can't bomb knowledge", Mr El Baradei said that any military strike against Iran by the US or Israel would be at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. "We know that if you jolt a country's pride, all the factions, right, left and centre will get together and try to accelerate a programme to develop a nuclear weapon to defend themselves," he said. C 2007 The Irish Times * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] War on Iran Is Not an Option Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:55:45 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Progreso Weekly - Feb 22, 2007 http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Lorenzo_Gonzalo&otherweek=1172124000 War on Iran is not an Option By Lorenzo Gonzalo Democratic Senator John Murtha of Pennsylvania is leading a campaign to prevent the shipment of troops to Iraq, as requested by President Bush. At the same time, the majority party in Congress, which opposes the war, is working on another proposal to condition and control the funds the chief executive needs for the war campaign. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated on Feb. 15 that the president has no authority to attack Iran and that he would not be allowed to do so. All this dovetails perfectly with a news item on Page One of The New York Times, a newspaper that represents the left wing of the Establishment. The article downplays Iran's role because that country needs at least four more years to manufacture an atomic bomb. According to Times sources, the centrifuges that operate in the region of Matanz will not be able to do their task for several consecutive months, which is indispensable for the enrichment of uranium. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently stated that no war against Iran has been planned. Of course, that statement by Rumsfeld's substitute does not mean much, because a nuclear-armed Iran would first threaten Israel, which we know to be a spearhead in the Middle East. This could be used as a reason of state if Israel attacks Iran under the doctrine of pre-emptive defense. Early in February, Iran invited the Arab League to tour its nuclear installations with the intention of demonstrating that its program has peaceful purposes. In addition, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lowered the tone of his statements in recent days and has said he does not want a confrontation with the United States. Along with this, we have heard the voice of Europe. Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Austria, the Low Countries and Britain oppose the policy of sanctions against Iran proposed by the United States, basically because those countries have strong connections with Iran in the energy field. And although many European banks have reduced their transactions because the Treasury Department forbids the use of dollars in any business that involves two prominent Iranian banks, other interests would step in to provide funds for those transactions. On this chess board, Russia, the most important country involved in the situation, has spoken out loudly. At the Security Policy Conference in Munich, President Putin criticized the U.S. harshly, saying that "we are witnessing an almost uncontrollable use of force in international relations." He added: "One country, the United States, has trampled national borders in each instance." Referring to NATO, Putin said that its expansion has nothing to do with its modernization or with European security. For his part, Diego Lspez Garrido, the spokesman for Spain's ruling party, the PSOE, asked former Prime Minister Josi Marma Aznar to apologize to the Spanish people for having declared a horrible war that kills hundreds of people every day. The all-devouring gluttony of capitalist development in the United States requires daily control of the resources, but everything indicates that trying to obtain such control by means of a war in the Middle East has gone beyond fantasy for the elitist power of the U.S. They are obliged to redesign the process to control resources and, faced with the shakeup witnessed by the world, that redesign has very few options. War is definitely not one of them. [Journalist Lorenzo Gonzalo is deputy director of Radio Miami.] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Readies Report on Iran Nuke Program From the Associated Press Wednesday February 21, 2007 11:16 AM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog on Wednesday put finishing touches on a report expected to confirm that Iran continues uranium enrichment activities, a finding that could trigger harsher U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based IAEA, would likely say that Iran has expanded enrichment efforts instead of freezing them. Once it is ready - likely Wednesday but possibly Thursday - the report will be sent to the agency's 35-nation board and to the Security Council. The council set a 60-day deadline on Dec. 23 for such a freeze and said continued Iranian defiance past that ultimatum, which runs out Wednesday, could lead to sanctions additional to those it imposed last month. Top Iranian officials showed no signs of compromise. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday. On Tuesday, he said his country was ready to stop its enrichment program, but only if Western nations do the same - something the United States and others with similar programs are unlikely to even consider. ``Do you believe that's a serious offer?'' White House press secretary Tony Snow asked. ``It's pretty clear that the international community has said to the Iranians, `You can have nuclear power but we don't want you to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.' And that is an offer we continue to make.'' Calls for talks - voiced separately on Tuesday by Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and senior nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani - suggested an attempt to convey flexibility on the eve of the deadline. Mottaki, in Turkey, said talks on the nuclear dispute should try to achieve an agreement allowing ``Iran to achieve its rights'' while eliminating ``concerns'' about its nuclear ambitions. Larijani, in Vienna, said his country was ``looking for ways and means to start negotiations.'' But the officials did not offer what the Security Council is demanding - an immediate and unconditional stop to enrichment. Iran has long insisted that it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. The United States and its allies suspect that Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an atomic bomb. While telling reporters his country was prepared to deliver ``assurances that there would be no deviation ... toward a nuclear weapons program,'' Larijani offered no new suggestions - and indirectly ruled out suspending enrichment, saying that was just a ``pretext'' to put political pressure on his country. Larijani was even more direct in rejecting an enrichment freeze as a precondition for negotiations in talks with ElBaradei, according to diplomats familiar with the substance of their conversation. ``He ruled out suspension and said Iran was not afraid of (U.N.) sanctions,'' one of the diplomats told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because his information was confidential. The diplomat said Larijani told ElBaradei that Iran could consider an enrichment freeze only as a result of talks - and not before sitting down at the negotiating table. Iran has rejected the Security Council resolution as ``illegal,'' and said it would not give up its right to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Still, no sanctions were expected immediately. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment are expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The council debate will focus on what new nonmilitary sanctions to include in a resolution, the European diplomat said. Possible new sanctions could include a travel ban against individuals on the U.N. list, an expansion of the list, economic measures such as a ban on export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear embargo to an arms embargo, the council diplomat said. But Russia and China, both veto-holding council members with close ties to Iran, are likely to oppose economic sanctions or weapons bans. A travel ban was dropped from the initial resolution because of Moscow's opposition, so tough negotiations are expected, the diplomat said. Striking a combative note after meeting ElBaradei, Larijani warned the United States against opting for force instead of negotiations over the issue of enrichment. ``If they ... move into the boxing ring, they would have problems,'' Larijani told reporters in response to a question about U.S. pressure on Iran to give up enrichment. ``But if they sit at the chess table, then both sides would come to a result.'' With the U.S. recently moving against Iranians whom it accuses of helping Shiite militias in Iraq and beefing up its naval presence in the Persian Gulf, Larijani's comments were seen as veiled warnings that any additional U.S. weight on his country would be met in kind. --- Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Calls for Tougher Iran Sanctions From the Associated Press Wednesday February 21, 2007 2:01 PM JERUSALEM (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday urged the international community to consider tougher sanctions against Iran ahead of a deadline for Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment activities. The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Wednesday to freeze enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear weapons. Officials at the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency were putting the finishing touches on a report Wednesday expected to say that Iran has expanded its enrichment efforts instead of freezing them. ``Today is the last day that was designated by the international community and by the UN Security Council,'' Olmert told a gathering of foreign journalists. ``Therefore the international community will have to think of additional measures.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran defiant over nuclear ambitions Staff and agencies Wednesday February 21, 2007 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clenches his fist, during a public gathering in the city of Rasht, Iran. Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/ISNA/AP President Ahmadinejad promised today Iran would press ahead with its nuclear programme, irrespective of the consequences. His statement came as the UN atomic watchdog prepared to declare Tehran in breach of a resolution calling for an end to uranium enrichment. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is set to say that Iran has speeded up enrichment efforts rather than halting them, as demanded by the UN security council two months ago under a 60-day deadline, which ends today. Mohamed ElBaradei's report, initially scheduled to be published in Vienna today but put off until tomorrow, could prepare the way for sanctions against Iran, on top of limited measures agreed by the security council in December. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged today that a last-minute Iranian change of mind appeared unlikely. "The Iranians have, unfortunately, not acceded to the international community's demands and we will have to consult. We will have to decide how to move forward," she said during a visit to Berlin. Tony Blair told parliament that Iran seemed resolute. "The statements emanating from Iran are contradictory, but ... their nuclear weapons ambitions appear to continue," he said. "We need to keep up the pressure because it's a very, very dangerous situation." In further combative comments, Mr Ahmadinejad declared that nuclear technology was worth sacrificing other areas of development in his country. "The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology," Iranian state media quoted him as saying. "Attaining the peaceful use of nuclear technology will push our nation 50 years along the path of progress," Mr Ahmadinejad said. "To reach nuclear technology, it is worth stopping 10 years worth of the other development projects in the country." The UN has set today as a final deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead. The IAEA report is likely to trigger a new UN security council debate over tightening sanctions on Iran and intensify the debate within the Bush administration over whether to take military action, aimed at slowing down Iran's nuclear programme. It coincides with the arrival of the carrier USS John C Stennis - backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors, marines and additional minesweeping ships - in the Gulf yesterday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower after president Bush ordered the build-up as a show of strength to Iran. The US insists Iran must suspend enrichment before any negotiations over its nuclear programme, a condition Tehran has repeatedly rejected. Yesterday, Mr Ahmadinejad said his country would only stop its enrichment programme if Western nations did the same, bringing a scathing response from Washington. "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said. "It's pretty clear that the international community has said to the Iranians, 'You can have nuclear power but we don't want you to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.' And that is an offer we continue to make." Ari Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, emerged from talks with Mr ElBaradei in Vienna yesterday, insisting Iran has a right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme and warning against any use of force to stop it "Anyone interested in irrational moves would definitely receive an appropriate response," Mr Larijani said. "This can be solved at the chess board or in the boxing ring. We believe if they want to get into the boxing ring, they will have problems on their side too." The debate now will be over the imposition of tougher sanctions. The US and Britain are in favour of increasing the pressure on Tehran but they are likely to find resistance from Russia and China, both of which only reluctantly agreed to a package of measures agreed by the security council in December. The matter will be discussed in the capitals of an impromptu group of six nations dealing with the issue: Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China. But ultimately it will be negotiated in the security council. If the council is split, the US and Britain may seek to form a coalition outside the UN to apply sanctions. There is a deep divide among diplomats and nuclear experts on the effectiveness of sanctions. Some argue that they will serve only to spur Iran onwards, in its march towards becoming a nuclear power. They say the country should be allowed to conduct small scale uranium production. "This could have been stopped at the R & D [research and development] level, and it would take them a thousand years with that number of centrifuges to make a nuclear weapon," a diplomat specialising in counter-proliferation issues said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 9 BBC NEWS: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 10:28 GMT USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say. Two triggers BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies. The Natanz plant is buried under concrete, metal and earth Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran. Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground. The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians. Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says. Deadline Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq. Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq. Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran. Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term. Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February. If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 10 BBC NEWS: Iran 'swiftly seeks nuclear goal' Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 12:10 GMT Ahmadinejad has claimed Iran's right to nuclear technology President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran will try to achieve nuclear capability as soon as possible. His comments, reported by Iran's Isna news agency, come as a UN deadline for Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment programme expires. For the first time, a political party in Iran has called on Mr Ahmadinejad to accept the UN's demands. A UN resolution, adopted on 23 December 2006, imposed sanctions against Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and opened the way for further measures if it failed to halt uranium enrichment within two months. Following the deadline's expiry on Wednesday, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog is expected to report that Iran has defied the 60-day ultimatum to suspend its activities. Iran resumed uranium enrichment last year. The process can produce fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb. Signs of dissent Speaking in the northern town of Siahkal, Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran was determined to acquire nuclear capabilities, even to the exclusion of everything else. It is worth it to stop other activities for 10 years and focus only on the nuclear issue Iranians on nuclear issue "We... will continue our work to reach our right [to nuclear technology] in the shortest possible time," Isna quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying. "Obtaining this technology is very important for our country's development and honour. It is worth it to stop other activities for 10 years and focus only on the nuclear issue." But one small radical reformist political party, the Islamic Revolutionary Mujahadin Organisation, has complained that Iran's drive to produce nuclear energy has endangered national security, the national interest and the destiny of the Iranian people. "The [Iranian] officials should open talks before [UN] Resolution 1737's deadline runs out and accept its sensitive requirements to prevent the adoption of new resolutions against our country," the party was quoted by AFP news agency as saying. "This nation has other more important and undeniable rights which should not be sacrificed for this one," it said in a statement. The party asks why Iran needs to produce the fuel for one power plant that has not even been completed yet. The BBC's Frances Harrison says this is the first time there has been open criticism of Mr Ahmedinejad's nuclear policy. Allies of the president in parliament were quick to say it came from lackeys of the United States who did not even know the basics of politics, our correspondent adds. Earlier, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the issue could only be resolved through dialogue, not force. "Anybody interested in non-conventional or illogical, irrational [moves] would definitely receive an appropriate response," he said after meeting IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: India Bans Atomic Exports to Iran From the Associated Press Wednesday February 21, 2007 8:31 PM NEW DELHI (AP) - India has banned the export to Iran of all material, equipment and technology which could contribute to Tehran's nuclear program, the government said Wednesday. The restrictions bring India, a longtime Iranian ally, into compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolution passed in December that imposed limited sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium, which could be used to produce nuclear fuel or materials for a nuclear bomb. India's Trade Ministry said it is banning the ``direct or indirect export and import of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water related activities.'' The government's announcement came as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog body, was putting the finishing touches on a report expected to confirm that Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment activities, a finding that could trigger harsher U.N. Security Council sanctions. Indian officials have in the past said that they do not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but at the same time stressed that more time was needed for diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis. Communist political parties crucial to the parliamentary majority of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition have accused the government of bowing to pressure from the United States to act against Iran. The U.S. and its allies suspect that Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: How far will Iran's bravado go? News blog Wednesday February 21 2007 By Peter Walker / USA 03:00pm With Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seemingly set on defying a UN ultimatum to end uranium enrichment, one question looms: what happens next? Sanctions? Or another US-led war? As ever with these things, bloggers' reactions to such prospects vary wildly. The self-explanatory Moderate Voice site believes any US military action against Iran would be a disaster: "Iran does not have enough experience as a modern state to live through a US military onslaught and re-emerge as a unified and strong law-abiding democracy. The likelier outcome is prolonged internal civil war... Such outcomes of lengthy political and military instability would amount to a debilitating new world war for Americans and Europeans." Tehran-born, Toronto-based Hossein Derakhshan, who blogs under the name Hoder, goes further: "I've written before and I repeat it here. If the US attacked Iran, despite all my problems with the Islamic Republic, I'd go back and fight these bastards." ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Unyielding on IAEA Nuclear Demands From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 12:01 AM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Despite a U.N. Security Council deadline, Iran called Wednesday for talks with the United States - but did not budge on council demands that it mothball its uranium enrichment program or face harsher sanctions. Amid Iran's nuclear defiance, the U.N. nuclear watchdog finalized a report to be released Thursday that is expected to formally confirm the Islamic republic's refusal to freeze enrichment - a conclusion that could subject it to tougher U.N. sanctions. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based U.N. agency, would say Iran has expanded enrichment efforts instead of freezing them. Once released, the report will be sent to the agency's 35-nation board and to the Security Council, which set a deadline of Wednesday for a freeze and said Iranian defiance could lead to sanctions in addition to those imposed in December. In remarks directed at Washington - the key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday the dispute ``has to be decided peacefully with the United States.'' But other top Iranian officials used harsher language and none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S. and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying. On Tuesday, he said Iran was ready to halt its enrichment program, but only if Western nations do the same. The White House dismissed Ahmadinejad's call. ``Do you believe that's a serious offer?'' White House press secretary Tony Snow asked. ``It's pretty clear that the international community has said to the Iranians, `You can have nuclear power but we don't want you to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.' And that is an offer we continue to make.'' The United States and its allies suspect Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel, but further enrichment makes it suitable for a bomb. Iran has rejected the Security Council resolution as ``illegal,'' and said it would not give up its right to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. No new sanctions were expected immediately. Discussions on a resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment are expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The debate will focus on what new nonmilitary sanctions to include in a resolution, the European diplomat said. They could include a travel ban against some individuals, economic measures such as a ban on export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear embargo to an arms embargo, the diplomat said. ``We are ready to schedule a possible meeting if it will be desired by others,'' said Slovakia's U.N. Ambassador Peter Burian, whose country holds the Security Council presidency. ``Probably it will not happen this week. I do not want to pre-judge. First we need to get the report ... and then we'll decide what to do.'' Russia and China, veto-holding council members with close ties to Iran, are likely to oppose strict economic sanctions or weapons bans. A travel ban was dropped from the initial resolution because of Moscow's opposition, so tough negotiations are expected. Russia and France called Wednesday for unity in the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, but also stressed the international community should remain open to dialogue. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov placed less emphasis than his French counterpart on the need to be firm with Iran. He said nations must ``preserve unity and consistency - firmness, if you will - but ... at all stages, openness to negotiations,'' with Tehran. --- AP writers Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations and Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 Reuters: UN atomic report may expose Iran to wider sanctions Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:24PM EST By Mark Heinrich VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.N. watchdog report due on Thursday is likely to confirm Iran has escalated rather than halted its nuclear fuel program, exposing Tehran to wider sanctions over fears it is secretly seeking atom bombs. As a 60-day grace period for it to stop enriching uranium expired on Wednesday, Iran offered to guarantee it was not pursuing nuclear weapons, but only as part of negotiations. It refused to shelve the program as a precondition for talks. Iran's continued rejection of the terms set by six world powers for talks on trade incentives meant the U.N. Security Council in coming weeks could weigh broadening the limited sanctions it imposed on Tehran in December. "The Iranians have unfortunately not acceded to the international community's demands and we will have to consult. We will have to decide how to move forward," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Berlin on Wednesday. The Security Council commissioned the International Atomic Energy Agency to report on whether or not Iran had heeded the deadline for it to mothball enrichment-related activity. Tehran's defiance of the deadline, and leaks about Iran's efforts to shift from modest experimental enrichment toward "industrial-scale" output of atomic fuel, made the IAEA verdict almost a foregone conclusion. Barring an improbable turnaround by Iran, "I will have to report negatively," IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei told Britain's Financial Times newspaper in an interview this week. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 United Press International: Deadline passes, Iran still enriching Updated: 02/21/2007 7:09:53 AM -0500 UTC TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The U.N. deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium passed Wednesday as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed not to back down. Speaking at a rally in the northern Gilan provincial city of Amlash, Ahmadinejad accused western nations of truing to "maintain their monopoly" over nuclear technology, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. "Iran will not retreat one iota in its path to nuclear victory," the president said. The country was given 60 days to shut down its underground enrichment facilities in Natanz when the U.N. Security Council voted Dec. 23 in favor of economic sanctions against Iran. By Thursday, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear watchdog is scheduled to report on Iran's non-compliance to the council. Meanwhile, a BBC correspondent in Tehran reported the first political challenge to Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy has been raised. The Islamic Revolutionary Mujahedin Organization said the defiance has endangered national security and "the destiny of the Iranian people," the BBC said. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Iran defiant ahead of UN nuclear deadline by Stuart Williams Wed Feb 21, 6:45 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Iran's contentious nuclear drive was vital for its future, defying the latest UN deadline for Tehran to suspend sensitive atomic activities. Iran's latest refusal to suspend uranium enrichment came the day after talks between the head of the UN nuclear watchdog and the top Iranian nuclear negotiator ended without any breakthrough in the long-running standoff. "Achieving nuclear energy is very important for the progress and development of our country," Ahmadinejad told a public rally in the town of Siahkal in the nothern Gilan province, the ISNA agency reported. "It is worth it, even if we shut down other activities for 10 years and focus on this issue," said Ahmadinejad, without specifying which areas could be affected. The deadline was set by the UN Security Council on December 23 when it imposed sanctions and gave the UN nuclear watchdog 60 days to report on whether Iran has imposed a "full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is due to report to the council by Friday and is widely expected to confirm that Iran is pushing ahead with enrichment, a process the West fears could be used to make nuclear weapons. It is not clear what further penalties Iran could face for failing to obey the deadline, although the United States has threatened to crank up the hitherto relatively limited sanctions measures. "Short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend," ElBaradei told the Financial Times earlier this week. No such about-turn was apparent when Larijani met ElBaradei in Vienna on Tuesday for their first talks this year. "The important issue is not suspension (of enrichment)," Larijani told reporters after the meeting. "No discussions or agreements have been made over suspension of nuclear activities during these talks," Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the Fars news agency in Vienna. Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that Iran was open to freezing enrichment as a prelude to talks -- but only on the unlikely condition the world's other nuclear powers did the same. Iran is believed to be pressing on with work to install 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges at an underground installation in the central city of Natanz, a step that would bring it closer to industrial-scale enrichment. In a highly unusual move, a prominent Iranian reformist party broke ranks and urged the government to accept a freeze on enrichment, saying its stance was damaging Iran's national interest. "This nation has other more important and undeniable rights which should not be sacrificed for this one," the Mujahedeen of Islamic Revolution Organisation said. The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran denies that, insisting its atomic programme is peaceful in nature. Although Washington has said it wants the standoff resolved through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action to thwart Iran's atomic drive and now has two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the Gulf region. "The only way is to respect and be friends with the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad told Western powers in a speech in the town of Amlash. "They must know if they do not change their ways ... the powerful hand of God will soon come out of their sleeves and topple them in disgrace," he added. The Pentagon nonetheless described as "ludicrous" a BBC report that the US military has drawn up detailed contingency plans for air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites and wider military infrastructure. The speculation came as Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards held the third day of war games aimed at readying its defensive capabilities, which have included repelling a hypothetical air strike against the Islamic republic. On Tuesday, a second US aircraft carrier, USS John C. Stennis, and its accompanying strike group joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in regional waters, in a move widely interpreted as a warning to to Tehran. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 United Press International: Russia warns U.S. on Iran moves Security & Terrorism - 2/21/2007 2:14:00 PM -0500 MOSCOW, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Russia's foreign minister Wednesday warned the United States not to take military action against Iran. "The Russian foreign minister said Wednesday U.S.-led multinational foreign forces in Iraq must not conduct military operations outside the country, including against Iran," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. "The multinational force in Iraq should abide strictly by the UN Security Council's mandate, which does not provide for any operations outside the country," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Lebanese magazine Al-Watan Al-Arabi in an interview. "The escalation of the conflict and its possible spread beyond the Iraqi borders will inevitably result in catastrophic consequences and not for the Middle East alone," Lavrov said according to the report. "I believe Washington understands this." Lavrov told Al-Watan Al-Arabi that a timetable needed to be drawn up for the coordinated and gradual evacuation of all foreign military forces from Iraq. He said that was essential to bring stability to the troubled Middle eastern nation. "But at the same time we believe that U.S. Army detachments and their coalition allies should not leave Iraq tomorrow," Lavrov said. Lavrov also said that Iraq's own police, army and other security forces needed to be increased in size and strength to prepare for the pull out of U.S. and other forces. "The long-standing confrontation between the U.S. and Iran deteriorated further Jan. 11 when American servicemen burst into Iran's mission in Erbil (Kurdistan) and detained five officials. American troops disarmed guards and confiscated computers and documents without providing any explanation," RIA Novosti noted. The Russian news agency also noted that "earlier this month the United States accused Iran of backing the insurgency and unrest in Iraq, and suspects the Islamic Republic of pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program." © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 18 UPI: Israel advocates more Iran sanctions United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 2/21/2007 5:11:00 PM -0500 JERUSALEM, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Iran's nuclear program is not as developed as Teheran claims it to be and international pressure could curb it, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said. Speaking to foreign correspondents in Jerusalem Wednesday, Olmert reiterated that "The Iranians are not as close to the technological threshold as they claim to be and unfortunately, they are not as far as we would love them to be." The deadline the United Nations' Security Council has set for adopting "parameters of cooperation" with the International Atomic Energy Agency is Wednesday. Olmert noted the Iranians have not responded "in a manner that all of us wanted." The international community will therefore have to think of "additional measures" to pressure Teheran, he said. The sanctions that have already been applied, and other measures including financial steps that the international community has taken, "Are effective," he said. However, "It's not enough," he added. "If there will be a concerted effort by the international community, both diplomatic, economic and political effort by the international community, I think that there are serious chances that it will have an impact that may change the Iranian attitude," Olmert said. Israel is particularly sensitive to Iran's nuclear program and Olmert talked of it as, "a genuine threat.... The fact that a leader of a nation of almost 80 million people ... can stand up publicly and openly and threaten the very existence of another nation (meaning Israel) ...is totally intolerable," he maintained. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Sets Condition to Halt Nuke Program From the Associated Press Wednesday February 21, 2007 3:46 AM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran's chief nuclear envoy said Tuesday his country wants to negotiate over its uranium enrichment program, on the eve of a U.N. Security Council deadline that carries the threat of harsher sanctions. But the country's hard-line president said Iran will halt enrichment only if Western nations do the same. Sanctions could be triggered by a report from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, to his agency's 35 board-member nations, expected Wednesday. That report is expected to say Iran has expanded enrichment activities instead of freezing them. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to a crowd of thousands in Iran, said his country was ready to stop its enrichment program, but only if Western nations do the same - something the United States and others with similar programs are unlikely to even consider. ``Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too,'' he said. ``Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere.'' The White House dismissed Ahmadinejad's call. ``Do you believe that's a serious offer?'' White House press secretary Tony Snow asked. ``It's pretty clear that the international community has said to the Iranians, `You can have nuclear power but we don't want you to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.' And that is an offer we continue to make.'' Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad's speech was unusually conciliatory, avoiding fiery denunciations of the West. Iran's call for talks - voiced separately on Tuesday by Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and senior nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani - suggested an attempt to convey flexibility on the eve of the deadline. Mottaki, in Turkey, said talks on the nuclear dispute should try to achieve an agreement allowing ``Iran to achieve its rights'' while eliminating ``concerns'' about its nuclear ambitions. Larijani, in Vienna, said his country was ``looking for ways and means to start negotiations.'' But the officials did not offer what the Security Council is demanding - an immediate and unconditional stop to enrichment. Iran has long insisted that it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. The United States and its allies suspect that Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel, but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an atomic bomb. Asked what Iran was seeking, Larijani said: ``Constructive dialogue that could ... address the concerns'' of both Tehran, which insists on enrichment as its right, and the world powers that fear the program would be used to develop nuclear arms. While telling reporters his country was prepared to deliver ``assurances that there would be no deviation ... toward a nuclear weapons program,'' he offered no new suggestions - and indirectly ruled out suspending enrichment, saying that was just a ``pretext'' to put political pressure on his country. Larijani was even more direct in rejecting an enrichment freeze as a precondition for negotiations in talks with ElBaradei, according to diplomats familiar with the substance of their conversation. ``He ruled out suspension and said Iran was not afraid of (U.N.) sanctions,'' one of the diplomats told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because his information was confidential. The diplomat said Larijani told ElBaradei that Iran could consider an enrichment freeze only as a result of talks - and not before sitting down at the negotiating table. Iran has rejected the Security Council resolution as ``illegal,'' and said it would not give up its right to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Tehran's refusal to freeze all its enrichment-related activities prompted the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions targeting its nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them. Back then, it gave the country 60 days to halt enrichment or face additional measures - a deadline that expires Wednesday. Still, no sanctions were expected immediately. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment are expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The council debate will focus on what new nonmilitary sanctions to include in a resolution, the European diplomat said. Possible new sanctions could include a travel ban against individuals on the U.N. list, an expansion of the list, economic measures such as a ban on export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear embargo to an arms embargo, the council diplomat said. But Russia and China, both veto-holding council members with close ties to Iran, are likely to oppose economic sanctions or weapons bans. A travel ban was dropped from the initial resolution because of Moscow's opposition, so tough negotiations are expected, the diplomat said. Striking a combative note after meeting ElBaradei, Larijani warned the United States against opting for force instead of negotiations over the issue of enrichment. ``If they ... move into the boxing ring, they would have problems,'' Larijani told reporters in response to a question about U.S. pressure on Iran to give up enrichment. ``But if they sit at the chess table, then both sides would come to a result.'' With the U.S. recently moving against Iranians whom it accuses of helping Shiite militias in Iraq and beefing up its naval presence in the Persian Gulf, Larijani's comments were seen as veiled warnings that any additional U.S. weight on his country would be met in kind. ``Anybody interested in ... irrational moves ... would definitely receive an appropriate response,'' he said. Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said. The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to the recent buildup of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with the AP and other reporters in Bahrain. The carrier USS John C. Stennis - backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships - arrived in the region Monday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after President Bush ordered the buildup as a show of strength to Iran. Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareinie in Tehran and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 [NYTr] Diplomacy Works in North Korea, Why Not Iran? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:45:36 -0500 (EST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Progreso Weekly - Feb 22, 2007 http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Bill_Press&otherweek=1172124000 Diplomacy works in North Korea; why not Iran? By Bill Press Watching George W. Bush struggle with foreign policy is like watching a rerun of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." You never know which personality, the good guy or the bad guy, is going to prevail. The problem is, neither does he. Like the protagonist in Robert Louis Stevenson's classic clash of dual personalities, George Bush is capable of doing both good and evil, often at the same time. Look at the contrast between Iraq, Iran and North Korea. >From the beginning, Bush's policy in Iraq was pure Mr. Hyde: Bomb first, ask questions later. No time for diplomacy. No time for U.N. inspectors to finish their job. No time to discover the truth about WMD or Saddam Hussein's connection to Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 (none). Bush insisted we had to hurry up and invade Iraq in order to teach other unfriendly regimes in the Arab world a lesson. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush-Hyde is also calling the shots in Iran. Ignoring the advice of the Iraq Study Group to engage in direct talks with Iran, the president already is beating the Iranian war drums. "I'm going to do something about it," he ominously warned at his latest news conference. It's the Iraq war game all over again: no diplomacy; "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction; painting the country's leader as a tyrant and nut case; warnings of threats to the United States. How soon before the bombs start falling? Meanwhile, Dr. Jekyll rules in North Korea. Dealing with the one "axis of evil" nation that already has nuclear weapons, President Bush suddenly did a 180. He stopped making threats against North Korea, sought the help of allies in defusing a potential crisis, and -- to the dismay of Dick Cheney and other hardliners inside the administration -- authorized the resumption of six-power talks with the Pyongyang regime. Yes, in North Korea, the Bush administration actually tried diplomacy. And, guess what? Diplomacy worked! Under the recently negotiated pact, North Korea agreed to freeze its production of plutonium at its five-megawatt nuclear facility in Yongbyon, and to allow international inspectors back into the country to monitor and verify its compliance with the freeze order. In return, the United States, China, South Korea and Russia agreed to provide North Korea with badly needed food and heavy fuel oil. The United States further agreed to begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism and lifting financial sanctions against the country. The agreement is not without its flaws. For one thing, the most difficult challenge still lies ahead of us: convincing North Korea to destroy the arsenal of nuclear warheads it has already manufactured. For another, in some ways, the newly negotiated pact is too little, too late. It's almost identical to the agreement reached with the North Korean government by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in the final days of the Clinton administration but rejected as "too soft" by newly elected President Bush. Had the agreement been adopted five years ago, North Korea might never have developed any nuclear weapons at all. So the pact reached with North Korea is not perfect. But it's better than another war. And it underscores both the promise and the efficacy of diplomacy over precipitous military action. Nor is this the only diplomatic success the Bush administration can take credit for. In many ways, negotiations with North Korea were the mirror image of discussions with Libya. No matter how often Bush and Cheney insist that Libya suddenly agreed to abandon its own nuclear production program when Muammar al-Gaddafi saw what we did to Saddam Hussein, that's not how it happened. Negotiations with Libya actually began in the 1990s, under Bill Clinton. Even though Gaddafi was as unpredictable and undesirable a leader as Kim Jung Il, an agreement with Libya was only possible once the United States convinced Gaddafi that our goal was policy change, not regime change. The same patience and purpose worked in North Korea. Now surely there's a lesson here as clear as any fable of Aesop. The failure to try diplomacy first proved to be a disaster in Iraq. Yet diplomacy worked both in Libya and North Korea. Let the talks with Iran begin! [Bill Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of a new book, "How the Republicans Stole Religion." His email address is: bill@billpress.com. His Web site is: http://www.billpress.com.] © 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 21 Reuters: U.S. urged to reassess claim against North Korea 11:11PM EST, Wed 21 Feb 2007 By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should reexamine a questionable charge that North Korea has a covert uranium enrichment program, a key American complaint against Pyongyang that could complicate the new nuclear weapons deal, experts said on Wednesday. Physicist David Albright, who recently visited the isolated communist state, likened the enrichment program charge to the "fiasco" of flawed U.S. intelligence that mistakenly concluded Iraq had a secret nuclear weapons program in the runup to war. The CIA in 2002 said North Korea began purchasing large quantities of centrifuge-related equipment in 2001 and was building a plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons annually, perhaps by 2005. Albright told a news conference "it may be another case of lack of evidence" because there has been no recent data to support the claim and the North may not have built the plant. "It's long overdue for the United States to revisit that assessment," added Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security. But a U.S. official told Reuters: "There's a strong body of evidence they had made an effort to develop an industrial-scale (enrichment) program. How far they've gotten -- we can debate that. How much we can prove -- that's another question." Although U.S. officials said North Korea initially acknowledged the uranium program during a 2002 meeting, Pyongyang has since denied its existence. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 UPI: Cheney sides with Japan over N. Korea United Press International - NewsTrack - Updated: 02/21/2007 7:20:27 AM -0500 UTC TOKYO, Japan, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney agreed with Japanese officials that more needs to be done in a dispute over abductions of Japanese citizens by North Korea. Since six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program in Beijing last week ended with a deal, there has been political grumbling in Japan the long-simmering abduction issue got sidelined in the negotiations, a Financial Times correspondent reported. Japan is considering refusing to participate in donating heavy oil to North Korea, which the Kyodo news agency said Cheney "expressed understanding" to Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki during a breakfast Wednesday meeting in Tokyo. Cheney then had an audience with Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko and he expressed appreciation for Japan's contributions in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As part of his 3-day visit before departing for Australia, Cheney is also to meet with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Foreign Minister Taro Aso. As a U.S. ally in Iraq, Japan has begun reducing its ground troops but has stepped up its air missions that supply U.S. troops. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 Korea Times: Negroponte Could Visit Pyongyang Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter U.S. deputy secretary of state John Negroponte, U.S. deputy secretary of state, could visit Pyongyang during his imminent visit to South Korea, China and Japan, to shore up last week¡¯s breakthrough deal on the North Korean nuclear crisis, reports said. According to the Financial Times on Wednesday, Negroponte, a former national director of intelligence who took up his new post last week, is considering adding Pyongyang to his tour schedule. The report quoted a undisclosed source as saying that Negroponte planned to add the North Korean capital to his itinerary. But it added that other sources either denied this or said such a trip was unlikely at this stage. A U.S. state department spokesman also abstained from commenting on the issue, it said. During a weekly press briefing in Seoul yesterday, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Song Min-soon confirmed the high-ranking U.S. official¡¯s visit to Asia but said he is not aware of any plan for the trip to Pyongyang. A ranking official of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) also refrained from verifying the trip. If Negroponte visits Pyongyang, he would be the highest U.S. official to visit the impoverished North since Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state, visited Pyongyang in October 2000. On Feb. 13 at the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to take the first steps toward dismantling its nuclear weapons program in return for energy aid and other economic incentives. In related news, former U.S. Defense Secretary William James Perry will visit an inter-Korean industrial park in Kaesong, North Korea, today, the Unification Ministry said. Perry served as defense secretary from 1994-97 under President Bill Clinton, after serving as deputy secretary of defense from 1993-94. On Dec. 1, three U.S. Congressmen, including Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, visited the Kaesong complex. things@koreatimes.co.kr 02-21-2007 18:26 ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: NKorea can make nuclear warhead for missile - (right wing) experts Wed Feb 21, 3:10 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea is capable of arming its medium-range Nodong missile with a crude nuclear warhead, two US experts said in a report released Wednesday. The report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) also estimates that the communist state has separated enough plutonium to build about five to 12 nuclear weapons. It says the North's strategy, given the presumed limits of its arsenal, is based on deterring any attack. "In such a case, the detonation of nuclear weapons as 'warning shots' in a crisis might result." In the early stage of a crisis, the ISIS report says, a nuclear test could be staged to prevent further escalation. "If that failed to stop the crisis, it may detonate a warhead over the sea as a further demonstration." Should war break out, "North Korea would be expected to use its nuclear weapons against military targets and population centres in South Korea or Japan." The North, which agreed in principle last week to disable its nuclear facilities, has been working to develop a nuclear warhead for the Nodong since at least 1994, say the report's authors, ISIS chief David Albright and Paul Brannan. It is also suspected to have obtained warhead designs from Pakistan's rogue nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. "North Korea is judged capable of putting a crude (nuclear) warhead on a Nodong missile," says the report, which follows a visit by former UN nuclear inspector Albright and former State Department official Joel Wit to Pyongyang early this month. The Nodong, a variant of the Soviet Scud with a potential range of 1,000-1,300 km (625-800 miles), could reach parts of Japan. But the report says the warhead may not be reliable and may have a relatively low yield. It estimates that North Korea, which conducted its first nuclear test last October, has a plutonium stockpile of 46-64 kilograms (101-141 pounds) of which 28-50 kilograms are estimated to be in separated form and usable in weapons. The vast majority of the separated plutonium, it says, has been produced since a 1994 deal with the United States, which shut down the Yongbyon plutonium-producing reactor, collapsed in late 2002. The 1994 Agreed Framework broke down when the US accused the North of cheating on it by running a secret highly enriched uranium programme, something the North has publicly denied. Under the new deal reached last week during six-nation talks in Beijing, the North agreed to disable its nuclear facilities in exchange for energy aid. As a first step it will shut down and seal Yongbyon within 60 days, re-admit UN nuclear inspectors and receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil or equivalent aid in return. Action to permanently disable the nuclear facilities would be rewarded with up to 950,000 tons of heavy oil or other aid. Critics say the deal does not immediately address either the North's existing nuclear weapons and plutonium stockpile or its suspected uranium-based programme. US Vice President Dick Cheney told Japanese leaders during a visit Wednesday the Beijing pact is a "good first step." Critics of the Bush administration claim its policies led to the breakdown of the 1994 accord, allowing the North to resume plutonium production. The Beijing agreement "sounds like the Bush administration has put things back to where they were at the end of the Clinton administration -- only now the North Koreans have tested a nuclear weapon and have enough plutonium for seven to 10 nuclear bombs," said Robert Einhorn, a US weapons expert, recently. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: SKorea says deal covers all NKorea nuke programmes Wed Feb 21, 5:56 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea's foreign minister refused Wednesday to comment on whether North Korea has a secret uranium-based nuclear programme, but said it must disable all programmes under last week's multinational deal. "It is not appropriate to publicly comment on which stage such a North Korean programme is at," Song Min-Soon said in response to a question on whether he believed Pyongyang had a uranium-based project. Seoul's intelligence chief Tuesday reportedly told a parliamentary committee he believed the North had a highly enriched uranium programme (HEU), despite its denials. The United States also accuses the North of running such a project in addition to its acknowledged plutonium bomb-making facilities. Song recalled that six-nation negotiations had already produced a deal in 2005 on dismantling all the communist state's nuclear programmes. "It is an unchanged principle that all of its nuclear programmes, whether they are (based on) plutonium or uranium, should be dismantled," he said. The six-nation agreement reached last week in Beijing has been criticised for not directly addressing North Korea's existing atomic bombs, or its suspected HEU programme. But Song stressed last week's deal was an initial step under which the North, which staged its first nuclear test last October, should start to make itself free of atomic weapons. Unification Minister Lee Jae-Joung said Wednesday there was no clear evidence to support reports that North Korea had a uranium enrichment programme. "We have no information on whether North Korea is carrying out a concrete plan to run a uranium enrichment programme," Lee told a parliamentary committee, according to Yonhap news agency. But a high-ranking North Korean defector said separately that Pyongyang has had a uranium enrichment programme to make bombs for the past decade. Hwang Jang-Yop, a former secretary of the North's ruling Workers Party, defected in 1997 -- the highest-ranking North Korean official ever to do so. He lives under police guard in South Korea. Freedom North Korea Broadcast, an Internet-based radio for defectors, quoted his remarks made February 19 on its website. Hwang could not be reached for comment. Officials in charge of the weapons programme "had frequently asked me to find a way as secretary of international affairs to import more plutonium, but then they said that it was no longer necessary," Hwang was quoted as saying. "They said they found out how to make (nuclear weapons) with Uranium-235. That was in 1996. Ten years have passed. They must possess more than enough to manufacture (nuclear weapons) there. They are denying it." Hwang has been a staunch critic of North Korea's regime since escaping while on a visit to Beijing. Several analysts believe the North's HEU regime is rudimentary and some doubt it exists. As a first step under the February 13 deal, the North will shut down and seal its Yongbyon plutonium-producing reactor within 60 days, admit UN nuclear inspectors and receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil or equivalent assistance in return. Action to permanently disable the nuclear facilities would be rewarded with up to 950,000 tons of heavy oil or other aid. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 [NYTr] Russia to Target US Facilities in Poland, Czech Republi Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:50:51 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Evan Peterson Pravda - Feb 20, 2007 http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/20-02-2007/87573-Russia_target_Polan%7F%0Ad_Czech_Repu-0 RUSSIA TO TARGET U.S. FACILITIES IN POLAND AND CZECH REPUBLIC by Alexander Timoshik staff writer for Pravda. In a statement reflecting the growing distrust between Moscow and the West, a top Russian general on Monday warned that Poland and the Czech Republic risk being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host U.S. missile defense bases. ONE OF THE MOST BELLICOSE COMMENTS YET The stark threat, by missile forces chief Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, was one of the most bellicose comments yet by Russian officials on the issue, which 10 days ago led President Vladimir Putin to warn of a "new Cold War" in a speech in Munich that shocked Western governments. "If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made," Solovtsov told reporters in Moscow, asserting the U.S. plan could upset strategic balance of power in the region. Solovtsov spoke as Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and his Polish counterpart, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, both in Warsaw, suggested they were ready to move forward with a plan by Washington to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic. Topolanek said both countries will probably agree to the basic U.S. proposal, though they must still work out the details. "I think it is in our joint interest to negotiate this initiative and to build ... the missile defense," he said. U.S. officials say that the 10 proposed interceptors - which they say are designed to stop a launch from the Middle East - are not aimed at Russia. Moscow, with its huge and sophisticated nuclear arsenal, could easily overwhelm such a small system simply by launching more than 10 missiles. PUTIN WARNED THAT RUSSIA COULD TAKE RETALIATORY ACTION Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that the missile defense system was intended to counter threats from Iran. He has warned that Russia could take retaliatory action. Solovtsov, speaking before the announcement in Warsaw, voiced concern that Washington could in the future expand and upgrade the anti-missile system. That could, at least in theory, limit Russia's ability to retaliate to a nuclear missile strike against its territory. Solovtsov also said Russia could easily make new, upgraded versions of Russian intermediate-range missiles scrapped under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, negotiated between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan in 1987, the AP reports. Germany has also criticized the United States for failing to inform Russia and neighboring countries of details of the plan beforehand. Warsaw and Prague say helping with the shield will tie Washington's interest to the region, but that they will also present a list of demands of what they want in return, Reuters reports. American interception missiles are currently deployed on Alaska and in California. Washington says that this is necessary for protecting the US territory from possible missile launches from North Korea. The Pentagon's idea is also to make North America safe from possible launches of ballistic missiles that Iran could have in prospect. The George Bush administration had repeatedly said the US missile defence system is not aimed at Russia, Itar-Tass reports. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Slams Russian General Over Comments From the Associated Press Wednesday February 21, 2007 5:16 PM AP Photo BAU110 By DAVID McHUGH Associated Press Writer BERLIN (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday called a Russian general's warning that Poland and the Czech Republic risk being targeted if they host U.S. missile defense bases ``extremely unfortunate.'' Rice also repeated assurances the system does not threaten Russia. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, head of Russia's strategic missile forces, said Monday that Russia might train its missiles on the two countries if they accept a U.S. proposal to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. ``I think that was an extremely unfortunate comment,'' Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, adding that the system did not threaten Moscow's forces ``and we have had the opportunity to explain that to Russia.'' She said the U.S. has made clear to Russia that the system would be to counter any missile threat from Iran. The system is too small to stop Russia's large nuclear arsenal, she said. ``Anyone who knows anything about this knows that there is no way that 10 interceptors ... are a threat to Russia or that they are somehow going to diminish Russia's deterrent of thousands of warheads,'' Rice said. ``I think everyone understands that with a growing Iranian missile threat, which is quite pronounced, that there need to be ways to deal with that problem,'' she added. The missile dispute is chilling relations between Moscow and Washington already damaged by differences over NATO's eastward expansion and U.S. concerns over human rights in Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow sees the establishment of the missile defense sites as a signal that the United States wants to gain nuclear superiority over Russia. He dismissed U.S. claims that it was to counter Iranian threats. ``If they talk about potential threats coming from Iran or North Korea, missile defense elements should be located in a different place,'' Lavrov said in an interview published Wednesday in the daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta. ``We can't help noting that these facilities would be capable of intercepting missiles launched from Russia.'' Lavrov said that having the ability to shoot down Russian missiles could allow the United States to consider the possibility of a nuclear strike on Russia without fear of retaliation. He referred to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that Washington quit in order to develop missile defenses, saying that it banned missile defense systems on the assumption that the fear of retaliation would prevent each nation from launching a first strike. ``Since protection from the first strike would be guaranteed, as American strategists apparently expect, another temptation arises - to be the first to launch a strike, aware that a chance has emerged to go unpunished,'' Lavrov said. The system consists of interceptor rockets that release a small kill vehicle which maneuvers into the path of oncoming warheads and destroys them in a high-speed collision. Critics say the system has not been convincingly shown to work. The defensive shield would protect Europe and the eastern United States, complementing bases at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, which are positioned to guard from any North Korean missile launch. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned earlier this month that the U.S. plan risks provoking a new arms race. Lavrov followed up on Putin's warning that Russia would take countermeasures in response to the U.S. missile sites deployment in Europe. ``We will respond, of course, but without any hysteria. We can't afford being entangled in an arms race once again,'' he said. He said that Russia and the United States must negotiate new arms control agreements to improve mutual trust, particularly as a landmark Soviet-era nuclear arms reduction treaty expires in 2009. Russian officials have called for negotiations on a replacement for START I, signed in 1991 by the United States and the Soviet Union, which limits the number of various types of vehicles and warheads that can be deployed by either side. --- Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 NARUC Forum: Remarks as Prepared for Energy Deputy Secretary Clay Sell NARUC National Electricity Delivery Forum Thank you Jim for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be with you all this morning. I want to thank you all, not just for inviting me to speak here, but for your participation in this important forum. NARUC is playing a vital role in increasing discussion among those most responsible for growing the national grid into the 21st Century. I particularly want to note the important coordination between NARUC and the Department's Office of Electricity to hold this second annual Electricity Delivery Forum. I also note that tomorrow you'll be hearing from FERC Chairman Joe Kelliher. Joe and the Commission are making tremendous progress in bringing transparency and competition to wholesale electricity markets. This was evident in last week's action to strengthen the Commission's open-access transmission rules. As you know, this is important business with significant impact, and we at DOE appreciate all of the great work being done by our colleagues at FERC. Speaking before you this morning reminds me of a story from my home state of Texas. Many years ago there was a young congressman there who wanted to bring electricity to the rural areas of his district. He encountered a lot of resistance from bureaucracies both in Washington and back in Texas. He even encountered some resistance from the ranch families he was trying to help. Many were suspicious of electricity and didn't really see how it would help them. But this young congressman pressed on, finally convincing the bureaucrats and the skeptical ranchers that this was for the best. And electricity was eventually transmitted to homes and ranches throughout his district. Well, his constituents discovered the benefits of this new technology pretty quickly and became exceedingly grateful to their congressman for helping to make it happen - so much so in fact, that some families went so far as to name their newborns after him. And in one recorded instance, even a little girl was given the name, "Lyndon Baines Johnson." Now I don't need to tell you, that when it comes to delivering electricity into people's homes, we rarely see that sort of gratitude today. The world has changed significantly since electricity first lit up homes in the Texas Hill Country some seventy years ago. And we face some significant challenges in ensuring that the people there - and people around this nation - can continue to receive safe and reliable electricity well into this new century. But while these challenges are great, we can and will meet them. This morning, I'd like to elaborate on those challenges, what we're doing to address them at the Federal level, and how you all can continue to help. Electricity is not only something that is taken for granted, it is something that some people want to continue taking for granted. We do not have that luxury. Within the past two years, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast and instability in energy producing nations around the world have made American consumers more sensitive to changes in the energy market. This has created new attention on the long-term challenges we face in addressing our energy needs. The simple fact is that a growing economy requires a growing amount of energy. The Energy Information Administration's long-term forecast projects that U.S. GDP will grow at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent from 2005 to 2030. And they estimate that electricity consumption over this same period will grow by 43 percent. That's a significant amount of new demand - and their estimates already factor in likely improvements in efficiency. And because we live in a global economy, we cannot ignore the impact that the growing economies of developing nations are going to have on our energy supply. We estimate that global consumption of energy will increase by 71 percent between 2003 and 2030. When it comes to electricity, that growth is projected to be particularly steep; with net electricity consumption more than doubling in that same period. Some have wondered whether this rapid growth in demand can be met. There's a short answer to that "yes." But behind that short answer lays significant amounts of time and resources that need to be invested into new technologies and innovation. Fortunately, we have a president who understands the challenges ahead, and is taking strong, pro-active steps to help address them. Furthermore, he is doing it in a way that is right for our economy, right for our environment, and right for our national security. The President understands that we can't meet our future energy needs if we don't begin by setting strong goals. That's why in his State of the Union address last month, the President called for a twenty percent reduction in gasoline usage over the next ten years. As I've said, investments in technology are going to help make this possible, and the federal government is prepared to do its part. The budget the President sent up to Capitol Hill earlier this month calls for large scale investments in energy research and development. It requests $4.4 billion for DOE's Office of Science as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative or ACI. The ACI allows us to harness our most important resource of all - human ingenuity. That ingenuity will be put to use alongside cutting edge facilities, such as new bio-energy research centers and supercomputing facilities. The President's budget also calls for $2.7 billion in funding for the Advanced Energy Initiative or AEI. This is an increase of more than a half a billion dollars over what was requested last year. The AEI allows us to accelerate breakthroughs in energy research. It is helping to develop new solar and biofuel technologies, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and coal fired power plants with zero emissions. Another important component of the AEI is the expansion of nuclear power. This President is committed to the growth of nuclear power and the safe, clean and affordable energy it provides. Because of the Energy Policy Act which the President signed into law in August of 2005, we are already seeing remarkable progress in the siting of nuclear power plants. Two years ago, not one U.S. company had plans for new builds, but today, there are 32 new reactors under consideration. And so as part of the AEI, the President is also calling for an increase in funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. In basic terms, this program is really about identifying the policies, developing the technologies, and building the international regimes that would manage and promote a dramatic growth in nuclear generation in a way that addresses our electricity demand, environmental, waste management, and non-proliferation objectives. Nuclear power is not a silver bullet, but it must be part of a broader energy strategy that - when combined with advancements in energy efficiency, clean coal technology development, and continued development of renewables - can and will make a difference in the security, environmental, and energy challenges we face. To that end, earlier this month, the Administration sent legislation to Capitol Hill that would allow for further increases in fuel economy standards. And the Administration's new Farm Bill proposal calls for $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy research. Additionally, we will soon send legislative language to Capitol Hill establishing a mandatory alternative fuels standard and an increase in the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels. Taken together, these initiatives will make a big impact in addressing the energy challenges we face over the next twenty years. But beyond our plans for new energy sources and improved efficiency, we are also taking the necessary steps to improve and enhance energy transmission and delivery. As you all know better than anyone, in too many parts of this country our delivery system is under severe duress. Steady demand growth, a greater reliance on generation sited far from load centers, and a long period of under-investment in transmission facilities have combined to create our current predicament. The age of our system is also showing, as many key facilities are now over thirty years old - and some are much older than that. The basic reality is that grid modernization is an urgent problem. And it's a responsibility that we all share. Traditionally, we have faced an uphill climb on this front for several reasons: One, development of new transmission occurs on a long time scale - often longer than the time horizons that are critical to many officials and corporate executives. Pushing the problem into the future has always been the easy solution. Two, "Not In My Backyard" sentiments often lead to unfavorable local headlines. And while elected officials and utility managers may realize the need for new transmission capacity, these plans can be derailed when the views of the "interested public" cannot be meshed with the "public interest." Three, the issue of cost allocation usually goes hand-in-hand with questions over who will benefit from new transmission, who should pay for it, and who should make these decisions; And four, there are increasing efforts being taken at the regional and state level to consider alternatives to the development of new transmission capacity in electricity planning. These alternatives - such as increased energy efficiency, enhanced demand response, and siting new generation close to load centers - need to be more generally integrated with generation and transmission development, and DOE supports such efforts. But while these obstacles toward grid modernization are real, we cannot let them stop us from addressing this issue. Some believe the need for grid modernization will be reduced through breakthroughs in energy technologies such as electricity storage and power electronics. DOE regards these technologies as very promising, but they will only be a part of the overall solution to meet the electricity needs of the future. DOE is committed to providing strong leadership and support for grid modernization, but we realize that we are only a part of a much larger effort. Leadership is needed on many fronts, including from the States and regional planning entities, as well as transmission and generation developers, FERC, NERC, and of course, NARUC. DOE has several important responsibilities, including some new ones that were enacted under the Energy Policy Act. The Act required the Department to study electricity congestion, and we published our Congestion Study on August 8th of last year, along with an invitation to the public to comment on the possible designation of National Corridors. I'm sure a few of you here today may have been casually following the developments in this area. I can tell you that Departmental staff have been reviewing the more than 400 comments received in response to this Congestion Study. They are analyzing the data developed in the study and provided by commenters to develop a recommendation for whether - or if so, where - a proposed National Corridor would be appropriate. Thus far, the staff has not made a recommendation to the Secretary. I believe you are aware that DOE has decided that, prior to issuing a report that designates a National Corridor, the Department will first issue a proposed corridor designation. This process will allow affected states, regional entities, and the general public additional opportunities for review and comment. The Energy Policy Act also included two provisions that we are implementing to help reduce unnecessary delays in the Federal permitting process for transmission siting. First, DOE is working with the land use agencies to designate energy right-of-way corridors on Federal lands in the West. These energy corridors will streamline the Federal permitting process for projects that cross Federal lands. We anticipate that draft language on this issue will be released by the Departments for a full public review and comment period by late May or early June of this year. Secondly, the Act charged DOE with coordinating the environmental reviews and authorizations required under Federal law with respect to siting transmission facilities. We are developing procedures to implement this new duty. This enhanced coordination will help speed up the Federal decisions needed for all transmission facilities, without shortcutting current agency procedures or environmental standards. As you can see, DOE will be very active, but there's no denying that the heavy lifting on this issue is going to be done by state and regional officials, the industry and other stakeholders. And as you all and others examine these issues, you'll have to answer key questions, such as: How dependent do you want your state, your region, or your company to be, 15 or 20 years from now, on natural gas as a generation fuel? This question is crucial, because almost all of the alternative generation sources - including nuclear, clean coal, wind, and other renewables - will be sited far from load centers and will present significant transmission requirements. What balance do you want to strike regionally between alternatives to transmission such as distributed generation and demand response, and transmission-dependent generation? And finally, what is the timetable for when these decisions have to be made in order to achieve your goals? As you make decisions that will set the pace for new capacity, it will be important to stay focused on the calendar. If transmission congestion is allowed to grow unchecked until it begins to erode reliability, rolling blackouts may be experienced in different regions of the country and there could be years of tense conditions. As you answer those questions in the coming months and years, I would also ask that you continue to be open to a new way of thinking. Electricity regulation is primarily the province of the States, but we must all begin to think outside of our own borders. The parochial interests that shaped energy policy in the 20th century will no longer work. We cannot begin to address the energy challenges of this new century until we begin to think from a regional, national and ultimately global perspective. Through efforts like the National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, the Advanced Energy Initiative and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, DOE is already starting to do that. But there needs to be continued and enhanced cooperation among the states. Let me give you three examples: One, we need to ensure that state laws for the review, approval and siting of transmission facilities allow for the consideration of out-of-state benefits. Two, when it comes to interstate transmission projects, we need states to develop common information requirements and review procedures. The regional siting protocols adopted in the West and the Midwest serve as valuable guides, but they have not yet been applied to actual transmission projects. And three, we need to ensure that the planning process for transmission siting includes full consideration of all relevant alternatives - including both transmission and non-transmission options. Consideration of all alternatives will ensure sound generation and transmission decisions. Those of you in this room today have a better understanding than anyone of the energy challenges that we face. The problems aren't new, but they will get substantially worse if we don't take action. That is why the work of NARUC is so important, as are the contributions you all are making back home. The federal government will continue to provide leadership, set goals, and create an environment where solutions can be conceived, developed and implemented. And we know that you all will do your part to ensure that electricity continues to be transmitted into the homes and businesses across this nation. While the challenges we face may be great, they can be met if we continue to knock down borders and barriers, and work together. We'll probably never see a return to the days when couples name their babies after the person who helped bring them electricity. But by successfully expanding our energy sources, increasing our efficiency and improving our means of transmission, we can ensure that our nation and its economy continue to grow well into the next hundred years. Thank you. Source: U.S. EPA judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 29 [NYTr] Lobe: A Tale of Two Interventions Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:47:35 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit IRC Right Web Program - Feb 20, 2007 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4010 Analysis A Tale of Two Interventions by Jim Lobe For several weeks, Washington has been abuzz with rumors that President George W. Bush is preparing to attack nuclear and other sites in Iran this spring--rumors deemed sufficiently credible that lawmakers from both parties are hastily preparing legislation precisely to prevent such an eventuality. Among the growing number of recent signs suggesting U.S. preparations for military confrontation, as listed by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi in a recent edition of American Conservative, are: Bush's claim that Iran is supplying bombs to Shiite militias to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq; the seizure of Iranian diplomatic and intelligence officials by U.S. forces in Iraq; the deployment of two aircraft carrier groups with a flotilla of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf; the supply of Patriot antimissile batteries to U.S. allies in the region; the unprecedented appointment of a navy admiral and former combat pilot as the head of Central Command; the "surge" of as many as 40,000 troops into Iraq; and persistent reports of U.S. covert operations inside Iran. It seems clear that the administration has developed detailed plans for attacking Iran and is putting in place a formidable armada that has the means to carry out such plans without delay. But if a decision has already been made, it appears that the faction that led the pro-war propaganda offensive in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and that has long favored "regime change" in Iraq--the neoconservatives--has either not been clued in, or more likely, believes that an attack on Iran is still some time off, if it takes place at all. It is not that the neocons don't favor war with Iran if diplomatic and other means fail to achieve either regime change or, at the very least, Tehran's abandonment of its nuclear program. Neoconservatives, whose views on the Middle East generally span those of Israel's Likud Party and the extreme right, have long held that a nuclear-armed Iran is, in Bush's words, "unacceptable," and that preventing such an outcome may require military means. "The only way to forestall an Iranian nuke," wrote Joshua Muravchik, a leading neoconservative polemicist at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), in this month's Foreign Service Journal , "... is by military strikes to cripple the regime's nuclear program." It is, rather, more the fact that the neoconservatives--who helped lead the yearlong propaganda campaign to rally the United States behind the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 with an admirable single-mindedness and urgency--appear far less focused on Iran. If such an attack is on Washington's near-term agenda, the neoconservatives have been decidedly off-message. The contrast with the run-up to the Iraq War is instructive. For a full year or more before the March 2003 invasion, the neocons and their major media outlets--notably, the Weekly Standard, the National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, and Fox News--kept up a virtually daily drumbeat of op-ed articles, television appearances, and selective leaks by their confreres within the administration with only one aim in mind: to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein must be ousted militarily. As the invasion drew near, the AEI, the movement's de facto headquarters, drew scores of reporters to its weekly "black coffee briefings," where such neocon worthies as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, then-Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Iraq National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi held forth on the evils of the Baathist regime and the regional implications of the forthcoming "liberation" of the Iraqi people. Carefully orchestrated and coordinated with their comrades in the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, neocons were able to create a powerful media "echo chamber" that, by late 2002, centered entirely on Iraq and the supposed necessity of going to war, to the exclusion of almost everything else. The neocons' discipline and focus on Iraq four years ago has been nowhere evident with respect to Iran over the past month. Judging by their writings and television appearances, they have seemed far more concerned with the growing public and congressional pressure to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. That has been the overriding preoccupation of the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, and the Wall Street Journal 's editorial page. Article after article has assailed turncoat Republicans, as well as "defeatist" Democrats, for opposing Bush's plan to "surge" troop levels. The AEI has held four briefings on Iraq, compared to only one on Iran, in the past two months. Despite the sharply rising tensions between Iran and the United States over the past month, for example, the lead editorials of several recent issues of the Standard--always a reliable indication of neocon priorities--were devoted to rallying lawmakers behind the surge. That doesn't mean that Iran is not a major concern--and ultimate target--of the neocons. Indeed, the cover story of last week's Standard, "Iran's Obsession with the Jews: Denying the Holocaust, Desiring Another One," shows no hesitation in building up the case for eventual war against Tehran. But the same issue ran yet another story that illustrates the relative lack of urgency for war: "Sanctions Against Iran Would Work," it was entitled, although its subtitle, "Too Bad They Won't Be Tried," hinted at a sense of inevitability regarding a future war. Nonetheless, to the extent that neoconservatives, and their allies in the right-wing "Israel Lobby," are addressing themselves to Iran policy at the moment, expanding and enforcing sanctions, rather than imminent war, appears to be the main message. Indeed, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Gary Schmitt, AEI fellows and fixtures at the black coffee briefings four years ago, just published an article on precisely this theme in the Financial Times: "How the West Can Avert War With Iran." Similarly, alarmist television ads by the right-wing American Foreign Policy Council running recently on the major cable television networks in the Washington DC area warn viewers about Iran's nuclear program, its status as "the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism," and its president's Holocaust denials and threats to "wipe Israel off the map." But the ads conclude with the relatively anodyne exhortation: "Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today." Not exactly what one would expect on the eve of a military attack. This tack may simply be a ruse to lull anti-war forces into complacency. Or it may reflect a fear that, given their record on Iraq, beating the drums for war against Iran may prove counterproductive. Or it may indicate that prominent neoconservatives have somehow lost touch with the hawks in the White House and Cheney's office. But it may also reflect the neocons' assessment, based no doubt on inside information, that Bush--who spoke about U.S. policy on Afghanistan at AEI last Thursday--intends to play the diplomatic game a little longer. [Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 30 RIA Novosti: A bad treaty is better than a good missile Opinion & analysis - 16:38 | 21/ 02/ 2007 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - In December of this year, the Russian-American treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty) may celebrate its 20th anniversary. Or it may not. Considering the position of Poland and the Czech Republic, which are about to allow the Americans to install elements of an anti-missile defense system on their soil, the Russian leadership may well act on its recent threat to withdraw from that treaty. Such a step will certainly have many repercussions. In mid-February, Yury Baluyevsky, chief of Russia's General Staff, said that Russia might unilaterally pull out of the 1987 treaty. He directly linked the possibility of that step with plans for the implementation of an American anti-missile defense program for European countries. For several years now the Russian military and political leadership has been saying that it will give an asymmetrical, less expensive but very effective answer to Washington's anti-missile defense plans. It is no secret that the reference is to systems, both existing and under development, for penetrating anti-missile defenses with Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. In principle there is nothing radical about this, despite the fact it pits strategic offensive weapons against purely defensive armaments. Modernizing the existing nuclear missile arsenal is indeed quite an understandable asymmetrical answer to the appearance of global anti-missile systems. But adding intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles to such an answer in the future is not a very happy choice. By the mid-1980s, efforts by the U.S.S.R. and the United States to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles had reached their peak and posed a real threat to global security. In the middle of December 1985, the Americans completed the deployment in Germany of all 108 planned Pershing-2 ballistic missiles, with a range of 1,800 kilometers. With an impressive circular error probable of 20-40 meters, the missile could carry a nuclear warhead with a regulated TNT equivalent of 50-100 kilograms. The target approach time was about 14 minutes. In addition, Britain (on two bases), Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and West Germany deployed a total of about 500 GLCM/109G missiles with nuclear warheads. The range of these missiles was 2,500 kilometers. The U.S.S.R. could engage the probable enemy from several positioning areas on its territory by deploying its famous Pioneer mobile ground-based missile system, carrying an RSD-10 (SS-20) missile with a range of around 5,200 kilometers, i.e. the whole of Europe lay within its reach. There were also plans to deploy this system in the country's Far Eastern near-polar region. In that case, most of the U.S. western seaboard would have been vulnerable. And even that was not the whole story. In November 1983, a decision was made to develop a new advanced Skorost mobile missile system, which would be deployed in Czechoslovakia and East Germany. But even under these circumstances, the U.S.'s tightening nuclear missile noose compelled the U.S.S.R.'s leadership to hold negotiations on the limitation of intermediate-range missiles. In such a case it is hard to refrain from asking: why is the present situation any different than the past? It is not, to put it mildly. Should the Americans want to drop their rhetoric about the future of the INF Treaty in favor of practice, they will have all of Western Europe at their disposal. Speaking technically, an initial arrangement could be to replace destroyed ground-launched cruise missiles with similar, but not banned, ground-based SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk missiles (only mothballed in 1991) equipped with nuclear warheads. For Russia, however, the second episode in the saga of intermediate-range missile deployment is one big question mark. Which plant will manufacture the required number of missiles? The existing facility east of the Urals chronically fails to cope even with the production of ICBMs ordered by the state. What must be the procedure for condemning land for positioning areas and where should they be located? How to provide the proper infrastructure and bring units up to the necessary strength? How to ensure uninterrupted command and control, including launching new communications and reconnaissance satellites into orbit? And last but not least: where is the war chest to help pay for all these things? If we recognize that no magic wand has been found yet, then we'll have to cut back on existing national projects, and no one will be able to choose which ones to axe. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's former defense minister, may have been right to describe the INF Treaty as a relic. But all things old are not always worse than what's new. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 31 Herald: Navy tells Faslane to cut costs by 30m Web Issue 2764 February 22 2007 IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent February 21 2007 The Royal Navy is aiming to reduce the cost of running the Clyde naval base at Faslane by £30m a year in the run-up to a radical review of fleet support facilities, which is likely to see the closure of one of the three main UK bases. The Defence Logistics Organisation is carrying out a study into streamlining the back-up for a Navy which has shrunk to just 25 frigates and destroyers before a cabinet decision is taken later this year to rationalise jobs and services. Faslane, Devonport and Portsmouth, the three surviving fleet "home ports", have all been ordered to prepare business plans for reducing their annual overheads by 16% in the meantime. The Clyde base plays host to the UK's four Vanguard-class strategic missile submarines, a flotilla of nuclear hunter-killer submarines, and a squadron of mine-hunters. It will also be home to the new generation of Astute attack boats, being built at Barrow-in-Furness, and the missile submarines which will eventually replace the Trident-armed Vanguards. With more than 6000 civilian and military employees and a budget of £270m, it is also Scotland's single largest industrial site as well as the largest military base north of the border. The vast majority of the civilian workforce is employed by Babcock naval services division, which also runs Rosyth shipyard in the Firth of Forth. The company has four years of a £400m extension contract awarded in 2005 still to complete. Commodore Carolyn Stait, Faslane base commander, said: "There is more engineering and waterfront capacity than we need across the three UK naval bases for the future size and shape of the fleet and the way it will be operated. "We simply cannot go on supporting the associated costs without prejudicing the front line, which is the only reason we have naval bases in the first place." Three areas for potential savings being examined by Faslane's Clyde Forward team are a widening of industrial partnering agreements, concentration of workshops and offices scattered across the site and exploring areas where income can be earned by using existing facilities for outside contracts. In consultation with the trades unions on site, the team hopes to have concrete proposals which can be implemented by April next year. Portsmouth, the spiritual home and historic headquarters of the Navy, is seen as the most vulnerable of the three bases as the surface fleet continues to shrink and the government is committed to maintaining a submarine-launched nuclear deterrent. Devonport, refurbished at huge public expense to enable the refit of nuclear submarines, and Faslane are likely to escape the axe, although both will be forced to slash costs. While Portsmouth is home to 47 surface ships, it has become a dumping ground for mothballed vessels. In June last year it had 19 ships either awaiting sale or scrapping. A further 16 warships were on "active duty", but moored alongside because of shortages of spares, crews and fuel. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited ***************************************************************** 32 UPI: India, Pakistan sign nuclear treaty United Press International Updated: 02/21/2007 7:33:36 AM -0500 UTC NEW DELHI, India, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan signed a treaty in New Delhi on Wednesday aimed at preventing the accidental use of atomic weapons. The 2-hour meeting on "Reducing the Risk from Accidents relating to Nuclear Weapons" was signed by KC Singh, India's additional secretary in External Affairs Ministry and his Pakistani counterpart Tariq Osman Hyder, the Press Trust of India reported. In November, a draft of the treaty was agreed upon at the foreign secretary-level. The document was reviewed in January. The India-Pakistan Joint Commission was set up in 1983 but political bickering shut it down in 1989 until 2005. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: India, Pakistan sign nuke deal in defiance of train attacks by Elizabeth Roche Wed Feb 21, 7:21 AM ET The New Delhi signing ceremony took place in public after Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Pakistani counterpart, Khurshid Kasuri, held an hour and 45 minutes of talks. They repeatedly shook hands and smiled for photographers, pledging renewed commitment to their peace process. "The holding of the joint commission meeting as scheduled is a reaffirmation of the commitment of both India and Pakistan to the dialogue process," Mukherjee told reporters. Kasuri agreed that, after the firebombing, the talks were "another sign of increasing cooperation between Pakistan and India." Both sides were examining "cooperation in education, information, IT and telecom, health, agriculture, tourism and science," he said. The train blasts "underlined the need of cooperation" in fighting terror, he added. "You have also witnessed the signing this morning of the agreement between India and Pakistan on reducing the risk of accidents relating to nuclear weapons," said Mukherjee. The nuclear accord, which comes into force immediately, was the key confidence-building measure of Kasuri's visit that began Tuesday as part of efforts to resolve six decades of bloodshed over Kashmir. No details were immediately available of how the agreement will work, but the two sides already exchange lists of nuclear facilities at the start of every year. Islamabad and New Delhi first put forward the idea for a nuclear weapons safeguard agreement in 1999, but the bloody Kargil conflict intervened the same year and it took until January 2004 for peace talks to be relaunched. The countries held tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests in May 1998 that led to international sanctions on both and fears they would consider the weapons as bargaining chips in the dispute over Kashmir, which caused two of their three wars since independence in 1947. The two sides also agreed to hold fresh talks on withdrawing troops from a strategic glacier in Kashmir that is billed as the world's highest battlefield. "We have both agreed that the directors general of military operations will meet ... we have suggested some dates," Kasuri told reporters. Wednesday's meeting -- following the train blasts at midnight Sunday which killed mainly Muslims travelling home to Pakistan -- had been scheduled to review the stop-go peace process. It had been put on hold for four months after 186 people died in Mumbai train bombings last July. Kasuri said he sought interaction between the railway authorities of both countries to ensure safety for tourists. India was studying proposals put forward by Pakistan to boost tourism, Mukherjee added. The Indian minister ruled out a joint probe into the train blasts with Pakistan, but promised the "perpetrators of this heinous crime will be brought to book. "Whatever information will be available ... will be shared with the Pakistani authorities," at a meeting of an India-Pakistan anti-terror panel starting March 6, he said. Meanwhile, detectives investigating the train inferno probed links to a Pakistan-based militant outfit. A recorded telephone call made shortly after the blasts pointed to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the main Islamic group fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, The Times of India said. "Investigators ... have picked up a vital terror trace -- a phone call made to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir from Delhi after Sunday night's attack," the daily said. "The recorded conversation reveals links to a Pakistan-based terrorist group." India blamed the same rebel group for an attack on its parliament in December 2001 which almost pushed the two neighbours to war. However, Lashkar denied any role in a statement published Wednesday on the website of Greater Kashmir, a regional English-language daily. Indian police are also questioning a Pakistani and have issued sketches of two other men suspected of links to the attacks. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 nukes to process oil sands? Straightgoods.com Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:59:14 -0600 (CST) from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=122 Nuclear power no answer for oil sands Greenhouse gases are produced at each stage of the nuclear energy cycle. Dateline: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 by Mark S Winfield (Director, Environmental Governance, Pembina Institute), Dan Woynillowicz (Environmental Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute), Hugh Wilkins (Staff lawyer, Sierra Legal) Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn has become an increasingly vocal promoter of the idea of using nuclear power as an alternative energy source to natural gas for developing Alberta's oil sands. Indeed, he has stated that it is not a matter of "if," but "when" a nuclear reactor will be built to supply energy to oil sands production facilities. Lunn has backed his proposals with statements that nuclear energy is "emission-free," produces "no greenhouse gases," and "there's no pollutants going out (with) the energy." Leaving aside the consideration that no oil sands company has actually made any kind of commitment to pursuing the use of nuclear power, and that the technical and economic viability of nuclear in an oil sands context is at best unproven, Minister Lunn's claims beg answers to some serious questions. 8c8c97.jpgIs nuclear energy clean? Minister Lunn claims that nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gases and air pollution. In reality, nuclear power, like other non-renewable energy sources, is associated with severe environmental impacts. Each stage of the nuclear energy production process, from uranium mining to power plant operation, generates large amounts of radioactive and otherwise hazardous wastes that will require care, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years, for safety, security and environmental reasons. The process also pollutes surface water and groundwater water with radioactive and hazardous pollutants. Water pollution from uranium mines and mills has been found by Health Canada and Environment Canada to meet the definition of a toxic substance for the purposes of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Canadian nuclear power plants have had routine and accidental releases to surface and groundwater of radionuclides, particularly tritium. Significant releases of hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides and smog and acid rain-causing pollutants occur throughout the process of mining and producing uranium fuel for nuclear power stations. Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are produced at each stage of the nuclear energy cycle. Greenhouse gas emissions occur during the construction of reactors, as a result of the operation of equipment in the uranium mining process, the milling of uranium ore, mill tailings management activities, and refining and conversion operations. Greenhouse gas emissions also result from the transportation of uranium between milling, refining and conversion facilities and transportation required in the management of waste nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes. Is nuclear energy affordable? Ask Ontario electricity consumers, who are greeted with a "debt retirement charge" on their electricity bills every month to pay off $20 billion in "stranded" debt, mostly left behind by Ontario Hydro's perpetually over budget and under performing nuclear plants. That's to say nothing of the financial guarantees that would have to be provided by Alberta taxpayers for waste fuel management, decommissioning costs, and in the event of a serious accident, any damage to the environment, public health or the economy over $75 million. It has been estimated that the economic damages from a major accident at the Darlington Ontario nuclear plant east of Toronto would be in the range of $1 trillion. In addition to its immediate human and environment costs, a major nuclear accident in the oil sands could end their development for centuries. Nor, as its proponents claim, is nuclear power subject to "stable" fuel prices. The world price for uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants, has risen by a factor of more than six over the past five years.... whole article at: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=122 Penney Kome, author and journalist http://penneykome.ca Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of 8c8c97.jpg] ***************************************************************** 35 Galway Independent: Fahey in favour of nuclear energy debate February 21 · Vol 7 · Issue 08 Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Mr Frank Fahey TD has suggested that he would welcome a future debate on nuclear energy. Deputy Fahey was responding to a motion on the subject, which was passed unanimously at the Ogra Fianna Fáil conference in Galway at the weekend. The motion, which was brought by Cumann Kevin Barry UCD, the largest branch of Ogra Fianna Fáil, called for a feasibility study on nuclear power to be carried out. An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who also spoke at the conference, earlier rejected nuclear energy as a "false promise and a failed solution". However, Mr Fahey said that while he too is against nuclear energy, a debate would be welcomed once the feasibility study has been completed. "I wouldn't be in favour of it myself but Ogra Fianna Fáil have always been quite radical in their views and I think they should go ahead and carry out the study, if they feel that strongly on the subject. Although the party's policy is against it, if the research has been done, then we could certainly discuss the matter further and would welcome a debate depending on their findings," he said. Cumann Kevin Barry Chairman James Carroll said that while nuclear energy was quite a taboo subject, there wasn't one person who opposed the motion. "Many science lecturers in UCD are saying that in 20 years everyone will realise how important nuclear energy is. The damage being done by non-renewable energy sources is a big worry and I think it's great to see that so many young people realise the importance of it." However, An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the conference that Fianna Fáil did not accept nuclear energy as a solution to global warming and carbon emissions. "We see the attempts by the powerful nuclear lobby to use valid concerns about global warming to revise its flagging fortunes as cynical and unacceptable. We believe there are better, greener options for Ireland and for the world. Nuclear power is as unsuitable for Ireland as it is unacceptable." The motion has now been passed to the National Youth Committee, who will draw up the relevant documentation to be given to the senior Fianna Fáil party for consideration. ***************************************************************** 36 Xinhua: Indonesia to build nuclear power plant Posted on : Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:50:01 GMT | Author : Xinhua Jakarta, Feb 21 (Xinhua) Indonesia will press ahead with plan to build its first nuclear power plant in 2010, although it has yet to decide technological specifications and safety standards, local press reported Wednesday.The nuclear power plant is due to be built at Mt. Muria in Central Java and a senior official familiar with the project said the government was determined to stick to the original schedule, which envisages the project being put out to tender in 2008, construction starting in 2010 and the plant coming on stream in 2017, reported English daily The Jakarta Post. 'We are currently sounding out the necessary technology from other countries, such as Japan, the US, France and Germany, so as to make sure that we get the safest,' said Natio Lasman, chairman of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency (Bapeten).Lasman said that Bapeten would soon carry out a comparative study on safety standards and procedures in other countries. He said the long-awaited regulations on the licensing regime for nuclear reactors were approved last December, which paved the way for decisions on the technical aspects to be made in the near future.Under its blueprint for the development of nuclear energy, the government is targeting the bringing on stream of a nuclear plant with an initial capacity of 4,000 megawatts, accounting for about two percent of total national energy demand, by 2017.The country's first nuclear power plant is expected to meet four percent of total power demand in Java, Madura and Bali, which is expected to reach 175 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2015. (c) Indo-Asian News Service (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 RIA Novosti: Russia, RSA discuss nuclear cooperation program - agency head 17:46 | 21/ 02/ 2007 PRETORIA, February 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the Republic of South Africa are discussing plans to establish a complex program of cooperation in the nuclear sphere, the head of Russia's nuclear power agency said Wednesday. "We have very big cooperation prospects, including extending the contract to supply low enriched uranium until 2020," Sergei Kiriyenko told journalists. Kiriyenko said Russia and South Africa had far greater potential for cooperation now, adding that the two countries had a good basis for relations. The Russian nuclear chief said both South Africa and Russia plan to implement a large-scale development program for the nuclear industry until 2030, envisioning the construction of 20 nuclear power units. Besides participation in uranium production in South Africa, Kiriyenko said Russia could supply floating NPPs to be used, in particular, for water desalination. He said talks are underway as to what conditions would be best for Russia to take part in RSA projects. Kiriyenko said earlier Wednesday Russia's Renova Group and South Africa's Harmony Gold Mining have signed a memorandum of understanding. Russia has been looking to increase its presence on the world nuclear fuel market, but has encountered resistance, particularly from the United States, which imposed anti-dumping restrictions on Russian nuclear fuel imports in 1992. The memorandum records both sides' interest in cooperating to develop gold and uranium deposits in South Africa. "Cooperation between the companies includes joint uranium production in South Africa and South African company's participation in projects in Russia, based on an asset swap," he said. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 38 FR: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings Doc 07-799 [Federal Register: February 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 34)] [Notices] [Page 7912-7913] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21fe07-73] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATES: Weeks of February 19, 26, March 5, 12, 19, 26, 2007. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and closed. 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). Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:30 a.m. Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301 415-1322). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 5, 2007--Tentative Monday, March, 5, 2007 1 p.m. Meeting with Department of Energy on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Tuesday, March 6, 2007 1 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:30 a.m. [[Page 7913]] Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Miriam Cohen, 301 415-0260). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 and 3). Thursday, March 8, 2007. 10 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.(NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Gene Peters, 301 415-5248). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 1 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Reginald Mitchell, 301 415-1275). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 12, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 12, 2007. Week of March 19, 2007--Tentative Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Information Services (OIS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Edward Baker, 301 415-8700). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 26, 2007--Tentative Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1, 2, & 3) (Tentative). Thursday, March 29, 2007. 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management (FSME) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Tentative). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1, 3, & 9). * * * * * * * *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.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need consistent 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 15, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-799 Filed 2-16-07; 2:18 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 Energy Business Review: UK nuclear energy: at a crossroads - 20th February 2007 By David Niles The UK nuclear energy market has reached a crossroads as debate over its future rages on. As recent events have illustrated, the UK nuclear industry is under pressure from all angles, with its future in jeopardy. Not only does it need government and investor support, but the industry has to sway public opinion and battle its own internal demons. Clearly, a constructive and pragmatic plan is needed to resurrect the nuclear debate from limbo. 'Content The UK nuclear industry has just experienced what must have been 'the mother of all bad weeks'. Firstly, on February 13, 2007, British Energy's effort to encourage new nuclear build was labeled hopeless. Although the UK government claims to support nuclear build, it has ruled out subsidies, which are critical for build. Secondly, a viable nuclear alternative hinges on its ability to compete with gas and coal, and, presently, nuclear is not price-competitive with either. Then, on February 15, 2007, the industry did not do itself any favors when the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) admitted that it had illegally released radioactive waste for more than 20 years, between 1963 and 1984. The third blow came one day later when anti-nuclear campaigners won a court (and PR) battle for a judicial review of the government's nuclear consultation paper. The ruling said that 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 plant build. Additionally, it dismissed the information given in the paper as inadequate and misleading. Nuclear can be a viable option in achieving energy security and curtailing carbon emissions; however, the challenges of regulatory approval, planning, decommissioning, pre-licensing plant designs, assessing sites for suitability, financing and swaying public opinion are tough dragons to slaughter. The UK government cannot afford to stick its head in the sand and pretend nuclear is a foregone conclusion. Italy, for example, is reconsidering its anti-nuclear position as it confronts environmental obligations and growing dependence on foreign energy. The UK industry needs a pragmatic and comprehensive government policy to sway the hearts and minds of investors and the public, and possibly a bit of luck. It recently emerged that the Norwegian government is studying the use of thorium as an alternative to uranium as a nuclear fuel. Thorium reactors are considered safer than uranium and more environmentally friendly than gas-fired plants. Not only are meltdowns impossible, but these reactors produce less waste and spent fuel than conventional uranium reactors - something that must surely be of interest to the UKAEA. 'End Intelliext ©2007 Business Review ***************************************************************** 40 Capital Times: James Butcher: Nuclear power not good coal substitute A letter to the editor Dear Editor: Your columnist Mike Ivey touts nuclear energy as a "clean" alternative to coal and writes that we should be pursuing this as an energy source. Uranium, in order to be used as fuel, must be enriched. It takes a lot of energy to enrich uranium. In most cases, the energy comes from burning coal, a lot of coal. Then, once the enriched uranium is "burned" in the power plant to produce electricity, the remaining material is highly radioactive and takes a couple hundred thousand years to degrade. This byproduct, call plutonium, makes every nuclear power plant not only a power source but also a bomb factory. I agree we need to get off of coal as source of fuel for our power plants. However, I am not sure nuclear is a more desirable option. James Butcher Madison Published: February 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 The Capital Times ***************************************************************** 41 FR: NRC: In the Matter of Dairyland Power Cooperative: La Crosse Boiling Doc E7-2878 [Federal Register: February 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 34)] [Notices] [Page 7911-7912] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21fe07-72] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [EA-07-014] Water Reactor; Order Imposing Additional Security Measures (Effective Immediately) I The Licensee, Dairyland Power Cooperative, holds a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) for La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR part 50, authorizing it to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern. This Order is being issued to all such Licensees who may transport radioactive material quantities of concern under the NRC's authority to protect the common defense and security. The Orders require compliance with specific additional security measures to enhance the security for transport of certain radioactive material quantities of concern. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to Licensees in order to strengthen Licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on this regulated activity. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of the current security measures. In addition, the Commission commenced a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its initial consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain security measures are required to be implemented by Licensees as prudent, interim measures to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment A \1\ of this Order, on the Licensee. These additional security measures, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These additional security measures will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. \1\ Attachment A contains Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public. The Commission recognizes that the Licensee may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment A to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and Threat Advisories or on its own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments of radioactive material quantities of concern, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the Licensee's specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern. Although the security measures implemented by Licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of common defense and security, in light of the continuing threat environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. The Commission has determined that the security measures contained in Attachment A of this Order contain Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public as per Order entitled, ``Issuance of Order Imposing Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information,'' issued on November 15, 2006, to the Licensee. To provide assurance that Licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Licensee shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment A to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health and safety require that this Order be immediately effective. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 81, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 50, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that the licensee shall comply with the following: A. The Licensee shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment A to this Order. The Licensee shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment A to the Order and shall complete implementation by August 11, 2007 or before the first shipment of radioactive material quantities of concern, whichever is sooner. B.1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment A, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment A to this Order would adversely impact [[Page 7912]] the safe transport of radioactive material quantities of concern, it must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment A requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment A. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, and C above shall be submitted to the Document Control Desk, ATTN: Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with Licensee's Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information--Modified Handling program. The Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, to the Office of Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region III, at the address specified in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 73, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile to 301-415- 3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 12th day of February, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-2878 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 CorpWatch : US: Green like money: Activists counter PG&E's greenwashing by Amanda Witherell, SF Bay Guardian January 31st, 2007 The LGBT Community Center on Market Street traded pink and lavender for Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s acidic green Jan. 27. During a so-called green fair at the center, the billion-dollar corporation unveiled a $170,000 gift of solar panels for the roof of the building, which will provide 20 to 40 percent of the organization's power and cut its annual electricity bill by an estimated $5,000. According to PG&E, this is the beginning of $7.5 million of solar installations planned for San Francisco as part of the company's "Let's green this city" campaign. Tom King, senior vice president of PG&E, had a variety of optimistic numbers to bolster the company's claim that it's turning over a green leaf, but he couldn't tell us how much of the company's power actually comes from solar sources. "I don't know what that number is exactly," he told the Guardian. The protesters outside the building did. "Zero!" Sakura Saunders shouted as she distributed printouts from PG&E's Web site showing that less than 1 percent of the company's electricity comes from solar power. Saunders is part of an independent collective fighting the company's green campaign with its own at www.letsgreenWASHthiscity.org. Some of San Francisco's leaders were there lauding the donation, including Sup. Ed Jew and Assemblymember Mark Leno, who thanked King and PG&E "for choosing the LGBT Center as the benefit of your largesse." Others were conspicuously absent, including a legislator whom Leno has talked about challenging next year, state senator Carole Migden. Eric Potashner, Migden's deputy chief of staff, told us, "She didn't want to overstate the accomplishments of a company that still has a long way to go before it could be considered green." Leno told us he had fought PG&E on many issues. "My voting record is quite public, and I do not feel compromised by reaping the benefits they're bestowing upon the community center in an attempt to paint a greener image for themselves." Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty both opted out as well, with Dufty citing PG&E's ongoing efforts to block public power: "I'm happy to see people support the center. I just wasn't willing to have myself associated with it." 1611 Telegraph Avenue., #702 ï Oakland, CA 94612 USA ï 510-271-8080 De sign by Tumis.com ï Powered by RadicalDesigns.org ***************************************************************** 43 Edinburgh Evening News: SNP calls for rejection of nuclear plants Wednesday, 21st February 2007 Change Date SCOTTISH Nationalists today called on Labour to rule out the construction of any new nuclear power stations. The party claims Scotland can instead become a world leader in green technologies. Speaking ahead of an SNP-led Holyrood debate on the environment, the party's environment spokesman Richard Lochhead said: "It's time for parliament to take a stand on this issue by supporting the SNP's motion in favour of developing our nation's enormous renewables and clean energy potential, and rejecting the case for costly, unneeded and unwanted new nuclear power stations in Scotland." The debate follows yesterday's announcement that the world's biggest wave energy farm will be built as part of a £13 million marine energy drive by the Executive. Mr Lochhead added: "The SNP welcome any additional investment in marine energy but under this Labour and Lib Dem government we have had to wait eight years for it." Related topic * Nuclear energy http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1343 This article: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=279942007 Last updated: 21-Feb-07 11:49 GMT ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 44 Leader-Post: Nuclear energy canada.com where perspectives connect Regina Leader-Post > News> Letters Published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Just over 70 per cent of the Saskatchewan public favours building a nuclear reactor, but cannot move ahead to further contemplate the issue because of ideological opposition of political and environmental origin. Technically, nuclear power can be made to work for Saskatchewan. Don Ching, president of Areva Resources Canada, recently addressed the Regina and District Chamber of Commerce about Saskatchewan's role in the world nuclear industry (Leader-Post, Feb. 8, "Firm wants (uranium) refinery") and was called upon to explain the technical constraints on nuclear power for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan's power lines can only handle 300 megawatts of electricity. Since nuclear reactors of the day are generally 700, 1,000 and 1,600 megawatts in size, these reactors are too big for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan would require several small- to medium-sized nuclear reactors in the range of 150 to 300 megawatts. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited no longer considers this size of reactor and only three countries are engaged in the required research and development. A foreign reactor design suited to Saskatchewan's needs should be available within 10 years. Such a reactor could be air-cooled (no need for cooling water and hence easier to site/locate) and fail-safe (automatic shutdown if it starts to overheat). Designed for operating lives of 20 years, the world's 100-odd civilian reactors are expected to run for 60 to 70 years -- including a revamped Three Mile Island, which is still licensed and operating. Sask Power is exceedingly safety conscious and would make an excellent operator. Ching was not asked to address the more contentious political and bureaucratic (regulatory) constraints on nuclear power. Apparently, the nuclear policy of Saskatchewan's NDP government can accommodate the desired uranium refinery, but not a nuclear reactor, and future changes to this policy are unknown and inherently uncertain. The positions of other provincial parties may not have been formalized. On the regulatory side, Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is geared up to license AECL CANDU (water-cooled) and Slowpoke (radiochemical analysis) reactors, but not foreign designs. Experimental reactors have received CNSC licences (e.g. AECL at Pinewa, MB.). Thus the licensing of an air-cooled, foreign reactor design would be new to CNSC, but not beyond its capabilities. External Affairs Canada, Natural Resources Canada and AECL could all have views that need to be accommodated by the federal government. Federal regulatory impediments and delays should be anticipated by Saskatchewan and minimized. Climate warming is a proven reality that will take centuries to correct. Clean coal is not yet a reality, but is desirable and will probably proceed, in at least a partially successful form, for 300 years. Nuclear power could start to provide a safe, reliable and greenhouse-gas-free source of energy for Saskatchewan during the clean coal era that is likely at our doorstep. We should clear our minds and take a new and closer look at phasing in modern nuclear energy. Dennis W. Lawson Regina © The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007 © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 45 UPI: BMD Focus: Russia's INF threat not bluff United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 2/21/2007 9:50:00 AM -0500 By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The extraordinary tough talk coming out of Moscow over the past week on the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty is mixed but not contradictory. First, four-star Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, the Chief of the Russian General Staff, warned explicitly last Thursday that Russia might unilaterally pull out of the nearly 20-year-old treaty that has been a cornerstone of detente and of peace and security in Europe. "It is possible for a party to abandon the treaty (unilaterally) if it provides convincing evidence that it is necessary to do so," said Baluyevsky. "We currently have such evidence." "What they (the Americans) are doing at present, building a third missile defense ring in Europe, is impossible to justify," he said. Baluyevsky's remarks sounded 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," the RIA Novosti news agency said. Baluyevsky's threat followed a rising tide of warnings from Russian leaders about how seriously they would react to the Bush administration's plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech republic, two former Soviet satellite states that are now members of the U.S.-led NATO alliance. The very next day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, sounded an -- apparently -- more moderate tone when he said that Baluyevsky's comments did not reflect any decision that the Kremlin had already made to scrap the INF, which was signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and last Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev on Dec. 8, 1987. But Lavrov made it very clear he was not contradicting any of Baluyevsky's comments. "We are not speaking about a decision that has already been made. We are just stating the situation," he said. Lavrov's comments, therefore, appeared to be a not-so-veiled hint that Russia would stay within the INF if the United States abandoned its plans to deploy BMD radars and other assets in Poland and the Czech Republic And on Monday, Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of Russia's mighty Strategic Missile Forces, issued another tough warning. As we reported in our regular BMD Watch column Tuesday, Solovtsov said Russia was ready to resume construction of intermediate- and short-range nuclear missiles at any time. He said abandoning the INF would pose no military or security problems to his nuclear forces. Russia's strategic missile forces will be able to locate and target any ballistic missile defense facilities the United States puts in Central Europe. Solovtsov told a Moscow press conference the Strategic Missile Forces would be able to track down and, if necessary target, U.S. ballistic missile defense radars and missiles if they were ever deployed in Central Europe. "If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic make such a decision, the Strategic Missile Forces will be able to target these systems," he said. The INF treaty was a cornerstone of detente between the United States and the Soviet Union. Signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and last Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev on Dec. 8, 1987, it scrapped intermediate-range 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 U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union," RIA Novosti said. Baluyevsky, Lavrov and Solovtsov all appeared to be fleshing out the frank warning of their leader, President Vladimir Putin, at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy on Feb. 10 when he warned that the U.S. drive to deploy BMD assets in Central Europe could set off a new superpowers arms race. "What they (the Americans) are doing at present, building a third missile defense ring in Europe, is impossible to justify," Baluyevsky said. The United States maintains that the BMD assets are meant only to protect Western European nations from the threat of nuclear missiles launched by Iran or some other so-called "rogue" state. But Putin and other top Russian leaders now openly ridicule that explanation, claiming that the deployments are instead aimed at them. In these columns over the past year, we have consistently tracked the rising Russian tide of alarm over U.S. plans to extend BMD systems into Central Europe. The latest statements from Moscow confirm our assessment that the Russian threats are not bluff and should be taken seriously by U.S. policymakers. So far they have not been. This state of complacency may well continue until Russian intermediate-range nuclear missiles are once again targeting the great cities of Western Europe for the first time in a generation. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Spectrum: Divine Strake opposed www.thespectrum.com -The Spectrum, St. George, UT Wednesday, February 21, 2007 By MEG CADY mcady@thespectrum.com CEDAR CITY - Iron County commissioners joined their voices with a chorus of government entities about Divine Strake by issuing a statement this week against the test. "We recognize that we do not live in a world free of conflict ... nevertheless, we have a deep and abiding commitment to the safety and security of the citizens of Iron County," commissioners Wayne Smith, Lois Bulloch and Alma Adams said in the statement. "As the Iron County Board of Commissioners, we are opposed to Divine Strake and any other similarly crafted weapons experiment." Adams said commissioners felt they needed to come out with an official stance on the 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel-oil bomb planned for the Nevada Test Site. Iron County commissioners join Washington County, Kane County, St. George and Springdale in official stances against the non-nuclear Divine Strake. "I think we need to stand together and not let the government take advantage of us like they did before (with previous tests)," Bulloch said. "We decided we wanted to support our neighbors to the south because we were as affected as them (in nuclear tests)." Bulloch said she grew up in the 1950s during the Cold War tests at the Nevada Test Site. She's not sure Divine Strake will cause as much damage, but she believes it could be the precursor to more nuclear testing. County Clerk Dave Yardley said commissioners didn't need to discuss the statement for long during their last meeting on Feb. 12. They are unanimously against it. "They just feel like this is really not the time or place for tests like this," he said. Adams said commissioners believe the federal government acted too quickly in pushing for the test. Commissioners want the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to make certain there won't be any detrimental effect to residents and to complete the environmental impact statement. "(The federal government) hasn't done enough," Adams said. "If they can prove that it's safe, then go ahead. If there's gonna be any detriment to the citizens, then forget it. We're concerned, of course, with every person in Iron County." Originally published February 21, 2007 Print this article Email this Copyright ©2007 The Spectrum. ***************************************************************** 47 Norway Post: Continued assistance to nuclear clean-up Thu, 22.02.2007 Path: / The Norway Post Norway will continue to assist Russia in the clean-up of nuclear waste at the nuclear submarine base in the bay of Andrejeva in Murmansk. 21.02.2007 08:01 The County Governor of Finnmark and the Governor of Murmansk have signed an agreement to is end, which will secure NOK 14 million to the project. Part of the money will be used to rebuild the dock, to make it possible to remove the nuclear waste from the base. - This is a problem which dates back to the cold war. It is not done overnight to clean this up, and if Norway wants to help us with it, we are grateful, Governor Jurij Jevdokimov says to public broadcaster NRK. (NRK) Rolleiv Solholm Imaker Content Management Systems - © 1996 - 2005 Imaker as ***************************************************************** 48 Deseret News: Iron County opposes Divine Strake blast Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Iron County commissioners are in unanimous agreement when it comes to opposing the federal government's plan to detonate 700 tons of ammonium nitrate fuel oil at the Nevada Test Site. "We felt strongly we ought to come out against it," Iron County Commissioner Wayne Smith said on Tuesday of the proposed blast dubbed Divine Strake. "We really didn't want to become the dumping ground for this kind of test." The Iron County Commission approved its position statement against Divine Strake during its regular meeting last week. The document is a near replica of one passed by the Washington County Commission several weeks ago. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency with the U.S. Department of Defense is developing a plan that would permit the experiment if it can be conducted safely and in compliance with the nation's environmental policies, according to agency officials. Public information sessions on Divine Strake were held in early January in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and St. George. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who has voiced opposition to the test, also held two public hearings on the subject in Salt Lake City and St. George. "There are a lot of unknowns with this test," Smith said. "We've had a lot of residents here make comments to the commission in opposition to it." Smith said as a teenager growing up in Beaver during the mid-1950s he would watch the large, reddish, mushroom-shaped clouds created by nuclear tests rise skyward as he did his chores outside. "It seemed like there was a lot of activity. My mother was really the only one in our family concerned about it," he recalled. "She said it wasn't good for us to be outside when they did the tests and got mad at me if I didn't go inside." The Utah Senate earlier passed a resolution objecting to the test, as did the cities of St. George and Springdale in Washington County. © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 49 National Academies Project: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium Gulf War and Health: Project Title: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium PIN: PHPH-H-06-01-A Major Unit: Institute of Medicine Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice RSO: Mitchell, Abigail Subject/Focus Area: Project Scope A committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will review, evaluate, and summarize scientific and medical literature regarding the association between exposure to depleted uranium and chronic human health effects. The study committee will focus on literature published since the IOM's 2000 report, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines was written. The committee will make determinations on the strength of the evidence for associations between exposure to depleted uranium and human health effects. The report might include recommendations for additional scientific studies to resolve areas of continued scientific uncertainty. The findings will not be limited to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. They also will be applicable to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The start date for the project is September 18, 2006. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 15 months. Project Duration: 15 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/22/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 50 LVN: Editorial: Nevada needs to maximize heightened political clout Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - Opinion February 21, 2007 Nevada will have the opportunity to test its newfound political clout today when eight Democratic presidential contenders participate at a forum in Carson City. The Silver State is strategically more important now that the Democratic Party has moved the state's caucus to Jan. 19, 2008, between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, from which the national front-runners will likely emerge. Now that Nevada has the national spotlight, the question is what will the state's political leaders do with it? Hopefully they will take advantage of the opportunity to focus national attention on Western issues. So what are the issues that presidential candidates need to be talking about? Certainly immigration is a hot-button issue as the flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico stretches our schools, hospitals and social services to the breaking point. Fundamental to this issue is what the federal government is going to do to secure our borders. Build a fence? Beef up border patrols? Send the illegals back home? Strong leadership, political courage and a clear vision are needed to deal with this issue before it spirals out of control and blood is spilled on the streets of America. Another uniquely Western issue that desperately needs attention is unfunded federal mandates. This is particularly challenging in the West because the government owns tremendous amounts of land that do not generate property taxes to help pay for infrastructure and government services needed to support a burgeoning population. Federal payments in lieu of taxes don't come close to making the region's budgets whole. Before Westerners go to the polls, they need to know what the candidates for president intend to do to make sure that the federal government becomes a good neighbor by paying its fair share of the cost of owning property in our states. Speaking of being a good neighbor, Nevadans want and need to know which of the presidential contenders will lead the charge when it comes to making sure that Nevada does not become a national nuclear waste dump. The citizens of this state, who have already suffered unfathomable health consequences as a result of the federal government's experiments at the Nevada Test Site, are rightfully and overwhelmingly opposed to the Department of Energy's nuclear storage program at Yucca Mountain. Catastrophic wildfires are another threat to the health and well being of people in Western states. Westerners are tiring of the misguided federal policies underlying these events, which are blackening hundreds of thousands of acres of public and private property every year, not to mention depleting the national treasury and causing injuries and even loss of human life. Federal projects that store and deliver water throughout the arid West and provide renewable sources of low-cost energy are critical to the continued prosperity. How do the candidates propose to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of the people who live here? The candidates need to provide straight answers on this topic. It would be a shame if Nevada's leaders let the candidates get out of Northern Nevada without pinning them down on the future of the Naval Air Station at Fallon and the Hawthorne Army Depot. These facilities are not only important to our nation's security but are socially and economically vital to the communities in which they reside. The candidates can no longer afford to ignore Nevada just because it is a sparsely populated state as they have in years past. It's up to Nevada to make the most of this opportunity by demanding straight answers to direct questions, then voting accordingly. All contents © Copyright 2007 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 51 Nevada Appeal: Reid says Yucca is dead February 21, 2007 Cathleen Allison/Nevada Appeal U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid addresses Nevada lawmakers Tuesday night at the Legislature. Geoff Dornan Appeal Capitol Bureau, gdornan@nevadaappeal.com Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., told a joint session of Nevada's Senate and Assembly on Tuesday the Yucca Mountain project is dead. "After 25 years, folks, it's history," he said. "They can keep spending money there. Nothing's going to happen." The comment drew loud applause from lawmakers and the gallery of the Nevada Assembly. Reid told lawmakers now that the waste dump project is dead, "people realize that if they store the waste on-site, we can move to some reasonable nuclear power." He said much has changed since he first arrived as an assemblyman in 1969. But Reid said there is much more to do, and he urged them to set aside partisan differences and work together. He quoted former Nevada Assemblyman and Secretary of State Bill Swackhamer as advising him as a freshman: "Never forget who you are. Never forget from where you come. Never forget who sent you here, and never forget why they sent you here." "Nevada voters sent us to places like Carson City and Washington, D.C., to work for them," Reid said, adding that he wants to work with the Legislature to make the state better. And one of those areas, he said, is renewable energy. He said the state has vast resources in solar, wind and geothermal energy to tap. "We have to work together to make sure people understand Nevada can be the center for renewable energy." In a press conference before the speech, Reid said he understands British Prime Minister Tony Blair is setting a timetable for the withdrawal of his country's troops from Iraq. He repeated his charge that Iraq, "is the worst foreign policy blunder in the country's history." Reid said a majority of both the House and Senate sent a clear message to President Bush that he needs to change course. But he expressed doubt even British plans to pull out would change the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy. "In the past, they've ignored everybody, so I guess they'll ignore Blair," he said. Reid said he isn't pushing for immediate withdrawal of the troops. "Pull the troops out tomorrow? Of course not," he said. Reid said there must be a regional solution to Iraq which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, "and, yes, Iran." And, he said, that will take time and help from the U.S. and other countries. Reid was in Carson City for the speech to lawmakers and to attend today's Democratic presidential candidates' forum at the community center. He said the party decision to hold caucuses in Nevada in January, one of the first official political events of the presidential campaign season, puts Nevada in as "part of the race." Eight of the nine announced Democratic candidates are planning to attend today's forum. ? Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750. All contents © Copyright 2007 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701 ***************************************************************** 52 Sydney Morning Herald: BHP in spot of bother over uranium contracts - www.smh.com.au Barry FitzGerald February 22, 2007 BHP BILLITON is being forced to buy in uranium from third parties at boom prices to meet increased demand from contract customers, despite owning the world's biggest uranium deposit at its Olympic Dam project in South Australia. It is not that Olympic Dam is operating below capacity ahead of its planned $10 billion expansion by 2013. Rather, savvy customers are exercising options under which they can ask BHP to supply them with more uranium. WMC wrote the contracts years before BHP took it over in 2005, and well ahead of the uranium price taking off. The volume option was included to entice buyers at a time when uranium was hard to sell. Nearly all Olympic Dam's current uranium contracts are locked in at prices of less than $US20 a pound until 2010, while the spot market price has exploded to $US75 a pound because some now see nuclear power as a solution to global warming. The good news for BHP is that not all its customers (overseas power utilities) are taking advantage of the situation. Most of Olympic Dam's customers are not exercising their volume options. They are presumably taking a long-term view of their relationship with BHP, knowing it plans to triple Olympic Dam's output to 15,000 tonnes by 2013. At that rate it will be the world's biggest uranium mine. And because of the massive size of the orebody - about 40 per cent of the world's economic reserves - it could be around in a 100 years, BHP managing director Chip Goodyear says. Spot uranium prices recently hit $US75 a pound, a 635 per cent increase on the December 2002 price of $US10.20 a pound. The surge reflects the potential for near-term supply shortages as nuclear power enjoys unprecedented acceptance as a solution to global warming. Between May and November last year the number of planned and proposed nuclear power plants increased dramatically, with the total increasing by 70 reactors to 223. The World Nuclear Association has forecast that demand for uranium could increase from about 65,000 tonnes last year to about 78,000 tonnes in 2015 and 111,000 tonnes in 2030. The reporter owns shares in BHP Billiton. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 53 FR: NWTRB: Yucca Mtg in Berkeley 3-14-07 [Federal Register: February 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 34)] [Notices] [Page 7913-7914] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21fe07-74] NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD Board Panel Meeting March 14, 2007--Berkeley, California; The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board's Panel on Postclosure Performance will meet to discuss U.S. Department of Energy studies related to infiltration at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet in Berkeley, California, on Wednesday, March 14, 2007. The meeting agenda will focus on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) infiltration estimates for the proposed repository site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Board will review the results of nw infiltration studies undertaken by DOE. DOE conducted the new studies because of quality assurance questions that were raised about DOE's previous infiltration analyses. Information from the meeting will be used by the Board to evaluate effects of the new analyses on the technical validity of DOE infiltration estimates. The Board is charged by Congress with reviewing the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by DOE related to nuclear waste disposal, as stipulated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 200 Marina Blvd.; Berkeley, CA 94710; tel: 510-548- 7920; fax: 510-548-7944. A block of rooms has been reserved at the hotel for meeting participants. When making a reservation, please state that you are attending the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meeting. Reservations should be made by February 23, 2007, to ensure receiving the meeting rate. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. and to conclude at approximately 6 p.m. Presentations will be made by technical and scientific investigators from the University of Nevada-Reno, the U.S. Geological Survey, and DOE and its contractors. Time will be set aside at the end of the meeting for public comments. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the ``Public Comment Register'' at the check-in table. A time limit may have to be set on individual remarks, but written comments of any length may be submitted for the record. Interested parties also will have the opportunity to submit questions in writing to the Board. Questions submitted by meeting attendees that are relevant to the discussion may be posed by Board members, as time permits. A final agenda detailing meeting times, topics, and participants is available on the Board's Web site, http://www.nwtrb.gov. Copies of the meeting agenda also can be requested by telephone. Transcripts of the meetings will be available on the Board's Web site, by e-mail, on computer disk, and on a library-loan basis in paper format from Davonya Barnes of the Board's staff, beginning on April 9, 2007. For more information, please contact Karyn Severson, NWTRB External Affairs, 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300; Arlington, VA 22202; tel: 703-235-4473; fax: 703-235-4495; severson@nwtrb.gov. [[Page 7914]] Dated: February 13, 2007. C.W. Di Bella, Acting Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. [FR Doc. 07-739 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AM-M ***************************************************************** 54 Pueblo Chieftain: Cotter sues to take N.J. waste soils Cotter Corp.'s uranium mill outside of Canon City. Online - Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A Wednesday February 21, 2007 CHIEFTAIN PHOTO/FILE Company challenging state's decision to block disposal. By TRACY HARMON THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN CANON CITY - Cotter Corp. has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver seeking to overturn a ban on receiving waste soils from New Jersey. The state health department issued the decision barring the company from receiving Maywood, N.J. waste soils. The suit, filed Feb. 2 by Cotter Corp. attorney John Watson, names both the state health department and a group that formed to oppose Cotter's acceptance of the radioactive waste, Colorado Citizen's Against Toxic Waste. The citizen's group was automatically included in the lawsuit as a procedural matter due to its earlier participation in the case, according to a Cotter attorney. The state health department is the main target of the suit. The lawsuit seeks a judgment in favor of Cotter and an order requiring the health department to authorize Cotter to receive and dispose of the waste soils. The suit also seeks an award of interest, costs and attorney fees. The case goes back five years. In 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract to allow transport of 470,000 tons of radioactive material from the Maywood Superfund Site in New Jersey to the Cotter Corp. uranium mill for disposal. Two years later, the state health department denied Cotter's request to dispose of the Maywood soils. Cotter subsequently challenged the state agency's ruling in a judiciary hearing. Last spring, hearing officer Richard Dana issued a decision that upheld the state's findings and again denied Cotter's request to accept the Maywood soils. Dana's ruling led to a final order from the health department in January. In the U.S. district court lawsuit, Watson argues that the department's denial violates Colorado law and regulations. "The denial, among other things, allows vague and ambiguous assertions of alleged socioeconomic impacts to trump and override admissions by the (state health) department that Cotter's requests fully complied with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for the protection of employees, protection of the environment and protection of the public health and safety," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit alleges the state's final order was an abuse and unwarranted exercise of discretion and based upon findings of fact that are unsupported by substantial evidence. "We knew this was the next step Cotter could take," said Sharyn Cunningham of Canon City, a spokeswoman for Colorado Citizen's Against Toxic Waste. "It is interesting that, in spite of the fact that the community has made it very clear through business petitions, citizen petitions, medical society resolutions, Fremont County's letter and the City of Canon City's letter, that they do not want radioactive waste brought into our county, Cotter is still pursuing this." "If they could change this decision they could make a lot of money for direct disposal. There would be no need for millions of dollars in repairs to the mill that it needs to operate to process uranium ore. "Cotter does not care. They are going to pursue this and the bottom line is money," Cunningham said. Cunningham said members of her coalition were shocked the group was named as defendant. The group "has no control over the health department decision-making. Why we are a defendant? We'll have to get an attorney to answer that, unfortunately, but it appears anyone who is a party to a hearing has to be named as a defendant," Cunningham said. Watson agreed with Cunningham's assessment, saying Citizen's Against Toxic Waste is considered a nominal defendant. "We are not suing them but it is a procedural requirement, required by statute, that they are automatically named a defendant because they participated in the case below (Dana's hearing)," Watson explained. Watson said the lawsuit will take a period of months to work its way through the process. He said the Maywood soil is still available for disposal and is not expected to be disposed of at another facility immediately. ©1996-2007 www.chieftain.com Star-Journal Publishing Corp. Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A. ***************************************************************** 55 The State: South Carolina's credibility at stake on nuclear dumping 02/21/2007 | Opinion BY ANN TIMBERLAKE Guest columnist Since the General Assembly convened, nuclear waste lobbyists have been hard at work to undermine the law that established the Atlantic Compact between South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. This law complies with interstate commerce conventions and is the only way South Carolina can cease being the nation's nuclear dumping ground. Given the General Assembly's record of caving in to the waste industry in 1992 and again in 1995, this attack on the law was not unexpected but the ease with which House members are embracing it is disturbing, especially given their widespread support for the Compact when it was adopted into law. The House’s buckling under also ignores the overwhelming desire of South Carolinians to stop being the dumping ground for toxics other states do not want. The law passed in 2000 that resulted in the compact was a compromise between the site operator (then Chem-Nuclear, now Energy Solutions), waste generators and utilities, the conservation community and elected officials representing Barnwell County. In short, the compact law was supported by all the players. So it’s vital for citizens from all over the state to question the rationale for changing course seven years later. The state-owned Barnwell site was proposed as a modest 10- to 20-acre landfill. Since 1971, it has accepted more commercial nuclear waste than any other facility in the nation, with 95 percent of waste generated and imported from outside of South Carolina. More than 27 million cubic feet of radioactive waste, mostly from nuclear power plants, is now buried under 100 acres there. With only 2.5 million of 30 million licensed cubic feet available, the site is 90 percent full. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, space at the site is guaranteed for South Carolina’s own nuclear waste needs for the next 50 years. As long as South Carolina’s utilities need a place to dump their radioactive waste, the Barnwell site is available. Moreover, Energy Solutions has already filed an operating plan with the Public Service Commission showing how it can remain open even with lowered volume levels. There is simply no rationale for providing space for waste from all over the country. Legislators included a number of provisions to soften the economic impact of closing the site to other states, including a sweetheart deal guaranteeing a 29 percent operating profit for the site operator. Moreover, New Jersey and Connecticut have paid $12 million to the Barnwell Economic Development Fund to finance local projects and infrastructure. Rep. Billy Witherspoon, chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, inroduced a bill last week to essentially gut the provisions of the compact law. His legislation proposes to change current law and allow 40,000 cubic feet to be accepted annually from all over the country for the next 15 years. But even if some economic reasons could be found for expanding the site, the Barnwell facility makes terrible sense from an environmental perspective. The site has already leaked radioactive tritium into Mary’s Branch Creek, which feeds into the Savannah River. And while the Barnwell facility is categorized as a “low-level” nuclear waste facility, that designation still allows it to accept highly radioactive and long-lived waste, including nuclear reactor filters and decommissioned reactor components. During his re-election bid, Gov. Mark Sanford supported “continued participation in the Atlantic Compact as part of the existing roadmap for the future of the site.” In addition, the governor insisted that funds previously diverted from the Barnwell Extended Care Trust Fund be repaid to allow for future maintenance and monitoring. South Carolina’s willingness time and again to prostitute itself to the nuclear industry has caused other regional waste compacts to postpone opening sites elsewhere. We saw this in North Carolina in 1996, and Gov. David Beasley used this as our state’s motivation for withdrawing from the Southeastern Compact. South Carolina’s credibility is on the line. We have done our fair share for the nation. The safest and most predictable course for protecting our own energy future and the health of our citizens is to ask elected officials to simply stick to the current law. Ms. Timberlake is executive director of Conservation Voters of South Carolina, www.conservationvotersofsc.org ***************************************************************** 56 Daily Yomiuri: Nuclear fuel agreement mixed blessing Planned negotiations over Russia's uranium enrichment may be double-edged sword Japan has entered into final negotiations that would see Russia enriching Japan's uranium, thereby increasing this otherwise dependent country's ability to meet its own energy needs. Behind the decision to commission Russia--the most fuel resource-rich country in the world--to enrich its uranium lies the fact that it would place Japan in a formidable position amid continuing international competition to obtain fuel. However, by increasing Japan's dependence on Russia, that country will have control over Japan's nuclear lifeline. Stronger ties with Russia, which has fought with Japan over rights and interests for the development of the Sakhalin gas fields, would prove a double-edged sword. For this reason alone, discussion over the course resource-dependent Japan should take is likely to intensify. Japan is the third-largest producer of nuclear energy in the world, behind the United States and France. Nuclear power produces less carbon dioxide, which is linked to global warming, than other energy sources, and will likely become an ever-greater source for meeting our energy needs. From 2017, the industry hopes to reach a capacity of 66.81 million kilowatts--a 30 percent increase over current output. The country has seen progress in its policy to effectively use recycled uranium and plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycle. However, it has not progressed as planned in terms of selecting recycling facilities, or the processing or reprocessing of nuclear waste. Nor has there been progress in the production of nuclear weapons-grade enriched uranium, leaving the country's production at less than 10 percent of what it uses in a year. These weak areas of Japan's nuclear policy have led to the need to rely on Russia. By working with Moscow, Tokyo also hopes to get a foothold that will provide it with a steady supply of natural uranium. The fuel resource's price on the international market as of 2006 had jumped to 10 times its 7 dollars per pound price in 2000. So it is absolutely necessary that Japan, which must import all of its uranium, obtains a steady supply. Russia and Kazakhstan claim one-fourth of the world's total uranium reserves. In October, Mitsui & Co. won negotiating rights that would allow the firm to begin operations at the Yuzhnaya Uranium mine in eastern Siberia. Toshiba Corp., meanwhile, has entered into tie-up negotiations with a Russian firm to run a nuclear power plant. === Russia aiming to corner market Russia uses its rich energy sources, such as petroleum and natural gas, as leverage with which to increase its status on the international stage. It plans to use these powerful "weapons" to increase its involvement in nuclear power production and to give it more say. In January last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his vision of an international nuclear fuel center that would enrich the world's uranium. This month, Putin signed a bill to establish Atomenergoprom, or Atomprom, giving Russia more prominence in the nuclear power industry. Russia currently has four uranium enrichment facilities, which can handle up to 15,000 tons a year, 30 percent more than the second-largest country in the sector, the United States, which can deal with about 11,300 tons. This gap means that Russia has the reserve energy to take in Japan's spent fuel. === Good relations key to reliability Several problems remain, however, with entrusting the enrichment to Russia. Last year, Russia temporarily halted the natural gas supply to Ukraine, and has acted to deprive Mitsui and Mitsubishi Corp. of their rights in the Sakhalin-2 project, as well as using its position as a resource-rich country to pressure its customers. There is fear Russia may halt its supply or enrichment of uranium depending on its relationship with Japan. If it were to stop uranium enrichment, it would increase the likelihood that Japan's nuclear fuel cycle would not progress entirely as planned. The plan, which is expected to increase Japan's energy self-sufficiency, would instead backfire, handing Moscow the key to Japan's energy supply. In its negotiations over an agreement that would stem the proliferation of nuclear materiel, Japan plans to demand a clear system for the monitoring of and a clearer disposal route for Japan's recovered uranium. There is a likelihood, however, that Russia will claim the disposal route is a military secret and therefore it cannot be revealed. Observers also believe that if Russia and the United States do not conclude their own nuclear power agreement, Japan will have difficulty with its own agreement. If the currently optimistic United States changes its stance due to changes in the international situation, the future of Japan's agreement will become clouded. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 57 Daily Yomiuri: Japan-Russia uranium enrichment deal near The government and the nation's major electric power companies have entered the final stage of negotiations with Russia for consigning the enrichment of uranium for fuel in nuclear power plants to Atomenergoprom, or Atomprom, which is to be established as Russia's state-run monopoly for the nuclear energy industry, according to sources close to the deal. The Japanese side plans to initially consign the enrichment of uranium that was recovered from spent fuel rods and has been stored in Britain. In the future, the Japanese side plans to consign to Russia the enrichment of natural uranium produced in mines to which Japan has obtained the rights in Russia and Kazakhstan. The Japanese and Russian governments aim to reach a basic agreement over the deal at a summit level meeting by the summer, and will also negotiate the signing of a bilateral nonproliferation accord to prevent nuclear material from getting into third parties' hands, which is essential to consigning the works, the sources said. Under Japan's nuclear fuel recycling scheme, fissionable uranium and plutonium are recovered from spent fuel rods, and the uranium is enriched to be used as nuclear fuel again. Japan has been cautious about its own enrichment of uranium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, because of the nation's three nonnuclear principles--not possessing, producing or introducing any nuclear weapons. Therefore, the enrichment of uranium has only been undertaken in a few cases inside Japan. Though electric power companies had consigned the recovery of uranium from spent fuel to firms in Britain and France, enrichment of the recovered uranium has not progressed partly because of high costs. The amount of recovered uranium deposited by Japan with the two countries has ballooned to 6,400 tons. As Britain has asked Japan to take back the recovered uranium, the government and the electric power companies have been seeking an alternative arrangement to enrich the recovered uranium. According to the sources, the government and the companies asked Russia, which has one of the world's largest enrichment plants, to accept the enrichment work two years ago. The Russian side showed a willingness to accept the consignment and confidential negotiations were held. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 58 Herald News: GE bids for nuclear recycling HeraldNewsOnline.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group February 21, 2007 By CHRISTINA CHAPMAN Staff Writer MORRIS -- General Electric Co.'s Morris-area facility is competing against 11 other U.S. sites to house a future nuclear fuel recycling project. But GE is one of only two facilities that can offer the technology and the space. The Morris City Council heard a presentation Tuesday from GE on the U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership project, which seeks to build facilities that will recycle spent nuclear fuel and destroy its long-lived radioactive components. GE is competing to have the "integrated Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center and Advanced Burner Reactor" because it is capable of providing the technology and the site. All the other possible locations can only provide the site or the technology, said Sarah Leversee of GE, at the meeting. The facility would recover about 95 percent of the energy available in spent nuclear fuel and reduce radioactive half-lives to hundreds, rather than thousands, of years. GE's Morris-area facility, Morris Operation Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, is southwest of Exelon Nuclear's Dresden Station. For the project, it would be combined with research operations at Argonne National Laboratory. The city council does not have to approve GE's concept because it is not technically in Morris, but in an unincorporated part of Grundy County, said Mayor Dick Kopczick. Aldermen John Swezy and Ken Seidler brought up concerns over transporting additional spent rods when the on-site ones from Dresden are exhausted. Leversee said transporting more is not in the plan, but is a possibility. "Transportation is certainly capable (of being done) safely, but they're coming into a heavily populated area," Seidler said. GE currently stores spent nuclear fuel rods in pools. The company was given $1.5 million from the DOE to conduct a study on the Morris location. A more specific economic study will be done later, Leversee said. The DOE will take questions and listen to comments about the concept from 6 to 9:30 p.m. Thursday in the Barber & Oberwortmann Horticultural Center, 227 N. Gougar Road in Joliet. Dan Duffy, currently of the Grundy Economic Development Council, but soon to be the new county administrator, said that this is a solution, because spent rods are already stored and just sitting in the county. "So really, you're cleaning up a problem we already have," Duffy said. GE has a good chance, Leversee said, because it is already licensed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; spent fuel rods already are on site; and parts of the infrastructure needed for the new procedure already exists. In the 1970s, efforts to recycle spent nuclear fuel were stopped for fear of producing weapons-grade material such as plutonium. GE has until May 1 to turn in the results of the location study, and the DOE is expected to chose two to three locations for the new technology by June 2008. If GE is chosen, Leversee said construction could begin by 2010. Christina Chapman can be reached at (815) 729-6172 or cchapman@scn1.com Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy ***************************************************************** 59 businessinafrica.net: southern africa Uranium Group to double production in Namibia NAMIBIA Published: 21-FEB-07 Windhoek - UraMin, a mining company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and listed on the London Stock Exchange, said it had doubled its annual production forecasts at the Trekkopje Uranium project in Namibia to £8mn from £3.3mn, and now seeks a partner to expand the project. It said in a statement on Monday that overall production could top £19mn a year by 2011 if projects in South Africa and Central African Republic (CAR) prove successful. "Trekkopje would become one of the largest uranium producing mines in the world. "SRK (consultant engineers) results have exceeded expectations and we look forward to completing the feasibility study and beginning the development stage later this year," said CEO Ian Stalker. Engineers have forecast $461mn in capital costs on the project. Stalker said that excellent potential exists on additional exploration licence areas, adding: "This could extend the life of mine and sustainability of production rates of eight million pounds per year of uranium beyond the initial mining plan of eight years." -panapress All material copyright Business in Africa. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Sparks Tribune: Nuke waste could travel through Sparks, Reno Serious property value impacts predicted By Janine Kearney jkearney@sparkstribune.net If the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump moves forward, nuke waste shipments could be sent along railroad lines through the cities of Sparks and Reno. At Tuesday's Washoe County Commission meeting, Joe Strolin and Robert Halstead, with the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects (under the governor's office), talked about the possible impacts of the plan. The Department of Energy is proposing to build a railroad line along the Schurz-Mina Route to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste casks sent along the Schurz-Mina Route could use the Union Pacific Railroad track through Sparks and Reno, officials said. DOE estimates that 2-3 nuke waste cask trains per week would travel through Sparks and Reno, or about 10,725 shipments. Strolin and Halstead emphasized that many government leaders think it's highly unlikely the dump will be completed, although there's always a possibility. "In the opinion of the state, Yucca Mountain is really almost dead in the water," Strolin said. "The project is really on life support at this time. The project is on its last legs, although we acknowledge that there are possible ways for this program to go forward." Strolin said under the most favorable circumstances and no further delays on Yucca Mountain, the DOE estimates the nuke waste shipments would begin in 2017. However, Strolin said a more reasonable start date is 2025 or later, should the project move forward. If the Mina route is selected, DOE estimates that between 10 percent and 50 percent of all nuke waste shipments contained in railroad casks will travel through Sparks and Reno, Halstead said. From the East Coast, the Mina route would begin at the Nevada-Utah border, travel across northern Nevada possibly near Interstate-80, travel through Silver Springs, Sparks and Reno, then head south to Yucca Mountain. Many residents and business owners are concerned about the impacts, should an accident or terror attack occur. Halstead said that a release of toxic radioisotopes could result in up to 4,000 cancer deaths and untold money needed for cleanup. "This could have some serious negative impacts," he said. The proposed nuke waste shipments through Reno and Sparks would have a half-mile exposure radius along railroad tracks — an area that will encompass most major hotel-casinos, Halstead said. Urban Environmental Research conducted a survey in 2002 that looks at property value impacts for three scenarios. If no accidents occur along the route, DOE estimates the nuke waste shipments could result in Washoe County property value declines: • Residential property values decline $71 million to $149 million • Commercial property values decline $2.6 million to $11 million • Industrial property values decline $6.3 million to $13 million If there is an accident along the route but no radiation is released, DOE estimates the nuke waste shipments could result in Washoe County property value declines: • Residential property values decline $225 million to $368 million • Commercial property values decline $13.5 million to $26 million • Industrial property values decline $37.2 million to $51.1 million If there is a serious accident and radiation is released, DOE estimates the nuke waste shipments could result in Washoe County property value declines: • Residential property values decline between $1 billion, 563 million to $1 billion, $836 million. • Commercial property values decline between $92.2 million and $127.5 million • Industrial property values decline between $209.7 million and $264.4 million. Staff were reminded that the above figures are only estimates and were compiled back in 2002 through the Survey of Lenders and Appraisers in Washoe County by Urban Environmental Research. "The survey will likely have to be redone in the future because of the methodology used," Halstead said. On Oct. 13, 2006, the DOE expanded the environmental impact study on nuclear waste shipments to include the Schurz-Mina route. The DOE will continue to evaluate the Caliente railroad corridor, and any other possible sites identified during the federal environmental study. The Caliente route intersects the southeast border of the state on its way to Yucca Mountain. Previously, the Schurz-Mina railroad route was not an option because the Walker River Paiutes objected to the route going through their reservation. The Walker River Paiutes - recognized by the federal government as a sovereign, independent nation - were able to stop the route through their lands. However, the Walker River Paiutes have since withdrawn their objection, allowing for further study of this nuke railroad route as an option. The DOE has not released exact maps of either the proposed Mina route or the Caliente route, according to Strolin and Halstead. However, the DOE may identify all routes available to nuclear waste shipping sites, instead of designating a primary route and an emergency or back-up route, Halstead said. This would mean that if Yucca Mountain moves forward, shipments could be traveling across northern Nevada and through the southeast border. The DOE currently has not developed or addressed: • preserving cultural resources located along the railroad route • options to relocate an existing Department of Defense railroad across the reservation. The tribe has requested that rail lines be moved away from the tribe's businesses and home. To accomplish this, the DOE will need to build a 3,000-foot bridge in sandy soil, over a river that is the habitat of an endangered species of fish. • challenges with crossing 50-60 miles of rough terrain through the Montezuma Range and mining near Silver Peak, Tonopah and Goldfield. The current Department of Defense rail line travels to the Hawthorne Army Depot, and there is an abandoned line from Hawthorne down to Mina. "The best estimate is the new line will use the old railroad grade into Goldfield," Halstead said. © 2005 Sparks Tribune ***************************************************************** 61 Press Enterprise: Pasadena, NASA disagree on source of water well pollution The Associated Press PASADENA City officials dispute a NASA report that says the agency is not responsible for perchlorate contamination in five city water wells. The report, which concluded that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Superfund site did not cause the pollution, could keep the city from receiving federal funding for the treatment plant required to reopen the wells. NASA concluded that the wells near Sunset Reservoir were contaminated by a combination of natural sources and man-made perchlorate different from what was used at laboratory. But some city officials said the lab is the only conceivable source. "I don't know too many people who spilled rocket fuel around here other than NASA," Councilman Victor Gordo said. NASA is currently funding cleanup at two wells in Altadena tainted by toxins that leeched from waste pits used at JPL in the 1940s and '50s. ___ Information from: Star-News, http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/losangeles/pasadena/default.asp Published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:46 PST © 2007 Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 62 Salt Lake Tribune: Paul Rolly: Did those crossed wires glow? Tribune Columnist Article Last Updated: 02/21/2007 01:38:22 AM MST Gigi Brandt called Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s office Tuesday to request he veto SB155, which exempts EnergySolutions from certain public review and governmental approval if it wants to expand its hazardous waste capacity. She was waiting on hold until she suddenly was connected to another caller urging the veto of SB155. Rather than just talking to each other, the complainants hung up and tried again. A receptionist apologized, saying the governor had been inundated with calls against that bill. Incidentally, a Salt Lake Tribune story in January reported the Radiation Control Division received 666 comments on EnergySolutions' latest expansion request. Congratulations: Former congresswoman and current acting Republican State Chairwoman Enid Greene married a fellow politician the first time around. That didn't turn out too well, seeing how her former husband eventually became a felon. So this time, she is marrying a cop. Greene divorced first husband Joe Waldholtz, her congressional campaign manager in 1994, after her organization was accused of violating campaign finance laws. Waldholtz eventually went to prison. After leaving Congress and keeping a fairly low profile, Greene has made a political comeback with her election as state Republican vice chair and selection as lieutenant governor running mate to GOP gubernatorial runner-up Nolan Karras in 2004. Now, she is engaged to Scott Mickelsen, a Salt Lake County Sheriff's deputy. She is busy planning the state GOP convention this summer, and Mickelsen is involved in the National Sheriffs Association Convention in June, so they haven't had time to set a date. Plus, they both have six-graders graduating from elementary school this year. Words vs. Actions: Does anyone find it confusing that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has formed a Blue Ribbon Task Force on Climate Change, stressing his commitment to alternative, nonpolluting energy, while his energy adviser, Laura Nelson, promotes slashing tax incentives for the installation of solar panels in single family homes because the tax breaks might interfere with Huntsman's effort to pass a flat tax? Or what about the commitment to pollution control while the governor rides around in a gas-guzzling, state-issued SUV, while his administration has closed state-owned natural gas fueling stations to the public? Hmmm. Heard on the hill: During a discussion in the House Government Operations Committee on a resolution reaffirming the words, "Under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, some questioned whether that would make atheists uncomfortable. Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, responded: "Elders, this is completely non-denominational." Leave well enough alone? The Deseret Morning News ran a correction in its online edition Sunday, fixing some erroneous information about TRAX schedules. The headline over the correction said: "Corection." prolly@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 63 Daily Herald: Argonne could start recycling nuclear fuel DuPage County By Marni Pyke Daily Herald Staff Writer Posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Argonne National Laboratory could be a candidate for a research facility exploring the recycling of nuclear fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy will host a community meeting Thursday evening in Joliet to explain the concept and obtain community reaction. The Darien-area national lab is one of a number of sites in the country the federal government is looking at for its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. The Department of Energy is seeking to expand nuclear energy production but reduce the storage and safety problems caused by spent fuel. Spent fuel is a byproduct of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. It must be specially stored and can take 10,000 years before it no longer poses a public health risk because of radioactivity. The government is planning on creating three different types of facilities involved in reusing the fuel. These would include research laboratories, recycling centers for old fuel and reactors that destroy radioactive elements in spent fuel while producing electricity. The Argonne lab is intended for research and development. Another Illinois site the Department of Energy is considering is in Morris, where a spent fuel recycling center could be placed. The government is looking at three sites in eight states for the program. Comments from Thursday’s meeting will be included in an environmental impact report that the DOE will prepare. The information session will run from 6 to 9:30 p.m. at the Barber & Oberwortmann Horticultural Center, 227 N. Gougar Road in Joliet. ***************************************************************** 64 StockInterview.com: Uranium Resurgence Adds Super Symposium to 2007 SME Annual Meeting February 21, 2007 By Julie Ickes Public Doesn't Know Where Its Energy Comes From How important is a mining conference when two of the invited speakers are U.S. cabinet members: Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman and Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne? And upon which metal is the emphasis for this conference when another invited speaker is Cameco Corp chief executive Gerald Grandey? The theme of the conference is "The Power of Mining: Energy's Influence." Mining engineers, metallurgists and geologists will brush shoulders with government officials, academia and high net-worth investors in Denver next week at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Mining Metallurgy and Exploration (SME) and the 109th National Western Mining Conference at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado. “Over 4000 are expected to attend,” SME conference organizer Carol Cudworth told us. This will be Colorado's largest mining conference in decades. For the first time, SME will highlight a 5-part Uranium Symposium with 34 separate workshops. We asked Cudworth’s associate, Tara Davis, if this symposium was open the general public. Surprised, she answered, “It’s open to the public, but it’s not something the public would appreciate.” Davis explained this is a highly technical conference with the kind of workshops where metallurgists, academia and engineers would feel more at home than the cheerleading ‘resource conferences’ the retail investors often attend. Admission at $645 for the four-day conference may be sufficient to discourage the idle Looky Lou in search of glossy IR brochures and geegaw company giveaways. We talked with Courtney Young, professor of mining engineering at the University of Montana, about his role in organizing the largest assembly of uranium presentations in the history of SME conferences. Dr. Young organized about 60 percent of the presentations being made February 25th to 28th. Why, we asked, are so many workshops devoted to uranium this year? “We wanted to give support to the industry,” Young told us. “The public doesn’t know where their energy comes from.” The professor then related a story that had been bugging him for years, after teaching a class appropriately called ‘Energy’ at the University of Utah. “Some of the students thought that you just plug the ‘thing’ in and it works,” he explained. “The public reminds me of some of these students.” Having reviewed the four-day curriculum, we were amazed at the caliber of speakers and the breadth of presentations by these notables. “We wanted to get everyone in the industry together so they could see how it all works,” Young said. “That way, we can sell it better to the public.’ Young was referring to the uranium and nuclear renaissance. The 34 presentations cover nearly every vital aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. Topics cover just about everything an investor would ever want to know about the uranium cycle, from mining to disposal and everything in between. How are materials selected for nuclear energy systems? Speakers from Idaho National Laboratories (INL) and the University of Wisconsin will discuss the power plant materials selection process. The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology will discuss Yucca Mountain, which could start accepting nuclear waste by 2017. Dow Chemical will explain the new technology of uranium mining resins – they manufacture the resin beads for the in situ recovery (ISR) process. Another INL speaker will discuss the latest technology advance for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. One of our favorite quotables, TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review editor Treva Klingbiel, will discuss the outlook for nuclear power and demand. Various geologists from state bureaus will discuss everything from mineralization of the Grants Mineral District to Arizona’s breccia pipes. Numerous interviewees found on the StockInterview news service will present according to their specialties. Mark Pelizza of Uranium Resources will discuss the rigors of permitting and licensing a uranium mine. Bill Boberg of Ur-Energy will discuss U.S. uranium resources. Dick Clement of PowerTech will discuss the uranium revival of South Dakota’s Black Hills. John DeJoia of Strathmore Minerals will discuss what it takes to build a new uranium mill in the United States. Dennis Stover of Energy Metals will describe the ongoing work at renovating the old Hobson Central Processing Plant. Not only will company executives present, but several government geologists will compare various geologies of uranium deposits in North America. Asked about the selection process of the speaker, Tara Davis told us, “They were chosen on the basis of their expertise.” She added, “It’s a timely topic because of the resurgence of uranium as a commodity.” No kidding. The price of spot uranium is already being forecast for $80/pound (or higher), even before this conference begins, and some predictions for yellowcake reach to $US100/pound and beyond. This is the type of show where one finds many of the world’s largest mining companies and the top technical people from those companies mingling among some of the world’s top academic experts and government decision makers. This isn’t just about uranium, but for a number of commodities – everything from coal and copper to nickel and zinc. This is a conference where engineers and others can get continuing education credits, the workshops are 'technical courses,' and the emphasis is on education not hyping a stock. It is a perfect gathering for many of the technical experts, some of whom will be flying from Denver to Toronto for the PDAC, laden with the latest industry insights. editor@stockinterview.com ***************************************************************** 65 DAWN: Move for indigenous N-fuel capability - February 21, 2007 By Ihtasham ul Haque ISLAMABAD, Feb 20: Pakistan will develop an indigenous nuclear fuel manufacturing capability and set up, as a first step, a chemical processing plant (CPP). Informed sources told Dawn on Tuesday that it was essential “to minimise dependence on the foreign vendors and escape international pressures, constraints and restrictions”, which were hindering the country’s nuclear power generation programme. The CPP is proposed to be completed in five years at a cost of Rs28 billion and it will meet one-third of fuel requirement for nuclear power plants to be constructed by 2030 to add 8,800mw electricity to the national grid. The sources said the plant was essential for the indigenisation programme of “complete nuclear power technology in Pakistan”. In case of piecemeal procurement of equipment, material etc, and keeping in view international embargoes and restrictions on the sale of such equipment, the given time schedule could be delayed. However, officials concerned warned that any delay in commissioning the plant would not only increase the cost but would also affect the overall PAEC nuclear power programme. Construction of the plant is part of Pakistan’s Energy Security Plan (ESP) and has been termed the backbone of the Pakistan Nuclear Power Fuel Complex (PNPFC), which will help in getting assured and continuous supply of nuclear fuel/structural materials to other constituent plants for fabrication of fuel assemblies for electricity generation though nuclear power plants. The objective is to establish infrastructure (equipment/expertise) required for the indigenisation of technology related to chemical processing of nuclear fuel and structural material. Although, the plant having this capacity is not economically feasible, the aim is to achieve self-reliance that is desperately needed, particularly after the United States declined to extend nuclear technology to Pakistan for civilian purposes. The government will initially make available Rs2.8 billion to the PEAC to attain 100 per cent capability of technology involved in manufacturing of nuclear fuel/structural material for fabrication of Pressurised Water Reactor fuel assemblies. The plant will perform four basic activities which are conversion of U3O8 into natural UF6 gas, conversion of enriched UF6 gas into enriched UO2 powder, conversion of Zircon Ore into Zr-4 ingots and conversion of depleted UF6 to Depleted Uranium Metal (DUM). The plant will be set up in two phases. The phase-1 capacity will include 400TPA (tons per annum) natural UF6 gas, 40TPA enriched UO2 power and 30PTA Zr-4 ingots with the prime objective of developing indigenous capability for fabrication of fuel technology. However, with the installation of additional NPPs, the CPP capacity will have to be increased accordingly. In the phase-II, the plant capacity will be enhanced by investing an additional 20 per cent of the capital cost. Sources said purchase of nuclear fuel materials in the scope of the CPP from international vendors was restricted and their continuous supply could never be completely secured. Its purchase could only be done with the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The proposed CPP will enable the PAEC to develop necessary infrastructure to produce indigenous nuclear fuel material. © DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007 ***************************************************************** 66 [NYTr] India, Pakistan Sign Nuclear Peace Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:54:33 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com India, Pakistan Sign Nuclear Peace New Delhi, Feb 21 (Prensa Latina) India s Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Pakistan s Khurshid Kasuri signed an accord in this capital on Wednesday with the aim of reducing the risk of nuclear accidents. Neither Mukherjee nor Kasuri talked at a joint news conference on the content of the agreement, which immediately comes into force and whose text has been negotiated for years. The governments of New Delhi and Islamabad have inked an accord in which both countries promise not to be first in using atomic weapons in case of a conflict. Their agenda also includes the Kashmir conflict and flexibility of visas, among other issues of mutual interest. sus iff mne mf PL-21 * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 67 Earth Times: Bodman calls energy focus a daunting task Posted on : Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:37:00 GMT | Author : Energy News WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a new industry and political coalition focused on energy supply it will take a collective effort to meet a daunting task.Our nation's future depends on funding clean energy development, he told The Energy Initiative, a new group of business and political leaders meeting Tuesday in Washington. All of us will play a role, Bodman said, from government to industry to academia to the consumer. Political focus on energy has gained momentum for a number of reasons: the threat of global climate change because of energy delivery; increasing reliance on fossil fuels, mostly imported, that have high and volatile prices; and the ever increasing U.S. and global demand for energy. There is no silver bullet that will solve the energy challenges that we face, Bodman said. He touted a number of Bush administration programs and initiatives, including the $15 billion (including the fiscal year 2008 budget request) for cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable supplies of energy, including nuclear, wind, solar, coal and energy efficiency. The biggest source of immediately availablenew energy is the energy that we waste every day, he said. On the Bush administration's call to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years and using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, Bodman acknowledged it ambitious.That's precisely the point, he said, adding it was doable but by no means certain.Making cellulosic ethanol a reality has the potential to be the most important thing I accomplish in this job, he said. He said all aspects of changing the U.S. energy makeup requires money from the government and venture capitalists.He said the recent U.N. report that attributed global climate change to human activity shows there is no question that this is a very serious challenge.Copyright 2007 by UPI (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 68 SF New Mexican: Panel may push for removal of secret work Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:05 pm By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican A congressional committee wants to formally study whether classified work at Los Alamos National Laboratory should be taken away and moved to other weapons labs because of security lapses at Los Alamos in recent years. The Democratic-controlled committee, which is seeking a General Accounting Office investigation, also wants to look at ways to make LANL's classified work area smaller and more consolidated. "The repeated failures to protect national security assets have cast doubt on whether Los Alamos National Security, LLC ... and the National Nuclear Security Administration are capable of assuring adequate safety, security and sound business management practices," U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wrote to the GAO. "More dramatic steps are necessary, and we intend to develop and implement a range of options to solve the problems at LANL." New Mexico's senators quickly stuck up for the lab and the private company that has managed it since June 1. "The new contractor has been managing the lab for less than a year and already it has taken some aggressive steps toward tightening security -- and I'm sure more steps will follow," U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in a statement. "LANL scientists are committed to producing world-class science in our nation's best interest, and I believe they deserve our strong support." U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., called Dingell's move "a dubious response to an issue that deserves productive responses. The lab and the Energy Department are working to implement reforms now at Los Alamos. This newest House push against LANL amounts to unnecessary and counter-productive piling-on." He also said more needs to be done regarding security at Los Alamos and other labs, which face increasing cyber-security threats. A lab spokesman had not seen the letter and was not prepared to comment Tuesday evening. Dingell, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that in the past eight years, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has held 12 hearings on security, safety and management problems at Los Alamos. Dingell asked the GAO to do three things. First, to come up with an inventory of all the programs at the lab and their cost. Second, to evaluate how to "reduce and consolidate the volume of classified material and the size of the security footprint at LANL, as a means to make it more manageable, and whether it is feasible to move classified activities to other weapons labs where there is a better track record with respect to security." And third, Dingell requested the GAO look at how NNSA evaluates a facility's security track record as it makes plans to reorganize the nuclear-weapons complex. Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, which advocates nuclear disarmament, said he recently returned from a trip to Washington, D.C. "The Energy and Commerce Committee is serious about looking at the mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory, and so are a lot of other people in Washington," he said. He also said the committee is looking at the scale of the lab. Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico applauded Dingell's move and said Congress should also look at how NNSA provides oversight at Los Alamos. A veteran Los Alamos scientist questioned the idea of moving classified work out of Los Alamos. "The contribution that we make to classified programs would be lost," scientist David Carroll said. "The quality of the work, the continuity of the work and that kind of thing should not be taken lightly, given the overwhelming 60-year history of the contributions that Los Alamos has made to national security." Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. Privacy Policy / Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 69 Hanford News: Oregon lawmakers push for protection This story was published Wednesday, February 21st, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Oregon has no state regulatory authority over Hanford, so the Oregon Senate is making the state's wishes known another way. It unanimously passed a joint memorial Monday calling for Washington, D.C., leaders to do more to protect Oregon from Hanford waste. The memorial also repeated the state's desire to be granted decision-making authority at the nuclear reservation. Legally binding cleanup deadlines have been set since 1979 by the Department of Energy, state of Washington and Environmental Protection Agency under the Tri-Party Agreement. But Oregon also has a stake in cleanup. It's concerned about 80 square miles of ground water contaminated with radionuclides or hazardous chemicals at Hanford and about delays in building the $12.3 billion vitrification plant to treat waste held in Hanford's underground tanks. The ground water beneath the site moves toward the Columbia River as it flows toward Oregon. "It's important that Oregon be on the record with the concerns it has about Hanford," said Ken Niles, Oregon Department of Energy assistant director for nuclear energy and energy siting. The memorial calls for Congress to provide full funding for cleanup of contamination left from past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. That includes no "artificial limit" on money spent on Hanford's vitrification plant. The plant construction plan was based on spending $690 million yearly and a start to operations in 2011. But as the plant cost has increased, $690 million a year is not expected to get it operating until 2019. DOE should look at ways to vitrify some tank waste before then, the memorial said. Options include starting to treat low-activity radioactive waste at the vitrification plant before it's ready to treat high-level radioactive waste and continuing to look at bulk vitrification to supplement treatment of low-activity waste at the main plant. In the meantime, DOE needs to "demonstrate how continued, indefinite storage of waste in tanks at the Hanford nuclear reservation will not harm the public and the environment," the memorial said. It called for faster work to protect the Columbia from contaminated ground water and expeditious removal of plutonium stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Now cleanup dollars are being spent on security for the plutonium as DOE works on a plan to consolidate the nation's plutonium, likely in South Carolina. If the memorial is approved by the Oregon House as expected, it will be sent to the Washington and Oregon congressional delegations, the energy secretary, the interior secretary and the EPA administrator. A memorial on Hanford cleanup has come before the Oregon Legislature most sessions since the 1980s, Niles said. Since the early 1990s, most have included a call to make Oregon a Tri-Party Agreement agency. Before the document was signed 18 years ago, there was discussion of making Oregon a participant, but no action was taken. EPA and Washington have authority under federal laws. "It's an issue for us," because of the risks the state faces, Niles said, even though Oregon has worked well with DOE and the state of Washington. Although Oregon is not a Tri-Party Agreement Agency, it does have a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy. DOE has agreed to consult and cooperate with Oregon on environmental issues and to give the state time to review and comment on major issues affecting the state before decisions are made. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 70 Times-News: INL breaks ground on energy studies building Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID February 21, 2007 1:37 PM MST IDAHO FALLS, Idaho - Idaho National Laboratory and several university partners have broken ground on a new $14 million Center for Advanced Energy Studies. The center is a public-private partnership by Boise State University, Idaho State University, University of Idaho and the Idaho National Laboratory. The center will focus on energy science and engineering research, particularly nuclear power, biofuels, geothermal power and hydropower. The 50,000-square-foot building on the north side of the state-owned University Place campus is expected to be completed by July 2008. "We all believe Idaho is going to be the energy corridor of the world," Idaho State University President Arthur Vailas said, adding that the new facility will be a "core resource worldwide to build core technology." Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, U.S. Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, and Reps. Mike Simpson and Bill Sali attended the groundbreaking ceremony Tuesday. Both Otter and Craig said they viewed the center as an investment in the future, not only for Idaho but for the United States and the world. When INL was made the Energy Department's lead nuclear laboratory in the 1990s, no one could have predicted the "nuclear renaissance" that is happening now, Craig said. The center has $10 million in loan guarantees from Battle Energy Alliance, the contractor in charge of Idaho National Laboratory. Establishment of the center was a requirement in the contract Battle signed with the U.S. Department of Energy when the agency hired it to operate INL in February 2005. The state also has contributed nearly $7 million to the project. The building will provide laboratories, offices, meeting rooms and classrooms. For Chris Laws, the program has more than lived up to its promise already. Laws plans to graduate from Idaho State University this year with a degree in nuclear engineering. One of six students in the program, he entered it in 2005 with his adviser's encouragement. Since then, he's been working full time for the lab and has visited other nuclear engineering projects, published articles and delivered presentations. Laws said he feels the outlook is good for nuclear energy, adding, "I'm betting my career on it." As for the new research center, "You're going to have a real condensed knowledge base of people doing great work," he said. "I would love the opportunity to somehow be a part of it. I guess we'll see." Information from: Post Register, http://www.postregister.com A service of the Associated Press(AP) Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 71 Seattle Times: Spread of radioactivity at Hanford blamed on lack of discipline Local News: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 By The Associated Press RICHLAND Lack of discipline and failure to follow established procedures have been blamed for the spread of radioactive material outside a work area at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The findings were announced last week after an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Energy Department review of problems that developed Jan. 12 as workers were checking the last of four canisters of tritium found in a burial area associated with two defunct nuclear reactors. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. "It was very much a failure of conduct of operations on many fronts," said Dennis Faulk, an EPA environmental scientist. After there were indications that tritium had gotten into a specialty work trailer, radiological-control technicians entered without taking precautions, such as wearing protective clothing, and then tracked the tritium into their own work trailer, investigators found. The contamination was later cleaned up and officials have said no effect on worker health appears likely. Chuck Spencer, who became president of Washington Closure Hanford the next week, has promised to emphasize the need to improve safety and follow established procedures. Neil Brosee, who recently became deputy general manager of Washington Closure, which is cleaning up contaminated areas near old reactor sites along the Columbia River, told a committee of the Hanford Advisory Board last week that the tritium episode should have been avoided. "I am out to change performance," Brosee said. Tritium was made on the sprawling Eastern Washington complex, now the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, in a pilot project for use in developing nuclear weapons. The canisters were among 1,500 unearthed items that were categorized as anomalies by Washington Closure. Copyright © The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 72 Seattle Times: B Reactor at Hanford proposed as national historic landmark Local News: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 By The Associated Press RICHLAND – A reactor built for make fuel for atomic bombs at the dawn of the nuclear age in World War II has been nominated as a national historic landmark. The proposal for the long-closed B Reactor at the Hanford nuclear reservation was developed by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Energy Department, which runs the sprawling complex that once produced fuel for nuclear weapons, and with boosters who hope to make the reactor into a museum. Construction began at a breakneck pace with 45,000 workers in the Eastern Washington scablands in 1943, and it produced the fuel for the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, shortly before the end of the war. Its design remained the standard for U.S. reactors until a new plant began operating at the Savannah River complex in South Carolina in 1952. Five reactors based on the B Reactor design were built at Hanford from 1947 to 1955, and it continued to produce plutonium until 1968. "The B Reactor provides a tangible link to world-changing events of the final years of World War II and the initial years of the Cold War," local historian Michele Gerber, and Brian Casserly, a University of Washington doctoral candidate, wrote in the nominating papers. A key issue in deciding the fate of the reactor by the Columbia River will be how much of its historical integrity remains. All of the support buildings have been removed in cleanup work at Hanford, the nation's most polluted nuclear site. T Plant, where plutonium was removed from fuel that had been irradiated in the B Reactor, remains in use for other work. Would the B Reactor alone be enough? "We think it is," said Stephanie Toothman, the park service's regional chief of cultural resource programs. Landmark designation would add "another level of protection" because any action that could affect the integrity of the reactor would first have to be discussed with her agency, Toothman said. Otherwise, B Reactor would be torn down to little more than its radioactive core and sealed, a process called "cocooning," so radiation can subside for 75 years before more cleanup plans are drafted. That process has been completed or is planned for eight other plutonium production reactors along the river at Hanford. For now, Energy Department officials have agreed to delay release of the reactor to a cleanup contractor until 2009. The nomination could be considered by the National Historic Landmark Subcommittee of the National Park System Advisory Board as early as April. A final decision is up to the secretary of the interior. B Reactor, completed in 13 months, was designed to be 500 million times more powerful than the first reactor to achieve a chain reaction two years earlier at the University of Chicago. So vital was the top-secret project, historians say, that construction workers caught drunk were jailed overnight to dry out and released the next day to return to work without facing charges. The massive cast iron base of the reactor had to be machined to within .003 inch. "The building conveys the extraordinary workmanship of only the most skilled workers specially recruited and vetted for exceptional expertise," Gerber and Casserly wrote. "The creation of plutonium at B Reactor was both an ending and a beginning," they added. "It represented the first practical application of ... research to a production-scale nuclear reactor and produced one of the weapons that helped end World War II." Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 73 UPI: Safety at nuclear weapon factory evaluated United Press International - NewsTrack - Updated: 02/21/2007 12:42:24 PM -0500 UTC AMARILLO, Texas, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- U.S. investigators are looking into allegations that a Texas nuclear weapons plant that employs 3,300 people is unsafe. The Pantex plant, which serves as the Energy Department's main nuclear weapons factory, has suffered power failures, roof leaks and has twice been cited by inspectors for safety issues, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. The plant in Amarillo, Texas, employs machinery that has been used for more than 40 years and employees at the plant say they are often worked to exhaustion under pressure to meet deadlines. The plant's safety is being investigated by Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman. Although plant officials say the risk of a nuclear accident resulting from poor safety conditions is a near impossibility, experts say it cannot be ruled out, the Times said. "You can't run a plant on glittering platitudes and generalities and call that a safety program," Bob Alvarez, a former deputy assistant secretary of Energy and now a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, told the Times. "A nuclear detonation accident is a low probability but it is not incredible." © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 74 UPI: Bodman calls energy focus a daunting task United Press International - Energy - 2/20/2007 9:31:00 PM -0500 WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (UPI) -- U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a new industry and political coalition focused on energy supply it will take a collective effort to meet a daunting task. "Our nation's future depends on funding clean energy development," he told The Energy Initiative, a new group of business and political leaders meeting Tuesday in Washington. "All of us will play a role," Bodman said, from government to industry to academia to the consumer. Political focus on energy has gained momentum for a number of reasons: the threat of global climate change because of energy delivery; increasing reliance on fossil fuels, mostly imported, that have high and volatile prices; and the ever increasing U.S. and global demand for energy. "There is no silver bullet that will solve the energy challenges that we face," Bodman said. He touted a number of Bush administration programs and initiatives, including the $15 billion (including the fiscal year 2008 budget request) for "cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable supplies of energy," including nuclear, wind, solar, coal and energy efficiency. "The biggest source of immediately available "new" energy is the energy that we waste every day," he said. On the Bush administration's call to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years and using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, Bodman acknowledged it ambitious. "That's precisely the point," he said, adding it was "doable but by no means certain." Making cellulosic ethanol a reality "has the potential to be the most important thing I accomplish in this job," he said. He said all aspects of changing the U.S. energy makeup requires money from the government and venture capitalists. He said the recent U.N. report that attributed global climate change to human activity shows "there is no question that this is a very serious challenge." United Press International, UPI, the UPI logo, and other trademarks ***************************************************************** 75 lamonitor.com: House decries 'LANL problem' The Online News Source for Los Alamos Lawmakers eye carving up LANL ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor Congressional investigators with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have asked the Government Accountability Office for help in solving what they call "the problems at Los Alamos National Laboratory." A letter to the Comptroller General cites an oversight subcommittee hearing on Jan. 30, when LANL Director Michael Anastasio testified about the most recent security breaches at the laboratory. Democratic and Republican leaders of the committee wrote that they also heard from the Department of Energy Inspector General, Gregory Friedman, who raised doubts about whether the extent of the damage could ever be known. Glenn Podansky of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security, they added, told them that the most recent oversight inspection "resulted in the worst set of performance ratings for safeguards, security, cyber security and emergency management collectively that we have seen at the Los Alamos Laboratory in many years." Before the hearing, the committee members had vowed to engage GAO in the effort to bring dramatic changes to the laboratory. In a follow-up Friday, they specifically asked the agency that conducts federal audits for a detailed inventory of all major program activities and services and "the mobility of infrastructure associated with each program activity," They also asked for an evaluation on how the managers of LANL and the federal overseers of the National Nuclear Security Administration can reduce and consolidate the volume of classified material "and the size of the security footprint," and "whether it is feasible to move classified activities to other weapons laboratories," with better security records. Responding to the request in the House, Sen. Pete Domenici called the request by the House committee "a dubious response." He said, "The lab and the Energy Department are working to implement reforms now at Los Alamos. The newest House push against LANL amounts to unnecessary and counter-productive piling on." He said LANL's problems are shared by other labs and the DOE has inadequately addressed cybersecurity compared to the higher funding priorities it has given to physical security. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 76 KnoxNews: Ex-ORNL subcontractor found guilty in DOE scheme By JAMIE SATTERFIELD, satterfield@knews.com February 21, 2007 A lauded Oak Ridge businessman may soon be trading pinstripes for prison stripes. A jury in U.S. District Court on Tuesday convicted Reginald Hall, 54, of conspiracy to commit money laundering for a scheme to plunder money from the U.S. Department of Energy via fake invoices submitted as a subcontractor for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Jurors also found Hall guilty of money laundering and theft of government property. He was acquitted, however, of mail fraud and obstruction of justice. The same jury returned a guilty verdict against Hall associate David Reeder for an act of money laundering but acquitted Reeder, who ran a subcontracting firm known as Biosphere, of conspiring with Hall to pull off a larger money laundering scheme. Jurors, who heard days worth of testimony in a trial presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Tom Varlan, also found Hall's firm, Advanced Integrated Management Services Inc., guilty in the money laundering conspiracy. Attorney Doug Trant, who represented Reeder, said his client plans to appeal. So, too, does Hall, according to attorney Tom Dillard, who represented Hall along with attorney Wade Davies. "Mr. Hall is disappointed in the verdicts on the convictions," Dillard said. "He maintains, as he always has, that no one was defrauded and that he always performed excellent work. He does plan to appeal and hopes ultimately to be vindicated." Varlan has set a June 12 sentencing hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Trey Hamilton and Greg Weddle prosecuted the case. Agents Randall Kizer and Rick Sample with DOE's Office of the Inspector General, Agent Bob Gibson of the FBI and Lt. Art Schettini of the Tennessee Valley Authority Police Criminal Investigation Division headed up the probe. According to testimony, Hall once worked at ORNL but in 1995 formed AIMSI, a quality control consulting firm, and began winning a series of subcontracts with ORNL's prime contractors, including current management firm UT-Battelle. Hamilton alleged that Hall began submitting invoices for work not performed and used associates like Reeder and Stanley W. Stevens, who pleaded guilty and testified against Hall, to help launder his ill-gotten gains. UT-Battelle communications chief Billy Stair declined to comment on the verdict. When asked how the firm handled the aftermath of the probe, Stair said the "laboratory responded in two ways: We closely reviewed related contracts to make sure they were in order. We also stressed to our staff the need for heightened awareness of the checks and balances in our procurement system." Hall and Reeder remain free on bond pending sentencing, as does Stevens. Frank Munger contributed to this story. Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 77 National Academies Project: DOE Cleanup roadmap Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management Project Title: PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board RSO: Crowley, Kevin Subject/Focus Area: Environmental Issue Project Scope A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify: o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports, updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the private sector. o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory). o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites that should be maintained to support research, development, and bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry. The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges. Project Duration: 16 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Meetings Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 78 KnoxNews: Nuke support has a long half-life By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 21, 2007 Nobody questions whether Oak Ridge is a pro-nuclear town. That's a given. But it was still interesting to see the show of support for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership at a meeting last week at the Doubletree Hotel. The Department of Energy's public "scoping" meeting brought out some of the old warhorses in town, such as Joe Lenhard, a nuclear diehard who was trained as a health physicist and spent much of his career preaching the merits of most things atomic. Oak Ridge is one of just a few sites being considered for all three facilities proposed under a Bush administration plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and expand the use of nuclear energy - not just nationally but globally. The three types of facilities are a fuel-recycling center, a nuclear reactor that would burn recycled fuel and eliminate some of the unwanted, long-lived radioactive elements and a nuclear research center. Early on, even before DOE requested applications for the program, there was word that Oak Ridge supporters would seek money for the preliminary evaluations but really weren't interested in hosting one of the big projects that would bring tons of highly radioactive spent fuel to town. The study money would be good, and the information gained from the site reviews could be applied to other projects. At least that was the reasoning I heard. At the meeting, however, it was pretty clear that some folks are gung-ho and not just with the idea of a nuclear renaissance in the United States. They want Oak Ridge to be home central for the work. Homer Fisher, a retired top administrator from the University of Tennessee, let it be known how important the project was to him when he spoke at the meeting and noted it was just moments until tip-off of the UT-Kentucky basketball game. Missing the big game was not a decision he made lightly, Fisher indicated. Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which reviews projects for local governments in the Oak Ridge area, wasn't at the pubic meeting because of another commitment, but beforehand she talked about Oak Ridge and GNEP. "I definitely think we have the technical capabilities to handle these things," she said. "My personal opinion, not the LOC's opinion, is that Oak Ridge is probably too wet to be a site for the reprocessing plant. I don't think people in Oak Ridge would have much heartburn over another reactor." The most favorable role would be the nuclear research, Gawarecki said. Dick Black, DOE's associate deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, who was the federal official in charge of the meeting, said he didn't think the wet climate would be a negating factor on the reprocessing plant. Black said Oak Ridge has many positives. "Oak Ridge would be a viable candidate for the facilities because, No. 1, it has the existing infrastructure. "It has the facilities, the knowledgeable people, the security we might need to guard against terrorist acts, and clearly because it already is a site for some nuclear facilities, it has the water that is needed. And the interest is there in the community to support these facilities as well." There was, of course, opposition to the government's nuclear plans, and if Oak Ridge actually becomes a preferred site for a reprocessing center for highly radioactive spent fuel, you can bet that opposition will be loud and then louder. According to an Associated Press report, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., has expressed reservations about the project. One important theme that came out of the meeting was opposition to the use of a 7,000-acre site near Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the nuclear facilities. Frank Hensley of the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning was among those who objected to use of "irreplaceable assets" on an undisturbed part of the government's reservation. If Oak Ridge is selected for the nuclear work, the conservation group strongly recommends that a brownfield area - such as the old K-25 uranium-enrichment site - be used, Hensley said. "It is very disturbing that K-25 was not chosen for consideration," he said. Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************